Science

4° London Hi 6°C / Lo -1°C

Stem cells: the first human trial

Revolutionary treatment using human embryos for patients with incurable blindness

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Stem cells could soon be used to remedy formerly incurable eye defects which cause blindness

Stem cells could soon be used to remedy formerly incurable eye defects which cause blindness

People suffering from a form of incurable blindness could soon become the first patients in the world to benefit from a new and controversial transplant operation using stem cells derived from spare human embryos left over from IVF treatment.

Scientists working for an American biotechnology company yesterday applied for a licence to carry out a clinical trial on patients in the US suffering from a type of macular degeneration, which causes gradual loss of vision. They expect the transplant operations to begin early in the new year.

The development is highly controversial because many "pro-life" groups are opposed to using human embryos in any kind of medical research but scientists believe that the benefits could revolutionise the treatment of many incurable disorders ranging from Parkinson's to heart disease.

The company has applied for a licence from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is confident of its application being granted.

"We've seen absolutely no adverse effects whatsoever in any of the preclinical experiments and our cells are more than 99.9 per cent pure," said Dr Robert Lanza, the chief scientific officer of Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) in Worcester, Massachusetts.

"We certainly expect them [the FDA] to come back with comments and questions but our hope is that we will start sometime early next year. We're optimistic and certainly confident in our own data. We've been in dialogue [with the FDA] and we know what was on their mind and what they wanted us to do," he said. "We're hoping, assuming no hitches, to begin early next year, perhaps March."

Stem cells derived from human embryos that are only a few days old have the ability to develop into any of the scores of specialised tissues of the body. The hope is that they could be used to repair the damaged organs and tissues of patients with a relatively simple transplant procedure.

ACT has filed an "investigational new drug" application with the FDA to treat a form of progressive damage to the retina of the eye called Stargardt's macular degeneration, which destroys the central part of the retina involved in recognising faces and reading words on a page. They also intend to follow this with an application to treat age-related macular degeneration, which affects more than 500,000 people in Britain and is the most common cause of blindness.

"We hope to file a second application for age-related macular degeneration very soon within the next few months," said Dr Lanza. "I think we've put together a pretty convincing case but the FDA has to be pretty careful. I'm sure they will come back to us in the next 30 days with more questions."

The treatment for eye disease uses stem cells to recreate a type of cell in the retina that supports the photoreceptors needed for vision. These cells form the retinal pigment epithelium – which keep the light-sensing cells of the retina alive – which are often the first to die off in macular degeneration, which in turn leads to loss of vision, he said.

A single cell from a human embryo left over from IVF treatment was used in the creation of the stem cell "line" that Dr Lanza and his colleagues cultivated in the laboratory. By bathing the stem cells in a suite of chemical messengers, they were able to stimulate them to develop into fully mature retinal pigment epithelium cells.

Tests on animals found that transplants of the human cells into rats with macular degeneration resulted in a "100 per cent improvement" in vision with no side-effects, Dr Lanza said. Transplants into the 12 human volunteers chosen as guinea pigs for the first clinical trial will involve giving them mild immuno-suppressant drugs to prevent tissue rejection.

"We're going to take a precautionary approach and use low-dose immuno-suppression after the operation and after six weeks we'll taper it off. We don't know whether we will really need it," Dr Lanza said.

He said the clinical trial could well be the first in the world because the only other company that had received a licence from the FDA had had to delay the start of its own clinical trial until the end of next year.

Geron, which received its FDA licence earlier this year, has run into safety problems with experiments on animals involving the growth of cysts. It has had to provide further information to the FDA in order to satisfy nervous regulators that the new technique is as safe as possible.

Meanwhile, ACT believes it has stolen a march on Geron because its own pre-clinical studies on animals have shown that its embryonic stem cells are extremely pure and safe with no signs of the cysts seen in the animals injected with the embryonic stem cells that Geron was hoping to use in patients suffering from spinal cord injuries. "They've been through this with Geron and the company has put out an announcement that they won't start until the third quarter of next year, so ours may well be the first trial," Dr Lanza said.

