Posted on 02/23/2006 10:45:31 PM PST by Coleus
One day, perhaps in the distant future, stem cells may help repair diseased tissues. But there is a far more pressing reason to study them: stem cells are the source of at least some, and perhaps all, cancers.
At the heart of every tumor, some researchers believe, lie a handful of aberrant stem cells that maintain the malignant tissue. The idea, if right, could explain why tumors often regenerate even after being almost destroyed by anticancer drugs. It also points to a different strategy for developing anticancer drugs, suggesting they should be selected for lethality to cancer stem cells and not, as at present, for their ability to kill just any cells and shrink tumors.
"I think this is one of the most interesting developments in cancer research in the last five years," says Robert Weinberg, a cancer geneticist at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass. "I think more and more people are accepting it and evidence is accumulating that cancer stem cells exist in a variety of tumors." The idea that cancer cells possess the same properties as stem cells has been around for many years. Only recently have biologists developed techniques for identifying stem cells and their presence in tumors.
Cancer stem cells were first identified in certain types of leukemia in 1997 by John Dick and colleagues at the University of Toronto. They were harder to spot in solid tumors because biologists did not possess the means of recognizing the markers —
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Next we'll hear that stem cells cure Islam.
That's the very first thing I noticed as well, but I was not surprised. It is important to remember always that the mission of the NY Times is to promote the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party has hung its hat on abortion, and so the NY Times (as well as most other DNC publications) have carefully melded "abortion" with "stem cell miracle cures". Their desire is for the inattentive chattering class to subliminally conclude that "no abortions" equals "no stem cells" equals "no stem cell miracle cures".
What they want the reader to come away with is: "Support Democrats because they will bring about miracle cures." What would truly be surprising to me would be to see one of these Democrat publications (aka, the dinosaur socialist "mainstream" press) make the distinction between adult and embryonic stem cells in one of their stories. But making that distinction would blow their scheme apart. It won't happen.
The Potential of Stem Cells
Stem cells are immature cells found in the bone marrow, blood stream, and in umbilical cords. These immature stem cells later develop into blood cells. Since stem cells can be damaged in certain cancer treatments, CTCA hospitals have developed techniques to add healthy stem cells back into your body after damaging treatments take place.
Stem cells can be used in bone marrow transplantation and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Both of these procedures are used to restore stem cells that have been destroyed by high dose chemotherapy. These treatments using stem cells may also be used for patients who have had radiation treatment for their cancer.
Stem cells are used in a type of cancer treatment called autologous stem cell rescue. This innovative cancer therapy is available at CTCA and can be used on certain types of cancer. In this procedure, your own peripheral stem cells and bone marrow are used to overcome the bone marrow destroying effects of radiation and high dose chemotherapy.
http://tinyurl.com/f8ymz
******
Stem Cells Might Fight Circulatory Disorder
02.23.06, 12:00 AM ET
He and his colleagues are using adult stem cells
http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2006/02/23/hscout531070.html
Adult stem cells that are grown in culture for 'too long' start making telomerase.
I must agree. This is the 3rd post on the subject of Stem Cells that I've seen today. I think that the public has already been convinced that eternal life is around the corner - if we could just kill more babies.
Telomerase doesnt cause cancer. It allows cells to divide perpetually. You have telomerase expressed in testicles to prevent youre babymakers from horribly mutating.
Also in early development all cells express it, and even later in life there remain many cells types that express telomerase. Just not much, but that little bit is needed.
In fact, the more would be even better as it allows cells to divide jsut as rapid as in young children, so you have a better immune system and wound regeneration.
Telomerase allows cancercells to divide also, but blocking out all telomerase in the body is not wise, you need to block it where it needs to be blocked and nowhere else.
Why else did you think humans carried a telomerase gene if it doesnt do something good.
What do you think cancer is... Cancer is when cells divide rapidly out of control, causing damage to the body.
What do you think youre body is doing at this moment?
All cells need to be replaced. Telomerase just allows the cells to remain healthy afterwards.
Yes you can stop cancer by stopping telomerase, but it isnt without consequences to youre health. It's not going to be a cure either, you cant keep someone on anti-telomerase forever.
With luck it will be an add-on for treatment, not a miracle cure.
Probably stop global warming too?
Telomerase cause cells to devide rapidly and turn into cancer, if you actually read this thread, and A CA Guy news links in post 14, you would know this.
Excuse me, i happen to be a moleculair biology master student.
Now stop repeating what you think you read somewhere like a broken record and learn something:
Telomerase doesnt cause cancer. Mutations cause cancer.
Telomerase merely allows cells to divide without damage,
and as such it is present in many/all stem cells, cetain progenitor cells, embryos, and yes, cancer.
But it doesnt cause it.
You all should stop thinking that you know something cause you read it in the paper. Science is way too complex to be written down in a simple article and it usually gets mingled when science is 'laymen-ized'.
With a snobbish attitude like that, you are not going last long on Free Republic.
My statement in post 31 was informative because I pointed out where I got my information from.
Your post 33 was snobbish and arrogant in that you stated that I should not have the right to my opinion because of where I got my information from.
You are wrong on two different levels. 1. I have the right to freedom of speech just like you. 2. When I state my beliefs, I do so from an informed point of view, though you may hate where I get my information from.
You said "if you actually read this thread".
You stated something, i corrected you, than i stated something and you just assumed that i havent been reading the thread?
That was presumptious of you and not very friendly.
You should have asked why i thought otherwise and we could have had a more constructive talk.
That's because you stated something that was already mentioned in the thread.
But the info was incorrect.
Look, how about a compromise: You apologise for asssuming somebody who doesnt agree with an article doesnt know what he/she is talking about, and i apologise for sounding snobbish. Ok?
They believe going just after the enzyme is the way to go though.
I'm sure they are not going to try and kill with a cure.
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.