Science’s Stem-Cell Scam - It should change its name to Pseudoscience.

National Review Online ^ | July 18, 2006 | Michael Fumento

[neverdem]

July 18, 2006, 5:27 p.m.

Science’s Stem-Cell Scam
It should change its name to Pseudoscience.

By Michael Fumento

Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) receive tremendous media attention, with oft-repeated claims that they have the potential to cure virtually every disease known. Yet there are spoilsports, self included, who point out that they have yet to even make it into a human clinical trial. This is even as alternatives — adult stem cells (ASCs) from numerous places in the body as well as umbilical cord blood and placenta — are curing diseases here and now and have been doing so for decades. And that makes ESC advocates very, very angry.

How many diseases ASCs can treat or cure is debatable, with one website claiming almost 80 for umbilical-cord blood alone. Dr. David Prentice of the Family Research Council, using stricter standards of evidence, has constituted a list of 72 for all types of ASCs. But now three ESC advocates have directly challenged Prentice’s list. They’ve published a letter in Science magazine, released ahead of publication obviously to influence President Bush’s promise to veto legislation that would open wide the federal funding spigot for ESC research. The letter claims ASC “treatments fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine of the conditions” on his list.

Well! One answer to that is that it’s nine more than can be claimed for ESCs. Further, there are 1175 clinical trials for ASCs, including those no longer recruiting patients, with zero for ESCs. But a better response is that the letter authors come from the Kenneth Lay School for honesty, as do the editors at Science.

In the detailed attachment to their letter, the Science magazine writers aren’t just at odds with Prentice but the medical community as a whole. For example, regarding sickle-cell anemia, they claim “adult stem cell transplants from bone marrow or umbilical cord blood can provide some benefit to sickle cell patients” and “hold the potential to treat sickle cell anemia.” “Some benefit” and “potential?”

An article from the May 2006 issue of Current Opinion in Hematology notes that “there is presently no curative therapy” for sickle-cell anemia other than allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. “Hematopoietic” means from marrow or blood; “allogeneic” means the cells are from another person. Seminars in Hematology (2004) states, “. . . curative allogeneic stem cell transplantation therapy” has “been developed for sickle cell anemia.” Meanwhile, “. . . curative allogeneic stem cell transplantation therapy [has] been developed for” sickle-cell anemia according to Current Opinions in Molecular Therapy (2003), while “hematopoietic stem cells for allogeneic transplantation” are “currently the only curative approach for sickle cell anemia” observes the journal Blood (2002). (All emphasis mine.)

What does everybody seem to know that the Science writers and editors don’t?

Words like “could” and “potential” are trick phraseology used throughout the letter attachment for ASC curative therapies that have been used routinely for years. This appears to give them no advantage over ESC therapy, all of which boasts nothing but potential.

The writers are correct about FDA approval; but that’s a trick. Some ASC therapies are approved in other countries but not yet here. More importantly, stem cell therapy is not a drug and therefore the FDA doesn’t regulate it the same way. Some have been used successfully for decades with no one seeking or receiving federal approval.

For that matter, aspirin is a drug but by their standards it only has potential use for aches and pains since it never went through the clinical-trial process and the FDA has never given it formal approval.

How can Science not know all this? Simple; it does. I’ve written repeatedly of how the publication has made itself a propaganda sheet for ESC research, as well as other political causes. At the least, it should change its name to Pseudoscience. Sometimes it prints easily falsifiable studies, such as this, attacking the usefulness of ASCs. Other times it falsely promotes ESCs. That culminated in January when the journal was forced to retract two groundbreaking ESC studies that proved frauds.

The journal wants to flood unpromising ESC research with taxpayer dollars because private investors know just how very unpromising it is. Now yet again Science has showcased the scientific and moral bankruptcy of the entire ESC-advocacy movement.

— Michael Fumento is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute and author of BioEvolution: How Biotechnology is Changing Our World.

[TheDon]

Belief in ESCR is a religious belief. You must have a great deal of faith!

[Jeff Chandler]

Once again Fumento nails it.

[muawiyah]

Science charges for each paper published under its cover. Presumably ESC "research" will provide a never ending source of operating revenues for Science where ASC "research" won't, at least in the estimation of the editors.

