This Story is Archived
Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study »
Posted by: Bkumm 1 year, 9 months agoBOSTON (Reuters) - Human embryonic stem cells can help regenerate damaged nerves in rats, producing compounds that nurture nerve cells and stimulate the growth of new ones, Geron Corp. said on Wednesday.
Read Full Story at today.reuters.com »
Submitted By:
Bkumm
Ex-Navy, degrees in History and Marketing and Management.
Socially liberal, fiscal conservative.
Just following my own brand of atheistic spiritualism.
" [T]he only purpose for ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 62
-
Sandmn
Jan. 17, 2007, 11:06 a.m.AS I understand the stem cell issue, There are a number of cells available for study, that will otherwise be destroyed. I see no problems with this research on the limited amount that currently exist, but not in harvesting future research cells. And nothing to do with babies in any tirmester. This would be limited to unused cells only, in my mind. I have lately read that some of the same cells can be harvested from the afterbirth cells, and see no harm in that research either, but with limitations.
-
-
TechnologyExpert
Jan. 17, 2007, 12:25 p.m.This is true. So would we rather seem them end up "in the trash" as it were, or being used usefully, is really the issue.
-
jordan11
Jan. 17, 2007, 7:29 p.m., but not in harvesting future research cells>>>>
Why? They're going to be available as long as couples utilize artificial insemination. Why should the leftover cells be destroyed? These cells aren't 'harvested' through abortion.
-
jeffery1
Jan. 18, 2007, 11:14 a.m.The blastocysts used to produce stem cells are nothing but lumps of undifferentiated cells, about 100 cells total I believe. They are not skin, nerve, liver, heart, nothing. They are not babies. They are not persons.
Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to not develop other lines of stem cells from blastocysts. These stem cells can be used with other types in stem cell research without any ethical problem so long as a person is not the result.
-
-
aquarius448
Jan. 17, 2007, 11:11 a.m.The use of stem cells that are taken from aborted fetuses and early human embryos is still frowned upon. The potential to heal is incredible though and I for one am in agreement with the research and selected use of stem cells.
-
earthlingerer
Jan. 18, 2007, 7:35 a.m.frowned upon.....by you.
People are already paying bucks for abortion leftovers and other stuff, they even put it in "beauty products"
The same rich people who show their contempt for future generations by driving big SUVs and other signs of conspicuous consumption are lining up.
They just don't tell people back home about it.
-
-
Bkumm
Jan. 17, 2007, 11:32 a.m.This article interested me greatly, because this is the first I've found that actually claims that embryonic stem cells can be used to help repair damage. Not only will it help with constructing the sheath (myelin) around the spinal cord, but now it can help with regenerating the spinal cord itself.
Very exciting.
-
looter
Jan. 17, 2007, 11:40 a.m.Looks like we are going to have a debate about what cells must be used. I agree we should make sure we don't harvest any cells just for the use of this. There should be regulations that need be brought up in this matter. Banning stems cells research altogether doesn't fix any problem and government must fund for the research of finding alternatives for the controversial embryonic stems cell research. This administration is not going to do that as this president is a fanatic evangelist. I don't believe any religion says that life should be curtailed or put to never ending torture, if life can be extended it should be done in every possible way. The living always gets precedence over the unborn.
-
random1734
Jan. 17, 2007, 12:12 p.m.The stem cells are going to be destroyed anyways. Better to use them in the research than to flush them. The evangelicals object because most of these cells come from abortions and they think that if there is a demand for them that people will get pregnant to have an abortion to harvest the cells.
It seems to me that this is a little short sighted when it comes to the original research. By the time the research gets to the point that things can be used on humans it will be years down the road and perhaps we will have found a better way of getting these cells by that time.
We may not and than it would become an issue. But to make it an issue now when we don't even know if the research will really pan out is kind of premature.
If we go around with this kind of thinking than we might as well ban books as it promotes thinking in the first place.
-
Bkumm
Jan. 17, 2007, 12:31 p.m.Actually, most of the cells used would come from fertility clinics that destroy them after a period of time. Cells from abortions are also used.
I agree with much of what random is saying here. We should use what is available.
If the objection of some people is because of the abortion issue, then we should put more effort into eliminating the reason for abortions, which is primarily a form of birth control.
Once again, we (as a nation) look at the symptom and not the underlying cause of the illness. Abortion is not the issue, the unwanted pregnancy is the issue. Maybe if we had real sex education in this country we could greatly reduce unwanted pregnancy and by doing so reduce abortions.
However, that is beyond the scope of this article. The issue here is that embyonic stem cells seem to work to help people that are paralyzed. If we have a way to help them, we should.
-
earthlingerer
Jan. 18, 2007, 7:37 a.m.Maybe we just need to keep our noses out of other peoples lives, and allow them to morally "digest" their decisions.
