The Pro-Life Case for Stem Cell Treatment

Pajamas Media ^ | July 11, 2010 | Julia Szabo

[Kaslin]

A significant percentage of America’s 45.6 million dog owners and 38.2 million cat owners have first-hand familiarity with state-of-the-art medical facilities for pets that rival the most sophisticated human hospitals: animal emergency centers where veterinary specialists — including neurologists, orthopedists, oncologists, and criticalists — prolong the lives of pets whose owners can afford the service. The mainstream media rarely misses a chance to point out that animal medical care in the United States is almost on par with the best in human health care. But the reality is that the level of animal medical innovation has actually surpassed that of human medicine — and mainstream media bias is partly to blame.

In 2007, my dog Sam — then 14 years old and suffering stiffness in his limbs from advanced osteoarthritis to the point that he was collapsing on the street — was deemed eligible for a procedure in which his own (autologous) stem cells would be harvested from his own fat, then injected into his weak knees to help the joints rejuvenate themselves. A sample of fatty tissue was surgically removed from Sam’s abdomen under anesthesia and FedEx’d on ice to Vet-Stem in San Diego, the leader in stem cell medicine for animals. Two days later, Sam’s cells were overnighted in vials back to the vet hospital, on ice, ready to be injected into his tired, old joints.

Just hours after the injection, Sam was able to stand and walk without falling down; within a few months, he was no longer 14 years old; he was 14 years young, with all the energy of his 10-year-old self. Vet-Stem had effectively “Benjamin Buttoned” my beloved dog. Duly impressed, I wanted to know: could my husband, say, get the same treatment for his knees? The answer, I would learn, is no — at least, not in the United States, because FDA approval of stem cell clinical trials is on indefinite hold. Still, it’s a question Dr. Bob Harman, Vet-Stem’s founder, hears all the time:

Vet-Stem has received hundreds of comments in the past few years from dog owners lamenting that they cannot get the same treatment that their pets are getting. They also ask frequently for recommendations of where to go to get treated overseas. After Nightline did a story on Vet-Stem, many of the comments on the ABC Web site were from people who were frustrated that pets could get stem cells and they could not. I believe our data are helping people understand that adult stem cells from fat tissue really work. Our client veterinarians have treated over 6,000 animal patients with great success and great safety.

That’s no small figure, and it’s the more impressive considering the many similarities between dog DNA and human DNA. My dog’s positive outcome — the procedure bought Sam three years of quality life; he never collapsed again, and died this year at 17 of complications from advanced age –  motivated me to ask Vet-Stem for the overseas treatment recommendation, just in case it should ever be needed. It turned out to be the Institute of Cellular Medicine, a state-of-the-art clinic run by American scientist-entrepreneur Neil Riordan, founder of Arizona’s Medistem, with headquarters in Costa Rica and Panama City. Since 2006, some 400 patients, most of them Americans, have been treated at Riordan’s clinic for arthritis, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, and spinal injuries. The Institute does not use embryonic stem cells; instead, it uses only adult (autologous) cells from patients’ own fat and bone marrow, and donated umbilical cord blood.

But on June 2 of this year, Reuters — the news agency with a reputation for displaying bias in its controversial cropping of photographs — broke the “news” that the Institute of Cellular Medicine had been ordered by the government of Costa Rica to stop offering treatment because “there is no proof that it is effective,” and that the clinic was closing its doors. Except that’s not what happened: The choice to close on June 4 was made by Riordan; he was not “ordered” to shut down, he was consolidating his practice at the Panama City location, the Stem Cell Institute, which had just undergone reconstruction. Says Riordan:

Two spinal cord injury patients were treated at the Cima Hospital in Costa Rica by doctors from the Institute of Cellular Medicine; after one of them was featured on a local news channel, Costa Rica’s Minister of Health sent a letter to Cima Hospital telling them to stop doing “experimental stem cell treatments.” The hospital and Institute both contend that the treatments were administered under informed consent and not experimental. … Because of the position of the Minister of Health, and the fact that the parent company in Panama had just completed its new laboratory with increased capacity, the company closed its facility in Costa Rica.

Maria Luisa Avila, Costa Rica’s health minister, was quoted by Reuters as saying, “This isn’t allowed in any serious country in the world.”Reuters printed her opinion without a rebuttal.

But Avila’s statement is not accurate, unless she considers Spain to be a less-than-serious country; in August 2009, almost a year ago, the Stem Cell Unit of Madrid’s La Paz University Hospital had already completed a clinical trial using adipose-derived adult stem cells on recruited patients.