A similar proposal to treat age-related macular degeneration with embryonic stem cells is being developed by scientists in Britain led by Professor Pete Coffey of University College London, but this clinical trial is unlikely to start until early 2011. "It's such a complex, wholly new process that nobody had done before and it has to be done properly," he said.

"It hasn't been done before in humans and that is affecting the last stages of the plan to get into the clinic so it's obvious that we don't want anything to go wrong. But someone has to be the first take that step."

Dr Lanza said that extensive work had been done to ensure that the cells derived from embryonic stem cells were of high enough quality to be considered clinical grade. His company has submitted nine volumes of safety data to the FDA to address concerns over purity and the possibility that the stem cells may trigger the formation of cancerous tumours.

"What we definitely have going for us is that the cells are so well purified, well characterised and there are no adverse effects. So there is nothing here to send up a flag of concern," Dr Lanza said. "It has been over a decade since human embryonic stem cells were first discovered. The field desperately needs a big clinical success."

"After years of research and political debate, we're finally on the verge of showing the potential clinical value of embryonic stem cells. Our research clearly shows that stem cell-derived retinal cells can rescue visual function in animals that otherwise would have gone blind.

"We are hopeful that the cells will be similarly efficacious in patients," Dr Lanza added.

Medical focus: Stem-cell research

Q. Why do we hear so much about stem-cell research?

A. Scientists believe that by exploiting the potential of embryonic stem cells to develop into any cells of the body, they may be able to treat many incurable conditions.

Q. What is the difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells?

A. Embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos just a few days old, collected in fertility clinics. Although the embryos would have been destroyed, many people have ethical objections to their use for any purpose other than reproduction. Adult stem cells are derived from skin cells or bone marrow cells which are treated so that they acquire the properties of embryonic stem cells, but not everybody is convinced this works.

Q. What has non-embryonic stem cell research achieved?

A. Claudia Castillo, from Barcelona, received a whole organ transplant grown using her own stem cells and without the need for powerful anti-rejection drugs. Surgeons used a windpipe from a donor which they stripped of all living cells and re-seeded with cells grown in the laboratory from Ms Castillo's bone marrow.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
No adverse effects?
[info]hhadley wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 12:52 am (UTC)
"We've seen absolutely no adverse effects whatsoever..." Um, how about it the unborn children that you are murdering? May God have mercy on your soul. And on the rest of us for allowing this abomination.
Re: No adverse effects?
[info]d3sperad0 wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 01:08 am (UTC)
yes.... did you realize those embryos would have been disposed of? as in not used and thrown away? so your judgment is misplaced and in fact inappropriate.
Re: No adverse effects? - [info]djublonskopf - Friday, 20 November 2009 at 11:43 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]elivebuy - Saturday, 21 November 2009 at 01:03 am (UTC) Expand
Re: No adverse effects? - [info]ladyjackkkk - Sunday, 22 November 2009 at 01:10 am (UTC) Expand
misleading title
[info]d3sperad0 wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 12:59 am (UTC)
this is not the first human trials for stem cells in general. I'm not even sure if it's the first time embryonic stem cells will have been tried in humans. Also in the Q and A the distinction made between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells is a misnomer. The distinction made within the scientific literature is between pluripotent stem cells and totipotent, not adult and embryonic. altogether this is a bad article written with little to no real research into the topic.
[info]tonygfd wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 02:15 am (UTC)
Can they be used on americans to make them into a less agressive race ? Fast food restaurants might be a good delivery mechanism.
[info]kath1067 wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 02:30 am (UTC)
Wow Tony...I never knew that American's were considered a "race". I suppose you would expect the fast food eating aggressive Americans to come bail your country out when it is being overtaken by Germans....oh, wait....we did that already...my bad. Sorry if I offended anyone but Tony. I just wonder how many Americans he knows that he can make assumptions about an entire country.....that is like calling all Muslim's terrorists....sorry Tony, you are ignorant...plain and simple.
(no subject) - [info]tonygfd - Friday, 20 November 2009 at 03:37 am (UTC) Expand
Germans Is The Correct Term - [info]briand82 - Friday, 20 November 2009 at 11:49 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Germans Is The Correct Term - [info]ourmaninberlin - Friday, 20 November 2009 at 12:30 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Germans Is The Correct Term - [info]penrod59 - Friday, 20 November 2009 at 01:45 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Germans Is The Correct Term - [info]mightydrunken - Friday, 20 November 2009 at 02:53 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Germans Is The Correct Term - [info]briand82 - Saturday, 21 November 2009 at 01:18 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Germans Is The Correct Term - [info]mightydrunken - Wednesday, 25 November 2009 at 01:12 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Germans Is The Correct Term - [info]msmbuster - Friday, 20 November 2009 at 02:48 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Germans Is The Correct Term - [info]adampooler - Friday, 20 November 2009 at 04:06 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Germans Is The Correct Term - [info]lexusperplexus - Friday, 20 November 2009 at 12:39 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Germans Is The Correct Term - [info]penrod59 - Friday, 20 November 2009 at 10:39 pm (UTC) Expand
What has non-embryonic stem cell research achieved?
[info]andrevm wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 04:28 am (UTC)
Every one of the 80+ stem cell breakthroughs benefitting humans came from adult stem cells and their corollaries.  With the Universities of Tokyo and Wisconsin demonstrating direct reprogramming of human adult stem cells into induced pluripotent stem cells, the debate is over.  Even professor Ian Wilmut of Dolly the sheep fame is abandoning cloning technology, and therefore embryonic stem cell research.  The science, profit, ethics, and hope have sided with adult stem cells over embryonic. These embryonic stem cell trial patients will need to be monitored for years due to a high risk of cancer formation from the treatment, assuming they can overcome the initial high risk of tissue rejection. The risk is entirely unnecessary, when pluripotent adult stem cells can do the job well.
Embryonic stem cells are dangerous!
[info]theartistboonie wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 04:38 am (UTC)
If you read any of the major news articles about the advances in stem cell technologies you'll see from the repairstemcells.org website written by the first person to ever open a commercially successful adult stem cell treatment center that his experts have said for years that embryonic stem cells are dangerous and we don't need them.
Embryonic or repair (adult) stem cells?
[info]stemcellblogger wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 04:52 am (UTC)
Even if there have been incidence of no cysts...so far,
I am blown away that embryonic stem cell clinical trial approval is still sought after.

