Obama to Lift Stem Cell Ban?

[Dan]

Obama Considers Lifting Federal Ban on Stem Cell Funding...
Under President George W. Bush, federal money for research on human embryonic stems cells was limited to those stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001.

Expect an executive order soon from President Barack Hussein Obama on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

That's the word from White House adviser David Axelrod(self hating Jew)

Under President George W. Bush, federal money for research on human embryonic stems cells was limited to those stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001. No federal dollars could be used on research with cell lines from embryos destroyed from that point forward.

Federal rules do not restrict embryonic stem cell research using state or private funds.

Obama made it clear during the campaign he would overturn Bush's directive.

[Zelhar]

Hurray 

[muman613]

I am against Embryonic Stem Cell research if it involves any new Embryonic material. This is because new material will require new 'dead babies' in order to obtain them. I have been very wary of this technology because of the ethical considerations, regardless of potential benefits.

[briann]

Even stem cell advocates are saying that this is meaningless.  There are so many alternative methods in the pipeline that turn adult stem cells into omnipotent stem cells that this will do nothing in the beg scheme of things.

[zachor_ve_kavod]

I am against Embryonic Stem Cell research if it involves any new Embryonic material. This is because new material will require new 'dead babies' in order to obtain them. I have been very wary of this technology because of the ethical considerations, regardless of potential benefits.

There are prohibitions against murder and against abortion.  I don't see how destroying a cell (which is what a stem cell is) can be considered murder or abortion.  Can you explain this to me?  Maybe I don't understand the issue.

[muman613]

I am against Embryonic Stem Cell research if it involves any new Embryonic material. This is because new material will require new 'dead babies' in order to obtain them. I have been very wary of this technology because of the ethical considerations, regardless of potential benefits.

There are prohibitions against murder and against abortion.  I don't see how destroying a cell (which is what a stem cell is) can be considered murder or abortion.  Can you explain this to me?  Maybe I don't understand the issue.

The only way to get these cells is for a woman to conceive an embryo, then she aborts it or it is removed, and the cells are cultivated for stem cell material. This is against the prohibition on murder because only living, viable baby embryos are used for stem cells.

[zachor_ve_kavod]

I am against Embryonic Stem Cell research if it involves any new Embryonic material. This is because new material will require new 'dead babies' in order to obtain them. I have been very wary of this technology because of the ethical considerations, regardless of potential benefits.

There are prohibitions against murder and against abortion.  I don't see how destroying a cell (which is what a stem cell is) can be considered murder or abortion.  Can you explain this to me?  Maybe I don't understand the issue.

The only way to get these cells is for a woman to conceive an embryo, then she aborts it or it is removed, and the cells are cultivated for stem cell material. This is against the prohibition on murder because only living, viable baby embryos are used for stem cells.

Oh, I didn't realize that.  I thought stem cells were unique types of cells that everybody has (I thought maybe in their bone marrow).  Shows how out to lunch I am.

[Rubystars]

Everybody does have stem cells Zachor, but most of them aren't pluripotent the way that embryonic stem cells are. The whole issue for me is a big brain twister because a pluripotent stem cell could very well become an embryo no matter how it was obtained, but I think for ethical reasons we shouldn't take stem cells from embryos and just use ones that are from other sources like umbilical cords or from adults or  teratomas.

[Xoce]

I am against Embryonic Stem Cell research if it involves any new Embryonic material. This is because new material will require new 'dead babies' in order to obtain them. I have been very wary of this technology because of the ethical considerations, regardless of potential benefits.

There are prohibitions against murder and against abortion.  I don't see how destroying a cell (which is what a stem cell is) can be considered murder or abortion.  Can you explain this to me?  Maybe I don't understand the issue.

The only way to get these cells is for a woman to conceive an embryo, then she aborts it or it is removed, and the cells are cultivated for stem cell material. This is against the prohibition on murder because only living, viable baby embryos are used for stem cells.