And in late April, just five weeks before the closing of the Costa Rica clinic, the Vatican — which opposes embryonic stem-cell research for the obvious reason that it involves the destruction of human fetuses — announced its strong support of a new international project for adult stem-cell research. The project is led by the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, which established a consortium of researchers from several Italian health institutes, including the Vatican-owned Bambino Gesu Hospital in Rome.

Perhaps Costa Rica’s health minister does not consider the United States or Italy to be “serious” countries? Perhaps Reuters doesn’t either, as no mention of this was made in its reporting. What’s more, despite the Vatican’s condemnation of embryonic stem cells getting plenty of Reuters coverage, the Vatican’s approval of adult stem cells didn’t merit Reuters’ attention.

As for proof, albeit anecdotal, of the Institute’s treatments’ effectiveness, conspicuously absent from the Reuters article of June 2 and its June 7 followup story was the curious case of Juan Carlos Murillo, 30, one of Riordan’s satisfied customers. A commercial pilot, Murillo had been confined to a wheelchair, paralyzed from the waist down in a 2008 airplane crash. Today, after several treatments with adult stem cells harvested from donated umbilical cord blood, Murillo can walk without assistance. He was evaluated by a neurologist at the University of Miami; in spinal cord injury cases, spontaneous neurological restoration rarely happens, and spontaneous restoration of bladder/bowel/erectile function virtually never happens. In Murillo’s case, all of the above happened. He looks forward to passing his flight physical and resuming his career as a commercial pilot later this month.

And yet, the doctors providing the treatment that makes such a life-changing reversal possible are dismissed by the media, while their patients are characterized as “tourists.” Reuters notes that “the International Society of Stem Cell Research has cautioned against so-called stem cell tourism,” and quotes Dr. David Scadden, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute:

When these kinds of treatments are proposed, they’re being essentially marketed by virtue of the anecdotal report. I feel the danger of exploitation is extremely high.

OK, so Murillo’s story is anecdotal. But had Reuters done its fact-checking, it would have discovered that ISSCR is hardly an unbiased source to be asking about adult stem cells; its physician-entrepreneur president is a proponent of embryonic cells. Riordan has been a member of the ISSCR since 2006, but boycotted the group’s meeting in San Francisco last month, saying his decision was made based on ISSCR’s record of supporting the use of stem cells from dead fetuses and embryos, while purposely ignoring advances performed in the area of adult stem cells. Riordan had been recently notified by mail that his membership in the ISSCR is “under review”; the letter was signed by ISSCR’s president, Dr. Irv Weissman. According to Riordan:

Despite Irv’s impressive history of immunological and basic science breakthroughs, he has created a terrible public impression that the only type of stem cell research worth funding is the one that involves destruction of life. I believe Irv’s leadership is a disservice to ISSCR and until he is replaced I and Medistem will steer clear of this organization. I disagree with the current opinion being propagated that embryonic and fetal stem cells, both of which destroy life, are a viable area for clinical research. Medistem’s opposition to fetal and embryonic stem cells derives not only from ethical considerations but is also based on evidence of tumor formation, which has already been reported in the peer reviewed clinical literature.

In a fine example of media bias, the MSM is queasy about reporting on non-embryonic stem cells that are pro-life, as if to do so would blur a church-state line by promoting a medical therapy approved by religious entities and individuals. In the MSM, embryonic stem cells come across as sexy; adult stem cells do not. Embryonic stem cells have had charismatic supporters, including President Obama and the late Christopher Reeve. The MSM loves to talk about embryonic cells’ “pluripotency” (their ability to morph into any type of cell in the body). As a result, adult stem cells are perceived as less cutting-edge.

But adult stem cells aren’t just ethically correct; they are proven more effective and less risky than embryonic cells, which replicate indefinitely (not unlike cancer cells). There’s a wide generation gap between adult tissue and embryonic cells, as Dr. Fabio Solano, Riordan’s colleague in Costa Rica, explains: “Adult stem cells play a natural role in repair of damaged tissue in the adult; in contrast, fetal stem cells do not properly ‘know’ how to communicate with adult tissue.” Plus, when harvested from the patient’s own fat, adult stem cells carry no risk of rejection. Adds Riordan:

There has been so much hype over embryonic stem cells. To my knowledge, embryonic stem cells have never helped a single individual. Thousands of people each year are helped with adult stem cells. I think adult stem cells are the future of medicine. And in some indications the future is now.

Since the Costa Rica clinic closed, doctors have seen several patients at Riordan’s other location, the Stem Cell Institute in Panama City. One of the patients there happens to be Texan Sam Harrell, 54, renowned football coach of the Ennis High School Lions. Harrell was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2005; for the last three years, he’s been coaching from a golf cart provided by the school, but his symptoms have progressed, he says, “to the point that I had determined this coming year I wasn’t going to be able to do it any more — I was going to have to retire from coaching.”