Their willful blindness to Dr. Hwang's fraud, as well as the probably fraud of many of his American associates and partners, suggests the editors of Science might be into this deeper than I can imagine.

[VOA]

"Follow the money" bump

[VOA]

For that matter, aspirin is a drug but by their standards it only has
potential use for aches and pains since it never went through the
clinical-trial process and the FDA has never given it formal approval.

I've heard that if aspirin was discoverd today, it would end up as
a Schedule-Two drug (controlled substance).

[msnimje]

This is all about abortion. The abortion industry is feeling the heat and is trying to make a USE for the PRODUCT of an abortion to make it more acceptable.

[Paradox]

If ESC are such a great deal, and they may well be, then private research efforts, as well as European research efforts, will bear fruit and they can crow all they want about it.

[Bones75]

"If ESC are such a great deal, and they may well be, then private research efforts, as well as European research efforts, will bear fruit and they can crow all they want about it."

With private research they have induced stem cells to grow into heart cells/liver cells/kidney cells, even neurons...

One can be against it on moral grounds but to suggest that there is nothing to be gained by having cells that could be induced to grow into any type of body tissue has no scientific value is just wrong.

The question is can adult stem cells or cold-blood stem cells do the same thing? That I don't know, but "blank" cells that can be caused to grow into neurons could repair a severed spinal column.

With all the crap the federal government funds, they won't fund this....I do not support this veto.

[rock_lobsta]

We could say that a bowl of pasta has the potential to cure thousands of ailments too.

[Buck W.]

"We could say that a bowl of pasta has the potential to cure thousands of ailments too."

It does. I always feel good after a bowl of pasta.

[neverdem]

Anti-Life, Anti-Science - A Castle of confusion.

Ethical Alternatives - Keeping a focus on ethics in medical research.

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

[neverdem]

The question is can adult stem cells or cold-blood stem cells do the same thing?

Primitive Adult Stem Cells Found in Peripheral Blood

"Moraga Biotechnology Corporation, an adult stem cell company based in Los Angeles, California, announces the discovery of its proprietary Blastomere-Like Stem Cells (BLSCs) circulating in the peripheral blood of mammals. The Company's scientists found that these adult stem cells were able to differentiate into most tissues and organs of the body."

Enter stem cells not embryonic stem cells into PubMed and see for yourself. You might want to start with "Review" articles. 8^)

[bitt]

I never can stand listening to them whining about the horror of throwing out a frozen embryo even though there have been 30 million aborted fetuses they don't cry real tears over...until they consider the lost voters they coulda had...

[Paradox]

One can be against it on moral grounds but to suggest that there is nothing to be gained by having cells that could be induced to grow into any type of body tissue has no scientific value is just wrong.

I agree. I really dont have a dog in this fight. If it was up to me, I'd sign the bill, but I understand the Presidents opposition to it, and I hold nothing against him for that, in fact I respect him for it.

[MHGinTN]

Sadly, this is far more than just about abortion ... the societal engineers of the left (and apparently over populating Science) have as a parallel goal in this demand for ESCs a major smack down for conservative CHRISTIAN values. They prove their agenda every time they spit and fume that Bush is forcing his values upon the nation by not spending taxpayers' money on this research. Those who have taken the role of god in their lives (pride in its deadliest form) are quick to spit upon anything that gives an affirmation of godly values. This entire issue is very much about spitting at the exercise of faith in Christian values, very much about haughty condescension toward people of faith. That embryo aged humans will be cannibalized is little or no import to such servants of the most low ... they are as god, 'knowing right and wrong'. And woe be unto any diety getting in their way ...

[MHGinTN]

You offered (quite deceptively), "With private research they have induced stem cells to grow into heart cells/liver cells/kidney cells, even neurons..." Just to rebuke you for your purposeful deceit (or perhaps you really are so ill informed that you don't know the difference), post the research facts which prove these stem cells were embryo derived. The truth is, none of the research you're touting was derived from embryonic stem cells and all have been the result of harvesting adult stem cells and using them.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Fumento is always spot-on. His web site rocks, too.

[elkfersupper]

I must admit, this makes me sad.

I never thought I would see my country welcome and celebrate declining to lead the world in any endeavor.

I only hope it stops before we start to look like Afghanistan.

On the other hand, if the message was something on the order of "the federal government is not authorized to engage in these matters", I would be happy.

But sadly, it is not.