Author Topic: Study shows stem cells reverse paralysis in rats (Read 3298 times)

Ryan in Maine · « **on:** January 29, 2009, 07:02:45 PM »

These rats are doing a true service to mankind.

At least I agree with President Obama on lifting bans on stem cell research. I'd have rather seen the money go here than to bail out Chrysler.

http://www.livescience.com/health/090129-stem-cell-spine.html

Quote

Health
Study: Stem Cells Reverse Paralysis in Rats

By LiveScience Staff

posted: 29 January 2009 02:42 pm ET

Transplanted adult stem cells have been found to reverse paralysis associated with spinal cord injuries in lab rats, a new study finds.

The study, headed up by Miodrag Stojkovic, deputy director and head of the Cellular Reprogramming Laboratory at Centro de Investigacion Principe Felipe in Spain, involved transplanting so-called progenitor stem cells from the lining of rats' spinal cords into rodents with serious spinal cord injuries.

The rats recovered significant motor activity one week after injury, Stojkovic and his co-authors wrote in the Jan. 27 early online edition of the journal Stem Cells.

Spinal cord injury, for which no therapy currently exists to undo the damage, is a major cause of paralysis. Up to 400,000 people in the United States are estimated to live with these injuries, according to the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. Most spinal cord injuries are caused by vehicle crashes and falls, and most of those injured are males.

The researchers say the new rat results "open a new window on spinal cord regenerative strategies."

The rat study involved adult stem cells, which are found in adult tissues. It is the other type of stem cells, embryonic stem cells, that some activists find objectionable, partly because these cells are derived from embryos though a process that currently destroys them.

Last week, there was big news related to embryonic stem cells. The Food and Drug Administration approved the first study to inject human-derived embryonic stem cells into individuals with acute spinal cord injuries.

The Bush Administration had placed restrictions on federal funding for new lines of embryonic stem cells for research, but the cells to be used in the study are old ones that would still have been eligible for funding in the Bush era. It is expected that President Obama will lift the restrictions.

Click http://www.livescience.com/ link at beginning of post for the rest of the article.

Standing Wolf · « **Reply #1 on:** January 29, 2009, 10:26:35 PM »

Quote

At least I agree with President Obama on lifting bans on stem cell research.

You're repeating a lie. There was no ban on stem cell research during the Bush administration. Federal funding was prohibited for stem cell research using cells from aborted babies. That was it. That's all that was excluded.

Bigjake · « **Reply #2 on:** January 29, 2009, 10:32:42 PM »

Quote from: Standing Wolf on January 29, 2009, 10:26:35 PM

You're repeating a lie. There was no ban on stem cell research during the Bush administration. Federal funding was prohibited for stem cell research using cells from aborted babies. That was it. That's all that was excluded.

Thank you, Standing Wolf.

Always concise, correct, and to the point.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 29, 2009, 10:34:05 PM »

So how did they find all these rats with spinal cord injuries.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #4 on:** January 29, 2009, 11:01:41 PM »

Quote from: Ryan in Maine on January 29, 2009, 07:02:45 PM

At least I agree with President Obama on lifting bans on stem cell research.

The first sentence in the article:

Quote

Transplanted adult stem cells have been found to reverse paralysis associated with spinal cord injuries in lab rats...

No embryos were whacked in the reversing of this paralysis.

never_retreat · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2009, 12:02:48 AM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on January 29, 2009, 10:34:05 PM

So how did they find all these rats with spinal cord injuries.

Most of the rats I see have bigger problems than spinal cord injuries.
Maybe we should be testing this on people, after all why do rats deserve that.

Wait are we talking about the 4 legged rodents or politicians?

Ryan in Maine · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2009, 12:08:23 AM »

I didn't mean to repeat a lie. I was just speaking generally.

At least I agree with Obama on lifting the ban on aborted baby stem cell research using federal funds.*

Rolls right off the tongue.

El Tejon · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2009, 07:22:47 AM »

Quote

aborted baby stem cell research using federal funds

Hmmm, something about lampshades of skin springs to mind here.

Has fetal stem cell lead to anything? Other than Leftists whining about not having an excuse to kill babies.

Aren't all the breakthroughs using adult stem cells???

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2009, 07:25:22 AM »

Quote from: El Tejon on January 30, 2009, 07:22:47 AM

Aren't all the breakthroughs using adult stem cells???

No.

El Tejon · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2009, 07:41:40 AM »

"On January 23, 2009, Phase I clinical trials for transplantation of a human-ES-derived cell population into spinal cord-injured individuals received FDA approval, marking it the world's first human ES cell human trial. The study leading to this scientific advancement was conducted by Hans Keirstead and colleagues at the University of California, Irvine and supported by Geron Corporation of Menlo Park, CA. The results of this experiment suggested an improvement in locomotor recovery in spinal cord-injured rats after a 7-day delayed transplantation of human ES cells that were pushed towards an oligodendrocytic lineage [8]."

I see. Apparently I am not up to date with my reading.

makattak · « **Reply #10 on:** January 30, 2009, 08:48:18 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on January 30, 2009, 07:25:22 AM

No.

Hmm... seems to be the "breakthrough" in embryonic stem cells is to do the EXACT same thing the adult stem cells do in the study from the OP.

Bogie · « **Reply #11 on:** January 30, 2009, 09:19:56 AM »

IMHO, 99.9% of the people debating it don't understand it.

And the research is also still at the phase of anecdotal evidence. They're going to have to do a lot more than a couple of studies to prove that something words.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

For instance, the method used to injure the spinal cord could actually play a part in determining how well things would recover. That's just ONE thing to consider. One would also have to test a genetically diverse variety of rats, etc...