Embryonic cells have rejection issues that require immunosuppressive drugs. What's so terrible about immunosuppressive drugs used to avoid rejection of embryonic stem cells?
"Because the majority of them act non-selectively, the immune system is less able to resist infections and the spread of malignant cells. There are also other side-effects, such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, peptic ulcers, liver, and kidney injury. The immunosuppressive drugs also interact with other medicines and affect their metabolism and action."

Repair or adult stem cells have no rejection issues and require require NO IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS.

DO REPAIR STEM CELL TREATMENTS WORK?
http://www.repairstemcells.org/newsletters/NL100909.htm

REPAIR STEM CELL PLACEBO EFFECT?
http://www.repairstemcells.org/newsletters/NL102209.htm

10 REAL OPTIC NERVE HYPOPLASIA VICTORIES
http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/and-the-blind-shall-see-10-real-stem-cell-victories/

SCREW THE EMBRYOS, THEY'RE IRRELEVANT!
http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/2793/
TREATMENT VERSUS TIME
[info]stemcellblogger wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 05:07 am (UTC)
One more thing...while the embryonic stem cell clinical trial will take about 10 years to complete, the repair/adult stem cell treatments are already available with thousands of studies and clinical trials proving their safety and efficacy and benefits!

You can already get treatment for:
http://www.repairstemcells.org/Treatment/Treatment-Request.aspx?d=Autism
http://www.repairstemcells.org/Treatment/Treatment-Request.aspx?d=Diabetes Type 1
http://www.repairstemcells.org/Treatment/Treatment-Request.aspx?d=Diabetes Type 2
http://www.repairstemcells.org/Treatment/Treatment-Request.aspx?d=Hearing Disorders
http://www.repairstemcells.org/Treatment/Treatment-Request.aspx?d=Heart Disease
http://www.repairstemcells.org/Treatment/Treatment-Request.aspx?d=Macular Degeneration
http://www.repairstemcells.org/Treatment/Treatment-Request.aspx?d=Optic Nerve Disorders
and many more!
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CALLED TRIALS
[info]stem420 wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 05:12 am (UTC)
in regards to cancer/cyst risks: ACT's stem cells are 99.9% pure and have no shown no signs of causing cancer or cysts.

