Page 25 of 35 FirstFirst ... 1516171819202122232425262728293031323334 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 341

Thread: Dr. Jan-Eric Ahlfors pushes forward with Regeneration Matrix

  1. #241
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    2,600
    Quote Originally Posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
    Just to be correct, complete and incomplete classifications are linked to residual sensory/motor outcomes rather than spared spinal cord tissue.
    In the U.S. those terms are determined solely by sacral preservation. No anus sensation or function = complete even if you have other sensory and motor below the injury location.

  2. #242
    Quote Originally Posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
    Just to be correct, complete and incomplete classifications are linked to residual sensory/motor outcomes rather than spared spinal cord tissue.
    Yes I know. My point is that it is (probably) well documented that rehab helps recovery with incomplete SCI. There is no proof that rehab helps regenerating axons reach functional targets because such recovery has never been achieved. I'm not saying it wouldn't be extremely helpful because I bet it would. I'm trying to point out that there is a reason why there is no proof yet...recovery after regeneration has never been achieved. Still at basic research stage, not human trial stage. Any substantial regeneration has been from neural stem cells shooting out axons, not the original axons in the animal's spinal cord. Unfortunately, its all just a clusterfck, with no recovery.

  3. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    Yes I know. My point is that it is (probably) well documented that rehab helps recovery with incomplete SCI. There is no proof that rehab helps regenerating axons reach functional targets because such recovery has never been achieved. I'm not saying it wouldn't be extremely helpful because I bet it would. I'm trying to point out that there is a reason why there is no proof yet...recovery after regeneration has never been achieved. Still at basic research stage, not human trial stage. Any substantial regeneration has been from neural stem cells shooting out axons, not the original axons in the animal's spinal cord. Unfortunately, its all just a clusterfck, with no recovery.
    So what I think you're actually trying to articulate is that no lab has regenerated host corticospinal tracts in severe chronic animal models to restore motor function to a level close to that of pre-injury. This is factual. If you want to walk unaided, run, skip, hop, play the piano or play soccer again - yes basic science is still figuring it out.

    However, recovery, even if not to a level of pre-injury is still worthwhile translating in the meantime. Recovery of some or even one autonomic function for example is absolutely huge and worthwhile investing in. In addition to this, the restoration of gross/crude function that could help you sit independently, reach, grasp, stand or even take a few clumsy steps will have absolutely massive impact on your independence and long term body integrity - bone health, muscle atrophy, skin health, metabolism and ageing.

    Without doubt, basic science has some way to go to restore you to your full glory or even close to it, but there are enough lines of science to positively impact your body's function and integrity now. I think turning your nose up these efforts is a bit myopic.

    The reality is the progress of the field is neither as great as some people make our nor as bad as some are painting it. It needs more money, more scientists that are not slaves to academia and importantly a business model that attracts investment.

  4. #244
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    2,600
    Well said Pelican. Any amount of recovery represents a reduction in the suffering of the person with an SCI. I know, for a fact, that cervical-injury trial participants have regained use of arms and hands to a point of being able to use car hand controls. You're right that doesn't mean playing the piano well but to be able to drive is a massive change for the better.

  5. #245
    Senior Member lunasicc42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Lutz, Fl USA*********C456
    Posts
    2,392
    Quote Originally Posted by Mize View Post
    Well said Pelican. Any amount of recovery represents a reduction in the suffering of the person with an SCI. I know, for a fact, that cervical-injury trial participants have regained use of arms and hands to a point of being able to use car hand controls. You're right that doesn't mean playing the piano well but to be able to drive is a massive change for the better.
    Which trial has restored hand function? (not doubting you, I am just not aware really)
    "That's not smog! It's SMUG!! " - randy marsh, southpark

    "what???? , you don't 'all' wear a poop sac?.... DAMNIT BONNIE, YOU LIED TO ME ABOUT THE POOP SAC!!!! "


    2010 SCINet Clinical Trial Support Squad Member
    Please join me and donate a dollar a day at http://justadollarplease.org and copy and paste this message to the bottom of your signature

  6. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
    So what I think you're actually trying to articulate is that no lab has regenerated host corticospinal tracts in severe chronic animal models to restore motor function to a level close to that of pre-injury. This is factual. If you want to walk unaided, run, skip, hop, play the piano or play soccer again - yes basic science is still figuring it out.

    However, recovery, even if not to a level of pre-injury is still worthwhile translating in the meantime. Recovery of some or even one autonomic function for example is absolutely huge and worthwhile investing in. In addition to this, the restoration of gross/crude function that could help you sit independently, reach, grasp, stand or even take a few clumsy steps will have absolutely massive impact on your independence and long term body integrity - bone health, muscle atrophy, skin health, metabolism and ageing.