Until a baby breathes, and atmospheric pressure closes the hole in the wall of the heart, it isn't human.
-
-
Helixbuilder
Jan. 17, 2007, 12:55 p.m.Wasn't there a story about harvesting stem cells from amniotic fluid a while back? If that is an efficient means of harvesting stem cells than all other arguments are moot.
-
Bkumm
Jan. 17, 2007, 1 p.m.Yesterday, cat posted a story from a columnist (Krauthammer) about the possibility of taking cells from amniotic fluid. Those are not embyonic stem cells, they are more mature.
It could be that there will be a purpose for each kind of cell. Some things will be helped with adult stem cells, some with cells from amniotic fluid, some with embryonic stem cells. I think that is the most likely happening.
-
jordan11
Jan. 17, 2007, 7:47 p.m.Wasn't there a story about harvesting stem cells from amniotic fluid a while back? If that is an efficient means of harvesting stem cells than all other arguments are moot.>>>>>
Why? What's the difference being using a cell in a petrie dish, leftover from artificial insemination, and the cells from amniotic fluid? It's the same kind of cell. Why would one be viable, and the other not? As these cells carry specific DNÃ;, it seems to me that the DNA could make a difference in research, some being perhaps stronger than others, by virtue of their DNA makeup.
-
-
2sidestoeverything
Jan. 17, 2007, 2:40 p.m.I think this is great news for reachers I look forward to more positive reports in the future.
-
toph1973
Jan. 17, 2007, 3:24 p.m.WTF are you talking about? He banned federal funding of stem cell research. Are you really this deluded? He said that the "destruction" of one life to save another is not okay. Except, he, like you, dostorts the facts, and hope that no one scrutinzes his lies. All of these embyos will be destroyed anyway. Your comments are full of innacuracies and lies. Must be nice to be blissfully ignorant.
-
time4change
Jan. 17, 2007, 4:58 p.m.DocJ.....are you insane ?? Bush the idiot has done all that he could to ban stem cell research...too bad, he could use some to stimulate brain cells.....which in him are in short supply.
-
Harbeas
Jan. 17, 2007, 5:37 p.m.While we keep debating this issue other countries are forging ahead in this type of research.
-
trippyocean
Jan. 17, 2007, 9:37 p.m.Stem cell capabilities are great, if used by the right people. We have found a way to repair and reform so more ailments that live in our everyday lives.
-
Eagle_Eye
Jan. 17, 2007, 11:03 p.m.Having a cervical spine injury I look at this as a possible solution for me in the future to get relief from all the pain that goes with spinal injuries. To be able to heal a persons spine gives back a quality of life so you can live on.
Good post Bkumm!!!
-
Bkumm
Jan. 18, 2007, 12:55 a.m.Thank you and I hope that medical science will find a way to give you relief.
-
deathray
Jan. 18, 2007, 6:13 a.m.When I was orginally in rehab, I usually associated with the spinal injury patents. (I was in the neuro ward, so most of the folks around me were CVI victims (stroke) and weren't much for conversation.) Each and every one of them was so etermined to walk again, and I pray that this will help return them to full functionality.
Here in Miami we have the Project to Cure Paralysis, at the Jackson/UM Medical Center, and they are doing a lot of work in this area.
God bless them.
-
-
lfergie812
Jan. 17, 2007, 11:55 p.m.It's unfortunate that Bush chose to stop all federal funding for stem cell research because there are a lot of good reports of progress being made. If they had been allowed for the last 6 years, who knows how far the research might have progressed. In either case it's too late for Reeves but maybe some others might be helped if this report is true.
-
lfergie812
Jan. 18, 2007, 12:04 a.m.Here's a statement from NOVA http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/dispatches
Bush's restrictions
When President Bush took office in January of 2001, by contrast, he began to shut that door. First, his HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson ordered a review of Rabb's legal decision. Then, the Bush Administration told the NIH to cancel its plans to review grant applications-pending completion of the HHS review. If the Bush Administration had done nothing, the NIH would have proceeded to review the applications and to finance those that were successful. Instead, that process was halted, a decision that saddened, angered, and frustrated supporters of human embryonic stem cell research.
cont.
-
lfergie812
Jan. 18, 2007, 12:05 a.m.On August 9, 2001, Bush went further.He announced that federal funding would now be restricted to a limited number of stem cell lines already created by that date-a decision that denied support to many promising avenues of biomedical research in an effort not to "sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos." Three months later, his administration ordered an official withdrawal of funding guidelines that Clinton had authorized. And with that withdrawal, Bush became the first president to reduce-below what his predecessor had authorized-the amount of human embryonic stem cell research eligible for federal funding. (Reports issued by Bush's own President's Council on Bioethics, which he established by executive order before appointing all of its members, confirm these events in detail.)
