Comments on Secondhand Smoke: Your 24/7 Seminar on Bioethics and the Importance of Being Human: Lead Into Gold: More Scientists Eschew ESCR and Cl...

Lima has been criticized by his peers and his pati...

2008-08-22T12:13:00.000-07:00

Lima has been criticized by his peers and his patients for not purifying the OEC cells from the olfactory mucosa. Instead he takes the whole soup, throws it against the wall to see what sticks, what stuck were OECs. His patients have referred to themselves as Guinea Pigs - You saw what Susan Fajt had to say about him.

Some recent quotes by Wise on Lima crude method:

"Some surgeons are operating on the spinal cord and physically removing “scar” tissues. In my opinion, this is wrong. Any such procedure will result in more damage to the spinal cord and more gliosis. That is why I have criticized the work of Carlos Lima and believe that it is not only counterproductive but possibly harmful to remove “glial scar” in the spinal cord and place nasal mucosa into the spinal cord, particularly patients with incomplete spinal cord injury. I was particularly aghast when I saw a presentation by Carlos Lima where he showed pieces of spinal cord that had been removed from people and the pieces of spinal cord contained axons." http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=100074&page=2&highlight=lima

American spinal cord injury researcher Dr. Wise Young's explains: In summary, OEG cells are not stem cells.

Who is Wise Young? He is one of the most highly regarded neuroscientist in the world treating Spinal Cord Injuries, who developed the method of steroid application to SCI victims within hours of the accident. His method is used as standardized treatment around the world. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/americasbest/science.medicine/pro.wyoung.html

American spinal cord injury researcher Dr. Wise Young's explains: In summary, OEG cells are not stem cells.

Wise founded a forum at Rutgers that has become a primary resource of information for SCI patients on the internet http://sci.rutgers.edu/

If readers want an honest and intelligent source of information I suggest reading up on the forums there. You will receive real information that isn't manufactured solely to promote the pro-life agenda.. They discuss the real deal.

"Please note that I do not oppose the study and use of adult stem cells, and in fact have said repeatedly that I believe that this technology should be pursued and developed as fast as possible. I support pursuit of both embryonic and adult stem cell research, as well as cloning research. To shut embryonic stem cells down at the present is, in my opinion, shutting off one of the most important and promising avenues of research today. This opinion, by the way, is shared by a majority of scientists." - Wise Young

Wesley you should really do a little basic researc...

2008-08-22T12:05:00.000-07:00

Wesley you should really do a little basic research for your threads instead of rehashing Prentice talking points!

The is no question that the cells responsible for the SCI treatments are OECs - which are not stem cells of any kind. How can you ethically promote these bogus statements in good conscience?

Im really glad you all have shown that what matters to you is your ideologue notions about protecting Prentice and his false assertions, rather than acknowledging the truth. The danger in his list is illustrated by the fact that we still are debunking his lies many years later.

The foremost experts have explicitly spoken to the fact that OEC cells responsible for axion formation enabling some minor success in restoring feeling to SCI patients. Listen to the foremost experts who all say OECs ARE NOT STEM CELLS! The fact that you continue to claim the false propaganda to deceive people regardless of the reality, shows you care nothing for the patients involved, only for your agenda.

How are people going to take you seriously on other issues that you may make a positive difference on if you keep putting your neck on the line for the lies of Prentice?

Did you even look at the paper from Harvard which stated:

Dr. Huang and others have repeated again and again, but many people continue to get the cells mixed up!

OEC (whether from fetuses or from adults) are fully differentiated cells which do not have the plasticity of stem cells to become other types of cells such as neurons."

or

Consultant for Paralyzed Veterans of America Laurance Johnston's explanation: "The nose contains neurons that send signals to the brain when triggered by odor molecules. The axons of these neurons are enveloped by OECs, a special type of neuronal support cell that guides the axons and supports their elongation..... When transplanted into the injured spinal cord, OECs theoretically promote axonal regeneration by producing insulating myelin sheaths around growing and damaged axons, secreting growth factors, and generating structural and matrix macromolecules that lay the tracks for axonal elongation."

Re Lima: I checked with my sources. Lima's procedu...

