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.'"
Wow, given this potential, I am surprised this work was not published in one of the bigger journals like Science or Nature? Perhaps it was submitted? I cannot get this particular journal with our institutional subscription, so I cannot examine the article first hand.
However, giving them the benefit of the doubt, 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 for scientists that want to continue to receive federal funding for their work.
It should be noted that it is not just patients who have been paralyzed that can potentially benefit from this work. Other potential therapies to come out of stem cell work include treatments for heart disease, retinal vision loss disorders, Parkinson's disease, Cystic Fibrosis and many others.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I don't know much about this kind of stuff, but that seems pretty amazing. Does anyone with more knowledge know how amazing it is?
Come on, helping people regain sensation in their long-dormant limbs? Where can it lead?
Oh the humanity!
Won't someone think of the children!?
etc.
ahem. Sorry. pre-emptive sarcasm mode, OFF!
I am a leaf on the wind
So then, if the stem cells are placed next to a Shakey's Pizza, they would become another Shakey's Pizza! And you'd have your own Shakey's Pizza where you didn't have to charge yourself to eat!
Insert clever one liner here.
Title:
q lfhsywa55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=pare nt&backto=issue,8,9;journal,1,40;linkingpublicatio nresults,1:107693,1
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/(hibl2tibmt1yld
If god wanted her to walk, he would have allowed it through the use of stem cells. Oh, wait, he has.
End transmission.
Does this mean that these cells were not harvested from an aborted fetus? If so this treatment could really take off without all the ethical and political problems that plague conventional stem cell treatments.
However, giving them the benefit of the doubt, 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.
It's too bad that the OP doesn't understand that umbilical cord blood stem cells are not embryonic stem cells, but rather adult stem cells. But you and he are obviously blinded by politics because you fail to see that the US government is funding this kind of research very heavily.
(BTW, there are ethics involved in research of all kinds, in engineering, in law, in business, etc. You simply do not agree with the idea that ethics should be a part of stem cell research.)
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
While I agree that aportion = killing babies, RTFA... It was adult Stem cells NOT embryonic.
Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
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."
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.'"
Yeah, if only somebody could make it clear what type of stem cells they were! I mean, that's something you think could even get into the story summary!
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
is what I am. A long standing spinal injury is characterized by severe gliosis, ie the formation of neural scar tissue. This effectively blocks the path for new nerves to grow. This alone makes it hard to believe for me. Furthermore, the rapidity of the recovery is implausible. Nerve cells will grow at a speed of about 1 mm per year. Hence a recovery of lost feeling (thin fibers) within the time span indicated is unlikely. Then there is the issue of homing and differentiation - umbilical cord stem cells will typicall find their way to the bone marrow, not the the spinal cord or other neural tissues. Finally, the fact that this alleged breakthrough has been published in a very minor journal is quite telling IMHO. I do not believe this, unless I see more convincing proof. I'm willing to wait, this is only a first press publication after all, but don't hold up your hopes too high on this one.
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
This research has nothing to do with the stem cell ban in the USA. Only fetal stem cells are restricted. This research used umbilical cord stem cells. The use of cord blood stem cells is completely unrestricted.
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
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!"
From a blog i found on google:
<SNIP>
I have known about this for some time, but because I didn't want to be guilty of the same hyping that is so often engaged in by some therapeutic cloning proponents, I waited until it was published in a peer reviewed journal. Now it has been and the news is HUGE: Korean scientists have used umbilical cord blood stem cells to restore feeling and mobility to a spinal cord injury patient. I have no link, but I do have the report published in Cytotherapy, (2005) Vol 7. No. 4, 368-373.
The patient is a woman who has been paraplegic from an accident for more than 19 years. (Complete paraplegia of the 10th thoracic vertebra.) She had surgery and also an infusion of umbilical cord blood stem cells. Note the stunning benefits: "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. On post operative day (POD) 7, motor activity was noticed and improved gradually in her lumbar paravertebral and hip muscles. She could maintain an upright position by herself on POD 13. From POD 15 she began to elevate both lower legs about 1 cm, and hip flexor muscle activity gradually improved until POD 41." It goes on from there in very technical language.
The bottom line is this, from the Abtract: Not only did the patient regain feeling, but "41 days after [stem cell] transplantation" testing "also showed regeneration of the spinal cord at the injured cite" and below it. "Therefore, it is suggested that UCB multipotent stem cell transplantation could be a good treatment method for SPI patients." (My emphasis.)
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?)
One last point. This is a patient with a very old injury--making the results even more dramatic.
Onward!
</SNIP>
For those who missed the reference, it's
Cytotherapy, (2005) Vol 7. No. 4, 368-373.
