Success with stem cells

[Cecilie1200]

You weren't asking a question, really. You were telling us it had already taken too long, something you'd have no way of knowing.

I believe I said we've wasted more time on it already than is typically spent on something that yields no results, as it has done.

Hmmmmm. As decades have been spent on basic research into biological and/or genetic reasons for autism, for example, and none have been pinpointed yet, then we should stop.

If private industry is still funding the research, then there is obviously some sort of result being produced. Unlike the federal government, the private sector does not keep insisting on making something work when it clearly isn't going to, especially if something else clearly DOES.

Perhaps you'd like to cite for us any indication in clinical studies whatsoever that embryonic stem cells will actually do any of the pie-in-the-sky things that their supporters fantasize for them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hmmmmm. As decades have been spent on basic research into biological and/or genetic reasons for autism, for example, and none have been pinpointed yet, then we should stop.

An excellent example. Suppose there was some beneficial treatment for autism that was showing promise of great success. Yet, the money being poured into autism research was going to support a line of research without a single success, but supported some other political and social agenda.

What basic research ever supports any agenda other than the expansion of knowledge?

And if we were talking about something as basic as finding out information on biological reasons for autism, that would be true. However, we're not. We're talking about creating and destroying human life to try to find cures for diseases in other humans, despite clear evidence that it's not going to work. You talk like you think what they're doing is just researching to find out what embryonic stem cells are or something.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What basic research ever supports any agenda other than the expansion of knowledge?

The one that pays the most. Millions are being poured into embryonic stem cell research. Millions that should be going to support research showing results. The ONLY reason for this is that embryonic stem cell research supports abortion.

hESC research supports nothing but the expansion of knowledge in science.

We don't stop doing basic research because there are no immediate applications. We'd still be in mud huts.

Right. We should keep pouring millions of dollars into trying to cure diseases with embryonic stem cells, just so that we can find out how many things they don't work on. That makes a LOT more sense than spending that money on something that's already proven effective on many things, and stands a good chance of being effective on many more.

Again, ESCR isn't "basic research to gain knowledge". It's pigheadedly insisting that embryonic stem cells will cure a host of diseases, despite repeated evidence that they can't, and that they, in fact, can and will cause MORE problems.

Why not just spend that money hiring witch doctors to dance around patients and wave bones and sticks at them? Think of all the "knowledge" we could acquire about SPECIFICALLY which diseases THAT doesn't cure.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What basic research ever supports any agenda other than the expansion of knowledge?

She is talking about a relatively fruitless avenue of research that has been long demonstrated to be less helpful than other approaches.

Katzndogz brings up research to cure a specific disease, which is an 'apples to oranges' comparison.

But to answer your question, other agendas might be:
1. to make money doing research
2. to find new ways of making profit from the discoveries of the research
3. to provide support for an ideological/political slogan

Posters keep talking about basic research promoting an ideology.

The only ideology basic research supports is the expansion of knowledge in the sciences.

You could be more naive, but I think it would take elective surgery.

First of all, scientists are human beings with political and ideological agendas, same as everyone else. Second of all, scientists all want more funding, and the best way to get that is to tailor your research to the ideological agendas of the people doling out the dough-re-mi. This vision of scientists as pure, untainted seekers of truth and knowledge is cute, though.

 

[Ravi]

Here ya go.

Oh wait. These are adult stem cells....... again........

In Bolli's study, published in The Lancet, 16 patients with severe heart failure received a purified batch of cardiac stem cells. Within a year, their heart function markedly improved. The heart's pumping ability can be quantified through the "Left Ventricle Ejection Fraction," a measure of how much blood the heart pumps with each contraction. A patient with an LVEF of less than 40% is considered to suffer severe heart failure. When the study began, Bolli's patients had an average LVEF of 30.3%. Four months after receiving stem cells, it was 38.5%. Among seven patients who were followed for a full year, it improved to an astounding 42.5%. A control group of seven patients, given nothing but standard maintenance medications, showed no improvement at all.

Studies: Stem cells reverse heart damage - CNN.com

The national news, forget which channel, had a story on this last night. Pretty damn amazing!

