(http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z276/fayeforcure/FayeandJasonArmitage.jpg)
We made it to the front page of the Orlando Sentinel!
orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-asec-stem-cell-research-031009,0,4995809.story (http://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.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=133670&catid=3 (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
Your son is lucky to have you Faye. Congratulations!
Awesome! I hope this helps Jason, and many like him who could benefit from stem-cell treatments, make a beautiful recovery.
From the presidents council of bio ethics
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=3298
Very interesting... a dry but worthy read.
Quote from: civil42806 on March 26, 2009, 08:20:29 AM
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:
QuoteThe 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?â€
"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 (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 jobsBy Faye Armitage, guest columnist
Thursday, April 9, 2009
(http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z276/fayeforcure/fayearticle.jpg)
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/ (http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2009/apr/09/faye-armitage-pro-con-was-president-right-lift-res/?printer=1/)
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 09, 2009, 08:19:26 PM
Quote from: civil42806 on March 26, 2009, 08:20:29 AM
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:
QuoteThe 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?â€
"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 (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
(http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z276/fayeforcure/fayearticle.jpg)
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/ (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
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:
QuoteHow 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 cellsBy 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 (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2009/04/10/luteed_0410.html)
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 09, 2009, 11:21:12 PM
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:
QuoteHow 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 (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
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.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 15, 2009, 08:06:08 AM
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.
Your welcome... but just to be clear...
QuoteIf this is indeed the case I myself can uneasily support the expansion
Great News for people with ALS!!!!
QuoteNeuralstem 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=
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.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 21, 2009, 12:05:40 PM
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.
The interesting thing about Neurostem is that they use fetal stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells. Oddly enough fetal tissue research has been legal all along.
None of it should be legal.
How are the fetal cells harvested? I assume they do not kill the children to do so...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 21, 2009, 04:35:38 PM
How are the fetal cells harvested? I assume they do not kill the children to do so...
The tissue comes from natural and induced abortions:
QuoteAlthough fetal tissue research has led to medical advances, including the development of the polio and rubella vaccines in the 1950s, it has also generated controversy because of its use of fetuses from elective ABORTIONS. Fetal tissue research has been subject to strict government regulation and periodic moratoriums on federal funding. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993 (Pub. L. No. 103-43 [42 U.S.C.A. §§ 289g-1, -2])
Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/6861/Fetal-Tissue-Research.html#ixzz0Rm9ebpUH
QuoteHistory
Fetal tissue research has been conducted in the United States since the middle of the twentieth century. Its practice became more common as the amount of biomedical research increased and as restrictions on the availability of abortion decreased. Research on fetal tissue led to significant advances in the scientific understanding of fetal development and in the diagnosis and treatment of fetal diseases and defects, including the development of amniocentesis as a diagnostic tool. It also played a role in advancing the scientific understanding of cancer, immunology, and transplantation.
Because fetal tissue grows more rapidly and is more flexible than other human tissue, and is less likely to be rejected by the immune system, it has also been used to treat diseases through transplantation. Fetal tissue transplantation usually involves the injection of fetal cells into a diseased organ such as the brain or pancreas. Many scientists believe that fetal tissue transplantation will lead to significant new developments in medical science. Researchers have already had limited success in using fetal tissue transplants to treat patients with Parkinson's disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, and other illnesses. Although most medical ethicists agree that these new procedures hold great promise, they warn that the use of fetal tissue must be strictly regulated in order to avoid ethical abuses.
Law
Fetal tissue research became a subject of controversy in U.S. law following the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, which protects the right of a woman to have an abortion in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy. After Roe, research performed on fetuses obtained from elective abortions came under close scrutiny.
In 1974, the National Research Act (Pub. L. No. 93-348) created a national commission to oversee research involving fetuses. This body released research guidelines and also placed restrictions on what types of fetal research might be allowed to receive federal funding.
In 1988, NIH scientists requested approval from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to begin transplantation experiments using fetal brain tissue. Because the administration of President Ronald Reagan was concerned about the link between fetal tissue research and abortion, the HHS imposed a temporary moratorium on federal funds for research in fetal tissue transplantation. Although a twenty-one-member NIH panel later approved the use of human fetal tissue for transplantation and disagreed with the contention that such research would cause more abortions, the moratorium was extended indefinitely by Secretary Louis W. Sullivan, of the HHS, in 1989.
