Response to Ven made at that time - also - it is most important to read Vens links in order to see, documented, that the monkeys that dies of the bladder (neurogenic) spinal sequalie had never received the implant. Vens links contradicted his own argument - but one has to read them to find out. Invivo sued because they couldn't carry out their experiment! The scaffold device did not cause the bladder problems - the surgery and possible the poor after care caused the bladder problems - the monkeys with the bladder problems NEVER SAW THE DEVICE! You intimate with vagaries that the trial failed because mixed results but the experiment failed because they could not get any results! They could not use the monkeys! There were no "mixed results' here! This was an investment that was wasted because they could not do the trial! That's why they sued.
http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/ar-primate.html The InVivo lawsuit is not the first time the OHSU primate center has been accused of not providing proper care to their animals. In 2008, PETA complaints about the center spurred an investigation by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which handles violations of the Animal Welfare Act. In December, USDA issued a warning letter for failure to provide proper veterinary care, citing the death of a pregnant monkey after a researcher failed to notice she was having a troubled labor, a sponge being left in a monkey after surgery, and a surgery performed on the wrong monkey.
• One monkey broke its ankle and two had “training issues,” leaving just 16 available when the study began.
• A post-surgery staff infection debilitated another monkey.
• After successfully implanting devices in seven monkeys, OHSU refused to allow surgery on the remaining eight because of bladder problems — though InVivo said these problems were to be expected.(neurogenic bladder very common complication of spinal trauma).
• Four more monkeys experienced complications and were euthanized by OHSU, leaving only three primates available for study.
I did not suggest that the researchers were incapable of properly carrying out the animal experiments. Invivo did. And it looks to be true. The researchers euthanized the animals when the bladder complications arose - in direct contradiction to Invivo guidance. Invivo informed them of that predictable complication and report that the researchers did not follow guidance. Invivo contracted for 24 monkeys and received 19, only 16 of which were fit for the experiment, and only 7 were used for the implantation. Eight others were withheld for bladder problems - and this is a crux of Invivos complaint. They anticipated that complication and anticipated that surgical implantation of the device would alleviate the problem, but the animals were euthanized instead.So - from the very start OHSU delivered poorly. The inspections you refer to were separate from the experiment. No inspectors witnessed the experiment.
It may have been more simple. Hard to assess given lock up of data due to suit - but it looks as though a conflict might have occurred between the expected neurogenic bladder sequelae and the university researchers obligation to limit pain experience of primates. I think this is where the rift might have occurred. NVIV has alluded to this - saying the bladder symptoms would have been relieved with surgery - but (perhaps)regulatory compliance issues led to the team euthanizing before surgical opportunity given.
Oh rru - all of that post was a cut and paste of old posts except the 1st sentence or 2. The vehement tone was a part of the debate with Veni and is not connected to you! Just an fyi.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
