Originally received from ' (Richard Parson)':

Greg, I'm attaching a text file version of a Voice of America that I found
floating around in cyberspace. Thought you might find this encouraging.
You might want to make it readable from your web page. The Voice of America
has a lot of credibility. Perhaps this report will help convince a few
skeptics. The Voice of America has been know for promoting freedom, and
this is in-keeping with their focus in a way.
You're doing a great job with this site. Keep up the good work!

Thanks

Richard

P.S. I have supported the Spinal Cord Society for many years. I wish they
would put up a web site too, but Chuck Carson doesn't seem to be very
computer literate. That's a shame. I'm an open minded person, and have
also supported Dr. John Steeves at the University of British Columbia in
Vancouver, Canada. I see you have a contact in Vancouver for your
organization. Do they have a fax number, e-mail address, or phone number?
Can you tell me how the focus of your organization differs from SCS? (Other
than SCS's lack of Internet presence) You can be frank, as I will hold any
comments confidential. I like to know the facts of pros and cons about
various organizations. I think it's best to recognize any weaknesses while
still trying to promote cooperation between the various groups that seem to
be mostly working in the same direction. It's a shame when some of the
turf-wars get in the way of the common goal, so I like to know where points
of friction are and do what I can to smooth things over. There was quite a
political battle within SCS Canada about 5 years ago, and I'd hate to see
that happen again. It was a waste of energy for everyone.

Date=12/1/95
Type=background report
Number=5-31793
Title=science today: spinal cord recovery
Byline=kate porteus
Dateline=washington
content=
Voiced at:

Intro: U.S. and Swiss researchers report a way to heal partially
severed spinal cords in rats. Kate Porteus tells us they are
cautiously optimistic the technique could eventually lead to a
new treatment for human victims of central nervous system
injuries.

TEXT: Severe injuries to the spinal cord are usually
permanently disabling because damaged nerves do not
re-grow. the body produces chemicals to block this process. one
inhibiting compound prevents the growth of the fatty tissue that
protects the nerve cells, so the injured cells do not send out
new connections.

But researchers from Georgetown University in Washington and the
University of Zurich in Switzerland report in the journal
"Nature" that they have partially overcome this problem. They
administered neutralizing antibodies to block this inhibiting
chemical in rats with spinal cord injuries. Georgetown
University cell biologist Barbara Bregman says the result was
re-growth of some of the damaged nerve routes from the animals'
brains and lasting improvement in their mobility.

// Bregman act //

We found that a number of pathways from the cortex to
the spinal cord and from lower levels of the brain stem
to the spinal cord increased the amount of growth that
they showed in the presence of the neutralizing
antibodies, that this growth persisted for long periods
of time -- we looked up to three months after the injury
-- and that the anatomical re-growth was also associated
with improved motor function in these animals, their
ability to walk on smooth surfaces and their reflex
movements as well.

// end act //

A surprising finding was the discovery that a little nerve
restoration goes a long way. In the damaged circuits, only
between five to 20 percent of the nerve pathways grew back. But
the rats' ability to move was significantly improved. MS.
Bregman gives one example.

// Bregman act //

If we look at aspects of locomotion, the degree of
recovery was -- in step length, for instance -- to
relatively normal levels, whereas there is a significant
decrease in step length after the spinal cord injury.

// end act //

Ms. Bregman believes one answer is that the nervous system has
back-up circuits that fill redundant roles. A cut in one does
not necessarily mean permanent loss of a specific function.
another possibility is that undamaged nerves reorganize and take
over jobs not originally assigned to them.

Yet recovery was not complete. Ms. Bregman says the rats were
clumsier than before their nerves were cut because many of their
fine motor skills did not return.

// Bregman act //

The other thing that is quite clear from the study was
that some of the movements recovered better, while in
other aspects of locomotor function -- for instance, the
accuracy of locomotion under difficult terrains -- was
not improved.

// end act //

still, the research is a genuine step forward, in the view of a
commentary in "nature" by anatomy expert clifford woolf of
university college london. he writes that before this study, the
prospect of achieving clinically significant recovery from
paralysis seemed very far off.

but mr. woolf tempers his optimism with caution because recovery
was partial and because the rat spinal cord is less dependent
than the human's on connections from the brain to retain movement
after being severed.

Barbara Bregman agrees that many questions must be answered
before doctors can treat spinal cord damage. One is whether the
new technique will help people who have been living with
long-term spinal cord injuries. So far, most research has
involved treatment immediately after injury. She also
acknowledges that her work provides only part of the solution.

// Bregman act //

I think that there are lots of pieces of the puzzle. I
think that there may be other inhibitory influences that
need to be masked after spinal cord injury. There may
be other positive influences that one may need to bring
toward the injured nervous system to increase the
capacity of nerve cells to re-grow or to recruit
additional neurons to mount a re-growth response.

// end act //

scientists familiar with the study say that several techniques
may have to be combined to restore damaged spinal cords before
culminating in truly meaningful rehabilitation. (signed)

neb/kp/dem/bg

01-dec-95 1:28 pm est (1828 utc)
nnnn

Source: Voice of America

Next Letter: Just to give you a flavor of at least one unhappy fellow, you may find
this interesting. What puzzles me about the letter is that this guy apparently works for
the NIH. When I noticed that he worked in the Mental Health department I was a
little more relieved.

Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 02:34:02 -0500 (EST)
From: "Paul A. Saunders" <>
To: winget <>
Subject: Re: spinal cord injury
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I don't have any qualms about scientific research which will eventually
lead to cures for disease states, but posting I was responding to lead
the reader to assume that a cure was just around the corner. I m
personally involved in research which examines how neurons die when
injured and am aware if of some of the literature related to spinal
injury. Most of the work I have seen to date deals with treatments such
as steroids and antioxidants which act as protective agents during the
first few critical hours and days after the initial injury takes place.
Although regrowth of nerve fibers can restore some lost function, if the
dammage is not to severe, I am not aware of research which is anywhere
close to restoring function when extensive dammage has taken place. To
make a posting which implies there is something which is just around the
corner and go here to read more about how you can get involved is a cruel
hoax on people with heartbeaking injuries. Like making identical clones
of yourself, a "cure for spinal cord injury" belongs in the realm of
science fiction for those who do not wish to be enumbered with physical
reality.

Paul A. Saunders, Ph.D.
Staff Fellow
Molecular Neurobiology Section
Biological Psychiatry Branch
National Institutes of Mental Health
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, MD