2008-08-21T08:08:00.000-07:00

Re Lima: I checked with my sources. Lima's procedure does not attempt to extract adult stem cells from the rest of the cellular material. It is all used. Some of the material are "stem-like progenitor cells," e.g. adult stem cells. So Prentice was right.

Here is the PDF of the published paper. http://www.apssci.org/pdf/olfactory.pdf

Oh, and if you still cannot grasp basic human repr...

2008-08-21T07:47:00.000-07:00

Oh, and if you still cannot grasp basic human reproductive biology, then you really mustn't accuse others of "ignorance."

"Were you about to say something else bm?"I am."Ja...

2008-08-21T07:42:00.000-07:00

"Were you about to say something else bm?"

I am.

"Jacki, 18, suffered an injury to her spine in August, 2003 that left her paralyzed. She was treated in Portugal by Dr. Carlos Lima with her own adult stem cells derived from olfactory mucosa."

Oh YES I did! (finger wave with head bob)OECs (Olf...

2008-08-20T22:15:00.000-07:00

Oh YES I did! (finger wave with head bob)

OECs (Olfactory Ensheathing Cells) are a special type of neuronal support cell that guides the axons and supports their elongation.

When transplanted to the injured spinal cord, OECs are believed to promote axon regeneration by producing an insulating sheath providing an environment that promotes axon growth.

OEC's did the work Prentice falsely claimed was done by ASCs. So Prentice is either ignorant of his claims or flatly misleading people on purpose, either way his list is an academic fraud. Wesley perpetuates it in articles aimed at layperson who don't know any better.

Were you about to say something else bm?

Before you expose us to more ignorance you may want to read this.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~psong/projects/OEC/handbook/OEGC.html

You're welcome.

"Why is spinal chord injury on the ASCr list if th...

2008-08-20T15:12:00.000-07:00

"Why is spinal chord injury on the ASCr list if they arent using ASCs but instead olfactory cells?"

You did NOT just ask that.

It is not a "cure" but it is very, very hopeful wo...

2008-08-20T12:52:00.000-07:00

It is not a "cure" but it is very, very hopeful work.

Regardless,

Why is spinal chord injury on the ASCr list if they arent using ASCs but instead olfactory cells?

Lima C et al., Olfactory mucosa autografts in human spinal cord injury: A pilot clinical study, Journal of
Spinal Cord Medicine 29, 191-203, July 2006

This paper does not include Adult Stem Cells.

Providing false information about spinal chord benefits using ASCs just undermines the integrity of Prentices claim. He is simply wrong.

Bravo bmmg39. Those references on the list did as ...

2008-08-20T11:44:00.000-07:00

Bravo bmmg39. Those references on the list did as Prentice said-they helped real people. They did what WJS has said previously, provided benefits, treatments, not necessarily cures. And at the end of the day what was it that the letter to science, they sure didn’t disprove that real people had actually been helped by ASCs. Nor did it tell us that there were any human benefits or human trials to ESCR. While people downplay that list, people are getting helped with ASCs and non-ESC treatment. O well.

Speaking of lists, I think Neaves et al had their own list over 70 diseases that ESCR/SCNT COULD, MIGHT, POTENTIALLY cure just before the vote on the embryonic stem cell bill and their MO campaigns. There's one now and it still has the words “Could Potentially Benefit” in the sales pitch. The cures for CA campaign had its own list. If I remember right, it also was filled with COULD/MIGHT/HAS POTENTIAL TO and etc, except I think for one group of stem cell results-non embryonic ones. They could be positive about those results, but they didn't say they were non-ESCR results, just stem cell ones though they were advocating for funds for ESCR/SCNT. ESCR/SCNT advocates downplay the success of ASCs and non ESCs and then in a major campaign they use them to promote the promise of ESCR.

What human evidence was there to base their coulds/mights/potentially could/might and etc upon for those lists when it came to ESCR/SCNT in Big MO or CA? In the letter to Science, the MO people have the gall to say “…Prentice and those who repeat his claims mislead laypeople and cruelly deceive patients.” O really? These very same people making these claims are still leading people on to think they will be cured from ESCR and are using the language “could/potential/might.” What a bunch of baloney. They have also waged huge advertizing campaigns doing the same and are more guilty-since they have no evidence or any human benefits to point to- of misleading “laypeople and cruelly deceive(ing) patients.” For all the criticism of the Do No Harm list which appears to list actual studies recording human benefits, we still have a goose egg for human results and human trials using ESCR/SCNT.

