I'm almost scared to post anything about Tannehill as it will turn into 50 pages of "he sucks" or "no he doesn't". But here goes.... Dolphins quarterback Ryan Tannehill chose to not have surgery on his partially torn ACL, and said that the ligament is healed thanks to stem cell treatments. “Yeah, it’s really strong and ready to go,” Tannehill said, via Armando Salguero of the Miami Herald. “I feel good. I’m feeling back to 100 percent. “Everything feels totally normal. I’m going to keep pushing to get better next year.” Tannehill said he’d continue to wear a knee brace, and that he started feeling strong enough to rehab every day by January. Now, he said there are “no more checkpoints,” and he’s confident about going out in Organized Team Activities. “I feel like I can make any cut,” he said. “I trust it. That’s the biggest thing, do you trust it? Are you able to move without thinking about whether something’s going to happen. Once it got to that point I felt great about it."
no doubt his athleticism. He has taken a beating in 5 years here. let's keep him upright and see what happens. also, I believe Miami puts some shackles on him, at least to start the season when it comes to scrambling or bootlegs
I'll try to save us 37 pages- Tannehill sucks. No he doesn't. Yes he does. No really, he doesn't. Really, really...he does...I have proof. Your proof sucks. My proof is better. No, my proof is the best proof. Your proof is based on dumb stats. You quoted stats earlier, so I can too. But my stats were good. Your stats suck! You already said that. Dan Marino. Dan Marino what? That's why Tannehill sucks. But Marino said he likes Tannehill as a QB. Bah, Marino sucks too. He couldn't win a ring. Marino didn't have a running back like Ajayi. Tannehill doesn't have a line like Marino did. Bah, the line sucks. That's what I just said. So you agree that Tannehill is awesome. Tannehill sucks. No he doesn't. Yes he does. No really, he doesn't. Really, really...he does...I have proof....
I see no mentions of Brady, Russel, or Luck in your 37 page saving post. This means we'll be getting at least 22 pages so these topics can be debated once more.
yeah, and no mention of how he couldn't throw the long ball, so let's add 10 more. then 5 more on how he doesn't take off and run enough
The real question is why Pouncey has not gotten some of that stem cell treatment goodness..... I admit I have no idea if that is an option for hip injuries, but Tanny seems to be fine and Pouncey is a big question mark.
Does anyone here know the science on stem cell treatments? I watched a segment on it on VICE saying it was the future of medicine, but they didn't really go deep into detail other than to say that younger, healthier stem cells can speed up the body's recovery time from all sorts of ailments (including natural aging, rare diseases, cancer, etc.). But what I don't understand is that Tannehill is in his 20's and ultra healthy...how would that help him in particular? I can see Pouncey's case since the hip problem is something hereditary, but I don't understand it for an average athlete's injury.
In short, some cells don't replicate very well (ACL cells) or at all. The ACL, due to poor blood flow, typically won't regenerate. Instead, the ACL repairs itself using inferior tissue along with the same tissue it's typically made of, but in lesser quantities. A stem cell has the ability to become any cell in the body. It can become a heart cell, kidney cell, brain cell, etc. In RT's case the hope is that the stem cells become ACL cells.
Okay, that makes complete sense then....so you can grab an ultra healthy stem cell from a kidney and it will help repair a knee or an ankle area that doesn't regenerate as naturally. That's pretty darn amazing.
You don't get stem cells from a kidney. Stem cells typically come from bone marrow. However, and the science isn't quite there yet, these stem cells can become a kidney. The hope is one day science will be able to grow a person a kidney, heart, lung, liver etc from their own stem cells. No more rejection problems etc...
Okay, gotcha. That's the part I was missing...I wasn't sure where they came from in the first place. Are they universal in nature, or based on blood type (or some other compatibility)? I mean, not growing someone their own organ, obviously, but for what they did with Tannehill. Or was that his own stem cells? It's okay if you don't know, I've just been fascinated by it and have wondered for awhile. Anyway, I appreciate the education and I'm sure others will as well.
Yes, RT's own blood was used to harvest the stem cells or else rejection may take place. Just like when a person receives a kidney transplant etc. From my understanding the most capable stem cells come from embryo's. These cells can be grown indefinitely and can grow into any type of cell in the human body. This is why scientists have fought for years to use them. However, some people think it's immoral.
Wait this is wrong. Most stem cells (and basically all used for clinical purposes) are adult stem cells that can differentiate into only (demonstrably) a small number of cell types. I don't know precisely which type they used in Tannehill's case, but it might have been a mesenchymal stem cell that can only differentiate into bone, muscle, cartilage or fat tissue. The type you are talking about is called a pluripotent stem cell (as opposed to multipotent stem cells which I just described) that can differentiate into essentially any type of cell. Pluripotent stem cells are either embryonic stem cells (ESCs) or induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and therapies based on either are a LONG ways away. The complexity of even a single cell is proving to be so astronomically great that it's not clear how many resources are needed to figure out how to get a ESC or iPSC to differentiate as intended. The primary problems are that the resulting cell is often rejected by the body (even if the ESC or iPSC came from the host) and that there are all kinds of genetic and functional abnormalities in the resulting cell.
