Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 56

Thread: Dr. Young - Dr. McDonald

  1. #11
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    after years of chatting with dr young, i already know his point of view. i want yours. you can think for yourself right?
    you say, "At this point we really do not know what will work."
    why not? in1 goes back to 1989. 14 years and we dont know if it really works. esc 1997 and your fussing about bush. its ok to fuss about bush and his policy on 1997 esc but you seem to ignore 1989 in1. why not fuss about 14 wasted years.

    you say, "We need to be working towards funding all areas of promising research."

    then we need to show outrage at ALL AREAS of research when time, money, and effort is wasted;not only with esc.

  2. #12
    Good thread. A little more enlightening than A.K. Fletcher..

    Anyway, valid points all. Bill and Wise as Dr.s have a much more birdseye view than most of us.
    They understand the realities better, imo.

    DA, Cjo, and any others Yes, we should all be outraged. And since we are not Dr.s we should be targeting our energies towards the one underlying factor that permeates this thread and others like it - money. Raising it, advocating for it, begging, borrowing. Who has the most money to throw at our problem - U.S. Gov't, our politicians who control purse strings. This should be the target of our outrage.

    Sure, private funding - in the form of Proneuron, Miami Project and others - will move it forward but at what pace?

    We need big bucks and an aggressive approach regardless of when esc was discovered or IN-1 or anything that sounded promising. That's the past. You can't move forward looking back.

    We need to test and fund every possible theory that the researchers deem appropriate and potentially inclusive of human clinical trials.

    No money = no trials = my ass still in the wc.

    Let's RAGE in the right direction.

  3. #13
    Guest
    Agreed, much better thread than Fletch...

    WCR,

    I think somewhere Dr. Young stated that Lima and/or Hongyun had satisfied the safety issue of a Phase 1 trial. Again, I have to ask how Craig is doing an activated macrophages trial when trials for chronics aren't approved? I'm glad that Craig is doing it, but I don't understand why that trial can procede, but others can't.

    If I were an SCI clinician, I'd work 8 days a week to try to replicate the culturing of OEGs like they are in Australia. Along with what Phebus pointed out - MONEY - that could be a very effective treatment.

    I just got a reply from Senator Tim Johnson. He's on the appropriations committee and seems to really be on our side. Now, if we can just get Lieberman in the White House...

  4. #14
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    phebus, researchers have more than enough money to start human trials. ya wanna know where this money is located? on this forum with much of it going overseas.


    cjo dont be fooled by politicans. he may just want votes for his party;maybe. he can write in money for sci research as pork. im sure he dont hesistate to do that for his state.


    wcrabtex you are so 20th century. a new procedure to allow organs to be transplanted without matching patients is in trials. the same procedure can be used in sci research. also the albany/st louis trials tranplanted pig cells. your excuses are no excuses to stop trials.


    We need big bucks and an aggressive approach regardless of when esc was discovered or IN-1 or anything that sounded promising. That's the past. You can't move forward looking back.


    the past keep repeating itself in sci research.

  5. #15
    Guest
    WCR,

    Why is it premature to go to human trials with OEG(over 350 patients treated overseas), but alright to go to trial with activated macrophages(11 patients treated)?

    I am also concerned with tissue rejection, but the following came from an email from China:
    Why didn't we use immunosuppressants? The most important reason is that it is unecessary for OEC transplantation. In our trial, the patients who got OEC transplantation more than for one year still improve their neurological function. The second reason is harmful for patients' immunological system. The third reason is that it is very expensive.
    This isn't my favorite project, but it is one that is returning function in humans today. I support all regenerative therapies, but if OEGs help me get functional recovery back this fall - it will be my favorite until the therapy comes along that allows for complete and massive regeneration.

    DA,

    You get your man GWB to make the promises that Lieberman is making and I'll vote for him...as long as he doesn't want me to read his lips.

  6. #16
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    cjo if dr black is a failure like the forum seem to think by ignoring his work, and their is no easier way then esc to create neurons, then i will stop backing bush.

