Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Parenchymal Neuro-Glio-Genesis Versus Germinal Layer-Derived Neurogenesis: Two Faces of Central Nervous System Structural Plasticity

20 years later and we still have no idea how to get neurogenesis to work for us. Once again this chapter misses this research:
Astrocytes build blood vessel scaffolds for long distance neuron migrations
Damn are people that clueless that a stroke-addled person knows more about their field than the workers in that field.
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/44268/InTech-Parenchymal_neuro_glio_genesis_versus_germinal_layer_derived_neurogenesis_two_faces_of_central_nervous_system_structural_plasticity.pdf
Chapter 9

1. Introduction
The discovery of neural stem cells (NSCs) at the beginning of the nineties led many people toconsider definitively broken the dogma of a static central nervous system (CNS) made up ofnon-renewable elements [1-3]. In parallel, the occurrence and characterization of adult neurogenesis in the olfactory bulb and hippocampus [3-5] triggered new hopes for brain repair.
Twenty years after, the dream of regenerative medicine applied to brain/spinal cord injuries and neurodegenerative diseases is still very far [
6,7
]. As a matter of fact, adult neurogenesisin mammals occurs mainly within two restricted areas known as ‘neurogenic sites’ [3,8]: the forebrain subventricular zone (SVZ); reviewed in [9] and the hippocampal dentate gyrus (subgranular zone, SGZ); reviewed in [10]. As a direct consequence of such topographical localization, most of the CNS parenchyma out of the two ‘classic’ neurogenic sites remains substantially a non-renewable tissue. Actually, most of the traumatic/vascular injuries and neurodegenerative diseases do occur in ‘non-neurogenic’ regions and no efficacious therapies
capable of restoring CNS structure and functions through cell replacement are at present available. Thus, two decades after the discovery of NSCs and the reaching of a satisfactory characterization of adult neurogenic sites, a gap remains between the occurrence of stem/
progenitor cells in the CNS of adult mammals and their effective capability to serve in brain repair. Several aspects do converge in explaining this gap [
11
], partially accounting for the heterogeneity of CNS structural plasticity in mammals (summarized in Table 1)
Pictures at pages 2 and 3
 

No comments:

Post a Comment