Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Both links in this thread indicate...very clearly..that this is still experimental....in other words...clinical trials..
Doesn’t mean anything til anything is tried with a control group...
Mayo Clinic wants cash BTW...
Second link was even more definitive as to the unproven nature...as in any treatment that has not undergone clinical trials..
Might work...might not
Oh, it's used all over the world and for many many years. Clinical trials???? I had the original work done in my shoulder and got 3 yrs pain free shoulder.
Surgery world doesn't want these injections as surgeons could lose a big part of their incomes. Rehabs could lose money, drug companies could lose money....with PRP/Stem Cells that's it, no rehabs, no drugs.
It seems that the study was inconclusive because they didn't include any control subjects who should have received only saline injections in BOTH knees, because now they are thinking it might have helped both knees systemically, or was it just placebo effect??? I'm surprised that they overlooked this possibility in the design of the study from such a reputable hospital.
Surgery world doesn't want these injections as surgeons could lose a big part of their incomes. Rehabs could lose money, drug companies could lose money....with PRP/Stem Cells that's it, no rehabs, no drugs.
Disagree with this. That's a [expletive deleted] view of the medical world, I'm sorry. There is more then enough surgery in the word to keep surgeons in business. And plenty of people to prescribe drugs for...
I just find the fact that there have been no vigorously designed, peer reviewed clinical studies to show that stem cells can heal knee (or other joint) damage. If someone can point me to one, I'd love to see it.
This short article also doesn't state how the patients' improvement was observed. It doesn't mention pre- and post treatment imaging or the degree of improvement, other than the vague word "greatly improved". I'd like to see an abstract of this study to see the methodology because this short, poorly written article leaves us with no explicit conclusions.
The short article was just a press release from the public affairs office of Mayo.
The stem cell effectiveness debate has been going on for years - lots of anecdotal stories, many pushed by clinics offering the service, for a price, versus those doing controlled clinical studies. I find it curious, and informative, that NONE of the controlled clinical studies show any benefit. But that's no surprise if one understands the science (or lack of) behind these experiments.
And too often, the injections are harmful, whether bad technique or something else, I do not know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
