bone marrow transplant = adult stem cells

Here is another article, courtesy of the Christian Research Institute's Twitter feed. (I am a glutton for punishment)

Scientists at Children’s Hospital in Oakland, California, are discovering a potential cure for leukemia and sickle-cell disease. How? By using blood stem cells from the placentas of women who have had Caesarian deliveries.

But researchers at the hospital are frustrated. State agencies have made multi-million-dollar grants available for embryo-destructive research, but money is scarce for its ethically sound counterpart, adult stem cell research.

Really? Not according to CNN. Please provide evidence that embryonic stem cells are ethically unsound.

In the Contra Costa Times, lead Children’s Hospital researcher Frans Kuypers says, “No one has been cured by an embryonic stem cell. We are able to cure folks with [adult] stem cells.”

Normally I don’t dive into ad hominem attacks, but this is pure insanity and betrays either a misunderstanding of the differences and similarities between adult and embryonic stem cells or a deliberate deception. Allow me, a complete layman when it comes to stem cells, to explain:

There are two classes of stem cells: multipotent and pluripotent. Pluripotent stem cells can give rise to any type of cell in the body except those needed to support and develop a fetus in the womb. Multipotent stem cells can give rise to a limited number of different types of cells.
Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are multipotent. What this means is that while adult stem cell X may only be able to give rise to blood cells, an embryonic stem cell can give rise to blood and any other type of cell.

Adult stem cells have been being used for over four decades to cure disease in the form of bone marrow transplants. So of course people have been cured with adult stem cells. They’ve been researched for far longer than embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells have vastly more potential than adult-derived stem cells because they are pluripotent. What has been done for adult derived stem cells could potentially be done for embryonic stem cells, but on a much larger scale. Unfortunately, scientists have only been researching embryonic stem cells since 1998, all under heavy legal restrictions. Comparing the gains made by adult stem cells to the gains made by embryonic stem cells is akin to comparing the advanced problem-solving abilities of a two year old to that of a thirty year old.

 So why isn’t adult stem cell research receiving more funding? Josephine Quintavalle, director of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, says “What you get from [the adult stem cell] approach is a patient-specific cure. There's no middleman . . . and there's no drug company that's going to get rich as a result of it.”

Why would a treatment with embryonic stem cells be less “patient-specific” than treatment with adult stem cells? Can the author provide evidence of the lack of funding of adult stem cell research as I have provided evidence showing that adult stem cell research received lots of funding?

If by “middleman” he means the companies who currently own the stem cell lines, then opening up embryonic stem cell research funding would eliminate or reduce this middleman, as those companies who have grandfathered in stem cell lines from before federal funding was banned would no longer be the sole holders of stem cell lines, as other companies could receive funding to develop new lines.

As far as the “get rich” comment… if no one has been cured using embryonic stem cells, how can a company “get rich” from them?

But, she explains, a lot of the pressure for stem-cell research is to find products that they can sell, as opposed to a treatment they can do to cure you.

Evidence please.  So what the author is saying is that embryonic stem cells don’t cure people and aren’t patient-specific, but drug companies think they can get rich off of them by marketing a product that sells rather than cures, due (in part) to this mysterious middleman. Got it. Provide evidence for this assertion.

Quintavalle is just one of many experts from both sides of the debate interviewed in the new documentary, Lines that Divide, produced by the Center for Bioethics and Culture. http://www.cbc-network.org/

Ah ha! Here is one point of this article – buy or see this documentary. I’ve e-mailed them and asked for a review copy.

In the documentary you’ll hear first-hand testimonies from people whose lives have been saved through adult stem cell research. Like Barry Goudy, who suffered with multiple sclerosis. Since undergoing adult stem cell replacement therapy, he’s been free from MS for five years.

“adult stem cell replacement therapy” - AKA a bone marrow transplant – has been conducted in uncontrolled trials for people with MS. No controlled trials have been completed, though there are some underway. Here is how it works: MS is an autoimmune disease in which an individual’s immune system attacks the myelin sheath surrounding their nerves. This causes symptoms as nerves do not function properly when the myelin is destroyed or damaged. Bone marrow is extracted from a participant with MS. The participant’s immune system is destroyed with chemotherapy. Then, the participant’s own bone marrow cells are put back in, effectively letting the participant with MS grow a new immune system. There is no proof that it works.

They reboot your immune system,” he explains. “I live a normal life. I coach hockey, I play racquetball, I golf.” Without the adult stem cell transplant, Goudy would probably be in a wheelchair.

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data (Thanks quackcast). Also, it really annoys me when writers say things like, “if X did not happen, he’d be in a wheelchair’. Being in a wheelchair is better than being stuck in bed without a wheelchair.

Twenty-two-year-old Corrina Archuleta also shares her dramatic recovery from a flesh-eating auto-immune disorder. Her family was making her funeral arrangements before adult stem cell therapy saved her life.

So… she had a bone marrow transplant? I wonder why the authors don’t mention that bone marrow transplants can cure leukemia and other autoimmune disorders. A blood marrow transplant is a transplant of stem cells. Why don’t the authors of this article or the writers of this documentary call it a “bone marrow transplant”? Most people understand what that is. My guess is that if they stop calling it “bone marrow transplant” and call it “adult stem cell transplants” then they can politicize it.

The film also covers why even traditionally pro-choice advocates are speaking out against embryo-destructive stem cell research. In order to extract enough eggs for embryonic stem cell research, a woman’s ovaries are hyper-stimulated so that she will produce a dozen or more eggs at a time.

But doctors know that ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome and the drugs themselves have caused blood clotting, stroke, and even death. The former chief medical officer of the FDA warms that potential egg donors “need to be aware that this is not a procedure that is without risk.” Even the risk of death.

Bone marrow transplants are not without risk, either.

The vast majority of embryonic stem cells are leftovers from thousands of unused embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics. A simple solution to this problem might be to limit the ability of women to donate eggs to a stem cell clinic unless they are part of a fertility procedure. This is not an argument against stem cell research but an argument against fertility procedures.

That’s not what you are seeing in the media. What you do see, however, are celebrities and politicians gushing over the potential for embryo-destructive stem cell research. Even while lives are being saved today by adult stem cell therapy.

Well yes, because embryonic stem cell research does have lots of potential, whereas the potential of adult stem cells has been realized (at least in part) for 40+ years.

We need to be informed in order to help shape the public debate-and encourage our leaders to fund proven, morally unproblematic adult stem cell research.

That’s why I urge you to get a hold of the film Lines that Divide.

Wait, what was that about profits? I don't want scientists to research procedures that have already been proven effective. I want research to fund potentially effective treatments using science-based methodology.

Question: God's commandments

In The Bible, in the OT, God commands his followers to commit many acts today which would be considered criminal:

• Kill disobedient sons (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
• Kill those who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2)
• Kill blasphemers (Leviticus)
• Kill non-virginal brides (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)
• Kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)
• Kill adulterers (Leviticus 20:10)
• Kill witches (Exodus 22) 

Some people will argue that God commanded certain followers to do these things at certain times. Fair enough.

What if someone claimed that God commanded them to do any of the above today? How would we be able to tell if God was actually commanding them to do these things, or if something else was going on? Should we punish people who commit any of the acts above if they sincerely believe God commanded them to do it?

Atheist solstice sign in a ditch

Yesterday I wrote about this sign, which was replaced earlier this week by an engraved and more solid version.

This morning, it went missing.

This afternoon, it was dropped off at the KMPS Radio studio in Seattle "as a gift for Ichabod Caine, the morning show host. The person who left it didn’t leave a name," according to a Northwest Cable News report. It was supposedly found in a ditch.

Apparently it was quite a feat to take the engraved version of the sign, as it is quite heavy and bulky.

Oh yeah... this same sign has been at Wisconson's capital for thirteen years.  Apparently it's been stolen from this site a few times too. 

You can find a video about the sign (prior to being stolen) here.

You'll notice that no one has stolen or defaced the nativity scene at the same capital building - once again... This is a war for Christmas and a war against invividuality. 

What the %&^$# is an Atheist?

I am fond of asking random new people in my life about their beliefs concerning god. I am rather astounded by the number of people who tell me they don't believe in god, but when I ask (or assert) that they then must be atheist, they deny being an atheist. I am not the first to suggest that this is due to a misunderstanding of what it means to be an atheist. So, I shall happily clarify:

Atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of god(s). Of course, people like to define "god(s)" in their own special way, be it "uncaused cause" or "unmoved mover" or "Omni-whatever entity" or "transcendent creator who interacts with the world and answers prayers" or whatever supernatural maker/owner/mover/causer of the universe. To me, god is any kind of supernatural transcendent being. If you water down the definition of god to be something entirely naturalistic (god = nature) and don't believe in anything supernatural, then you may as well stop kidding yourself and admit you're an atheist so we can get on with our lives.

Lot's of people like to break atheism down into "strong" and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the affirmation of the nonexistance of god(s) - I.E. "god(s) do not exist". Weak atheism is an absence of a positive god-belief, I.E. "I don't believe in god(s)".

One can further clarify one's atheism using the clarifiers "ignostic", "agnostic", etc. Those will be explained in another post.

I find it especially cute when people say, "I define god as love. therefore, it is easy to prove god, you just have to feel love." They think this is such a simple and undeniable way of proving my position wrong. Alas, it proves nothing, and merely toys with language. Generally, before you begin any discourse/argument/discussion/debate on the existence of god, you need to first define god.


Reference @ Internet Infidels
Reference @ Rational Response Squad