Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: could adult stem cell therapy cause cancer ?

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young
    Z~LEI,

    I am sorry to hear that you did not have any improvement.

    There are currently no proven therapies that restore function for spinal cord injury. Therefore, groups that claim to have therapies that improve function, that charge exorbitant fees for the therapies, and that are not doing what is necessary to show that the therapies work are by definition scams.

    In China, neither government nor industry are funding clinical trials. The only funding for clinical trials comes from donors or fees paid by patients. The latter is now forbidden by law. The only exceptions are surgical procedures carried out before the laws were passed in 2004. That is one of the reasons why the Beike group and Huang group are allowed to offer their therapies.

    This is one of the reasons why the ChinaSCINet is important for China and why many doctors in China have embraced the concept of working together to test therapies in rigorously run clinical trials. They understand that they can achieve progress only by working together.

    Wise.
    so....you don't know of any therapy, anywhere, that is doing any good for sci?

  2. #22
    Banned adi chicago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    near dracula castle
    Posts
    9,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Z~LEI
    so....you don't know of any therapy, anywhere, that is doing any good for sci?
    to cure sci ......humans must explore and be united[scientists,patients and politicians].i tried once a procedure ....did not work ...i will try more ......i am not afraid of death....i will be happy to be ab again .
    • Dum spiro, spero.
      • Translation: "As long as I breathe, I hope."

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by adi chicago
    to cure sci ......humans must explore and be united[scientists,patients and politicians].i tried once a procedure ....did not work ...i will try more ......i am not afraid of death....i will be happy to be ab again .
    what does anyone know about umbilical cell injections.....Dr. Geeta Shroff....or any other doctor doing umbilical cells or bone marrow injections?

    xiexie (thank u),
    Z~LEI

  4. #24
    Banned adi chicago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    near dracula castle
    Posts
    9,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Z~LEI
    what does anyone know about umbilical cell injections.....Dr. Geeta Shroff....or any other doctor doing umbilical cells or bone marrow injections?

    xiexie (thank u),
    Z~LEI
    human trials are needed ...the answers and results will come.
    die or live fighting for a cure.
    • Dum spiro, spero.
      • Translation: "As long as I breathe, I hope."

  5. #25
    `we are getting a bit away from the original subject

    we were discussing safety concerns of current therapies, waiting for dr wise reply. however, by some surching found...

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young

    …. I want to urge people to consider the risks and benefits of the therapies. Let me discuss this further.

    Risks. Some people believe that they have little to lose. This is not true. Everybody has much to lose. Let me discuss some of the risks.
    · Death. The risk of death is significant. Every surgical procedure carries a risk of death. Even well-established procedures have a 1-2% chance of mortality, whether from the surgery itself or the complications of surgery.
    · Surgical complications. The likelihood of post-operative complications is high, particularly for people with spinal cord injury is high. These include development of pressure sores, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, thrombophlebitis and pulmonary emboli, meningitis, and others.
    · Unintended loss of function. All manipulation of the spinal cord damages the spinal cord. In a person with incomplete spinal cord injury, there is a likelihood of losing the axons that cross the injury site. In a person with complete spinal cord injury, there is a risk of ascent of neurological level. Manipulation of the spinal cord should be minimized.
    · Inexperience. All surgical procedures improve with experience. The risk of inexperience is highest if it is the first time that procedure is being done. Evaluate the experience and track record of the surgeon. Assess the outcome of the patients who have had the procedure.
    · Intended loss of function. Many therapies involve the sacrifice of some function. Be sure that the consequences are acceptable to you. For example, taking a peripheral nerve for transplantation will result in loss of sensory or function provided by that nerve.
    · Pain. One largely unevaluated risk is the development of neuropathic pain from regenerative therapies that stimulate inappropriate growth and sprouting of axons that connect to the wrong places. It is possible that this risk is low when the therapies are ineffective.
    · Allergic and immune response. Transplanting foreign cells into the body or spinal cord carries risks of allergic or immune responses. For example, most people get a short-term fever after transplantation of cells to the spinal cord. The cause and long-term implications are not known.
    · Loss of opportunity to participate in future clinical trials. While most therapies would not preclude future therapies, most clinical trials do not want people who have received previous experimental treatments for fear that it may confound their results. Some therapies pose more risk of exclusion from future clinical trials.

