Stem Cells And Micheal J Fox

[Johnny Utah]

What are you talking about used by the democrats? If you read anything more than recent headlines and followed up on the facts,you'd know that in Fox's home state he votes for a republican senator. He does these commercials because he believes deeply in the issue. He donates his time and money to this research, unlike the barrage of actors/actresses and athletes the Republicans rolled out in response to Fox's ad.

Thats nice call him an idiot. I'll wager that you don't know half of what Fox does on this issue.

He was used by the Democrats, I don't care who he votes for in his home state, the TV ad he made was on an issue he didn't even read on before making the Tv ad so he's an idiot and a hypocrite. What part of the article I posted didn't you read? Or did you not read it or follow the link because you don't like the truth..

 

[Tonington]

I didn't read the blog you posted because I have seen that spot allready and don't need to see one snipet about someone elses opinion on what happened. I responded to what YOU said. The first line you wrote said he was used, and I disagree. Just because he advocates for a position held by someone else doesn not mean he was used.

I do agree that he should have read the initiative. That doesn't make him an idiot. It's irresponsible.

There are many versions of the truth fella, especially when someones words and actions are submitted to evaluation by someone else, and none of them scare me. I have enough wits to make my own decision before jumping on someone elses band waggon.

Have you read the proposed ammendment? I have, the only statements in it I could find with the word clone said that :
(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

This from the description of what clone means :
(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

 

[jimmoyer]

During the 80's and 90's you were involved in non-human embryonic stemcell research. You're no longer a proponent of this field. Was there a critical event, finding or discovery that influenced your decision to drop embryonic stemcell research for adult/umbilical cord blood stemcells?

My research in the early 1980's laid the groundwork for embryonic stem cell technology using the mouse embryo. Even in those early days I knew that to try to take this technology to the human would raise serious legal, ethical, moral and religious objections. There were also major technical problems such as potential tumour formation not to mention the practical problems of obtaining human embryos for such research. Embryonic stem cell technology today has not really progressed very far for these reasons.

I have worked on all types of stem cell, with the exception of human embryonic, and as a stem cell biologist I am convinced that cord blood stem cells represent the realistic hope for future stem cell therapies. They have all of the potential of embryonic stem cells without the associated problems and objections.

What is the most challenging issue you see your industry facing in the years ahead?

In IVF we need to improve success rates. There has been a slow improvement since the early days but even at the very best clinics 60% of patients go away disappointed rising to at least 70% at some clinics.

In stem cell biology we need to first decide which types of stem cell to concentrate on. There is a massive waste of time, money and resources, in my opinion, on embryonic stem cells. We need to focus all of this effort onto cord blood/adult stem cells to ensure that we help the people who matter: The patients waiting for stem cell therapy.
-----------------------------------------------------posted by Kreskin----------------------------------

Tonington? You seem to still heavily support embryonic stem cells.

But I wonder what industry is waiting for taxpayer dollars in Missouri. One company has put
out 28 million dollars to finance the campaign on that very long amendment.

You also seem to go back and forth on the issue of Dr Frankenstein having to fill out
tons of paperwork to satisfy what is often imperfect law, burdensome strings attached to the
government money and massive wastes of time.

 

[Tonington]

I have no idea what you're getting at here. I have always supported stem cell research, I'm still a university student. Missouri is not necessarilly the state where industry would be waiting for tax dollars. This ammendment would be precedent setting. The institutions which would benefit would be universities which could procure large grants with federal research money.

I commented once on Dr. Frankenstein. Just a little joke in response to your question. I also explained after that that it doesn't matter what kind of research you are doing, you will have many forms to fil out, reports to make to committees, spending reports and so on. The research I have been involved with was probably 60 % paperwork, on the average. Thats entirely dependant on what you are testing though.

 

[Tonington]

On a side note, I do not believe the reports and paperwork are a huge waste of time. This information provides oversight to comitttees. This ensures that money is not being wasted, that ethical standards are being followed and provides the lenders with information as to how the research is progressing.

It's definitely not science and can be trying at times, but this paperwork is an intrical part of any researchers job description.

 

[jimmoyer]

Thanks Tonington for your reply.

