# Stem Cell Research



## Linda Cannon-Mott (Oct 28, 2008)

I heard on ABC nightly news they are going to do stem cell research, a clinical trial on 10 people. The cells have to be used quickly after the injury occurs. 

President Obama is going to reverse President Bush's ban on stem cell research making the clinical trial all the more important. This is very exciting and interesting to me since I am a certified clinical research nurse and work on trials everyday. It could change people's life's forever if it is a successful trial.

Chobitz I immediately thought of you and of course Michael J. Fox and the late Christopher Reed who fought and and lobbied so diligently for this.

I'm sure there is more in depth info on ABC.com


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

I am subscribed to a blog written by a young woman who has Lyme disease. She went to India for stem cell transplants last year, and virtually all of her symptoms have disappeared; she is feeling well for the first time in years. I don't think stem cells will be the magic bullet for all disease, but the research shows a lot of promise....


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

Linda Cannon-Mott said:


> I heard on ABC nightly news they are going to do stem cell research, a clinical trial on 10 people. The cells have to be used quickly after the injury occurs.
> 
> President Obama is going to reverse President Bush's ban on stem cell research making the clinical trial all the more important. This is very exciting and interesting to me since I am a certified clinical research nurse and work on trials everyday. It could change people's life's forever if it is a successful trial.
> 
> ...


Did you know they have CURED young children (under the age of 5) of CP with cord stem cells? It was on all the news in November.

These were children with severe CP who were in wheelchairs and couldn't speak or hold their head up. These children were running and climbing jungle gyms and talking! Only one 4 year old still had a limp but thats a huge improvement.

The theory so far with CP and stem cells is that adults with CP would probably need embryonic stem cells and would get as great of a change because the damage over time caused by the CP.

I found one of those cured babies:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/40211?bcpid=1526070309&bclid=1379597160&bctid=1870986126#?l=1785302026&t=1870986126


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

pidgeon92 said:


> I am subscribed to a blog written by a young woman who has Lyme disease. She went to India for stem cell transplants last year, and virtually all of her symptoms have disappeared; she is feeling well for the first time in years. I don't think stem cells will be the magic bullet for all disease, but the research shows a lot of promise....


And in China they are 'curing' specific types of blindness from birth with stem cells. Its a shame we are JUST getting on the ball with stem cells. What a great time we live in now!


----------



## bkworm8it (Nov 17, 2008)

Stem cell research has always been allowed. It was the use of embryonic stem cell research that Bush had been banned. Obama is lifting the ban on Embryonic stem cell. Used from human fetuses that are either aborted or created this purpose.


----------



## Linda Cannon-Mott (Oct 28, 2008)

chobitz said:


> Did you know they have CURED young children (under the age of 5) of CP with cord stem cells? It was on all the news in November.
> 
> These were children with severe CP who were in wheelchairs and couldn't speak or hold their head up. These children were running and climbing jungle gyms and talking! Only one 4 year old still had a limp but thats a huge improvement.
> 
> ...


I did see that and it was amazing.

I have a neurological movment disorder and the children that develop it end up in wheel chairs with very limited mobility. They are doing deep brain stimulator surgery for Dystonia but it doesn't always work. You ae awake when they saw your skull open and during the 6 to 8 hour surgery. You can only have 1 side done so we are talking about 2 surgeries.

I am excited and hopeful that this is the beginning of something big for all spinal cord injuries and neuro disorders, CP, Lou Gehrig's, Parkinson's, etc.


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

bkworm8it said:


> Stem cell research has always been allowed. It was the use of embryonic stem cell research that Bush had been banned. Obama is lifting the ban on Embryonic stem cell. Used from human fetuses that are either aborted or created this purpose.


Ah thats a huge stem cell myth. NEVER have aborted fetuses been used. When people go through Invirtro Fertilization (IVF) that fertilized tons of eggs. Rarely does a couple use all those fertilized eggs so those frozen eggs are usually destroyed after awhile.

Instead of throwing them away scientist use them for stem cell research. These are very early stage embryos and are not viable what so ever.

Aborted fetuses are DEAD. Dead cells help no one and besides at that stage the stem cells are already programmed and useless.

Oh and BTW bush banned FUNDING which caused a huge delay in research. Why not federally fund what could be a cure for thousands of disorders? Cancer research is federally funded as is AIDS research!

Besides something like 85% were for federal funding yet he banned it. Thankfully we are seeing an improvement in the science field ALREADY with Obama.


----------



## Linda Cannon-Mott (Oct 28, 2008)

Fetuses that are aborted have no viable cells to research. They are dead cells so that comment about abortions us not true.

Modified post. Chobitz you were too qucik for me. When I clicked post I got the red warning.


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

Linda Cannon-Mott said:


> Fetuses that are aborted have no viable cells to research. They are dead cells so that comment about abortions us not true.


Exactly!


----------



## bkworm8it (Nov 17, 2008)

But as I said he only stopped funding for embryonic stem cell not all stem cell research. 