It is bizarre that while people trash the Do No Harm list and say that it's a fraudulent political list, people are getting help for maladies with ASCR just like Do No Harm says, but for some reasons ESCR/SCNT advocates do not seem to think that their lists are political propaganda tools. Hmmm... Why were/are those ESCR/SCNT lists up there? It’s opart of their sales pitch to persuade legislators and voters to give them money. It's for political purposes. Hence it's political science. At least there is some "is" behind the Do No Harm List.

If anyone is going to question the intent of the Do No Harm list, they need to tell us what the purpose was of all these lists that use the words COULD/MIGHT/HAVE POTENTIAL TO and etc with ESCR/SCNT. What were the purposes of all those add campaigns using the words could/might/potential? Maybe it’s to “mislead laypeople and cruelly deceive patients.” They are guilty of their own charge of politicizing ESCR/SCNT.

At the end of the day, scoreboards may not be important to scientists, but they are important to sufferers, especially to those who were used as political props to influence voting and spending by people in the Missouri and CA campaigns and the political hacks like Harry Reid and Kedwards et al.

The Lima studies have been peer reviewed, They ar...

2008-08-20T11:33:00.000-07:00

The Lima studies have been peer reviewed, They are proceeding in different places throughout the world. People who had no feeling, in these early trials, have had feeling restored. That much is sure from the peer reviewed article.

Anecdotally, some patients have been able to restore bladder control, been able to stand with braces, etc.

It is not a "cure" but it is very, very hopeful work.

As a follow up to this "therapy" you promote, Susa...

2008-08-20T11:28:00.000-07:00

As a follow up to this "therapy" you promote, Susan Fajt had this to say in her thread at Rutgers in October 2006. http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=17817&page=52&highlight=lima

"With this being said, i also feel that *all* patients whom have undergone this experimental/dangerous surgery should be refunded all money paid as we are being used as guinea pigs and this is simply unacceptable to date. Being that I was the 11th patient to recieve this procedure throughout the world, i am beside myself that i have had zero follow up and have tremendous amounts of pain and believe it to be due to the removing of half of my rods, (the other half would had been removed, thankfully i began bleeding to much) so they had to quit using there HUGE instruments to cut through the titanium rods in my back.

Please understand that when i underwent this procedure i was told that i would walk again and truly believed that i was doing the right thing, (i had no other options, with the exeption of shark cells?, crazzy) and was told that it could take up to two years for the "stem cells" to work, they have not! I am urging you to take my words to heart and others to help raise awareness that this "guinea pig" like work on humans it totally ridiculous and should have been stopped long ago!!! I appologize on my behalf for not speaking out, yet i did not know how to tear down the walls that was holding me up, false hope. Once again, if Dr. Lima is continuing to do exactly what he has done to me and others that have not recovered at all, it should be thought as criminal and we as an intelligent human race should be raising hell for more research to be done for a cure to be found! As i stated above, i *believed* with all of my heart and soul that i would not be left in a wheelchair for the remainder of my life and worked very, very hard to do all that was humanly possible to get the hell out of it. False hope is terribly hard on an individual that sets oneself up for disaster...Godspeed for a cure~
Susan Fajt.
"

If that doesnt give you pause to the calamity your bogus propaganda supports then your nothing of the magnificent human you claim to be.

I really appreciate the opportunity to shed light on what pro-lifers consider treatment for paralysis, the bogus assertions that you make need a place to be refuted and shown for what they really are, desperate grasps attempting to legitimize false assertions leveled by people like Prentice. You do a serious disservice to paralysed people by promoting this deceiving and what I consider evil propaganda in attempts to stiffle legitimate ESCr research because of your moral agenda.

It goes to show your true intentions are merely to advance your prolife agenda at the physical and emotional cost of real paralysis victims wanting to wanting to restore normal movement to their bodies.

The article you refer to is about Joni Tada http:/...

