One recent point of interest is that Dietrich Mateschitz, owner of Redbull, has donated 70m euros to spinal cord injury research. This is a LOT of money in comparison to the combined annual fundraising of all of our SCI cure organisations. It will be interesting to see how they choose to spend it.
0
1 votes
Any One Else Feel Like We Are Not Progressing Or Advancing At A;;
Started by
Charlie-boi
, Feb 07 2012 01:27 AM
38 replies to this topic
Top#32
Tetracyclone
-
- Members
-
- 3,409 posts
Advanced Member
- Gender:Female
- Country:Upstate New York, USA
- Spinal Injury Level / Relationship:C-5-7 incomplete
Posted 12 February 2012 - 04:44 PM
Bongo- I suggest more research on your computer, for which you can just subtract a wee bit of your time spent venting about "big interests".
Big Oil has been investing in alternative energy sources for years. Chevron has geothermal plants in the Philippines and Indonesia. It also has a cutting-edge technology solar installation on land in Bakersfield, California where they decommissioned a refinery. many of the large oil companies invest heavily in natural gas and LNG technology and production. They absolutely do not oppose alternative energies- they invest in them IF they conclude the technology can be made efficient and competitive. Does that mean profitable? Of course. Profit is the measure of efficiency.
RE Microsoft Corporation-Microsoft seems to be your shorthand label for human greed and unethical behavior. Yup, that will always bee with us, however, greed does not define all human conduct. It just doesn't. It is only one piece of a complex picture.
A few posters have mentioned wheel chair and drug companies. None of them "depend on the continuation of our condition for healthy profit margins". Our numbers are too small. Few of them have healthy profit margins- many non-pharmaceutical companies just hang on. Pharma- well, their profit margins vary- big pharma is in trouble. Companies that produce a mainstay like baclofen, which has been a generic for a long time, make and guard their modest profit margins by running very tight manufacturing operations. No generic is a cash cow. Generic producers also depend on the ability to shift a production line from one drug to another at modest expense. This is how they stay in business, not by depending on one particular drug. It is not a big margin business.
Bongorum, you have a good mind, but there is always a danger in over-generalizing.
Lian- i found your post sensible and not denigrating of anyone. Hope to see more of you on the forum.
Big Oil has been investing in alternative energy sources for years. Chevron has geothermal plants in the Philippines and Indonesia. It also has a cutting-edge technology solar installation on land in Bakersfield, California where they decommissioned a refinery. many of the large oil companies invest heavily in natural gas and LNG technology and production. They absolutely do not oppose alternative energies- they invest in them IF they conclude the technology can be made efficient and competitive. Does that mean profitable? Of course. Profit is the measure of efficiency.
RE Microsoft Corporation-Microsoft seems to be your shorthand label for human greed and unethical behavior. Yup, that will always bee with us, however, greed does not define all human conduct. It just doesn't. It is only one piece of a complex picture.
A few posters have mentioned wheel chair and drug companies. None of them "depend on the continuation of our condition for healthy profit margins". Our numbers are too small. Few of them have healthy profit margins- many non-pharmaceutical companies just hang on. Pharma- well, their profit margins vary- big pharma is in trouble. Companies that produce a mainstay like baclofen, which has been a generic for a long time, make and guard their modest profit margins by running very tight manufacturing operations. No generic is a cash cow. Generic producers also depend on the ability to shift a production line from one drug to another at modest expense. This is how they stay in business, not by depending on one particular drug. It is not a big margin business.
Bongorum, you have a good mind, but there is always a danger in over-generalizing.
Lian- i found your post sensible and not denigrating of anyone. Hope to see more of you on the forum.
Look! It's a snail! It's a sloth! Able to creep short distances before lunch!
#33
Tetracyclone
-
- Members
-
- 3,409 posts
Advanced Member
- Gender:Female
- Country:Upstate New York, USA
- Spinal Injury Level / Relationship:C-5-7 incomplete
Posted 12 February 2012 - 04:44 PM
Bongo- I suggest more research on your computer, for which you can just subtract a wee bit of your time spent venting about "big interests".