Harrell is proof that pro-life doesn’t have to mean anti-science. After seeing videotaped testimonials from Riordan’s clients on YouTube, Harrell became something of a medical evangelist, spreading the word about adult stem cells in his very observant Christian community — which, like many communities, had assumed that all stem cells are embryonic simply because those cells get so much more press. The initial response of Harrell’s friends, neighbors, and fellow worshipers at the Creekside Church of Christ was disgust; but after he got done making the distinction between adult and embryonic stem cells, his community responded by raising the funds needed for their coach to be treated at Riordan’s Institute. Says Harrell:

Just the mention of stem cells, and people look at you like, Aren’t we in America against that? I explain to them that this isn’t embryonic stem cells, they’re just going to take cells from my fat tissue, and nobody knew that [option] was out there. It’s just a lack of education. I’m taking the treatment now, and I’m hoping to coach again. I’m really looking forward to getting back to Texas and being a voice for adult stem cells. I think it’s the future of medicine. It’s just amazing to me how many people back in the States are so negative about it, and yet there are so many good things coming from it.

Harrell’s circle of supporters has a definite interest in helping him overcome MS; he’s coached some very talented athletes, including his own son, Graham Harrell, who now plays for the Green Bay Packers. Keeping him on the field coaching young players ensures that the school’s team stays on the athletic map. But all Americans should care about getting adult stem cells on the fast track for FDA approval. Doctors who use adult cells are not charlatans or faith healers; they are medical crusaders.

Let us pray that the MSM can drop its bias, so more Americans with no other treatment options can learn about adult stem cells and reap the health benefits, right here at home — as our pets already can.

[Gondring]

Moist well-meaning “pro-lifers” don’t realize that the cells used in “embryonic stem-cell research” aren’t from embryos. The genetics are, but they are no more from embryos than saying, “you have your grandmother’s eyes” means they were plucked out and transplanted.

Secondly, no embryos are killed to continue research. The embryos starting those lines died decades ago.

Both the FDA and “pro-life” scam artists are anti-science, choosing to maintain power by fooling good people.

[Gondring]

uh, most, not moist.

It’s the FDA that’s all wet. :-)

[GeronL]

I don’t oppose stem cell treatments. I oppose getting those stem cells from dead babies.

There are a TON of other sources to get stem cells.

[Agamemnon]

Both the FDA and “pro-life” scam artists are anti-science, choosing to maintain power by fooling good people

Who's a pro-life "scam artist"? Name one.

The only scam artists and anti-scientists out there are atheistic idiots who call themselves scientists who think they can create and have created themselves, and at the same time can't tell us how they supposedly planned their own creation to begin with -- or even why.

Moist well-meaning “pro-lifers” don’t realize that the cells used in “embryonic stem-cell research” aren’t from embryos.... Secondly, no embryos are killed to continue research. The embryos starting those lines died decades ago.

Guess you missed this:

Obama lifts research restrictions on embryonic stem cells

The hundreds of other embryonically-derived cell lines now available for NIH funding include those embryo-originated cell lines obtained after August 9, 2001 -- the date of Bush's original ban on funding of such lines for NIH-sponsored research -- which were derived after that date. So, no, embryonic cell lines used since 2009 are not only from embryos who "died" (i.e., were killed) decades ago.

Furthermore, private funding of embryonic stem cell research has continued all along, using the cell lines of recently killed embryos. Much of the private funding for this research has dried up due to continuing failures with the embryonic lines. Obama's reversal of Bush's ban just infused more tax-payer derived research $ into patently unproductive research, and serves as a sop to the pro-abortion lobby and the Mengele-manics in embryology labs.

I have already cryo-banked my own adult stem cells, because more than 100 published studies have shown great therapeutic benefits in many contexts already. In 20 years when I may need them, and more scientific advances have been realized, I expect that I will be benefitted by having done so.

Embryonic-derived stem cell research is characterized by failure after failure; the strains are "wild types," which are poorly understood, and which, unlike with adult stem cells, have signaling pathways which are simply not at all predictable.

The only way one obtains more varieties of embryonic stem cells is by killing more embryos. Sounds more like the Joesef Mengele school of exploitative medicine than anything else.

Perhaps more telling is that it is yet another manifestation of the failure of an evolutionary world-view put into practice in the study of science.

At the point in earliest life development when evolutionists think they might be able to exercise the most control over the seemingly more "simple" less- differentiated development of the embryonic line -- to be able to manipulate and "create" a tissue type more to their own design and liking -- they find that the reality is quite the opposite and far more complex than they ever imagined.

