Archive for May 24th, 2010|Daily archive page

Autologous Blood Stem Cell Transplant Improves Survival for Children with Advanced Neuroblastoma : Cancer News

In VICTORIES & SUCCESS STORIES on May 24, 2010 at 8:09 pm

The stem cells that worked in these children are autologus stem cells (autologus means: from the patient’s own body).  They are ADULT or REPAIR stem cells, not embryonic and not induced pluripotent.  Why? Because:


Autologous Blood Stem Cell Transplant Improves Survival for Children with Advanced Neuroblastoma

Two sequential doses of high-dose chemotherapy each supported by autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation was shown to be very effective in the treatment of advanced neuroblastoma in children, according to a study performed by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and several other medical centers…

via Autologous Blood Stem Cell Transplant Improves Survival for Children with Advanced Neuroblastoma : Cancer News.



In VICTORIES & SUCCESS STORIES on May 24, 2010 at 7:56 pm

Another great article that proves the benefits of adult stem cells and the limitations of embryonic stem cell research for treatments.  It goes pretty heavily into the politico-religious issues which I tend to avoid…preferring to focus on the incontrovertible scientific data…but what’s even more amazing is that this was written, unbelievably, in 2005!! I wonder why the US press never picked it up? (sarcasm) -dg

Adult Stem-Cell Treatments: A Better Way 12/1/2005
By Stephanie Porowski and Emma Elliott

Adult stem-cell research may lead one day to cures for terminal and debilitating diseases

“I hope we will always be guided by both intellect and heart,
by both our capabilities and our conscience.”
-President George W. Bush

Few areas of scientific study hold as much potential as adult stem-cell research. This research is already generating medical breakthroughs and treatments for debilitating diseases and disabilities, such as spinal cord injuries, sickle cell anemia and Parkinson’s. Indeed, scientists laud stem-cell treatments as the “miracle cure” of the 21st century. Unlike so many areas of biotechnology, adult stem cells do not spark a heated debate between scientists and ethicists. However, while adult stem-cell research has no moral problems, embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) ignores the sanctity of human life in the name of scientific “advancement.”

This issue came to the forefront early in President George W. Bush’s first term. In a 2001 address, he remarked that ESCR “lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.”2 Too many scientists and politicians have become focused on making breakthroughs while ignoring their responsibility to protect life. Many ignore the bright prospect of adult stem-cell treatments only to celebrate the still-dim possibility of using embryonic stem cells for miracle cures. Yet, while adult stem-cell treatments often lack media hype and celebrity spokesmen, they consistently prove themselves in study after study. Adult stem cells are poised to improve the lives of millions.


Stem cells are unspecialized cells that continually renew themselves through cell division.3 Unlike other cells, stem cells begin as “blanks” without a dedicated task, but with an ability to become specialized. Scientists hope to use this capability to replace cells damaged by a broad spectrum of diseases.4

Stem cells come in two types: embryonic and adult. Embryonic stem cells have not yet received an “assignment.”5 For this reason, they can develop into a number of different human-cell types.6 Researchers obtain embryonic stem cells from embryos created in fertility clinics and donated to medical research, but many scientists hope to use cloning to mass-produce embryos for this research.

Unlike embryonic cells, adult stem cells can be taken from a variety of sources, including the placenta, umbilical-cord blood, skin, bone marrow, hair and body fat, with no destruction of human life at any stage.7 Adult stem cells normally develop into their tissue of origin, but increasing evidence shows that adult stem cells have the ability to develop into other cell types,8 making these cells a viable alternative to embryonic stem cells.


The alternative of adult stem cells is greatly needed in a scientific community willing to go to nearly any length for medical advancement. The use of the human embryo as a source of stem cells holds terrible ramifications, because the process of removing stem cells destroys the embryo. While scientists try to justify their research with the notion that embryos are not yet human life, many ethicists dismiss this idea for what it clearly is-a lie, a feeble attempt to rationalize their experiments.

