Posted on 10/26/2006 7:32:20 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/comment/smith200405130858.asp
May 13, 2004, 8:58 a.m. The Wrong Tree Embryonic stem cells are not all that.
By Wesley J. Smith
Once again the media are trumpeting the call among many in Congress, pushed by millions in Big Biotech lobbying money, for President Bush to reverse his decision to limit federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research (ESCR) to those lines already in existence on August 9, 2001. Fronted this time by the grief-stricken Nancy Reagan, and boosted by Hollywood celebrities such as Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox, and Mary Tyler Moore, we are warned darkly, as a recent New York Times editorial put it, that the existing federal-funding restrictions "are so potentially damaging to medicine" that the administration is encountering opposition to its policy even among its "own conservative supporters."
We have heard this mantra many times before but repetition does not make it true. A great deal has been learned about the potential of regenerative medicine since President Bush reached his "compromise" decision ending the stem-cell debate of 2001. And indeed, perhaps the time has come for us to revisit this issue, albeit from a different angle than suggested by ESCR boosters. Perhaps the problem with the Bush plan isn't that it provides too little federal money for ESCR, but too much — at least if our national goal is to find cures to diseases such as Alzheimer's, diabetes, and Parkinson's in the shortest period of time.
The media is so excited about the supposed potential of embryonic stem cells that it gives far too little attention to the many and serious problems associated with this potential source of regenerative medicine. Listening to the hype, one might think that ESCR is on the verge of tremendous success. But the hard truth is that it does not appear likely that embryonic stem cells will soon become the panacea that fervid supporters of the research often claim. For example:
In animal studies, embryonic-stem-cell treatments have been found to cause tumors. In one mouse study involving an attempt to treat Parkinson's-type symptoms, more than 20 percent of the mice died from brain tumors — this despite researchers reducing the number of cells administered from the usual 100,000 to 1,000.
Tissue rejection is another major hurdle to the use of embryonic stem cells in medical treatments. This is why ESCR is known as the gateway to human cloning, since one proposed way out of this potential dilemma is to create cloned embryos of patients being treated as a source of stem cells, a process known as "therapeutic cloning." Not coincidentally, many of the same proponents who are now urging increased funding for ESCR also advocate that we legalize and publicly fund therapeutic-cloning research, which many find immoral because it creates cloned human life for the sole purpose of experimentation and destruction.
Besides being immoral, therapeutic cloning also looks to be wildly impractical. For example, a recent report published by the National Academy of Sciences warned that it could cost in the neighborhood of $200,000 just to pay for the human eggs to derive one cloned human embryonic-stem-cell line.
The hope that embryonic-stem-cell lines are immortal, thereby allowing them to supply unlimited cells for use in regenerative medical treatments, appears to be fading fast. Several studies, including one published in the March 25, 2004, New England Journal of Medicine, have now shown that over time embryonic-stem-cell lines develop severe chromosomal anomalies, including a form of cell change found in some types of cancer.
These and other significant scientific obstacles facing embryonic-stem-cell researchers mean that treatments from this source of stem cells are unlikely to become a part of medicine's armamentarium at the clinical level for more than a decade — if ever. Indeed, as reported in Washington Fax in 2002, the noted stem-cell-research pioneer John Gearhart has suggested that embryonic stem cells, in the end, will probably not be "used in therapies." Rather, he said, "patients' own cells," e.g. adult stem cells, are "where I see the future now." (Gearhart does support ESCR, believing that it will provide useful information permitting patient's own cells to be used in regenerative medicine.)
Fortunately, embryonic stem cells are not the only potential source for regenerative medical treatments. There are also adult stem cells, umbilical-cord-blood stem cells, and other cellular-based treatments that do not use embryos at all. Here we see a completely different picture emerging. Under-reported by the ESCR-besotted mainstream media, many of the diseases that embryonic cells are supposed to treat may be ameliorated with adult-stem-cell and related therapies far more quickly. These include:
Heart Disease: The FDA has allowed a human trial to proceed that will use bone-marrow stem cells to treat severe heart disease. The experiment will be conducted at Texas Heart Institute in Houston. This approach has already safely improved heart function in 14 patients in Brazil, as reported in the medical journal Circulation. Indeed, the researchers found "significant improvements in exercise capacity," improving oxygen capacity "from 17 percent to 24 percent in treated patients." A similar result has already been reported in the U.S. using a patient's own blood stem cells, as have other human experiments in France and Hong Kong. (On a sour note, while not disproving the benefit of adult cells in treating heart disease, researchers in two mouse experiments failed to replicate earlier studies that seemed to show adult stem cells could be transformed directly into new heart muscle. Meanwhile, further studies still need to determine whether the treatment could cause dangerous arrhythmias.)
