Page 26 of 54 FirstFirst ... 161718192021222324252627282930313233343536 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 532

Thread: Jerry Silver and Other Discussion from ChinaSCINet Update

  1. #251
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young View Post
    Paolo,

    1. Where is your evidence that such "fibrotic scars" exist inside injured human spinal cords? Do you have any evidence that removal of such scars helps any animal or human with spinal cord injury? You don't because there isn't any evidence. In fact, removal of glial scars have been shown to be damaging to the spinal cord. SEE MY SECOND W2W PRESENTATION.

    2. No, I would not remove "fibrotic scar" from inside the spinal cord because there is no credible evidence that physical removal of glial scar improves recovery and ample evidence suggesting axons will grow through such scars with several non-invasive therapies, e.g.
    • If axons are activated to grow with cAMP, (NO EVIDENCE FOR GROWTH THROUGH JUST FARTHER INTO THE LESION) PTEN deletion, mTOR activation (ONLY IN MICE WITH VERY CAREFULLY CRAFTED NARROW LESIONS. MAKE THE LESION SLIGHTLY BIGGER IN MOUSE OR USE RATS AND NOTHING GETS THROUGH ).
    • Lithium and chondroitinase stimulate regeneration through such scars. (NO GOOD EVIDENCE THAT EITHER OR IN COMBINATION ALLOWS FOR REGENERATION COMPLETELY THROUGH A SCAR)

    3. What clinical trials of "glial scar" therapies are you talking about? I know of no clinical trial being planned that will test any "glial scar" therapy. Are you referring to chondroitinase or the CSPG receptor blockers? If either of these therapies stimulate regeneration, it would confirm that gliosis does not pose a tight mechanical barrier to axon growth. TIGHT IS ONLY RELATIVE, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ABSOLUTE BARRIER. YOUR EVIDENCE IS NO PROOF THAT SCAR DOES NOT EXIST. IT IS ONLY EVIDENCE THAT SCAR BARRIER PROPERTIES ARE NOT ABSOLUTE. BUT THEY ARE VERY POTENT. AXON GROWTH INTO A SCAR CAVITY IS FUNCTIONLESS AND WELL KNOWN TO BE DEPENDENT UPON SCHWANN CELL SUBSTRATES THAT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO ENTER THE CORE OF THE SCAR OVER TIME. HERE'S YET ANOTHER VERY NICE ARTICLE SHOWING THE ROLE OF GLIOSIS IN CREATING SCAR. Title: Astrocyte activation and wound healing in intact-skull mouse after focal brain injury
    Author(s): Suzuki, Takayuki; Sakata, Honami; Kato, Chiaki; et al.
    Source: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE Volume: 36 Issue: 12 Pages: 3653-3664 DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08280.x Published: DEC 2012

    When confronted with evidence that you are wrong, you obfuscate with false claims and ad hominem attacks. YOU DO PRECISELY THE SAME AND I THINK THE ATTACK ON PAOLO IS UNWARRANTED. i agree with Paolo that there is zero evidence that LI and/or UMBC can allow for regeneration completely through a scar.

    Wise.

    See my insertions in CAPS within the body of the quote
    Last edited by jsilver; 01-23-2013 at 01:06 PM.

  2. #252
    Senior Member Moe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Springfield
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by jsilver View Post
    See my insertions in CAPS within the body of the quote
    Funny to see Dr Silver defending Paolo that way… I wonder why Paolo does not bug Silver with all the non-stop questioning and evidences instead??
    "Talk without the support of action means nothing..."
    ― DaShanne Stokes

    ***Unite(D) to Fight Paralyses***

  3. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by Moe View Post
    Funny to see Dr Silver defending Paolo that way… I wonder why Paolo does not bug Silver with all the non-stop questioning and evidences instead??
    Because J.Silver is not bluff. Very simple.

  4. #254
    Senior Member Moe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Springfield
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by kivi66 View Post
    Because J.Silver is not bluff. Very simple.
    Kiwi,
    How can you be so sure? Still not a vaid reason in why not asking him the questions instead since you think he's no bluff. Very simple indeed. There's a difference between lab rat experiments to the human ones, comparing and insisting rat results as it was to humans isn't it a bluff allready?
    "Talk without the support of action means nothing..."
    ― DaShanne Stokes

    ***Unite(D) to Fight Paralyses***

  5. #255
    Quote Originally Posted by crabbyshark View Post


    Very good question. Perhaps if we lived to be 1,000 years old we would all regain some function. We don't. In most of us, the inhibitors are preventing more than enough axons from regenerating across the injury site to keep us from seeing functional improvement.

    I'll try to explain it like this:

    Imagine you and 10,000 other drivers are at an intersection. You all drive slow cars.

    Now, let's assume you don't know how to speak German. A police officer that speaks only German crosses the road and stops in front of your cars. He will not move and he will not let you go past him. You're not totally sure why. You are all inching forward but he's stubborn and no one can get by. More cars are piling up behind you.