According to C. Ward Kischer, a human embryologist, “Virtually every human embryologist and every major textbook of Human Embryology states that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being.”9 [Emphasis in the original.] Professor Hymie Gordon, chairman of the Mayo Clinic, says that, “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”10 Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School, states, “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”11 Carrie Gordon Earll, Focus on the Family policy expert, writes:

Biologically, human life begins at conception … when sperm and egg unite. This new embryonic life is 100 percent human, complete with 46 human chromosomes and his or her own genetic code. As the embryo grows, he begins the journey through all of life’s stages: embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent and adult. To classify any one of these stages as not human discriminates based on age, appearance or location.12

President Bush agrees. He recalls an ethicist’s warning, saying, “Make no mistake, he told me, that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these, he said, because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation.”13

Many remain undecided about the status of the embryo. Hilde Lindemann Nelson, Ph.D., associate professor of philosophy at Michigan State University, says, “I don’t think there is an easy answer to what we do with these embryos because we don’t yet have any common standing on what kind of moral status they have.”14 Former President Ronald Reagan once stated, “If there’s doubt about it, and if there’s mystery, then shouldn’t we be extraordinarily careful?”15 The smallest possibility of destroying a human life should rule out this research. Science should never advance by sacrificing the very lives it should be trying to save.

Author of Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America, Wesley J. Smith, asks, “Once embryos can be exploited for their stem cells to promote human welfare, what is to stop scientists from manipulating embryos to control and direct human evolution-equally for the purpose of improving the human future?” He notes that many of those who signed a letter to President Bush urging an end to the ban on federal funding for human embryo research were scientists and bioethicists favoring eugenics,16 a movement that ignores the sanctity of human life and undermines God’s role in His creation.

C.S. Lewis emphasized these dangers when he wrote, “If any age really attains, by eugenics and scientific education, the power to make its descendants what it pleases, all men who live after are the patients of that power,” slaves to the “dead hand of the great planners and conditioners.”17


Frighteningly, the 21st century appears to be that age, and scientists may enter this era through the backing of a society that allows them to devalue human life at its earliest and most vulnerable stage.

Not only does the use of embryonic stem cells imperil the sanctity of human life; this “medical miracle” has little scientific validity. These stem cells have not shown any therapeutic benefits to patients. Even leading proponents of ESCR, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, admit, “[T]he human embryonic stem cells … that made headlines in November 1998 because they can, in theory, develop into any cell type have so far produced relatively modest results.”18

In fact, in some cases, embryonic stem cells have produced horrific results. Neurology reported one such instance where a patient suffering from Parkinson’s disease died after fetal cells were transplanted into his brain. His autopsy revealed that his death had been caused by growth of bone, skin and hair in the brain, probably due to the “transformation of undifferentiated stem cells into non-neural tissues.”19 Transplant rejection continues to be a major problem.20 According to many reports, in one out of every five cases in animal testing embryonic stem cells trigger tumors at the point of injection.21

Patients who would be treated with these cells would risk serious side effects, such as unstable gene expression (abnormal production of proteins from genes) and inability to stimulate the cells to grow certain types of tissue.22 John B. Shea, M.D., writes, “Even if a specific tissue is successfully produced from embryonic stem cells … therapeutic use of this tissue may cause abnormalities in the person receiving the tissue graft.”23

Moreover, increasing evidence shows that embryonic stem cells are difficult to control and preserve. Dr. Peter Andrews of the University of Sheffield, England, says, “Simply keeping human embryonic stem cells alive can be a challenge.” Doug Melton, Harvard University researcher, adds, “In my view [human embryonic stem cells] would degrade with time.”24 Bioethicist Glenn McGee told Technology Review that “the emerging truth in the lab is that pluripotent stem cells [embryonic stem cells able to develop into all cell types] are hard to reign in. The potential that they could explode into a cancerous mass after a stem-cell transplant might prove to be the Pandora’s Box of stem-cell research.”25


While ESCR consistently turns up dead ends and sometimes-deadly results, adult stem cells continue to amaze researchers with their powers. In fact, the only real medical advances from stem cells have come with adult stem-cell treatments. Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Michael Fumento asserts the advantage of adult stem cells. “Embryonic stem cell research is so far behind it’s like a joke,” he says. “We’re getting everything we need out of nonembryonic stem cells, and what we’re getting is incredible.”26

Recent scientific developments prove this statement true. A few include:

  • Researchers at Australia’s Griffith University discovered that olfactory stem cells can be turned into almost any kind of cell.27
  • Researchers at the University of South Florida Center for Aging and Brain Repair injected human-bone-marrow stem cells into rats that had suffered severe strokes. The infusion of healthy stem cells quickly brought the rats back to such a level of normal activity that it was almost as if they had not suffered the strokes. The rats displayed no motor asymmetry – a common result of strokes.28
  • Researchers at Enzo Biochem Inc. have high hopes of developing a cure for HIV using adult stem cells. They inserted anti-HIV genes into human stem cells, which then developed into a type of white blood cell that blocked HIV growth.29
  • Scientists at Massachusetts General Hospital have found that adult-islet stem cells can mature into pancreatic beta cells, the insulin-secreting cells that diabetes patients need.30
  • Researchers at the University of Oslo are developing a treatment to heal spinal cord injuries using bone-marrow stem cells.31
  • A research team at the University of Central Florida believes a person’s own stem cells may hold the key to curing Alzheimer’s. The team has been injecting rats with bone marrow or blood stem cells, which then proceed to replace the brain cells that are usually destroyed by Alzheimer’s.32
  • The National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Strokes reports that a patient’s own bone-marrow can now be used to create nerve cells that could repair brain damage.33
  • Johns Hopkins researchers have found that a mouse’s own bone-marrow stem cells can develop into the specialized cells lining its intestines, lungs and skin.34
  • Doctors at the Center for Aging and Brain Repair at the University of South Florida have found stem cells in tissue taken from the hearts of newborn babies undergoing surgery to correct congenital heart defects. It may be possible to use these stem cells to treat adults.35
  • Researchers in Milan successfully treated mice with a disease similar to multiple sclerosis (MS) by injecting them with neural stem cells. The injections promoted tissue repair and clinical recovery.36
  • A study published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that nerve cells can be grown from hair-follicle stem cells.37

More importantly, many of these studies have moved into human clinical trials and have yielded tremendous results in fighting many diseases, including:

    Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID)

  • According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information estimates that new therapies involving the transplanting of bone marrow and other types of adult stem cells save up to 80 percent of SCID patients.38
  • Diabetes

  • In Japan a diabetic woman received part of her mother’s pancreas. The insulin-producing pancreatic stem cells cured her diabetes. This procedure has been successful, but it always required pancreas cells from at least three cadavers. This latest case required only about half the number of cells.39
  • Heart Disease

  • Osiris Therapeutics, a firm developing therapies that use adult stem cells, is testing the possibility of injecting heart-attack patients with stem cells that can migrate into the heart and replace damaged cells.40
  • Multiple studies around the world have shown that adult stem cells improved cardiac functioning for patients. Patients with congestive heart failure saw significant improvement when bone-marrow stem cells were injected into their cardiac tissue.41 One patient who had been bedridden with heart failure was walking three miles a day within months.42
  • Sickle Cell Anemia

  • Doctors at the University of Pittsburgh cured 15-year-old Keone Penn of sickle cell anemia through intensive chemotherapy and injection of stem cells from umbilical-cord blood.43
  • Acute Myeloid Leukemia

  • Treating child leukemia patients with umbilical-cord-blood stem cells has proven extremely effective. Adult Leukemia patients require a much larger quantity of stem cells, making it difficult to treat them, but researchers at the University of Minnesota are developing a therapy which combines stem cells from the blood of two umbilical cords.44
  • Multiple Sclerosis (MS)

  • Several hundred patients worldwide have reported improved conditions after receiving adult stem-cell transplants to treat MS.45
  • Parkinson’s disease

  • An Israeli company is testing a way to treat Parkinson’s using a patient’s bone-marrow stem cells. The cells produce a chemical that restores a patient’s motor movement.46
  • Dennis Turner, who had suffered severe Parkinson’s for many years, was injected with modified stem cells extracted from his brain. For the next five years his Parkinson’s symptoms virtually disappeared and allowed him to live a normal life.47
  • Researchers at the University of South Florida have reported that their attempts to use fetal cell grafts to combat Parkinson’s were completely ineffective.48
  • Crohn’s Disease

  • After adult stem-cell treatment, several patients with severe Crohn’s disease at Chicago’s Northwestern Hospital have shown remarkable progress. The patients had failed to respond to standard treatments.49
  • Krabbe’s Disease