2008-08-20T11:25:00.000-07:00

The article you refer to is about Joni Tada http://www.joniandfriends.org/. She is a devout evangelical and highly outpsoken critic against Embryonic Research, she writes books agaisnt ESCr, so its no wonder you rely on her as your source to claim that ASCr is a thereapy for paralysis victims. You are relying on ancedotal reports from a woman who said said she would rather never walk again than receive ESCr treatments. So why do all of these ASC success stories always wind up coming from sources who are outspoken critics of ESCr, why cant you provide objective sources?

Tada received "treatment" from Dr. Carlos Lima several years ago. Tada to this day is still in wheelchair. Lets find out more about the results from her source Dr. Lima.

Dr. Lima has stated that they aren't even using ASCr but rather Olfactory Mucosa. So - the unverified results used to achieve bladder control in paralysis patients were not even achieved using Adult Stem Cells as you claim.

Results unfortunately were far less glowing from an objective POV, form a kind woman who went through the same procedure with Dr. Lima and simply wants to walk again.

Susan Fajt paid $30,000 for surgery performed by Dr. Carlos Lima, a neurologist at Hospital Egaz Moniz in Lisbon, Portugal, that involved transplanting cells taken from inside Fajt's nose into her spine.

Fajt testified in the Senate in a hearing held by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) to promote funding for adult stem-cell research, during which she said her treatment involved adult stem cells. She said she has since learned that olfactory ensheathing cells, not adult stem cells, were likely the active ingredient in her therapy.

"The cells Dr. Lima transplanted into my spinal cord were from my own nasal mucosa," Fajt wrote in her letter. "Evidence thus far shows that olfactory ensheathing glia, not adult stem cells, are the cells most likely to be responsible for any recovery."

Shortly thereafter minions of the the anti ESCr movement falsely politicized this information in effort to deceive Congress into believing a lie.

Susan Fajt has charged that Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Florida) used her image without permission and misled Congress and the public by suggesting that her case offers evidence that adult stem cells can help severely injured people walk again.

On May 24, as Weldon tried to persuade members of the House of Representatives that embryonic stem-cell research was unnecessary, he held up a poster-size image of himself standing beside Fajt, who is clutching a walker in the photo. She believes Weldon's comments and his use of her image gave patients and lawmakers, who were about to vote on a bill that would approve funding for embryonic stem-cell research, the false impression that adult stem-cell therapy can cure spinal-cord injuries. "This poster is of a young lady who was paralyzed for years and had an adult stem-cell transplant," Weldon said that day. "She is able to stand up."

Fajt urged Weldon to support funding for both adult and embryonic stem cell research the day the photo he presented in Congress (which also appears on his website) was taken, she said. Fajt visited Weldon's office to try to persuade him that all types of stem-cell research should be funded by the federal government.

"I told him, 'I am still paralyzed,'" she said.

People like Weldon and you Wesley are doing crippled patients a huge disservice to people who are actually hoping to walk again, to bath themselves again, to make their own dinner, to get in and out of bed themselves, by making false claims that that ASCr is sufficient and that embryonic stem cell research was not necessary to persue. Others in congress hold this concern as well.

"I am very concerned that some members of Congress are touting the results of an unpublished overseas clinical trial of an experimental therapy, based on anecdotal stories of recovery in patients," said Wise Young, director of cell biology and neuroscience at Rutgers University. "They are calling the treatment 'adult stem cells' when it is not clear that this is a treatment with adult stem cells. This is a nasal mucosa transplantation into the spinal cord...To imply that this therapy is a 'miracle' and to suggest that this therapy is producing significant functional recovery in people with spinal-cord injury is wrong,".

"so then why is treating paralysis on the list to ...

2008-08-20T08:32:00.000-07:00

"so then why is treating paralysis on the list to begin with?"

Because...they're...treating...human...patients...in...human...trials...

Wow.

Adult stem cells are treating paralyzed patients i...

2008-08-19T20:15:00.000-07:00

Adult stem cells are treating paralyzed patients in human trials. See: http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200409090835.asp

so then why is treating paralysis on the list to ...

2008-08-19T19:37:00.000-07:00

so then why is treating paralysis on the list to begin with? its obviously a false assertion and illustrates the flimsy unproven qualifications Prentice used

"Hopefully someday after is is repeated to you ove...