Loosening Bush's restrictions on stem cell research, then, would not be venturing into uncharted territory. It would simply be returning toward where we were before, under Clinton.
-
-
Bkumm
Jan. 18, 2007, 12:52 a.m.You are quite welcome. I, personally, do not think that this is a religious or a moral issue. It is about what can be done for people that need help. We have already taken one step, taken the responsibility of fertilizing life that will be destroyed under most circumstances, so why not use is for the purpose of helping others. What greater gift could we give our fellow human?
-
bobshotme
Jan. 18, 2007, 12:51 a.m.i forgot its name but there is some other stem cell or maybe just a cell that works just as well as embryonic stem cells BUT does not destroy life
now i ask you, why use embryonic stem cells witch so much controversy when we can easily use the other cells that no one has a moral problem with? I do really wish i knew what those cells were called, but i cannot remember.
-
Bkumm
Jan. 18, 2007, 12:54 a.m.Amniotic cells is what you are possibly thinking of. Yes, that is one possibility, but I think that there is a place for each of these types of cells.
Plus, if more work is done, we will almost certainly reach the point where human embryos will not be needed. We will be able to clone the necessary cells without using an embyo at all.
-
-
rickcb
Jan. 18, 2007, 5:08 a.m.I truly hate these articles on stem cells, and the promise that they hold. You see, I've been legally blind for more than 17 years now, and medical science has no treatment for my condition except the promise that stem cells hold.
One cannot help but feel a glimmer of hope when a tiny advance is made in this field. Still, I have seen dozens, and dozens of these articles come and go knowing full well that they cannot progress far enough under current federal restrictions. So I have learned to beat these articles into submission, and burying my hope.
Still, I consider myself rather fortunate; nearly every day I see quadriplegics, paraplegics, and those with a host of other afflictions who have no hope of a normal life. I've seen those too who are afflicted with Alzheimers slowly wasting away, loosing their very identity by the day. Stem cell research is their only hope.
(continued below)
-
rickcb
Jan. 18, 2007, 5:18 a.m.(continued)
It is easier to ignore these articles, resigned to living our lives as they are than to dream of what we would do if we were "whole" again.
Still, hope refuses to die. Those confined to a wheelchair dream of walking in a quiet forest, or playing with their children. We dream of the most mudane of things...having a job, and contributing to society.
While I do not condone taking a life to make mine better, I cannot help but wonder if our hope for treatment lies in a medical waste dump decomposing.
-
Eagle_Eye
Jan. 18, 2007, 8:12 a.m.I want to do more than being "resigned to living our lives as they are than to dream of what we would do if we were "whole" again." I am so over being handicaped and not being able to do the things (even little things like bend over and pick something up) that gave me a life!!
I do have to admit though I have more of a life now than I had 8 years ago because of the nerve blocks, so I guess that in itself is a good thing.
-
-
Amazing1
Jan. 18, 2007, 9:45 a.m.Here is some real hope. Thank you bkuum.
And for those of you out there with your knickers in a knot, doesn't it seem a better thing to advance science and help those who currently suffer than to throw unwanted embryos in the trash?
-
HomeGManComment has been removed: User banned.
-
-
saneman
Jan. 18, 2007, 10:04 a.m.Unfortunately, private business is taking the lead with such research instead of the federal government. Private business will develop the procedures needed to administer this drug to the spinal cord and will seek to protect the procedure by patenting the method, more than likely making it financially impossible to purchase it by anybody but the wealthy; whereas, if funded by the federal government, it would be widely available to all.
-
Eagle_Eye
Jan. 18, 2007, 11:38 a.m.I don't quite agree with that, if it proves to be beneficial to a persons quality of life, insurance companies will pay for it.
I researched the new artificial C-spine diskes about 5 years ago and they were metal (archaic), the new ones are really great and now insurance is paying for them.
Of course you have to have good insurance, but I have seen things they wouldn't cover before now covered.
-
-
Star_Poet
Jan. 18, 2007, 10:56 a.m."A monk, a clone, and a Ferengi walk into a bar..."
Stop me if you've heard this one.
-
THOMNH62
Jan. 18, 2007, 11:40 a.m.private business and the drug companies here have a bit of a catch 22, a cure for any of these diseases would mean an end to the billions of dollars worth of drug theropy that treats the symptons of said diseases. This countries bigger issue is not health care, but healthy living, while certain diseases can not be prevented at this time, but treated after the fact, this country could put billions of dollars into research if we weren't flipping the bill for so many other problems stemming from life style choices. Live healthy
The first 58 comments are shown. Show all 62 comments »
Got a Story?
