Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: obviously these aren't sci clinicians.

  1. #1
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389

    obviously these aren't sci clinicians.

    http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,...w=wn_tophead_1



    "I think one of the problems with gene therapy has been whenever people get a new approach they immediately go into patients," Chen said. "Our approach has been test in cell culture, then in mice. We're not planning any clinical trials until this is fully refined."


    the point for posting this story was to show there is a lack of aggression to take sci therapies to trial.

  2. #2
    Senior Member KIM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Piedralaves (Avila) SPAIN
    Posts
    1,017
    You see DA we don´t die of it so why hurry . It´s so nice to be all day long sitting on a chair watching the birds an so on....

  3. #3
    DA,

    This article has nothing to do with SCI therapies. While I agree that many clinicians are "conservative" with regard to cure of spinal cord injury, this does not mean that they will not join in clinical trials if and when they start. For example, 82 spinal cord injury centers participated in the fampridine trials. If a clinical trial involving injection of stem cells were to be started, they will join.

    The main obstacle to clinical trials in the United States continues to be lack of funding. You seem to defend a president and Congress who will not fund spinal cord injury research or clinical trials. Yet, you blame the situation on doctors who cannot carry out the clinical trials.

    I did not hear you protest the response of the government to the Jesse Gelsinger situation or the French bubble-boy situation when clinical trials using adenovirus and retrovirus vectors were delayed for over 2 years. These were cases of clinicians who "aggressively" took viral vectors to clinical trial.

    We cannot have our cake and eat it, too. Our community was silent when Merck withdrew Vioxx from the market and now continues to be silent while public pressure is being placed on Pfizer to withdraw Celebrex. Both drugs are relevant to spinal cord injury. Recent studies from my laboratory suggest that COX-2 inhibitors may be better than methylprednisolone for reducing secondary injury in spinal cord. COX-2 inhibitors are used by many people to treat joint and other orthopedic type pain above the injury site. Both drugs, if taken for the appropriate periods and in the recommended doses, do not pose significant cardiovascular risk.

    It is really important that we understand the issues and what is at stake. The main reason for fear of risk in the United States is the attitude of the public that the government can and should guarantee the safety of every drug and treatment. As we all know, no drug or treatment is without risk. The decision for any treatment should be a balancing of risk and benefit. That is what clinical trials are suppose to do, to define the risk and benefits rigorously so that people and doctors can make good decisions.

    Clinical trials are *not* like throwing dice at the gambling table and hoping for a good result. The trials have to be well designed for success. The worst thing that could happen today is if unthinking application of a therapy were to kill a couple of people. This will shut down the therapy more quickly than you can blink your eyes.

    Wise.

  4. #4
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    Originally posted by Wise Young:

    DA,

    This article has nothing to do with SCI therapies. While I agree that many clinicians are "conservative" with regard to cure of spinal cord injury, this does not mean that they will not join in clinical trials if and when they start. For example, 82 spinal cord injury centers participated in the fampridine trials. If a clinical trial involving injection of stem cells were to be started, they will join.

    The main obstacle to clinical trials in the United States continues to be lack of funding. You seem to defend a president and Congress who will not fund spinal cord injury research or clinical trials. Yet, you blame the situation on doctors who cannot carry out the clinical trials.
    i have waved a fist at bush and congress. it was I who said i would be there next to you protesting in front of the whitehouse. no free rides here. however you do continue to give you colleagues by profession the ole free ride.
    neurotrama 2004 there was a few members of cc there, yet, 95% of ppl there ignored us. stepped over us like a hole in the ground. i cant say i understand why, but doctors continue with keep the status quo attitude.




    I did not hear you protest the response of the government to the Jesse Gelsinger situation or the French bubble-boy situation when clinical trials using adenovirus and retrovirus vectors were delayed for over 2 years. These were cases of clinicians who "aggressively" took viral vectors to clinical trial.

    We cannot have our cake and eat it, too. Our community was silent when Merck withdrew Vioxx from the market and now continues to be silent while public pressure is being placed on Pfizer to withdraw Celebrex. Both drugs are relevant to spinal cord injury. Recent studies from my laboratory suggest that COX-2 inhibitors may be better than methylprednisolone for reducing secondary injury in spinal cord. COX-2 inhibitors are used by many people to treat joint and other orthopedic type pain above the injury site. Both drugs, if taken for the appropriate periods and in the recommended doses, do not pose significant cardiovascular risk.
    you say it as if those drugs would have started clinical trials in humans.

    It is really important that we understand the issues and what is at stake. The main reason for fear of risk in the United States is the attitude of the public that the government can and should guarantee the safety of every drug and treatment. As we all know, no drug or treatment is without risk. The decision for any treatment should be a balancing of risk and benefit. That is what clinical trials are suppose to do, to define the risk and benefits rigorously so that people and doctors can make good decisions.
    the problem with sci clinicians is that the risk to benefit ratio is stacked so far unfairly against us. this is not bush doing.



    Clinical trials are *not* like throwing dice at the gambling table and hoping for a good result. The trials have to be well designed for success. The worst thing that could happen today is if unthinking application of a therapy were to kill a couple of people. This will shut down the therapy more quickly than you can blink your eyes.

    Wise.
    well dang dr young, sitting back staring at the dice wont get the job done either.

  5. #5
    DA,

    It seems to me that you have given Bush and the Republicans a "free ride" for opposing spinal cord injury research. You say that you are shaking a fist but all I see are lame excuses. Bush has effectively prevented any significant increase in SCI research or clinical trial funding in the United States for the last four years and his latest budget indicates that he intends to do so again for the next four years.

    In contrast, Kerry explicitly committed to research that would "get people out of their wheelchairs". He was the first presidential candidate to do this. When he was attacked viciously for saying that, the silence from the community was deafening. Do you remember what Senator Frist and other republicans said after Edwards reiterated the statement after Christopher died? They called it "false hope", "shameful" and "dishonest". That is a blatant statement from the Republican leadership about their attitude towards a cure from spinal cord injury, almost as clear as the Democrats' commitment to a cure.

    The last Presidential election was a very clear statement by the two parties concerning the cure for spinal cord injury. The Republicans think that it is shameful, dishonest, and false hope. The Democrats think that it can and must be done. I have not seen anything that the Bush or any Republican has said or done that suggest that they have changed their mind one iota

    Some time ago, you predicted that as soon as Bush was re-elected, his more moderate side would show. The election is now over. He has not backed down an inch on embryonic stem cells even though it is now abundantly clear that he was as wrong about the availability of embryonic stem cells for research as he was about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    Wise.

  6. #6
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    Originally posted by Wise Young:

    DA,

    It seems to me that you have given Bush and the Republicans a "free ride" for opposing spinal cord injury research. You say that you are shaking a fist but all I see are lame excuses. Bush has effectively prevented any significant increase in SCI research or clinical trial funding in the United States for the last four years and his latest budget indicates that he intends to do so again for the next four years.
    you shot me down when i said we need direct money for sci research and by pass nih. you said no, we need the nih. bush said he will double nih funding. which is it?

    In contrast, Kerry explicitly committed to research that would "get people out of their wheelchairs". He was the first presidential candidate to do this. When he was attacked viciously for saying that, the silence from the community was deafening. Do you remember what Senator Frist and other republicans said after Edwards reiterated the statement after Christopher died? They called it "false hope", "shameful" and "dishonest". That is a blatant statement from the Republican leadership about their attitude towards a cure from spinal cord injury, almost as clear as the Democrats' commitment to a cure.
    didnt you say clinton personally promised 10 million? therefore he is not first. second, clinton promise turned out to be a lie. politicans dr young, dont trust them. kerry lost, but his lose didnt mean he had to give up making us walk. a senator on our side would be good. but wait...kerry hasnt mentioned us since he lost. could it be he was lying to us like clinton?
    dr young dont take this the wrong way. but if i had applied your we-need-government to my care when i was injuried, i would have died of sci complications long ago. government help is icing on the cake(wanted and needed), but it shouldnt be the cake.

    The last Presidential election was a very clear statement by the two parties concerning the cure for spinal cord injury. The Republicans think that it is shameful, dishonest, and false hope. The Democrats think that it can and must be done. I have not seen anything that the Bush or any Republican has said or done that suggest that they have changed their mind one iota
    what they say is no different than what doctors say. i would bet these republicans didnt pull these answers out the air, they got professional opinions FROM DOCTORS. i disagree with them and my fellow cc members surely disagree. so what does it mean that we disagree? NOTHING. because the medical establishment carry far more weight than a bunch of paralyzed ppl desperate for a cure.

    Some time ago, you predicted that as soon as Bush was re-elected, his more moderate side would show. The election is now over. He has not backed down an inch on embryonic stem cells even though it is now abundantly clear that he was as wrong about the availability of embryonic stem cells for research as he was about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    Wise.
    Kerry was wrong about wmd too, does that mean he was wrong about making ppl like cr walk.

    dr young do you think esc will be the cure?
    yes/no why?

