Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (PEMF) in treating SCI

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Banned Faye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    6,839

    Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (PEMF) in treating SCI

    Interesting recent article by James Kelley on Funding and SCI research!!

    I do not agree with James Kelley on the Stem Cell Research issue, but do find parts of his article insightful regarding funding and what scientist choose to research,..........and the reporting on that research.

    Tuesday, April 11, 2006


    On Sep. 15,1985, America's most prominent spinal cord injury (SCI) researcher, Dr. Wise Young, Ph.D. (current Director of Rutgers Center for Collaborative Neuroscience — named America's leading SCI researcher by Time Magazine) wrote to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding his use of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) in treating acutely injured cats:
    "The eventual percentage of cats receiving PEMF at four hours after injury that recovered the ability to walk at four months after spinal cord injury is 78 percent (7/9), compared with zero percent of the sham-treated injured controls."

    On Sep. 28, 2000 I wrote to Dr. Young on his Internet forum, inquiring into his PEMF research of the eighties. I made this request without mentioning that I had the document quoted above, plus additional PEMF documents of Young's. His reply stunned me:
    "In cats, we did not see a significant improvement in walking when we applied PEMF after injury."

    In my opinion, Young's claim that seven of nine animals "recovered the ability to walk" after SCI represented a "significant improvement," especially since none of the "sham" treated animals recovered.
    There followed several days of discussions. The error was mine, Dr. Young explained, for misunderstanding his denials. However, try as I might, I could not reconcile his explanations of 2000 with his data from the 1980's.

    Eventually Young admitted that he dropped this very promising and practical line of research in part due to the lack of support from America's National Institute of Health (NIH):
    "I was also influenced by the fact that we were unable to get funding for these studies from NIH or other sources. At the NIH and other funding agencies, there was and continues to be deep skepticism about the potential effects of electromagnetic fields on regeneration."

    PEMF may or may not have positive effects on regeneration. However, the results of the studies in question concerned functional outcome after acute SCI. Clinical evidence indicates that PEMF, if properly used, improves regional blood flow. Reduced blood flow due to vasospasms, inflammation, and edema contributes to massive secondary tissue damage during acute SCI.
    The NIH did have a clinical plan for acute SCI — the use of an anti-inflammatory steroid called methylprednisolone (MP). In his letter to the FDA Young compared his PEMF results to similar tests using MP:
    "No pharmacological treatment that we have tested to date, including naloxone and methylprednisolone (both of which are in double blind randomized clinical trial in 12 spinal centers around the country), has exhibited this degree of effectiveness in similar animal studies."

    Young detailed this comparison in a 1984 presentation to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons:
    "In a separate series, we evaluated for five months the neurophysiological and motor recovery of twenty-seven cats, in three groups: (1) injured controls, (2) injured and PEMF treated, (3) injured and treated with a 30 mg/kg methylprednisolone (MP) IV 45 minutes after injury. Fifty percent of the PEMF treated cats walked independently just four months after injury, compared with one of the untreated cats and one of the MP cats. PEMF cats had significantly larger mean somatosensory evoked potentials and vestibulospinal response amplitudes than MP-treated or control cats."

    The NIH chose to ignore Young's impressive PEMF findings. Instead, they expanded their clinical testing of MP from twelve to sixteen trauma centers, spending an additional eleven years conducting the trials. Over the past decade dozens of articles in medical journals have questioned whether the use of MP for SCI does any good, while suggesting it places the patient at serious risks.

    I was not disturbed though that the NIH refusal to consider Young's data may have caused the abandonment of an effective treatment for acute SCI. Although this may have been true, experimental treatments that work in animals often fail in humans.

    My concern stemmed from the refusal of the NIH to objectively consider the scrupulous data of a respected scientist regarding a catastrophic medical condition, instead choosing to proceed with (and expand) a preferred project that head-to-head tests indicated was inferior.

