Page 2 of 29 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 281

Thread: SCI funding and chronic vs acute

  1. #11
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    we can not make it a priority by backing up to excuses.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Foolish Old's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida Keys
    Posts
    16,412
    Quote Originally Posted by DA
    not true GK. Schmeky is a excuse toter. there is a simple formula;cute acute, you cure few. cure chronic, you cure everyone. now do you think doctors are so stupid they don't understand this? ofcourse they are not. yet they focus on acute. they say acute is easier to fix and cost less. ofcourse that is lie but schmeky will spread the word like a good little shepherd. maybe one day he will wake up.

    i was injuried in 1986. 21 years and not 1 anything for chronic sci. people with sci started surviving long term after WWII. 60 years of no major anything? everyday i read about the different medical breakthroughs. everydasy, not every other day. everyone else moves forward with limited funds. when we as a community stop accepting these bs excuses, then we will see human therapies. currently, we demand nothing. continue demanding nothing and you will continue getting nothing.
    So how you coming getting your demands satisfied? I think you need to get some additional leverage to be effective. Hostages? Chain yourself to lab door? What?
    Foolish

    "We have met the enemy and he is us."-POGO.

    "I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."~Edgar Allan Poe

    "Dream big, you might never wake up!"- Snoop Dogg

  3. #13
    If the conspiracy theory were correct, that we are being deliberately kept paralysed in order to earn money for the companies that provide care and to pay people to research a cure without actually finding one, then curing acutes would not be on the agenda either because if you find a cure for acutes you would end up with less chronics and would reduce your care profits.
    Being able to cure acute injuries would focus attention on the fact that SCI is curable and, IMO, is more likely to accelerate a race towards applying the cure to chronics than to postpone the chronic cure. For this reason, to regard the whole thing as being motivated by profit and having no other goal is an underestimation of, and an insult to, some dedicated and talented researchers who need our support and encouragement rather than suspicion and slander.

  4. #14
    "All acute injuries eventually become chronic"

    I see the logic of prioritizing chronic vs. acute cure research in favor of acutes. After acutes can be substantially protected from the srious debilitation that chronics experience, once we chronics expire the human suffering and cost to society diminish considerably. Cure acutes and eventually the problem goes away.

  5. #15
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    adrian, a cure for acute will not end sci forever. people will continue to have sci forever, 11,000 new cases every year in the usa. the owner of the acute cure will have 11,000 customers a year forever paying jacked up medical prices. once this happens, the chronic population will stop rising. actually it will m decrease. no new chronics and death. so there is an economic incentive for an acute treatment. is there an economic incentive for chronics?
    who wants to develope a treatment for a population that will no longer exist in the future?

    lets say there is 250,000 chronic sci. because there is 11,000 sci a year and the 250,000 number never changes, there must be 11,000 deaths.
    in 5 years, post acute cure, there will be 195,000 of us. what are the scientist saying? no funding, we are 10-20 years away. well who the hell will be around for the chronic cure. the acute cure will stop all future chronic cures. the bottom line, if they find an acute cure before chronic cure. plan on spending your life on your ass. this is why we should never support acute before chronic.
    Last edited by DA; 08-21-2007 at 12:52 PM.

  6. #16
    I agree with DA. Chronic injury are more difficult to cure and needs more funding and research than acute. For companies there is no interest in waste money, resources and time solving two problems, when they can solve the first(the easy and cheap) and let the time solve the second.

    Acute research won´t cure chronics, and we must no support it over chronic.
    Last edited by Isildur; 08-21-2007 at 03:18 PM.
    -Ramps in buildings are necessary, but it would be usefull to have another ones for people (mind/heart).....

    -Hoc non pereo habebo fortior me

  7. #17
    Please think about the situation. Here we are, without money for either acute or chronic spinal cord injury clinical trials. So, what are we arguing about? We are arguing for the stopping of funding for acute spinal cord injury research

    Please, both are important and deserving of research attention. It is just crazy that a treatment that I studied in 1980 (27 years ago) is still the only treatment for acute spinal cord injury. It is unconscionable that some clinicians are going around saying tha methylprednisolone should not be used and doing absolutely nothing about finding a better therapy.

    Do we really want more people to have spinal cord injury? Don't we want these people to recover? This community, of all the communities in the world, should understand what it means to the spinal-injured. Yet, this community is constantly arguing against research on acute spinal cord injuries.