I'm guessing we're talking about a severed spinal column here. How do the stem cells "know" how to get the correct nerves to growth back together? Does each nerve have a unique chemical signature so it knows how to reconnect to its partner?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
80% Bush sucks! Grrrr! Rowlf! Hisss! Spit! (modded Insightful)
10% General antireligious screeds. Woof! Bark! (modded Flamebait)
9% "Bush only bans funding for embryonic stem cells" Hiss! Grrr! (modded Troll)
0.9999% Thoughtful comments on stem cells. (modded Offtopic)
0.0001% This post. (modded into oblivion)
Californians voted on Proposition 71 and pledged 300 million dollars over 10 years for stem cell research. Apparently, right-leaning political officials are now using bureaucracy to deny the 3 billion dollar pledge, and so not a dime has been issued yet. In this month's Wired magazine (which I don't have in front of me right now), they interview the head of the agency that is supposed to distribute the money; he explicitly said that if the US does not fund stem cell research, South Korea will soon emerge as the world leader. Being that I just read this yesterday, he seems to be very prescient...
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapac ific/view/119428/1/.html
I used it in a paper I wrote last year.
I am Jack's unoriginal sig.
I'm pretty sure they were those abominable asexual stem-cells. They sicken me, what with all their reproducing outside the sacred bonds of marriage.
That first link displayed something very...interesting on my workplace monitor. No idea why it happened or if others experience the same thing but...seeing a man from that particular angle and with that particular aperture... *shiver*
I'm not entirely sure what these pictures are of but I know enough to know they aren't what they're supposed to be of.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
As expected, everyone's sounding off about stem cell research. So... he's my inflation-depreciated .02.
... unless they're willing to ship 10% of them to me, refrigerated and boxed, so I can crack em and suck the fresh stem cells down and become a REAL Superman. If it's my own well-being involved, I have no ethics.
Stem cell research is a boon to medical science. Umbilical stem cells, which in no way hurts anyone (and which only a few outsider whacko groups are against), have proved invaluable to health care research. Embryonic stem cells (the ethical problem) are even more invaluable.
Here is the problem. As an individual, I support the legality of abortion. I don't like the fact that it's necessary at times, and I'd be glad to see it discouraged in any positive way possible. I can respect those who come to the painful realiziation that they simply cannot support a child due to serious personal issues (be it drug abuse, abject poverty, mental illness, etc). And conversely I have absolutely zero respect for those who terminate simply because it wouldn't suit their lifestyle. One is little different from an animal reabsorbing their fetus under stress, and the other is not far from infanticide out of convenience. And while I do not consider an embryo or even a fetus to be a "baby", I don't consider them mere biological byproducts of sex either.
In a limited, controlled, publicly accountable fashion, I can easily accept open stem cell research. Let's not beat around the bush - whatever the origin, you're destroying a human embryo for medical and research gain. When that embryo is the castoff from fertility work (ie spare embryos that had a chance but will never be complete), it's not so bad. But there's just something questionable about creating a human life simply to dismantle it.
I don't consider abortion infanticide unless it's late term (ie the fetus could actually survive with a little medical assistance). It's not an independant being yet, and it's by no means an infant until it can at least breathe without a machine (not counting injury/deformity). But in at least a limited way, once a fertilized ovum undergoes it's first cell division (not at fertilization, as it hasn't become a new entity yet), it has become a new human in every sense that a fetus or a toddler is. To say it's anything less is no different from saying that a baby or a retarded person is less human than you are. I'm not even talking about souls or religion - I have grave doubts about both subjects. To me, it's just the most logical conclusion.
So... while I applaud the wonders we can perform with placental and umbilical stem cells, and would like to see that research continue at full speed, I can more than understand why some people don't like seeing their tax dollars go to embryonic stem cell research. I personally don't care for the idea of creating human organisms, concious or not, simply for the gain of others.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
What it took is clearly explained in TFA (and summary) for those that can read.
[ The words "cord" and "blood" might be useful clues. ]
As to the taking of cord blood "killing who knows how many babies", well, I'm stumped there, never heard of even one death and can't see how it could happen - care to provide a reference ?
Or perhaps you just don't have the faintest clue about obstetrics ? [ not a good starting point if you want your criticism / anger to be taken even slightly seriously ]
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.
The thirt time I ever experienced goatse.cx was on a frontpage slashdot story. It looked like a credible link to a major news outlet.
Unfortunately I was trying to help a friend's family to understand how a news site like slashdot worked at the time. I had a conservative 40ish couple and a 19 year old girl looking on as I clicked this link.
It was very difficult to explain just exactly what happened as the site came up. I haven't been able to sort it all out even to this day.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
In legal terms, it's not a ban. In PRACTICAL terms, it is a ban. If all the equipment in a lab was bought with federal funds (which is the way most labs in the US are), how can you do any ES cell research? Build a new lab from scratch, not using any federal funds? In practical terms, how is that possible? Fortunately, some of the states (which traditionally have nothing to do with biomedical research funding) are stepping in and rectifying the idiocy of the federal government.