How was what I wrote wrong? The reason I started my explanation the way I did was to simplify the matter and not have to go into the differences. I touched on the embryonic stem cells and rejection in a later post. The stem cells that they (more than likely) harvested from RT's blood were multipotent, but they had the ability to become new ACL cells. Scientists have been able to take donor hearts, strip away cells and replace them with skin cells that had been turned into pluripotent stem cells using RNA. Once they grew this new tissue they shocked the hearts and they started to beat again. While the science to create fully functioning organs from scratch is ways off, the ability to repair organs using stem cells is right around the corner.
Well.. if you really do know basic stem cell science then you'll know why I said the portion of your post I quoted was wrong. I shouldn't have to explain that. Most stem cells cannot become any type of cell in the body (not even close). Of course as you said maybe you were just simplifying things and didn't write that well, but my critique is still valid. However, what you said about rejection isn't true for induced pluripotent stem cells. As I pointed out, one major problem with iPSCs is that they often do get rejected (cause immunological problems) even when they come from the same individual. Let me try to summarize a bit here. Current stem cell treatments with almost no exception use adult stem cells that can differentiate into only a small number of possible cell types (often only the type of tissue they come from) and they are indeed proving effective in many situations. However.. there are problems such as the inability of many adult stem cells to undergo self-renewal for extended periods (so they don't multiply enough) as well as often becoming cancerous (errors while multiplying). There are often also technical difficulties in retrieving the necessary cells depending on the application. ESCs and iPSCs are promising not only because they can in principle differentiate into any type of cell but because they do undergo extensive self-renewal. However.. one MAJOR problem is that researchers don't know how to preserve genomic stability when these cells replicate. That is, too many errors propagate as these cells multiply and you often get tumors and the potential for cancer. Another problem is that what seem to be morphologically (structurally) fine cells turn out to not function properly. So from a research standpoint a serious problem is identifying and understanding the mechanisms by which ESCs maintain genomic stability. Figuring that out is not "right around the corner". It was "right around the corner" 10 years ago and we're not in much better shape today. The complexity of the problem is staggering and I think realistically you should expect this kind of technology to maybe be widely available in 50 years or so, certainly not 5. Until then it should be mostly just a few isolated success stories.
I wanted to respond to DJ's thread but it got locked. I only want to say one thing without things getting nasty. I don't think anybody can deny Tannehill's work ethic or toughness. The guy can become a physician or continue playing in the NFL. He's just robotic, not a natural gamer. Back on topic. Tannehill doesn't scramble or run as much as I'd like him to, so I'm sure his knee will serve him just fine the way he's always used it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We won't know how the knee will effect him mentally until we see him in live action with defenders around his knees. It made Carson Palmer look quite pedestrian after his vicious injury. That part may take some time, nobody can say for sure at this point.
A good friend of mine's father has been fighting cancer for a couple of years. In typical fashion, they'd beat it back and it would come back again a few months later. A year and a half ago, they brought him to a clinic and for I believe a period of 2 weeks captured stem cells from his blood. After that they gave a massive chemo dose and killed all the cancer and just about everything else in his body. From what I understand that included his bone marrow and all. They then reintroduced his stem cells into his body and regenerated the damaged tissues and bone marrow. He has been cancer free since this procedure. It was kind of a last resort kind of thing but it has worked. I am no doctor but that is the jist of it. Pretty impressive stuff.
In his defense, I was asking about the future of stem cells and why scientists are so excited about it. I haven't had time to research the technology and he gave a good overview- even if the science doesn't work for everything today. I appreciate you going into more detail but I'm guessing the average poster wouldn't be able to follow it. I did though so thanks!
my mother in law is going to have this wed. she is getting the stem cells donated from her brother, a perfect match. thanks for the info
Not sure people know this but there ARE neural stem cells (that aren't embryonic etc..). I say this because I think most people believe once a neuron dies you lose it forever and it can't be replaced with a new one. For some reason, neural stem cells are found in only two areas: the hippocampus and the subventricular zone. The hippocampus is important for short-term memory while new neurons generated in the subventricular zone seem to migrate to the olfactory bulb (the area where you process odor information). In other words, new neurons produced in adulthood are used for an area that processes short-term memory and for an area that processes odor information, but none are produced for higher order cognitive processes. Why? No one knows. Contrast this with certain types of song birds where during mating season they actively grow the area of their brain that controls song learning. Once mating season is over those neurons die off again and their brain shrinks. This suggests we should be able to "turn on" genes for regeneration of neurons in many different areas of the brain, but the consequences might be severe if we do. There's some unknown reason evolution selected what we're seeing.
