Adult Stem Cell Growth Treats Cornea Disorders

stemcellar writes with a link to the ScienceDaily site, reporting on a method for adult stem cells to grow cornea stem cells. This use of differentiated stem cells in therapies on specific parts of the body is fairly novel, the article states, and could have numerous applications in medicine. "The research undertaken by the ophthalmologist has shown that, from a small biopsy sample, the new growth technique enables the growth of the number of stem cells thus obtained to the point of obtaining sufficient for the treatment to be effective. The cell sample is taken from the limb of the healthy eye - the ocular structure responsible for the transparency of the cornea. The importance of this growth method lies in the fact that it enables the characterization of the cells obtained, i.e. determining the quantity and viability of the units to be used."

Comments

Look Ma no anti-rejection medication!

[mrnick]

I like this kind of medicine. It uses your own body as a donor I am sure your left eye wouldn't reject cells from your right. rejection is the major problem with transplants today (beyond demand surpassing supply).

Now bring on the clones and grow me a new liver! I just bought a new bottle of Jim Beam! :)

Nick Powers

Not Globally Approved

[erbuc]

This is great stuff! The only problem is that the US Government won't approve such a treatment. I work for a Medical Tourism company in Thailand and we are already working with Theravitae on their Adult Stem Cell programs that do the same thing. It is being used for Coronary Heart patients and Diabetics with PAD. The patients own Adult Stems Cells are used and so far there is a 75% success rate that the patient recovers from the conditions they had prior to treatment. The Government in Thailand has approved this and US citizens can travel to Thailand for such treatments. I really hope the US wakes up to it's serious health problems soon.

Re:Not Globally Approved

[ameyer17]

I am not an expert on federal law, but I thought Bush was allowing adult stem cell research.

Re:Not Globally Approved

[FiniteElementalist]

I am not an expert on federal law, but I thought Bush was allowing adult stem cell research. Yeah, what Bush did was refuse to provide federal funding on new lines of embryonic stem cells from after the time of the decision, but he wasn't opposing adult stem cells at all, much less banning research on them or use in treatment.

I don't know what the GP is all about, maybe just an advertisement?

Re:Not Globally Approved

[erbuc]

Research yes, and embryonic stem cell research as well. But Adult Stem Cell research was pushed aside a few years ago in order to direct funds elsewhere.

The company that I spoke of actually picked up shop and moved to Thailand, had their research approved, and have a working fully approved product today. So this research in the US is already a reality for others.

I do not want to supply links or mention the company again as it may be construed as advertising and I do not wish to abuse my privileges here. Do a Google search and you can see there are quite a few testimonials out there and that other parts of the world are quickly leaving the US in the dust on this matter.

May not quite be ready for prime time

[ameyer17]

from tfa:

The results to date achieved amongst the group of rabbits, with induced limbic insufficiency and which then had a transplant of adult stem cells, showed recovery of the corneal epithelium in 60% of the treated animals

Not knowing anything about the risks, alternative treatments available, and potential effects of non-treatment, 60% might not be particularly good. I mean, a 60% success rate is a 40% failure rate. On the other hand, this treatment is new and likely could be further optimized.

Re:May not quite be ready for prime time

[rob1980]

I think that success rate is going to have to come up a bit, but at the same time I wonder how much of those 40% of treatments that failed resulted in the subject experiencing some kind of harmful side effect. If it's small enough more people may be willing to roll the bones and hope they just don't fit into the .01% category.

Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[thrill12]

... because I think that this new technology is exactly not meant for the purpose of abuse, in all its forms (alcoholism, self-inflicted injury etc.). This is ofcourse mainly an ethical discussion, but honestly: why should society pay for someone who ruined their own lives, even if healing can be 100% ? It still costs money, you know.
(I know you meant the last remark in jest, but it helps making my point ;)

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Uh, no. What was chased out was the vestiges of a state-sponsored God. People may still pray and worship or not pray and worship as they please, and this is as it should be. Before, children had to participate in state-sponsored prayer and were subject to state-sponsored religious education. I don't understand why Christians thought that it was good idea. Indoctrination in the name of God is still indoctrination. State sponsored prostelyzation for any belief doesn't really make sense in view of the religious freedoms that we are supposed to be able to enjoy.