    Benefits. Many people think of of experimental therapies as potential therapies. This is a mistake. It is like heading into a casino thinking that you will win the jackpot. Evaluate the possibility, probability, and pattern of benefits carefully. Don't think that you will be lucky.
    · Primary benefit. Clinical trials usually measure benefit by assessing the difference of a defined primary outcome measure in a treated versus control group. This primary outcome is usually what the investigator believes the most likely to show a significant difference. Is this primary outcome what you are seeking?
    · Secondary benefits. There may be many secondary benefits of a therapy. For example, exposure of the spinal cord may decompress your spinal cord or untether the cord. Some therapies have multiple benefits. One should not dismiss sensory return or reduction of autonomic dysfunction.
    · Probability of benefit. A therapy may have benefits in only a proportion of people treated. The extent to which a therapy restores function also may may vary. Some therapies may have marked benefits in a some patients and minimal benefits in others. Average benefits may be misleading.
    · Anecdotal cases. Most people place an irrational credence on anecdotal cases of recovery. They think that if it can happen to that person, it can happen to them. Please understand that a beneficial effect in a single case may not be a result of the therapy and it may not happen to you.
    · Documentation. Be very wary of poorly documented claims of safety and efficacy, claims of miraculous cures, and "secret" procedures. There are no miracles and there should be no secrets. Coupled with a high price for an experimental therapy, these are usually sure signs of scams.

    When considering experimental therapies, think about these issues systematically. Read the fine print and understand the therapy, as well as the risks and benefits. Don't just kick the tires. This is not a car that you are buying. You have to live with this body for the rest of your life. In most cases, available information is inadequate. For example, morbidity and mortality risk may not be known. The probability of benefit is unclear. That is of course the definition of "experimental" therapies and why clinical trials are necessary. Participating in a clinical trial is a service to the community. You are taking the risk so that others may benefit from the knowledge gained.

    I would be glad to discuss the individual therapies to the best of my knowledge. This is what CareCure is for.

    Wise.
    what of those risks i should consider as i am considering the cells4health dr wise, take note i am not having a surgery, rather an intrathecal treatment, directly in the spinal cord fluid
    Last edited by ttma; 05-02-2007 at 08:24 AM.

  6. #26
    this is from a previous post by dr Wise...
    http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showpos...32&postcount=6

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young

    . I would not use the Cells4Health because I don't know enough about what they are doing and don't have the confidence in bone marrow procedures.


    Wise.
    whats the reason for not having confidence dr, can you explain more..

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by ttma
    this is from a previous post by dr Wise...
    http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showpost.php?p=580132&postcount=6



    whats the reason for not having confidence dr, can you explain more..
    ttma,

    I am concerned by your attitude and approach. You appear to be dismissing the benefit side of the equation (basically by taking the attitude that you might get lucky if you have nothing to lose) and approaching risk on the basis of irrational fears of low risk complications (such as cancer) while ignoring other significant risks. So, let me describe how I believe people should be evaluating experimental therapies and participation in clinical trials.

    1. Look for tell-tale evidence of scams. Legitimate clinical trials:
      1. do not charge patients for experimental therapies,
      2. do not tell you that the treatment is proprietary or secret,
      3. do not tell show you videotaped testimonials by other patients,
      4. do not say that the treatment has no risk (there is no such thing).
    2. Look for evidence of bad clinical trials. Good trials:
      1. provide extensive information concerning the risks and benefits of the therapy,
      2. answer all questions you have (the fact that you are asking me on this site is worrisome),
      3. cite data from animal and other clinical trials to support their statements,
      4. have been reviewed by other scientists and regulatory agencies.
      5. are run by clinicians who are experienced with the condition.
    3. Evaluate the benefits. Ask the following questions.
      1. What animal evidence indicates that the treatment works?
      2. What clinical trial evidence indicates that the treatment is beneficial?
      3. What are the benefits and the probability of those benefit?
    4. Evaluate the risk.
      1. What are the risks of the therapies?
      2. What is the probability of complication?
      3. What animal evidence is available concerning risk?
      4. What clinical trial evidence is available concerning risk?


