NEWS: Stem Cells Allow Paralyzed Woman to Walk Again

GEEK: Stem Cells Allow Paralyzed Woman to Walk Again

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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???

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's very interesting.

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).

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.

HEALED BY THE POWER OF SATAN!!





No seriously, that's rad. Good news.

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.

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.