In subsequent years, legislation to overturn the moratorium repeatedly failed in Congress. Then, shortly after taking office in 1993, President Bill Clinton ordered the end of the moratorium (58 Fed. Reg. 7457). Later in 1993, Congress passed the NIH Revitalization Act, which permits the tissue from any type of abortion to be used for fetal tissue research. The law includes elaborate consent and documentation requirements that attempt to separate the mother's decision to abort from the decision to donate fetal remains. It also criminalizes the sale or purchase of fetal tissue and the designation of the recipient of fetal tissue.
http://www.answers.com/topic/fetal-tissue-research
You forgot this part... :o Thank god we have a steady supply huh...
QuoteThe Debate
Those opposed to fetal tissue research have made a number of arguments against the use of fetuses from elective abortions. Morally opposed to abortion itself, they argue that the fetal tissue researcher is complicit in the destruction of the fetus and that fetal tissue research will create incentives for more abortions. Moreover, they maintain that a woman who has an abortion cannot legally authorize research on the aborted fetus because she has abandoned her parental responsibility through the act of abortion. They also argue that fetal tissue research can and should be restricted to fetuses from spontaneous abortions and ectopic pregnancies.
Those who favor fetal tissue research contend that it has already led to significant medical gains that have saved and improved many lives, and will continue to do so. They argue that researchers have an ethical duty to relieve suffering and cure diseases and that fetal tissue research contributes greatly to this cause. They also contend that researchers must continue to have access to ethically obtained fetuses. They hold that the tissue of fetuses from elective abortions has far fewer defects and is much easier to obtain than that of fetuses from nonelective abortions or ectopic pregnancies.
Yep it is... Good thing too. Gotta have those cells...
QuoteThey also contend that researchers must continue to have access to ethically obtained fetuses.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 21, 2009, 05:15:47 PM
Yep it is... Good thing too. Gotta have those cells...
QuoteThey also contend that researchers must continue to have access to ethically obtained fetuses.
Yeah, just imagine if we hadn't been able to develop the Polio and Rubella vaccine in the 1950s, through fetal tissue research,........many children would be born with deformities ( rubella during pregnancy), and many children would die prematurely from Polio.
Already fetal tissue research has saved many lives.
Think of the lives saved if we would only abort more...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 21, 2009, 05:37:09 PM
Think of the lives saved if we would only abort more...
Instead of saying hatefull and ignorant things why dont you state why you feel its wrong. Or why you are against it since you did stick your nose in here and comment.
Quote from: stephendare on September 21, 2009, 05:39:00 PM
what an asinine thing to say. I bet your twice as devoted to the sanctity of life when it comes to killing women in the middle east by accidental bombing? right?
and that doesnt help any argument to fireback with o.O and where did that come from anyway??????
I suspect BridgeTroll was being ironic. But here, let me say something that will REALLY get you all started.
If I could, I'd gladly get pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion in order to give a certain someone I love a supply of fetal stem cells. It's all just construction material as far as I'm concerned.
QuoteInstead of saying hatefull and ignorant things why dont you state why you feel its wrong. Or why you are against it since you did stick your nose in here and comment.
I said nothing hateful nor ignorant. Before this discussion goes into religion... I am not religious. I dont act because god tells me so. While I respect your love and devotion to your loved ones Hoop(ya know I do...) this is where MY problem is with the action of "harvesting" fetal cells. Why stop there? Why not sell the fetuses? When will it become legal to take fertility drugs and harvest the multiple fetus and sell em? Hell... it is probably happening somewhere. Is this what Faye means by civilised society?
QuoteAnd it is no more monstrous than organ donation or cadaver research.
Organ donation and cadaver rearch are not monstrous... In the case of cadaver research... the subject is dead. Organ donation ... same thing or consenting adult.
Organ theft is... er... theft. Not sure who the others are...
And of course, there has never been a "ban" on embryonic stem cell research, just federal funding of new lines of embryonic stem cell research. By using federal taxpayer monies, the use of human embryonic stem cells is forced on all of us.
My personal beliefs shudder at the thought of using human embryos in "research". But I must temper that with the knowledge that I am not in Faye's shoes. Just as my opinion on abortion is based on respect for human life, I know that I am not looking at the issue from the point of view of a pregnant 16 year old girl. I don't know the answer and I'll add this to a long list of things that I beg God's forgiveness for. And I hope that Faye's son and others gain greatly from these actions that our government has taken.
That you refer to this as a silly argument shows you hold little regard for opposing views in this matter.
To be honest you both are very hardheaded on this subject :D
This was a government decision, just as it was a government decision when President Bush limited federal funding to existing lines. "The People" didn't vote on this issue, neither did our representatives. But all of that is beside the point now. I do support sex education, as do most people, the disagreement of course comes from what that education consist of and when it is given. That is a discussion for another thread.