Here we have what could be the biggest medical discovery of our lifetimes. Run around, dance in the street, be happy, throw a party, etc. Alright, Maybe a little skepticism of the discovery should be warranted. This is a little too good to be true.
But No! The whole thing turns into a thread revolving around the technicalities of federal funding of stem cell research. Mainly, why this should be another reason for you to hate George Bush. Which, if you RTFA, this category of research is not affected by the embryonic stem cell funding ban.
This reminds me of the threads where there's some new energy technology breakthrough and the whole thread is spent trying to find a reason why it has to be bad for the environment. If the thread involves anything remotely related to nuclear energy forget about it.
It seems that for some topics there is such a huge amount of misinformation about the subject, especially political hot potatos, that the whole thread has to be spent educating people.
When the thread comes up again, with the same issue, a whole new wave of the uneducated arrives and it starts all over again. This same thing has happed every time stem cells come up, it seems to happen even more on threads where the discovery did not use actual embryonic stem cells.
if you insist on touting your opinion with such authority at least where your experience is from. perhaps post a link to a ligit source one simular to the post. scepticism is not plausible source
Uhhhh.... let's see... WorldNetDaily reports on this supposedly important scientific research that "like most breakthroughs using adult stem cells, this one has been completely ignored by the U.S. mainstream media." Who do they interview about the research? The authors of the paper? No, someone from the (intelligent design proponents) Discovery Institute!
They don't even give the title, author or volume for the journal article. So how do we assess the veracity of this claim that adult stem cells can save paraplegics. I'll join the original poster in calling BULLSHIT until real scientists test and backup the claims.
WorldNetDaily, by the way, makes FOX News and CNN look like paragons of journalism. For them to report on anything scientific is laughable. For Slashdot to advertise it, doubly so.
how the hell does research designed to limit the threat of life-changing illness or injury not fall under the umbrella of national security?
Can you show me where in the USA Constitution where it says health is the responsibility of the government?
A) having problems with it in terms of federalist principals
Seeing as how federalist principals stand for small government not large government it seems you're the one with problems of uderstanding federalism.
I'd like to see more of MY tax dollars go into medical research and less into military spending.
I'd prefer to see less of MY tax dollars going to both the military and to medical research.
if we had spent HALF of the money we have over the last century on military, and put it into medical research, we just might have been able to increase the life expectancy of our people by 5 years (aiding the illimination of cancers would do this, without question), increased the general health of the populace considerably, and recieve the added financial benefits of being the world leaders in the medical field
And if taxes weren't high to pay for all this by the feds then the private and commercial sectors would have more money to spend on research. And job creation.
So I seriously don't know how you can get off on a constitutional arguement against scientific research.
And how can you get off on saying the constitution allows tax spending for scientific research? Though I've looked, read, and reread other than where the constitution allows congress to grant copyrights and patents I see nowhere where it deligates this power. Maybe I missed it so can you point out where it says otherwise? Maybe it's in Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress but I don't see it.
Consider that Benjemin Franklin was one of our founding fathers and one of the drafters of the consitution. He strongly supported the idea of government funded research.
And I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, James Jay, and James Madison who all loved small government would say to you? Though a bit later I know what Col. David Crockett would of said, "Not Yours To Give". Heck, I'd like to see NASA privatized as well. What many don't realize is that the USA Constitution is a limit on what government can do, the 10th Admendment even spells it out:
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People
FalconThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Should there be a Law?
If this premise were correct (i.e. that they think this) then your argument would be fine. But it is not correct. Regardless of any rhetoric they use, their basic belief is not an ethical one, but a religious one: i.e. that what is 'worth saving' is any living soul, and that the soul enters the physical body at conception and leaves it on death.
Ethically, their side and your side are in agreement, that is you both agree that a human life has moral value, but they define a human life as being a living soul, and you define it as being a conscious human entity. There is no ethical disagreement here.
The disagreement is at best metaphysical, but more likely it is theological. In other words, if you want to change their views, you have to change their view of what a human life is, and to do that would require changing their religious belief, not their ethical arguments, or even their definition of what it is to be conscious (because consciousness does not enter into it for them).
As someone who has studied plenty of philosophy, I would say this is a perfect example of why ethical philosophy is quite useless. Rational argument can persuade people that there are inconsistencies in their ethical, religious, or other beliefs, and it can persuade them that if they want a certain thing, then they should do such and such a thing to get it, or then they must logically want another thing, but it cannot persuade people that they should want this or that to begin with.
In this case, the real question at issue is whether there is a soul, etc--and while philosophy can make plenty of arguments about nonduality and so forth, religion has the power to persuade people to abandon all rationality, even the law of noncontradiction if need be. Especially Americans.