Bizarre that there hasn't been a peep over here in the US media (other than WorldNetDaily)
"The authors of the study note, writes Smith, that the lamenectomy the patient received might have offered some benefit."
There`s always something stuck in these articles like this.
I hope this is more than just hype. Umbilical cord blood stem cells don`t require the death of a child, but a birth. : )
Wow. Need to hold onto this one. Future reference bump.
runaway bride
Wendy's chilli w/finger
Dan Rather's memo
Here is a Slashdot thread on the post.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/28/1943224
Read the comments (warning: the general run of Slashdot commenters tend to be young, left-wing, and not too bright, with limited vocabularies that cause them to repeat the same profanities at length. However, there are many worthwhile technologists on that site).
Among the treasures amongst the generally obtuse comments is a link to the article abstract.
There is one fact omitted from the WND report. While the patient got the umbilical-cell treatment, she (a 37 year old female, paraplegic at 10th thoracic vertebrae x 19 years) also received a laminectomy (having the spinal cavity in the vertebra opened up) at the same time. Historically, a laminectomy has not produced this kind of result.
This blogger seems informed (I got his blog address from the slashdot thread, but this is the exact post on this):
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2005/09/umbilical-cord-blood-stem-cells-treat.html
If you read that, you might like Smith's blog. I did and bookmarked him for regular reading. Among other observations in his blog, he notes that when New Jersey made a bucket of money available for stem cell research "since the feds don't fund it," all requests for grants but one were for adult or umbilical cell research -- and the one exception wasn't for a research project, but for a training project.
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com.nyud.net:8090/blog/
Journal abstract of the original article for the techically inclined (same credit, Slashdot; you can download the article from this page, but I don't recommend it to people without a VERY solid biological background at the molecular and cell structure level and up -- there's lots of specialised neurocytology in there):
http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/(hibl2tibmt1yldqlfhsywa55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,8,9;journal,1,40;linkingpublicationresults,1:107693,1
I want to believe that this is possible. (I have a friend in similar straits as the woman in the study). I want to believe that this is true. But I recognize that one patient after one treatment is not proof of anything.
Finally, it is important for you all to recognize that this was not a miraculous recovery like Jesus's laying of hands on Lazarus produced. This woman has gotten a shred of motion and a thread of sensation back, which is a miracle, but it's still miles from recovery -- in functional terms, she's still paralysed.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
My daughter has brain damage, and I keep on wondering if they'll find a way to reverse the damamge.
That said, my daughter has turned out remarkedly well, and if we could fix the damage I don't know if we would encourage it. She's only 9, and she is such a hard worker. She can do almost everything (except speak clearly) these days. Of course, everything is more difficult for her, and she still has lots of meltdowns.
Anyway, it's nice to see progress in these areas. It gives a lot of people hope!
That's great!!
I do wonder where the following idea came from:
Scientists Reverse Paralysis in Dogs
My Way News | Dec 3, 2004 | RICK CALLAHAN
Posted on 12/03/2004 7:07:48 PM EST by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1293973/posts