I agree somewhat with your point about the paperwork. Some of it is valuable to document
and some of it is burdensome and not only because it is necessary but infuriating because some of it is
unnecessary. And some researchers will gravitate to those areas with less cumbersome strings
attached. But that's life.



I was much more interested in you responding to the choices the doctor made and why he made those
choices in Kreskin's post:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My research in the early 1980's laid the groundwork for embryonic stem cell technology using the mouse embryo. Even in those early days I knew that to try to take this technology to the human would raise serious legal, ethical, moral and religious objections. There were also major technical problems such as potential tumour formation not to mention the practical problems of obtaining human embryos for such research. Embryonic stem cell technology today has not really progressed very far for these reasons.

I have worked on all types of stem cell, with the exception of human embryonic, and as a stem cell biologist I am convinced that cord blood stem cells represent the realistic hope for future stem cell therapies. They have all of the potential of embryonic stem cells without the associated problems and objections.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Tonington]

I will continue to advocate for stem cell research because I do not think we should limit our options. The doctors comments about the opposition to stem cells from embryos are bang on. The issues surrounding the embryonic stem cells have made it difficult to make any real progress. I'm sure thats why he has focussed his research on the othe rstem cells.

I personally can't see the problem with using the left over donated embryos. I would not support women harvesting them from their bodies to make a quick buck. I know that we should value life, and indeed I do. The sad part of this all is those embryos are destroyed once they are no longer needed. Why would they be kept around, or saved. Thats money being thrown away. So the embryos are thrown out. That is destroying human life as much as harvesting the stem cells from the embryo is. The beginning of the in vitro process is to create a human life for couples who cannot reproduce normally. That is a great gift. Why can we not use those left over embryos to save another from a life of suffering? After all they are going to be destroyed.

 

[Zzarchov]

Yes, Michael J Fox is such a hypocrit..supporting something that can save his life. Kind of like how im a hypocrite by supporting not setting my house on fire while I sleep.

I don't think in the end what the USA says matters. If they think its more moral to throw an embryo in the dumpster rather than using anything from it before doing so (kind of like not letting a homeless person have any of the day old donoughts your about to throw out) then all the more power to them.

Seeing how this is literally the science that can make someone immortal, I don't think other countries are going to have the same objections..they will probably actively create embryos and use them..knowing some of these countries..I wouldn't put it past them to actually kill small babies if they felt the need.

Mengela was a monster, but every med student uses his research. It aint right, its just the way it is.

 

[jimmoyer]

I am convinced that cord blood stem cells represent the realistic hope for future stem cell therapies. They have all of the potential of embryonic stem cells without the associated problems and objections.

There were also major technical problems such as potential tumour formation not to mention the practical problems of obtaining human embryos for such research.


We need to focus all of this effort onto cord blood/adult stem cells to ensure that we help the people who matter: The patients waiting for stem cell therapy.

----------------------------------------Kreskin's post on what the Doctor thought---------------------------------

It appears to me this Doctor might be forcasting the massive waste of taxpayer dollars
tied up in a Frankensteinian persuit of it MUST BE EMBRYONIC stem cells.

Not cord blood ?

In fact this same doctor talks of successful embryos making cord blood even a better pick
than anything else because it did result from a successful birth.

And it avoids the tumour problem currently posing a barrier to further progress in embyro stem cells.

Should we be careful not to make the law narrowly focus on embryonic stem cells ONLY, especially
as the debate hardens and both side demonize each other ???

 

[Curiosity]

I think the core of the debates are whether the Government should be funding research ....

Private companies are not prevented from doing their own research but I believe they would prefer to have their money directly from government sources (and their sanction as well) - no use discovering
something which will be denied use in the nation....

However that said - private companies should explore all possibilities of curing illness no matter what it entails - if there is a way and a method of so doing.

Those who suffer are the only ones who can give a voice to the situation - as they live it - as do their families.

I recall Reagan I think it was held up even calling HIV/AIDS by its assigned name for years thus holding up essential research and discovery for cures - because of his opinionated and biased views.

This is an area where personal opinion should be checked at the door and if there is a cure - carte blanche from all sources should be awarded - because the whole world will benefit.

