Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Soldier Re-Grows Leg Muscle After Experimental Procedure

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the corporal-logan dept.

Medicine 141

Marine Isaias Hernandez has been able to grow back most of the missing muscle from his leg, including skeletal muscle, thanks to an experimental treatment involving an injection of a a growth promoting substance extracted from pig bladders. Hernandez lost 70% of his right thigh muscles from a mortar exploded attack in Afghanistan. Normally this type of injury would lead to an amputation. From the article: "In preparation for the operation, corporal Hernandez was made to build up the remaining 30 per cent of muscle left on the damaged thigh. Surgeons then sliced into the thigh, placing a thin slice of a substance called extracellular matrix. The surgery is the result of a $70 million investment by the US military into regenerative medicine research."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

a corporation could have done it for $7 million (-1, Offtopic)

Sprouticus (1503545) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502786)

of course they never would have because there is no money in it....

(yes Im being snarky, deal with it)

$7 mil is nothing for corporate medical research (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503032)

A corporation could have done it for $7 million of course they never would have because there is no money in it.

This procedure was medical research not regular medical care. $7 million is nothing for corporate medical research, a billion or more is spent researching a drug. Hundreds of millions are spent developing devices. Also once such a treatment becomes regular care it will probably be far less costly. I am not saying it may be easy to get, initially at least - in a century who knows, but I think you are not accurately representing the situation.

Re:$7 mil is nothing for corporate medical researc (2)

trrichard (1774338) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503270)

I agree. $7 Million is small compared to most major drug research. The cost here was the research the matrix itself is cheap by comparison. I believe there is money to be made in this field. The ability to regrow damaged organs in particular muscle mass is vital to rehabilitation of most patients. This could cut out a lot of money spent in rehab. That's not to say rehab will be rendered unnecessary, but a large portion of time spent in rehab on rebuilding the initial muscle mass can be channeled towards increasing flexibility and endurance. In my opinion those are their largest losses in movement.

Re:$7 mil is nothing for corporate medical researc (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503406)

Good luck finding an insurance provider to even help in covering treatment though...

Oh, and yeah, I doubt drug companies would have researched this. This is procedure, not pill. Fat chance of this being developed outside military medical research.

(snark, snark...)

Re:$7 mil is nothing for corporate medical researc (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503784)

A billion was spent researching a drug 20 years ago. Todays drugs are FAR closer to the 7 million mark. [ahrp.org] . It's been a rumor for a long time that drug research is amazingly expensive. It isn't.

Re:$7 mil is nothing for corporate medical researc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503962)

You would think that the "Alliance for Human Research Protection" would be keen to get into the drug research industry since its soooo cheap and they have a vested interest in how trials are conducted. Yet they dont...maybe they are pulling numbers out of their ass?

Re:$7 mil is nothing for corporate medical researc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503996)

way to instatroll. You realize that the AHRP has nothing to do with the article, it was just a lazy way of linking to it, right? Maybe they have nothing to do with it.

Re:$7 mil is nothing for corporate medical researc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36504702)

Todays drugs are FAR closer to the 7 million mark. [ahrp.org] .

My wife works in regulatory affairs for a biotech. After a large-scale trial for a specific drug currently in development, FDA panel was split and ordered another trial. Cost just for the trial is expected to top $15 million. Further, the link you cite indicates median cost is closer to $60 million PLUS "discovery" costs, whatever that is.

Re:$7 mil is nothing for corporate medical researc (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504986)

What's your point? that's not in the billions like the original comment.

a billion or more is spent researching a drug.

.

It's not to say that it's zero, but that it's a whole lot lower than claimed.

Re:a corporation could have done it for $7 million (1)

The Hatchet (1766306) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503444)

I first read an article about body parts regenerated with dehydrated cell matrix made from pig bladders in 2008. Of course then it was only entire fingers, but still, the fact that anybody loses a body part permanently anymore is disgusting when we have this technology.

Also, corporations are far less

Re:a corporation could have done it for $7 million (2)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503684)

...interested in finding a cure for attention deficit disorder.

Re:a corporation could have done it for $7 million (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503776)

I think the researchers and surgeons DID repair his leg for less than $7 million. "The surgery is the result of a $70 million investment by the US military into regenerative medicine research," sounds to me not like the army spent $70 million on his leg, it sounds like that was the price tag of the whole study.

Kind of like how companies spend millions developing a new drugs: they're spending the money to learn how to make it. The actual finished product has to cost far, far less in order for anyone to buy it.

I'm guessing the actual costs of repairing his leg were in the thousands of dollars range, not 70 million.

You are right though that a private company would be unlikely to invest in this type of research, at least without significant grant money from taxpayers, precisely because there is no product to sell at the end.

Re:a corporation could have done it for $7 million (3, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503860)

In the 1970s they could have done it for $6 million, and gotten another leg, an arm, and an eye in the bargain. And they wouldn't have to sit around waiting for muscles to grow. It was on TV and everything.

nahhh (2)

da5idnetlimit.com (410908) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504690)

there was a huge problem wit the technology, every time you started running it looked like goddam 70s slow motion.
Also the noise was awful, sounded like an horrible little crescendo tune in a loop.

Too many defaults for the cost, we had to bin it 8p

Re:a corporation could have done it for $7 million (0)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504452)

They fixed up Steve Austin for a mere $6 million.

The rest of the story (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36502790)

Not mentioned in the story is that he now has super-human jumping ability.

EVILDOERS BEWARE! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503680)

we've just witnessed the genesis of a superhero : axolotlman!
newtman?
crayfishman?
starfishman?...
honestly, axolotlman is the best of the bunch, it sounds cooler and it's just weirder.

Eats like pig (1)

mrops (927562) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504158)

Ever since after the procedure, he eats a lot.

Some say he eats like a pig.

Re:The rest of the story (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36505068)

He can also walk on the ceiling, just like spider-pig can.

Why is this in Idle? (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502796)

Great, so the crap that should be in Idle makes it to one of the main sections, and this important story ends up in Idle. Great work guys, great work.

Re:Why is this in Idle? (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502888)

Just write it off as a cover-up.

Decades of B-rate Sci-fi and comics tell us that by this time next month he's going to transform into a humanoid horn lizard wanting to take over the world, but will be stopped by the Amazing Daddy-Long-Legs. The "idle" is just the gov being genre savy to pre-emptively begin disavowing all knowledge.

Re:Why is this in Idle? (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503030)

AFAIK the article is probably inaccurate and the pig bladder stuff is not a hormone.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/cells-tissues/extracellular-matrix.htm [howstuffworks.com]

Extracellular matrix is a component of body tissue that functions outside of the body's cells (thus the "extracellular" designation). It's made up mostly of collagen, a type of protein. So extracellular matrix extracted from the bladder of a pig does not actually have any of the pig's cells in it.

Tough Call (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503850)

On one hand, the subject of the article is worthy of the front page. On the other hand, the only source covering it is the Daily Mail, whose reporting is usually about as accurate as hair salon gossip. I can't blame samzenpus for sticking it in Idle.

Re:Why is this in Idle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36504894)

Well it has nothing to do with bitcoin, so here it is in idle.

So ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36502802)

We won't need to go to Pandora after all ...

Re:So ... (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503428)

Jake Sully had a spinal injury, nothing was physically wrong with his legs, he was just paraplegic.

Re:So ... (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503438)

Actually, Jake's trip to Pandora was to pay for this procedure (basically). Pandora was a mining facility (basically).

the key ingrediant (1)

RockGrumbler (1795608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502814)

The article forgot to mention the key ingredient to the substance, Tiberium.

Re:the key ingrediant (1)

broginator (1955750) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503104)

I'm pretty sure it's orphan tears.

Quick- (5, Funny)

james_van (2241758) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502816)

Somebody tell House!

Re:Quick- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36502864)

Awww, you beat me to it :-(

Re:Quick- (1)

rootatwc (2271390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502902)

rofl, i wish i could upvote you! thats exactly what i thought!

Re:Quick- (1)

RedACE7500 (904963) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502964)

House already tried this. Next comes the tumors!

Re:Quick- (1)

westcoast philly (991705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502976)

Hopefully this guy won't try to remove them himself, in a bathtub...

extracted from pig bladders (2)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503044)

Something here doesn't sound kosher to me...