I mentioned the abortion quandary not as a part of this debate, but as another example of an ethics decision that I am not in danger of suffering great personal loss from. Faye is obviously concerned about the well being of her son, thus her view of the ethics in this case is very personal. I am simply pointing out that while I am personally opposed to abortion, I recognize that a pregnant 16 year old girl has a much more personal stake in the debate.
While we all want to minimize the deaths or tragic circumstances of others, it is not reasonable to use human deaths as an argument in such a matter. How many lives could be saved by outlawing alcohol? By setting the national speed limit to 40 mph? By rationing types and portions of food? And the lists goes on and on. This is a public policy and ethics debate. This is not the last time we will do this over bio-engineering. A reasonable standard must be reached eventually.
QuoteTo be honest you both are very hardheaded on this subject
The difference is... I dont think his justification or rational is silly. Just wrong.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 21, 2009, 07:20:10 PM
QuoteTo be honest you both are very hardheaded on this subject
The difference is... I dont think his justification or rational is silly. Just wrong.
and you have explained and backed your oppion with
Hard Facts and not hypotheticals stating why you feel this way so strongly?
The piece Faye left off her article says it pretty well...
QuoteThose opposed to fetal tissue research have made a number of arguments against the use of fetuses from elective abortions. Morally opposed to abortion itself, they argue that the fetal tissue researcher is complicit in the destruction of the fetus and that fetal tissue research will create incentives for more abortions. Moreover, they maintain that a woman who has an abortion cannot legally authorize research on the aborted fetus because she has abandoned her parental responsibility through the act of abortion. They also argue that fetal tissue research can and should be restricted to fetuses from spontaneous abortions and ectopic pregnancies.
Id like to see a work cited argument from both sides to be honest
*goes back to lurking*
Go back and read post #19 there Sport... wayyy ahead of ya. :)
I'm not opposed to the research, but I found this article interesting.
Quote
Decades Away: The Dirty Secret of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
"But quadriplegics probably shouldn't sign up for the New York City Marathon just yet. If these cures are just around the corner, this corner is far, far away. And that's according to ES cell researchers and funding advocates themselves. The time frame for the first of those miracles seems routinely to be given as a "decade," as in "a decade away" or "a decade off." And it keeps shifting."
http://www.fumento.com/biotech/stemcell2009.html
Quote from: Sigma on September 22, 2009, 12:30:11 PM
I'm not opposed to the research, but I found this article interesting.
Quote
Decades Away: The Dirty Secret of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
"But quadriplegics probably shouldn't sign up for the New York City Marathon just yet. If these cures are just around the corner, this corner is far, far away. And that's according to ES cell researchers and funding advocates themselves. The time frame for the first of those miracles seems routinely to be given as a "decade," as in "a decade away" or "a decade off." And it keeps shifting."
http://www.fumento.com/biotech/stemcell2009.html
Sigma, glad you are not opposed to the research. fumento is a conservatuve with questionable reputation on science issues.
QuoteFumento describes himself as a political conservative.[7] He has drawn criticism from liberal and veterans' activist groups for his views on Gulf War Syndrome
My son and I are well aware that he may live his entire life imprisoned in a body that doesn't work for him,.......what we will NEVER accept is for cells to be trashed when these cells could be recycled for use in research that could hold recovery,........so the life he knew can be restored.
Nobel Prize Winner Elizabeth Blackburn Was An Outspoken Opponent Of Bush’s Politicization Of Science
Yesterday, three American scientists â€" Elizabeth Blackburn, Carol Greider, and Jack Szostak â€" were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their contributions to the study of cell biology in a way that positively impacts our understanding of cancer and aging.
One of the stories not being covered about the Nobel winners is that one of them, Australian-American researcher Elizabeth Blackburn, played a “brave role†in exposing the Bush administration’s anti-science policies, particularly with respect to blocking embryonic stem cell research.
Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attack, Blackburn was appointed a member of the “President’s Council of Bioethics,†the body charged with “advising the President on ethical issues related to advances in biomedical science and technology.†“Like everyone during that time, I wanted to do something, anything,†she told the press.
