Page 143 of 145 FirstFirst ... 4393133134135136137138139140141142143144145 LastLast
Results 1,421 to 1,430 of 1442

Thread: Stephen Davies Update

  1. #1421
    I stuck up n stood by him for years, and I honestly feel like if he had something that was as he claimed, he'd have trials n everything else. I heard his results couldn't even be replicated. With all the money we sent him, something should've showed something. He gave us all promises of gold n glory and faded off into the night.

  2. #1422
    Senior Member lynnifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Windsor ON Canada
    Posts
    19,320
    If I recall, my little bit of money went to Baylor for his program .. once he left, I would assume that's Baylor's money.
    Roses are red. Tacos are enjoyable. Don't blame immigrants, because you're unemployable.

    T-11 Flaccid Paraplegic due to TM July 1985 @ age 12

  3. #1423
    Han, it is not fair to call him a fraud without having concrete evidence. Maybe he was doing the right thing and just make it happen. I can tell you this, clinical trials are very tough to pull off, even with rock solid results.

  4. #1424
    Quote Originally Posted by GRAMMY View Post
    You think the FDA allowed that after all the Geron Co. went through?

    The Martin Marsala mini pig studies didn't count?

    Ever hear of the guy Mark Tuszynski that's worked with NS-566 for years? LINK
    This research program tests the ability of cells and growth factors to promote regeneration after SCI. Tested cells include stem cells, autologous bone marrow cells, Schwann cells, and fibroblasts. The Tuszynski group is examining both acute and chronic models of SCI. http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(12)01018-5

    Many labs throughout the world are working with neural stem cells. Maybe biological cure with stem cells is something they should stop testing.
    You are skating around my points.. or you just don't get them..

    I am not against this line of research, but I am just pointing out the weak points, so people can adjust their expectations. I would suggest you to do the same with your blog. If researchers can't survive a good dose of criticism means their evidence is weak.

    Finally can you understand that all I want to see people walking out of wheel chairs? And I would be happy to see YOUR SON walking out of chair (and all the quads) before me!

    I am not your enemy! Got it?
    In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

  5. #1425
    Quote Originally Posted by GRAMMY View Post
    You think the FDA will allow just any cell to be put in combination chronic therapies without being tested for safety? They'll require scaffolding and molecules to be tested before being added too.

    Many labs throughout the world are working with neural stem cells. Maybe biological cure with stem cells is something they should stop testing, but each and every component of a combination therapy has to be tested in order for the FDA to eventually approve the therapy. It would be silly to assume each piece of a combo will all alone provide significant recovery in it's Phase 1 safety stage. If that were the case, there would be no need for a combination therapy to help chronic SCI, we would just be waiting for an undiscovered miracle cell or pharma drug.
    Quote Originally Posted by paolocipolla View Post
    Or consider Neuralstem SCI trial. They did animal studies just on acute SCI that showed modest recovery and now they did 4 patients with chronic SCI.
    Guess what? It does not work.

    Probably they went straight on chronics because they didn't have money to do an acute trial, but they should have done chronic animal studies, not acute. Maybe their approach has a real potential (probably not) that could have been identified with proper animal studies that will be lost if the company will go bankrupt..
    I'm not skating around your points Paolo. I'm facing them head on because I do "get it". There's no reason to give this kind of rhetoric a pass. You don't make a case or supply data that you demand of others when you spout this "off the cuff" whimsical statement that clearly is not true or accurate. The weak point you talk about doesn't exist. These cells were worked on for years in both acute and chronic models in rat and pig. I know you say the patients will never show significant recovery but that certainly isn't what the patient video's look like so far. These cells did not just drop out of the sky into chronic human trials. There were not only hundreds of rats but the large animal chronic model was done in 80 mini-pig which was "Navarro et al. Journal of Neurotrauma 2012" shown in the video below and was required by the FDA before any chronic human trials could even begin. The costs and the work required by the FDA were very significant and the situation was disclosed in the panel discussion video below.

    Here's another important point. The FDA will require each and every component of a combination chronic therapy to undergo a safety trial. I know you don't like that, but it's the way it works. Each piece of the combo will not be some miracle spontaneous cure all by itself. People are capable of looking at the data prepared onto slides and listening to the presentations as the level of recovery is disclosed. These companies do a great job explaining why they are moving forward with more trials or their decision to abandon the therapy or treatment (be it lack of funding or efficacy). The number of cells administered so far is not extraordinarily high in this safety study. They are now learning that much depends on where the injections are made for different diseases. Joe explains that they were able to safely give up to 20 injections in the animals and hopes to give larger injections over a bigger area. They've also explained their work in imagining so they can look at what is actually happening in the cord. Their initial human treatment has been very conservative. Why would Neuralstem think to abandon chronic given the results shown so far in one of their first four patients or by the ones in the StemCells Inc. group? Or, why is StemCells Inc. announcing they are totally focusing now on chronic SCI only? Why would InVivo want to introduce their bioengineered neuraltrails?


    Last edited by GRAMMY; 02-24-2016 at 09:16 PM.

