![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
trombiaddict on 2005.05.19 at 21:42
trombiaddict on 2005.02.02 at 20:16
Current Mood:
ecstatic
Current Music: Paris Texas- Bombs Away
Why Federal Stem Cell Policy Must Be Expanded
Posted byjojok on 2005.01.06 at 23:15
full article at http://www.pfaith.org/jdrf-scr.htm
Why Federal Stem Cell Policy Must Be Expanded
A Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Scientific White Paper: August, 2004
Executive Summary
JDRF approaches this issue with a single agenda: to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Juvenile, or type 1, diabetes afflicts almost two million Americans, many of them children, and strikes tens of thousands more every year at an accelerating rate.
Embryonic stem cell research offers one of the most promising avenues to accomplish JDRF's ultimate goal of a cure. JDRF had hoped that the August 2001 Federal stem cell policy would be the beginning of intense scientific effort to reach this goal. But the objective truth echoed by every leading researcher in the field is that the policy, while well intentioned, will not permit research to advance at the pace it can and must; in fact, the policy is actually slowing the scientific progress in Federally funded research that the President himself championed.
As much as anything, the call for an expansion of Federal stem cell policy reflects what scientists have learned since the August 2001 announcement. Our understanding of the science has progressed since then, and knowledge of the NIH -approved stem cell lines has grown much deeper. It is time to adjust the Federal policy so that it accurately represents the latest understanding of the science. The simple, inescapable fact - acknowledged by the Federal government itself - is that access to additional stem cell lines will accelerate the potential breakthroughs required to cure not only diabetes, but a range of diseases afflicting millions of Americans.
The problems with the existing policy are numerous and pervasive. They include:
1) Of the original 78 stem cell derivations that were declared eligible for US Federal funding under the August 2001 policy, only 21 are actually available for distribution and study;
2) Because the NIH-approved stem cell lines were developed using science that has since seen significant improvements and progress, they may prove to be far more limited in their biomedical research utility than lines created more recently;
3) The NIH lines lack the genetic diversity scientists need to do research that could create therapeutic treatments for millions of Americans;
4) Because human embryonic stem cells are heterogeneous, with some showing a greater propensity to become certain types of cells, a limited number of stem cell lines can decrease the breadth of research opportunities for scientists;
5) The absence of disease-specific stem cell lines eligible for Federal funding means that the current policy is limiting stem cell research from beginning on dozens of genetic diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy and Huntington's Disease, potentially adding years to the discovery of treatments for millions of Americans;
6) All the NIH-approved lines were isolated in contact with mouse 'feeder' cells. As a result, the FDA must consider any therapies developed using these stem cells as xenotransplants, creating a huge hurdle that discourages the biotech and pharmaceutical industries from developing treatments utilizing those lines; and
7) Policy limits on stem cell research discourage scientists from entering the field.
Following is a more detailed discussion of each issue.
Why Federal Stem Cell Policy Must Be Expanded
A Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Scientific White Paper: August, 2004
Executive Summary
JDRF approaches this issue with a single agenda: to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Juvenile, or type 1, diabetes afflicts almost two million Americans, many of them children, and strikes tens of thousands more every year at an accelerating rate.
Embryonic stem cell research offers one of the most promising avenues to accomplish JDRF's ultimate goal of a cure. JDRF had hoped that the August 2001 Federal stem cell policy would be the beginning of intense scientific effort to reach this goal. But the objective truth echoed by every leading researcher in the field is that the policy, while well intentioned, will not permit research to advance at the pace it can and must; in fact, the policy is actually slowing the scientific progress in Federally funded research that the President himself championed.
As much as anything, the call for an expansion of Federal stem cell policy reflects what scientists have learned since the August 2001 announcement. Our understanding of the science has progressed since then, and knowledge of the NIH -approved stem cell lines has grown much deeper. It is time to adjust the Federal policy so that it accurately represents the latest understanding of the science. The simple, inescapable fact - acknowledged by the Federal government itself - is that access to additional stem cell lines will accelerate the potential breakthroughs required to cure not only diabetes, but a range of diseases afflicting millions of Americans.
