Many in Florida applaud end to stem-cell ban

[FayeforCure]

We made it to the front page of the Orlando Sentinel!

orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-asec-stem-cell-research-031009,0,4995809.story

OrlandoSentinel.com
Many in Central Florida applaud end to stem-cell ban
Robyn Shelton

Sentinel Medical Writer

March 10, 2009

Patients and scientists were excited yet cautious Monday after President Barack Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding for research using embryonic stem cells.

Some said the reversal of the Bush-era policy will infuse new life into the search for potential treatments of Alzheimer's disease, paralysis, heart failure and other devastating conditions.

Others, including the president himself, warned that no one should expect imminent breakthroughs.

"Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident," Obama said before signing an executive order that lifts the funding ban. "They result from painstaking and costly research from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit."

Faye Armitage believes embryonic stem cells could someday help her son and thousands like him.

She was living in Kissimmee in 1996 when her 7-year-old son collided with another soccer player and developed a clot in his brainstem that led to paralysis from the neck down. Now 19, Jason Armitage depends on a wheelchair and his family for every task of daily living. Only his right arm has limited movement.

"The damage on Jason's [brainstem] is probably the size of a pencil eraser," said Armitage, who has testified before Congress in support of stem-cell therapy. "I just don't believe that we won't be able to fix such a small amount of damage in the body to someday prevent paralysis, and then, hopefully, to find ways to fix it."

With Obama's signature, researchers can seek federal grants to work with a greater variety of embryonic stem cells. Under the previous administration, government funding had been limited to embryonic cell lines that were in existence when Bush's ban went into effect in August 2001.

Embryonic stem-cell research is controversial because human embryos, typically donated by fertility labs, must be destroyed to collect the cells.

Some scientists said the older cells were not sufficient and that the ban stalled progress with new, more robust cell lines created in recent years from private funding.

"There are many technical difficulties with the early cell lines," said Dinender K. Singla, an associate professor at the University of Central Florida who does stem-cell research. "Today's [policy change] encourages me to think that we can take our knowledge into new areas."

Singla is experimenting with mouse embryonic stem cells to see if they can rejuvenate damaged heart tissue in the animals. In the future, he hopes to work with human embryonic cells and therapies for heart disease, which has been an early focus of stem-cell efforts.

Other advocates for stem-cell research are not so sure that embryonic cells deserve all the attention they're getting.

Daniel Faiella has taken his autistic 8-year-old son to Costa Rica three times for infusions of stem cells culled from either bone marrow or umbilical cord blood. These are referred to as "adult" stem cells. Faiella thinks the therapy has helped his son tremendously. He said Matthew is learning how to read, spell and interact with others.

A vast amount of research using these adult stem cells is ongoing, and Faiella hopes it does not get pushed to the side. Some studies have linked the use of embryonic stem cells to the development of tumors.

"Even if you look past the ethical issues, there are a lot of safety and scientific problems with embryonic stem cells," said Faiella, who lives in Central Florida.

Scientists at the La Jolla campus of the Burnham Institute for Medical Research have been working with embryonic stem cells as part of a California state initiative to fund the work. As Burnham builds its new campus in Orlando, scientific director Daniel Kelly does not expect researchers locally to work with the cells.

But his team of scientists will collaborate with their colleagues in California.

"I think there is power in using a variety of different approaches and strategies," Kelly said. "The understanding that we gain from using stem cells could be an important component in attacking a number of dreaded diseases."

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

[FayeforCure]

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=133670&catid=3

Check out the video in case you missed this news segment on First Coast News. The reporter did a great job!

Mom of Paralyzed Teen Applauds Obama's Stem Cell Ruling
Posted By: Jennifer Lindgren     4 days ago

FRUIT COVE, FL -- A mother searching for a cure for her son's paralysis says she has new hope, after President Obama lifted restrictions on stem cell research.

Faye Armitage has spent the past eleven years lobbying for stem cell research support across the state, country and planet.

Her 18-year-old son, Jason Armitage, is paralyzed from the nose down.

During a soccer match, then seven-year-old Jason collided with another player on the field. Faye says her son brushed off his injuries at first, and continued playing the game.

The next day, however, brought extreme pain, and nausea.

Faye says doctors at first diagnosed the problem as a concussion.

Six weeks later, Jason slipped into a coma. An MRI revealed a blood clot. After three days in the hospital, Faye says Jason woke up paralyzed.

A single mom, Faye Armitage has done everything she can think of to find help for her son.

During a stay at a physical rehabilitation center in Sarasota, the Armitages learned that embryonic stem cell research could provide hope for conditions like Jason's.

"We're hopeful that some techniques or improved techniques will help people in a wheel chair long term, like my son Jason. He's been in his wheel chair since he was seven. We're hopeful people like Jason will be able to get their lives restored," Faye Armitage said.

Faye Armitage has lobbied lawmakers to push for federal funding of the research. In 2004, she ran for Congress, but lost.

This week, after a move by President Barack Obama, Faye has new hope.

On Monday, the President lifted restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research.

U.S. law limits the use of federal money to make human stem cells.

Obama's move is a reversal of former President Bush's policy, which tightened restrictions even further to include work using human stem cells.

Opponents to stem cell research argue that it involves destruction of embryos, which some pastors, like Msgr. Daniel Logan, view as human life.

"An embryo is a product of two humans. Otherwise, it didn't exist. There's life in it," says Msgr. Logan, with the Diocese of St. Augustine.

Logan is not opposed to research on adult embryos.

He says, since President Obama campaigned in favor of removing restrictions on embryonic research, Monday's ruling comes as no surprise to him.

President Obama will give the National Institutes of Health 120 days to come up with a plans as to how the research should be overseen.

Faye Armitage, who supports the decision, hopes Obama's decision to open up federal funding may one day lead to a cure for spinal paralysis, enabling her son to walk again.


First Coast News

[Jason]

Your son is lucky to have you Faye.  Congratulations!

[kellypope]

Awesome! I hope this helps Jason, and many like him who could benefit from stem-cell treatments, make a beautiful recovery.

[civil42806]

From the presidents council of bio ethics

http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=3298

[BridgeTroll]

Very interesting... a dry but worthy read.

[FayeforCure]

From the presidents ( Bush's) council of bio ethics

http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=3298

Bush's bioethics council will expire in a few months and President Obama will be selecting his own less-anti-science bio-ethics council.

As to:

The aim of this policy was not to shackle scientific research but to find a way to reconcile the need for research with the moral concerns people have. That is precisely how the council formulated the question in Monitoring Stem Cell Research: “How can embryonic stem cell research, conducted in accordance with basic research ethics, be maximally aided within the bounds of the principle that nascent human life should not be destroyed for research?”

"Nascent life" gets "destroyed" in the process of natural fertility as well as when conducting assisted fertility.

Maybe you should read this link:
Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos? Harvesting stem cells without tears. Ronald Bailey | December 22, 2004
http://reason.com/news/show/34948.html

Faye Armitage, pro-con: Was president right to lift restrictions on stem-cell research?

YES, change of policy will save lives, lower costs, create jobs

By Faye Armitage, guest columnist

Thursday, April 9, 2009



After a lost decade for the most cutting-edge innovation in medical research, President Barack Obama’s signature ushered in a new era of innovation and development that will create jobs, reduce health-care costs and save lives.

Though the National Institutes of Health supports this research, and despite the urging of 80 Nobel Laureates favoring stem cell research, former President George W. Bush severely restricted federally funded research to only a handful of old embryonic stem cell lines.

Lack of federal funding and supporting guidelines has put much of the research on hold since the first isolation of human embryonic stem cells in 1998. Twice the House and the Senate passed expanded stem cell research legislation, in 2005 and 2007, only to meet the first and third vetoes of Bush’s presidency.