2008-08-19T16:33:00.000-07:00

"Hopefully someday after is is repeated to you over and over bmmg you may, if you open your mind, understand that this is not an issue of one being better than the other."

...so...if you want ESCs, you can just use iPSCs, whether it's a "competition" or not.

"Adult stem cells have now helped patients with at least 65 different human diseases. It's real help for real patients" - David Prentice Oct 2005

...which is TRUE. Real patients are the ones receiving real help in the human trials. They don't need to be available at your friendly neighborhood corner drugstore in order for them to exist.

"OK where can my uncle get treatment to use his limbs again, he is a quadriplegic - thats still on his list."

You remind me of the Obama commercial I saw today. They show McCain saying (in January) that the economy is improving, and then they interview an unemployed guy. As if to suggest that McCain was lying when he said that unemployment is down -- since they found one person out of work.

all it could demonstrate was that most of the ther...

2008-08-19T14:44:00.000-07:00

all it could demonstrate was that most of the therapies hadn't been FDA-approved (yet) and hadn't been made widely available (yet).

Ahaa, but that is exactly was Prentice was claiming at the time!

"Adult stem cells have now helped patients with at least 65 different human diseases. It's real help for real patients" - David Prentice Oct 2005

This statement was originally printed in
www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/010/24.71.html

for some mysterious reason those comments were removed once they were proven false, but you can still find them at

http://web.archive.org/web/20051123213528/http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/010/24.71.html

So this is a major fallacy presented by Prentice. There were no where near 65 treatments for the diseases he claimed available for "real people" as he tried to mislead.

That sparked the entire controversy that was refuted in SCIENCE magazine. It was obvious to the scientific community his list was merely a clumsy tool in attempt to discredit ESCr.

Now I see you all retreating from those words and uses phrasing like "Clinical trials" but thats not what Prentice said, he said "It's real help for real patients".

Have you even read the article? What SPECIFICALLY in that article from Shane Smith do you refute? Anything?

Smith and company went on to say

"Clearly, enrollment of an experimental therapy in a clinical trial does not mean that it is an effective therapy. The purpose of clinical trials is, first, to establish safety and, second, to document efficacy. Many promising experimental therapies fail when they reach larger Phase II or III trials. Such is the case with adult stem cell therapy for heart attacks and breast cancer--two conditions for which Prentice and Tarne improperly claimed that adult stem cells provide effective therapy"

Furthermore

In an interview published in the Chicago Tribune shortly after our Letter was published online, Prentice admitted that some of his citations were unwarranted. "We've cleaned up that list now," he said. Asked how the errors occurred, Prentice said, "I think things just got stuck in"

J. Manier, J. Graham, "Experts rip Rove stem cell remark; researchers doubt value of adult cells," Chicago Trib., 19 July 2006, p. 1.

many of the adult stem cell therapies HAVE been approved by the FDA,

OK where can my uncle get treatment to use his limbs again, he is a quadriplegic - thats still on his list.

the point, DS, is that adult stem cells are turnin...

2008-08-19T14:29:00.000-07:00

the point, DS, is that adult stem cells are turning out to be far more workable than embryonic stem cells

Hopefully someday after is is repeated to you over and over bmmg you may, if you open your mind, understand that this is not an issue of one being better than the other.

Thats not even part of the question for those who understand the complete cellular lifecycle.

Pluripotent (ESCR and IPSC currently) and differentiated (ASCr) cells need to be studied as a whole as they are a contiuum of the same process. Fundamentals of development in pluripotent cells will effect the resulting differntiated cells that can be used for further research or therapy.

Your games of keeping score are absolutely meaningless to stem cell researchers.

Again, the point, DS, is that adult stem cells are...

2008-08-19T14:03:00.000-07:00

Again, the point, DS, is that adult stem cells are turning out to be far more workable than embryonic stem cells, but IF YOU WANT EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS these IPSCs will do everything the ESCs can do. Whichever one you want, you no longer "need" to destroy microscopic human beings for it.

thanks for the link don, I see in subsection 8b th...