Diabetes: As reported in the November 14, 2003, issue of the distinguished journal Science, Type 1 (juvenile-onset) diabetes has been cured in mice using human spleen cells. The cells migrated to the mice pancreases, "prompting the damaged organs to regenerate into healthy, insulin-making organs" and thus curing their diabetes. The authors noted that "because the cell donors and hosts are adults, this system would preclude ethical issues associated with the use of embryonic stem cells, as well as concerns that [cell] transdifferentiation of embryonic stem cells may be incomplete."
Neurological Conditions: HealthDay recently reported that "Cells found in a patient's own bone marrow might someday be a safe, ethical source for replacing brain cells lost to Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other neurological conditions." German researchers cultured human bone-marrow stem cells and were able, within a few weeks, to morph them into mature neural or glial cells. We learned just this month that cells derived from dental pulp can be transformed into neural cells and may someday be a readily available source of treatment for conditions such as Parkinson's.
Along these lines, human patients have already benefited substantially from the alleviating of symptoms of Parkinson's with adult stem cells and related therapies. For example, Dennis Turner of southern California was the first human patient known to have been treated by his own brain stem cells for Parkinson's. It is now a few years post treatment and his Parkinson's — which by now was expected to have substantially disabled him — has instead gone into substantial remission. Turner has been able to reduce his medications and rarely experiences significant symptoms of his disease. Meanwhile, the May 2003 edition of Nature Medicine reported that five Parkinson's disease patients, who received injections of a natural body chemical known as glial-cell-line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), experienced significant improvement in their conditions. Three of the patients even regained their sense of taste and smell.
I could write pages about such successes. Adult-stem-cell and related therapeutic approaches are in current clinical trials or use for the treatment of cancers, autoimmune diseases, anemias, bone and cartilage deformities, corneal scarring, stroke, and skin grafts. Researchers have successfully restored some eye functions by extracting stem cells from human eyes, growing them in culture, and transplanting them into mice. Human trials are showing similar successes. Optimistic researchers hope that the technique could provide a cure for blindness within five years. Cells from human fat have proven to be true adult stem cells that look to be useful in regenerative medicine. Indeed, it appears that 62 percent of human fat cells "could be reprogrammed into turning into at least two other different cell types," according to Duke University researchers.
The thrust of the research now seems indisputable: While certainly not yet a sure thing, and noting that much work remains to be done in animal and controlled human studies, barring unforeseen problems adult-stem-cell and related therapies may be potent sources of new and efficacious medical treatments in the years to come. Just as significantly, these therapies are likely to be available far sooner than embryonic-stem-cell treatments, since adult and related therapies do not appear to cause tumors, would not be rejected, and do not have to be maintained indefinitely in vitro, because they would come from patients' own bodies.
As Colorado stem-cell activist Jim Kelly — a paraplegic who believes his best hope of walking again after an auto accident lies in adult-stem-cell treatments — told me, "We have to use our limited resources efficiently. Money spent on embryonic-stem-cell research and human cloning is money that cannot be spent on [investigating] adult stem cells." If Kelly is right, increasing funding for embryonic-stem-cell research, especially if it comes at the expense of adult experiments, could actually delay the cures that so many suffering patients hope desperately to receive from developing cellular therapies.
— Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture. His next book, to be published in the fall, is Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Nothing can be allowed to hinder the culture of Ba-al, where those unable to speak for themselves must be sacrificed for the benefit of those who can.
fyi and ping lists.
Thanks
Thanks for the ping, my friend.
I sent this article to lead doctor who pushed through the stem cell prop in California in the past year. He never commented on the dangers of embryonic stem cells and the cost of treatment per patient.
Great article. Since it was written, the likelihood of embryonic stem cell breakthroughs has diminished and serious problems have arisen.
The left trotted Fox out because he is well known, just as they did with Christopher Reeve. What the left doesn't want to acknowledge is that there are many people who suffer from different serious conditions who totally oppose ESC research. Here is a link to a thread about Joni Eareckson Tada who has done far more for the disabled than any Hollywood celebrity.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1670479/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725557/posts
The Unconscionable Claims of Michael J. Fox
The American Thinker ^ | October 25th, 2006 | Mary L. Davenport, MD
Posted on 10/25/2006 7:05:56 AM PDT by veronica
The popular and appealing actor Michael J. Fox has taken to the airwaves in Senate battleground states Missouri, Maryland, and New Jersey with a highly misleading ad urging defeat of Republican Senatorial candidates opposing the use of taxpayer dollars to fund new embryonic stem cell line research. He states,
“Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s…. But George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research.”
Mr. Fox and his ads’ sponsors are guilty of conflating embryonic stem cell research, which the GOP candidates and many Americans oppose for destroying a human life in the name of curing other people’s diseases, with stem cell research in general, which includes adult stem cell research and umbilical cord blood stem cell research.