[wagglebee]

well-meaning “pro-lifers” don’t realize that the cells used in “embryonic stem-cell research” aren’t from embryos.

Actually they are, but don't let the truth get in the way of your pro-death agenda.

Secondly, no embryos are killed to continue research. The embryos starting those lines died decades ago.

No, they were KILLED decades ago.

“pro-life” scam artists are anti-science, choosing to maintain power by fooling good people.

"Pro-life scam artists"? Are you sure you're on the right forum?

[Coleus]

The embryos starting those lines died decades ago. >>>

I’m glad you admit that it’s ok to kill someone years ago only to do research on their cells many years later. “Good People” don’t do that, bad people do.

[metmom]

Moist well-meaning “pro-lifers” don’t realize that the cells used in “embryonic stem-cell research” aren’t from embryos.

OK, then tell us where they're from and why the term *embryonic stem cell* is used.

Both the FDA and “pro-life” scam artists are anti-science, choosing to maintain power by fooling good people.

While I have no use for the FDA and agree that it certainly could fit in the anti-science category, that is NOT true of pro-lifers. Just as evos like to throw around the pejorative of being *anti-science* to non-evos who object to the evo/atheist agendas, you are throwing the accusation around with no basis.

Objecting to immoral action is not *anti-science*. Murder is a moral issue, not a scientific one.

[RnMomof7]

Exactly

[Gondring]

Who's a pro-life "scam artist"? Name one.

You mis-cited my comment by moving the quotes.

I wrote of scam artists who claimed to be "pro-life."

Guess you missed this:

No. As a matter of fact, I commented on it quite extensively at the time. But my point is that it doesn't have to be the way it is now.

Furthermore, private funding of embryonic stem cell research has continued all along, using the cell lines of recently killed embryos.

Yes, and out of the reach of US legislation, too.

The only way one obtains more varieties of embryonic stem cells is by killing more embryos.

I added bold to emphasize the subtlety of your point. You're not implying that embryos need to be killed to continue work with the current lines.

At the point in earliest life development when evolutionists think they might be able to exercise the most control over the seemingly more "simple" less- differentiated development of the embryonic line -- to be able to manipulate and "create" a tissue type more to their own design and liking -- they find that the reality is quite the opposite and far more complex than they ever imagined.

Perhaps, although embryonic stem-cell research is far behind adult stem-cell research, as we don't even have a full complete human trial yet, it's impossible to tell.

I'm not claiming it will be fruitful...I am just saying that many of the arguments against it are based on ignorance.

[Gondring]

I’m glad you admit that it’s ok to kill someone years ago only to do research on their cells many years later. “Good People” don’t do that, bad people do.

I never did any such thing.

Shall I say, "I'm glad you won't use the heart of someone murdered to save a life today because it might encourage further murder?"

[Gondring]

Are you sure you're on the right forum?

Seeing as how you misquoted me, I guess I am. Fairly typical.

I put "pro-life" in quotes as they are not truly pro-life.

The progress of decades of hard work toward overturning Roe v Wade and getting the federal government out of the issue was stabbed in the back by nutbar narcissist Randall Terry. I consider him a "'pro-life"' scam artist" who is really in it for himself, not truly wanting abortion to end as that would mean he would be more of a nobody than he already is.

[Gondring]

OK, then tell us where they're from and why the term *embryonic stem cell* is used.

Of course, some are, but they aren't necessarily. Most are grown in a culture.

Objecting to immoral action is not *anti-science*. Murder is a moral issue, not a scientific one.

Agreed.

But the scam artists aren't interested in morality...they have other agenda. Not all who claim to be "pro-life" actually are. (And BTW, not all who are against abortion are the same, either.)

[wagglebee]

Seeing as how you misquoted me, I guess I am. Fairly typical.

And how is pasting your words "misquoting" you?

Here is your post:

To: Kaslin

Moist well-meaning “pro-lifers” don’t realize that the cells used in “embryonic stem-cell research” aren’t from embryos. The genetics are, but they are no more from embryos than saying, “you have your grandmother’s eyes” means they were plucked out and transplanted.

Secondly, no embryos are killed to continue research. The embryos starting those lines died decades ago.

Both the FDA and “pro-life” scam artists are anti-science, choosing to maintain power by fooling good people.

2 posted on Sunday, July 11, 2010 12:19:45 PM by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

I put "pro-life" in quotes as they are not truly pro-life.

Why are they not pro-life? Because they oppose the destruction of life?

The progress of decades of hard work toward overturning Roe v Wade and getting the federal government out of the issue was stabbed in the back by nutbar narcissist Randall Terry. I consider him a "'pro-life"' scam artist" who is really in it for himself, not truly wanting abortion to end as that would mean he would be more of a nobody than he already is.

So, you condemn the entire pro-life movement because you disagree with the methods of Randall Terry even though he isn't even mentioned in the thread?

Moist well-meaning “pro-lifers” don’t realize that the cells used in “embryonic stem-cell research” aren’t from embryos. The genetics are, but they are no more from embryos than saying, “you have your grandmother’s eyes” means they were plucked out and transplanted.

Secondly, no embryos are killed to continue research. The embryos starting those lines died decades ago.

Both the FDA and “pro-life” scam artists are anti-science, choosing to maintain power by fooling good people.

2 posted on Sunday, July 11, 2010 12:19:45 PM by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)

[EternalVigilance]

...no embryos are killed to continue research. The embryos starting those lines died decades ago.

So, I suppose you would have no problem with using the skin of Jews killed in a concentration camp for lamp shades. After all, the Jews are dead anyway, and just think how much light will be shed for those who are sitting in darkness!

/s

[metmom]

Cultures of what?

If a sperm fertilizes an egg, you have a human being.

Whether it grows to resemble a human embryo or is somehow just grown as a lump of tissue, it’s still human.

[Gondring]

And how is pasting your words "misquoting" you?

Changing punctuation in a manner that changes meaning is misquotation.

Why are they not pro-life? Because they oppose the destruction of life?

No...because they would allow suffering and death if it furthered their agenda.

So, you condemn the entire pro-life movement because you disagree with the methods of Randall Terry even though he isn't even mentioned in the thread

Many times, you have twisted my words and meaning. I try hard to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do it out of ignorance rather than maliciousness. But it keeps happening, habitually(?).

I have no time to give you English lessons, but let me try again, in case you're being honest...

If I wrote something like the following:

"Conservative" Democrats might vote for that bill.

...would you claim that I had just written that all Democrats are conservative? No. In fact, wouldn't it seem that I'm questioning whether these voters are even really "conservative." Yet in a parallel construction, you twist my words and try to imply that I am claiming something I am not.

Perhaps Randall Terry has never spoken on embryonic stem cells, but I was asked to provide an example of a "'pro-life' scam artist" and he is perhaps the best well known. And I think that it's clear that there are people whose M.O. includes obfuscation, not honest discussion and solutions. Are you defending them? I hope not.

[Gondring]

From "What are embryonic stem cells?" at http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp:

How are embryonic stem cells grown in the laboratory?
Growing cells in the laboratory is known as cell culture. Human embryonic stem cells are isolated by transferring the inner cell mass into a plastic laboratory culture dish that contains a nutrient broth known as culture medium. The cells divide and spread over the surface of the dish. The inner surface of the culture dish is typically coated with mouse embryonic skin cells that have been treated so they will not divide. This coating layer of cells is called a feeder layer. The mouse cells in the bottom of the culture dish provide the inner cell mass cells a sticky surface to which they can attach. Also, the feeder cells release nutrients into the culture medium. Researchers have devised ways to grow embryonic stem cells without mouse feeder cells. This is a significant scientific advance because of the risk that viruses or other macromolecules in the mouse cells may be transmitted to the human cells.

The process of generating an embryonic stem cell line is somewhat inefficient, so lines are not produced each time an inner cell mass is placed into a culture dish. However, if the plated inner cell mass cells survive, divide and multiply enough to crowd the dish, they are removed gently and plated into several fresh culture dishes. The process of re-plating or subculturing the cells is repeated many times and for many months. Each cycle of subculturing the cells is referred to as a passage. Once the cell line is established, the original cells yield millions of embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells that have proliferated in cell culture for six or more months without differentiating, are pluripotent, and appear genetically normal are referred to as an embryonic stem cell line. At any stage in the process, batches of cells can be frozen and shipped to other laboratories for further culture and experimentation.

But you already knew that, didn't you?

[Gondring]

You bring up an excellent point.

Note a subtle difference...I am arguing for honesty and clarity so people can make an informed decision on the issue rather than a decision based on misinformation.

If people were claiming that the lampshades were from Jews being killed out back right then, then that's not true. Whether old skins should be used or not is a different question, and I'm sure that you see that the use you mention (horrid!) is rather different from the transplanted use of an organ from someone who has already died (not horrid, in MY view).

[Salvation]

**After Nightline did a story on Vet-Stem, many of the comments on the ABC Web site were from people who were frustrated that pets could get stem cells and they could not. I believe our data are helping people understand that adult stem cells from fat tissue really work. **

Adult stem cells are the answer!