The problems with the existing policy are numerous and pervasive. They include:
1) Of the original 78 stem cell derivations that were declared eligible for US Federal funding under the August 2001 policy, only 21 are actually available for distribution and study;
2) Because the NIH-approved stem cell lines were developed using science that has since seen significant improvements and progress, they may prove to be far more limited in their biomedical research utility than lines created more recently;
3) The NIH lines lack the genetic diversity scientists need to do research that could create therapeutic treatments for millions of Americans;
4) Because human embryonic stem cells are heterogeneous, with some showing a greater propensity to become certain types of cells, a limited number of stem cell lines can decrease the breadth of research opportunities for scientists;
5) The absence of disease-specific stem cell lines eligible for Federal funding means that the current policy is limiting stem cell research from beginning on dozens of genetic diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy and Huntington's Disease, potentially adding years to the discovery of treatments for millions of Americans;
6) All the NIH-approved lines were isolated in contact with mouse 'feeder' cells. As a result, the FDA must consider any therapies developed using these stem cells as xenotransplants, creating a huge hurdle that discourages the biotech and pharmaceutical industries from developing treatments utilizing those lines; and
7) Policy limits on stem cell research discourage scientists from entering the field.
Following is a more detailed discussion of each issue.
trombiaddict on 2004.12.27 at 14:25
Stem Cell Therapy Presented at the 15th ASEAN Congress of Cardiology
Pattaya City, Thailand October 24, 2004 - One of the most revolutionary topics in healthcare today-stem cell therapy- was presented by Professor Alexander Battler today at the 15th ASEAN Congress of Cardiology. Professor Battler is Director of the world renowned Cardiology Department, Rabin Medical Center and the incumbent of the Andre Feher Chair of Cardiology at the Sackler Medical School at Tel Aviv University. He is also the Chairman of the one of the Executive Committees of the European Society of Cardiology. The lecture presented the potential effect that the state of the art treatment utilizing cell therapy developed by TheraVitae has on end stage heart disease. This therapy can treat a previously diagnosed terminal heart patient and be given a new opportunity at life.
TheraVitae has spearheaded the effort of moving the theoretical concepts of stem cell therapy into practical reality. This novel therapy is being applied in many clinical trials at the Siriraj Hospital in Bangkok. "Our research is about saving patients lives and improving their quality of life afterwards, said Professor Battler." The extraordinary work done by TheraVitae is expected to accomplish both.
Dr. Valentin Fulga, CEO of TheraVitae explained further, "we use the patients own blood to extract the needed stem cells. There is no embryonic culture involved. In effect, the patient cures himself. We are very encouraged by the results of our clinical study and hope that they point toward an exciting new horizon."
The key of stem cell therapy in cardiology involves revascularization-building a new blood network in the area that the blood vessels are occluded. As the cells are autologous (belong to the patient himself), the risk of rejection does not exist. The injection of the cells is done during angioplasty, a standard procedure performed dozens of times per day by specialized cardiologists and requires only one day of hospitalization.
TheraVitae is an emerging healthcare company with the prime mission to offer novel, cutting edge therapies to patients worldwide needing these modern therapies. Initially, the Company focuses on the treatment of cardiovascular disorders, but it is expected that treatments for other severe disorders such as diabetes, macular degeneration will be developed soon.
Pattaya City, Thailand October 24, 2004 - One of the most revolutionary topics in healthcare today-stem cell therapy- was presented by Professor Alexander Battler today at the 15th ASEAN Congress of Cardiology. Professor Battler is Director of the world renowned Cardiology Department, Rabin Medical Center and the incumbent of the Andre Feher Chair of Cardiology at the Sackler Medical School at Tel Aviv University. He is also the Chairman of the one of the Executive Committees of the European Society of Cardiology. The lecture presented the potential effect that the state of the art treatment utilizing cell therapy developed by TheraVitae has on end stage heart disease. This therapy can treat a previously diagnosed terminal heart patient and be given a new opportunity at life.
TheraVitae has spearheaded the effort of moving the theoretical concepts of stem cell therapy into practical reality. This novel therapy is being applied in many clinical trials at the Siriraj Hospital in Bangkok. "Our research is about saving patients lives and improving their quality of life afterwards, said Professor Battler." The extraordinary work done by TheraVitae is expected to accomplish both.
Dr. Valentin Fulga, CEO of TheraVitae explained further, "we use the patients own blood to extract the needed stem cells. There is no embryonic culture involved. In effect, the patient cures himself. We are very encouraged by the results of our clinical study and hope that they point toward an exciting new horizon."