There have been many break throughs and health related issues helped with stem cells which have all been from other resources since embryonic was not allowed. I'm just a little confused as to the necessity to use embronic if they have found other ways that have proven better and less possiablity of rejection or mutation?


----------



## Rivery (Nov 10, 2008)

bkworm8it said:


> There have been many break throughs and health related issues helped with stem cells which have all been from other resources since embryonic was not allowed. I'm just a little confused as to the necessity to use embronic if they have found other ways that have proven better and less possiablity of rejection or mutation?


All options of research need to remain open and available. Yes they have made advances with other types of stem cells, but that does mean that they close down research with embryonic cells. There may be advances with the embryonic cells that just are not possible with the other stem cells.


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

bkworm8it said:


> I got that mixed up with fetus stem cell which is not used.
> 
> But as I said he only stopped funding for embryonic stem cell not all stem cell research.
> 
> There have been many break throughs and health related issues helped with stem cells which have all been from other resources since embryonic was not allowed. I'm just a little confused as to the necessity to use embronic if they have found other ways that have proven better and less possiablity of rejection or mutation?


They haven't really.
Embryonic stem cells are a blank slate they don't get rejected and can be put to any use (ie brain , spinal, heart etc).

Cord stem cells can only be used by the cord owner or (if I'm not mistaken) radiation/chemo is used to surpress the body's chance for rejection so others can use it.

Adult stem cells are hit or miss. They have been rejected by some accepted by others worked for some things and not for others.

So embryonic stem cell have a higher success rate and less complications.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I have to disagree, stem cell research is incredibly misunderstood.

There are dozens of treatments using adult stem cells. There are none that use embryonic stem cells. They just don't pan out in the lab and tend to develop into cancers. Adult stem cells have proven more useful and do not require embryo destruction. Numerous breakthroughs over the past year have shown that embryonic stem cells are not needed. http://stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

Embryonic stem cell research was never banned. Federal funding of the research was. Private entities could do all they wanted to fund. Of course, they weren't really interested as the results were poor.

The only reason for the push for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research seems to be for the abortion debate. If it is unethical to use embryonic stem cells, someone might ask if it is unethical to abort fetuses.

FN
1 
www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/CheckTheScore.pdf 
2 
"Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Generated Without Viral Integration," Science, September 2008.


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2009)

^^^ I love the "Coalition Objectives" listed on the lower-left of the site's main page.  These folks are reallllllllly objective.


----------



## chobitz (Nov 25, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> ^^^ I love the "Coalition Objectives" listed on the lower-left of the site's main page. These folks are reallllllllly objective.


Yep..
Show me a FDA or Gov or some other unbiased site for the 'facts' and I'll believe them. Its these type of groups that pushed back our country for 8 years.

I'll repeat myself..ABORTED FETUSES ARE NOT USED! Never have they been used. They can't be used!

This is not an abortion topic. Its not a pro choice secret agenda. Its a human rights issue. Is the rights of disabled child or sick adult worth less then a few non living frozen cells that would be destroyed anyway?


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Bacardi Jim said:


> ^^^ I love the "Coalition Objectives" listed on the lower-left of the site's main page. These folks are reallllllllly objective.


Facts with footnotes were given.....if you wish to dispute the facts, then be my guest but disparaging is weak argumentation. Since most scientists doing research in the field are VERY interested in increased funding, they're not exactly non-biased either.No one is unbiased or objective, it just doesn't happen. I know how it works on both sides. I have degrees in Biology and Biochem and I feel that the fetus is a developing human being. This has made me think long and hard on the subject.

Chobitz made specific assertions: "So embryonic stem cell have a higher success rate and less complications."
I gave footnoted "facts". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that they could be wrong, but it would be nice if you would prove it, not make ad-hominem attacks.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
_"It is remarkable that in the debate-often carried on with little competence-the potential of embryonic stem cells is exaggerated in a one-sided way, while important moral questions and issues of research strategy are passed over in silence. Generally, advocates of research with embryonic stem cells use as their main argument that such research will enable us to cure all of the diseases that are incurable today-cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers, multiple sclerosis, and so forth. Faced with such a prospect, it is supposed to be "acceptable" to "overlook" a few moral problems."

"The danger of tumors. So far there has been no solution to the problem of developing in the laboratory an unmistakable identifier for stem cells that can distinguish them unequivocally from cancer cells. For this reason, it is also not possible to produce sufficiently pure cell cultures from stem cells. So far, with embryonic mouse stem cells, a purity of only 80 percent has been achieved. That is in no way sufficient for cell transplantation as a human therapy. In a cell culture for therapeutic purposes, there must not be a single undifferentiated cell, since it can lead to unregulated growth, in this case to the formation of teratomas, a cancerous tumor derived from the germ layers. This problem would not be expected with adult stem cells, because of their greater differentiation.

Genetic instability. Only recently a further problem has emerged. Fundamental doubt of the suitability of embryonic stem cells for transplantation has come to the surface because of the genetic instability of cloned cells.

