Slashdot Mirror
Paralyzed Man Regains Hand Function After Breakthrough Nerve Rewiring Procedure
An anonymous reader writes "A 71-year-old man who became paralyzed from the waist down and lost all use of both hands in a 2008 car accident has regained motor function in his fingers after doctors rewired his nerves to bypass the damaged ones in a pioneering surgical procedure, according to a case study published on Tuesday."
Pretty amazing surgery, but watching the videos shows limited restoration of function. The key is getting the transplanted/regenerating nerves to make the proper connections. The surgery is not going to re-wire the incredible number of connections made during development. Neural prostheses currently offer better dexterity and restoration of function than the nerve transplant. However, it is likely only a matter of time (maybe sever decades) before the neural re-wiring problem is solved.
If anyone was curious like me for a proper article on these upside-down glasses experiments, here is a link though be warned that it is a PDF.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
A new procedure is a (usually) physical procedure on 1 single person who is consenting. If it goes wrong only 1 person is harmed (or not improving at least)
A new drug is something (bio)chemical of which the long term implications are more difficult to oversee. Aspirin is with us now since 1860 or so and still we find out new benefits and drawbacks of it. Further still, it is to be given as a treatment to a much larger set of individuals, so the potential harm done is therefore greater and thus needs more and rigorous testing before it can be deployed.
So I think (although I am not at all a medic) that therefore the consent of only the patient is enough if the applicable law's and Hipocratic oath is not broken in such matters.
rm -rf --no-preserve-root /
The majority of the people that work at the FDA either worked for the companies they regulate in the past, or will work for them after they leave the FDA
Well, if I were running a drug comapny I would want someone who knows the ins and outs of the bureaucracy, and if I were running a regulatory agency I'd want to hire someone who knows the ins and outs of the industry.
Why don't they regulate "Supplements"?
Because the law doesn't allow them to. That's not the FDA's fault, that's your legislator's fault.
Why do they regulate so many rudimentary anti-inflammatory drugs that have no addictive properties at all?
Because too much aspirin or too much Naproxin Sodium can eat a hole in your intestine wall, and too much acetominaphin (which I don't know how to spell) can ruin your liver. A better question is why they're not regulating addictive drugs like alcohol and tobacco. Of course the reason is because they're regulated by the ATF (which I think should be abolished).
Why can I get enough Tylenol at a gas station to kill 10 people but my asthma inhaler I need a prescription for?
Because the asthma inhaler has steroids, and steroids can do a LOT of things to really fuck you up real good; for instance, steroid eyedrops will give you cataracts (I found this out when I was prescribed them for an eye infection and wound up getting cataract surgery in that eye as a result; it was the eye doctor that told me the steroids caused the cataract).
Get rid of the FDA and you're going to see a hell of a lot more worthless snake oil on the market, which is why the FDA was started in the first place.
Does the tinfoil hat work best shiny side in or shiny side out?
Free Martian Whores!