in regards to immunosuppresive drugs: they don't know if they need to use them, but they are using them just in case.

and thank you for someone saying these embryos would be THROWN AWAY anyway. SAVE SOMEONE'S VISION INSTEAD.

lots of people in the comments have no idea what they're talking about and simply disagree with stem cell research because of religious stupidity.
Re: THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CALLED TRIALS
[info]stemcellblogger wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 12:12 pm (UTC)
You are making too many blanket statements. While I fully support repair/adult stem cell (RSC/ASC) research; my decision is based on available, proven safe + effective scientific results + treatments; not "religious stupidity" as you put it.

Immunosuppressive drugs (ISD) are needed because embryonic stem cells (ESC) are typically allogenic (from outside the patient's body). RSC/ASC are autologous (from patient's own body) or from other sources that do NOT require ISD. Mild ISD…is that like a little bit pregnant? They aren't sure if they need them? They need ISD to offset the potential of rejection/Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). GVHD occurs with ESC. Even when the ESCs are HLA type matched (1+2) you still need ISD because the recipient’s body can still reject the differences in many other aspects of the donated tissue.

Remember, views based 100% on science to the exclusion of all other "isms" or religious concerns is an extremely limited perspective, a religion in its own right and in fact a fundamentalist religion (movement or attitude stressing strict + literal adherence to a set of basic principles - webster). You just exchange prayer at the altar of “the church + bible” for prayer at the altar of “the laboratory + scientific dogma.” They say “Tomato,” You say…“Lycopersicon esculentum.”

The reason ESCs cause tumors is because their raison d'etre is to divide for weeks on end until there is a fetus the size of a thumbnail. It is possible to manipulate ESCs so they engage in regeneration for a time, but studies show it is nearly impossible to force them to be something they are not wired for. They eventually go back towards trying to generate that fetus…ergo – cysts + tumors develop. Perhaps this aspect of behavior has been stalled or even fixed; perhaps not.

The pro-ESC research position has always relied on the fall back position of: "yes, RSC/ASC are safer + are treating people successfully now + require no ISD…BUT THEY ARE NOT PLURIPOTENT (the ability to transform into any of the 320 odd cells in the human body)! ONLY ESC ARE PLURIPOTENT!" Not true.

It WAS believed that there are no pluripotent RSC/ASC. This is erroneous as there are at least 3 PLURIPOTENT non-ESC sources.

Whether we research ESCs, use existing lines, etc. will be decided in the courtrooms + town halls of America. Such is life (no pun intended). That is how our laws + society move forward (or backwards) in the USA.

And you may pray to a god other than pure science; Stem420. Is religion “a mind expanded awareness of the universe + the desire to better understand one's place in it + be comfortable there?” Does your interest in regenerative medicine "stem" from an interest in stem cells’ ability to regrow lung tissue damaged by smoking too much weed (as the use of “420” in one's title typically construes)? You are in luck!

There are a number of top-notch facilities around the world that are successfully treating lung disease with RSC/ASC (now, not in 10-15 years). You don’t need ISD. There is no history of cysts, tumors or GVHD. Lungs are the greediest organ in the body for stem cells…treatment has a high potential of success.

HOW TO FIND THE BEST PLACE TO TREAT YOUR SPECIFIC CONDITION...
Fill out this form + the top treatment centers in the world will review your data.
http://www.repairstemcells.org/Treatment/Treatment-Request.aspx?d=Lungs
They will contact you with info on procedure, travel, costs, statistics, etc.

They don’t even charge you when they determine if you are a candidate for treatment! (Imagine that! People are turned away before they pay anything if they prove to be poor candidates for successful treatment.)

