Slashdot Mirror


Stem Cells Restore Feeling In Paraplegic

Vicissidude writes "According to WorldNetDaily scientists in Korea report using umbilical cord blood stem cells to restore feeling and mobility to a spinal-cord injury patient. The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cytotherapy, centered on a woman who had been a paraplegic 19 years due to an accident. After an infusion of umbilical cord blood stem cells, stunning results were recorded: 'The patient could move her hips and feel her hip skin on day 15 after transplantation. On day 25 after transplantation her feet responded to stimulation.'"

14 of 540 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Benefit of the doubt by Atzanteol · · Score: 4, Informative

    I agree with the sentiment against Bush's policies on stem-cell research. But isn't the type of stem-cell used in this article (umbilical cord) actually "okay" to use under the US policy?

    --
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

    - Charles Darwin
  2. The paper's title, abstract, and URL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Title:

    A 37-year-old spinal cord-injured female patient, transplanted of multipotent stem cells from human UC blood, with improved sensory perception and mobility, both functionally and morphologically: a case study pp. 368 - 373
                K-S Kang, SW Kim, YH Oh, JW Yu, K-Y Kim, HK Park, C-H Song, H Han
                DOI: 10.1080/14653240500238160

    Abstract:

    HLA-matched UC blood-derived multipotent stem cells were directly transplanted into the injured spinal cord site of a 37-year-old female patient suffering from spinal cord injury (SPI). In this case, human cord blood (UCB)-derived multipotent stem cells improved sensory perception and movement in the SPI patient's hips and thighs within 41 days of cell transplantation. CT and MRI results also showed regeneration of the spinal cord at the injured site and some of the cauda equina below it. Therefore, it is suggested that UCB multipotent stem cell transplantation could be a good treatment method for SPI patients.

    http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/(hibl2tibmt1yldq lfhsywa55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=pare nt&backto=issue,8,9;journal,1,40;linkingpublicatio nresults,1:107693,1

  3. Re:Benefit of the doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, it's only embryonic stem cell research outside the approved lines that won't receive federal funding. In individual states, such as California which just approved billions for stem cell research, you can receive state funding regardless of what type of stem cell you use.

  4. Lumbar laminectomy was also done by ugmoe · · Score: 5, Informative

    The posted article does not mention that the patient also had a Lumbar laminectomy performed.

    http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/ We have to be cautious. One patient does not a treatment make. Also, the authors note that the lamenectomy the patient received might have offered some benefit. But still, this is a wonderful story that offers tremendous hope for paralyzed patients. Typically, it has been extensively ignored in the American media (although it has gotten some foreign press attention). (Can you imagine the headlines if the cells used had been embryonic?)

    http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayarticle.php/ar ticle545.html "The goal of a laminectomy is to relieve pressure on the spinal cord or spinal nerve by widening the spinal canal. This is done by removing or trimming the lamina (roof) of the vertebrae to create more space for the nerves."

  5. Re:For purposes of consistency... by DrStrange66 · · Score: 3, Informative

    He's not against stem cell research. He's against destroying embryos. Huge difference.

    Your statement reminds me of a movie "Head of State" where there was a campaign ad from the opponent stating "Mays Gilliam for Cancer!"

  6. A little longer and this news would be a year old by Hogg · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    I am Jack's unoriginal sig.
  7. Re:Benefit of the doubt by TummyX · · Score: 3, Informative


    It seems that science poses a threat an administration such as the current one.


    I'd hate to destroy your little fantasy but...

    NSF budget:

    1998: $3.429 billion (clinton)
    1999: $3.672 billion (clinton)
    2000: $3.912 billion (clinton)
    2001: $4.416 billion (clinton)
    2002: $4.789 billion (bush)
    2003: $5.344 billion (bush)
    2004: $5.577 billion (bush)
    2005: $5.473 billion (bush)

  8. Re:Well... by jallen02 · · Score: 3, Informative
  9. Re:Benefit of the doubt by BWJones · · Score: 3, Informative

    Carefully re-read my post and respond to the points I made without inserting commentary or meaning that was not there. I did not say that Bush was against all stem cell research. I said specifically: "it is too bad the field of stem cell research in the US has been badly damaged by policies the current Whitehouse administration have put into place. A good number of scientific teams formerly here in the US have had to leave the country to continue their work and others are having to modify their protocols to use one of the "acceptable" lines of stem cells the Bush administration in their infinite wisdom have seen fit to approve

    So, that implies directly that I acknowledged the Bush administration has allowed some stem cell research, but at the same time, has limited the kinds of research than can be accomplished. This has absolutely resulted in some scientific teams leaving the country to perform their work elsewhere.

    Why has this become an issue? It was not previously an issue as stem cell research has been going in in federally funded laboratories for at least 20 years. It is an issue because it became a political issue that was religiously motivated.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  10. Re:Umbilical Cord Stem Cells? by tfoss · · Score: 4, Informative
    Does this mean that these cells were not harvested from an aborted fetus?

    Here's the huge misconception about embryonic stem cells: They are not from aborted fetuses.

    Embryonic stem cells from from blastocysts (on the order of 50-100 cells) that are derived from in vitro fertilization attempts where the fertilized eggs are to be discarded. It is one of those issues that has been clouded with talk of abortion (usually by opponents ESC research), and thus reasonable discussion is frequently overwhelmed by hysterical chatter that doesn't even relate to the topic.

    If you are cool with IVF, then there is little reason to be upset about ESC research. If you aren't cool with ESC research, then it seems illogical to be ok with IVF. Abortion really does not enter into the discussion.

    -Ted

    --
    -=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
  11. Re:Benefit of the doubt by dotcher · · Score: 5, Informative
    The journal article seems to exist:
    A 37-year-old spinal cord-injured female patient, transplanted of multipotent stem cells from human UC blood, with improved sensory perception and mobility, both functionally and morphologically: a case study

    HLA-matched UC blood-derived multipotent stem cells were directly transplanted into the injured spinal cord site of a 37-year-old female patient suffering from spinal cord injury (SPI). In this case, human cord blood (UCB)-derived multipotent stem cells improved sensory perception and movement in the SPI patient's hips and thighs within 41 days of cell transplantation. CT and MRI results also showed regeneration of the spinal cord at the injured site and some of the cauda equina below it. Therefore, it is suggested that UCB multipotent stem cell transplantation could be a good treatment method for SPI patients.
    That's taken from this page.
  12. Links are fine. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have no problems with the links here. There is no "smiling man".

    Perhaps you have a rootkit installed.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  13. Re:Extremely sceptical by ars · · Score: 5, Informative

    The GP is a little mixed up. It's 1mm per DAY, not per year.

    See http://www.teleemg.com/new/back_and_leg2.htm for one reference. (Second question on the page.)

    --
    -Ariel
  14. Re:Benefit of the doubt by jaiyen · · Score: 4, Informative

    If she gets up and walks, I don't think you need a peer reviewed journal to prove that the therapy works!

    There is a picture of her doing just that here (sorry it's 3MB PDF file, pic is on page 30).