Big Oil has been investing in alternative energy sources for years. Chevron has geothermal plants in the Philippines and Indonesia. It also has a cutting-edge technology solar installation on land in Bakersfield, California where they decommissioned a refinery. many of the large oil companies invest heavily in natural gas and LNG technology and production. They absolutely do not oppose alternative energies- they invest in them IF they conclude the technology can be made efficient and competitive. Does that mean profitable? Of course. Profit is the measure of efficiency.
RE Microsoft Corporation-Microsoft seems to be your shorthand label for human greed and unethical behavior. Yup, that will always bee with us, however, greed does not define all human conduct. It just doesn't. It is only one piece of a complex picture.
A few posters have mentioned wheel chair and drug companies. None of them "depend on the continuation of our condition for healthy profit margins". Our numbers are too small. Few of them have healthy profit margins- many non-pharmaceutical companies just hang on. Pharma- well, their profit margins vary- big pharma is in trouble. Companies that produce a mainstay like baclofen, which has been a generic for a long time, make and guard their modest profit margins by running very tight manufacturing operations. No generic is a cash cow. Generic producers also depend on the ability to shift a production line from one drug to another at modest expense. This is how they stay in business, not by depending on one particular drug. It is not a big margin business.
Bongorum, you have a good mind, but there is always a danger in over-generalizing.
Lian- i found your post sensible and not denigrating of anyone. Hope to see more of you on the forum.
Big Oil has been investing in alternative energy sources for years. Chevron has geothermal plants in the Philippines and Indonesia. It also has a cutting-edge technology solar installation on land in Bakersfield, California where they decommissioned a refinery. many of the large oil companies invest heavily in natural gas and LNG technology and production. They absolutely do not oppose alternative energies- they invest in them IF they conclude the technology can be made efficient and competitive. Does that mean profitable? Of course. Profit is the measure of efficiency.
RE Microsoft Corporation-Microsoft seems to be your shorthand label for human greed and unethical behavior. Yup, that will always bee with us, however, greed does not define all human conduct. It just doesn't. It is only one piece of a complex picture.
A few posters have mentioned wheel chair and drug companies. None of them "depend on the continuation of our condition for healthy profit margins". Our numbers are too small. Few of them have healthy profit margins- many non-pharmaceutical companies just hang on. Pharma- well, their profit margins vary- big pharma is in trouble. Companies that produce a mainstay like baclofen, which has been a generic for a long time, make and guard their modest profit margins by running very tight manufacturing operations. No generic is a cash cow. Generic producers also depend on the ability to shift a production line from one drug to another at modest expense. This is how they stay in business, not by depending on one particular drug. It is not a big margin business.
Bongorum, you have a good mind, but there is always a danger in over-generalizing.
Lian- i found your post sensible and not denigrating of anyone. Hope to see more of you on the forum.
Look! It's a snail! It's a sloth! Able to creep short distances before lunch!
#34
Charlie-boi
-
- Members
-
- 242 posts
Member
- Gender:Male
- Country:Wales
- Spinal Injury Level / Relationship:T-12/10 complete
Posted 12 February 2012 - 08:32 PM
FlyPelicanFly, on 12 February 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:
One recent point of interest is that Dietrich Mateschitz, owner of Redbull, has donated 70m euros to spinal cord injury research. This is a LOT of money in comparison to the combined annual fundraising of all of our SCI cure organisations. It will be interesting to see how they choose to spend it.
this is the kind of thing needed.... I get so disheartened when i see the biggest fund raisers for like sci research only makeing 40 k or something. 2 peoples operations alone when first injured wouldnt even cover it.
Time to crack open a RED BULL.
#36
Imposter
-
- Members
-
- 51 posts
Newbie
- Gender:Male
- Country:Ireland - West
- Spinal Injury Level / Relationship:T12/L1 Complete
Posted 17 February 2012 - 12:09 PM
Charlie-boi, on 12 February 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:
FlyPelicanFly, on 12 February 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:
One recent point of interest is that Dietrich Mateschitz, owner of Redbull, has donated 70m euros to spinal cord injury research. This is a LOT of money in comparison to the combined annual fundraising of all of our SCI cure organisations. It will be interesting to see how they choose to spend it.
this is the kind of thing needed.... I get so disheartened when i see the biggest fund raisers for like sci research only makeing 40 k or something. 2 peoples operations alone when first injured wouldnt even cover it.