    Rule Out Scams. Groups such as Cells4Health, Beike, and the Geeta Shroff clinic do not provide enough information about the procedures to judge the benefit-to-risk ratio. This alone is worrisome because either the doctors doing the procedure don't know the information or they don't want people to know. These groups also support websites and news conferences advertising positive anecdotal patient testimonies of their therapies. Do they show you only patients for whom the therapies work and not patients who did not benefit? Do they fail to mention the risks of intrathecal injection? Do they say that they can't tell you the details of the therapy because others would steal the idea? Do they charge you exorbitant amounts for experimental therapies? These are signs of scams.

    Good Clinical Trials. Good clinical trials provide detailed information about the therapies, answer all the questions, cite supporting data from animal studies and other clinical trials, and have been reviewed by other scientists and regulatory agencies. They present both the benefit and risks. In places like China and India, there may not be the infrastructure or the culture for rigorous reviews but, if the trial has been gone through rigorous reviews by other scientists, that is reassuring. Finally, the clinical trial should be run by clinicians who are familiar with the condition. For example, I am skeptical of the clinical trials by Cells4Heatlh and Geeta Shroff because I don't think that either organization knows very much about spinal cord injury and yet are trying to treat this condition.

    Evaluate Benefits. Many people seem to regard therapeutic benefits in the same way as they would assess a jackpot in a casino. They figure that if they have nothing to lose, they might as well drop a quarter in and see whether they get something back. Many studies suggest that most people cannot evaluate percentage probabilities. For example, if I say that there is a 20% probability of a 1 segmental level motor recovery, some people may think that it is a worthwhile benefit. But, if I say that 4 out of five people will get nothing and perhaps one of the five will get back stronger wrist extensor if they have a C5 injury, most people will think twice about participating in the clinical trial. Ask yourself what you would feel if you were amongst those who do not benefit from the surgery.

    Evaluate Risk. Please do not focus on just the complications that you fear and ignore those risks that don't seem scary but are more likely to occur. For example, some people may think that intrathecal injection of an unknown cell suspension without rigorous quality control has little risk. People are often afraid of surgical procedure and cancer. Let me assure you that there is substantial risk associated with an intrathecal injection of cells. The consequences of a viral or bacterial meningitis, hemorrhage, or other complications of an intrathecal injection are much greater and worse than cancer.

    Now, what do you want to know?

    Wise.
    Last edited by Wise Young; 05-02-2007 at 12:46 PM.

  8. #28
    First, I thank you again dr wise for the informative responses, and I would like to point out that although my English might not look bad but it's not good to the extent that it would reflect the impressions I want my words to carry. So, please don't think that I am refuting or some thing like that, rather I am discussing for the sake of understanding comprehensively and for the sake of deriving as much knowledge as possible.

    Now I would like to make some comments ( some might be questions in fact ) before I can post some related questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young
    ttma,
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young

    You appear to be dismissing the benefit side of the equation (basically by taking the attitude that you might get lucky if you have nothing to lose)
    dr wise, I do care about the benefit side of the equation, but as much as the options available for me, so I cannot go to an extent that I don't involve in any therapies available because non of them proved efficacy, I am willing to try as long as the risk side of the equation is fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young

    and approaching risk on the basis of irrational fears of low risk complications (such as cancer) while ignoring other significant risks.
    this is true dr, I wasn't aware of other risks, nor I was aware that cancer is a low risk. So, now I have changed my way of thinking by seriously considering other risks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young