  • Umbilical cord-blood transplants significantly increased the survival rates of newborns afflicted with this rare and usually fatal disease.50

These are just some of the documented examples showing the promise of adult stem cells. Adult stem-cell treatments have successfully fought Tay-Sachs disease, sickle cell anemia, thalassemia major, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,51 blindness,52 spinal cord injury53 and renal cell carcinoma. These treatments have also been used to fight many forms of cancer, including ovarian,54 testicular55 and breast.56

Amazing discoveries continue to show that adult stem cells carry all the proposed benefits of embryonic stem cells without the risks. Present in everyone, these cells are noncontroversial and easier to obtain. Furthermore, researchers have found adult stem cells, known as “multipotent adult progenitor cells” (MAPC’s), which, like embryonic stem cells, have the capability to convert into any cell type. They have also found another cell type, the “mesenchymal stem cell” (MSC), capable of making only bone, cartilage, fat and muscle tissues, but with the remarkable ability to cause little or no immune reaction when transplanted.57 Importantly, this cell seems to go only to damaged areas.58

These two findings have incredible implications. But even more astounding is the suggestion that the cells can do something ESCR cannot do?be transplanted without fear of rejection. According to Ross Tubo of the biotech company Genzyme, “Put the properties of the two kinds of cells together and all of a sudden you have a noncontroversial, highly versatile source of adult stem cells that can, in theory, be transplanted to anyone.”59 Everyday, new and ethical discoveries transform today’s science into the cures of tomorrow.


Many scientists and politicians know the facts about adult stem cells. They have seen the research about the mounting failures of embryonic stem cells. So why do so many continue to ignore adult stem-cell treatments while aggressively promoting ESCR? The deeply troubling answer involves the power of the media, the advancement of the abortion and eugenics agenda, and financial profit.

Scientists and politicians, like much of society, are slaves to the media, and a few key celebrities have used the media to promote federal funding of ESCR. Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson’s, Dana Reeve, widow of paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve, and Mary Tyler Moore, stricken with diabetes, have joined the debate, appealing to emotions in their quest to find a cure for these diseases.

These emotional celebrity appeals advance an abortion agenda. In response to the pro-life outcry about the destruction of human life involved in ESCR, abortion supporters have jumped aboard the embryo-research bandwagon. As Wesley J. Smith writes:

The embryo cell debate offers abortion advocates a “two-fer”: It furthers their primary political goal of isolating and marginalizing pro-lifers, and it enables them to seize the PR high ground by “compassionately” pressing for research that offers hope against debilitating diseases.60

Thus they refuse to acknowledge the tremendous potential of adult stem-cell research, fearing the political consequences. When people learn of this pro-life, superior alternative they understand there is no need to pursue an unethical and inferior choice, one that has been promoted as patients’ only hope.

Supporters of eugenics have always tied themselves closely with the abortion movement. On the issue of ESCR, they take an identical stance, with dangerous consequences. The exploitation of embryos to promote advances in science for the “greater good” could conceivably take the final step into the world of eugenics. Once again scientists would promote the “greater good,” but this time scientific advancement would take the form of genetic screening and cloning to weed out the “inferior” in hopes of improving society eugenically.61

Despite all their efforts on behalf of society, these scientists seem to care little about the individuals who comprise society. Charles Krauthammer describes their real purpose in The Weekly Standard. He writes of embryo research: “It is a clear deception perpetrated by cynical scientists and ignorant politicians. Its purpose is clear: to exploit the desperation of the sick to garner political support for ethically problematic biotechnology.”62

Another very real factor in the propagation-of-the-embryo lie is financial profit. Scientists engaged in the stem-cell debate are often university and research leaders. However, they also often serve as board members or shareholders in biotechnology companies that would thrive with government funding of ESCR. Several prominent scientists serve as faculty at prestigious universities and research institutes but also maintain close ties with biotech companies involved in ESCR. They include:

  • Douglas Melton, Harvard professor and board member of Curis Inc.;
  • Irving Weissman, Stanford scientist and founder of two biotech companies;
  • Ronald McKay, National Institute of Health (NIH) scientist and a founder and shareholder of NeuralSTEM Biopharmaceuticals.

