Page 25 of 145 FirstFirst ... 15161718192021222324252627282930313233343575125 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 1442

Thread: Stephen Davies Update

  1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger
    Dr. Davies

    Thank you for posting on Carecure. Your posts mean more to me than you can possibly imagine. I watch for your posts all day everyday. Any signs of encouragement mean a great deal. Please continue to post as often as possible. I'm not suggesting that you mislead anyone but if you can post any encouraging words it means a great deal.

    Thanks

    Roger
    Hi Roger,
    I'm sure you will be pleased to hear that the reason I have not posted quite as much recently is because I have been in the lab helping my staff conduct SCI regeneration experiments. We even worked right through the holidays (without a single day off). Once experiments are started that are designed to quantify recovery of function or test for unwanted side effects such as neuropathic pain in SCI rats, then different sets of treated or matched untreated rats end up having to be tested almost every day. Once the behavioral experiments are over, spinal cords and brains for each rat need to be dissected out and tissue prepared for either histological or biochemical analysis which can then take several more days to complete per rat. In the last 3 days alone we have dissected 40 spinal cords that we will now analyze.

    From some of the posts on this forum and others I get the sense that some (not all) members of the SCI community are very frustrated about the pace of SCI research. This frustration is wholly understandable given the severe disabilities that many of you are enduring. However in our defense, cell biology / SCI regeneration experiments that involve adult animals are well known to be very labor intensive compared to say just conducting tissue culture experiments (which we also do). This is why SCI regeneration research labs publish relatively few papers per year compared to say biochemists (many of whom don't even work with live cells, let alone adult SCI rats). Nevertheless my lab is in a situation where we have already identified two very exciting new potential therapies (Decorin and GDAs) and can now focus all our efforts towards their transition to clinical trial as rapidly as possible. What I can say at the moment is that things are going even better than I could have expected. In working with naturally occuring cells and molecules such as GDAs and decorin, nature is showing us the way!
    Last edited by Stephen Davies; 01-16-2008 at 04:40 PM.

  2. #242
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Davies
    Hi Roger,
    I'm sure you will be pleased to hear that the reason I have not posted quite as much recently is because I have been in the lab helping my staff conduct SCI regeneration experiments. We even worked right through the holidays (without a single day off). Once experiments are started that are designed to quantify recovery of function or test for unwanted side effects such as neuropathic pain in SCI rats, then different sets of treated or matched untreated rats end up having to be tested also every day. Once the behavioral experiments are over, spinal cords and brains for each rat need to be dissected out and tissue prepared for either histological or biochemical analysis which can then take several more days to complete per rat. In the last 3 days alone we have dissected 40 spinal cords that we will now analyze.

    From some of the posts on this forum and others I get the sense that some (not all) members of the SCI community are very frustrated about the pace of SCI research. This frustration is wholly understandable given the severe disabilities that many of you are enduring. However in our defense, cell biology / SCI regeneration experiments that involve adult animals are well known to be very labor intensive compared to say just conducting tissue culture experiments (which we also do). This is why SCI regeneration research labs publish relatively few papers per year compared to say biochemists (many of whom don't even work with live cells, let alone adult SCI rats). Nevertheless my lab is in a situation where we have already identified two very exciting new potential therapies (Decorin and GDAs) and can now focus all our efforts towards their transition to clinical trial as rapidly as possible. What I can say at the moment is that things are going even better that I could have expected. In working with naturally occuring cells and molecules such as GDAs and decorin, nature is showing us the way!
    I get to be the first person to let you know that this news is exciting me! I am frustrated at the timelines, but concurrently highly appreciative that we have minds like yours tackling this quandary from different angles. Thank you very much, and congratulations on the results.
    No one ever became unsuccessful by helping others out

  3. #243
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Phoenix AZ
    Posts
    654
    Dr. Davies

    Thank you very much for your dedication and the good news update. Your work is so important to all who have SCI injuries or to us who have family and friends with SCI injuries. Your words give us hope.