…and unlike you, the treatment centers are very tolerant. They will treat you regardless of your religious or scientific positions. Thank god (no offense intended) or you would be out of luck for a decade or two.
Re: THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CALLED TRIALS - [info]lexusperplexus - Friday, 20 November 2009 at 12:47 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CALLED TRIALS - [info]stemcellblogger - Friday, 20 November 2009 at 01:45 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CALLED TRIALS - [info]rschr - Friday, 20 November 2009 at 07:00 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CALLED TRIALS - [info]stemcellblogger - Friday, 20 November 2009 at 07:57 pm (UTC) Expand
If this is "successful," then we might create life merely...
[info]irenaeus99 wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 05:19 am (UTC)
If this is "successful," then we might create life merely to harvest and destroy it. How Machiavellian: yes, there is a good end (curing disease), but the destruction of an innocent human being as the means to the end is no good. There should be a good means to a good end. Calling the embryo a "spare" does not eradicate the awful history of its manipulation: the embryo was destroyed at some stage. Many more could be created and then destroyed with the Machiavellian justification that the process is for a good cause. What an awful farce.
Re: If this is "successful," then we might create life merely...
[info]stem420 wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 05:55 am (UTC)
it...IS for a good cause. and these are embryos created for IVF, then NOT USED by their donors. now, you rather 1) have that embryo thrown away like trash, or 2) used (over and over and over) to help people SEE again, see the world your god was happy to deprive them the pleasure of witnessing for themselves.

the choice is simple.
Making life better
[info]andhereitbegins wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 08:04 am (UTC)
I find it amazing how we keep repeating our mistakes as a society. We have an emerging technology that could potentially cure so many of the diseases that humanity faces. Everything from aids to cancer to blindness may become the smallpox of our time (essentially defeated), yet we throw up walls to research based on nothing but a possibility of offending the gods. I'm not saying that this is the silver bullet that will slay every ailment known to man, but damn it, we'll never know if we don't try to learn. We will never stop the mad men that will try unethical experiments, Those trying to make Frankenstein will always exist. However, most of the scientists that are working in these fields are working to improve the quality of life for all of humanity. I am not so naive as to believe they are not working for the almighty dollar as well as fame, but they are working to help us. It's really sad to me that the same people that claim to be "pro-life" are in fact supporting assisted homicide by not allowing those trying to help us to LIVE, figure out how to achieve that goal. I am sure this will offend a whole lot of folks, and I hate that it does. I don't want to call it hypocrisy, because I don't believe those opposed this research are hypocritical. Strong beliefs and the ability to voice those opinions are part of what made this country strong. I just can't conceive that if they could take the emotion (religion) out of their views they could oppose such a promising technology, especially based on what they are actually using to do their experiments. Don't go to these research companies to ask your questions, but avoid going to your church to ask as well. Look at everything out there and make and descision based on YOUR research. If you go to either of those places to get your facts you'll be mislead by ignorance or intention. Both have their agendas. Frankly, everyone has thier agenda or opinion. I find the opposition nutty, so you know where I stand. Whether you agree or hate me, go outside the box and find out for yourself using all of the resources available in the internet age. Ask people on both sides WITH YOUR MIND OPEN. Then determine what you believe. Don't eliminate hope for the living without having all of the information. I truly apologize to anyone offended.

Opinions without knowledge are prejudices, are you a biggot?
Re: 20 Years and Still No Results From the Promise
[info]briand82 wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 12:11 pm (UTC)
Yes, with an open mind, one can see that after 20 years of experimenting with the so called emerging technology of embryonic stem cell research, we have exactly NO treatments and NO cures for any diseases. Yet, we keep hearing that there is all this promise of new cures and treatment if we just try it out. Well, it has been tried for 20 years and nothing has come of it, except $ Billions of wasted tax $$ in the US spent on all this "promise" of new cures. This isn't religious stupidity; this is plain common sense. Since embryonic stem cell research hasn't produced anything for over 20 years, maybe we should try something else. Why keep throwing tax $$ (in the USA) down the drain when you haven't seen any results in over 20 years of trying with embryonic stem cell research??? Now that's what I call stupidity...keep spending $$ on a "promise" that never comes true.