These men all have a financial interest in the outcome of the stem-cell debate. The media have quoted these “experts” hundreds of times regarding their support of ESCR, but rarely mention their financial stake in the debate.63

In addition, some politicians do not have the courage or character to consider the truth. Worse, they feed the lies. Typical of this deception, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) speaks of “so much promise” for incredible medical advancement using ESCR.64 “So much promise?” Scientists have not come close to finding safe, effective cures with this research.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) states with similar intent, “It is scandalous, absolutely scandalous, that there are so many people with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s and heart disease and cancer. … [N]ot to have the availability of the best in medical care is simply atrocious.”65

America cannot justify the cost of ESCR to our humanity. Moreover, the advances with adult stem cells prove America does not face an impossible ethical dilemma.


And so the lie continues, influencing the debate on embryonic research policy. Although the United States government banned federal funding for research involving the harming or destruction of embryos in 1996, the Clinton administration quickly proposed a way to bypass the law. Under guidelines endorsed by the National Institutes of Health, the government would ignore the research as long as the embryos were killed by a nongovernment-funded source in a “government-approved manner.” The guidelines were largely the work of Marcy Wilder, who had served as legal director to NARAL pro-Choice America immediately prior to joining the Department of Health and Human Services.66

Notably, several politicians have taken a stand against ESCR. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), for example, firmly opposes ESCR and advocates adult stem-cell research.67 Rep. Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) also condemns ESCR and pushes for ethical alternatives, including bolstering the nation’s supply of cord-blood stem cells.68

Likewise, the current administration under President Bush refuses to waver from his policy that federal funds should not be used as an incentive to kill embryos. Even as a candidate, he stated, “Taxpayer funds should not underwrite research that involves the destruction of live human embryos.”69 In reviewing the issue, the administration concluded that the type of funding proposed by the Clinton administration violated the law.

In August of 2001, President Bush announced his decision on this defining moral issue. He stated that the government will not support the destruction of embryos with federal funds,70 but that he would permit funding of research on already existing stem-cell lines.71 Adult stem-cell research will also continue, with the National Institutes of Health giving $203.3 million to the research in 2005.72 Furthermore, President Bush established the President’s Council on Bioethics, initially chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a University of Chicago bioethicist. TIME magazine quotes the doctor, who wrote, “By pouring our resources into adult-stem cell research … we can avoid the morally and legally vexing issues in embryo research.”73

Since President Bush’s decision, Congress has made several attempts to bypass him by enacting legislation to grant federal funding to stem-cell research. To date no such legislation has passed both houses. If it does, the President has vowed to veto it.

During World War II the Germans conducted inhumane experiments on concentration camp victims. Their findings could have been used for medical advancement. But ethical scientists around the world refused to use the information because of how it was obtained.74 They refused to legitimize murder.

Like these scientists, Americans should not condone research that denies the sanctity of human life, especially when an ethical, more scientifically viable alternative exists. Adult stem-cell research must go on, with full support from the American people. The embryonic stem-cell lie must be confronted with the hope of adult stem-cell treatments-the demonstrated “miracle cure.”