The key of stem cell therapy in cardiology involves revascularization-building a new blood network in the area that the blood vessels are occluded. As the cells are autologous (belong to the patient himself), the risk of rejection does not exist. The injection of the cells is done during angioplasty, a standard procedure performed dozens of times per day by specialized cardiologists and requires only one day of hospitalization.
TheraVitae is an emerging healthcare company with the prime mission to offer novel, cutting edge therapies to patients worldwide needing these modern therapies. Initially, the Company focuses on the treatment of cardiovascular disorders, but it is expected that treatments for other severe disorders such as diabetes, macular degeneration will be developed soon.
cowboys__cliche on 2004.10.26 at 10:20
RI takes middle ground on stem-cell cloning
Dewi Santoso, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
As western countries debate the controversial issue of stem-cell cloning, Indonesia has come to a uniform decision on the country's standing on the issue.
The health ministry's head of research and development, Dini Latief, said on Monday that Indonesia took the middle ground in responding to the controversy.
"We're not 100 percent against it, but we're not 100 percent for it either, as we are yet to see the purpose of stem-cell cloning," said Dini.
She said that if the purpose of stem-cell cloning was to create another human being of identical DNA, then Indonesia would strongly reject it.
"But, if the purpose of stem-cell cloning is for therapeutic use, then the country is for it, if the cells cloned are not those of a living creature, such as an embryo," she said.
Stem cells are undifferentiated, primitive cells in the bone marrow that have the ability both to multiply and to differentiate into any type of cell in the body, including nerve cells, heart cells and kidney cells.
Stem-cell cloning is a procedure whereby the cells -- extracted from an egg after it has divided for five days -- are taken and their genetic information at the nucleus reinvigorated, so that new tissue can be grown with a genetic code that matches the patient who needs it.
The growing cells might be used to replace brain cells that have been damaged by Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or replace the injured spinal cord of a paraplegic.
However, the extraction process destroys the embryo, which sparks a variety of ethical concerns.
Dini said that Indonesia's position on embryonic stem cells was clear: "We're against it, as it destroys a human life."
Chairman of the Indonesian Doctors Association (IDI) Farid A Moeloek, confirmed Dini's argument, stating that both the IDI and the Medical Code of Ethics Committee banned embryonic stem-cell cloning.
"We reject embryonic stem-cell cloning because an embryo is considered to be alive, and we believe that we should not kill something that is living," Farid told The Jakarta Post.
However, the IDI supports stem-cell cloning when it comes to the use of bone barrow or placenta.
"This procedure does not take someone's life as it requires cells from a person's bone marrow or the placenta of a baby. We approve of it because it will help restore damaged cells, giving hope to those who suffer from fatal diseases, like leukemia, or those whose spinal cords have been damaged," he said.
Philosopher Franz Magnis Suseno agreed with Farid, saying embryonic stem-cell cloning was a violation of the right to live.
"Taking into account that all stem cells are human lives in process, then embryonic stem-cell cloning is not permissible, either for productive or therapeutic purposes," said Magnis-Suseno of the Driyarkara School of Philosophy.
He said stem-cell cloning using a baby's placenta or a person's bone marrow was acceptable, as long as the procedure did not take someone's life and was performed for a therapeutic cause.
A member of the Indonesian Ulemas Council (MUI), Amidhan, said that embryonic stem-cell cloning was considered haram (forbidden under Islamic law).
"It (embryonic stem-cell cloning) is basically murder, as doctors or scientists have to destroy an embryo," he said.
Allowing embryonic stem-cell cloning would be akin to allowing cannibalism, he added.
"You have to kill someone to help another. It's the practice of cannibalism and it's haram," he said.
Stem-cell cloning has sparked controversy globally. Britain is the first country in Europe to approve the use of human cloning to produce embryonic stem cells for medical purposes.
Dewi Santoso, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
As western countries debate the controversial issue of stem-cell cloning, Indonesia has come to a uniform decision on the country's standing on the issue.
The health ministry's head of research and development, Dini Latief, said on Monday that Indonesia took the middle ground in responding to the controversy.
"We're not 100 percent against it, but we're not 100 percent for it either, as we are yet to see the purpose of stem-cell cloning," said Dini.
She said that if the purpose of stem-cell cloning was to create another human being of identical DNA, then Indonesia would strongly reject it.
"But, if the purpose of stem-cell cloning is for therapeutic use, then the country is for it, if the cells cloned are not those of a living creature, such as an embryo," she said.