    Dr. Davies I've read your post several times and I can't tell you how much this means to me. It means more than I can express.

    Thank You

    Roger
    Last edited by Roger; 01-16-2008 at 05:53 PM.

  4. #244
    Thank you dr. Davies!!!

  5. #245
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    17,427
    Pain vs. benefits and risk.

    Dr. Stehen Davies,
    First let me thank you very much like the above posters did for your efforts on working to solve the sci enigma. Timelines aside, but only we in the sci community can add speed to that one, so no worries. -It is much appreciated that mainstream and well-qualified research of excellence universities takes a grab on this problem to aim to fix it in some labs several places in the world, with the aim to fix sci. But I have one question to ask regarding the pain issue, it is by quoting you above and then follow up with some questions as for the naturopathic pain issue:
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Davies
    Hi Roger,
    I'm sure you will be pleased to hear that the reason I have not posted quite as much recently is because I have been in the lab helping my staff conduct SCI regeneration experiments. We even worked right through the holidays (without a single day off). Once experiments are started that are designed to quantify recovery of function or test for unwanted side effects such as neuropathic pain in SCI rats, then different sets of treated or matched untreated rats end up having to be tested almost every day. Once the behavioral experiments are over, spinal cords and brains for each rat need to be dissected out and tissue prepared for either histological or biochemical analysis which can then take several more days to complete per rat. In the last 3 days alone we have dissected 40 spinal cords that we will now analyze.
    Dr. Davies. When it comes to spinal cord injury basick research treatments one have heard a lot of not wanting to add more additional pain, which is good. But as for this in general, is there a risk that the established scientific community views all risks up against this as for the able person or say themselves, sort of, the risks for adding pain in research treatments to a normal able person (nothing against being a able person though). Thus the risk analyses as such established in modern medicine and even within the clinical trial programs as such might not meet the required prerequisite in trials for finding a cure for spinal cord injuries? I’m not talking about experimental “stuff overseas” here, but could the standards as for modern medicine routines be to high say for the research of treatments for spinal cord injury in general? I mean, any trial or research like accepted in the western research world and by those practioners are good as for not making any harm, but as for many spinal cord injured the pain is present with already naturopathic pain etc. thus such no harm standard might seem like a two-edged sword? One don’t want to make more harm, like naturopathic pain of course, but as for the standard on sci research and subsequent trials would the established general standard to “do not harm” be the right one as such? Like research treatment strategies for spinal cord injuries are ongoing and in some time trials will be here, would not the conducting of trials for spinal cord injured be something to be investigated itself due to this? Meaning many with spinal cord injuries already has pain. To add more one don’t want, but to me the standard for trials also has to be investigated more broadly when it comes to conducting such trials when it comes to spinal cord injuries and similar conditions. What are you’re thoughts on that? Difficult to answer I believe, maybe the spinal cord injured themselves should answer. But could you give a general analysis on such thoughts? Hope you understood my point, a bit difficult to explain. But in short, does the trial system need to be reviewed/revised/upgraded to meet the requirements when it comes to future trials for sci when basic research will be carried out to take it to the trial for the clinics for the best benefits of the sci community? Many thanks for you’re hard work. Leif.
    Last edited by Leif; 01-16-2008 at 05:16 PM.

  6. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by Leif
    Pain vs. benefits and risk.