 

[konradv]

Here ya go.

Oh wait. These are adult stem cells....... again........

In Bolli's study, published in The Lancet, 16 patients with severe heart failure received a purified batch of cardiac stem cells. Within a year, their heart function markedly improved. The heart's pumping ability can be quantified through the "Left Ventricle Ejection Fraction," a measure of how much blood the heart pumps with each contraction. A patient with an LVEF of less than 40% is considered to suffer severe heart failure. When the study began, Bolli's patients had an average LVEF of 30.3%. Four months after receiving stem cells, it was 38.5%. Among seven patients who were followed for a full year, it improved to an astounding 42.5%. A control group of seven patients, given nothing but standard maintenance medications, showed no improvement at all.

Studies: Stem cells reverse heart damage - CNN.com

The national news, forget which channel, had a story on this last night. Pretty damn amazing!

Stem cells help regenerate damaged heart - CBS News

Dr. Eduardo Marban, my old boss' boss!

 

[konradv]

I believe I said we've wasted more time on it already than is typically spent on something that yields no results, as it has done.

Hmmmmm. As decades have been spent on basic research into biological and/or genetic reasons for autism, for example, and none have been pinpointed yet, then we should stop.

If private industry is still funding the research, then there is obviously some sort of result being produced. Unlike the federal government, the private sector does not keep insisting on making something work when it clearly isn't going to, especially if something else clearly DOES.

Perhaps you'd like to cite for us any indication in clinical studies whatsoever that embryonic stem cells will actually do any of the pie-in-the-sky things that their supporters fantasize for them.

Pie-in-the-sky?!?! Do you even know what it means?

The Preacher and the Slave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FurthurBB]

Actually, if it's MY tax money being used for it, I have every right to demand answers to that question, and no intention of "just leaving it up to" the idiots who want to collect more and more of my money.

You weren't asking a question, really. You were telling us it had already taken too long, something you'd have no way of knowing.

I believe I said we've wasted more time on it already than is typically spent on something that yields no results, as it has done.

What exactly do you believe is different about an embryonic stem cell and an adult stem cell? I will give you a hint, one is an undifferentiated cell among differentiated cells that is pluripotent and one is an undifferentiated cell that is pluripotent. Why has this gone on for so many pages?

 

[FurthurBB]

I believe I said we've wasted more time on it already than is typically spent on something that yields no results, as it has done.

Hmmmmm. As decades have been spent on basic research into biological and/or genetic reasons for autism, for example, and none have been pinpointed yet, then we should stop.

An excellent example. Suppose there was some beneficial treatment for autism that was showing promise of great success. Yet, the money being poured into autism research was going to support a line of research without a single success, but supported some other political and social agenda.

Undifferentiated pluripotent cells have shown great success for treating many ailments. You just don't like when they come from embryos. That has nothing to do with success.

 

[FurthurBB]

An excellent example. Suppose there was some beneficial treatment for autism that was showing promise of great success. Yet, the money being poured into autism research was going to support a line of research without a single success, but supported some other political and social agenda.

What basic research ever supports any agenda other than the expansion of knowledge?

The one that pays the most. Millions are being poured into embryonic stem cell research. Millions that should be going to support research showing results. The ONLY reason for this is that embryonic stem cell research supports abortion.

An embryo from an abortion would be pretty much worthless. An embryo that was made from a fertilized egg and never implanted is where embryonic stem cells should come from. Also, cord blood has a lot of undifferentiated pluripotent stem cells. Neither of these places have anything to do with abortion, your argument lacks substance.

 

[FurthurBB]

Here's an article about artificial blood that researchers believe could be used as a safer supply for transfusions. The article brings up the possibility that embryonic stem cells could be used to make it in sufficient quantity to make it viable :

Artificial blood made from stem cells could be used in transfusions in just two years | Mail Online

It isn't a successful use of ESC's, but if they are actually much easier to replicate in large numbers, it's a potentially good use of them.

Thank you for that informative article, Montrovant.
It's not quit a success with Embryionic/Fetal stem cells though, it is a succuss with adult bone marrow stem cells thogh.
Snipped from the linked article.