Re:extracted from pig bladders (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503134)

Yeah. It's a real pork project.

Re:extracted from pig bladders (1)

Adriax (746043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36505118)

Wouldn't be a slashdot article without a couple guys hamming it up.

How Long? (1)

UCRowerG (523510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502884)

I didn't see in the article how long it actually took for the muscle tissue to regenerate. The leg is a big piece of body to (re) grow. I'd be curious to know the timeline.

Re:How Long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503792)

Oh come on, we all know you're thinking about your "little buddy", just come out and say it.

Re:How Long? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503824)

According to this article [popsci.com] his leg began increasing in muscle mass in a few weeks.

It sounds like he didn't have to regrow bone, it was just muscle. Perhaps if the bone was lost, it would have taken much more time.

House (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36502900)

Hopefully this turns out better than the last season of House. That whole self-surgery scene was hard to watch for me. I could never, ever, ever do that on myself.

Re:House (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36502930)

I was just thinking this.

Re:House (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503018)

I was shocked to realize while I was watching that, that I probably could do it. If I had the skills and drive he did at that point.

It was mainly shocking because it's such a DUMB thing to do.

Oh well, fore-warned is fore-armed, as they say. Now I know I'm dumb enough to do that, so I can prepare ahead to prevent it.

Re:House (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36504190)

There's a true story of a Russian doctor (forgot the name) who, decades ago, was send to an outpost (can't remember if it was the North Pole or Siberia). He got sick had to have his appendix removed while he was over there, unfortunately he was stuck there: the only way to reach civilization was by ship, and the ship that was supposed to pick them up wasn't supposed to come back until several weeks. They also had no time (or no means) to ask for another ship to come ASAP. On top of that, the doctor was the only doctor there.

What did he do?
He asked the other people there (can't remember their professions - miners or engineers perhaps. Maybe researchers, but definitely no medical doctors) to cut him open and remove his appendix. Here's the catch: as the only doctor, he had to remain awake during the procedure to give them instructions. And he had to use a mirror to see what they were doing.
He survived.

For those who really want to read the whole story, I guess if you google 'Russian doctor appendix self-operation' you might get somewhere. That's all I remember about the story, sorry.

Re:House (1)

Dextraphet (2287796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504948)

It was Antarctica. Also, he didn't give them instructions, he performed the surgery himself.

Re:House (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36505126)

The movie Master and Commander [imdb.com] had a somewhat similar scenario where the ship doctor performed a surgery on himself. I wouldn't be surprised if a bit of research into maritime history turned up a few cases of self performed surgeries.

Mij

Slashdot.. (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502934)

Slashdot sources an article from the dailymail....

Re:Slashdot.. (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503966)

Fark also sources it to the Daily Fail, and I suspect that's where the submitter got it. The Daily Fail (and others) got it from the Associated Press.

I'm not sure where the Associated Press got it; it likely came from one of their stringers.

No more House M.D.! (1)

Scott Kevill (1080991) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502940)

Damnit, no! This is going to mean they'll wrap up House M.D. :(

Re:No more House M.D.! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503050)

And more, Hugh Laurie knew about this in advance, he already said the next season is his last.

Re:No more House M.D.! (1)

Calos (2281322) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503178)

That's okay, the show has fallen a long, long way, and spends more time creating drama plotlines than anything.

Going back to old episodes is so refreshing.

Re:No more House M.D.! (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503746)

My typical house viewing...
1) watch the setup.
fast forward through the credits.
2) watch the crew- see which character lines i'm interested in.
3) fast forward through the first bad diagnosis and the characters I'm not interesting in following.
4) fast foward through the second failed diagnosis.
5) Watch the "diagnosis moment".
6) Skip to the end.

I still like House. I LIKED Masters, the honest ethical redhead. Especially because she wasn't a glamour queen and also because her struggles were "real". Do you lie to save a patient, etc. I get the impression they had her on for one season while Olivia went off to make movies.

Olivia (and this is wierd) looks like she has had plastic surgery. Something is wrong with her face now. Botox?

Foreman is okay.

