Paralyzed Woman Walks Again

mgv writes "It's been promised for years, but it's just become a reality. Stem cells taken from cord blood have enabled a paralysed woman in South Korea to walk again for the first time in 20 years. The details are on the Sydney Morning Herald Site which requires registration, but can also be seen on the World Peace Herald. Too late for Christopher Reeve, but not for the thousands of new injuries worldwide each year or the millions of paralysed people from other diseases in the world."

Comments

Adult stem cells

[Anonymous Coward]

Cord blood stem cells are considered to be adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. Just wanted to get that out before all the Bush bashing starts.

Re:Adult stem cells

[bombadillo]

Stem Cells are not the same as embryo's. A stem cell is called a cell for a reason. The human body sloughs off millions of cells a day. Also, stem cells are often left over from invitro fertilization. Are you against invitro fertillization? Whats wrong with using any left over cells which cannot continue to exist and using them for research?

Re:Adult stem cells

[foooo]

It is often impossible to separate "moral" issues from "legal" issues. For example... why is murder illegal?? Because it's immoral to murder someone.

This is why abortion and embryonic stem cell research are such touchy issues. The issue at hand is not "is murder wrong" it is instead "is this considered a person? and therefore ceasing it's existance is considered murder??"

Statements such as:

"Justification with something so simple as "my morals happen to be correct" isn't acceptable. The government either needs to stop making moral issues legal issues. Doing so would have the potential to save thousands of lives."

are childish, in that they completely ignore that law is entirely based on moral issues. We define what constitutes life, liberty and property entirely based on morals. Law simply codifies our societal morals.

Other Links

[lamz]

No subscription required for the story here, either.

Re:Not for the US

[brandonp]

You're wrong.

This was done by using umbilical cord stem cells. This has far fewer ethical problems and George Bush said on many occassions he fully supports the use of umbilical cord stem cells.

This is a huge advance, getting results without the ethical issues that many people struggle with.

Brandon Petersen
Get Firefox!

Re:Take that, Bushies!

[corbettw]

and show the Bushies that they are dumb (at least as far as science goes).

At least we know how to RTFA. The stem cells used were umbilical stem cells. You know, the type Bush wants to encourage people to use? As opposed to fetal stem cells, which are just covered in ethical and moral dilemmas.

This ball was never in Bush's court to begin with

[mark-t]

The Bush administration only outlawed funding for _fetal_ stem cell research. This was from the umbilical cord and is sanctioned by the US's current government.

Why is it that when some people hear the term "stem cells" the same sort of knee jerk reaction happens just like when some people hear the term "nuclear power"?

Re:Cord blood vs. embryonic?

[MagicM]

From here:

So-called "multipotent" stem cells -- those found in cord blood -- are capable of forming a limited number of specialised cell types, unlike the more versatile "undifferentiated" cells that are derived from embroyos.

Get the facts straight

[nwbvt]

Embryonic stem cell research was not banned. Federal funding was given for embryonic stem cell research but limited to pre-existing lines.

There is a huge difference between the two.

Re:Get the facts straight

[magefile]

Pre-existing lines that are contaminated with pathogens and mouse cells, many of which have reached the end of their useful lifespans. It's effectively a ban on federal funding, period.

Re:Get the facts straight

[Tiroth]

Regardless, it is more than no funding at all (like how it was before Bush)

This comes up a lot, and I think it is a very disingenuous argument. There was no funding before Bush because stem cell research as we contemplate it today is essentially an entirely new field of research; there wasn't significant work being done on human embryoes before Bush, hence no funding.

Reference below. It was not until 1999/2000 that scientists proved that these cells could be forced to differentiate into things like nerve cells that were previously thought to be impossible to regenerate.
http://www.laskerfoundation.org/news/ stemcell/hist ory.html

Re:Adult Stem Cells :)

[tgibbs]

There's something wrong with a bunch of blood thirsty, power hungry mongrals who are willing to draw attention to something that has so far been proven in 100% of laboratory tests to be totally useless

Do you really feel that your argument is so weak that it is necessary to lie? If you go to PubMed and type in "embryonic stem cells," you will see a long list of laboratory studies supporting their value.

Re:Nonsense!!!!

[stanmann]

Q: In 1 Ki 7:23 and 2 Chr 4:2-5, does the Bible say the value of pi is 3? A: No. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.328 claims, "The explanation is, of course, that the Biblical writers were not mathematicians or even interested in mathematics and were merely giving approximate figures. Still, to those who are obsessed with the notion that every word in the Bible is infallible (and who know a little mathematics) it is bound to come as a shock to be told that the Bible says that the value of pi is 3." Asimov had a Ph.D. in chemistry, so he should have known better. There are three different possibilities. Rounding with significant digits: Assume the circumference was exactly 30.0 cubits. Since they only gave the dimensions in whole numbers, which number would Asimov have them use? A perfectly round basin with no rim would give a value of 9.55, and that is closer to 10 than to any other number. A rim: Assume either the inner circumference was exactly 30.0 cubits, or that the thickness of the basin made the inner and outer circumference almost the same. A diameter that included a rim of 4 inces (0.22535 cubits) would give a ratio of exactly 3 to 1. A flare: Nothing says the walls of the basin were perfectly vertical. If the basin had a very slight flare of 0.75% at the top, then the outer circumference at the narrow part and the outer or inner diameter at the top would give a ratio of exactly 3 to 1.

11/10/03 "Sir-In the News story about scientists' response to creationists, the scientists `comment that the Bible says that PI is 3, not 3.14' (Nature 398, 453; 1999). The biblical verse quoted (1 Kings 7:23) reads in part: `...measuring 10 cubits from rim to rim... It took a line of 30 cubits to measure around it". Indeed, 30/10 equals 3, but further on in verse 26 it says: `It was a handbreadth in thickness...' Assuming that a cubit measured 18 inches and a hand breadth 3 inches, the inner diameter of the bowl would be 174 inches (10 x 18 - 2 x 3), and the inner circumference would be 540 inches (30 x 18). This yields a value for PI of 540/174 or 3.10. This is about a 1 per cent error from the typical value for PI of 3.14. Although we do not know the exact length of a cubit or a handbreadth, this result is very close to the actual value of PI." (Peil K., "Biblical answer to cooking up pi," Nature, Vol 399, 10 June 1999, p.522)

What is holy

[anomaly]

I can't speak for all of the Christian world, but I have to take issue with a couple of your points above:

1. If God made things a certain way, then that must be holy.
In fact, the Hebrew scriptures (read Old Testament) and the New testament affirm that the world in which we live is flawed as a result of the sin of Adam. Humans - as they are naturally - are not holy. In fact, humans are not naturally able to relate to God. It is only through the combination of God's reaching out to man and man's response to that call that give people any hope of relating to God. (There are many internal discussions about the nature of that call, and man's ability to respond, but the core belief is that man as he is born, is unholy.)

People are born with a prediliction to reject God in a myriad of ways. Some alcoholism has been shown to have physiological roots, but that does not prevent the church from condemnation of abuse of alcohol. Even if homosexuality is demonstrated to have a physiological cause, it will not mean that the church needs to change its stance.

Homosexual behavior is condemed by the church, as is idolatry, lying, theft, greed, slander, swindling, gluttony, and much else.

Why are these behaviors condemned? Because God made us, and He knows how we work. You can drive nails with a Rolex, but it wasn't made for that. There are many things you can do with and to your body - but it wasn't made for those things.

The maker - designer - knows what is good for you, and what is not. He can set whatever standards He wants. God gives us the free will to follow His direction or reject it. I'm sure that the Rolex folks won't recommend driving nails with your watch. If you do it anyway, there are consequences. It's the same with God.

As it stands, the revealed word of God says that sexual acts outside of marriage, and also with two people of the same gender are not acceptable. In fact, Jesus Himself said that when a man looks at a woman lustfully he has already sinned - and that sin carries the same penalty as homosexual acts do!

2. with embryonic stem cells there is no sper involved
I believe that you misunderstand the definition of embryonic stem cells. An embryo is the joining of sperm and egg. Evangelicals typically believe that life begins at conception, not at a later point. When life begins, it must be protected.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Have you read it yourself?

[anomaly]

The old testament, and new testament affirm nothing.

Have you read the Bible yourself? All of it?

While you may believe that it is merely a collection of nice stories that are used to prove a point, I would suggest to you that your belief may not be completely accurate.

The Bible is quite remarkable in terms of ancient literature. There are many many 'holy books' that are revered by religious peoples around the world. None of them have had the impact on Western culture and society that the Bible has.

We know that what is written there has been preserved since its original versions because of the vast number of copies that we have. There are more accurate copies of the Bible than ANY other ancient work. (The alleged discrepancies that many of you want to point out as you read this are completely irrelevant to all major doctrines of the Christian faith.)

To suggest that it's merely a collection of stories on a par with mother goose is a bit...unreasonable.

In terms of disease, the Christian faith teaches that we all are diseased, and are in need of an ultimate physician to heal us. The disease is sin, evidenced by our selfishness and pride. This is what separates us from a Holy God.

God does give us free will. Doing what He says is wrong is, as I mentioned in my last post to you, akin to smashing your gold Rolex on a galvanized nail.

If you do what God says is wrong, you can expect that there will be consequences. That's the way it is. You don't have to like it, but you can't change it, either. The only way to avoid the consequences is to believe that you are imperfect, recognize that perfection is required to have relationship with a holy God, and ask Him to accept you in your imperfection, beacuse of Christ's sacrifice on your behalf.

This is completely unrelated to procreation. Procreation is not at issue if you look lustfully at a woman, and Christ called that sin, too.

WRT your embryonic stem cell point, I believe that you are mistaken. This site states that embryonic stem cells require a fertilized egg.