3 ms·

You are angry that science isn't progressing how you feel it should (i.e. solely into regenerative solutions and nothing else, ignoring the fact that the articl

You are angry that science isn't progressing how you feel it should (i.e. solely into regenerative solutions and nothing else, ignoring the fact that the article is about a solution that restores function). You are basing that on the fact that you feel that if one avenue is explored, other avenues will not be. This fact is not substantiated (and as far as I've understood in the past, it can't be - the data isn't available. But you're welcome to prove me wrong). The only leftover arguments are then "people prefer more complete solutions", but is a little unbelievable that these same people would not prefer any solution at all over no solution. And "I have decades of experience" is supposed to somehow stifle the fact that some people do not agree with you. An argument from background is just not very compelling, you do not have one based on logic and in terms of feelings you are so antagonistic the primary response is to not engage with your argument positively. If you truly want to change someone's mind, I'd really start with toning down the antagonism. Or if you must be, at least provide a more compelling logical argument based on some actual data.

0xbadc0de5 3y ago
You do have a point and I'll acknowledge that "coming in hot" was far from the best approach and certainly not as persuasive as a calmly reasoned argument without the emotion would have been. But I need to stress that I do not see the whole endeavour of solving spinal cord injury as pointless - I just see the biological approach as having far more promise albeit much less attention for a number of reasons, including the implant approach being less burdened with regulation and having more spin-off potential. I'll reiterate my previous statement that I do want to see real progress made, but I honestly (and I believe correctly) see this approach as a dead-end. There have just been so many similar "successful" studies that failed to translate into useful / effective treatments. I am highly skeptical of the stated results given that there have been so many studies like this that went nowhere (what happened to the last 10, 20, etc previous attempts?). Maybe it's different this time? I invite you to follow-up on this individual's progress in a year or two. Many of the previous studies also claimed similar results - or at least pop-media sensationalised already generously interpreted results to make it seem so. But if they were all so successful, why are they not routinely used? Given how important mobility is to quality of life and how costly its impairment is, why is it that of the dozens, even hundreds of "successful" studies, most people affected by SCI see no benefit? I think we have to at least consider the possibility that these particular treatments are not as successful or as effective as the studies claim at providing net quality of life improvement. And I think this also addresses your argument that any solution is better than no solution, which presupposes that what we're looking at is in fact a solution and not just another "successful" study that gets shelved because of its inability to translate into a treatment that provides a net quality of life improvement. Just a handful of previous studies for reference: 1. Epidural Stimulation (dates back to 2002): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8374568/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8374568/ 2. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (dates back to 1997): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589923/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589923/ 3. Functional electrical stimulation (dates back prior to 2004): https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Functional_electrical_stimulation https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Functional_electrical_stimula... 4. Spinal Cord Neuromodulation (dates back prior to 2007): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17387353/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17387353/ 5. Magnetic Spinal Cord Stimulation (dates back to at least 2018): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-30232-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-30232-z
- krageon 3y ago
  This is very interesting, thank you for the in-depth response

0xbadc0de5 3y ago

You do have a point and I'll acknowledge that "coming in hot" was far from the best approach and certainly not as persuasive as a calmly reasoned argument without the emotion would have been. But I need to stress that I do not see the whole endeavour of solving spinal cord injury as pointless - I just see the biological approach as having far more promise albeit much less attention for a number of reasons, including the implant approach being less burdened with regulation and having more spin-off potential. I'll reiterate my previous statement that I do want to see real progress made, but I honestly (and I believe correctly) see this approach as a dead-end. There have just been so many similar "successful" studies that failed to translate into useful / effective treatments. I am highly skeptical of the stated results given that there have been so many studies like this that went nowhere (what happened to the last 10, 20, etc previous attempts?). Maybe it's different this time? I invite you to follow-up on this individual's progress in a year or two. Many of the previous studies also claimed similar results - or at least pop-media sensationalised already generously interpreted results to make it seem so. But if they were all so successful, why are they not routinely used? Given how important mobility is to quality of life and how costly its impairment is, why is it that of the dozens, even hundreds of "successful" studies, most people affected by SCI see no benefit? I think we have to at least consider the possibility that these particular treatments are not as successful or as effective as the studies claim at providing net quality of life improvement. And I think this also addresses your argument that any solution is better than no solution, which presupposes that what we're looking at is in fact a solution and not just another "successful" study that gets shelved because of its inability to translate into a treatment that provides a net quality of life improvement. Just a handful of previous studies for reference: 1. Epidural Stimulation (dates back to 2002): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8374568/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8374568/ 2. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (dates back to 1997): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589923/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589923/ 3. Functional electrical stimulation (dates back prior to 2004): https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Functional_electrical_stimulation https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Functional_electrical_stimula... 4. Spinal Cord Neuromodulation (dates back prior to 2007): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17387353/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17387353/ 5. Magnetic Spinal Cord Stimulation (dates back to at least 2018): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-30232-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-30232-z

krageon 3y ago
This is very interesting, thank you for the in-depth response