    let me describe how I believe people should be evaluating experimental therapies and participation in clinical trials.
    1. Look for tell-tale evidence of scams. Legitimate clinical trials:
    a. do not charge patients for experimental therapies,
    b. do not tell you that the treatment is proprietary or secret,
    c. do not tell show you videotaped testimonials by other patients,
    d. do not say that the treatment has no risk (there is no such thing).
    2. Look for evidence of bad clinical trials. Good trials:
    a. provide extensive information concerning the risks and benefits of the therapy,
    b. answer all questions you have (the fact that you are asking me on this site is worrisome),
    c. cite data from animal and other clinical trials to support their statements,
    d. have been reviewed by other scientists and regulatory agencies.
    e. are run by clinicians who are experienced with the condition.
    3. Evaluate the benefits. Ask the following questions.
    a. What animal evidence indicates that the treatment works?
    b. What clinical trial evidence indicates that the treatment is beneficial?
    c. What are the benefits and the probability of those benefit?
    4. Evaluate the risk.
    a. What are the risks of the therapies?
    b. What is the probability of complication?
    c. What animal evidence is available concerning risk?
    d. What clinical trial evidence is available concerning risk?
    dr wise, you know that all available trials charge patients money, and they don't provide extensive information expect about the already known topics like: what are stem cells and who is the procedure done.. ect. these things we all know, so applying these guide lines will mean that all the current options will be excluded. However, exclusion of all options is some thing I am convinced ( until now ) that I wouldn't do unless the risk side of the equation alerts.
    About the fact that I am asking you not them, actually I asked them, but in my opinion one have to take other opinions in medicine, specially when it comes to unproved therapies.
    Generally speaking, I don't know how to get a sure answer about lots of the questions in the guide lines above, I can't take any current clinic's answers for sure, so what to do ? either wait until more authentic clinical trials show up ( this might take months or years ! ), or focus on the risk side of the equation and try what seems to be the best ( I said seems because I am not sure there is proven data to say this or that are the best )

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young

    Rule Out Scams. Groups such as Cells4Health, Beike, and the Geeta Shroff clinic do not provide enough information about the procedures to judge the benefit-to-risk ratio. This alone is worrisome because either the doctors doing the procedure don't know the information or they don't want people to know. These groups also support websites and news conferences advertising positive anecdotal patient testimonies of their therapies. Do they show you only patients for whom the therapies work and not patients who did not benefit? Do they fail to mention the risks of intrathecal injection? Do they say that they can't tell you the details of the therapy because others would steal the idea? Do they charge you exorbitant amounts for experimental therapies? These are signs of scams.
    In another words, they are showing the positive side only. this might be true for some extent, and I think they might be doing business, which explains the questions above. But, I think doing business, while not being a perfect thing, does not necessarily means they are scams, rather they might have some thing real but they simply love money in the same time, which makes them act with the attitude of attracting customers. ( this is bad, but doesn't necessarily means scam )


    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young

    Good Clinical Trials. Good clinical trials provide detailed information about the therapies, answer all the questions, cite supporting data from animal studies and other clinical trials, and have been reviewed by other scientists and regulatory agencies. They present both the benefit and risks. In places like China and India, there may not be the infrastructure or the culture for rigorous reviews but, if the trial has been gone through rigorous reviews by other scientists, that is reassuring. Finally, the clinical trial should be run by clinicians who are familiar with the condition. For example, I am skeptical of the clinical trials by Cells4Heatlh and Geeta Shroff because I don't think that either organization knows very much about spinal cord injury and yet are trying to treat this condition.
    ok dr, please tell me if some of the current therapies is better in that side ( the reviews thing and other sides of good clinical trials ), I know a lot of names of different clinical trials but I cannot distinguish which is better in this side.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young

    Evaluate Benefits. Many people seem to regard therapeutic benefits in the same way as they would assess a jackpot in a casino. They figure that if they have nothing to lose, they might as well drop a quarter in and see whether they get something back. Many studies suggest that most people cannot evaluate percentage probabilities. For example, if I say that there is a 20% probability of a 1 segmental level motor recovery, some people may think that it is a worthwhile benefit. But, if I say that 4 out of five people will get nothing and perhaps one of the five will get back stronger wrist extensor if they have a C5 injury, most people will think twice about participating in the clinical trial. Ask yourself what you would feel if you were amongst those who do not benefit from the surgery.
    in my point of view, I would do the therapy even with the one out of five percentage. How would I feel if I was one of the four with no benefit? I will be patient because there is a wisdom behind any thing that occurs in this life (it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. translation of meanings of holy qura'an: 2:216 )

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young

    Evaluate Risk. Please do not focus on just the complications that you fear and ignore those risks that don't seem scary but are more likely to occur. For example, some people may think that intrathecal injection of an unknown cell suspension without rigorous quality control has little risk. People are often afraid of surgical procedure and cancer. Let me assure you that there is substantial risk associated with an intrathecal injection of cells. The consequences of a viral or bacterial meningitis, hemorrhage, or other complications of an intrathecal injection are much greater and worse than cancer.

    Now, what do you want to know?