NOVEMBER 17, 2005

End Notes

  1. “Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research,” 9 August 2001, from the White House Web site, as found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html.
  2. Ibid.
  3. “Stem Cells: A Primer,” from the National Institutes of Health Web site, as found at http://www.nih.gov/news/stmcell/primer.htm
  4. “Baby Teeth Offer Another Effective Source of Adult Stem Cells,” United Press International, from the Christian Life Resources Web site, 22 April 2003, as found at http://www.christianliferesources.com/cgi-bin/prDisplay.pl?displayContent&releaseID=3788&categoryID=56.
  5. Carrie Gordon Earll, “Stem Cell Research: Truth vs. Hype,” from Focus on the Family, as found at http://www/family.org/fofmag/sl/a0024064.cfm.
  6. Dianne N. Irving, “The Stem Cell Decision in the Labs, Beware of Flawed Ethics and False Science,” from Newsday, 15 July 2001, as found at http://www.newsday.com/coverage/current/books/Sunday/nd9784.htm.
  7. Op cit.
  8. “Stem Cells: A Primer.”
  9. C. Ward Kischer, “When Does Human Life Begin? The Final Answer,” from the Life Issues Web site, as found at http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_04whenlifebegins1.html.
  10. Randy Alcorn, “Scientists Attest to Life Beginning at Conception,” from Eternal Perspective Ministries Web site, as found at http://www.epm.org/articles/life_conception.html.
  11. Ibid.
  12. Earll.
  13. “Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research.”
  14. Vida Foubister, “Extra Embryos: What is Their Future?” from the American Medical News Web site, 13 November 2001, as found at http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/pick_00/prsa1113.htm.
  15. Joel Belz, “If There is Mystery,” WORLD, 18 August 2001, 5.
  16. Wesley J. Smith, “The Politics of Stem Cells: The Good News You Never Hear,” from the National Right to Life Web site, 21 March 2001, as found at http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL04/wes.htm.
  17. “The Sanctity of Life in a Brave New World: A Manifesto on Biotechnology and Human Dignity,” from the Council for Biotechnology Policy Web site, as found at http://www.biotechpolicy.org/BiotechPolicy/ChannelRoot/Features/The+Sanctity+of+Life+in+a+Brave+New+World.htm.
  18. Richard M. Doerflinger, “Human Embryo Research: Where We’ve Been, Where We Should Go,” from the National Right to Life Web site, 9 February 2001, as found at http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRLO2/doer/htm/.
  19. Smith.
  20. Kelly Hollowell, “Federal Stem Cell Research: What Taxpayers Should Know,” Heritage Foundation panel discussion, 24 June 2005, as found at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm749.cfm.
  21. “Adult Stem Cell Breakthrough Ignored,” from Newsmax Web site, 30 May 2005, as found at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/5/30/84930.shtml.
  22. Linda K. Bevington, “Stem-Cell Research and ‘Therapeutic’ Cloning: A Christian Analysis,” from the Center of Bioethics and Human Dignity Web site, as found at http://www.cbhd.org/resources/cloning/scr_overview.htm.
  23. John B. Shea, M.D., “The Current Status of Adult and Embryonic Stem-Cell Research,” prepared for the Campaign Life Coalition, 19 April 2002.
  24. Ibid.
  25. Smith.
  26. Karla Dial, “Bush Makes Pro-Life Choice on Stem Cells,” from the Citizen Web site, as found at http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/webonly/a0017192.html.
  27. “Adult Stem-Cell Breakthrough Ignored.”
  28. Marisa Emerson, “Stem-like cells form Peripheral Blood Restore Function in Rats with Severe Stroke,” from Eurekalert Web site, 6 July 2003, as found at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/uosf-scf063003.php.
  29. Ibid.
  30. “Hormone Prompts Adult Stem Cells to Differentiate into Islet Cells,” from Science Daily Web site, July 17, 2002, as found at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020777717075426.htm.
  31. E. J. Mundell, “Adult Stem Cells Can Produce Brain Cells,” from WRKN-TV Web site, 21 March 2005, as found at http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=3107692.
  32. Chad Binette, “Research May Hold Promise for Treating Alzheimer’s,” from News and Information: the Official Source of Information for the University of Central Florida, 10 February 2005, as found at http://news.ucf.edu/UCFnews/index?page=article&id=00240041998c09010172bc803800783d&mode=news.
  33. Ibid.
  34. “Bone Marrow Stem Cells Can Become Almost Anything,” Culture of Life Foundation, from the Daily University Science News, 4 May 2001, as found at http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,PTID4211/CHID403309, 00.html.
  35. Amanda Gardner, “Cardiac Stem Cells Found in Newborns,” from Associated Press Web site, 9 February 2005, as found at http://health.myway.com/art/id/523894.html.
  36. “Researchers Report Successful Transplants of Cells to Repair Neural Tissue Damage in Mice with MS-Like Disease,” a Research/Clinical Update from the National Multiple Sclerosis Web site, 18 April 2003.
  37. “Hair is a Good Source of Stem Cells,” from BBC News, 28 March 2005, as found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4378941.stm.
  38. “Severe Combined Immunodeficiency,” from the National Center for Biotechnology Web site, as found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disease/SCImm.html.