Cloned animals like Dolly give the outward appearance of full health, but the probability of their having numerous genetic defects is very high. Moreover, the entire cloning procedure is extremely ineffective. Most cloned animals die before birth, and of those born alive, not even half survive for three weeks. In the best case, there is a success rate of 3 to 4 percent.

One of the reasons for this high failure rate has now been discovered by the German scientist Rudolf Jaenisch at the Institute for Biomedical Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his colleague, Ryuzo Yanagimachi. Their conception is that in cloning-that is, when the nucleus of a somatic cell is inserted into a denucleated egg cell-the reprogramming of the genes does not proceed properly, so that not all of the genes that are necessary to the early phase of embryonic development, are activated. Even when cloned animals survive at all, probably every clone would have subtle genetic abnormalities that would frequently become noticeable only later in life.

Jaenisch performed his experiments with mice that had been cloned using embryonic stem cells in place of the somatic cells, which produces better results. But to his surprise, the reprogramming of the inserted genetic material by the embryonic cells proceeded in a very unregulated way. There were no two clones in which the same pattern of gene activation was found, and Jaenisch is convinced that the use of embryonic stem cells was clearly responsible.

What consequences follow from this for the therapeutic use of human embryonic stem cells-consequences that will in fact be multiplied through cloning-are not yet foreseeable."_

Again...the scientists looking for money are not "objective". They will admit that there are serious problems and no real advancement....but if you give them enough time and enough money they are sure that HUGE things will happen.

Current lab research lean far more toward never getting embyronic payoff due to tumor formation and rejection. Of course they won't have to admit this for many years and many billions of dollars hence. If the payoff was so likely and so great as they make it seem.. you wouldn't need federal dollars tax dollars which could be used elsewhere, the biotech companies would be all over it.

Meanwhile great progress is being made in making pluripotent stem cells FROM YOUR OWN BODY that will not be rejected and are far less likely to become cancerous, but these are shoved under the rug because of the need to get money for embryonic stem cell research.


----------



## Rivery (Nov 10, 2008)

My understanding from our local news is that part of the problem with the strains of embryonic stem cells that Mr Bush allowed government funding on, is that they had long ago been altered.  Our local university "owned" some of the strains, and although they are useful, they are no longer "pure".  I am not a scientist of any type, but I would imagine that would have a negative impact on the research that could be done with them.


----------



## LDB (Oct 28, 2008)

I'm guessing you mostly all find Sarah Brady's "facts" on her site fully objective at the same time as you find these "realllllllly objective". You can't use viability as a response to this argument because that same "unviable" being would be fully viable in another setting. The same argument is faulty for abortion prior to 32 weeks. No, the baby most likely couldn't live without external umbilicals if removed from the mother's umbilical but that doesn't mean it's not a life. Using that faulty argument, astronauts are not alive while in space and divers are not alive while participating in scuba diving because without those externally supplied umbilicals they wouldn't be viable. Just an alternative viewpoint if those aren't prohibited on odd number days.


----------



## Elijsha (Dec 10, 2008)

> Aborted fetuses are DEAD. Dead cells help no one and besides at that stage the stem cells are already programmed and useless.





> Is the rights of disabled child or sick adult worth less then a few non living frozen cells that would be destroyed anyway?


 I'm confused


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2009)

Chad: I do not have the expertise to dispute the statements in the article you originally quoted. I'm not a microbiologist. However, I *do* know that many studies of both embryonic and adult stem cell research have been done, with wildly varying results as to their respective efficacy.

This is a fact.

I also know that studies, reports and articles which support the efficacy of embryonic stem cell research _are not and never will be reported on the site you turned to as your *first* resource._ Your choice of using that host site as a meta-reference rather than, say, _directly_ citing _Nature_ or _Science_ or _JAMA_ or _The Lancet_ does not reflect a scientific objectivity.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

As I discussed, neither side is objective. The pro-embryonic stem cell research side is not going to compile a meta-reference for the opposing side. It is a common tactic when dealing with this kind of debate is saying only your side is objective. You dismiss all evidence to the contrary because those on your side dismissed it because it didn't agree with their aims or pre-suppositions.

It may be nice to live in a world where everything you believe is objective and everyone else is subjective. But its not very accurate. This is how so much dubious opinion has become "fact" and shaped public opinion. No one debates the specific points or looks at both sides. They just believe what they heard on the nightly news because they are "objective"

The site I used was a useful reference on one side, and some information may be incorrect or spun. Just like any other reference.


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2009)

But, as a scientist, shouldn't you be above taking sides at all?  Isn't your pursuit "truth," no matter what that truth turns out to be?  And if it isn't, shouldn't it be?  Or do I have a faulty understanding of the nature of science?


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

It sounds nice but it never really exists. Spin is always there. A scientist asking for grant money is not exactly objective on the possible benefits of his research. Besides, as soon as you come to a conclusion you have taken sides. Postmodernist relativism doesn't work in science. Plus, it is very easy to ignore what doesn't fit your presuppositions.


----------