    After waiting a little while, some drivers get frustrated and try to detour around him (growth cones)
    . A few other drivers, feeling bold, defy the officer and manage to sneak by him. For whatever reason you and many of the other drivers are not comfortable doing that yet. You decide you have some choices: you could run the officer over (scaffold), you could throw a bomb at him (chemicals), or you could find a translation app on your iPhone that speaks his language and try asking him to let you by (stem cells).

    You decide to try the app. To your surprise, after speaking to him in German, he gladly agrees to let you through. You are all still driving slow cars, but you are all now finally cruising down the road.

    This is kind of a crude example but I hope it helps explain what's going on.

    Hahaha

  6. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by crabbyshark View Post


    Very good question. Perhaps if we lived to be 1,000 years old we would all regain some function. We don't. In most of us, the inhibitors are preventing more than enough axons from regenerating across the injury site to keep us from seeing functional improvement.

    I'll try to explain it like this:

    Imagine you and 10,000 other drivers are at an intersection. You all drive slow cars.

    Now, let's assume you don't know how to speak German. A police officer that speaks only German crosses the road and stops in front of your cars. He will not move and he will not let you go past him. You're not totally sure why. You are all inching forward but he's stubborn and no one can get by. More cars are piling up behind you.

    After waiting a little while, some drivers get frustrated and try to detour around him (growth cones)
    . A few other drivers, feeling bold, defy the officer and manage to sneak by him. For whatever reason you and many of the other drivers are not comfortable doing that yet. You decide you have some choices: you could run the officer over (scaffold), you could throw a bomb at him (chemicals), or you could find a translation app on your iPhone that speaks his language and try asking him to let you by (stem cells).

    You decide to try the app. To your surprise, after speaking to him in German, he gladly agrees to let you through. You are all still driving slow cars, but you are all now finally cruising down the road.

    This is kind of a crude example but I hope it helps explain what's going on.
    Enough of the semantics!

    The chronic adult spinal cord does not regenerate. The reasons are numerous and still being researched by some very talented scientists. There are factors, some known and some unknown, for inhibiting regeneration and equally there are factors, some known and some unknown, as to why the adult human cord does not have intrinsic regenerative properties.

    Let's not waste time coming up with analogies that just confuse things further. Inhibition or Growth promotion? The candle is burning at both ends.

  7. #257
    Quote Originally Posted by Moe View Post
    Funny to see Dr Silver defending Paolo that way… I wonder why Paolo does not bug Silver with all the non-stop questioning and evidences instead??
    Moe, as much as you would like to believe it so, there is no conspiracy theory.

  8. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
    Enough of the semantics!

    The chronic adult spinal cord does not regenerate. The reasons are numerous and still being researched by some very talented scientists. There are factors, some known and some unknown, for inhibiting regeneration and equally there are factors, some known and some unknown, as to why the adult human cord does not have intrinsic regenerative properties.

    Let's not waste time coming up with analogies that just confuse things further. Inhibition or Growth promotion? The candle is burning at both ends.
    Yea, this argument is silly. I get that crabbyshark is trying to focus on the semantics in the context of the scar theory, which is fair to argue...but the underlying point being that without some sort of intervention, the cord is not regenerating sufficiently to give us back function. Period.

  9. #259
    Quote Originally Posted by kivi66 View Post
    Because J.Silver is not bluff. Very simple.
    Really? So when Silver builds a multi-country clinical trials network (when is this planned for by the way?) and start clinical trials on humans (remind me again when this is going to happen again?) he will prove... well we don't know do we. Because he is doing none of those things.

    It is easy to believe newer unproven research. By the time (if) Silver's research gets to where UMBC-Li is I am sure there will be other therapies in the pipe that may seem better. Science builds on its successes and failures and unfortunately for us takes a long time.

  10. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by t8burst View Post
    Really? So when Silver builds a multi-country clinical trials network (when is this planned for by the way?) and start clinical trials on humans (remind me again when this is going to happen again?) he will prove... well we don't know do we. Because he is doing none of those things.

    It is easy to believe newer unproven research. By the time (if) Silver's research gets to where UMBC-Li is I am sure there will be other therapies in the pipe that may seem better. Science builds on its successes and failures and unfortunately for us takes a long time.
    Therein lies the crux of the debate. The parameters for taking a therapy to trial have now changed dramatically. Chronic animal studies and standards are improving the probability of success at clinical stages. Larger animal models may suddenly become de facto soon. Things are always changing. We, as a population, are no longer looking at cells and enzymes that may provide a short window for sprouting but rather true robust regeneration of the chronic spinal cord. In my short time being injured (3.5 years) I have seen a total shift of expectations from the return of 1 or 2 levels of function to robust regeneration for all levels of spinal cord injury!

    As basic science charges forward at pace the priority is to make sure that the selection, translation and trial of therapies is done based upon the most compelling evidence.

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
  •