Stem cells are undifferentiated, primitive cells in the bone marrow that have the ability both to multiply and to differentiate into any type of cell in the body, including nerve cells, heart cells and kidney cells.
Stem-cell cloning is a procedure whereby the cells -- extracted from an egg after it has divided for five days -- are taken and their genetic information at the nucleus reinvigorated, so that new tissue can be grown with a genetic code that matches the patient who needs it.
The growing cells might be used to replace brain cells that have been damaged by Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or replace the injured spinal cord of a paraplegic.
However, the extraction process destroys the embryo, which sparks a variety of ethical concerns.
Dini said that Indonesia's position on embryonic stem cells was clear: "We're against it, as it destroys a human life."
Chairman of the Indonesian Doctors Association (IDI) Farid A Moeloek, confirmed Dini's argument, stating that both the IDI and the Medical Code of Ethics Committee banned embryonic stem-cell cloning.
"We reject embryonic stem-cell cloning because an embryo is considered to be alive, and we believe that we should not kill something that is living," Farid told The Jakarta Post.
However, the IDI supports stem-cell cloning when it comes to the use of bone barrow or placenta.
"This procedure does not take someone's life as it requires cells from a person's bone marrow or the placenta of a baby. We approve of it because it will help restore damaged cells, giving hope to those who suffer from fatal diseases, like leukemia, or those whose spinal cords have been damaged," he said.
Philosopher Franz Magnis Suseno agreed with Farid, saying embryonic stem-cell cloning was a violation of the right to live.
"Taking into account that all stem cells are human lives in process, then embryonic stem-cell cloning is not permissible, either for productive or therapeutic purposes," said Magnis-Suseno of the Driyarkara School of Philosophy.
He said stem-cell cloning using a baby's placenta or a person's bone marrow was acceptable, as long as the procedure did not take someone's life and was performed for a therapeutic cause.
A member of the Indonesian Ulemas Council (MUI), Amidhan, said that embryonic stem-cell cloning was considered haram (forbidden under Islamic law).
"It (embryonic stem-cell cloning) is basically murder, as doctors or scientists have to destroy an embryo," he said.
Allowing embryonic stem-cell cloning would be akin to allowing cannibalism, he added.
"You have to kill someone to help another. It's the practice of cannibalism and it's haram," he said.
Stem-cell cloning has sparked controversy globally. Britain is the first country in Europe to approve the use of human cloning to produce embryonic stem cells for medical purposes.
fetteredwolf on 2004.10.24 at 15:08
Missed opportunities in embryonic stem cell research
Realistic prospects for stem cell therapeutics
Daley GQ, Goodell MA, Snyder EY.
Department of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Children's Hospital, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
Studies of the regenerating hematopoietic system have led to the definition of many of the fundamental principles of stem cell biology. Therapies based on a range of tissue stem cells have been widely touted as a new treatment modality, presaging an emerging new specialty called regenerative medicine that promises to harness stem cells from embryonic and somatic sources to provide replacement cell therapies for genetic, malignant, and degenerative conditions. Insights borne from stem cell biology also portend development of protein and small molecule therapeutics that act on endogenous stem cells to promote repair and regeneration. Much of the newfound enthusiasm for regenerative medicine stems from the hope that advances in the laboratory will be followed soon thereafter by breakthrough treatments in the clinic. But how does one sort through the hype to judge the true promise? Are stem cell biologists and the media building expectations that cannot be met? Which diseases can be treated, and when can we expect success? In this review, we outline the realms of investigation that are capturing the most attention, and consider the current state of scientific understanding and controversy regarding the properties of embryonic and somatic (adult) stem cells. Our objective is to provide a framework for appreciating the promise while at the same time understanding the challenges behind translating fundamental stem cell biology into novel clinical therapies.
See Full article here
Realistic prospects for stem cell therapeutics
Daley GQ, Goodell MA, Snyder EY.