Oh, I didn't realize that.  I thought stem cells were unique types of cells that everybody has (I thought maybe in their bone marrow).  Shows how out to lunch I am.

Please read this article:

http://www.discovery.org/a/3687

The Great Stem Cell Coverup

By: Wesley J. Smith
Weekly Standard
August 7, 2006


IT HAS BEEN REPEATED so often that it is now a mantra: "Embryonic stem cells offer the most promise for finding cures" for degenerative diseases and conditions such as Parkinson's disease and spinal cord injury. But saying something ten thousand times doesn't make it true. Indeed, the embryonic stem cell mantra has yet to be demonstrated scientifically.

More than that, the actual data published to date in peer-reviewed science journals tell a far different story. While there have certainly been successes in embryonic stem cell experiments in animal studies--many of them hyped to the hilt in mainstream media reports--the numbers pale in comparison with the many research advances being made with adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells, which are already being used in human patients.

Based on the published science, there are 72 maladies for which human patients have received some benefit (which is not the same as being "cured") from adult stem cell or umbilical cord blood interventions. Meanwhile, embryonic stem cells have yet to demonstrate any human therapeutic use.

This is not to say that embryonic stem cells don't have genuine scientific value. Researchers are excited about the prospect of gaining a more fundamental understanding of developmental biology by experimenting on embryonic stem cells, for example. And embryonic stem cells may well have the capacity to treat human diseases. But to win the current political debate over federal funding of embryo-destructive research, many supporters have made extravagant claims about pending cures. In their zeal, they forget to mention that embryonic stem cells cannot be used safely in human beings at present because of worries over tissue rejection and their demonstrated propensity in animal studies to cause deadly tumors--problems not associated with adult stem cell therapies.

Some adult/umbilical cord stem cell treatments are now deployed in routine clinical practice. But most remain experimental. For example, as reported in the March 2005 edition of the science journal Blood, Stage 2 trials are currently underway in human patients with "severe" multiple sclerosis using the patients' own blood stem cells. After three years, the study reported, adult stem cells were "able to induce a prolonged clinical stabilization in severe progressive MS patients," meaning the disease stopped advancing, "resulting in both sustained treatment-free periods and quality-of-life improvements."

Another area of great hope for adult stem cell therapy comes from using a patient's olfactory tissues, found in the nasal cavity, to treat paralysis caused by spinal cord injury. Peer-reviewed animal studies previously highlighted great potential for this technique. For example, olfactory tissues have "promoted partial resto r ation of function" in paralyzed rats.

Human studies in this area have been ongoing for several years. In June, Dr. Carlos Lima from Portugal published his first findings in the Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine. Of the first seven paralyzed people he treated, "two patients reported return to sensation of their bladders and one of these regained voluntary contraction of anal sphincter." Most "recovered sensation below the initial level of injury." Moreover, "patients exhibited a modest amount of improvement in function that is not normally observed in complete SCIs [spinal cord injuries]," leading to the conclusion that olfactory mucosa "may possibly promote functional recovery in chronic, severe SCI in humans." (Further human trials have now commenced using olfactory tissue in Britain, Italy, and Japan, among other countries.)

If Lima had used embryonic stem cells to help human patients recover some sensation after spinal cord injury, the headline in the New York Times would have been printed two inches high in red ink. The report would have been cited far and wide as proof that the late Christopher Reeve was right when he (incorrectly) claimed that embryonic stem cells offered him his "only hope" for recovery. Yet, even though Lima's report is important--with anecdotal evidence of even more encouraging results in subsequent patients--the Times, the Washington Post, and other mainstream outlets have yet to report on the study.

There is a reason for the news blackout about the many encouraging advances in adult stem cell science. Worried that adult/umbilical cord blood research successes might tip public support away from embryonic research, proponents of federal funding for embryonic stem cell studies, aided by a compliant press, have mounted a vigorous campaign to downplay adult stem cell research.

