Page 3 of 29 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 281

Thread: SCI funding and chronic vs acute

  1. #21
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmeky
    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.
    a lot has just dropped out of sight OR moved to acute only. its as if they were using the chronic community to get money and support. no future acute injury is supporting research. so they use the chronic. after they get what they want, they show the chronic community their butt. this is why the sci community needs you schmeky to be a wolf. NOT an excuse messenger or shepherd, the wolf. you could be polite and respectful and still be the wolf.
    the wolf says "a later date" is not good enough. the wolf does not tolerate failure and excuses.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by DA
    how about combining the limited funds of 2 into researching just 1. chronic cure cures EVERYONE....acute cures only a few.
    You're phrasing it wrong.

    Will Geron's acute trial prevent paralysis in patients? No, it will minimize the damage. There will still be chronic SCIs, but more of them will be incomplete or maybe even walking quads/paras.

    Developing treatments for acute SCIs will never stop the rising number of chronic SCIs, as the only treatments that could stop the secondary cascade would have to be applied within a very short time frame.

    Arguing that more funding should go to chronic research should be based on the fact that no foreseeable acute therapy will prevent paralysis, so everyone will still become chronics.

    Minimizing damage is not the same as prevention, and shouldn't be treated as such. Prevention means programs that focus on preventing SCIs, like public education campaigns.

    Is money spent on acute research wasted? If it makes someone who should be a C3 into a C4, or a C7 into a T1, I doubt they would consider the research waste.

    An argument could be made that acute treatments that minimize damage will actually increase the number of chronic SCIs, as it may allow more higher-level injuries to survive longterm due to less respiratory complications.

    That's why I believe more funding should go toward chronic research.

    The practical argument for acute research is that minimizing damage reduces the lifetime costs of caring for the injured person, most of which will be paid for by the government or private insurance. A similar argument should be made for chronics.
    ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Foolish Old's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida Keys
    Posts
    16,412
    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.
    I am hearing (reading) a fear of being left behind to die without help if research prevents the creation of new chronics. A selfish, but honest fear. Fear and selfishness don't often produce favorable results for anyone.
    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

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    17,427
    Chronic is much more difficult than acute injuries to investigate, so then? What does one coming off school pick? Some of them might as well go on to investigate easy to prevent liver diseases.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    17,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Edwards
    You're phrasing it wrong.

    Will Geron's acute trial prevent paralysis in patients? No,
    Good to know

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    17,427
    Steve, I believe the difference between acute and chronics is know-how (a bit or a byte), and for the time being there is a lack of know-how on both accounts, thus trying tests on acutes before chronics, first thing first one think. I personally believe any trials are good and should be encouraged. Not so much for chronics here though is going on, much more needs to be understood I believe. But by that understanding it can be done, if more, and much more basal research will be done to investigate the injuries when a connection has long gone been shut off. Something is missing here as for chronic SCI.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmeky
    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.
    Schmeky,

    I am a little surprised by your post, since some of the reasons for the lack of performance of at least Darwin Prockop's center has been discussed.

    Darwin Prockop's Center was decimated by the flood of New Orleans. It is located at Tulane University, which as you know as was flooded. He was unable to operate the center for many months and has lost personnel. Even before that time, Darwin had been complaining bitterly about the lack of federal funding for adult stem cell research. I have been trying to bring up the subject of the lack of funding of adult stem cell research over and over again on these forums and nobody has taken it seriously. People continue to assume that adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research is lavishly funded. It is not. This is the reason why it has been very difficult to get any clinical trials of such cell transplants in the United States.

    Regarding SCS's efforts, they have not been collaborative. In fact, they have been downright secretive about what they are doing. The SCS doesn't raise that much money and they are trying to do it alone in some laboratory out in Colorado.

    I don't know how else to say it so that people will pay attention. Perhaps making it red will help. There has been a cutback on spinal cord injury research funding in the last four years. It has really hurt us. It took a while for the negative effects to show but it is showing. Investigators are leaving the field or having to move to greener pastures in hopes of finding funds to do their research. Stephen Davies had to move his laboratory and he spoke eloquently about the shortage of spinal cord injury research funds. Very few people have been able to get NIH funding for spinal cord injury research.

    Wise.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Leif
    Good to know
    Do you disagree?

    If a person receives Geron's treatment on the third day, do you think the ESCs will cure them and reverse the damage that's been done?
    ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

  9. #29
    Dr Young,

    I don't post much but read everyday to learn more and be aware. I want to make a difference. I want to fight for my son. My son's injury is only a year old and I crave information, and for that I am so thankful for this site. But, tell me, what can I do to push for funding? What will it take to unite the hundreds, if not thousands of voices that visit this site and make them roar as one? I would do whatever it takes, especially now that the fog that followed my son's injury is beginning to lift.

    JMH

  10. #30
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    dr young, have you ever considered the cutbacks are the result of lack of progress and lack of hope?

    when i question doctors, i still get the no cure in my lifetime crap.
    is not congress, bush, and any funder getting the same lecture? didn't john hopkins print a paper on no advancement in sci for another 100 years. who wants to fund sci when the message is so gloom and dead end.

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
  •