Department of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School, Children's Hospital, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
Studies of the regenerating hematopoietic system have led to the definition of many of the fundamental principles of stem cell biology. Therapies based on a range of tissue stem cells have been widely touted as a new treatment modality, presaging an emerging new specialty called regenerative medicine that promises to harness stem cells from embryonic and somatic sources to provide replacement cell therapies for genetic, malignant, and degenerative conditions. Insights borne from stem cell biology also portend development of protein and small molecule therapeutics that act on endogenous stem cells to promote repair and regeneration. Much of the newfound enthusiasm for regenerative medicine stems from the hope that advances in the laboratory will be followed soon thereafter by breakthrough treatments in the clinic. But how does one sort through the hype to judge the true promise? Are stem cell biologists and the media building expectations that cannot be met? Which diseases can be treated, and when can we expect success? In this review, we outline the realms of investigation that are capturing the most attention, and consider the current state of scientific understanding and controversy regarding the properties of embryonic and somatic (adult) stem cells. Our objective is to provide a framework for appreciating the promise while at the same time understanding the challenges behind translating fundamental stem cell biology into novel clinical therapies.
See Full article here
Stem Cell Research Supporters Urge UN to Vote Against 'Therapeutic' Cloning Ban
Posted byconservative67 on 2004.10.16 at 08:50
By Erin Brezsnyak
CNSNews.com Correspondent
October 15, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - Stem cell research proponents are calling for the U.N. to reject a ban on therapeutic cloning, or "destructive" cloning, as it is called by its opponents.
Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) or "therapeutic cloning," is the cloning of an embryo to research its stem cells, the building blocks of skin, bone, brain or nerve tissue, in the hopes that it will provide treatment for diseases.
The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR) presented a letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and the General Assembly urging them to reject a vote banning SCNT.
"This letter sends a clear message to all United Nations delegates and policy leaders around the world that any ban on therapeutic cloning research will be strongly opposed," said Daniel Perry, president of CAMR.
The National Right to Life (NRL), a pro-life organization, claims that therapeutic cloning is still cloning, even if it is used for a purpose other than birth. On its website it cites various scientists who have said that therapeutic cloning, or as NRL calls it "cloning for research," creates a human embryo.
Entire article
CNSNews.com Correspondent
October 15, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - Stem cell research proponents are calling for the U.N. to reject a ban on therapeutic cloning, or "destructive" cloning, as it is called by its opponents.
Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) or "therapeutic cloning," is the cloning of an embryo to research its stem cells, the building blocks of skin, bone, brain or nerve tissue, in the hopes that it will provide treatment for diseases.
The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR) presented a letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and the General Assembly urging them to reject a vote banning SCNT.
"This letter sends a clear message to all United Nations delegates and policy leaders around the world that any ban on therapeutic cloning research will be strongly opposed," said Daniel Perry, president of CAMR.
The National Right to Life (NRL), a pro-life organization, claims that therapeutic cloning is still cloning, even if it is used for a purpose other than birth. On its website it cites various scientists who have said that therapeutic cloning, or as NRL calls it "cloning for research," creates a human embryo.
Entire article
Harvard Team Seeks to Clone Embryos for Stem Cells
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 14, 2004; Page A01
Harvard researchers said yesterday they have asked the university's ethics boards for permission to create cloned human embryos for medical research, marking the first push to conduct such experiments at a U.S. academic institution since a failed attempt in 2001.
The goal of the ethically contentious, privately financed work -- which has already gained provisional approval from one Harvard committee -- is to develop new cures for diabetes, Parkinson's disease and other ailments. The approach involves creating cloned human embryos that would be destroyed within days in order to retrieve stem cells growing within.
( Look closer )
So, what do you think? Ethical or not?
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 14, 2004; Page A01
Harvard researchers said yesterday they have asked the university's ethics boards for permission to create cloned human embryos for medical research, marking the first push to conduct such experiments at a U.S. academic institution since a failed attempt in 2001.
The goal of the ethically contentious, privately financed work -- which has already gained provisional approval from one Harvard committee -- is to develop new cures for diabetes, Parkinson's disease and other ailments. The approach involves creating cloned human embryos that would be destroyed within days in order to retrieve stem cells growing within.
So, what do you think? Ethical or not?
cowboys__cliche on 2004.10.15 at 10:15
Does anybody have a subscription to Time Magazine? There are some articles on there about stem cell research and I thought they'd be interesting, but I don't have a subscription and don't want to get one just to read those! :)
There's a headline that says Belly Button Brothers: Stem Cells From Umbilical Cords Saved Their Lives
There's a headline that says Belly Button Brothers: Stem Cells From Umbilical Cords Saved Their Lives
Posted by imthinkingno on 2004.10.14 at 18:33
imthinkingno on 2004.10.14 at 18:33
First of all, I think that people need to understand that President Bush did not stop Embryonic Stem Cell Research, he merely stopped federal funding. Anyone can donate if they wish.