    Since 2000, multiple articles from Germany, Sweden, Italy, the U.K, Canada, Turkey, and the U.S. question the worth and safety of MP for acute SCI. Researchers in the U.K. report: "The evidence produced by this systematic review does not support the use of high dose methylprednisolone in acute spinal cord injury to improve neurological recovery. A deleterious effect on early mortality and morbidity cannot be excluded by this evidence."


    Canadian researchers claim that methyprednisolone use for acute SCI may block positive effects of other treatments. Italian researchers agree.
    "These findings demonstrate that the non-selective and enduring effects of immunosuppressive therapy with methylprednisolone not only fail to improve neurological outcomes, but can also block the beneficial actions of selective therapies such as the anti-CD11d mAb."

    Yet, for over a decade this treatment received preferential treatment by America's NIH, while evidence of the superiority of other treatments was ignored or dismissed. On his Internet forum, Dr. Young revealed the importance of NIH research prioritization: "Many scientists will go to great lengths to get funding from the NIH and other organizations, including changing their experiments and even [their] fields to get funding. NIH has had a great influence on science in the United States for this reason."
    http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST...d.php?idx=3217

    Based upon my own prior literature search on methyl prednisolone I too have expressed my own skepticism previously on Care Cure:
    http://carecure.org/forum/showthread...hylprdnisolone

    "There’s far too much unthinking respect given to authority,” Molly Ivins explained; “What you need is sustained outrage.”
    Kerr, Keirstead, McDonald, Stice and Jun Yan courageously work on ESCR to Cure SCI.

    Divisiveness comes from not following Christopher Reeve's ESCR lead.
    Young does ASCR.
    [I]I do not tear down CRPA, I ONLY make peopl

  2. #2

    I dont agree

    With much of anything James Kelley has to say.

  3. #3
    Faye, you weren't around when James Kelly and Wise hashed this out ad nauseum on Spinewire and then Cando about 6-8 years ago.

    His allegations were completely without merit and thoroughly dismantled.
    Last edited by antiquity; 04-12-2006 at 03:32 AM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Perth Western Australia
    Posts
    5,197
    Quote Originally Posted by antiquity
    Faye, you weren't around when James Kelly and Wise hashed this out ad nauseum on Spinewire and then Cando about 6-8 years ago.

    His allegations were completely without merit and thoroughly dismantled.
    That may be true, but disregarding the personalities and politics of the matter is this statement true?
    However, the results of the studies in question concerned functional outcome after acute SCI. Clinical evidence indicates that PEMF, if properly used, improves regional blood flow. Reduced blood flow due to vasospasms, inflammation, and edema contributes to massive secondary tissue damage during acute SCI.
    If so a valuable tool for use in acute spinal cord injuries may be overlooked.

  5. #5

  6. #6
    My vet often uses diathermy on SCI dogs.
    BUT..only after IV steroids. And only if the owners are in dire straights monetarily and can't handle a referral to a neurosurgeon.

    He uses everything really in that case. His experience with diathermy has been about 50% show benefit..and 50% don't. Of course the 50% that show benefit have already shown about a 50% improvement in their neurological status after having their IV.

    He has even used it for months on some that just don't improve at all..he has to shave these little rectangular places on their sides where the plates are placed. He agrees it is very helpful with promoting blood flow and that in itself is a good thing.

    When used in the ones that show major improvement in neurological functions quite soon after the IV..well many many once again do walk..albeit like little drunken sailors..they walk. Unfortunately many of these dogs end up with another disc blowing and it's either surgery..or a cart for life.
    Life isn't about getting thru the storm but learning to dance in the rain.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by IanTPoulter
    That may be true, but disregarding the personalities and politics of the matter is this statement true?

    If so a valuable tool for use in acute spinal cord injuries may be overlooked.
    Ian,

    I find it so strange that Jim Kelly continues to bring this subject up. He must be running out of things to write about. You will note that he cites me in his writing but, whenever I have disagreed with his interpretation of what I said, he attacks me for abandoning PEMF in favor of methylprednisolone. It is bizarre.