    Without doubt, basic science has some way to go to restore you to your full glory or even close to it, but there are enough lines of science to positively impact your body's function and integrity now. I think turning your nose up these efforts is a bit myopic.

    The reality is the progress of the field is neither as great as some people make our nor as bad as some are painting it. It needs more money, more scientists that are not slaves to academia and importantly a business model that attracts investment.
    Actually, I am not trying to articulate that. I never said anything about recovery needing to be close to "pre-injury". Regeneration has never been proven to restore ANY function. It has never been proven to restore ANY sensation (probably impossible). It has never been proven to restore any voluntary use of muscle including bladder/bowel. Sure maybe some scientists have CLAIMED to achieve these things, but not in any published & replicated by reputable lab study.

  7. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    Actually, I am not trying to articulate that. I never said anything about recovery needing to be close to "pre-injury". Regeneration has never been proven to restore ANY function. It has never been proven to restore ANY sensation (probably impossible). It has never been proven to restore any voluntary use of muscle including bladder/bowel. Sure maybe some scientists have CLAIMED to achieve these things, but not in any published & replicated by reputable lab study.
    Our study documents concrete evidence of growth across the injury site and far beyond, return of walking, bowel, and bladder in ASIA A patients. Your statement is simply not true.

  8. #248
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    Actually, I am not trying to articulate that. I never said anything about recovery needing to be close to "pre-injury". Regeneration has never been proven to restore ANY function. It has never been proven to restore ANY sensation (probably impossible). It has never been proven to restore any voluntary use of muscle including bladder/bowel. Sure maybe some scientists have CLAIMED to achieve these things, but not in any published & replicated by reputable lab study.
    Regeneration is a loose term. Highlighting in bold wont give it more meaning. Which spinal tracts are you regenerating? Anything can fall into the term regeneration. What type of axon? What type of neuron? What type of function are you looking for?

    You clearly have your own interpretation of what is means to you but it would be useful for readers to understand so please share in detail. Just citing axons migrating in, through and then out of the injury site and forming functional synapses is not really enough information to describe exactly what you are defining to be regeneration.

    Just out of interest do you consider any of these regenerative?

    http://www.pubfacts.com/detail/23804...nal-cord-injur
    http://www.pubfacts.com/detail/22200...ions-for-regen
    http://www.pubfacts.com/detail/26426...ndroitinase-In
    http://www.pubfacts.com/detail/27019...l-regeneration

    Also, why would you say restoring sensation is impossible? Is the data for the sensation change in the stem cell trial subjects to date a lie? These subjects have been independently assessed before and after intervention from what I understand.

  9. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    Our study documents concrete evidence of growth across the injury site and far beyond, return of walking, bowel, and bladder in ASIA A patients. Your statement is simply not true.
    a) it is not concrete evidence of regeneration. It can easily be spared intact axons and/or human error. DTI, from what I understand, highlights water movement, its not a picture of the axons. I'm pretty sure other contemporary scientists don't believe it is regeneration either. Isn't chinasci doing another trial right now, to see if untethering & locomoter training alone could be responsible for "walking".? Way too many questions remaining.
    b) return of bladder? Can the patients feel urge of when they have to pee? Not AD, but actual sensation of bladder? Can the patients pee with brain thought alone? Tapping on your bladder is NOT return of bladder function. Its just using spinal cord circuitry. Not the brain. Didn't you say you have been managing your bladder for years by tapping? That's not having bladder function.
    c) Describe the bowel function. What is your concrete evidence of return of bowel? Can the patients feel when they need to go? Can they go on command?

  10. #250
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    2,600
    Quote Originally Posted by lunasicc42 View Post
    Which trial has restored hand function? (not doubting you, I am just not aware really)
    My apologies.

    I know someone in a clinical trial and had been under the impression it was responsible for their recovering hand function. After inquiring i have learned that was not the case. Arm and hand function had returned earlier.

Similar Threads

  1. Eric Saunders
    By tarheelandy in forum Recreation, Sports, Travel, & Hobbies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-06-2010, 12:12 PM
  2. Jan Eric Ahlfors A man of greatness
    By Stormycoon in forum Cure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-29-2007, 12:05 PM
  3. Eric H....
    By teena in forum Life
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-17-2004, 10:40 AM
  4. Eric - ParaStep
    By Jeff in forum Cure
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-14-2002, 12:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •