Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 91

Thread: Scientist receives $1.8M defense grant from Kessler Foundation for spinal cord injury

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    Watch this video. Let me know what you think after you watch it.

    http://news.sciencemag.org/health/20...al-cord-injury
    It's a pretty long clip about loads of stuff, so I just went through it very fast. Much talk about stem cells and not on the entire field. No concrete verdicts what I heard. Don't think a chat conversation is much to base a crusade against all clinical research on. If someone else had presented this you would just written stop wasting my time with a chat conversation/a long clip/unserious setting etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post



    I used Dr. Wise as a source because that is the only person that I know for sure that this community listens to. If the community believes this then I don't see the point in spending 1.8 million in studying bone/muscle in SCI. It was irrelevant to our discussion anyways. I'm not saying Dr. Young is right or wrong here. There very well need to be bone regeneration from an outside source in order to reverse severe osteoporosis. There might not be the need.

    However, the study (what this thread was originally about) uses a standing frame + FES. Basically, it is just stimulating the muscles and putting stress on it. Guess what else can do that? Being able to move your legs voluntarily (after a cure). So I personally don't see the need for 1.8 million to go to test this, when a cure would be just as useful as recovering bone density & muscle mass. Especially when having strong bone/muscle are useless in a paralyzed limb! So again, a "cure" should be main focus. Don't put the cart ahead of the horse.
    So he is an OK source when he agrees with you...
    On the actual subject I agree with you a 100%.
    Debating on CareCure is like participating in the special-olympics. You may win, but you're still disabled.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by crabbyshark View Post
    If simple vs. complex is subjective, then this is meaningless. Why highlight and underline it?:

    With regards to what you currently know about spinal cord tissue, muscle tissue, and bone tissue, my sources are irrelevant. Your sources are dogma, common perception, and a couple of sentences from accessmedicine.mhmedical.com. Your sources stink. Your honest position is "I don't know."

    Including this in your signature would make your posts less damaging. As it stands now, your broad, far reaching statements loaded with hyperbole sometimes give the impression you know what you are talking about. Many times they are false. Propagating bad information makes the SCI community dumber.
    This is the dumbest discussion ever. Did you even click on the accessmedicine.com link? It is an textbook that they put online I have cited 2 medical textbooks, Underwood's Pathology: A Clinical Approach by Simon S. Cross, 6th edition published by Elsevier & Junqueira's Basic Histology, Thirteenth Edition Copyright 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

    You say they stink?? Medical textbooks stink? You have cited nothing. Because you can't. You have nothing.

    I don't have to be an expert on bone, muscle, and the spinal cord to say that the spinal cord is more complex than bone or muscle. I have medical textbooks (I consider them experts) to back that up (NOT TO MENTION COMMON SENSE). If you want to challenge it, you are free to, but you have cited nothing showing that it is wrong. So either put up or shut up. Stop wasting my time.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by void View Post
    It's a pretty long clip about loads of stuff, so I just went through it very fast. Much talk about stem cells and not on the entire field. No concrete verdicts what I heard. Don't think a chat conversation is much to base a crusade against all clinical research on. If someone else had presented this you would just written stop wasting my time with a chat conversation/a long clip/unserious setting etc.

    So he is an OK source when he agrees with you...
    On the actual subject I agree with you a 100%.
    You asked me if I had something to back up me views. I gave you a link. If you don’t want to watch it fine. I understand. But I urge you to watch. These are two real scientists in the field answering questions by SCI. If your goal is to learn as much as you can about your injury and future outlook, you would spend an hour of your time and watch the video. You would also pay attention and keep an open mind.

    I’m not saying he is an OK source here. (I’m not saying he is a bad source here either). I’m not saying he is right or wrong on this issue! I already said that in my last post. I brought that up because Crabby uses him as a source and therefore would agree with it. It has nothing to do with me.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    This is the dumbest discussion ever.
    Ah, more hyperbole. If this is the dumbest discussion ever, it's because one of the participants is making appeals to common sense, a.k.a. bandwagon fallacy.