Toward this end, an unfair and demagogic attack was recently published in Science against biologist David Prentice--who has done more than any other person to bring adult stem cell research progress to the public's attention--and the Do No Harm Coalition, which Prentice helped found to keep track of and analyze stem cell research literature.

Specifically, embryonic stem cell and human research cloning proponents Shane Smith, William Neaves, and Steven Teitelbaum in their letter in Science accused Prentice of being "deceptive" for claiming that "adult stem cells have now helped patients with at least 65 different human diseases." But Prentice's modest claim is absolutely true (with the number now having reached 72) and based on scientific reports published in peer-reviewed journals. Moreover, Smith, Neaves, and Teitelbaum are the actual deceivers: They accused Prentice of promoting "the falsehood that adult stem cells are already in general [clinical] use," when he has never made any such claim.

Their letter continues the scientific establishment's efforts to keep adult stem cell research successes from being an issue in the stem cell and cloning debates. "Adult stem cell treatments fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine conditions," they sniff.

This is disingenuous. Many advances in adult stem cells are being made overseas, which by definition precludes their receiving FDA approval. Moreover, by their logic, neither the MS nor olfactory tissue research successes cited above should be mentioned in public discourse, since these hopeful avenues of science have not yet completed "all required phases of clinical trials." Nor, for that matter, should we inform the public that the FDA's databank shows that there are more than 500 approved human trials active or recruiting for patients in this country using adult stem cells, with more than 1,100 such approved experiments in all--versus zero for embryonic studies.

On the other hand, if it is only acceptable to discuss stem cell treatments that have actually entered medicine's clinical armamentarium with full FDA approval, embryonic stem cell-boosting scientists and their boosters in the media had better stop chanting the embryonic stem cell mantra.

Embryonic stem cells have not treated a single human patient, and only time can tell whether they ever will. Highlighting the progress of adult/umbilical cord blood stem cells--an uncontroversial therapeutic approach that does not require the destruction of human embryos--is a legitimate part of the public discourse. Indeed, the unfair attack on Prentice for educating the public about the potential of adult stem cells may indicate that these scientist/political advocates know where the true best hope for regenerative medical treatments is likely to be found.

Wesley J. Smith, a frequent contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture.

[Xoce]

And this is another great resource:

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

with links to all kinds of relevant articles.