  7. #7
    Senior Member alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    6,723
    Imagine $80 billion for SCI research instead of an unnecessary war that's creating more SCI victims...

    Alan

    There's a fungus among us, and I'm not lichen it!

  8. #8
    DA, why do you continue to make excuses for Bush? All he has to do is include $300 million for CRPA in his budget and it would fly through Congress.

    I stand by my statement that no presidential candidate before Kerry ever said that he was committed to curing spinal cord injury. Clinton did not say that he was committed to a cure of spinal cord injury. He knew that the $10 million was a public relations bandaid.

    Bush did not double NIH. That was done during the Clinton administration and Congress did it. In fact, George W. Bush not only tried to take credit for something that was started in 1997 but he gutted the effort. After 9/11, Bush used billions of dollars of the NIH budget on bioterrorism and AIDS research. In fact, almost all the increases of NIH between 2001 and now were spent on bioterrorism, no child left behind, pediatric drug development, and other initatives that the Bush administration favors. I don't know what current spinal cord injury funding levels are at NIH now but I don't think that it is higher than it was in 2001. There certainly has not been an increase in spinal cord injury clinical trial funding.

    We have been lucky in that we have developed funding sources for spinal cord injury and stem cells from state sources. If we had not, the field would be in much worse shape. We were the first to obtain state funding. The stem cell funding by the states was an outgrowth of Bush's science policies.

    Why do you assume that spinal cord injury doctors told Frist or Bush that there is no hope for a cure? All that I know is that they did not ask the experts in the field or any spinal cord injury doctor that I know. Senator Frist may not have asked anybody in the field before he came out to blast Edwards' statement as being dishonest and providing false hope. Worse, I think that both Frist and Bush probably called Charles Krauthammer up and asked him whether there is any hope for a cure. We know what Krauthammer thinks about the cure.

    Bush clearly received bad scientific advice about embryonic stem cells. I don't know who his embryonic stem cell advisors were but it is unlikely that they were scientists or knew much about stem cells. Any scientist in the field would have known that there were relatively few validated embryonic stem cell lines and that all of them were contaminated by mouse feeder cells.

    What do you mean that it doesn't matter that you disagree with them? Do you really think that your opinion from the chair does not matter? Why do you think Bush asked James Kelly to the White House to talk about stem cells? Do you really think that Charles Krauthammer is on the President's Bioethics Council because he is an expert on stem cells? Why do you think the they trot out a person with spinal cord injury every time there is some kind of testimony in front of the Senate?

    Finally, in answer to your question about embryonic stem cells... Yes, I think that embryonic stem cells would have been an important interim step in the cure of spinal cord injury. But, even more important than slowing down human embryonic stem cell research, Bush hurt the field by not supporting adult stem cell research and created such a budgetary deficit that no increase in research funding is possible.

    Despite all the talk about adult stem cells being a cure already, people who opposed embryonic stem cell research have not supported increasing funding for adult stem cell research. In 2004, NIH spent less than $280 million or 1% of the annual NIH budget on all of human stem cell research. Several bills to fund umbilical cord blood or bone marrow stem cell research were held back in Republican dominated committees.

    Think about it. Today, Bush probably spent more on Iraq before breakfast than NIH spent on spinal cord injury research for the whole year of 2004 ($60 million). Between breakfast and dinner, he probably spent more on Iraq than all of human stem cell research in 2004 ($280 million). The money that he is spending is not his. They include my and your taxes.

    You say that you believe that freedom for the Iraqis is priceless. Isn't a cure for spinal cord priceless, too? Try shouting that from the bully pulpit of your wheelchair. People will listen.

    Wise.

    [This message was edited by Wise Young on 02-15-05 at 11:41 PM.]

  9. #9
    Senior Member Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Montreal,Province of Quebec, CANADA
    Posts
    15,036
    Originally posted by alan:

    Imagine $80 billion for SCI research instead of an unnecessary war that's creating more SCI victims...

    Alan
    Thats very urlealistick!

    But at least if you at least put just 10% of IRaq war, ambiguos plans of current admin of USa to get man to Marse & etc... we could at least find cure for neourological disorders (sci inluded) much faster than at current pace.......


    but there is no will for people in power to do so!

    We live in unjust society with absent common logic



    http://stores.ebay.com/MAKSYM-Variety-Store

  10. #10
    Senior Member Schmeky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    West Monroe, LA, USA
    Posts
    3,416
    DA,

    You ask Dr.Young if ESC is "the cure"? I thought you already knew what it was, especially since it's right around the corner. The full cure is supposed to be here before the end of May 05.

Posting Permissions

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