Say, we could try non-embryonic stem cell research, because this has actually produced FORTY cures and treatments in the last 20 years. Forty cures and treatments from non-embryonic stem cell research!!! Now that's what I call promise from "emerging" technology!
Re: Making life better - [info]philarcath - Friday, 20 November 2009 at 02:01 pm (UTC) Expand
Wonderful
[info]andyfisk wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 09:39 am (UTC)
Brilliant - I place my hands up to say I am not in full understanding of the technology (Am about to research it a bit now) but if people's sight can be saved with no adverse affects then how wonderful. As for the God squad; well they will always despair.
Re: Wonderful
[info]asuato wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 10:12 am (UTC)
To make a point, ACTC has developed and patented a method that DOES NOT harm the embryo while extracting stem cells from it. So the embryos are NOT destroyed in the process..defeating the arguments from the other side.
re: ethics over embryonic stem cells
[info]asuato wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 10:21 am (UTC)
ACTC has developed and patented a method to remove stem cells from the embryo without harming the embryo, so that argument is pretty much mute now. You can go to their website and watch the video of their chief science officer talking about this.
embryonic stem cells
[info]philarcath wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 01:38 pm (UTC)
Why use a embryonic stem cells when adult and cord cells are available and work? There are definitely moral and ethical problems with embryonic stem cells. Reminds me of the Nazi medical experiments of Hitler's Germany. But of course we have accepted abortion, infanticide (see Chicago Hospitals and Obama 1998 Babies Born Alive from Abortion), and euthanasia (institutionalized all over Europe and soon to be in our Healthcare bill), so destroying one person for the benefit of another is nothing new. Seems the human race hasn't changed much since the first murder we only have become more clever at it. Is there no limits to our conceit and arrogance?
Re: Germans Is The Correct Term and things
[info]tovasco wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 01:51 pm (UTC)
Um, did you know the Chinese saved the Americans arse in WWII? At the time of Pearl Harbour 90% of the imperial Japanese Army was engaged in Manchuria. Fighting against the COMMUNIST CHINESE (amongst others) shock horror.

80% of the German war effort was directed against the RUSSIAN COMMUNISTS My God, when you look at it analytically the communists saved the world from Axis domination. But full respects to anyone who fought against the axis where ever they came from.

Also more Americans are murdered every year by fellow Americans than have ever been killed in the whole of history by Muslims and that includes Iraq and Afghanistan.

You need to get a perspective…..

Back to the main event: If one day my eyes go I’ll not lament a few cells having been saved from the bin to restore my sight. Roll on not having to die horribly...... maybe that is really Gods work.....
Yes, we realise they would have been "disposed" of.
[info]taiwandrew wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 01:57 pm (UTC)
Even if an embryo serves no utilitarian purpose, that still does not give give you the right to destroy it. I wish parents would think twice before doing IVF in the first place. The most ethical thing to do in this case is to leave the embryos frozen. If you kill them for some "ethical" purpose, you're responsible for murder.
stem cells
[info]wylaw wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 02:17 pm (UTC)
I would hate to be one of those having this procedure done. Embryonic = trouble...as we've seen every time it's used. God is watching.
Question of motivation...
[info]donagin wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 03:22 pm (UTC)
With the ability to form totipotent adult stem cells removing the necessity for embryonic stem cells, I was left to wonder why use embryonic. First, it occurred to me that this could be a cost saving measure. Adult stem cells would be genetically identical to the individual receiving the treatment, and so would involve no rejection risk ever. BUT, in order to receive this benefit, they would have to be specifically cultured for each patient. This means additional cost to each patient for the initial treatment. Still, with adult stem cells the treatment becomes effectively a "one shot" affair - or a pay once operation, if you will. Contrasting to embryonic stem cells, with rejection risks requiring additional medications for unknown lengths of time - perhaps for life - it does appear that the "cost savings" may be limited to cost savings for the person administering the treatment, and not for the patient. This idea continues to cause me to ponder - why is there such an almost religious advocacy for the use of embryonic stem cells? Could some of the companies investing in them have a vested interest in the anti-rejection drugs they would require for life? Would that be a bit like the companies that virtually give away inkjet printers in order to sell ink? (Often the printers are sold for less than the ink cartridges in them.) These are questions I would like to know the answers to.