2008-08-19T13:36:00.000-07:00

thanks for the link don, I see in subsection 8b there is a reference to a white paper on another site which then discusses the broad concept of dedifferentiation in section 4 of that paper as a hopeful method for eventually developing pluripotent stem cells. (spoiler: The discovery of this method was obtained by studying ESCr)

Where it says:
"But it would take new scientific advances and new technological innovation before such “dedifferentiation” of somatic cells back into pluripotent stem cells could be achieved. ...Research into dedifferentiation of somatic cells is at a preliminary stage, and it is much too early to know whether this will succeed...Given the complexity of the process, and how little we now know about the factors that regulate differentiation and its opposite, it is not likely that this (second) approach will yield results in the near future."

So don - that white paper was looking for the right thing in the wrong places as we now know the knowledge about the factors that regulate dedifferentiation came from studying ESCs, as you claimed "embryonic stem cell research appears to show NO hope at all."

The breakthrough that was made as we know was IPSC, to which Yamanaka attributes the discovery of this method to the ESCr of Thomson and other ESCr pioneers.

The comments started off by my by implying it is likely that ESCr is a stepping stone to the next generation of pluripotent stem cell treatments. IPSc is the next step along that path to understanding both pluripotent and adult stem cell research - neither should be excluded from future research.

Yamanaka in his discovery referred to the quest for "ES like" stem cells from ordinary donor cells.
Here is Yamanaka himself stating it.
http://www.tv.janjan.jp/movie/edit/fccj/080109fccj_shinya_yamanakai_v_01.php

Hopefully people like you and Prentice will eventually stop attempting to use ASCr trials to contrive arguments against ESCr and now IPSc as a technical superior method to combat disease, in order to promote what your true motivations intend, an agenda to curb what you view as a threat to your pro-life beliefs.

"arent you a little old to be spoon fed? the Prent...

2008-08-19T13:17:00.000-07:00

"arent you a little old to be spoon fed? the Prentice list itself was contrived as a political tool in attempt to discredit ESCr in the 2006 elections, there is no other practicle use for Prentice's list."

Well, I certainly don't enjoy being spoon-fed crap, and you have the wholesale-club-sized jar with you here, as we can see. The website to wish you refer has been up since at least 2001, long before the 2004, much less 2006, elections. First it looked as though you were complaining that Do No Harm was concocting a fake list of studies. If you're not, then it looks like your complaint is that Do No Harm has a list of ACTUAL success stories. That's a real head-shaker.

"It is widely know that the list claiming therapies for over 70 diseases is virtually exclusive to pro-life activist websites and blogs and serves no real value to people with diseases."

Yes, because all those exciting human trials involving adult stem cells were merely performed for the benefit of the Family Research Council. Dark Swan, you're in quicksand! Let me help a brotha out...

"The list was thoroughly debunked for the propaganda it was in Science magazine in 2006..."

WRONG. I get to refute this one again! The letter to SCIENCE was a poor attempt at a joke, actually, falsely claiming that the treatments with adult stem cells don't really exist, when in fact all it could demonstrate was that most of the therapies hadn't been FDA-approved (yet) and hadn't been made widely available (yet). (Of course, since that time, many of the adult stem cell therapies HAVE been approved by the FDA, but don't hold your breath for William Neaves and Company -- authors of that disingenous letter to SCIENCE -- to acknowledge this.) Earlier this year, DS, the JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION confirmed the legitimacy of the adult stem cell trials.

Not that you won't trot out the SCIENCE Magazine, again, because I've corrected you before on this and you decided to pretend that I didn't.

Dark Swan,Opponents of embryonic stem cell researc...

2008-08-19T08:21:00.000-07:00

Dark Swan,

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research have been talking about ethical pluripotent alternatives to embryonic stem cell research for years. Certainly WJS has at SHS. The possibilities were there for anyone to read in the report of the president's council on bioethics several years ago. There's another report about this but I haven't had time to read it.

WJS, the Catholic church and then the pro-life movement has been looking for ethical ways to get pluripotent stem cells. I would guess that all our guests on our old radio program Voice for Life-WJS, Robert George, David Prentice, Tad Pacholcyzk and etc, who spoke about stem cells, all discussed these things. I suspect my old colleague Bob Dunning spoke of these things when he had Dr. Leon Kass on his show. It's common knowledge that we were thinking about pluripotent alternatives to embryo destruction before direct reprogramming became available. I would be surprised if anyone truly were impressed that we knew about those things or would have supported ethical alternatives.