Great season ending. Unless they patch it all up to make nice. Could have been an okay series ending too.

I liked the relationship and I thought Cuddy was a dick to drop him for taking drugs to be there with her. It was a step in the right direction. She's too smart for her own damn good- I had an ex girlfriend like that. Could figure anything out to make herself unhappy.

I've always liked Wilson. I still enjoy watching the show whenever he is on the screen. Like the redhead, he seems real.

still waiting for tooth regrowth (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502948)

Still waiting for that ultrasonic tooth regrowth stuff they were successfully testing in the military years ago. Where is it?

Re:still waiting for tooth regrowth (1)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504868)

If you want to see something bizarre, look up "dermoid cyst". It's a benign growth that can appear on a woman's ovaries that can contain any kind of body tissue including skin, hair, cartilage, bone, and fully formed teeth. Some women find out they have one because molars show up on an abdominal x-ray.

So what you're saying is... (3, Funny)

broginator (1955750) | more than 3 years ago | (#36502994)

... we can rebuild him? We do have the technology?

No benefit from war? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503014)

...but remember, there is no benefit from war. /sarcasm

Re:No benefit from war? (1)

Morphine007 (207082) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503082)

There's always a benefit to war: The better we get at killing each other 1-on-1; The faster we'll be technologically-capable of finding other planets with...uh... other species to kill 1-on-1.

Re:No benefit from war? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503130)

Well, one benefit would be to NOT GET YOUR LEG BLOWN OFF IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Fuck you, slashdot.

Ugh ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503022)

Soldier != Marine, goddamnit!

Re:Ugh ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503258)

That's right. Marines are armed Navy Seamen.

Great, now let's get the fuck out of Afghanistan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503162)

You know, like Obama PROMISED he would do ?

Remember the difference between Obama's empty words
and his actions, when the next election comes around.

Re:Great, now let's get the fuck out of Afghanista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36504938)

No to mention Libya, for which he doesn't even have authorization from Congress. That's actually worse than Bush.

Nice (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503190)

This story is pretty awesome. I wish we had more of these and fewer smartphone OS dead-horse-beating marathons.

Re:Nice (1)

tabrisnet (722816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36505048)

But the meat comes out so tender afterwards... and the horse-beaters do it all for free!

worst. article. ever. (1)

Krau Ming (1620473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503196)

being a lab scientist, that was painful to read. the explanation of the treatment is borderline gibberish. i've read better biology research reports by high school kids.

Re:worst. article. ever. (2)

timbo234 (833667) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503902)

Yes unfortunately that's par for the course with the Daily Mail, the UK's answer to Fox News.

If you search around their website in amongst the horseshit about celebrities and completely made-up articles about crazy new EU 'laws' you'd also find their ongoing effort to divide all inanimate objects in the world (especially foods) into those that either cause cancer or cure it.

I'll believe in miracle new treatments when there's a more credible source article.

And the moral of the story (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503204)

Always make sure you are carrying a TV whenever you do repaid on your truck.

Sure it makes the work ever so slighly more difficult, but you never know when you'll need something to take the shrapnel.

He's a marine, not a soldier. (0)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503230)

For the sake of accuracy: Hernandez is a marine, not a soldier. Probably the summary-writer can be excused since the article calls him both as well, but they are different. Conflating them is like saying that a programmer and a DBA are the same because they both work in IT.

Re:He's a marine, not a soldier. (2)

sobachatina (635055) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503576)

You are making a semantic argument that only makes sense to someone in the marines.

Soldier is a generic term that refers to someone in an army (army here is in the general meaning and not the US Army branch of the military). Marine would be a subset of that. Someone in the marines could be very accurately called a soldier. The only reason someone would object to conflating the terms would be if they were in the US marines and were overly sensitive to the rivalry with the US army.

To use your analogy it's more like a programmer getting offended at being called an IT worker because he is NOT JUST A DBA!

I suppose you could make an argument that since the marines are simply a branch of the navy he should have been called a sailor but that is a bit of a stretch.

Re:He's a marine, not a soldier. (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503842)

You are making a semantic argument that only makes sense to someone in the marines.

Soldier is a generic term that refers to someone in an army (army here is in the general meaning and not the US Army branch of the military). Marine would be a subset of that. Someone in the marines could be very accurately called a soldier. The only reason someone would object to conflating the terms would be if they were in the US marines and were overly sensitive to the rivalry with the US army.

That "semantic argument" makes perfect sense to this ex-soldier. It doesn't offend me when people conflate soldiers and marines; I just think, when reporting the news, it's important to get things right: I object to the conflation because it's inaccurate. Marines and soldiers do some of the same things, of course (as do sailors and airmen), but they also do some very different things.

Even granting for the sake of argument that "Soldier is a generic term," the article still should have made the distinction because, after all, Mr. Hernandez is a member of the United States Marine Corps, not a a generic "army." That's simply accurate reporting.

I suppose you could make an argument that since the marines are simply a branch of the navy he should have been called a sailor

You could make that argument, but I don't find it convincing. Is the HR director the same as the programmer, just because they work for the same company?

Re:He's a marine, not a soldier. (2)

sobachatina (635055) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504464)

I see your point and agree that either way it would have been more accurate.

It is possible that I may have been reacting to a perceived elitist attitude that it is obvious you don't have. I apologize.

Re:He's a marine, not a soldier. (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504670)

An apology is not necessary, but thank you.

It is the attitude embodied in your comment that keeps me coming back to Slashdot despite its problems—while people of course disagree on things, most everyone—unlike (almost) everywhere else on the Internet—is willing to be convinced.

Re:He's a marine, not a soldier. (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504906)

Fair enough, but I bit this marine wasn't storming a beach when the enemy hit him in Afghanistan. It's land-locked.

Re:He's a marine, not a soldier. (1)

DoomHamster (1918204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504380)

Soldier is a generic term that refers to someone in an army (army here is in the general meaning and not the US Army branch of the military).

So far so good...

Marine would be a subset of that.

Woops! Marines are a subset of a navy...not an army; They are the naval infantry.

Re:He's a marine, not a soldier. (1)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504116)

solÂdier
â â[sohl-jer] Show IPA
â"noun
1. a person who serves in an army; a person engaged in military service.

More informative report (1)

hackertourist (2202674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503262)

here [relativelyspeaking.net]

Stephen F. Badylak and J. Peter Rubin at Pitt are working with funding from the Defense Department to develop an implantable extracellular matrix that can re-grow tissue. The matrix is a biological scaffold, enriched with proteins and growth factors, which recruits stem cells and other cell precursors to the site of the injury, according to the McGowan Institute's website. The therapy stimulates further tissue regeneration, essentially rebuilding the lost muscle.

$70 million (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503292)

$70 million for the upper thigh of 1 marine truck mechanic eh? These sort of programs always have "hidden costs." They didn't say how much it cost to either A. buy the pig a new bladder or B. buy the beer for the pig roast.

Marine not Soldier (1)

ninthbit (623926) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503328)

Soldiers = Army Marine = Marine Corps Get your shit straight. Marines aren't soldiers, and if fucking pisses us off to be called them.

Re:Marine not Soldier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503430)

Oh no! The bellhop is pissed! Go put your dress uniform on, shut up and go bring my luggage!

Re:Marine not Soldier (1)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503496)

No kidding. I saw a Navy serviceman referred to as a "soldier" recently. They're sailors, damnit, even if they are on Seal Team Six.

Re:Marine not Soldier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503738)

Fuck off bullet sponge.

Re:Marine not Soldier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36504110)

Seconded. I've served in the Marine Corps for the past 4 + years, and still have a little under 4 to go. I had a friend who recently enlisted in the Army call me "Sarge"...she got an earful.

Please, respect our troops...Marines are Marines, Army are soldiers, Navy (with certain exceptions) are sailors (and corpsmen since Marine rifle platoons don't have their own medics), and Air Force...well...good luck with that. :)

Re:Marine not Soldier (1)

RajivSLK (398494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504226)

Really? The fucking English language begs to differ: maÂrine/mÉ(TM)ËrÄ"n/ Noun: A member of a body of troops trained to serve on land or at sea, esp. a member of the US Marine Corps. nounâf/ËsÅljÉ(TM)r/âf soldiers, plural A person who serves in an army. A soldier is a member of the land component of national armed forces. Anyway, nobody in the real world really cares about the pedantic little quibbles regarding naming conventions in the army/navy/whatever or, for that matter, in any organization and honestly it shouldn't piss you off much. If it does, please attend some anger management classes.