-Don
Re: Question of motivation...
[info]stemcellblogger wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 05:07 pm (UTC)
Adult stem cells need not be a one-time affair. They can be developed into 4 separate "master" batches and then the most powerful "master" batch is picked and can be cultured into 1,000 "worker" batches. So each sample can treat 1,000 patients with no rejection risk. Now that's economy of scale!

Why so much focus on embryonic when they clearly don't work?
American scientists and doctors have been trained to believe that the American way (FDA, clinical trials, drug development = $500 million and 7-12 yrs to develop) is the only way to go. This is the only way the pharma companies can get patents and sell their drugs exclusively for 5-10 yrs to make back the $500 mill cost of bringing a drug to public.

And make no mistake; the FDA considers stem cells a drug. http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/fda-part-2-adult-stem-cells-found-in-everyones-body-are-drugs-subject-to-regulation-and-monitoring/ and http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/fda-part-5-adult-stem-cells-are-a-drug/

The scientists and docs have also been trained with an extremely exclusive amero-centric philosophy. Just about every US scientist will take a verified, completed, peer reviewed clinical trial…even in a well-respected publication like the New England Journal of Medicine, but PERFORMED IN ANOTHER COUNTRY and they will REPEAT IT while following US codes and standards before they will allow themselves to begin to believe the results despite the fact that the USA is years behind the rest of the world in regard to stem cell research. [I have confirmed this with 3 different scientists.]

Even so, there are over 1500 positive successful RSC/ASC FDA approved clinical trials. I already compiled a list of those associated with Hearing Disorders, Diabetes, SCI, MS, Optic Disorders and many more...give a shout if you want me to send them to you – dsgrano@gmail.com
What's the issue with embryonic stem cells?
[info]njobserver wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 03:58 pm (UTC)
The issue is it's the beginning of a coming science of genetic engineering. Once human life can be commoditized then it can be cannibalized. This of course is the natural course of evolution, man the beast indulging himself, or should I say itself?
Re: What's the issue with embryonic stem cells?
[info]donagin wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 04:59 pm (UTC)
No - it isn't. the purpose of using embroyonic stem cells is their totipotency. Embryonic stem cells used to be the only way to achieve this. But they aren't anymore. And to truly affect a real cure, you need to have the same genetics as the individual in question. Embryonic stem cells cannot do this - ever. Adult stem cells can. Embryonic stem cells are just a "cheap and dirty" shortcut in the true science of genetic engineering.
Are you in Europe not aware of the breakthroughs?
[info]karlq wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 04:10 pm (UTC)
It is possible to reprogram an adult's skin cells to revert to the original polypotent stem cell form of the patient's own original embryonic stem cell. Excellent summary of this research on Nova Science Now months back.

The result is identical (as far as known at this point) to having a dish full of the patient's original embryonic stem cells ready to be reprogrammed to become whatever cell types that are needed. NO REJECTION, since each cell contains exactly the patient's own DNA.

This completely eliminates the ethical questions and is safer for the patient anyway.

Meanwhile..... there has been widespread use in America of adult stem cells to grow tissue, bone and organ cells used in successful treatment for many years.
Re: Are you in Europe not aware of the breakthroughs?
[info]karlq wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 04:34 pm (UTC)
I believe this is the link to the Science Now segment:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/0305/03.html

It should be 10 to 15 minutes in length and uses sicle cell anemia as an example of a genetic desease that may be cured with stem cells created from skin cells. I've bandwidth limitations where I am now that prevents me from verifying this is the video I saw.... if a couple of African American kids appear describing their anemia, you've got it.

Note: it originally aired summer of '08.

Why they don't
[info]momsaid wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 04:15 pm (UTC)
...and will never work: The cells in an embryo are programmed to become part of an entire, unique, individual human being. Place them in another organism (human), and they go nuts. They cannot fulfill their purpose. The rate of replication engenders tumor growth in the donee, and no attempt to use these cells has been successful. When mature cells are used, whether from cord blood or anyone breathing air, the problems fade.
Q. What has non-embryonic stem cell research achieved?
[info]jimkress wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 04:45 pm (UTC)

A. Claudia Castillo, from Barcelona, received a whole organ transplant grown using her own stem cells and without the need for powerful anti-rejection drugs. Surgeons used a windpipe from a donor which they stripped of all living cells and re-seeded with cells grown in the laboratory from Ms Castillo's bone marrow.