You can find our comments in a section of Nevada LIFE's presentation to Senator Ensign's staff in September 2005, two years ahead of Yamanaka, and to then Congressman Gibbons staff a little earlier, though we didn't post the comments to Gibbons. I missed the dinner at a Seminar around that time where Stanford's Bill Hurlbut spoke of Alternative Nuclear Transfer... something I think I rejected at the time, but Robert George and others supported it. So we've discussed this for sometime. Don't know if they will work any more than ESCR has worked.

You can find our comments to the senator at our website http://www.nevadalife.org/hottopics/no%20on%20HR%20810%20S%20471.html. The same excerpt I copied is in there. I believe in section 8b. I suspect we said as much in our press releases to the Nevada Media, most of which are posted at our site, but maybe we didn't. But we've known about them for some time.

I've also been for ethical pluripotent stem cells ...

2008-08-19T00:47:00.000-07:00

I've also been for ethical pluripotent stem cells long before Direct Programming came about. - don

REALLY don..., I must have missed your promotions for pluripotent research as I read through your blogs that stated pluripotent ESCr was hopeless technology... please correct me - show me where you made these bold claims for pluripotent research so long ago?

I find it interesting that you would make this a priority while you also repeatedly claimed ESCr (the only pluripotent research at the time) had absolutely no potential. Such conflicting stances from one person.

Me thinks I smell a cow manure ethicist don. Please show me where you stated support for pluripotent research so long ago...(your words don ,not someone else's - any sheep can point to a link and say this is what I thought too)

I'll genuinely be impressed if you penned anything regarding ethical pluripotency prior to the advent of IPSC - so lets see it!

"Everyone appreciates and applauds the successes o...

2008-08-19T00:45:00.000-07:00

"Everyone appreciates and applauds the successes of ASCr, myself included, and it should be reported."

So...if those outlets are confirming ASCs helping people, is this merely a "contrived list of therapies," or do they actually exist? -bmmg

bmmg - arent you a little old to be spoon fed?

the Prentice list itself was contrived as a political tool in attempt to discredit ESCr in the 2006 elections, there is no other practicle use for Prentice's list.

It merely provided propaganda for pro-lifers who wanted to impede scientists who were trying to conduct pluripotent research on ESCs.

It is widely know that the list claiming therapies for over 70 diseases is virtually exclusive to pro-life activist websites and blogs and serves no real value to people with diseases.

The list was thoroughly debunked for the propaganda it was in Science magazine in 2006, thus the scientific community viewed this list as contrived - not ASCr itself.

At the time of the lists publication there were less than a dozen therapies available for people to receive.

That didn't stop Prentice from contriving a list that to this day still includes testicular cancer for instance.

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf
TESTICULAR CANCER
Bhatia S et al.; “High-dose chemotherapy as initial salvage chemotherapy in patients with relapsed
testicular cancer”; J. Clin. Oncol. 18, 3346-3351; Oct. 19, 2000

The misleading political intentions of Prentices list not only drew the refutation of several major scientific institutions in Science Magazine, it also promoted several major disease foundations to speak out against it for its obvious misleading intentions.

Testicular Cancer
"There is not an FDA approved ASC treatment generally available to treat testicular cancer. Rather, adult stem cells enable testicular cancer patients to withstand a higher dose of chemotherapy during treatment for the disease. ... The Lance Armstrong Foundation asks that you and your colleagues pass S. 5, and not accept any substitutes." -- Lance Armstrong Foundation

Parkinson's Disease
"If there were a therapy to adequately treat the symptoms, or halt the progression of this unrelenting disease, the millions of Parkinson's patients, caregivers, and their physicians would be pursuing that treatment right now. The Parkinson's community asks that you and your colleagues pass S. 5, and not accept any substitutes." -- American Parkinson's Association, Parkinson's Action Network, Michael J. Fox Parkinson's Research Foundation, The National Parkinson's Foundation, Parkinson's Disease Foundation, and The Parkinson's Alliance and Unity Walk

Multiple Sclerosis
"S. 5 is the only bill that is pro-patient, pro-cure, and pro-research. Please work to pass S. 5 immediately." -- National Multiple Sclerosis Society

Spinal Cord Injury
"There simply is no merit to any claims that adult stem cells have successfully treated or cured spinal cord injury. The CDRF strongly endorses the SCREA, S. 5." -- Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation

bmmg39, I like that one.Thanks Dark Swan. Those a...