Re:Marine not Soldier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36505070)

A soldier is a member of the land component of national armed forces.

The marines are not part of the land component of national armed forces.

Dr. House (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503346)

Sounds like something Dr. House needs to try this on himself next season.

Next thing you know... (1)

MooseDontBounce (989375) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503498)

they will be able to predict earthquakes using sheep's bladders.

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503628)

I can't wait to hit him with an IED again!

Yours, Abu

One step (cough) closer to Al Gores dream.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503826)

man-bear-pig

side note, this is way cool.

Ah, the military... (1)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503832)

As much as many don't like the idea of a standing military (the money, the wars, the deaths, the moral questions), this is just one fine example of how we all often benefit from what they're doing. Sure, it may take some time to reach non-military medical facilities and common practice, but it is nice to know that they do invest in things other than technologies that kill.

Why is this idle? (1)

incognito84 (903401) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504016)

A Green Lantern review and a bunch of stuff about the Microsoft takeover of Skype are littering the front page and an article about someone being able to regrow muscles in their leg thanks to SCIENCE ends up in the idle box? Thanks a lot, Slashdot.

An expert comments (5, Informative)

saburai (515221) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504188)

I am not well versed in regenerative biology, but my girlfriend happens to be getting her PhD in that field. I sent her this link for comment and here's what she said:

From article: "The wounded Marine's recovery is particularly exciting for scientists as it involves the regeneration of skeletal muscle which ordinarily does not grow back"

From any book in any regenerative scientist's library: "It has been known for more than a century that skeletal muscle, the most abundant tissue of the body, has the ability to regenerate new muscle fibers after it has been damaged by injury or as a consequence of diseases such as muscular dystrophy (1)"
        (in this case the reference = Carlson BM. The regeneration of skeletal muscle. A review. Am J Anat. 1973;137(2):119–149. View this article via: PubMed CrossRef)

Annoying! Maybe he is on to something that really does help quicken the natural regeneration response or promotes better healing or something, but no one will ever know because there are no controls. He has no mouse controls... he obviously can't do human controls and people are just slapping this stuff on there because... "at least it doesn't hinder the response". (but he could be charging billions for a placebo!)

Oh well. Science is stupid. The media is even dumber.

In other words: Slashdot, please stop posting articles from the Daily Mail. Also, on background, I know the doctor mentioned in the article, Badylak, was kicked out of his group for poor research practices that included trial by media instead of peer review. This sort of publicity piece is his MO.

Pigs' bladders eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36504252)

Explain again how sheeps' bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

Medical Applications. (1)

bejiitas_wrath (825021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504254)

This has amazing possibilities for healing the disabled with certain disabilities I am sure of that, this is medical science at it`s best, with the soldier who otherwise would have an artificial leg, but he can regenerate the muscles in the damaged limb with implantation. This is what we need to help our injured soldiers from Iraq & Afghanistan. We should be able to help these people regenerate tissue instead of just chopping off the limb.

That's nothing! In Soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36504432)

...a guy lost his 3 of his fingers in the WWII so the scientists implanted him cow teats. Two years after that he was making 10 liters milk a day. And he wasn't even a marine

Namek biological technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36504508)

didn't know we can do that. This is amazing, I feel incredible

captcha: combine..... how appropriate regarding the reference.

Bioscaffolding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36504706)

This technology is currently being used in horses and not just in a research fashion, but for treatment. Vets can buy the dehydrated ECM which is also available in sheets and discs for eye problems.

Here's a PDF reprint from "The Chronicle of the Horse" from ACell.com: http://acell.com/news/TCOTHACellArticle.pdf

I already saw this episode! (1)

MJMullinII (1232636) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504800)

Let's just hope he doesn't wind up in a bathtub trying to cut tumors out of his leg.

This is the part I like (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504842)

"mortar exploded attack"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?