    Common sense might say people wouldn't post about stuff on forums they don't know what they are talking about. We have evidence that isn't true:
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    I am not an expert on bone, muscle, or spinal cord. Nor do I need to be to post on an online forum.
    My sources don't matter. You are making a claim. Your text book is 6 paragraphs. None of them explain how bone tissue and muscle tissue are much simpler than spinal cord tissue.

  5. #65

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    I would like to know why you think you have the scientific background/experience/wisdom to make the above statement?
    First off, it is my opinion! This board is full of opinions! If I were to say "We need human clinical trials right now", would you ask me for my credentials?

    To answer your question, I have been on this board for 3-4 years now. I have read dozens of published scientific studies. I am also not a fool. There have been no chronic & complete rats that have recovered substantial useful function (substantial useful is my opinion). Not from bone marrow stem cells, Umbilical cord blood cells, genetic manipulation, neural stem cells, schwann, etc. Neural stem cell + fibrin is a great beam of hope (by far) , but even those scientists say they have not recovered enough useful function to warrant human trials.

    Therefore, I use that to form my personal OPINION, that we should not waste MILLIONS & rest hope on human trials. Show me undeniable success in a rat, then a larger mammal, then humans. It is the most cost effective way of figuring out if a treatment will work in humans. Until then, we need to focus on basic regeneration research. Let me say as I've said in the past, I?m talking about complete & chronic SCI. That is the only SCI I really follow.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by crabbyshark View Post
    Ah, more hyperbole. If this is the dumbest discussion ever, it's because one of the participants is making appeals to common sense, a.k.a. bandwagon fallacy.

    Common sense might say people wouldn't post about stuff on forums they don't know what they are talking about. We have evidence that isn't true:

    My sources don't matter. You are making a claim. Your text book is 6 paragraphs. None of them explain how bone tissue and muscle tissue are much simpler than spinal cord tissue.
    Your sources don't matter because you don't have any. I'll trust the medical textbooks. "Most complex" means it is above all the rest (including bone/muscle). Again, I'll trust medical textbooks when they use those words. Put up or shut up.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by crabbyshark View Post
    Anything in humans. Because human trials are ultimately how you find out if stuff works in humans or not.

    Am I mistaken, or did you say we don't need any more basic research? In post #33, before you edited it.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    Your sources don't matter because you don't have any. I'll trust the medical textbooks. "Most complex" means it is above all the rest (including bone/muscle). Again, I'll trust medical textbooks when they use those words. Put up or shut up.
    My sources don't matter because you are the one making claims. Your sources matter. You have not provided evidence muscle tissue and bone tissue are much simpler than spinal cord tissue. You have not provided evidence of bone tissue, muscle tissue, or spinal cord tissue. You have not explained how muscle tissue and bone tissue are much simpler than spinal cord tissue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    "Most complex" means it is above all the rest
    Are you sure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    Simple vs. Complex is subjective.
    Last edited by crabbyshark; 05-04-2014 at 09:23 PM.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    Am I mistaken, or did you say we don't need any more basic research? In post #33, before you edited it.
    I did not say we don't need any more basic research.
    Last edited by crabbyshark; 05-04-2014 at 09:40 PM. Reason: mixed up posts

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by crabbyshark View Post
    My sources don't matter because you are the one making claims. Your sources matter. You have not provided evidence muscle tissue and bone tissue are much simpler than spinal cord tissue. You have not provided evidence of bone tissue, muscle tissue, or spinal cord tissue. You have not explained how muscle tissue and bone tissue are much simpler than spinal cord tissue.


    Are you sure?
    Complex vs simple is an opinion. You cannot prove empirically what it is more or less complex. However, you can use your best judgment to say what you believe to be more complex (or simpler) based on your knowledge of the subject matter. I trust medical textbooks to know the human body. If their opinion is that the nervous system is “by far the most complex” in the human body and that “Nerve tissue is the most complex tissue in the body”, then that is my opinion. They know the human body. I trust them. If you doubt the quality of the opinion of those medical textbooks, then it is up to you to show me some expert that has a different opinion. But you cannot.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-20-2009, 02:36 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-01-2007, 02:01 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-10-2003, 08:08 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-19-2002, 11:07 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-27-2001, 06:31 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
  •