Posted on 08/05/2005 1:40:01 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
shhh...there are political footballs to be kicked - don't let science get in the way...
This ceased to be a scientific fact a couple of decades old and became breaking news....when? (/rhetorical question)
Let's not be looking for any "win win" situations here. Far too capitalistic. Need a zero sum universe to promote the pro-death agenda.
Didn't I read here just yesterday that another company has just made a major practical breakthrough with placental cells?
This ESCR mania has absolutely zilch to do with actual medical science. The people I've heard make the most noise about it know nothing, absolutely nothing about the various directions and advances in real research.
But why would anyone want to use them? They don't help make the case for retaining abortion on demand.
'Cause if you're worried your child will have a medical problem, the best stem cells to use to cure him or her are his or her own, and peripharlly, stem cells from discarded placentas which match your blood group can possibly save you....oh yeah, but the kids from which the stem cells came are still alive, so the lefties just hate that. I hate white elephants as much as the lefties hate having them discovered after they start making money.
Same story, different source. The story yesterday had two sources -- Pittsburgh Post Gazette -- but was was also referred by Catholic News Agency.
All three articles are about a University of Pittsburgh study. So it is the same news.
If it comes from the mothers abdomen then it should be up to the family to sell the placenta to cover medical costs or start a college/education fund for the child.
I am sick of medicine and science expecting me to donate this, donate that. I say bring back selling parts on eBay. That really wasn't such a bad idea.
There are now four different types of Stem Cell that work better than embryonic stem cell:
1. Adult Stem Cell -- stem cells taken from the nose of an adult. No rejection because it is from the donor for the host (one and the same).2. Umbilical Cord Stem Cell -- these stem cells are very adaptable since they function between two bodies -- the mother and unborn child. Thus going from donor to host seems to have less trouble of rejection.
3. Amniotic fluid stem cells -- stem cells found in amniotic fluid from a pregnancy.
4. Placenta stem cells -- probably very similar to amniotic (it is what this article is about).
Paging Dr. Frist, paging Dr. Frist, code blue in your '08 campaign room!
Why am I not surprised that God has given promise to the "what's left"? Rather than let innocents be killed, he leads to promise in the after birth. Once a child has been born, many riches to be found!
Praise God from whom ALL blessings flow!
All stem cells have the potential to cause tumors. It is one of the problems with using them as a treatment. Yet, it may be that cells similar to stem cells, like the ones in this article, provide only a temporary fix, since they are not immortal like real stem cells.
Just wanted to say that when I was a student nurse doing OB rotation, the instructor took us into a room with a freezer, opened it and pointed out all of these frozen placentas in plastic bags. I asked what were they in the freezer for. She said they sold them. SOLD THEM, I said, quite shocked. She said they sold them to cosmetic companies to put in their products, and went on to tell how the best products had placenta in them because it was so good for you. I remember being really freaked out by this at the time, plus it just didn't quite seem right that someone was taking control of YOUR placenta, without your knowledge and doing this.
What you mean is all cells have the potential to cause tumors.
The reason Embryonic Stem Cells cause tumor is that they are the fastest growing cells. The four I listed are very slow growing. That was even part of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article -- that the placenta type stem cells have shown to be similar to embryonic stem cells except they do not seem to cause tumors.
Embryonic stem cell are supposed to grow quite rapidly -- the whole process of quicking forming the baby to survive outside the womb.
The key point is the age of the cells -- the placenta (at child birth) are 9 months old. The embryonic stem cells are only a few days old when the unborn must be destroyed to harvest them.
Embryonic Stem Cells have been the only form of stem cell research to have significant problems with tumor developing. I have not heard of any problems with these other four types -- just the Embryonic Stem Cells.
Firstly, the cells described in this article (and in the journal article, which I just finished reading) are not stem cells, nor do the authors claim them to be. They cannot demonstrate long-term self-renewal of these cells, nor can they expand single cell clones of these cells as you can with true stem cells and which you would need to be able to do for most therapeutic applications of these cells. The very reason that they are not tumorigenic is also the same reason that would probably render them useless except for short term or repeated therapies, namely, that they are not self-renewing. The reason you would use stem cells is to repopulate particular cellular compartments, replacing or assisting native defective cells. These cells would allow you to do that in the short term, but they would eventually die out. The explanation for this is given, namely, they do not have active telomerase. Telomerase adds on the ends of the chromosomes at the end of each cell division in stem cells. It is one way in which cells are programmed to have a limited lifespan. With each division, the length of their telomeres shortens, until finally, after a certain number of division, they can no longer properly maintain chromosomal integrity and often undergo apoptosis (commit suicide). Even adult stem cells do not demonstrate telomerase activity as robust as in embryonic stem cells, and are actually about 1/1000 as effective for long term treatmen. In the majority of tumor cells examined, telomerase has been reactivated. This is one reason why stem cells are prone to forming tumors.
A couple of minor corrections: adult stem cells are not taken only from the nose. They are present in most tissue areas, e.g. bone marrow, lungs, colonic epithelium, etc. Anywhere that you have constantly renewing tissues, you'll probably find stem cells. These are different however, in that they are not necessarily totipotent (capable of forming all cells types). They may form only one or a few cell types depending on their origin. Amniotic fluid stem cells are almost certainly from tissues like the fetal lung which are shed into the amniotic fluid. These also may only be able to form a limited number of cell types. Cord blood stem cells represent the "youngest" type of stem cell, meaning they have the proliferative characteristics closest to embryonic stem cells.
While it used to be assumed that all cells have the potential to cause tumors, that is almost certainly not the case. Current evidence is strongly indicative that cancer initiating cells are probably either a stem cell or an early progenitor cell (the next step down from a stem cell in the differentiation hierarchy) specific for that type of cancer.
I stand corrected.
Sorry if I lectured.....it's a complex topic, but being a cancer geneticist, it's one I'm a bit familiar with!
This is great!!! So maybe we don't need to do embryonic stem cell research -- and maybe we don't need phonies like John Edwards, who promised that everyone would rise from their wheelchairs if Kerry-Edwards were elected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.