2008-08-18T21:12:00.000-07:00

bmmg39, I like that one.

Thanks Dark Swan. Those are my words indeed. Looks like I nailed it every time. I was hoping that I was as remarkably consistent as I am. I guess Nevada LIFE will keep me on for a while. There's no flip flopping. I've opposed ESCR and SCNT and I've supported iPSCs because they are ethically obtained, just like I said. I said ESCR is bombing. Good scientists are leaving ESCR and SCNT to do Direct Reprogramming. It's easier, more efficient, cheaper and there's probably a better match and etc. iPSCs are said to be turning lead into gold and I don't see many saying that about ESCs. If iPSCs have the same potential, you can argue with Wilmut and the other guys who are ditching unethical ESCR/SCNT.

I've said from the get go that iPSCs are ethical and if something comes of them, good for them. I don't know if it will, but I hope something does. ESCs may have potential, but that's all they've shown after billions of dollars in spending. O well. If they have the same potential, then I suspect we would not see the migration toward the other. Anyone can figure that out.

I'm right that there is plenty of hope beyond embryonic stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research appears to show NO hope at all. Let's see, what are there, over 70 successes plus ones Do No Harm hadn't listen last time I checked? It's hard to keep up with. There are what, 1500 human trials with non embryonic stem cell research and you and your homies have been promising us a human trial every year for how long? Like SHS says, the non-embryonic stem cell successes are getting mundane. We can't keep track of them, but we can keep track of human ESCR successes and trials. Scoreboard.

I've also been for ethical pluripotent stem cells long before Direct Programming came about. In our paper to Senator Ensign's staff we noted that ethical alternatives to ESCR/SCNT existed. In point 8b we noted

"b. Embryonic Stem Cell Alternatives. Our present state of technology does not now allow us to obtain embryonic stem cells with out destroying human beings in the embryonic stage of life. But four new proposals have been made to the President’s Council on Bioethics. “The stem cells could be derived: (1) by extracting cells from embryos already dead; or (2) by nonharmful biopsy of living embryos; or (3) by extracting cells from artificially created non-embryonic but embryo-like cellular systems (engineered to lack the essential elements of embryogenesis but still capable of some cell division and growth); or (4) by dedifferentiation of somatic cells back to pluripotency. (WHITE PAPER: Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem CellS, p. 26)

The first three have some moral objections, but the fourth alternative would turn differentiated cells back to pluripotent cells without creating a new organism (embryo). Other scientists have found a rich source of embryonic like cells in umbilical cord blood.

So we've been for ethical pluripotent stem cells for a long time. Whether they work or not, we'll see. Whether they work or not, they undermine the need for ESCR/SCNT and human cloning that creates and destroys human beings. And if they are the same type of cells, then ESCR and SCNT are probably doomed because they are so complex and expensive and so far so haven't yielded any of the promised cures and politicians are running away and first rate scientists are going another direction too.

I'm sorry if you are a researcher or investor and you are watching your fortune/job go down the drain like some of my rental properties. It's a bummer, but tomorrow is another day.

I am right that none of us ever said Bush got into a lab and created induced pluripotent stem cells. You made that up. We credited his policy for making scientists go in a different direction. If he hadn't, we might be bogged down up to the wheel wells in unproductive, unethical ESCR/SCNT and missed the other stuff that's working.

I'm also right in my description of writing off Christians as bigotry. You resort to that bigotry to try to demean ASCR successes and those who report them.

There’s no argument that David Prentice has good credentials and is qualified to say what he says, even if he is a Christian.

Dark Swan, you and I are probably more alike than you think and would probably be a much better orthodox Christian than me. That's because for you to keep saying that ESCR and SCNT holds great potential in spite of the evidence and results, you have to have great faith, the key to all great saints-those who believed what they knew was true although everything around them said no. You've got the gift.

It’s been fun and you are entertaining. I’m sure we’ll meet again. Obama’s been flipping on abortion. Gotta go and pounce on that. Bye for now.