That said, I think most of you know I am extremely pro-life. Therefore I do no support embryonic stem cell research. However, I felt sort of hypocritical because I did not know much about it other than they use embryos. I decided to research it to see if maybe it is a good thing.
I decided it is not. Here is why:
Did you know that: A man in his mid-50s had been diagnosed with Parkinson's at age 49. The disease grew progressively, leading to tremors and rigidity in the patient's right arm. Traditional drug therapy did not help.
Stem cells were harvested from the patient's brain using a routine brain biopsy procedure. They were cultured and expanded to several million cells. About 20 percent of these matured into dopamine-secreting neurons. In March 1999, the cells were injected into the patient's brain.
Three months after the procedure, the man's motor skills had improved by 37 percent and there was an increase in dopamine production of 55.6 percent. One year after the procedure, the patient's overall Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale had improved by 83 percent — this at a time when he was not taking any other Parkinson's medication!
Did anyone hear about this on the news? I know I didn't.
What about this: A study conducted by the Washington Medical Center in Seattle involved 26 rapidly deteriorating MS patients. First, physicians stimulated stem cells from the patients' bone marrow to enter the bloodstream. They then harvested the stem cells and gave the patients strong chemotherapy to destroy their immune systems. Finally, the researchers reintroduced the stem cells into the patients, hoping they would rebuild healthy immune systems and ameliorate the MS symptoms.
It worked. Of the 26 patients, 20 stabilized and six improved. Three patients experienced severe infections and one died.
Meanwhile in Canada, younger MS patients whose diseases were not as far advanced as those in the Washington study have shown even greater benefit from the same procedure. Six months after the first patient was treated, she was found to have no evidence of the disease on MRI scans. Three other patients have also received successful adult-stem-cell grafts with no current evidence of active disease.
It's still too early to tell whether the Canadian patients have achieved permanent remission or a cure, but there can be no question that the research is significant
Okay...didn't hear those either? Well, you must have heard one of these, right?
Israeli doctors inserted a paraplegic patient's own white blood cells into her severed spinal cord, after which she regained bladder control and the ability to wiggle her toes and move her legs.
Immune systems destroyed by cancer were restored in children using stem cells from umbilical-cord blood.
At Harvard University, mice with Type I diabetes were completely cured of their disease. The experiment was so successful that human trials are now planned.
Diabetic mice treated with adult stem cells achieved full insulin production and all lived. This is in contrast to an experiment in which embryonic stem cells injected into diabetic mice achieved a 3 percent insulin production rate and all the mice died.
(http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/c
No? You didn't? Me neither.
Most places didn't run the stories, yet you hear about the failures of embryonic stem cells curing animals constantly.
So why, if not one single human patient has even been treated with embryonic stem cells, but countless have been nearly cured does the media and activists continue to say embryonic is the way?
I understand people think that Embryonic Research hasn't been given the chance, but why? They have been researching for years now enjoying the same federal funding for as adult stem cell research for most of it, yet they haven;t done anything substantial.
Why, when something is working so well in its unperfected stages do we think we need to move onto something else that might be better? Why waste time and energy in two places when one already works and all the benefits have not been discovered?
Why?
(x-posted in my journal)
That said, I think most of you know I am extremely pro-life. Therefore I do no support embryonic stem cell research. However, I felt sort of hypocritical because I did not know much about it other than they use embryos. I decided to research it to see if maybe it is a good thing.
I decided it is not. Here is why:
Did you know that: A man in his mid-50s had been diagnosed with Parkinson's at age 49. The disease grew progressively, leading to tremors and rigidity in the patient's right arm. Traditional drug therapy did not help.
Stem cells were harvested from the patient's brain using a routine brain biopsy procedure. They were cultured and expanded to several million cells. About 20 percent of these matured into dopamine-secreting neurons. In March 1999, the cells were injected into the patient's brain.
Three months after the procedure, the man's motor skills had improved by 37 percent and there was an increase in dopamine production of 55.6 percent. One year after the procedure, the patient's overall Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale had improved by 83 percent — this at a time when he was not taking any other Parkinson's medication!
Did anyone hear about this on the news? I know I didn't.