    Dr. Stehen Davies,
    First let me thank you very much like the above posters did for your efforts on working to solve the sci enigma. Timelines aside, but only we in the sci community can add speed to that one, so no worries. -It is much appreciated that mainstream and well-qualified research of excellence universities takes a grab on this problem to aim to fix it in some labs several places in the world, with the aim to fix sci. But I have one question to ask regarding the pain issue, it is by quoting you above and then follow up with some questions as for the naturopathic pain issue:
    Dr. Davies. When it comes to spinal cord injury basick research treatments one have heard a lot of not wanting to add more additional pain, which is good. But as for this in general, is there a risk that the established scientific community views all risks up against this as for the able person or say themselves, sort of, the risks for adding pain in research treatments to a normal able person (nothing against being a able person though). Thus the risk analyses as such established in modern medicine and even within the clinical trial programs as such might not meet the required prerequisite in trials for finding a cure for spinal cord injuries? I’m not talking about experimental “stuff overseas” here, but could the standards as for modern medicine routines be to high say for the research of treatments for spinal cord injury in general? I mean, any trial or research like accepted in the western research world and by those practioners are good as for not making any harm, but as for many spinal cord injured the pain is present with already naturopathic pain etc. thus such no harm standard might seem like a two-edged sword? One don’t want to make more harm, like naturopathic pain of course, but as for the standard on sci research and subsequent trials would the established general standard to “do not harm” be the right one as such? Like research treatment strategies for spinal cord injuries are ongoing and in some time trials will be here, would not the conducting of trials for spinal cord injured be something to be investigated itself due to this? Meaning many with spinal cord injuries already has pain. To add more one don’t want, but to me the standard for trials also has to be investigated more broadly when it comes to conducting such trials when it comes to spinal cord injuries and similar conditions. What are you’re thoughts on that? Difficult to answer I believe, maybe the spinal cord injured themselves should answer. But could you give a general analysis on such thoughts? Hope you understood my point, a bit difficult to explain. But in short, does the trial system need to be reviewed/revised/upgraded to meet the requirements when it comes to future trials for sci when basic research will be carried out to take it to the trial for the clinics for the best benefits of the sci community? Many thanks for you’re hard work. Leif.
    Hi Leif,
    Neuropathic pain alone can be so severe that it can even confine otherwise healthy peope (i.e. those will full use of their limbs) to wheel chairs. Then I suppose we could have a theoretical discussion about what degrees of increased neuropathic pain someone with an SCI might be willing to tolerate versus their recovery of function. I personally think that increasing neuropathic pain should be avoided at all costs and that we can develop effective SCI treatments that avoid this problem.

  7. #247
    Senior Member kate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    bellevue, wa, usa
    Posts
    10,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Davies
    What I can say at the moment is that things are going even better than I could have expected. In working with naturally occuring cells and molecules such as GDAs and decorin, nature is showing us the way!
    That's all I wanted to hear.
    Thanks for keeping us posted!

  8. #248
    Thank you Stephen. As ever, an exciting read. Wishing you the best of British for 08'

  9. #249
    Thanks for the update Dr. Davies.

    The frustration is with our government that refuses to fund
    this research. We know that the science is at a point where
    it can only move as fast as money allows.

  10. #250

    New Contact information for Donations

    Hi Everyone,
    In light of the problems that some people have been having making donations to support my SCI research program at University of Colorado Denver, here below is the contact information for two administrators at the CU Foundation who are now personally taking care of managing donations to the Neuro Repair fund. Note that as before all donations are used exclusively for funding my labs SCI research program.

    Either Tom and/or Amy can be contacted by those wishing to make a new donation (by wire or credit card) and also by anyone who has already made a donation (many thanks once again) and who has further questions they would like answered.


    Tom Schuyler
    Associate Vice President / Senior Principal Gifts Officer,
    University of Colorado Foundation,
    Health Sciences Center
    4200 E. 9th Ave., Room 2817A,
    Denver, CO 80262,
    USA.
    Tel: 303-315-0984 (office)
    Cell: 303-548-9710
    Fax: 303-315-0998
    Email: tom.schuyler@cufund.org

    Amy Hoza
    Development Assistant
    University of Colorado Foundation
    Email: amy.hoza@cufund.org

    Mon / Thurs / Fri
    Tel:303-315-0127
    Fax: 303-315-0998
    Tues / Wed
    Tel: 303-813-7928
    Fax: 303-813-7958

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
  •