Time to crack open a RED BULL.
Hi Charlie,
I would try not to become too disheartened, while the amount is low in comparison to large one off donations, the work in raising money has an added benefit that may be lost in the figure, and that is it raises the profile of Spinal Injury, which in comparison to other charities, which are good too.
So who ever is raising money be it large or small, every penny counts. So to all fundraisers out there keep up the good work.
#37
fatz
-
- Members
-
- 5 posts
Newbie
- Gender:Female
- Country:England
- Spinal Injury Level / Relationship:C5
Posted 18 February 2012 - 05:53 PM
Just come across this on the spinal research UK website
Great results from our Chondroitinase study
A microscope image of the Chondroitinase enzyme
A Spinal Research project which is developing the enzyme chondroitinase for use in clinical trials to repair the injured spinal cord is reporting some excellent results.
Following spinal cord injury (SCI), nerve cells fail to regenerate, resulting in permanent paralysis. This is due in part to the presence of molecules in the injury zone that are inhibitory to nerve regrowth. Chondroitinase is a bacterial enzyme which removes these inhibitory molecules and also appears to reactivate the ability of intact nerve fibres to sprout new growths (‘plasticity’), enabling them to make new connections and take over the functions of the damaged nerve cells; it has also been shown to promote nerve cell survival. These multiple properties of the enzyme make it a very promising candidate for the treatment of human SCI.
However, it is likely that repeated injections over several weeks would be required for treatment carrying the risk of causing further trauma and also of triggering an immune reaction in the patient.
Our project based at the University of Cambridge under the supervision of Dr Liz Muir has the aim of developing a form of deliverable chondroitinase which is safe and effective for use in clinical trials with injured patients.
In a Spinal Research-funded collaboration with Dr Liz Bradbury (University College London) the team have tested the delivery of the enzyme via viral vectors (particular types of controlled viruses) and they have shown that viral delivery of the gene that creates the enzyme has resulted in the most extensive removal of inhibitory molecules around the site of SCI seen to date.
They also found that active enzyme was still present eight weeks after a single injection (doing away with the need for multiple injections) and that the enzyme delivered by this method does not damage tissue.
In addition, when the virus is injected into the site of injury, it prevents much of the secondary tissue damage that normally ensues, resulting in the sparing of many nerve cells, dramatically improved nerve function, and significant improvements in behavioural function.
These results show that this method of delivery, carrying the dual advantage of safety and longevity, is suitable for further development and use in patients.
The team are now collaborating with numerous laboratories around the world to futher develop this therapy with promising results.
It may be slow but things are happening, would be so good if we could get this to clinical trial!
Great results from our Chondroitinase study
A microscope image of the Chondroitinase enzyme
A Spinal Research project which is developing the enzyme chondroitinase for use in clinical trials to repair the injured spinal cord is reporting some excellent results.
Following spinal cord injury (SCI), nerve cells fail to regenerate, resulting in permanent paralysis. This is due in part to the presence of molecules in the injury zone that are inhibitory to nerve regrowth. Chondroitinase is a bacterial enzyme which removes these inhibitory molecules and also appears to reactivate the ability of intact nerve fibres to sprout new growths (‘plasticity’), enabling them to make new connections and take over the functions of the damaged nerve cells; it has also been shown to promote nerve cell survival. These multiple properties of the enzyme make it a very promising candidate for the treatment of human SCI.
However, it is likely that repeated injections over several weeks would be required for treatment carrying the risk of causing further trauma and also of triggering an immune reaction in the patient.
Our project based at the University of Cambridge under the supervision of Dr Liz Muir has the aim of developing a form of deliverable chondroitinase which is safe and effective for use in clinical trials with injured patients.
In a Spinal Research-funded collaboration with Dr Liz Bradbury (University College London) the team have tested the delivery of the enzyme via viral vectors (particular types of controlled viruses) and they have shown that viral delivery of the gene that creates the enzyme has resulted in the most extensive removal of inhibitory molecules around the site of SCI seen to date.
They also found that active enzyme was still present eight weeks after a single injection (doing away with the need for multiple injections) and that the enzyme delivered by this method does not damage tissue.