What about this: A study conducted by the Washington Medical Center in Seattle involved 26 rapidly deteriorating MS patients. First, physicians stimulated stem cells from the patients' bone marrow to enter the bloodstream. They then harvested the stem cells and gave the patients strong chemotherapy to destroy their immune systems. Finally, the researchers reintroduced the stem cells into the patients, hoping they would rebuild healthy immune systems and ameliorate the MS symptoms.
It worked. Of the 26 patients, 20 stabilized and six improved. Three patients experienced severe infections and one died.
Meanwhile in Canada, younger MS patients whose diseases were not as far advanced as those in the Washington study have shown even greater benefit from the same procedure. Six months after the first patient was treated, she was found to have no evidence of the disease on MRI scans. Three other patients have also received successful adult-stem-cell grafts with no current evidence of active disease.
It's still too early to tell whether the Canadian patients have achieved permanent remission or a cure, but there can be no question that the research is significant
Okay...didn't hear those either? Well, you must have heard one of these, right?
Israeli doctors inserted a paraplegic patient's own white blood cells into her severed spinal cord, after which she regained bladder control and the ability to wiggle her toes and move her legs.
Immune systems destroyed by cancer were restored in children using stem cells from umbilical-cord blood.
At Harvard University, mice with Type I diabetes were completely cured of their disease. The experiment was so successful that human trials are now planned.
Diabetic mice treated with adult stem cells achieved full insulin production and all lived. This is in contrast to an experiment in which embryonic stem cells injected into diabetic mice achieved a 3 percent insulin production rate and all the mice died.
(http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/c
No? You didn't? Me neither.
Most places didn't run the stories, yet you hear about the failures of embryonic stem cells curing animals constantly.
So why, if not one single human patient has even been treated with embryonic stem cells, but countless have been nearly cured does the media and activists continue to say embryonic is the way?
I understand people think that Embryonic Research hasn't been given the chance, but why? They have been researching for years now enjoying the same federal funding for as adult stem cell research for most of it, yet they haven;t done anything substantial.
Why, when something is working so well in its unperfected stages do we think we need to move onto something else that might be better? Why waste time and energy in two places when one already works and all the benefits have not been discovered?
Why?
(x-posted in my journal)
katybean on 2004.10.14 at 15:38
Ok, since this is a debate community, I'll throw my views out for the crowd.
I have Multiple Sclerosis. I am extremely pro-life. I could not, in good conscience, support an act of brutality and torture to further science in the hopes of a treatment or cure. ESPECIALLY when, apparently, there's been no foundation laid for such a thing to even work.
Discuss.
I have Multiple Sclerosis. I am extremely pro-life. I could not, in good conscience, support an act of brutality and torture to further science in the hopes of a treatment or cure. ESPECIALLY when, apparently, there's been no foundation laid for such a thing to even work.
Discuss.
katybean on 2004.10.14 at 15:29
Hi! I'm new. Glad to find this community.
So, we've heard that embryonic stem cells will help cure us all up, and we've heard that embryonic stem cells will never do us any good. So...does anyone have any linkage or anything to read on this subject that I could read? What I mean is, where do I go to actually find out that embryonic stem cells have not yet aided in a cure/treatment for anything? I'm not being clear, but any links would be great!
ALSO!! Can we, as adults, donate stem cells? If it comes from bone marrow or other tissue, shouldn't we be allowed to donate it? And...umbilical blood as well. Shouldn't we be promoting these types of donations?
Amazing and thank you.
So, we've heard that embryonic stem cells will help cure us all up, and we've heard that embryonic stem cells will never do us any good. So...does anyone have any linkage or anything to read on this subject that I could read? What I mean is, where do I go to actually find out that embryonic stem cells have not yet aided in a cure/treatment for anything? I'm not being clear, but any links would be great!
ALSO!! Can we, as adults, donate stem cells? If it comes from bone marrow or other tissue, shouldn't we be allowed to donate it? And...umbilical blood as well. Shouldn't we be promoting these types of donations?
Amazing and thank you.
Dear Washington Post,
Supposedly the intent of the Kids' Post section is to educate children on current issues before they can find all the comics. If your true intention was to educate children about the definitions of the terms "bias" and "slanted news", you have done a fantastic job today.
Sincerely,
Jayelle
( Read more... )
Supposedly the intent of the Kids' Post section is to educate children on current issues before they can find all the comics. If your true intention was to educate children about the definitions of the terms "bias" and "slanted news", you have done a fantastic job today.
Sincerely,
Jayelle
( Read more... )