  6. #1426
    It's just my opinion Jim. U can't take all that money and not even be able to replicate the results. He promised the stars n didn't even produce earth dust. Like I said tho, those are my feelings nothing more

  7. #1427
    Quote Originally Posted by paolocipolla View Post
    I am not against this line of research, but I am just pointing out the weak points, so people can adjust their expectations. I would suggest you to do the same with your blog. If researchers can't survive a good dose of criticism means their evidence is weak.
    I don't think anyone is in need of adjusted thinking, but please provide us the finer points and "facts" that we can follow instead of inventing "weakness" that doesn't exist. Can you start here and add clarity to the situation?...

    Neural stem cells have been tested in chronic animal models along with human trial data being disclosed from two of them already (along with patient progress video's on the internet). I stand by the information I provide at the SCI science blog so the community can have access to an educational tool. It won't be used as a platform to display false rhetoric or waste peoples time reading internet entertainment about science and publication conspiracy theories. I find it much more important to encourage scientists to enter the neuro-regeneration field and biotech companies to invest in therapies and rehabilitation measures. It provides the community with an understanding of what is happening in the research labs and clinical trials along with hopefully being supportive of SCI work. I've always felt strongly that people need to have the factual information from scientists and biotech companies that attend these forums and conferences to give us information. This is a serious business my friend.

    Now in 2016, there's three major biotech's committed to chronic SCI trials with neural stem cells based on all kinds of animal data presented to the FDA, with one even announcing a future scaffold component. Since you do not think there was sufficient animal research evidence to warrant such chronic inclusion into the trial with neural stem cells, your beef would actually be against the FDA for being too lenient and allowing the human research to take place. I've never heard anyone complain about that or blame researchers for the FDA allowing chronic humans to be tested based on rat, pig and primate studies. I imagine the scientists would survive your good dose of complaining because it makes no sense and never was any researchers call to make for the FDA in the first place. The FDA was obviously satisfied and has allowed the initial cell trials to start moving forward. Funding has been given from the NIH, CIRM, Roman Reed Initiative, Veterans Administration and many others too numerous to mention that want to get potential treatments started.

    Luckily much of these efforts have been funded with US tax dollars and investments in these companies that haven't talked about bankruptcy. Since Italy doesn't allow animal testing, you may not be aware of the experiments that have already taken place in other countries but the information is freely available on the internet. There's lots of people reading here at Carecure that would love to have the return of sensation described in a neural stem cell clinical trial safety phase so far. LINK. Not all safety phases have a response due to low dosages or their stage ability (stemness). We have SCI patients from all over the world begging the FDA to lighten regulations and allow more treatment testing on human chronic SCI along with committees trying to change rules for patient inclusion. It makes sense to chill out, watch and learn from the data that has already been disclosed to the public on the progress being made in these Ph.1/2 safety trials rather than thrashing researchers/scientists and prematurely proclaiming every piece of future SCI therapies failures. I applaud the efforts of the researchers that include chronic animals, the FDA and any biotech that allows the older injuries to participate so we have the necessary pieces already safety approved. It's then possible to build a good future combo treatment for chronic SCI. We learn a ton of valuable information from every trial that allows chronic to participate.
    Last edited by GRAMMY; 02-24-2016 at 09:23 PM. Reason: added link

  8. #1428
    Quote Originally Posted by Han Solo View Post
    It's just my opinion Jim. U can't take all that money and not even be able to replicate the results. He promised the stars n didn't even produce earth dust. Like I said tho, those are my feelings nothing more
    Hi Han,

    I can understand your feelings. There was at least one group that tried to replicate Daveis' work without success. The question is why were they unable? Did Davies fabricate data, or did the other group overlook something important? It's too early at this point to make a definitive conclusion.

    Best,
    Charley

  9. #1429
    Thanks Charley,I hope I'm wrong n all comes out well

  10. #1430
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA, USA
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by Han Solo View Post
    Thanks Charley,I hope I'm wrong n all comes out well
    Hi Han Solo, you are not wrong. Davies pulled the wool over all the CareCure hopefuls who had put great faith in him because of what he said himself. He used them to only to solicit funds for his lab research and career.

    To paraphrase a poster, "is there is a member here who is unable to see the truth or is the member too proud to say mea culpa?" The answer is not that it's too early to make a definitive conclusion. The answer is it doesn't matter. Davies is done and gone far, far away.

    I have been injured for five longer years than you. I can say Davies will not come out well. I can't say something else will come out well, even a little well, in the near future (even beyond the perpetual five-year window horizon) even with all the other things going on (all versions of epidural stimulation, in vivo, neural stem cells, etc.). I keep hoping on though. Sorry, I can't be any more hopeful than that. Hope we all have other life interests in family, hobbies keeping us alive and kicking.

Similar Threads

  1. Stephen Davies Lab Report
    By Schmeky in forum Cure
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: 11-18-2008, 03:55 AM
  2. Quackwatch Update
    By Wise Young in forum Cure
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 09-18-2007, 03:42 PM
  3. Did you contribute to Dr. Davies?
    By litespeed4 in forum Cure
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-27-2006, 12:08 PM
  4. NABR Update
    By Wise Young in forum Cure
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-13-2003, 01:28 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-24-2002, 05:37 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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