  39. Anita Manning, “Pancreatic Cell Transplant Could Lead to Diabetes Cure,” from USA Today, 18 April 2005, as found at http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-04-18-transplant-diabetes_x.htm.
  40. Michael Rosenwald, “Researchers Turn to Adult Stem Cells,” from The Washington Post, 20 August 2004, E01.
  41. Anita Srikameswaran, “Stem Cells to be Tested in Repairing Heart Muscle,” from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 13 May 2005, as found at http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05133/503928.stm.
  42. Paul Harsim, “Las Vegan in Stem Cell Study,” from the Review Journal, 22 August 2004, as found at http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Aug-22-Sun-2004/news/24586059.html.
  43. Earll, “Adult Stem Cells: It’s Not Pie in the Sky.”
  44. “Cord Blood Transplantation Now a Viable Option for Adult Leukemia Patients,” from Medical News Today, 20 January 2005, as found at http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=19066.
  45. Earll, “Adult Stem Cells: It’s Not Pie in the Sky.”
  46. Roberta Neiger, “Israeli Therapy uses Adult Stem Cells to Treat Parkinson’s Disease,” from Israel 21c, 27 March 2005, as found at http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Articles^l952&enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enZone=Health.
  47. Dennis Turner, “Testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.” 14 July 2004, as found at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3676.
  48. Roberta Friedman, PhD, “Fetal Cell Grafts not Effective in Reversing Parkinson’s Damage: Presented at SFN,” 13 November 2003, as found at http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/8525697700573E1885256DDD0064B02F.
  49. “Crohn’s Disease: Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation is Option for Patients with Severe CD,” from Blood Weekly, 13 November 2003, p. 23.
  50. “Umbilical Cord-Blood Transplants Save Lives of Babies with Rare Genetic Disorder, Krabbe’s Disease,” from Medical News Today, 22 May 2005, as found at http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=24897.,
  51. Kelly Hollowell J.D., Ph.D., “Federal Stem Cell Research: What Taxpayers Should Know,” from Heritage Foundation panel discussion, 24 June 2005, as found at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm749.cfm.
  52. “I Lived to See My Miracle,” from The Daily Telegraph, 29 April 2005, as found at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=P8&targetRule=10&xml=/health/2005/04/29/hstem29.xml.
  53. “Stem Cell Help for Spinal Injury,” from One News, 18 February 2004, as found at http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,256422-1-7,00.html.
  54. “Experimental Ovarian Cancer Treatment: Stem Cell Transplant is Most Aggressive Therapy,” from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Web site, September 2004, as found at http://www.cancerwise.org/september_2004/print.cfm?id=2d59e4ed-f917-40b9-85fda5fddfc1683f&method=DisplayFull.
  55. “Bone Marrow Transplant Patient Information,” from the Fox-Chase Cancer Center, 23 December 2003, as found at http://www.fccc.edu/clinical/bonemarrow.
  56. Carr, Jessica, “Local Cancer Patient to Receive Stem Cell Transplant,” from The Coventry Courier, 4 November 2003, as found at http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7682235&BRD=1720&PAG=461&dept_id=74554&rfi=6.
  57. Sylvia Pagan Westphal, “Greater Potential of Adult Stem Cells Revealed,” from New Scientist Online News, 17 May 2003, as found at http://www/newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993723.
  58. Rev. Douglas B. Hunt, “‘Miracle’ Stem Cell Find,” from the Religious Center on Biotechnology, 13 August 2001, as found at http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_373677.html.
  59. Op cit.
  60. Smith.
  61. Ibid.
  62. Charles Krauthammer, “The Great Stem Cell Hoax,” from The Weekly Standard, 27 August 2001, 12.
  63. Neil Munro, “Mixing Business with Stem Cells,” from National Journal, 21 July 2001, 2348-2349.
  64. Laurie Kellman, “Harkin: Lift Stem Cell Restrictions,” from Associated Press, 12 July 2005, as found at http://wjla.com/news/stories/0705/242898.html.
  65. Jill Zuckman, “Stem Cell Debate Hits Close to Home in House, Senate,” from the Chicago Tribune, 27 June 2005, as found at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0506270171jun27,1,2768572.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed.
  66. John J. Miller, “Hard Cell: A powerful Coalition Pushes to Subvert the Ban on Human-Embryo Research.” National Review, 5 April 1999.
  67. From the Sen. Sam Brownback Web site, as found at http://brownback.senate.gov/LIStemCellText.htm.
  68. From the Rep. Chris Smith Web site, as found at http://www.house.gov/apps/lisst/press/nj04_smith/prcordblood.htm.
  69. Doerflinger.
  70. Bill Sammon, “Bush Pledges Not to Expand Stem-Cell Funds,” from The Washington Times, 13 August 2001, p. A1.
  71. William Kristol, “Stemming the Tide,” from The Weekly Standard, 27 August 2001, 11.
  72. “Investing in Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” from the World Health Web site, 26 October, 2005, as found at http://www.worldhealth.net/p/investing-in-embryonic-stem-cell-research-2005-07-19.html.
  73. Michael Orecklin, “Leon Kass: The Ethics Cop,” from TIME, 20 August 2001, 23.
  74. Ibid.