In addition, when the virus is injected into the site of injury, it prevents much of the secondary tissue damage that normally ensues, resulting in the sparing of many nerve cells, dramatically improved nerve function, and significant improvements in behavioural function.
These results show that this method of delivery, carrying the dual advantage of safety and longevity, is suitable for further development and use in patients.
The team are now collaborating with numerous laboratories around the world to futher develop this therapy with promising results.
It may be slow but things are happening, would be so good if we could get this to clinical trial!
#38
richo
-
- Members
-
- 290 posts
Member
- Gender:Male
- Country:australia
- Spinal Injury Level / Relationship:T4 COMPLETE
Posted 20 February 2012 - 05:38 AM
edlee, on 10 February 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:
I am often disheartened, by the need of some to have a "satan" to blame. These"great empirists" ,, who make "so much money" off the backs of the poor disabled community.
Sorry,,, but in my opinion,,, that's a load. There is a far larger market for baby strollers than for wheelchairs,, for cough syrup than baclyfin. There simply isn't enough market share to conjure up a conglomerate who would fight to keep us as we are. One hears conspiratists,, with their myriad of theories,,, all accusing someone of seeking control over someone else. I'm afraid that it doesn't fly, in this case.
The "breakthrough" will come about when someone finds a way to get our own bodies to shed scar tissue. It already regrows nerve tissue ( an unheard of thought when I went to school 50 years ago,,,,, god,, am I that old???) ,, albeit, slowly. It simply doesn't do so across the scar tissue left after out injuries. It sounds so simple,,, and so complex,, all at once,,, but short of finding a way to transplant a part of the spinal cord, itself,, I don't see alternatives.
BUT,, some researchers do,,, so the studies go on. I appreciate them,, and I aplaud them,,, but I don't expect them t hurry on my account.
ed
Sorry,,, but in my opinion,,, that's a load. There is a far larger market for baby strollers than for wheelchairs,, for cough syrup than baclyfin. There simply isn't enough market share to conjure up a conglomerate who would fight to keep us as we are. One hears conspiratists,, with their myriad of theories,,, all accusing someone of seeking control over someone else. I'm afraid that it doesn't fly, in this case.
The "breakthrough" will come about when someone finds a way to get our own bodies to shed scar tissue. It already regrows nerve tissue ( an unheard of thought when I went to school 50 years ago,,,,, god,, am I that old???) ,, albeit, slowly. It simply doesn't do so across the scar tissue left after out injuries. It sounds so simple,,, and so complex,, all at once,,, but short of finding a way to transplant a part of the spinal cord, itself,, I don't see alternatives.
BUT,, some researchers do,,, so the studies go on. I appreciate them,, and I aplaud them,,, but I don't expect them t hurry on my account.
ed
#39
Ferreira
-
- Members
-
- 84 posts
Newbie
- Gender:Male
- Country:Portugal
- Spinal Injury Level / Relationship:T1
Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:35 PM
DannyR, on 07 February 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:
Look at what they have done with cancer. I would hate to think of the money that has been poured into cancer research with not a whole lot of progress. Think of the years of research that has gone on. They have come up with better treatment and can make your life longer but just can't quite find a cure. Why do you think that is? This is a disease that everyone is aware of and I would venture a guess that probably everyone has lost someone close to cancer. How many have loved ones with SCI? How many people are even aware of SCI? You can talk with anyone about the suffering that goes along with cancer but noone understands the suffering that goes with SCI. For that matter how much your entire body is affected. Who would think about the wear and tear a wheelchair has on your shoulders or the pressure sores or bladder infections.They don't understand how frustrating it is to have trouble doing things that everyone takes for granted...simple things. How do you make someone understand what it feels like to be in a hospital bed and want to adjust the thermometer but you can't. They don't know the feeling when a dr. tells you that may not be able to walk again or won't walk again. People look at those of us can walk and say well at least you can walk not knowing how much energy it takes to take a step. They don't see the bruises from the falls we take. The pain we feel everyday!!How do you make people understand what it is like to mourn the lose of your life? The anxiety attacks,the feelings of being helpless, losing your role in the family? The only way to get people interested is to find a way to make them understand all this and so much more.
That is exacly what i feel, couldnt have said it better than you!
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