    Let me give you the background. In 1983-1985, I was a young scientist who became interested in a PEMF device made by Diapulse. The company lent two machines to my laboratory, one that emitted the pulsed radiofrequency and the other that looked like it emitted the pulsed radiofrequency. They did not provide funding for the project and I was doing the studies without funding.

    In preliminary experiments, we treated cats shortly after spinal cord contusion and observed their walking recovery. About half of the cats showed better (or perhaps more rapid) recovery of function but half did not. I did not understand why this was so. In the meantime, Diapulse was on the verge of losing their FDA approval and asked if I would write a letter to the FDA on their behalf. I did so, along with various abstracts and summaries of work I had done.

    Diapulse retained their FDA approval but was still limping along without sufficient funds to support any research. I wrote several grants to try to get funding and was unsuccessful. In the meantime, I tried to repeat the experiments and was not able to get the same results. So, in the late 1980's, after having spent more than 5 years trying, I gave up on the experiments. I encouraged the company to use the Diapulse machine to treat pressure sores and helped them make the contacts for the trial. It seemed to accelerate healing of the sores, by the way, and has been published.

    In the meantime, a British surgeon by the name of Wilson published a paper saying that Diapulse increased peripheral nerve regeneration. I encourage these studies but had no resources to go forward with my own studies. The company came to me over and over again for nearly a decade and I helped them at every opportunity. I even treated several chronic spinal cord injury patients with the device in the 1980's and did not observe any improvements. The company eventually slipped into oblivion in the 1990's. My friend in the company died. I had all but forgotten about Diapulse when Jim Kelly brought up the documents in the late 1990's and accused me of conspiring to hide a promising therapy for spinal cord injury.

    We had many long and tedious discussions on the subject on spinewire. At the time, I even encouraged Jim Kelly to try the device on himself if he thought that it was so promising. I don't know whether he did. In any case, to my knowledge, he is still paralyzed. Eventually, Jim Kelly went (in my opinion) off the deep end in the late 1990's and started to attack stem cell research. He was embraced by the pro-life groups and testified in front of Congress and the White House, and even in New Jersey against the stem cell legislation. I don't think that he has done anything to support spinal cord injury research but has used his spinal cord injury to say that stem cell research should not be allowed, that it was going to steal funds from spinal cord injury research.

    Jim Kelly seems to believe that I am responsible for all spinal cord injury therapies and that I conspired to hide this promising therapy. It is not true. In fact, I had done my very best to promote this therapy in the 1980's and it failed for the lack of data. Diapulse never provided any funding for my research and I never was able to get grant funding for the research. By the way, there are thousands of therapies that are like this, therapies that seem to have some promise at the beginning and have bit the dust. In my opinion, there are much more promising therapies than PEMF and one simply has to prioritize.

    By the way, the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone for acute spinal cord injury have been demonstrated in four large randomized clinical trials. Hundreds of animal studies have shown the beneficial effects of the drug. Because the drug went out of patent in 1987, there was no interest by the company (Upjohn at the time, bought by Pharmacia, and then Pharmacia was bought be Pfizer) to push for registration of the drug for spinal cord injury. There is a growing movement to stop use of methylprednisolone in the U.S. and Canada. In my opinion, this movement has no basis in clinical data.

    In the early 1980's, I had shown that high-dose methylprednisolone, given early after injury (within hours) and for only a short period of time, can improve neurological recovery in cats. We subsequently did the phase 1 safety trial at Bellevue Hospital (because nobody had ever given such high doses of methylprednisolone to patients before) and then convinced the NIH to fund a double-blind randomized clinical trial of the drug in spinal cord injury. We carried out the National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study (NASCIS) that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1990, reporting the first effective acute neuroprotective therapy for spinal cord injury. In a subsequent trial, we showed that a 48-hour course of methylprednisolone was more effective than a 24-hour couse when the drug was started 3-8 hours after injury, but if the drug was started within 3 hours, the 24- and 48-hour course had the same effect (published in the Journal of the American Medical Association). These two trials studied nearly 1000 patients and two other randomized clinical trials have essentially supported these results.