Body’s Own Stem Cells Can Lead to Tooth Regeneration

In VICTORIES & SUCCESS STORIES on May 24, 2010 at 7:37 pm

I met with Dr. Mao last summer and I found his presentation fascinating and informative.  Imagine taking stem cells from your own body and regrowing your won teeth. No dentures, crowns, implants, foreign materials, etc. etc.  Imagine; tooth regeneration from your own body, for your own body.  -dg

Monday, May 24, 2010

Body’s Own Stem Cells Can Lead to Tooth Regeneration

A technique pioneered in the Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Laboratory of Dr. Jeremy Mao, the Edward V. Zegarelli Professor of Dental Medicine at Columbia University Medical Center, can orchestrate stem cells to migrate to a 3-D scaffold infused with growth factor, holding the translational potential to yield an anatomically correct tooth in as soon as nine weeks once implanted.
People who have lost some or all of their adult teeth typically look to dentures, or, more recently, dental implants to improve a toothless appearance that can have a host of unsettling psycho-social ramifications. Despite being the preferred (but generally painful and potentially protracted) treatment for missing teeth nowadays, dental implants can fail and are unable to “remodel” with surrounding jaw bone that undergoes necessary changes throughout a person’s life.
An animal-model study has shown that by homing stem cells to a scaffold made of natural materials and integrated in surrounding tissue, there is no need to use harvested stem cell lines, or create an environment outside of the body (e.g., a Petri dish) where the tooth is grown and then implanted once it has matured. The tooth instead can be grown “orthotopically,” or in the socket where the tooth will integrate with surrounding tissue in ways that are impossible with hard metals or other materials.
Human molar scaffolding from the lab of Dr. Jeremy Mao
Human Molar Scaffold
“These findings represent the first report of regeneration of anatomically shaped tooth-like structures in vivo, and by cell homing without cell delivery,” Dr. Mao and his colleagues say in the paper. “The potency of cell homing is substantiated not only by cell recruitment into scaffold microchannels, but also by the regeneration of periodontal ligaments and newly formed alveolar bone.”
This study is published in the most recent Journal of Dental Research, the top-rated, peer-reviewed scientific journal dedicated to the dissemination of new knowledge and information on all sciences relevant to dentistry, the oral cavity and associated structures in health and disease.
Dental implants usually consist of a cone-shaped titanium screw with a roughened or smooth surface and are placed in the jaw bone. While implant surgery may be performed as an outpatient procedure, healing times vary widely and successful implantation is a result of multiple visits to different clinicians, including general dentists, oral surgeons, prosthodontists and periodontists. Implant patients must allow two to six months for healing and if the implant is installed too soon, it is possible that the implant may fail. The subsequent time to heal, graft and eventually put into place a new implant may take up to 18 months.
The work of Dr. Mao and his laboratory, however, holds manifold promise: a more natural process, faster recovery times and a harnessing of the body’s own potential to re-grow tissue that will not give out and could ultimately last the patient’s lifetime.
“A key consideration in tooth regeneration is finding a cost-effective approach that can translate into therapies for patients who cannot afford or who aren’t good candidates for dental implants,” Dr. Mao says. “Cell-homing-based tooth regeneration may provide a tangible pathway toward clinical translation.”

Dr. Ira B. Lamster, dean of the College of Dental Medicine, stated: “This research provides an example of what is achievable when today’s biology is applied to common clinical problems. Dr. Mao’s research is a look into the future of dental medicine.”

via Nano Patents and Innovations: Body’s Own Stem Cells Can Lead to Tooth Regeneration.

%d bloggers like this: