Adult Stem Cell Research Continues To Progress

On March 9, 2009, President Obama lifted the ban that was in place for 8 years concerning embryonic stem cell research and called it “an important step in advancing the cause of science in America…And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.” Many liberals claimed, “you are against science or stem cell research” if are against destroying an embryo (human being) which is claim when one is  against evolution.

But all their claims are far from the truth and has to do with grant money and power than with science and new treatments. A male patient had a broken ankle that refused to heal after many surgeries. Dr. Thomas Einhorn who was his doctor decided to try something different which came from a study from France. He basically drew bone marrow from the man’s pelvic bone with a needle, made it smaller to the size of about four teaspoons that looked like red liquid, and injected that into his ankle. Four months later the ankle healed!

Because of the ban, more focus had been on adult stem research and as a result, there have many innovative therapies coming from doctors all over the world, leaving embryonic stem cell research in the dust. Has President Obama praised such research? After all, he is supposed to be for science, right or was he just paying back those who got him into office?

Amazing, researchers have been able to create beating hearts, ears and bladders using adult stem cells. Biotech companies and the Pentagon have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in research that could profoundly change millions of lives! Apart from these efforts, transplants of adult stem cells have become a standard lifesaving therapy for perhaps hundreds of thousands of people with leukemia, lymphoma and other blood diseases.

This was a promised for various treatments focusing on embryonic stem cells, which were first isolated and grown in a lab dish in 1998. Controversy arisen of course because we are dealing with human beings so former President George W. Bush allowed only restricted federal funding for studying them.

Could adult stem cell research have another breakthrough year? It’s possible but it has a ways to go in terms of treatments and one must watch out for the hype on unproven treatments. But one thing is for certain, the future for regenerative medicine is in adult stem cell research!

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Adult Stem Cell Research Continues To Progress

  1. I have a friend that suffers from Crones and she has been telling me of some great research being done on adult stem cells that may reduce her treatments in the future. Her doctor told her that embryo stem cells are useless for the research.

    Oh, and by the way, her doctor also said that it was with the understanding that God designed our cells to do certain things that has driven the research of adult stem cells.

  2. Michael contradicts himself again, First, he spins fairy tales about adult stem cell treatments—most of which are not even true—

    Amazing, researchers have been able to create beating hearts, ears and bladders using adult stem cells. Biotech companies and the Pentagon have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in research that could profoundly change millions of lives! Apart from these efforts, transplants of adult stem cells have become a standard lifesaving therapy for perhaps hundreds of thousands of people with leukemia, lymphoma and other blood diseases.

    And then he cautions against hype!

    Could adult stem cell research have another breakthrough year? It’s possible but it has a ways to go in terms of treatments and one must watch out for the hype on unproven treatments.

    Amazing!

    Unfortunately, the second quote above is closer to the current state of affairs. Science reported last week that adult cells—iPS (induced pluripotent stem cells) in fact do retain a memory of their original function—bone, blood, etc., and cannot be made to differentiate into any type of cell equally, as an embryonic stem cell can. Whether this can be overcome remains to be seen. Right now, it is a serious impediment, and embryonic cells remain the gold standard.

    This post reflects one more flaw in creationist thinking. Creationists believe that “hoping will make it so.” That if they get down on their knees and believe something enough, it must be—it will be—it is—true.

    .

    By the way, Michael,

    What are your qualifications for reporting on progress in stem-cell research? In any any field of science? In anything at all? You never informed us on this matter as promised back in February.

  3. Mcoville, what is “Crones”? I know that a crone is an ugly, withered old woman, but I didn’t know that they had a disease, too.

  4. Michael,

    Many liberals claimed, “you are against science or stem cell research” if are against destroying an embryo (human being) which is claim when one is against evolution.

    Michael, I am pro-life myself. . but what does this have to do with evolution?

  5. Mcoville,

    I’ll be praying for her. God’s design is wonder to behold! So much to learn and so does Olorin who tries so hard to build a strawman with his rants. Induced pluripotent stem cells wasn’t even mentioned in this posting! However, I have mentioned it in previous postings. Secondly, the paper in which he quotes…Now if he had read the details, it states…

    “The bottom line is that [in young iPS cells], there is memory which affects the differentiation capacity of cells into different lineages,” Hochedlinger said. “But on the other hand,” he added, “you can simply culture them extensively [to] lose the memory.” Their results are published online today (July 19) in Nature Biotechnology.”

    Quoting from the same source he tried so hard to refute me, refutes himself! “But the memory may not be in and of itself a bad thing. “The fact that iPS cells at early passage retain a memory of their cell of origin could be exploited in a potential therapeutic setting,” Hochedlinger said — iPSCs derived from blood would, in theory, make new blood cells more efficiently than other iPSCs, he noted.”

    This is why I don’t answer him too often, he’s just blowing whistles at me, kids nowadays…lol…Research looking great for IPS as well and may help create treatments that help people rather than destroy them!

    “Indeed, “in some of the presented experiments, blood-derived iPS cells performed even better than regular ES cells at making new blood in vitro!” stem cell biologist Thorsten Schlaeger of Children’s Hospital Boston, who was not involved in the research, noted in an email.”

    Amazing, you better believe it, Olorin! Thanks again for your post, Mcoville!

  6. Kriss,

    Anything in biology is squeezed into evolution! Your pro-life? I’m not impressed, what’s your point? Does that mean your in favor of adult stem cell research?

  7. Michael :Kriss,
    Anything in biology is squeezed into evolution! Your pro-life? I’m not impressed, what’s your point? Does that mean your in favor of adult stem cell research?

    — Hint!!! Ebolution IS biology!! You cannot understand biology without it.
    IF embryonic stem cells can be avoided, yes, avoid it, . . . Though I do not see much point if the embryos are already dead. . . not to say I do not buy the concept that just because people are against ebryonic stem cell research that they are therefore against ALL stem cell research. . .
    But again, this itself has little (if anything) to do with evolution.

  8. This is why I don’t answer him too often, he’s just blowing whistles at me, kids nowadays…lol…

    Au contraire. Michael never misses a chance to answer when he thinks he has even a ghost of a chance. i think the previous essay was last winter, on the status of Neandetal as a separate species.

    Michael assumes that I was quoting from his source:[1] But his source is a popular-press summary from Nature a day or so ago, and I had stated explicitly that my source was Science a couple of weeks ago. Sorry, Michael, yet another failure of basic reading comprehension on your part.

    Even so, Michael overflows the banks of even the Nature findings with fairy-tale accomplishments. Given the past history of overhype and retrenchment, I tend to side with the less febrile advocates. Perhaps this arises from the falsified experiments cf Hwang Woo-suk a few years ago, or the more recent adult-stem-cell fraud by Catherine Verfaillie in my own back yard.

    Because of the potentially great promise and ethical implications, the intense political pressure to find adult stem-cell alternatives often results in unbounded optimism and sometimes even prevarication.[2] In other words, Michael still falls prey to the “hoping will make it so” syndrome.

    Hoping will not make it so, Michael. What’s needed is lots and lots of painstaking, foot-slogging biological research.

    And one thing here that we can be absolutely blindingly certain of: Creationism has never contributed anything at all to stem-cell research, does not now contribute anything to stem-cell research, and never will contribute anything whatsoever to stem-cell research. The most creationism has done is attempt to impede biological research in general by opposing evolution. I wouldn’t be so proud of that, if I were him.[3]

    ============

    [1] “Quoting from the same source he tried so hard to refute me, refutes himself!”

    [2] And even the most optimistic adult-cell researchers still argue for continued access to embryonic cells.

    [3] In fact, there are two lines of evolutionary research that may contribute to stem-cell research. First, investigations into the origins of multicellularity—how did cells began to differentiate in the first place? Second, how did some organisms evolve the capability to regenerate body parts? Actually, these two are most probably related. Creationists, of course, would never think to look at these aspects.

  9. krissmith777

    But again, this itself has little (if anything) to do with evolution.

    “Evolution ” doesn’t mean to Michael what you think it means. Anything that contravenes his beliefs is “evolution.” Just as anything that contravenes his political beliefs is “liberal.” They are both thought-free terms, mere placeholders for visceral hatred. Michael should perhaps contemplate the words of
    Anne Lamott: “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image
    when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
    .

    How about it Michael? Is Eelco still banned becvause his knowledge is too dangerous to your beliefs?

    Creationists complain of discrimination against themselves, yet take every opportunity to shut out dissent against their views. BWAHHAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAAA

  10. Olorin has spoken, creation has nothing to do with science, that must mean its true. Sorry to ruin your ideology Olorin, there are scientists that will disagree with you.

    But of course under your standard if they accept the option of creation they can’t be a “real” scientists. What a farce you Darwinists are.

    I think what William F. Buckley, Jr. said about liberals fits to Darwinists like Olorin also: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

  11. mcoville

    Sorry to ruin your ideology Olorin, there are scientists that will disagree with you.

    Yes, indeed. Of 484,00 PhD active biollogical researchers, ther are, in fact, three: Michael Behe, Scott Minnich, and dean kenyon.[1] Among roughly 35,000 research astronomers and cosmologists, there is one: Guillermo Gonzales.