    High-dose methylprednisolone is now being used for many conditions besides spinal cord injury, including multiple sclerosis, transverse myelitis, systemic lupus, tumors, and other causes of damage to the spinal cord. If its use is limited to 24 hours, it appears to be very safe. The NASCIS dose of methylprednisolone has now been given to hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people, in the past 20 years. I am saddened that doctors would be taking so much time to attack methylprednisolone while they themselves have provided no evidence for a better treatment for acute spinal cord injury. As I have said many times, if they truly do not think that methylprednisolone works, it is the perfect placeo control.

    I would be very pleased indeed if somebody were to find a drug or treatment that is better than methylprednisolone for acute spinal cord injury. I am deeply saddened that a drug that I tested in 1979 is still the standard and only therapy for acute spinal cord injury. In 1995, I decided to switch directions on my research and focus on chronic spinal cord injury and initiating clinical trials for chronic spinal cord injury.

    Wise.
    Last edited by Wise Young; 04-12-2006 at 09:43 AM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Perth Western Australia
    Posts
    5,197
    Doc, Please dont misunderstand me, I am not doubting the efficiacy of methylprednisolone which I know from researching this site and reading first hand accounts has undoubtedly helped many people. Your motives are unquestionably altruistic. I am aware of some of the history behind the accusations thus I clarified my question to exclude the politics of the matter. However my daughter was not given MP primarily because she had internal bleeding at the time of her accident. I have noticed by talking to many people in the Rehab centre that most were not in the position to be able to be given MP. i.e. too late after accident or other medical complications.
    I am not suggesting by any means that PEMF would be a superior alternative to MP however in cases where MP cannot be given I believe an alternative needs to be found. In my daughters case, the Doctors had nothing else and did question if MP would have worked anyway (not my opinion). IMO not enough research is going into alternatives such as PEMF and administration of anti inflammatory antioxidants in acute SCI.
    Please do not think I am attempting to attack or question your motives or research.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by IanTPoulter
    That may be true, but disregarding the personalities and politics of the matter is this statement true?

    If so a valuable tool for use in acute spinal cord injuries may be overlooked.
    No Ian and that's my point. Dr. Young carried out some of the first PEMF studies. The reason he discontinued the research was not due to the NIH as Kelly asserts, he applies quotes out of context, those are not the responses Wise gave to the questions he posed, but because Wise was not able to duplicate the results. However, PEMF has been shown to be useful in wound repair.
    Last edited by antiquity; 04-12-2006 at 09:35 AM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Perth Western Australia
    Posts
    5,197
    Quote Originally Posted by antiquity
    No Ian and that's my point. Dr. Young carried out some of the first PEMF studies. The reason he discontinued the research was not due to the NIH as Kelly asserts, he applies quotes out of context, those are not the responses Wise gave to the questions he posed, but because Wise was not able to duplicate the results. However, PEMF has been shown to be useful in wound repair.
    My understanding is Dr Young used the Diapulse machine only in his research which operates on specific frequencies. There are a number of other PEMF machines now available which use different settings. There has been advances in PEMF therapy since then I believe. And just to clarify, I am not seeking to promote Kellys arguement.

Similar Threads

  1. Mainstreaming SCI
    By Schmeky in forum Cure
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 11-05-2005, 11:08 AM
  2. Low Testostorone and SCI?
    By chimera in forum Care
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-28-2002, 10:01 PM
  3. SCI & elevated prolactin levels
    By Becky in forum Care
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-10-2001, 01:00 AM
  4. relationship re:SCI & thyroid
    By franroty in forum Care
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-02-2001, 08:04 AM

Posting Permissions

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