The hope comes from Edinburgh and Bristol university researchers who have, for the first time, made thousands of millions of red blood cells from stem cells – ‘master cells’ seen as a repair kit for the body – taken from bone marrow. But with the average blood transfusion containing 2.5million million red blood cells, this is not enough.

Cells taken from human embryos in the first days of life are easier to multiply in large numbers, but the researchers have so far not managed to make such realistic blood.

Absolutely, this is a success for adult rather than embryonic stem cells. I found it interesting, and the implication that adult stem cells may not be able to produce it in sufficient quantities to make a true difference, but that embryonic stem cells might be able to, seemed relevant.

My knowledge of the subject is very limited, but the easily reproduced nature of embryonic stem cells compared to adult stem cells is one of the few things I've repeatedly seen given as an example of the differences between them, and why embryonic stem cell research may be an important thing to study either separately or in concert with adult stem cell research.

Again, you are comparing apples to apples. Can we at least get that clear? The only difference is where they come from.

 

[Montrovant]

Thank you for that informative article, Montrovant.
It's not quit a success with Embryionic/Fetal stem cells though, it is a succuss with adult bone marrow stem cells thogh.
Snipped from the linked article.

Absolutely, this is a success for adult rather than embryonic stem cells. I found it interesting, and the implication that adult stem cells may not be able to produce it in sufficient quantities to make a true difference, but that embryonic stem cells might be able to, seemed relevant.

My knowledge of the subject is very limited, but the easily reproduced nature of embryonic stem cells compared to adult stem cells is one of the few things I've repeatedly seen given as an example of the differences between them, and why embryonic stem cell research may be an important thing to study either separately or in concert with adult stem cell research.

Again, you are comparing apples to apples. Can we at least get that clear? The only difference is where they come from.

Are you saying that embryonic and adult stem cells are no different? All the information I've ever seen has claimed that there are definitely differences between the two.

 

[geauxtohell]

There have been numerous medical success's using adult stem cells for treatment.
Can anybody provide a link to show successful medical treatments that used embryonic or fetal stem cells?
I'm starting to think science should focus on what works.

Why not allow full access and research on both cell lines?

If you remove the politics from the issue, that's how science would work anyways.

More then likely, the work done on both lines would be synergistic not only in advancements in treatment and cures but also in our understanding of basic medical sciences.

 

[geauxtohell]

Science, like anything else, should pay its own freight.

If stem cells, embryonic or otherwise, are the supposed miracle cure for anything and everything, then investors who smell a profit will provide the proper capitalization for research.

You can always tell where the REAL potential is by where the private venture capital is. If a line of research MUST have government funding to even exist, it's a waste of time.

Like all that venture capital funding NASA in the '60s?

Not all science is done to yield profits or products. A lion's share of the work is done simply for the sake of advancing knowledge that allows us to make greater strides that yield breakthroughs. Scientific research and thought isn't discrete. It all feeds off of each other. If you've ever read a scientific paper flip to the References paper and check the dates. The paper I am looking at right now referenced research done in 1981 (and it covers a relatively knew trend in medicine: the management of nutrition and outcomes in trauma patients).

I am glad you guys have zilch to do with the research process.

 

[FurthurBB]

Absolutely, this is a success for adult rather than embryonic stem cells. I found it interesting, and the implication that adult stem cells may not be able to produce it in sufficient quantities to make a true difference, but that embryonic stem cells might be able to, seemed relevant.

My knowledge of the subject is very limited, but the easily reproduced nature of embryonic stem cells compared to adult stem cells is one of the few things I've repeatedly seen given as an example of the differences between them, and why embryonic stem cell research may be an important thing to study either separately or in concert with adult stem cell research.

Again, you are comparing apples to apples. Can we at least get that clear? The only difference is where they come from.

Are you saying that embryonic and adult stem cells are no different? All the information I've ever seen has claimed that there are definitely differences between the two.

The only difference is that embryonic stem cells really have the potential to become any cell and adult stem cells might not. The benefit to using embryonic stem cells would be to research though, as it is better to use your own stem cells so that you do not have any kind of rejection. The problem is that adult stem cells are not as prolific, which makes research limited. Other than that, they are exactly the same. So, maybe you should find other sources to read.