Personally, until it walks, talks intelligently, and can legally order a beer, I'm leaning toward treating it as subhuman (and optimally keeping it in a soundproofed box...). In addition, some states seem to view children as the property of their parents - ran across that while researching some custody stuff...

buzz_knox · « **Reply #12 on:** January 30, 2009, 09:21:28 AM »

Quote from: Bogie on January 30, 2009, 09:19:56 AM

Personally, until it walks, talks intelligently, and can legally order a beer, I'm leaning toward treating it as subhuman (and optimally keeping it in a soundproofed box...). In addition, some states seem to view children as the property of their parents - ran across that while researching some custody stuff...

The requirement that something talks intelligently will eliminate a considerable number of individuals from the definition of human.

anygunanywhere · « **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2009, 09:35:04 AM »

If embryonic stem cells were the panacea of medical science then the private sector would be hugely involved in order to glean the massive profits from the end product. Since stem cell research requires federal funding/subsidies the same as alternative energy to survive, I doubt that stem cells will ever be more than a research curiosity and another excuse for the pro-abortion crowd to push the Freedom (Denial) of Choice Act and continue the slaughter of the innocent.

Anygunanywhere

Racehorse · « **Reply #14 on:** January 30, 2009, 10:50:44 AM »

Hasn't the whole stem cell debate largely become moot? I was under the impression that since the whole big controversy about it, they've figured out how to get adult stem cells to do anything an embryonic stem cell would do.

makattak · « **Reply #15 on:** January 30, 2009, 10:52:31 AM »

Quote from: Racehorse on January 30, 2009, 10:50:44 AM

Hasn't the whole stem cell debate largely become moot? I was under the impression that since the whole big controversy about it, they've figured out how to get adult stem cells to do anything an embryonic stem cell would do.

You would think that would be the case.

However, the side who says they are for "science" are proving they are really for "agenda".

It's funny, I'm for science too, but not unethical science using money taken from me.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #16 on:** January 30, 2009, 01:06:37 PM »

Quote

IMHO, 99.9% of the people debating it don't understand it.

This covers most political issues.

makattak · « **Reply #17 on:** January 30, 2009, 01:19:16 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on January 30, 2009, 01:06:37 PM

This covers most political issues.

I understand this issue perfectly.

The government wants to use money taken from me to use for an unethical act. I am opposed to that.

Do I need to understand any more of this issue?

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #18 on:** January 30, 2009, 01:21:06 PM »

Quote from: makattak on January 30, 2009, 01:19:16 PM

I understand this issue perfectly.

The government wants to use money taken from me to use for an unethical act. I am opposed to that.

Do I need to understand any more of this issue?

You could go on how even if it all were perfectly ethical, it's still not constitutional.

makattak · « **Reply #19 on:** January 30, 2009, 01:27:05 PM »

Funny how easily we accept that government spends our money while everything it spends money on outside of a VERY few named items in the constitution is uncontitutional.

Thanks for the reminder.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #20 on:** January 30, 2009, 01:29:31 PM »

Quote from: Racehorse on January 30, 2009, 10:50:44 AM

Hasn't the whole stem cell debate largely become moot? I was under the impression that since the whole big controversy about it, they've figured out how to get adult stem cells to do anything an embryonic stem cell would do.

As I understand it, stem cells from other sources (adult, umbilical cord, etc.) are already being used to good effect. It is the embryonic cells that are behind the curve. But I thought they had found a work-around a couple of years ago, to get stem-cells without hurting the embryo.

So I guess I don't understand it, either.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #21 on:** January 30, 2009, 01:32:44 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Tactical pants on January 30, 2009, 01:29:31 PM

As I understand it, stem cells from other sources (adult, umbilical cord, etc.) are already being used to good effect. It is the embryonic cells that are behind the curve. But I thought they had found a work-around a couple of years ago, to get stem-cells without hurting the embryo.

So I guess I don't understand it, either.

I think that there are people who think they should be utterly free to do whatever they want with foetuses/unborn babies/embryos until the very moment of birth, and that any attack on this from any angle is eventually an attack on their "Reproductive Freedom" TM.

wacki · « **Reply #22 on:** January 30, 2009, 11:20:02 PM »

I'm a life-scientist by trade. I personally don't view tissue that lacks brainwaves as extremely precious life but I understand that a good portion of this country does. That being said I'm unable to find a single person that can explain to me what the differences between embryonic stem cells and the stem cells extracted from umbilical cord blood are.... if any.

The trachea 'transplant' (if you can call it that):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081119092939.htm
Adult stem cells

The rat? again adult stem cells:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090129/sc_livescience/studystemcellsreverseparalysisinrats

Just about every breakthrough is adult stem cells.

The best adult stem cells are extracted from umbilical cords that are typically thrown away after someone gives birth. Democrats have fought long, hard and successfully to block any attempts to mandate this simple question to mothers "will you donate your umbilical cord to science?". Apparently this simple life saving question was very threatening to both the pro-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell lobbyists.

I've had discussions with some pretty high level people at the NIH. Some of these are world class experts in stem cells. When I asked them whats the difference between adult stem cells in cord blood and the embryonic type they simply responded "we don't know". Of course, others do not take that position. I have heard some valid arguments based upon developmental stages but a lot of it was speculation. Now, that was a year ago and maybe things have changed but the politics around stem cells is anything but civil. Nothing proves that better than the fact that so many people fought so hard to stop doctors from saying "please don't throw your umbilical cords in the trash."

News:

Author Topic: Study shows stem cells reverse paralysis in rats (Read 3298 times)