I would rather see the U.S. be the vanguard nation in research and cure of diseases than be called the "super power" - I'd like to see it replaced by "super curer". (Like I'm so powerful - I don't even have a vote!)

 

[Kreskin]

Aside from the political football, from a practical standpoint the excess embryos in storage are held in a lot of red tape at individual clinics. The patients sign consent forms that limit the use. It might be alittle draconian to have big brother step in and dictate what everyone does with them. Not everyone wants their embryos used for research.

Right now there is a double blind placebo controlled trial in Canada where they are attempting to treat multiple sclerosis with a cord blood stem cell therapy. Private funded. I'm sure it will probably create more questions than find answers but hopefully they can shed some light on the possibilities of such and the next steps in the process.

 

[jimmoyer]

Imagine automating stem cell growth, where it only kicks in when the body needs new cells ?

Imagine motors being designed to regrow their own parts ?

 

[sanch]

What is the status of stem cell research in Canada?

Here is a private company in Thailand that offers adult stem cell therapy for heart disease.

http://www.vescell.com/

All procedures are performed by medical professionals at the various hospitals affiliated with TheraVitae.
Each procedure starts at the hospital with a medical examination to confirm the applicability of treatment to the patient. Then, in a process similar to donating blood, 250 ml (about 1/2 pint) of blood is drawn and couriered to our lab under strictly controlled, sterile conditions.
Because there are far too few stem cells in anyone's blood to be effective, TheraVitae developed a proprietary technology to generate millions of ACPs from the patient's blood sample. This takes about a week.
When the newly grown ACPs return from the lab, they are either injected into one (or more) of the patient's coronary arteries or implanted directly into the patient's heart depending upon the diagnosis. Once in place, these cells have the potential to build new blood vessels and heart muscle.
Within a month or two, the patient should begin to experience less chest pain and notice a marked increase in ability to perfomr exercise. The result, as far as the patient is concerned, is an improved quality of life.

US scientists have been particpating in these international programs on adult stem cells but this is now discouraged after what happened in Korea with the false reporting of results. Still they are operating abroad not because of any ban on stem cell research but because of the length of time of trials and FDA approval.

TheraVitae is based in Bangkok, Thailand, Hong Kong and has state-of-the-art laboratory facilities in Kiryat Weizmann , Israel. The company is currently setting up operations in Canada and Singapore.TheraVitae is based in Bangkok, Thailand, Hong Kong and has state-of-the-art laboratory facilities in Kiryat Weizmann , Israel. The company is currently setting up operations in Canada and Singapore.

http://www.vescell.com/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,15/Itemid,27/page,faq#2

 

[Tonington]

I'm not as up to date on private versus publicly funded research as I should be, but my concern is what happens to the intellectual property once a cure is found. If the research is made public, then other teams can work on proven results, and even improve the delivery of the cure. If it is private however, the company does not have to make it public, can patent the technology, and effectively hold up the advances.

 

[sanch]

I'm not as up to date on private versus publicly funded research as I should be, but my concern is what happens to the intellectual property once a cure is found. If the research is made public, then other teams can work on proven results, and even improve the delivery of the cure. If it is private however, the company does not have to make it public, can patent the technology, and effectively hold up the advances.

The private sector--i.e. pharmaceuticals—is extremely competitive. An advance in any one sector immediately produces more research as companies try to vie for that market. It is a very strong and dynamic industry. The problem is more relating to the pricing of products based on R & D.

Public research--meaning government funded--is not dynamic at all. For a lot of the NIH funded research money is given out repeatedly to teams that have failed at their projects. This is because of the networking required to get these grants.

The best model would follow open source software where scientists would freely give their time and expertise to develop products in the public sphere to benefit humanity. The government would not be involved in this project.

 

[tracy]

Where is Tracy when we need her?

I was on a beach in Hawaii

The Cord blood Society of Canada has links to different companies and several informational pages. It is a non-profit org:
http://cordbloodsociety.com/cbbanks.htm

Here is a link to one of the private companies we used, the fees aren't that bad:
http://www.cordbloodbankofcanada.com/index.html

The parents need to plan for this ahead of time in order to have the kits and stuff.

 

[tracy]

Kreskin, I think it's great you and your family were willing to participate in research.