    Of course, unlike theology, numbers do not establish scientific theories, even very lopsided numbers. A more important measure, however, is this: how many times have any scientists ever actually applied creationist theory or principles in coming up with an experimental result?

    The answer here is much clearer: ZERO.

    The problem with creationism is not so much that it’s wrong. Even newton was wrong. The problem is that creationism is scientifically vacuous, without value in guiding research, poverty-stricken in explaining any natural phenomenon, and destitute of practical applications that benefit mankind.

    ================

    [1] A few years ago, a skeptic e-mailed the first 100 names on a Discovery Institute list of “scientists who doubt Darwinism.” It turned out that only two of these 100 were active in the life scientists, and both of them asked to have their names removed from the list.

  12. I think what William F. Buckley, Jr. said about liberals fits to Darwinists like Olorin also: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

    Bucklley’s world of politics deals in “views.” The currency of science, however, is “evidence.” We could adapt Einstein’s remark here that “They wouldn’t need a hundred scientists if they had one single fact.”

  13. Pingback: World Wide News Flash

  14. mcoville :
    I think what William F. Buckley, Jr. said about liberals fits to Darwinists like Olorin also: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

    Nice. . now what if a certain “Darwinist” can be classified as a conservative?. . *rolls eyes* I’m not even a Liberal. . . I lean right on a lot of issues, I’m right of center . . .

    But still . . “liberal” is irrelevant since it’s only a label.

  15. Yer not right enough, krissmith77. “Right of center”? “Lean right”?? “Claqssified as a conservative”??? Not neeeearly right enough. Besides, “Darwinist” automagically classifies you as “liberal.” Remember that, for Michael, these terms do not have the same meaning as they do for normal people.

  16. Olorin :Yer not right enough, krissmith77. “Right of center”? “Lean right”?? “Claqssified as a conservative”??? Not neeeearly right enough. Besides, “Darwinist” automagically classifies you as “liberal.” Remember that, for Michael, these terms do not have the same meaning as they do for normal people.

    Yeah. . . I guess in Michael’s mind, the fact that i am a Christian, pro-life, not particularly crazy about embryonic stem cell research (though I don’t see that issue as black and white), usually prefer conservatives at the voting booth, hold religion at high respect is rendered irrelevant because I accept evolution as a fact. . .

    If it weren’t for that last one, . . I guess I’d be a conservative? . . Maybe Michael is a purist?

    Oh well, . .

  17. —- Maybe I should list my “liberal positions”

    I live in California. . I voted against proposition 8!! *Gasps* It’s ONLY one position!! But I guess I’m a left-wing, raving liberal!!!

  18. Michael hypes the progress made in adult stem cells—Who needs embryonic cells, anyway?

    A Washington post article today tells us who needs embryonic stem cells. The recent judicial decision that Federally funded research using such cells is illegal has caused a firestorm in the community. NIH Director Francis Collins said, “This decision has the potential to do serious harm to one of the most promising areas of biomedical research.” Elaine Fuchs, president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research: “This is the worst possible situation. This is going to be extremely damaging.”

    50 requests for new stem-cell grants were pulled. 199 grants will continue, but will be forced to stop if the situation is not resolved. A dozen already approved grants were frozen, and 22 projects up for renewal will bu cut off. The ruling will impact 80% of all the stem-cell research in the United States.

    There’s the answer. Embryonic stem cells are an integral part of all stem-cell research. Everyone hopes that adult stem cells will replace them. But hoping will not make it so. Meanwhile, the ignorance and wishful thinking displayed by people such as Michael drag down the entire effort.

  19. Michael hypes the progress made in adult stem cells—Who needs embryonic cells, anyway?

    An article today in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune tells us who needs embryonic stem cells. The University of Minnesota is a world leader in biomedical research, and has a strong stem-cell program. Eight current projects will halt as a result of the ruling against embryonic stem cell use.

    The irony is that the ruling mainly will hurt experiments aimed at using adult cells—not embryonic ones—to treat diseases, said Jonathan Slack, director of the university’s Stem Cell Institute.

    “It’s a ridiculous ruling,” Slack said of Monday’s court order…. “This is actually going to hamper adult stem-cell research very seriously.”

    Of the current projects being performed here, how many will be impacted?

    “All of these eight grants are mostly about [adult] cells, which the opponents of stem cell research [say] are just fine because they’re not embryonic,” he said. “It’s very unfortunate that it should be impeded, particularly by the people who say they support it.”

    No one would rather use embryonic cells than other cells. No one advocates creating embryos for the purpose of destroying them in research. But, since the cells used in this work would be destroyed in any event, it does seem a skosh hypocritical to deny their use in helping other people to live.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s