This minimalist, dismissive answer is a deliberate attempt by the pro-abortion groups to minimize the actual effectiveness of adult stem cell achievements. To this date, over 70 treatments from adult stem cells have been developed and are in use (not in trials, but as actual cures).

Among these are:

Brain Cancer
Retinoblastoma
Ovarian Cancer
Skin Cancer: Merkel Cell Carcinoma
Testicular Cancer
Tumors abdominal organs Lymphoma
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Acute Myelogenous Leukemia
Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia
Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia
Cancer of the lymph nodes: Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy
Multiple Myeloma
Myelodysplasia
Breast Cancer
Neuroblastoma
Renal Cell Carcinoma
Various Solid Tumors
Soft Tissue Sarcoma
Ewing’s Sarcoma
Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia
Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis
POEMS syndrome
Myelofibrosis
Auto-Immune Diseases

Diabetes Type I (Juvenile)
Systemic Lupus
Sjogren’s Syndrome
Myasthenia
Autoimmune Cytopenia
Scleromyxedema
Scleroderma
Crohn’s Disease
Behcet’s Disease
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Juvenile Arthritis
Multiple Sclerosis
Polychondritis
Systemic Vasculitis
Alopecia Universalis
Buerger’s Disease
Cardiovascular

Acute Heart Damage
Chronic Coronary Artery Disease
Ocular

Corneal regeneration
Immunodeficiencies

Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome
X-linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome
X-linked Hyper immunoglobulin M Syndrome
Neural Degenerative Diseases and Injuries

Parkinson’s Disease
Spinal Cord Injury
Stroke Damage
Anemias and Other Blood Conditions

Sickle Cell Anemia
Sideroblastic Anemia
Aplastic Anemia
Red Cell Aplasia
Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia
Thalassemia
Primary Amyloidosis
Diamond Blackfan Anemia
Fanconi’s Anemia
Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection
Wounds and Injuries

Limb Gangrene
Surface Wound Healing
Jawbone Replacement
Skull Bone Repair
Other Metabolic Disorders

Hurler’s Syndrome
Osteogenesis Imperfecta
Krabbe Leukodystrophy
Osteopetrosis
Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy
Liver Disease

Chronic Liver Failure
Liver Cirrhosis
Bladder Disease

End-Stage Bladder Disease

There have been NO treatments developed from embryonic stem cells.
list of breakthroughs...
[info]karlq wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 05:12 pm (UTC)
See:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/0305/03-related.html

The whole argument about the ethics of embryonic stem cells is now moot.

a) research demonstrates the relative ease with which any adult stem cell can reprogrammed;
b) there are NO ethical restrictions on ANY research treating animal diseases with animal embryonic stem cells.

End of story.
ADOPT THE EMBRYO INSTEAD OF KILLING IT!!!
[info]mj29 wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 10:53 pm (UTC)
It is not true that destruction of these precious embryos is the only option (as the second question at the end of the article suggests). Couples unable to conceive a child, but able to carry a child can adopt an embryo! These are precious human lives that need to be given the chance to be born! The media should be presenting all the options! Destruction and research are not the only use for these precious children. They all deserve a chance to live. Instead of IVF - adopt an embryo.

This link brings you to the Snowflakes Embryo Adoption website:

http://www.nightlight.org/adoption-services/snowflakes-embryo/default.aspx
'Pro-life groups
[info]jgrim76 wrote:
Friday, 20 November 2009 at 11:16 pm (UTC)
Why put quotation marks around the word pro-life? Are you assuming that because
most pro-lifers are against embroyonic stem cell research they are against finding
cures for serious diseases? Adult stems cells have already shown success in
clinical trails. Why not defund the embroyonic research and put the money
into the already proven adult stem-cells.
Stem Cells
[info]sandym_77 wrote:
Saturday, 21 November 2009 at 12:13 am (UTC)
This is so exciting, like we're really entering the 21st century. Sounds promisiing.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>