Jim,
The fact that embryonic stem cells haven't cured diseases YET isn't enough to discount the possibility of cures being found. Every therapy starts that way. I also don't see why women can't sell their eggs? Men sell their sperm and no one thinks twice about it. I don't know anyone who has sold eggs for research, but I do have a friend who bought eggs to conceive her daughters. I don't see why that's wrong.

 

[Tonington]

Using examples of generic versus brand name drugs, the generic drugs can only be manufactured when a patent expires on said drug. Generic drugs do not have to be proven to be safe because they are using the same techniques that have allready yielded a safe product. The company only needs to prove that the product is bioequivalent. The results are repeatable. The cost of producing the generic drugs is far less costly because the company does not incur the R&D costs of the brand name drug.

Failed projects are not invaluable. They yield new questions which are addressed in subsequent research projects.

Public research is in my mind very close to open source software development. There is no license to acquire, and research is peer reviewed. Other research teams will reference the preceeding studies which yielded results, and make changes which develop new techniques.

 

[jimmoyer]

Jim,
The fact that embryonic stem cells haven't cured diseases YET isn't enough to discount the possibility of cures being found. Every therapy starts that way. I also don't see why women can't sell their eggs? Men sell their sperm and no one thinks twice about it. I don't know anyone who has sold eggs for research, but I do have a friend who bought eggs to conceive her daughters. I don't see why that's wrong.
------------------------------------------Tracy----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me quote the good doctor Kreskin posted on.
Three points.

I am convinced that cord blood stem cells represent the realistic hope for future stem cell therapies. They have all of the potential of embryonic stem cells without the associated problems and objections.

There were also major technical problems such as potential tumour formation not to mention the practical problems of obtaining human embryos for such research.


We need to focus all of this effort onto cord blood/adult stem cells to ensure that we help the people who matter: The patients waiting for stem cell therapy.

----------------------------------------Kreskin's post on what the Doctor thought---------------------------------

It appears to me this Doctor might be forcasting the massive waste of taxpayer dollars
tied up in a Frankensteinian persuit of it MUST BE EMBRYONIC stem cells.

Not cord blood ?

In fact this same doctor talks of successful embryos making cord blood even a better pick
than anything else because it did result from a successful birth.

And it avoids the tumour problem currently posing a barrier to further progress in embyro stem cells.

Should we be careful not to make the law narrowly focus on embryonic stem cells ONLY, especially
as the debate hardens and both side demonize each other ???

Sure, Tracy, nobody is banning stem cell research, but if we are to get taxpayer dollars to bollox
up a program, let's funnel it where promise is brightest and equal to embyronic stem cell promise, eh?

Why not ?

Seems like the Holy Grail is as much represented by Umbilical Cord blood stem cells as it is
by Embryonic.

We ought discuss prioritizing tax dollars going where the biggest and closest promise.
Embryonic research will continue and may benefit by the more productive research in adult stem cells
and umbilical cord blood stem cells.


Prioritize ?

Not a bad idea when it comes to tax dollars ?

 

[sanch]

Using examples of generic versus brand name drugs, the generic drugs can only be manufactured when a patent expires on said drug. Generic drugs do not have to be proven to be safe because they are using the same techniques that have allready yielded a safe product. The company only needs to prove that the product is bioequivalent. The results are repeatable. The cost of producing the generic drugs is far less costly because the company does not incur the R&D costs of the brand name drug.

Failed projects are not invaluable. They yield new questions which are addressed in subsequent research projects.

Public research is in my mind very close to open source software development. There is no license to acquire, and research is peer reviewed. Other research teams will reference the preceeding studies which yielded results, and make changes which develop new techniques.

In the first instance the company has to have an incentive and be compensated for doing the research. After patent expiry the transition to generic is part of this process.

The NIH projects I am referring to involve behavioral health. Ideally what you describe should happen but does not. There is no overall evaluation program to cultivate the kind of review you describe. They are too busy publishing the results from the failed studies and applying for new grants than to examine any new issues. Public research funded by the government is circumscribed by a very tight agenda mainly related to self and professional interest and not science.

I do like the open source analogy and there are people from MIT using this as a model for various research projects globally. And they do get grants so they do not totally stifle innovation.