Many abortion opponents, such as Nancy Reagan and Sens. Orrin Hatch, Arlen Specter, and John McCain support the use of stem cells left over from fertility procedures at in vitro fertilization clinics â€" cells that would otherwise be discarded. After all, how is it preferable to let these cells go to waste rather than recycle them for use in research that could save countless lives?

Is it not also hypocritical to oppose embryonic stem cell research, while favoring IVF procedures that inevitably lead to left-over embryos, no larger than the period at the end of this sentence?

There are probably about 600,000 frozen embryos in the United States, left behind by couples who don’t want them anymore. These embryos’ fates are sealed and will eventually be discarded.

Public financing through the NIH accounts for about 80 percent of basic research since private industry cannot afford the bold risks associated with very early research. Once closer to market, private industry’s role is well-established for the development and testing of actual treatments.

Despite a recent discovery showing the ability of adult stem cells to revert to their embryonic state, scientists overwhelmingly agree that all stem cell research strategies should be pursued, as it is unknown which stem cells will be most suitable to finding the cures we seek.

Not only is there a moral imperative for stem cell research in the face of 100 million Americans suffering incurable and often deadly conditions, but there is also a strong economic imperative, considering that 70 percent of health-care costs are due to these disabling chronic and fatal diseases and injuries.

The cures expected from this research could lead to a much-needed reduction of our nation’s health-care expenditures.

I thank President Obama for helping people like my son Jason, who became paralyzed at age 7 after a soccer injury in Central Florida, to have the hope that one day he will walk again.

Armitage, an economist and stem cell research advocate from Jacksonville, was a Democratic candidate for Florida’s U.S. House District 7 against John Mica.

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2009/apr/09/faye-armitage-pro-con-was-president-right-lift-res/?printer=1/

[civil42806]

From the presidents ( Bush's) council of bio ethics

http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=3298

Bush's bioethics council will expire in a few months and President Obama will be selecting his own less-anti-science bio-ethics council.

As to:

The aim of this policy was not to shackle scientific research but to find a way to reconcile the need for research with the moral concerns people have. That is precisely how the council formulated the question in Monitoring Stem Cell Research: “How can embryonic stem cell research, conducted in accordance with basic research ethics, be maximally aided within the bounds of the principle that nascent human life should not be destroyed for research?”

"Nascent life" gets "destroyed" in the process of natural fertility as well as when conducting assisted fertility.

Maybe you should read this link:
Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos? Harvesting stem cells without tears. Ronald Bailey | December 22, 2004
http://reason.com/news/show/34948.html

Faye Armitage, pro-con: Was president right to lift restrictions on stem-cell research?

YES, change of policy will save lives, lower costs, create jobs

By Faye Armitage, guest columnist

Thursday, April 9, 2009



After a lost decade for the most cutting-edge innovation in medical research, President Barack Obama’s signature ushered in a new era of innovation and development that will create jobs, reduce health-care costs and save lives.

Though the National Institutes of Health supports this research, and despite the urging of 80 Nobel Laureates favoring stem cell research, former President George W. Bush severely restricted federally funded research to only a handful of old embryonic stem cell lines.

Lack of federal funding and supporting guidelines has put much of the research on hold since the first isolation of human embryonic stem cells in 1998. Twice the House and the Senate passed expanded stem cell research legislation, in 2005 and 2007, only to meet the first and third vetoes of Bush’s presidency.

Many abortion opponents, such as Nancy Reagan and Sens. Orrin Hatch, Arlen Specter, and John McCain support the use of stem cells left over from fertility procedures at in vitro fertilization clinics â€" cells that would otherwise be discarded. After all, how is it preferable to let these cells go to waste rather than recycle them for use in research that could save countless lives?

Is it not also hypocritical to oppose embryonic stem cell research, while favoring IVF procedures that inevitably lead to left-over embryos, no larger than the period at the end of this sentence?

There are probably about 600,000 frozen embryos in the United States, left behind by couples who don’t want them anymore. These embryos’ fates are sealed and will eventually be discarded.

Public financing through the NIH accounts for about 80 percent of basic research since private industry cannot afford the bold risks associated with very early research. Once closer to market, private industry’s role is well-established for the development and testing of actual treatments.

Despite a recent discovery showing the ability of adult stem cells to revert to their embryonic state, scientists overwhelmingly agree that all stem cell research strategies should be pursued, as it is unknown which stem cells will be most suitable to finding the cures we seek.

Not only is there a moral imperative for stem cell research in the face of 100 million Americans suffering incurable and often deadly conditions, but there is also a strong economic imperative, considering that 70 percent of health-care costs are due to these disabling chronic and fatal diseases and injuries.

The cures expected from this research could lead to a much-needed reduction of our nation’s health-care expenditures.

I thank President Obama for helping people like my son Jason, who became paralyzed at age 7 after a soccer injury in Central Florida, to have the hope that one day he will walk again.

Armitage, an economist and stem cell research advocate from Jacksonville, was a Democratic candidate for Florida’s U.S. House District 7 against John Mica.

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2009/apr/09/faye-armitage-pro-con-was-president-right-lift-res/?printer=1/

Utter rubbish, the presidents council on bio-ethics is not anti-science as was made clear from the article.  Does natural loss occur of embryos occur of course it does.   The whole stem cell  was not anti science.   But an issue of ethics.   If you believe that the ethics are wrong then make that argument.  But don't stand on your corner and yell that its anti scienc

here is a great article from wired.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/obamastemcells2.html

The really good thing about this article is it addresses the ethic that scientists have to address.  Feel they have gotten away from that

[FayeforCure]

civil42806, I find it unethical and actually quite cruel that opponents of blastocyst stem cell research would rather the cells go to waste that to help save lives. How incredibly hypocritical!

You don't impose your ideology on others. Simple as that.

Stem cell research is overwhelmingly viewed as a scientific issue:

How do you view the issue of stem-cell research?
We didn't record your vote, because this poll has been closed.

Scientific 73% 143 votes
Political 4% 9 votes
Moral/Religious 18% 36 votes
None of the above 1% 2 votes
No opinion 2% 4 votes
194 total votes 

http://www.tcpalm.com/polls/2009/mar/10TPPOLL/results/

And if you still feel a little ball of cells that is barely visible to the naked eye, and that is going to be trashed, should be trashed rather than save people's lives, please carefully read the following:

I, and others, know firsthand the need to study stem cells
By KIM LUTE

Friday, April 10, 2009

Every morning I buy a cup of Earl Gray tea from a Georgia woman whose son is dying a preventable death. Her 20-year-old son is awaiting a kidney transplant. Years ago she gave him one of her own kidneys, but now it too has failed. Some days she appears certain a second organ donation is imminent. More often than not, however, she tosses her arms up in a long-suffering way that suggests their lives have ground to a halt.

Recently, she admitted that her son’s condition had become so perilous that he might not even be strong enough to withstand transplantation. How could society allow her son to die? If they could only get to know him, to see the glint in his eyes and witness firsthand his sense of comedic timing, surely someone would feel compelled to consider donating a kidney. I didn’t tell her that I knew exactly what she was going through, that once upon a time I too faced a preventable death.

In 1996 and 2001 I underwent liver transplants after lengthy bouts with autoimmune hepatitis and PSC, respectively. I was fortunate. Many Americans awaiting organ and bone marrow donations, especially African-Americans, are not.

For this reason alone, President Barack Obama’s recent decision to reverse the previous administration’s ban limiting the amount of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is a clear victory for both the medical communities and the countless number of families who will benefit from stem cell research.

For the more than 100,000 Americans awaiting organ donation (almost a third are African-Americans), their lives suspended in a state of uncertainty and vulnerability, the lack of organ and tissue donors is more than a national disgrace. It’s a death sentence. Every day nearly 20 Americans die because there is a chronic shortage of organs.

But the answer is not to simply find 20 additional donors. Instead, we need to foster medical research that, as Obama insists, marries “sound scientific data with our own moral imperatives.” If saving lives is not your business, then whose is it?

Neither of my transplants came quickly. On average, I waited two years for each donor â€" two years in which I lingered just this side of death. And while researchers insist that embryonic stem cell research is still in its infancy, and a long way off from benefiting those awaiting transplants, Obama’s decision to “restore our nation’s commitment to scientific research” could, one day, lessen human suffering.

Recently, an article in the British medical journal The Lancet announced that a team of international doctors performed a pioneering and successful windpipe transplant on a young Colombian woman. A donated trachea was re-engineered using the woman’s own stem cells â€" extracted from her bone marrow â€" thus eliminating the need for immunosuppressant drugs. This biological and transformative structure renewed hopes that manufactured organs might revolutionize the concept of traditional transplantation. Now that stem cell research will be better funded, perhaps science can succeed where human generosity has failed. Perhaps no one else will face a preventable death.

While controversy over the source of stems cells â€" particularly those from embryos â€" has impeded research and fueled debates, those suffering from life-threatening illnesses continue to face preventable deaths. Earlier generations certainly balked at the notion of traditional organ transplants, which have long suffered from comparisons to Frankenstein-type medicine. Yet, without doctors and researchers willing to force our imaginations by redrawing medical boundaries, future generations, like the 20-year-old whose life has sputtered and stalled, will fall victim to more than just their respective illnesses.

• Kim Lute is an associate producer at CNN International in Atlanta.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2009/04/10/luteed_0410.html

[civil42806]

civil42806, I find it unethical and actually quite cruel that opponents of blastocyst stem cell research would rather the cells go to waste that to help save lives. How incredibly hypocritical!

You don't impose your ideology on others. Simple as that.

Stem cell research is overwhelmingly viewed as a scientific issue:

How do you view the issue of stem-cell research?
We didn't record your vote, because this poll has been closed.

Scientific 73% 143 votes
Political 4% 9 votes
Moral/Religious 18% 36 votes
None of the above 1% 2 votes
No opinion 2% 4 votes
194 total votes 

http://www.tcpalm.com/polls/2009/mar/10TPPOLL/results/

And if you still feel a little ball of cells that is barely visible to the naked eye, and that is going to be trashed, should be trashed rather than save people's lives, please carefully read the following:

I, and others, know firsthand the need to study stem cells
By KIM LUTE

Friday, April 10, 2009

Every morning I buy a cup of Earl Gray tea from a Georgia woman whose son is dying a preventable death. Her 20-year-old son is awaiting a kidney transplant. Years ago she gave him one of her own kidneys, but now it too has failed. Some days she appears certain a second organ donation is imminent. More often than not, however, she tosses her arms up in a long-suffering way that suggests their lives have ground to a halt.

Recently, she admitted that her son’s condition had become so perilous that he might not even be strong enough to withstand transplantation. How could society allow her son to die? If they could only get to know him, to see the glint in his eyes and witness firsthand his sense of comedic timing, surely someone would feel compelled to consider donating a kidney. I didn’t tell her that I knew exactly what she was going through, that once upon a time I too faced a preventable death.

In 1996 and 2001 I underwent liver transplants after lengthy bouts with autoimmune hepatitis and PSC, respectively. I was fortunate. Many Americans awaiting organ and bone marrow donations, especially African-Americans, are not.

For this reason alone, President Barack Obama’s recent decision to reverse the previous administration’s ban limiting the amount of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is a clear victory for both the medical communities and the countless number of families who will benefit from stem cell research.

For the more than 100,000 Americans awaiting organ donation (almost a third are African-Americans), their lives suspended in a state of uncertainty and vulnerability, the lack of organ and tissue donors is more than a national disgrace. It’s a death sentence. Every day nearly 20 Americans die because there is a chronic shortage of organs.

But the answer is not to simply find 20 additional donors. Instead, we need to foster medical research that, as Obama insists, marries “sound scientific data with our own moral imperatives.” If saving lives is not your business, then whose is it?

Neither of my transplants came quickly. On average, I waited two years for each donor â€" two years in which I lingered just this side of death. And while researchers insist that embryonic stem cell research is still in its infancy, and a long way off from benefiting those awaiting transplants, Obama’s decision to “restore our nation’s commitment to scientific research” could, one day, lessen human suffering.

Recently, an article in the British medical journal The Lancet announced that a team of international doctors performed a pioneering and successful windpipe transplant on a young Colombian woman. A donated trachea was re-engineered using the woman’s own stem cells â€" extracted from her bone marrow â€" thus eliminating the need for immunosuppressant drugs. This biological and transformative structure renewed hopes that manufactured organs might revolutionize the concept of traditional transplantation. Now that stem cell research will be better funded, perhaps science can succeed where human generosity has failed. Perhaps no one else will face a preventable death.

While controversy over the source of stems cells â€" particularly those from embryos â€" has impeded research and fueled debates, those suffering from life-threatening illnesses continue to face preventable deaths. Earlier generations certainly balked at the notion of traditional organ transplants, which have long suffered from comparisons to Frankenstein-type medicine. Yet, without doctors and researchers willing to force our imaginations by redrawing medical boundaries, future generations, like the 20-year-old whose life has sputtered and stalled, will fall victim to more than just their respective illnesses.

• Kim Lute is an associate producer at CNN International in Atlanta.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2009/04/10/luteed_0410.html

With all due respect your still missing the point.  I'm agnostic as far as stem cell research goes, I really don't care.  there are some great advances stem cell research, particulary in having the ability to fool skin cells into mimicking stem cells which would allow us to have a virtually unlimited number to use and experiment with.  The point of my posts was to argue, as the links I posted, was that there are ethical issues that have to be discussed.  I don't think anyone here would want science unlinked from ethics.  the issue here is not that the Bush administration was Anti science but they had ethical issues about using embryos to do the science.  I think the best comparsion would be that well since everyone dies why not just harvest there organs.   I understand that others don't agree but  there are consideration on both sides that need to be discussed and argued and not simply people saying anti-science

[BridgeTroll]

I want to expand the ethical argument.  Currently... at least as I understand it... the research has expanded to only to include spare embryos.  Embryos conceived as part of an in vitro fertilization procedure.  If this is indeed the case I myself can uneasily support the expansion of research, since the embryos may be destroyed in any case... BUT...

We often reference "the laws of unintended consequences" on this site.  Well meaning people making well intended decisions that have disastrous or sad results.

Moral questions regarding this research include... 

What is the difference between a "spare " and "research" embryos.
Would embryos "harvested" from aborted fetuses be included?
Who owns the product of said research?  Who profits?
What happens when more lines are needed?

Finally... there are many people in this country who believe the end does not justify the means. In this case, curing even thousands of persons does not justify the destruction of others, even though they are still in the embryonic state of development.

[FayeforCure]

Currently... at least as I understand it... the research has expanded to only to include spare embryos.  Embryos conceived as part of an in vitro fertilization procedure.  If this is indeed the case I myself can uneasily support the expansion of research, since the embryos may be destroyed in any case...

Thank you Bridge Troll.

[BridgeTroll]

Your welcome... but just to be clear...

If this is indeed the case I myself can uneasily support the expansion

[FayeforCure]

Great News for people with ALS!!!!

Neuralstem Receives FDA Approval to Commence First ALS Stem Cell Trial



    Neuralstem Logo. (PRNewsFoto/NEURALSTEM, INC.)

ROCKVILLE, MD UNITED STATES

   

   


ROCKVILLE, Md., Sept. 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Neuralstem, Inc. (NYSE Amex: CUR) today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved its Investigational New Drug (IND) application to commence a Phase I trial to treat Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease) with its spinal cord stem cells.


(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20061221/DCTH007LOGO )


Neuralstem is the first company to commence a stem cell trial to treat ALS. The trial will study the safety of Neuralstem's cells and the surgical procedures and devices required for multiple injections of Neuralstem's cells directly into the grey matter of the spinal cord. The FDA's approval represents a significant step toward delivering regenerative medicine directly to damaged neural cells in humans. ALS affects roughly 30,000 people in the U.S., with about 7,000 new diagnoses per year.


Neuralstem CEO and President, Richard Garr, stated, "The beginning of our clinical trial program is a major step towards achieving Neuralstem's goal of treating ALS, a fatal neurodegenerative disease for which currently there is no effective treatment or cure. While this trial aims to primarily establish safety and feasibility data in treating ALS patients, we also hope to be able to measure a slowing down of the ALS degenerative process. This trial will be in the extremely capable hands of Dr. Eva L. Feldman, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the University of Michigan Health System ALS Clinic and the Program for Neurology Research & Discovery, and Dr. Jonathan Glass, Director of the Emory Neuromuscular Laboratory and Director of the Emory ALS Center, world-renowned for their study and treatment of ALS patients. We believe that there is no better team to conduct this study for us," said Garr. Their participation is subject to formal IRB approval by their institutions.


"We are very excited about this clinical trial," said Dr. Eva L. Feldman, who will direct the Neuralstem clinical trial program for ALS. "This is a major advancement in what still could be a long road to a new and improved treatment for ALS. ALS is a terrible disease that ultimately kills by paralysis," said Feldman, who also directs the A. Alfred Taubman Medical Research Institute. "In work with animals, these spinal cord stem cells both protected at-risk motor neurons and made connections to the neurons controlling muscles. We don't want to raise expectations unduly, but we believe these stem cells could produce similar results in patients with ALS," Dr. Feldman concluded.


About the Trial


The ALS patients will be treated through spinal injections of its patented human neural stem cells.


This first trial, which will primarily evaluate safety of the cells and the surgery procedure, will ultimately consist of 18 ALS patients with varying degrees of the disease. The FDA has approved the first stage of the trial, which consists of 12 patients who will receive five-to-ten stem cell injections in the lumbar area of the spinal cord. The patients will be examined at regular intervals post-surgery, with final review of the data to come about 24 months later.


Neuralstem expects to conduct the trial at Emory University with Dr. Jonathan Glass, M.D., Director of the Emory Neuromuscular Laboratory and Director of the Emory ALS Center, as site Principal Investigator (PI) and with Dr. Nicholas Boulis, M. D. performing the neurosurgery.

The overall PI for the ALS trial program is Dr. Eva Feldman, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the University of Michigan Health System ALS Clinic and the Program for Neurology Research & Discovery.


About Neuralstem, Inc.


Neuralstem's patented technology enables, for the first time, the ability to produce neural stem cells of the human brain and spinal cord in commercial quantities, and the ability to control the differentiation of these cells into mature, physiologically relevant human neurons and glia. The company is targeting major central nervous system diseases including: Ischemic Spastic Paraplegia, Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury, Huntington's disease and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), often referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease. Neuralstem plans to initiate a Phase I clinical trial to treat ALS with its stem cells. ALS is a progressive fatal neurodegenerative disease that affects nerve cells in the brain, leading to the degeneration and death of the motor neurons in the spinal cord that control muscle movement. Pre-clinical work has shown Neuralstem's cells to extend the life of rats with ALS (as reported the journal TRANSPLANTATION, October 16, 2006, in collaboration with Johns Hopkins University researchers), and also reversed paralysis in rats with Ischemic Spastic Paraplegia, (as reported in NEUROSCIENCE, June 29, 2007, in collaboration with researchers at University of California San Diego).

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-21-2009/0005097344&EDATE=

[BridgeTroll]

This is indeed good news... of course... no one objects to cures ffrom stem cells or stem cell research.  The issue has always been... embryonic stem cells.