Single factor converts adult stem cells into embryonic-like stem cells
(PhysOrg)
Oklahoma stem cell funding plan approved
(NewsOK)
Bone marrow cells can heal nerves in diabetes model
(PhysOrg)
MS stem-cell treatment ’success’
(BBC)
Stem cells used to reverse paralysis in animals
(PhysOrg)
Scott & White doctors pioneering adult stem cell research
(Waco Tribune)
Study uses bone marrow stem cells to regenerate skin
(PhysOrg)
Testes found to yield versatile stem cells
(San Francisco Chronicle)
Testes stem cell can change into other body tissues: study
(The Hindu)
Single virus used to convert adult cells to embryonic stem cell-like cells
(PhysOrg)
Single adult stem cell can self renew, repair tissue damage in live mammal
(PhysOrg)
Twin undergoes revolutionary brain injury treatment
(Stuff)
The miracle teabag: Stem cells in a pack help stroke victim to talk again
(Mail on Sunday)
British team lead stem cell heart surgery that could end need for transplants
(Telegraph)
Greens welcome ruling regulating stem cells use
(NEW EUROPE)
Researchers identify new source of insulin-producing cells
(PhysOrg)
Scientists achieve repair of injured heart muscle in lab tests of stem cells
(PhysOrg)
Turning Back the Cellular Clock: A Farewell to Embryonic Stem Cells?
(Scientific American)
Doctors transplant windpipe with stem cells
(Associated Press)
Researchers to use patient’s own stem cells to treat heart failure
(PhysOrg)
Stem cell “living bandage” heals knee injuries
(Times Online)
Heart Valves Fashioned From Stem Cells in Umbilical Cord Blood
(HealthDay)
‘You would barely know adult stem cells exist’
(Times Higher Education)
Building a New Prostate
(Science)
Stem Cell Breakthrough: Mass-Production Of ‘Embryonic’ Stem Cells From A Human Hair
(ScienceDaily)
A breakthrough, then a surge, in stem cell research
(PhysOrg)
Stem cell generation from ordinary cells now safe
(Reuters)
Adult Stem Cell Trial The First of Its Kind
(KCPW)
Stem cells from testicles an option to embryos
(AP)
Scientists Find Way to Regress Adult Cells to Embryonic State
(Washington Post)
Key Advance In Treating Spinal Cord Injuries
(Medical News Today)
Engineered stem cells carry promising ALS therapy
(PhysOrg)
Tooth stem cells give brain surgery hopes
(Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
New artificial heart pump assists and repairs defective hearts
(iTWire)
New Stem Cell Screening Tool Takes Adult Stem Cell Research To New Level
(Science Daily)
Hearing restoration may be possible with cochlear repair after transplant of human cord blood cells
(PhysOrg)
Japanese create stem cells from wisdom teeth
(PhysOrg)
Cord blood can be used to treat adult leukemia
(WRAL)
Unlikely hero doesn’t forget home
(Thanh Nien Daily)
Stem cell research provides near miracle treatments
(abc12.com)
Injured? Horsing Around With Stem Cells May Get You Back in the Saddle
(Wired)
Scientists create 20 disease-specific stem cell lines
(PhysOrg)
Research to Advance with New Human Stem Cell-Based Models
(MedPage Today)
Skin cells produce library of diseased stem cells
(Reuters)
Scientists Turn Skin Cells Into Motor Neurons in ALS Patients
(HealthDay)
Fruit-fly study adds weight to theories about another type of adult stem cell
(PhysOrg)
Biotech bailing on stem cells?
(The Scientist)
Australia: Stem cell therapy plan for placentas
(Sydney Morning Herald)
Scientists identify cells for spinal-cord repair
(PhysOrg)
Cells from humans grow blood vessels in mice: study
(Reuters)
Cord blood helping baby with ‘bubble boy’ disease
(USA Today)
Muscle stem cell advance hailed
(BBC)
Stemcell transplant a lifesaver for Ryan
(West Australian)
New technique to harvest stem cell
(The Press Association)
Hacking the Hack of Stem Cell Reprogramming
(Wired)
New Technique Produces Genetically Identical Stem Cells
(ScienceDaily)
Adult Stem Cells Reprogrammed In Their Natural Environment
(ScienceDaily)
A Stem Cell Treatment Without Controversy
(Voice of San Diego)
Improved Technique Makes it Easier to Form Powerful Stem Cells
(Bloomberg)
Umbilical Cord Blood Cell Transplants May Help ALS Patients
(ScienceDaily)
La. Gov. Jindal signs cloning bill
(Houma Today)

[Xoce]

You may recall the Japanese Scientist, from Kyoto University, who transformed mouse SKIN cells into a state similar to the pluripotent cells.
http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2008/0805/080501/full/stemcells.2008.67.html

Nature Reports Stem Cells
Published online: 1 May 2008 | doi:10.1038/stemcells.2008.67

Embryonic Stem Cells 2.0

Bruce Goldman1

Scientists' enthusiasm grows for induced pluripotent cells

When Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University reported his transformation of cultured mouse skin cells into a state approximating that of embryonic stem cells1, he was met with plenty of scepticism. Other scientists hadn't anticipated that such a feat was possible. "Nobody else was even close to doing the same experiment," says Richard Young of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "That was a very special breakthrough."

