Page 18 of 54 FirstFirst ... 8910111213141516171819202122232425262728 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 532

Thread: Jerry Silver and Other Discussion from ChinaSCINet Update

  1. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by ay2012 View Post
    You can't on the one hand tote animal studies as suggestive of the potential for a therapy, as Dr. Young has done in the case of umbilical cord blood, and then wave off criticisms based on animal studies because we just don't know how humans will react.
    Jim isn't reducing or marginalizing the importance of testing therapies on animals. Animals and humans have both similarities and differences. His greater point is this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    And remember, this is a Phase II Safety Study. It is a huge deal that the surgery and injection of cells into the [human] spinal cord is safe. This in itself is a major step forward. Anything else is icing on the cake.

  2. #172
    That's certainly a great thing... But I don't think anything else is just icing on the cake. Perhaps, looking at the Phase II trial in isolation you could say this. But that's not what Dr. Silvers concern is. His concern is that efficacy won't be shown in Phase III, or at least there is not enough animal data to suggest it will be. His concerns he therapy in toto.
    If you're fine with therapy after therapy being proven safe and then not beneficial well that's your call. Dollars are scarce, as is time... And the best therapies should be chosen, and if there aren't yet therapies likely to help complete, chronics well back to the drawing board.
    To be honest, I'm very excited about this trial, the six month data, the Phase III moving forward and don't think Dr. Young would stake his reputation on something that hasn't shown any positive effects. Just playing devils advocate here...

  3. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by ay2012 View Post
    Just playing devils advocate here...
    I understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by ay2012 View Post
    But that's not what Dr. Silvers concern is.
    Dr. Silver's concern = these trials, if/when confirmed, will show much of what he's believed and professed about spinal cord regeneration to be incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by ay2012 View Post
    If you're fine with therapy after therapy being proven safe and then not beneficial well that's your call.
    Yes, no regeneration would have been disappointing. Proven safety still would've been encouraging though. Cutting open the body, exposing the spinal cord, *injecting the dura* with stem cells... it's radical. It's never been done before. Lots of stuff could've theoretically gone wrong. It didn't.

    If the surgery proved safe but the stem cells didn't initially display efficacy (but showed efficacy in animals), all hope would not be lost. Researchers could've tried different injection methods/sites, using higher amounts of stem cells, different stem cells, etc. Had the very first DTI's from Hong Kong not shown robust axonal growth, maybe this would've been the case. Thank goodness for us, it's not.
    Last edited by crabbyshark; 01-09-2013 at 05:46 PM.

  4. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by crabbyshark View Post
    I understand.


    If the surgery proved safe but the stem cells didn't initially display efficacy (but showed overwhelming efficacy in animals), all hope would not be lost. Researchers could've tried different injection methods/sites, using higher amounts of stem cells, different stem cells, etc. Had the very first DTI's from Hong Kong not shown robust axonal growth, maybe this would've been the case. Thank goodness for us, it's not.
    You do know that there is no overwhelming efficacy of the treatment in animals right? That the treatment caused robust axonal growth has NOT been proven yet. Wait until the results are published and can stand up to critiques of the scientific community.

  5. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by ay2012 View Post
    While this is certainly true, I don't think it's something to hang your hat on.
    You can't on the one hand tote animal studies as suggestive of the potential for a therapy, as Dr. Young has done in the case of umbilical cord blood, and then wave off criticisms based on animal studies because we just don't know how humans will react.
    My intent wasn't to wave off criticism, I was making the point that this is uncharted territory and anything is possible. Maybe the treatment will be more effective in humans, maybe it won't work at all. Either way, a great deal is being learned and bringing us closer to effective therapies.

  6. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    My intent wasn't to wave off criticism, I was making the point that this is uncharted territory and anything is possible. Maybe the treatment will be more effective in humans, maybe it won't work at all. Either way, a great deal is being learned and bringing us closer to effective therapies.
    Yea, this also 100% true, but would maybe further justify the skepticism of someone like Dr. Silver, who feels there weren't appropriate analogous animal studies to justify even trying the treatment on humans to begin with.
    Just again to reiterate: these are all a priori reasons to maybe want to consider a different therapy (although I get the suspicion that Dr. Young would object in the context of a greater argument on the role of animal studies). Now that the trials are happening and have shown enough in the Phase II to seemingly justify a Phase III, they are besides the point.

  7. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by NowhereMan View Post
    You do know that there is no overwhelming efficacy of the treatment in animals right? That the treatment caused robust axonal growth has NOT been proven yet. Wait until the results are published and can stand up to critiques of the scientific community.
    You are right that "overwhelming" is too strong of a word. I will change that. There's certainly "convincing" evidence in animal models (here, here, here, here, and from 25:50-26:15 here) to suggest stem cell therapies are probably contributing to spinal cord regeneration in animals.

    You are right that this particular treatment has "NOT" been proven yet... but if Dr. Wise says there's evidence suggesting it's working, then I think there's probably evidence suggesting it's working.
    Last edited by crabbyshark; 01-09-2013 at 08:45 PM.

  8. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by crabbyshark View Post
    You are right that "overwhelming" is too strong of a word. I will change that. There's certainly "convincing" evidence in animal models (here, here, here, here, and from 25:50-26:15 here) to suggest stem cell therapies are probably contributing to spinal cord regeneration in animals.

    You are right that this particular treatment has "NOT" been proven yet... but if Dr. Wise says there's evidence suggesting it's working, then I think there's probably evidence suggesting it's working.
    None of these are "convincing" evidence of efficacy of the treatment.

    1st link -- this was using olfactory ensheathing cells, not umbilical cord blood cells. They are not homogenous just because they happen to both be stem cells. I'm not even sure UCB cells are stem cells. I also can't find the paper online to see images of axon regeneration in the dogs.

    2nd link -- this was in an acute model, not chronic. It was also in an incomplete injury model. Even then, BBB scores increased from 11 to 13.5. That doesn't impress me at all.

    3rd link -- this was in a incomplete model. I assume it was also in an acute model as well, but I'm not sure as the abstract did not say.

    4th link -- this was in an acute model. It did not regenerate any axons but prevented secondary axon damage. Big difference.

    5th link -- from what I heard, I think Dr. Young was showing how the UCB cells that they implanted migrated into the injury site, he wasn't showing axons growing into the injury site.


    This is a chronic injury and complete injury trial. There are NO animal studies, that I am aware of, showing robust axon growth using Umbilical cord blood cells in a complete/chronic model. I understand that it is impossible to test HLA matching cells on animals, but that does not mean that animal studies showing efficacy exist. Again, wait until the results are published and the scientific community has a chance to respond before you are so certain of the results.

  9. #179
    It's all about the data, speculation until then.

  10. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    It's all about the data, speculation until then.
    Yep, pretty much...

Similar Threads

  1. ? for jerry silver
    By havok in forum Cure
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 08-29-2012, 07:34 PM
  2. Jerry Silver talks to me
    By Christopher Paddon in forum Cure
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 06-10-2012, 09:53 AM
  3. open question to wise and jerry silver
    By lunasicc42 in forum Cure
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-16-2011, 02:26 PM
  4. jerry Silver wins Javits Award
    By Max in forum Funding, Legislation, & Advocacy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-10-2004, 09:51 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
  •