Re:Ah nice, you hit the 'ethical' mark spot on

[drinkypoo]

I have to wonder, if the US is, as some say, a "Christian Nation" and "Blessed by God", has it done us any good?

Most so-called Christians are nothing like an actual Christian.

The first and most important admonishment is that you Do Unto Others as you would have them Do Unto You. This is not a passive sort of activity. This is an instruction to go out and do things. Help that old lady across the street. Pick up that hitchhiker. You know what I'm talking about.

Now, this sort of activity puts you out - it's inconvenient. And it can even be dangerous! But the whole point of this is that you can't create the kind of world you want to live in without acting as you want people in that world to act. Some eggs will be broken in the pursuit of this omelet. But what the hell? That's how it always works.

I would say that just as you are not a true patriot if you are not willing to be arrested for your political beliefs, you are not a true christian unless you are willing to die for your world.

The corollary to that is that it must not be a violent death, at least, not by violent actions on your part. Anyone who is bombing abortion clinics or dragging a man behind their truck is quite simply not a christian. It's turn the other cheek, not throw the other fist.

This is not a Christian nation. There isn't one, and there never has been.

Re:too bad this research wasn't done in the U.S.

[donaldm]

I think you have Jesuits mixed up with Jehovah's Witnesses. Jesuits are a religious order in the Catholic Church and most Catholics as with many other religions don't have any issue with blood transfusions. Of course most people don't like the thought of having a needle in their arm or other places but will accept this if it means alleviating pain or saving their life.

Not that surprising...

[WheelDweller]

Adult stem cells, I'm told, have had lots of applications (hence the research money available for it). It's the embryonic stem cells that don't seem to have as many applications.

It's just kinda creepy to see so many people trying to get government funding of stem cells from the "people who won't vote" (to put it mildly). It's like one party in America loves to put a bounty on the heads of the unborn; ever notice?

I know embryonics are in the grey area, but the willingness of people to cannibalize babies just seems wrong, in general.

Re:Not that surprising...

[foniksonik]

The traditional argument for this response is to say: "Putting a value on the tissue of the unborn will create a black market for said tissue and encourage commercialization leading to fetus farms where young women are paid for their eggs for use in treating the elderly and the sick"

Research will use what is available as you say from 'tissue destined for disposal', but a commercial venture based on that research will not be satisfied with simply collecting what happens to be available. They will push for active harvesting to maintain a steady and predictable supply of embryonic tissue. It's a very slippery slope.

I'm imagining that if this became legal that it wouldn't be our own neighbors providing the tissue.. it would be poor people from 3rd world nations. Who knows what evils people will be capable of when the goal of the process is to create genetically anonymous donor tissue?

Re:Not that surprising...

[MtViewGuy]

A moron President, pandering to the vocal minority that constitutes his base, has cut off the largest source of potential funding for a line of research that looks far more promising, at least to the large majority of professionals who study stem cell therapies.

Ahem--if embryonic stem cell research is promising all the private pharmaceutical firms (and big-time investors like Warren Buffett and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) would put up lots of money without government help to fund such research. As such, it appears adult stem cell research has shown major promise (some 80+ therapies based on adult stem cell research are now in serious development), while embryonic stem cell research has pretty much come up "squadoosh."

Re:Not that surprising...

[DeadCatX2]

Research will use what is available as you say from 'tissue destined for disposal', but a commercial venture based on that research will not be satisfied with simply collecting what happens to be available. They will push for active harvesting to maintain a steady and predictable supply of embryonic tissue. It's a very slippery slope.

It's capitalism. If making as much money at the expense of any and everything else was not the core principle of our society, the slope would not be nearly as slippery.