    What are the reasons why this community would want to stop acute spinal cord injury research? One reason is that it will take money away from chronic spinal cord injury research. A second reason is that having more spinal cord injury will help increase the proflie of the condition for more funidng. The third is that we don't care about other people with spinal cord injury.

    All of these reasons looks bad, sounds bad, and feels bad. If we really think that acute spinal cord injury research will take money from chronic, we should perhaps give up. Neither are receiving much money right now. If one succeeds, it should help pull the other one up. I reject the concept of having more people with spinal cord injury to help those who are already injured. Finally, I know that this community cares about about others with spinal cord injury.

    I believe that this community should support both acute and chronic spinal cord injury. Can you imagine a cancer victims community not supporting prevention of cancer while supporting just the cure? That is what is would be like if the spinal cord injury community opposes acute spinal cord injury research.

    Wise.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Schmeky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    West Monroe, LA, USA
    Posts
    3,413
    DA,

    I think there are some areas of SCI research that need to be quesitoned. What ever happened to the promising work of Darwin Prockop? I was told in 2004 that human clinical trials would start within 12 months. Here it is almost 4 years later and his work doesn't seem to be on the radar screen. If you use your 11,000 new SCI's in the USA every year, we have roughly 40,000 new members that may have benefited from Prockop's research, but haven't.

    I wonder why?

    There are 2 different Spinal Cord Society research groups that are not related to the best of my knowledge. One of them claimed years ago to have a treatment ready for clinical trials and they to have dropped out of sight.

    Where are they now?

    I respect your posts and opinions (you know that) and much of what you say warrants consideration. I am not say the two examples above are conspiracies, but they have stated objectives they have not lived up to with no explanantion I am aware of. I have a problem with this.

    Something is wrong, but I don't know exactly what it is.

  9. #19
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young
    Please think about the situation. Here we are, without money for either acute or chronic spinal cord injury clinical trials. So, what are we arguing about? We are arguing for the stopping of funding for acute spinal cord injury research

    Please, both are important and deserving of research attention. It is just crazy that a treatment that I studied in 1980 (27 years ago) is still the only treatment for acute spinal cord injury. It is unconscionable that some clinicians are going around saying tha methylprednisolone should not be used and doing absolutely nothing about finding a better therapy.

    Do we really want more people to have spinal cord injury? Don't we want these people to recover? This community, of all the communities in the world, should understand what it means to the spinal-injured. Yet, this community is constantly arguing against research on acute spinal cord injuries.

    What are the reasons why this community would want to stop acute spinal cord injury research? One reason is that it will take money away from chronic spinal cord injury research. A second reason is that having more spinal cord injury will help increase the proflie of the condition for more funidng. The third is that we don't care about other people with spinal cord injury.

    All of these reasons looks bad, sounds bad, and feels bad. If we really think that acute spinal cord injury research will take money from chronic, we should perhaps give up. Neither are receiving much money right now. If one succeeds, it should help pull the other one up. I reject the concept of having more people with spinal cord injury to help those who are already injured. Finally, I know that this community cares about about others with spinal cord injury.

    I believe that this community should support both acute and chronic spinal cord injury. Can you imagine a cancer victims community not supporting prevention of cancer while supporting just the cure? That is what is would be like if the spinal cord injury community opposes acute spinal cord injury research.

    Wise.
    how about combining the limited funds of 2 into researching just 1. chronic cure cures EVERYONE....acute cures only a few.

  10. #20
    I´m not saying to stop acute research, but, if you have a limited funds to solve 2 problems(A and B), and solution of B was the solution for both, wouldn´t be more reasonable to invest all the resources in B, instead of dividing them?

    Excuse my english.
    -Ramps in buildings are necessary, but it would be usefull to have another ones for people (mind/heart).....

    -Hoc non pereo habebo fortior me

Similar Threads

  1. Stephen Davies Lab Report
    By Schmeky in forum Cure
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: 11-18-2008, 03:55 AM
  2. Mainstreaming SCI
    By Schmeky in forum Cure
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 11-05-2005, 11:08 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-31-2005, 04:36 AM
  4. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-02-2004, 04:01 PM
  5. DIRECTORS’ SUMMARY Miami Project
    By chastev8 in forum Cure
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-28-2002, 10:50 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
  •