    Wise.
    I want to ask what is the cause of such risk, is it failure to carry the procedure sterilely ? or what

    as long as pure stem cells ( as claimed by cells4health as an example ) are used with out any other component, why would such complications happen?

    One of the reason I was concentrating on cancer is the possibility of the cells turning cancerous regardless of the low possibility as you confirmed ( I understood the logic of that clearly ), my point is that I want to understand how could the intrathecal cause these complication, I want to understand the logic of the relation between these complications and between the intrathecal

    Also dr, how did we know the intrathecal Is associated with these risks, what is the nature of the evidence? Is it animal trials, humans, or what?

    Excuse me for asking a lot of question, and excuse my language as I said in the beginning

    ttma
    Last edited by ttma; 05-06-2007 at 04:30 AM.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by ttma
    First, I thank you again dr wise for the informative responses, and I would like to point out that although my English might not look bad but it's not good to the extent that it would reflect the impressions I want my words to carry. So, please don't think that I am refuting or some thing like that, rather I am discussing for the sake of understanding comprehensively and for the sake of deriving as much knowledge as possible.
    • I want to apologize. I did not intend for my statement to sound as arrogant as it did. I am frustrated to have to provide risk:benefit analyses when it is the job of doctors and clinics who are offering the experimental therapies. It is not ethical for doctors to make unwarranted claims for unproven therapies, charge a lot of money for the therapy, and then make little or no effort to document the efficacy of the therapy. The last part indicates to me that they are not interested in documenting the efficacy of the therapy and have the therapy benefit others.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttma
    Now I would like to make some comments ( some might be questions in fact ) before I can post some related questions.



