Stephen Davies Update

[litespeed4]

Does not mention any specifics.

http://www.aurorasentinel.com/hp_liv...r-comment-area

[Isildur]

But Davies, an incessant optimist, is confident that his work will yield effective therapies for future generations of spinal cord injury patients.

I hope that was a fail of the writer, and not the real Davies hopes

[Christopher Paddon]

"future generations"

ugh!!!!

[Johnnie Walked]

"future generations"
WTF !

[quadfather]

I have my own issues with Davies progress getting to human trials vs. his proclamations, but please be reasonable. That 'future generations' sentence is not a direct quote from Davies but rather composed by the article's author. This is NOT a smoking gun.

[Charles Hansen]

I don't think 7 patients is anything to sneer at, that's 7 more than most researchers.

Scaper, I'm sorry I didn't make my post more clear. I wasn't "sneering" at the number of participants. (I believe that Dr. Davies trials with rats were with groups of 9.) What I was "sneering" at was the apparent inability of the PhD researchers to count to three.

The announcement was that "SOME" of the seven patients had "SOME" recovery of sensation. What in the world is that supposed to mean? "SOME" must mean more than one, right? But if it were four or more, they would have said "MOST". So by the process of elimination, "SOME" must mean either "two" or "three".

Well, which is it? Do PhD researchers have a difficult time telling the difference between "two" and "three"? If it were two, why not just say "two"? Or if it were three, why not just say "three"? Or did "SOME" really mean just "one"?

[dukevanwillem]

As a research scientist in a different field (non-medical) I am often struck by the way that spinal cord researchers, like pure mathematicians, seem to be fascinated by theoretical solutions. Aside from a minority that includes Stephen Davies and Wise Young, they don't seem to be particularly interested in pushing their discoveries on through the human clinical trial stage. To draw a parallel, if rocket scientists had this same approach, the earth would be overflowing with model rockets, all with great potential, but we would never have sent a man to the moon. Now, I am sure I'm being a bit unfair here, but that's the way it sometimes appears.

[StemCells&AtomBombs]

As a research scientist in a different field (non-medical) I am often struck by the way that spinal cord researchers, like pure mathematicians, seem to be fascinated by theoretical solutions. Aside from a minority that includes Stephen Davies and Wise Young, they don't seem to be particularly interested in pushing their discoveries on through the human clinical trial stage. To draw a parallel, if rocket scientists had this same approach, the earth would be overflowing with model rockets, all with great potential, but we would never have sent a man to the moon. Now, I am sure I'm being a bit unfair here, but that's the way it sometimes appears.

I must say that your comments sure sound true to me.
The other day I read in the paper that NASA was now working on a super rocket and instead of talking about the 'future', they gave a timeline of five years to have the tests ready and it looks like they have a real plan to go to congress with to get the money.

[CareCureGirl]

Does anyone know anything about the regenexx procedures? Regenexx.com.
An NFL athlete supposedly went to this clinic for stem cell therapy, and had really good results. He was back to his game shortly afterward. Seems promising that stem cell results have been good for some injuries.
ESPN magazine listed this therapy in an October 17 article.

[lunasicc42]

on the list of their "treated conditions", Spinal cord injury is not on the list