View Poll Results: Would you participate in helping cure acute SCI

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, I do the thing that is fair;it wouldn't benefit me

    5 27.78%
  • No, we do not need to be cured

    1 5.56%
  • Yes, I would absolutely contribute to such a worthwhile cause

    9 50.00%
  • Yes I would do what I can, but I wouldn't be very motivated about it

    3 16.67%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Hypothetical question, treatment for acute spinal cord injury?

  1. #1

    Hypothetical question, treatment for acute spinal cord injury?

    Thisis obviously a hypothetical question ( although in vivo therapeutics gives me hope ), but please try and answer it honestly. I'm painfully aware that there is only a very small percentage of people that are actually trying to "fight" this atrocious disability, I consider trying to cure it A form of fighting, because you're actually trying to defeat something very noble cause they don't make this world A much better place...

    Obviously most of us are motivated by selfish means, we want to cure ourselves there's nothing wrong with that to a point. But we the afflicted, no different then cancer, AIDS, ALS etc have a responsibility to do what we can to stop this for ourselves and other people. Because we more then anyone know what can happen at any second to anyone your family, your friends, children, parents, siblings etc. When we look at the worst of the worst spinal cord injury only a small percentage that often gets pushed aside behind the curtain, tragic is an inappropriate word to use because it doesn't do it justice!

    For the first time in a long time spinal cord injury is in the public eye almost like the time of Christopher. But of course leave it to us to just turn it into a whine fest instead of something productive do you know brain emphasis and attention to cure research. ironically citing the point we do not need to be pitied, my god if it wasn't so disgusting a contradiction of that magnitude would be so fucking hysterical. Evidently the majority are just worried about coping, obviously very fragile thing to be so worried about public perception. Which leads me to my question for the few of us that are actually trying to fight this...

    If a certain amount of money needed to be raised, if the amount was accumulated it would guarantee a cure for acute spinal cord injury. It comes with a catch once acute spinal cord injury is curable, the research stops entirely for SCI, no pursuit of a chronic treatment! Would you take part in advocating, fundraising etc. to bring about a treatment for a cute spinal cord injury?
    Last edited by JamesMcM; 06-06-2016 at 02:21 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    2,453
    Oops. I didn't read the catch first. Need to change my vote.

  3. #3
    I met with Spinal Research (was ISRT) and they told me that in the past they used to spend a lot of money on trails for acute, however the people who cures for acute would fix don't care about helping raise money.
    Why? Because they are walking about today and don't realise they might need it. Its not like raising money for cancer cures where most people think they might get it, or because they know someone who has cancer.

    The people who care about getting SCI fixed are those that will never benefit from acute treatments.

    I completely agree, and besides if there was a cure for chronic SCI it would benefit acutes as well.
    Last edited by niallel; 06-06-2016 at 07:57 AM.

  4. #4
    The poll is a difficult one to answer since it's not based on any fact. Why would anyone have the notion the entire neuro-regenerative research field suddenly comes to a halt just because they got one single win (which has not happened)? For instance, the cancer field (I highly doubt) would pack it all in and disappear if there was a cure found for small cell carcinoma. The truth is, SCI needs a lot more research money and young scientists recruited into the field. Acute and chronic research go hand in hand as does neuro-regeneration and rehabilitation. Another flaw is using the premise that a therapy or treatment can be pre-guaranteed to work. There are no guarantees, there is hope however.

  5. #5
    Senior Member marvin_cr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts
    100
    Once an Acute Cure is found, Chronic research will most likely stop. In theory, once an Acute cure is found, there will no longer be new Chronic SCI persons. The existing Chronic SCI population will be allowed to roll off the books, so to speak. At most, it will take maybe 40 years, after an Acute cure is found, for the existing Chronic SCI population to roll off the books, aka die.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by marvin_cr View Post
    Once an Acute Cure is found, Chronic research will most likely stop. In theory, once an Acute cure is found, there will no longer be new Chronic SCI persons. The existing Chronic SCI population will be allowed to roll off the books, so to speak. At most, it will take maybe 40 years, after an Acute cure is found, for the existing Chronic SCI population to roll off the books, aka die.
    So if an acute cure is found, how long do you think it will take until it is covered by all insurances, is standard of care, and is available to every potential SCI sufferer in every single hospital in the world? This is, of course, assuming we have found a way to get every single person with an SCI to a hospital in a necessary time frame and make them medically stable enough to benefit from an acute therapy.