The only limits in question are on federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines, requiring the sacrifice of new embryos. Private and state-funded research (California voters are spending six billion dollars borrowing money to fund this) is ongoing. The implicit claim that research based on new embryos is “the most promising” is absurd, completely unsupported by the scientific literature, and an insult to voters, based as it is on the assumption that they are incapable of understanding the issue. Too stupid to tell the difference, is the elitist assumption underlying this campaign.
Flim-flam is a charitable description. Why would federally-funded research be more promising than state- and privately-funded research? And on what possible basis can the claim be made that embryonic stem cell research is more promising than adult stem cell research?
The plain fact is that embryonic stem cell research is proving to be a bust. There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using adult stem cells and zero using embryonic stem cells. Scientifically-minded readers can review this medical journal article on the status of adult stem cell research. while no such treatments are even remotely in prospect for embryonic stem cell research.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725557/posts
"The left trotted Fox out because he is well known, just as they did with Christopher Reeve. What the left doesn't want to acknowledge is that there are many people who suffer from different serious conditions who totally oppose ESC research. Here is a link to a thread about Joni Eareckson Tada who has done far more for the disabled than any Hollywood celebrity.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1670479/posts"
Thanks for the info above.
Great article! I have spoken with several people about the embryonic stem cell question. They are support it however, I have noticed not one of them can tell me what a stem cell is. They also are under the impression that stem cell research in banned in the US because of religious nuts like President Bush. They know nothing about adult stem cells and have never heard of them. When I see polls that say 90% of American support embryonic stem cell research I believe that the people polled have not a clue as to what they are talking about. The left has done a great job of painting a picture that is totally erroneous. They then trot out there celebrity disabled and make everyone very emotional. As usual for them it is all about feeling and nothing about fact.
The silver lining I see from all this is maybe people will take the time to learn what it is and what it is not. I've gained enough knowledge about this over the last few days, than I've ever wanted or thought I needed to know. I'm confident enough in that knowledge to challenge someone on this topic and educate them as to the politics being played over this.
What is the source of embryonic stem cells? Abortions.
IMHO, embryonic stem cell research is only about insuring that abortion remains legal.
Can anyone explain to me why a stem cell acquired from an aborted infant (with a differing genome) is superior in any way to a stem sell acquired from the person who will be treated with it?
…
…
…
Crickets….
"To: foolscap
The silver lining I see from all this is maybe people will take the time to learn what it is and what it is not. I've gained enough knowledge about this over the last few days, than I've ever wanted or thought I needed to know. I'm confident enough in that knowledge to challenge someone on this topic and educate them as to the politics being played over this."
You are exactly correct. Two years ago, if I mentioned this article to MDs and RNs most just looked at me like I was some crazy old conservative.
Now this article is really relevant.
Fox has given us a unique opportunity to get the real word out re the differences between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells not the bs put out by the DNC and their hawkers like Fox.
I have long felt that the ONLY reason that embryonic stem cell research is being pushed is to provide another reason to keep abortion legal. Adult stem cell (including umbilical cord cell) research has yeilded incredible results, all embryonic stem cell research has done is destroy life to create tumors.
Maybe they want to create embryos so they can pick them apart. I mean does anybody think that abortion is in any real danger? It will take something drastic to end abortion and I am afraid it will not come from us. I pray that the dems do not take control of the house because abortion is their life.
And Fox was most likely mis-medicated when the spot was taped to exaggerate the effects of the disease.
This was probably done because the treatments that we have now are so effective that Fox would not have evoked the same degree of empathy had he appeared in his 'normal' state.
Lies upon lies upon lies.
The reason we cannot rid ourselves of abortion is because of the millions of 'good, Christian women' sitting in church while chemically aborting their children through the use of birth-control pills.
Most people do not know that a secondary effect of birth-control pills is to make the womb inhospitable to implantation so that (if ovulation and fertilization does occur) the fertilized zygote will not implant.
That's not to say that a chemical abortion happens every month, but if you could document the number of chemical abortions among Christians due to the use of birth-control pills and compare that number to the number of surgical abortions, you would likely find the greater number is within the Church.
Since 'judgement must begin with the family of God' (I Pet 4:17), God's patience in this area is because the saints themselves have not overcome this sin.
We ourselves must 'turn from our wicked ways' before God can come and heal our land. (2 Chron 7:14)
The interview below raises the suspicion about was Fox off his meds for his pimp ads for the DNC.
The link below is an interesting one with interviews with Fox and Ali.
http://www.veotag.com/player/Default.aspx?pid=b48abfb4-aa12-43e5-99e2-1bf3a47fa464
This article was released over two years ago, and it is an excellent rebuttal to the latest October Surprise from Michael Fox.
Thanks for the heads up on this, Grampa Dave!
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
Thanks for the pings.
Maybe the restrictions re not using embryonic stem cells might have save Fox and others from tumors which could be fatal besides making them in more pain.
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.