    dr wise, I do care about the benefit side of the equation, but as much as the options available for me, so I cannot go to an extent that I don't involve in any therapies available because non of them proved efficacy, I am willing to try as long as the risk side of the equation is fine.
    • Let's discuss the benefit:risk ratio. Suppose that a “guaranteed cure” has a benefit value of 100. Let's say that if the treatment consistently produces a serious life-threatening complication that results in loss of function, the risk is 100. If benefit is 1 while risk is 100, everybody would agree that you would not want to get the therapy. In fact, if benefit value is just 1, you may not want to do it even if the risk is zero because it suggests that the therapy is not a cure or, if it is a cure, it has a 1% chance of occurring. That is quite a low probability. If the benefit value is 100 and risk is 0, of course you would want to do it but, as you point out and we know, there is no such thing. Of course everybody will classify the benefit and risk in their own way but, using the above approach, let us see if we can apply this benefit to risk evaluation approach to several therapies. Please understand that what I do below here is just for illustration purposes.
    - Carlos Lima and nasal mucosal transplant. Based on what I have heard and seen, the treatment effects have had only modest beneficial effects and these occur only in a minority of patients. Let's give the treatment a benefit score of 3, i.e. 10% of the way to a cure occurring in about 30% of the people. Unfortunately, Lima has provided very little information concerning risk and complications associated with the therapy. To my knowledge, none of the patients have died. I don't know what other complications that patients have had, i.e. loss of function, fever, infections requiring antibiotics, etc. Let's assume that it has a low risk score of 3. If so, this suggests a benefit-to-risk ratio of about 1.00.
    - Hongyun Huang and fetal olfactory ensheathing glia. I have seen a number of his patients and believe that over half get back four or more dermatomes of sensory function and about a quarter of the people get back one or more motor levels. So, let's give the treatment a benefit score of 12, i.e 20% of the cure occurring in about 60% of the people. To my knowledge, no patient has died as a result of this procedure. However, probably over half have had some minor complication such as fever and 1-2% may have had worsening of function. So, I would give his treatment a risk score of 6, i.e. 10% of the way towards a severe complication in about 60% of the people. This suggests a benefit-to-risk ratio of about 2.00.
    - Shenzhen “Beike“ cord blood CD34+ cell transplants. Unfortunately, there is simply not enough data to assess either the benefit or risk. Based on what I have seen to date, I don't think that the treatment would warrant a benefit score of greater than 4, i.e. 10% of cure in 40% of the patients. I don't know about the risk. Let's say that the risk is 2, i.e. 20% of people have 10% of a serious complication. In such a case, one might assign a benefit-to-risk ratio of 2.00. By the way, I distrust a center that does not provide the data of its previous efficacy and complications, that exaggerate the benefits while not talking about risks or complications. I believe that we should deduct points from clinics that do this.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttma
    this is true dr, I wasn't aware of other risks, nor I was aware that cancer is a low risk. So, now I have changed my way of thinking by seriously considering other risks.
    • Even blood transfusions, the most frequently used cell transplantation procedure has a some risk of passing some disease (AIDS, hepatitis, etc.), probably on the order of 1-2%. So, for example, if you receive an average of 100 transfusions, the chances of your contracting a serious life-threatening problem is probably on the order of 1-2%. In the case of manipulated blood even in certified GMP facilities, such as those that have been grown in an accredited cell culture facility, the changes of a contaminated blood sample is greater. There is no way of telling what the risk is for uncertified facilities such as Cells4Health or Beike. My guess is that the risk of serious problem is probably very high. Please do not assume that any of the places are even aware of what they are doing wrong. For example, I was interested to find out what Carlos Lima does to ensure that the nasal mucosa samples are bacterial free before they are transplanted into the spinal cord. As far as I can understand, the samples are just washed in sterile saline. That is it. I don't know but doubt that either Cells4Health or Beike checks their samples for bacteria or viral contamination before transplanting.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttma
    dr wise, you know that all available trials charge patients money, and they don't provide extensive information expect about the already known topics like: what are stem cells and who is the procedure done.. ect. these things we all know, so applying these guide lines will mean that all the current options will be excluded. However, exclusion of all options is some thing I am convinced ( until now ) that I wouldn't do unless the risk side of the equation alerts.
    About the fact that I am asking you not them, actually I asked them, but in my opinion one have to take other opinions in medicine, specially when it comes to unproved therapies.
    Generally speaking, I don't know how to get a sure answer about lots of the questions in the guide lines above, I can't take any current clinic's answers for sure, so what to do ? either wait until more authentic clinical trials show up ( this might take months or years ! ), or focus on the risk side of the equation and try what seems to be the best ( I said seems because I am not sure there is proven data to say this or that are the best )
    • You should understand that it is illegal in Europe Union and in China to charge patients for experimental (non-approved) therapies including cell transplants. It has long been illegal for any doctor, clinic, or manufacturer to use non-approved drugs. However, most countries did not regulate cell transplants until recently. For example, the United States FDA have still working on its regulatory framework for cell transplants and right now the FDA only requires approval for cell transplants that are genetically or “significantly” manipulated. The FDA does not have or does not yet enforce rules concerning autografts, blood products, or organ transplants. In China, they applied the regulations just in the past year. There are some therapies that were “grandfathered“ as existing practice before regulations were put into place. In the case of Beike and Hongyun Huang, I think that their procedures are being allowed because they were practicing these treatments before the new regulations were imposed. On the other hand, newer therapies require rigorous demonstration of safety and efficacy before being approved for clinical trials. The clinical trials cannot charge patients for the therapies. It is the reason why it is so important for there to be clinical trials. The costs of clinical trials are usually paid for by companies that presumably would profit from the therapies if and when they are approved by the government, or by the government. I understand the impatience of people but people need to understand how the system works.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttma
    In another words, they are showing the positive side only. this might be true for some extent, and I think they might be doing business, which explains the questions above. But, I think doing business, while not being a perfect thing, does not necessarily means they are scams, rather they might have some thing real but they simply love money in the same time, which makes them act with the attitude of attracting customers. ( this is bad, but doesn't necessarily means scam )
    • When one is just to sell an experimental therapy, charging money for an unproven therapy, not telling people of the risks is not only *unethical* but criminal. That is why governments regulate treatments and have set procedures and standards for approving safe and efficaceous therapies. It does mean scam. A scam is trying to steal people's money. Telling you a lie or omitting information in order to get you to pay money for an unproven therapy is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttma
    ok dr, please tell me if some of the current therapies is better in that side ( the reviews thing and other sides of good clinical trials ), I know a lot of names of different clinical trials but I cannot distinguish which is better in this side.
    • I think that people must take responsibility for their own decisions. If there is not enough information, do not participate. It means that something is wrong. It means that it is very likely to be a scam. I am very concerned with all these people going around thinking that all they have to do is interview some patients who have had the treatment and who believes that they have benefited from it. About a decade ago, there was a couple in the United States who scammed hundreds of people with a treatment called Neuralyn. Unfortunately, most of the original discussion of that treatment was in Spinewire or Cando, not in CareCure. However, you can still read about it by doing a search for Neuralyn. The story will shock you because many in the spinal cord injury community were hurt by it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttma
    in my point of view, I would do the therapy even with the one out of five percentage. How would I feel if I was one of the four with no benefit? I will be patient because there is a wisdom behind any thing that occurs in this life (it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. translation of meanings of holy qura'an: 2:216 )
    • I respectfully disagree with your reasoning and your use of a quote that applies to trying new experiences and not to medical therapies. Many people tell me that they don't think they have anything to lose. They are wrong. Everybody has a lot to lose. Everybody can be worse off than they are now. By the way, if you are looking for a way to commit suicide, please don't do it this way.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttma
    I want to ask what is the cause of such risk, is it failure to carry the procedure sterilely ? or what
    • Most of us would want food processors to be certified. Most of the groups that you are talking about have had no certification at all. Sterility is of course on problem. It would be good to have a GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) certified facility where all reagents are certified and documented. There is no effective way to sterilizing a tissue sample of a viral contamination. In the case of fetal cell transplants, China abortion clinics apparently can and do monitor their patients for common diseases and viral infections but there is no published standard. Let me just ask a simple question. What would you do if there was AIDS virus in the tissue and this is injected into your spinal cord?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttma
    as long as pure stem cells ( as claimed by cells4health as an example ) are used with out any other component, why would such complications happen?
    • Why would you believe the claims of companies or groups who are not willing to put their practices up for inspection?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttma
    One of the reason I was concentrating on cancer is the possibility of the cells turning cancerous regardless of the low possibility as you confirmed ( I understood the logic of that clearly ), my point is that I want to understand how could the intrathecal cause these complication, I want to understand the logic of the relation between these complications and between the intrathecal
    • The risk for cancer from an autograft should be very low. It should be even lower from a heterograft because it would be immune-rejected.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttma
    Also dr, how did we know the intrathecal Is associated with these risks, what is the nature of the evidence? Is it animal trials, humans, or what?
    • Intrathecal injections introduce material to the cerebrospinal fluid. Should you be trusting a company that not only will not provide certified data concerning complication rates but, worse, may not be monitoring complications.