    An acute cure is not going to be the end of chronic SCI. And even then, an acute "cure" will only ever really minimalize the secondary damage that occurs after the initial, traumatic injury to the spinal cord.

    I can't fault anyone for researching acute SCI from a scientific perspective. But the above reasons are why I'm focusing my career on chronic SCI.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by marvin_cr View Post
    Once an Acute Cure is found, Chronic research will most likely stop. In theory, once an Acute cure is found, there will no longer be new Chronic SCI persons. The existing Chronic SCI population will be allowed to roll off the books, so to speak. At most, it will take maybe 40 years, after an Acute cure is found, for the existing Chronic SCI population to roll off the books, aka die.
    About 2% of the population in the US alone suffer some form of paralysis. (Around close to 6,000,000 people). Additionally, estimates place the worldwide number around 100,000,000. It would appear to me highly unlikely that labs throughout the world would do a massive shut down if an acute therapy were to be brought forward (none have been).

  8. #8
    I wouldn't contribute time or money, it has no benefit to me. In fact it probably would mean that research into chronic SCI would fall off so it seems like it would be detrimental to me.

  9. #9
    Senior Member marvin_cr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by GRAMMY View Post
    About 2% of the population in the US alone suffer some form of paralysis. (Around close to 6,000,000 people). Additionally, estimates place the worldwide number around 100,000,000. It would appear to me highly unlikely that labs throughout the world would do a massive shut down if an acute therapy were to be brought forward (none have been).
    Once there is an Acute cure, diminishing returns start to kick in big time for a Chronic cure.

    At the time of an Acute cure, the existing Chronic SCI population will be in the millions (you suggest 100). At some point in time after an Acute cure, say 40-50 years, the Chronic SCI population will be in the hundreds of thousands range. Actuarially, someone could determine an estimate of what the existing Chronic SCI population will be over time, given that no significant new Chronic SCI persons would be added. Will researchers put in the time and money to come up with a Chronic cure, when the population of potential customers would be shrinking. The half life of the Chronic SCI population at this point would be around 10-20 years. Researchers at best will have maybe a 10 year window to come up with a Chronic cure, after an Acute cure is found. At a high level, Research and Insurance money spent to cure the Chronic Population will need to be less that the Insurance money used to provide SCI care until they are off the books.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by marvin_cr View Post
    Once there is an Acute cure, diminishing returns start to kick in big time for a Chronic cure.

    At the time of an Acute cure, the existing Chronic SCI population will be in the millions (you suggest 100). At some point in time after an Acute cure, say 40-50 years, the Chronic SCI population will be in the hundreds of thousands range. Actuarially, someone could determine an estimate of what the existing Chronic SCI population will be over time, given that no significant new Chronic SCI persons would be added. Will researchers put in the time and money to come up with a Chronic cure, when the population of potential customers would be shrinking. The half life of the Chronic SCI population at this point would be around 10-20 years. Researchers at best will have maybe a 10 year window to come up with a Chronic cure, after an Acute cure is found. At a high level, Research and Insurance money spent to cure the Chronic Population will need to be less that the Insurance money used to provide SCI care until they are off the books.
    Polio still has no cure. It can only be prevented through vaccination. Give one vaccine close to birth, severely minimize a person's chances of getting polio for life. Infinitely simpler and cheaper than curing SCI after it has happened.

    The first polio vaccine was introduced in 1955. 33 years later in 1988, there were still 350,000 cases of polio in the world. 60 years after the first vaccine was introduced, in 2015, there were still 74 cases of polio reported.

    So, 60 years after an immeasurably simple and cheap vaccine to an infectious disease was put on the market, polio still exists today.

    An acute cure for SCI would cost way more, be more difficult to administer, and be much more time consuming than a simple vaccine. There is no way that an acute SCI cure would prevent anyone in the world from becoming a chronic SCI survivor in only 50 years. The need for a chronic SCI cure will exist for as long as humans remain unable to regenerate their central nervous systems.

Posting Permissions

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