By inserting just four genes — Oct4, Sox2, Klf4 and Myc — into fibroblasts (cultured skin cells), Yamanaka's group had achieved the biological equivalent of making water flow uphill. The resultant induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells proliferate indefinitely in culture and differentiate into all the tissues necessary to generate a live mouse2, 3.

[Xoce]

Oh, and by the way:

Excellent Japanese ingenuity and perseverance, in conjunction with Japan's STRICT restrictions on human embryo research is what yielded the breakthrough by Shinya Yamanaka.

Japan has very strict controls on use of embryos for research, much more strict than the US. Basically the US has restrictions on FEDERAL FUNDING of controversial research, i.e. on human embryos, otherwise it’s a go ahead policy for private entities and individual states, which like California, use tax payer money to fund such research. Japan’s regulations are strict. And what exactly is hindered? Japan’s Yamanaka had a huge breakthrough, and is continuing with improvements.

http://fubarmedia.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/japans-strict-restrictions-on-human-embryo-research-yields-great-breakthroughs/

KYOTO, Japan — Inspiration can appear in unexpected places. Dr. Shinya Yamanaka found it while looking through a microscope at a friend’s fertility clinic.

...

“When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters,” said Dr. Yamanaka, 45, a father of two and now a professor at the Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences at Kyoto University. “I thought, we can’t keep destroying embryos for our research. There must be another way.”

  (From NYT article)

Video clip here:

[Xoce]

What happened to California's state-funded embryonic stem cell research???
What are the embryonic stem cell research's breakthroughs?
How many ailments have they cured?

What happened to California period?
I thought the profits from all the biotech research would have flooded the state with cash.
No?

California's broke?
Oh, no breakthroughs whatsoever?
oh.
Well, that was too bad.
Especially for all the little embryos.

[GoIsraelGo!]

I am against Embryonic Stem Cell research if it involves any new Embryonic material. This is because new material will require new 'dead babies' in order to obtain them. I have been very wary of this technology because of the ethical considerations, regardless of potential benefits.

Shalom to you! I do agree because tampering with nature is like trying to modify G-d's work.
There are other ways to cure illnesses without damaging potential future life.


                                                                   Shalom - Dox

[The One and Only Mo]

I am against Embryonic Stem Cell research if it involves any new Embryonic material. This is because new material will require new 'dead babies' in order to obtain them. I have been very wary of this technology because of the ethical considerations, regardless of potential benefits.

Shalom to you! I do agree because tampering with nature is like trying to modify G-d's work.
There are other ways to cure illnesses without damaging potential future life.


                                                                   Shalom - Dox

Any ideas?

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

What happened to California's state-funded embryonic stem cell research???
What are the embryonic stem cell research's breakthroughs?
How many ailments have they cured?

What happened to California period?
I thought the profits from all the biotech research would have flooded the state with cash.
No?

California's broke?
Oh, no breakthroughs whatsoever?
oh.
Well, that was too bad.
Especially for all the little embryos.

Remember that over 70% of CA voters voted for it, and that probably a greater margin would pass that initiative today than in 2004. 

[GoIsraelGo!]

I am against Embryonic Stem Cell research if it involves any new Embryonic material. This is because new material will require new 'dead babies' in order to obtain them. I have been very wary of this technology because of the ethical considerations, regardless of potential benefits.

Shalom to you! I do agree because tampering with nature is like trying to modify G-d's work.
There are other ways to cure illnesses without damaging potential future life.


                                                                   Shalom - Dox

Any ideas?

No, do you have any ideas?

[The One and Only Mo]

I am against Embryonic Stem Cell research if it involves any new Embryonic material. This is because new material will require new 'dead babies' in order to obtain them. I have been very wary of this technology because of the ethical considerations, regardless of potential benefits.

Shalom to you! I do agree because tampering with nature is like trying to modify G-d's work.
There are other ways to cure illnesses without damaging potential future life.


                                                                   Shalom - Dox

Any ideas?

No, do you have any ideas?

Doing whatever's neccessary works for me.