  10. #30
    dr wise, most of what you have said is very reasonable, it makes me rethink about every thing. having my awareness increase, i will keep learning and searching and will not risk my health

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young

    • I respectfully disagree with your reasoning and your use of a quote that applies to trying new experiences and not to medical therapies. Many people tell me that they don't think they have anything to lose. They are wrong. Everybody has a lot to lose. Everybody can be worse off than they are now. By the way, if you are looking for a way to commit suicide, please don't do it this way.
    you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young

    Ask yourself what you would feel if you were amongst those who do not benefit from the surgery.
    so my use of the quote was not to justify having the therapy before making sure that there is no high risk for the health and there is a sure benefit from it, rather i was trying to say that if i became convinced that i am having nothing to lose, and after taking the decision and having the therapy there was no benefit, then it's not the end of life, cause even the bad things have good sides that we always don't notice, but i believe in this good side even if it was not immediatly tangible. again, this is not to encourage poor studied decisions, rather a deeper and wise full interpretation of the bad things after they happen

    so this quote is used after some thing appearing to be bad happens, to draw the attention that their is a wisdom behind it, and it's not used to justify doing wrong things or making unstudied decisions about health, and i am sorry if my english didn't help to make the right usage of that quote.

    actually, after being aware of the possible risks,i remember another quote which is ( make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction - translation of meanings of holy qura'an: 2:195)

    thank you dr for all your efforts to help me take the right decision

    ttma
    Last edited by ttma; 05-06-2007 at 05:27 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-06-2007, 11:56 PM
  2. Adult Stem Cells vs Embryonic Stem Cells
    By smithpl in forum Cure
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-24-2006, 11:11 AM
  3. Why are embryonic stem cells important?
    By Wise Young in forum Cure
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 05-04-2005, 02:49 AM
  4. Replies: 104
    Last Post: 07-24-2004, 12:56 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-09-2002, 04:47 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
  •