  7. #17
    Senior Member defiler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    180
    Quick comment. I met with the Dr. in Albany doing the pig thing heh. Didn't like him one bit. When I tried to ask him a question or even for an mri, he brushed me off. Literally a 2 minute consultation. Annoyed the crep out of me.

    "Failure is impossible"

  8. #18
    DA, there's 7 billion hanging around - where? You say that the researchers have plenty of money - that's ridiculous and foolish. Thank heavens you're in the minority.

    And you do realize that WCR is a surgeon? Went to medical school, graduated, did research, etc and is also an sci sufferer?

    Again, what exactly are your credentials - besides being a long time sci sufferer and a research junkie?

    Seriously, why try to convince yourself and others over and over that you're right and the rest of the world, scientific or otherwise, is wrong? Its pointless and doesn't move the process forward / along. You're so busy being pissed off and accusatory you rarely, if ever, acknowledge anything positive - why?

    Look, I respect you and understand that your heart's in the right direction - cure - but why bite the hands that feed? If you don't like the answers you get then do something, advocate, about it instead of being the resident curmudgeon.


    Cjo, Proneuron, a private company started applying to the FDA over three years ago for approval of the macrophage therapy. This was way before OEG's and Brisbane, etc. Basically, they had a jump start. Craig, Karolinska, etc. hopped on the train the summer of 2000. If OEG's had been around - like Pro/macrophage in Tel Aviv looking for patients - we might have the OEG trial here, now. Must have FDA approval for U.S. trial of this - invasive - type.

    Peace guys and girls.

  9. #19
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    phebus i said start trials, i didnt say cure the universe. pay attention. wcrabtex has his opinion and i have mine. if having a degree means being a know it all, we would be cured by now instead of so many with ppl with degrees saying no cure in 1,000 years.
    phebus wake up, kissing ass wont get you cured any faster than the rest of us. 90% of the sci community dont believe in a cure because of what ppl with degrees told them. ppl with degrees can be wrong or have outdated information. dr young was very wrong on macrophage trials and he have degrees covering all 4 walls. maybe if the sci willing, unlike you, start challenging the researchers maybe we can get this cure moving again. an article was posted here a few weeks ago about medicine footdragging in taking therapies from lab to bedside. was that too a big lie? how dare that article challenge the degree ppl. btw phebus, i have a degree yet you dare challenge me. oh wait, i cant cure you so my butt is not one you need to kiss up too.

  10. #20
    Very few companies have done what Proneuron did. They took a controversial therapy, raised money for it, and then applied it. They did it despite a great deal of criticism and skepticism, and succeeded in coming through a credible phase 1 trial. They now need to move it forward into phase 2 and 3. They are trying to move the trials to the U.S. and are succeeding by raising money from private investors, donors, and state funds. They have set up a laboratory at Craig and will be doing so in New Jersey. I applaud them for their determination and gumption.

    Look at several other companies that have tried to move therapies from laboratories into clinical trial.
    • Acorda Therapeutics took 4-AP and moved it through phase 1, 2, and is currently in phase 3.
    • Fidia Pharmaceuticals tried to get GM1 through clinical trials here in the U.S., ran out of money, and no longer are a player in the spinal cord injury field.
    • Neotherapeutics tried with AIT-082 but ran out of funds.
    • Diacrin tried with their porcine fetal stem cells but have not moved into phase 2.

    Several companies are dipping their toes into the water but have not yet committed to clinical trials.
    • Novartis licensed IN-1 and they are still doing preclinical studies.
    • Biogen licensed the Nogo receptor blocker from Yale and they are doing preclinical studies.

    Several companies dipped their toes in and then withdrew.
    • Alexion said that they were planning on a porcine olfactory ensheathing glia trial but did not.
    • Boston Life Sciences Inc wanted to take inosine into clinical trial but did not.

    There are several other companies with a variety of products that they think would be useful for spinal cord injury but have not been able to raise the money to move the therapies into clinical trial.

    Wise.

Posting Permissions

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