 

[Montrovant]

Again, you are comparing apples to apples. Can we at least get that clear? The only difference is where they come from.

Are you saying that embryonic and adult stem cells are no different? All the information I've ever seen has claimed that there are definitely differences between the two.

The only difference is that embryonic stem cells really have the potential to become any cell and adult stem cells might not. The benefit to using embryonic stem cells would be to research though, as it is better to use your own stem cells so that you do not have any kind of rejection. The problem is that adult stem cells are not as prolific, which makes research limited. Other than that, they are exactly the same. So, maybe you should find other sources to read.

So, the only difference is where they come from. Oh, and that embryonic stem cells have the potential to become any cell and adult stem cells do (or may) not. Oh, and they are more prolific. So wait, maybe the only difference isn't where they come from?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You weren't asking a question, really. You were telling us it had already taken too long, something you'd have no way of knowing.

I believe I said we've wasted more time on it already than is typically spent on something that yields no results, as it has done.

What exactly do you believe is different about an embryonic stem cell and an adult stem cell? I will give you a hint, one is an undifferentiated cell among differentiated cells that is pluripotent and one is an undifferentiated cell that is pluripotent. Why has this gone on for so many pages?

Have you really been sitting around all this time, thinking that whether or not researchers use embryonic or adult cells is just a matter of personal preference? Good grief.

What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells? [Stem Cell Information]

 

[Cecilie1200]

Absolutely, this is a success for adult rather than embryonic stem cells. I found it interesting, and the implication that adult stem cells may not be able to produce it in sufficient quantities to make a true difference, but that embryonic stem cells might be able to, seemed relevant.

My knowledge of the subject is very limited, but the easily reproduced nature of embryonic stem cells compared to adult stem cells is one of the few things I've repeatedly seen given as an example of the differences between them, and why embryonic stem cell research may be an important thing to study either separately or in concert with adult stem cell research.

Again, you are comparing apples to apples. Can we at least get that clear? The only difference is where they come from.

Are you saying that embryonic and adult stem cells are no different? All the information I've ever seen has claimed that there are definitely differences between the two.

Of course there are differences. The main one is that, unlike what Furthur says, adult stem cells are NOT considered to be "pluripotent". They are, rather, considered to be "multipotent". It's the main reason that they appear to be much easier to control and made to do what the researchers want, rather than going wild and creating teratomas, the way embryonic stem cells have been known to do.

 

[FurthurBB]

I believe I said we've wasted more time on it already than is typically spent on something that yields no results, as it has done.

What exactly do you believe is different about an embryonic stem cell and an adult stem cell? I will give you a hint, one is an undifferentiated cell among differentiated cells that is pluripotent and one is an undifferentiated cell that is pluripotent. Why has this gone on for so many pages?

Have you really been sitting around all this time, thinking that whether or not researchers use embryonic or adult cells is just a matter of personal preference? Good grief.

What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells? [Stem Cell Information]

Well, thanks for the confirming link, appreciate it. Other than that, I never said anything about personal preference. Good Grief!

 

[FurthurBB]

Again, you are comparing apples to apples. Can we at least get that clear? The only difference is where they come from.

Are you saying that embryonic and adult stem cells are no different? All the information I've ever seen has claimed that there are definitely differences between the two.

Of course there are differences. The main one is that, unlike what Furthur says, adult stem cells are NOT considered to be "pluripotent". They are, rather, considered to be "multipotent". It's the main reason that they appear to be much easier to control and made to do what the researchers want, rather than going wild and creating teratomas, the way embryonic stem cells have been known to do.

That is true, though we use hematopoietic stem cells because they have the most potential to be pluripotent, IE we can force them to become other cell types easily because they express the most proteins and genes. Other than that, adult stem cells can only become the same type of tissue they were derived from, again why the hemaopeitic stem cells. If it is better to have mulipotent cells, then why do we go for blood cells and force them to become other cells? I do not agree that researchers think it is better to have them at all.