Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

297 | 298 | 299

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

SirPsychoSexy

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ
January 2004

NOV 29, 2004 10:20 AM

As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, stem cells have helped a paralyzed woman walk again.

South Korean researchers say they've used stem cell therapy to enable a paralyzed patient to walk after she was not even able to stand for the last 19 years.

Chosun University professor Song Chang-hun, Seoul National University professor Kang Kyung-sun, and Han Hoon from the Seoul Cord Blood Bank said they transplanted multi-potent stem cells from umbilical cord blood into the 37-year-old female patient who suffered from a spinal cord injury, the Korea Times reported Saturday.

The woman could now walk unassisted, the scientists said.

"The stem cell transplantation was performed on Oct. 12 this year and in just three weeks she started to walk with the help of a walker," Song told reporters at a news conference in Seoul.

The woman's legs were paralyzed after an accident in 1985 that damaged her back and hips and confined her to a wheelchair.

The researchers said they isolated stem cells from umbilical cord blood and then injected them into the damaged part of the woman's spinal cord.


Is it true? Can this be done reliably?
Once this is certified, it will most definitely be a breakthrough for medical science, though it is unknown how many attempted procedures of this type have been successful. At this time the actual probability of spinal chord restoration succeeding by this method is still unknown.

legionnaire

legionnaire

Belgium
November 2003

NOV 29, 2004 10:29 AM

WIthout seeing a more detailed description of what they did it's hard to say whether it's real or a publicity stunt, but if it's true it would be a very promising sign that this type of therapy is working. It's certainly the approach that a lot of people are trying to use to correct spinal cord injury so it's not too farfetched. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, at least.

Okuma

Okuma

Pensacola, FL
June 2004

NOV 29, 2004 10:31 AM

If it's real, this should definately be forwarded en masse to the White House.

Snottlebocket

Snottlebocket

Netherlands
March 2004

NOV 29, 2004 10:31 AM

i've been waiting for something like this to happen for a while now, stemcells have such massive potential, i'm glad there finally is a breakthrough, that oughta help against the narrowminded fools that try to stop the research.

Corneilus_Wright

Corneilus_Wright

Denver, CO
October 2004

NOV 29, 2004 10:49 AM

Good thing we elected a President who is against most stem cell research. We are such a wise country. Why would God want people to be able to walk??? frown

RubberSoul

RubberSoul

Los Angeles, CA
February 2003

NOV 29, 2004 10:51 AM

Yeah? Well what good will walking do her in hell, smart guy?

SirPsychoSexy

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ
January 2004

NOV 29, 2004 10:58 AM

Just to reiterate, the story says that the stem cells were collected from the blood extracted from an umbilical chord they were not embryonic stem cells.
In other words nobody has given George Bush a reason to hate them yet, so as far as this method of stem cell research goes he is most likely only ambivalent.

RubberSoul

RubberSoul

Los Angeles, CA
February 2003

NOV 29, 2004 10:59 AM

SirPsychoSexy said:
Just to reiterate, the story says that the stem cells were collected from the blood extracted from an umbilical chord they were not embryonic stem cells.
In other words nobody has given George Bush a reason to hate them yet, so as far as this method of stem cell research goes he is most likely only ambivalent.



God, does not split hairs. She is clearly going to hell.

legionnaire

legionnaire

Belgium
November 2003

NOV 29, 2004 11:00 AM

Okuma said:
If it's real, this should definately be forwarded en masse to the White House.


While I am in no way an advocate of the White House's policy on embryonic stem research, the description based on the article was of stem cells taken from umbilical cord tissue, not from embryonic stem cells. There are currently no extra restrictions regarding this type of research in the US. In fact, I'm sure the White House will try and spin this result in their favor, by showing that "alternative sources of stem cells can be just as beneficial as ES cells without any of those tricky moral issues." You heard it here first.

SexyBeast

SexyBeast

Covington, LA
July 2004

NOV 29, 2004 11:10 AM

The stem-cells that were obtained from the umbilical cord tissue are the same as embryonic stem cells. Not all of the cells from the umbilical cord can be used for as many purposes since most of them have already begun to develop into another kind of cell. That is why some people say saving cells from the umbilical cord is pointless, since there is a good chance that the cells will be useless. Taking the cells from the embryo would be much more useful then from the umblical cord.

Drewvis

Drewvis

San Diego, CA
February 2003

NOV 29, 2004 11:33 AM

i'm glad california votes passed the bill to allow stem cell research. UCSD is going to be opening a HUGE department to research stem cell usage.

JadeAmitiel

JadeAmitiel

Harrisonburg, VA
February 2004

NOV 29, 2004 11:40 AM

I miss Christopher Reeve, and I'm sorry he couldn't live to see this. It would have made him happy.

Waldo_Jeffers

Waldo_Jeffers

United Kingdom
OLD SKOOL

NOV 29, 2004 12:33 PM

Wow! This is really exciting stuff. I only hope that the procedure can be duplicated with a good success rate.

SexyBeast

SexyBeast

Covington, LA
July 2004

NOV 29, 2004 12:38 PM

zelator said:
Wow! This is really exciting stuff. I only hope that the procedure can be duplicated with a good success rate.



I hope the woman stays walking. I know it's very different but some things they have done to rats haven't lasted. And cloned sheep didn't live as long as they should have.

kenn

kenn

Chicago, IL
November 2003

NOV 29, 2004 12:41 PM

Vlad_Tepes said:
Good thing we elected a President who is against most stem cell research. We are such a wise country. Why would God want people to be able to walk??? frown



O.K., I'll bite. President Bush is not against most stem cell research. He is against one very particular kind of stem cell research, that which derives cells from human embryos. Stem cells from rats have just as much (if not more, as easily obtainable cells means more allowance for error and therefore the ability to take greater risk, which yields more fantastic results) potential for healing previously-thought-to-be permanent damage to humans. In your old age, you are more likely to have (read: need) rat stem cells create a jaw joint or hip flexor for you than embryonic stem cells allowing you to walk.
I'm not saying its right or wrong, but lets get our priorities straight.

remusisdying

remusisdying

Brighton, MA
March 2004

NOV 29, 2004 12:41 PM

HairyGod said:
The stem-cells that were obtained from the umbilical cord tissue are the same as embryonic stem cells. Not all of the cells from the umbilical cord can be used for as many purposes since most of them have already begun to develop into another kind of cell. That is why some people say saving cells from the umbilical cord is pointless, since there is a good chance that the cells will be useless. Taking the cells from the embryo would be much more useful then from the umblical cord.



this is just false. embryonic stem cells from the inner cell mass are controversial because it is abortion, while the controversies surrounding umbilical cord stem cells are mostly legistical (ie the existence of two major ogranizations in the us, one in mn and the other in ny). Many embryonic stem cell lines are too committed to be of use in neurologic regeneration. In general, the problem with umbilical cord stem cells is the low number of the cells themselves, as only about 40 to 100 ml of solution can be obtained during each procedure. these cells, at least thus far, have been shown to be successfully totipotent to meet a variety of needs. the use of umbilical cord stem cells has shown to be most promising in treatment of marrow and blood cancers. however, this does not mean they are useless for other types of treatments.

legionnaire

legionnaire

Belgium
November 2003

NOV 29, 2004 12:58 PM

kenn said:
Stem cells from rats have just as much (if not more, as easily obtainable cells means more allowance for error and therefore the ability to take greater risk, which yields more fantastic results) potential for healing previously-thought-to-be permanent damage to humans. In your old age, you are more likely to have (read: need) rat stem cells create a jaw joint or hip flexor for you than embryonic stem cells allowing you to walk.


I have never seen or heard of any examples of cross-species usage of stem cells, embryonic or otherwise. That's not to say that it's completely impossible, but it seems highly unlikely at best that stem cells from a rat could be used in a human without generating a massive immune response. Nor have I ever heard of any researcher even proposing to do this sort of thing. If there's data supporting this out there then I'd love to see it, but until I do you'll have to forgive my extreme skepticism.

Kayla

Kayla

Dublin, CA
June 2003

NOV 29, 2004 01:09 PM

That's very interesting.

SexyBeast

SexyBeast

Covington, LA
July 2004

NOV 29, 2004 01:11 PM

remusisdying said:

HairyGod said:
The stem-cells that were obtained from the umbilical cord tissue are the same as embryonic stem cells. Not all of the cells from the umbilical cord can be used for as many purposes since most of them have already begun to develop into another kind of cell. That is why some people say saving cells from the umbilical cord is pointless, since there is a good chance that the cells will be useless. Taking the cells from the embryo would be much more useful then from the umblical cord.



this is just false. embryonic stem cells from the inner cell mass are controversial because it is abortion, while the controversies surrounding umbilical cord stem cells are mostly legistical (ie the existence of two major ogranizations in the us, one in mn and the other in ny). Many embryonic stem cell lines are too committed to be of use in neurologic regeneration. In general, the problem with umbilical cord stem cells is the low number of the cells themselves, as only about 40 to 100 ml of solution can be obtained during each procedure. these cells, at least thus far, have been shown to be successfully totipotent to meet a variety of needs. the use of umbilical cord stem cells has shown to be most promising in treatment of marrow and blood cancers. however, this does not mean they are useless for other types of treatments.



What is false? I'm pretty sure that the cells found in the embryo are pluripotent, which are more useful then the totipotent cells that are found in the umbilical cord.
I'm going to try and do alittle research, becuase I don't remember to much, but I'm not sure if I'm going to have time to do it right now.

Hussein

Hussein

I'm lost
March 2004

NOV 29, 2004 01:16 PM



"All right, uncross those beautiful stems of yours, baby.
This is the case I call, number six, six, six."

remusisdying

remusisdying

Brighton, MA
March 2004

NOV 29, 2004 01:22 PM

HairyGod said:

remusisdying said:
this is just false. embryonic stem cells from the inner cell mass are controversial because it is abortion, while the controversies surrounding umbilical cord stem cells are mostly legistical (ie the existence of two major ogranizations in the us, one in mn and the other in ny). Many embryonic stem cell lines are too committed to be of use in neurologic regeneration. In general, the problem with umbilical cord stem cells is the low number of the cells themselves, as only about 40 to 100 ml of solution can be obtained during each procedure. these cells, at least thus far, have been shown to be successfully totipotent to meet a variety of needs. the use of umbilical cord stem cells has shown to be most promising in treatment of marrow and blood cancers. however, this does not mean they are useless for other types of treatments.



What is false? I'm pretty sure that the cells found in the embryo are pluripotent, which are more useful then the totipotent cells that are found in the umbilical cord.
I'm going to try and do alittle research, becuase I don't remember to much, but I'm not sure if I'm going to have time to do it right now.


sorry to be vague. what is false is that cord stem cells will likely be useless. you are right, the cells from the icm are less differentiated than the those found in the cord blood. however, many approved cell lines that are embryonic in origin are too committed to be of any use therapeutically (thank you, bush). only about 11 of the ~60 lines seem to be worthwhile. this is a legistical matter, and not one that reflects the potential of embryonic stem cells. the cord cells do have some things going for them, thats all i mean (ie ease of collection, less worry of HLA-type matching, etc). so, while es cells are more pluripotent, and are able to be grown in higher densities in culture, they are not the only option out there. if you have access to the new england journal of medicine, check out the november 25 issue, it has a nice summary of the key points about cord blood-derived stem cells (volume 351:2255-2257).

kenn

kenn

Chicago, IL
November 2003

NOV 29, 2004 01:58 PM

legionnaire said:
I have never seen or heard of any examples of cross-species usage of stem cells, embryonic or otherwise. That's not to say that it's completely impossible, but it seems highly unlikely at best that stem cells from a rat could be used in a human without generating a massive immune response. Nor have I ever heard of any researcher even proposing to do this sort of thing. If there's data supporting this out there then I'd love to see it, but until I do you'll have to forgive my extreme skepticism.



My brother is a medical/biological engineer doing research at the University of Chicago. Most recently, they took stem cells from rats to create a bone/cartilage fusion of a human articular condyle. That's just one man in one school. Imagine what the world is doing.

EricMetro

EricMetro

Los Angeles, CA
November 2004

NOV 29, 2004 02:06 PM

HEALED BY THE POWER OF SATAN!! frown





No seriously, that's rad. Good news. biggrin biggrin biggrin

legionnaire

legionnaire

Belgium
November 2003

NOV 29, 2004 02:13 PM

kenn said:
My brother is a medical/biological engineer doing research at the University of Chicago. Most recently, they took stem cells from rats to create a bone/cartilage fusion of a human articular condyle. That's just one man in one school. Imagine what the world is doing.


Is this the paper? If so, it's an impressive piece of work, and didn't seem to garner sufficient attention considering how groundbreaking the work was.

However - the bone was made, it wasn't used. There are still formidable barriers to overcome between creating a bone in a lab setting from rat stem cells and then implanting it into a human without a negative immunological response. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, just extraordinarily difficult to do - and there doesn't seem to be any real advantage to using stem cells from another species to do it with when human mesenchymal stem cells (the same type used in the paper) can be harvested for that purpose, eliminating many of the problems inherent in xenotransplantation. That's the only point that I was trying to make. Clearly we're only just starting to see the tip of the iceberg in terms of the therapeutic potential of stem cell research.

SexyBeast

SexyBeast

Covington, LA
July 2004

NOV 29, 2004 02:16 PM

remusisdying said:

HairyGod said:
What is false? I'm pretty sure that the cells found in the embryo are pluripotent, which are more useful then the totipotent cells that are found in the umbilical cord.
I'm going to try and do alittle research, becuase I don't remember to much, but I'm not sure if I'm going to have time to do it right now.


sorry to be vague. what is false is that cord stem cells will likely be useless. you are right, the cells from the icm are less differentiated than the those found in the cord blood. however, many approved cell lines that are embryonic in origin are too committed to be of any use therapeutically (thank you, bush). only about 11 of the ~60 lines seem to be worthwhile. this is a legistical matter, and not one that reflects the potential of embryonic stem cells. the cord cells do have some things going for them, thats all i mean (ie ease of collection, less worry of HLA-type matching, etc). so, while es cells are more pluripotent, and are able to be grown in higher densities in culture, they are not the only option out there. if you have access to the new england journal of medicine, check out the november 25 issue, it has a nice summary of the key points about cord blood-derived stem cells (volume 351:2255-2257).



Yeah I said that wrong. I have heard, which does not make it true, there is a possiblity that the cells from the umbilical cord will be useless and may not be worth the money to save, since it can be very expensive. However I would spend the money and recommend anyone that can to spend the money to do so. I may have made it sound like the stem cells from the umbilical cord are not as great as they are, that was a accident. Now I completely understand what you are saying and I agree with you.

Thought from something you said earlier:
Abortion is not the best way to get embryonic stem cells, they are a little more useful than the umbilical cord, I'm pretty sure. Cloning and in-vitro fertilization are the ways to obtain the most useful stem-cells. A lot of issues with cloning, not really any good reasons. However in-vitro fertilization, if I'm correct, several eggs are fertalized and not all are used, which means it is wasted instead of being put to good use and research.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next