An “outspoken advocate†for embryonic stem cell research, Blackburn objected to President Bush’s position on the issue, which was to veto legislation that would have freed up federal funding for it. While the council is supposed to exist to provide a variety of views to the President on a whole host of bioethics issues, Blackburn soon found that under the Bush administration, “scientific research…[was] being manipulated for political ends.â€
Eventually, the Bush administration decided that it would no longer tolerate Blackburn’s dissent. On Feb. 27, 2004, the administration dismissed Blackburn and another dissident scientist, Dr. William May, from the council. Dean Clancy, the executive director of the council, maintained that politics had nothing to do with her dismissal, telling the press, “The charge that she was let go because of her policy views is utterly without merit.â€
Yet scientists around the country were not convinced. Following her dismissal, more than 170 researchers sent an open letter to the President protesting the decision. Janet Rowley, University of Chicago medical professor and fellow council member, told USA Today that she agreed with the researchers that Blackburn was fired for her views, “Liz is an important example of the absolutely destructive practices of the Bush administration.â€
For her part, Blackburn said that she didn’t “feel martyred.†Rather, she said she saw her dismissal as “a badge of honor.†Following her firing, she wrote a scathing indictment of her time on the council in the New England Annals of Medicine, writing that science should be “protected from the influence of politics“:
As a naturalized citizen of the United States, I have an immigrant’s love for my country. But our country must not fail us. Scientific advice should and must be protected from the influence of politics. Will the President’s Council on Bioethics be up to that challenge?
Blackburn will receive one-third of the $1.4 million prize granted to the trio of researchers. She is the first Australian woman to ever win the Nobel Prize.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/06/elizabeth-blackburn-bush/
QuoteFrontline: Belated progress made on stem cells
by Editorial Staff
Friday, October 23, 2009
George W. Bush may no longer be president, but his policies blocking stem cell research in the U.S. still loom over the head of Bellingham resident and Whatcom Community College student Erik Gelhar.
Gelhar has been diagnosed with heart failure and will be seeking treatment in Germany that involves using stem cells from his body to try and stabilize his heart.
The procedure is currently unavailable in the U.S. Perhaps that is because former President Bush severely limited stem cell research during his termâ€"perhaps not. However, Bush’s policies have slowed down the development of this important medical field in the U.S. If American citizens must travel overseas in order to get medical procedures that could and should be available in this country, there is a problem.
Much of the controversy about stem cells rises from the fact that the most versatile stem cells, the ones that can be coaxed into forming any manner of body tissue, come from human embryos. Extracting stem cells from embryos does cause their destructionâ€"an upsetting fact for many people. But they should stop to consider that many thousands more embryos are discarded or kept in cold storage by fertility clinics, according to the Time Magazine article “The false controversy of stem cells.â€
It is not criminal to use embryonic stem cells for medical procedures that can save lives. It is criminal to allow such cells to go to waste.
Fortunately for Gelhar and other U.S. citizens, President Obama has more foresight then his predecessor, at least on this issue. On March 9, 2009 he lifted the restriction on federal funding of stem cell research. According to the Reuters article “Obama lifts Bush restrictions on stem cell research,†the National Institutes of Health was given time to review the guidelines concerning the research and recommend new approaches.
The U.S. needs a new direction with stem cells. If citizens must travel to Europe for treatments involving these versatile little cells, what does that say about this country’s competitive edge in science and medical technology? In the midst of an economic recession, America must fine-tune its expertise in fields that establish it as a global leader.
Stem cells are going to be an important part of the effort to remain competitive and advance research that has the potential to be enormously beneficial. It’s good news that their neglect by the federal government is at an end.
Gelhar is not without support however. A benefit concert will be held in his honor at 8 p.m. Friday Oct. 23, at the Nightlight Lounge. Five dollars is the suggested donation, and bands such as Black Breath and Heiress will play. The concert benefits will go toward Gelhar’s medical bills in Germany.
Student and community members who think a community should recieve the help he needs should attend the concert Friday and give their support. Those who want to see stem cell research progress in the United States should let their representatives know by calling or mailing in their opinions.
http://westernfrontonline.net/2009102311460/frontline/frontline-belated-progress-made-on-stem-cells/
QuoteGeorge W. Bush may no longer be president, but his policies blocking stem cell research in the U.S. still loom over the head of Bellingham resident and Whatcom Community College student Erik Gelhar.
Gelhar has been diagnosed with heart failure and will be seeking treatment in Germany that involves using stem cells from his body to try and stabilize his heart.
The procedure is currently unavailable in the U.S. Perhaps that is because former President Bush severely limited stem cell research during his termâ€"
Bush never blocked stem cell research... he blocked creating new lines of EMBRYONIC stem cell research. Gigantic and huge difference. Ya gotta know the difference Faye. You also have to understand why.
He didnt hate parapalegics, or folks with disease, he was not against advancement of cures for these problems. He had a moral and ethical objection to the dissection and destruction of human embryo for research. He... and many others think by allowing this to happen you are letting an insidious genie out of the bottle... cracking open a door that will only open wider. There are very likely going to be unintended consequenses. He did not want to be part of that.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 23, 2009, 01:11:33 PM
QuoteGeorge W. Bush may no longer be president, but his policies blocking stem cell research in the U.S. still loom over the head of Bellingham resident and Whatcom Community College student Erik Gelhar.
Gelhar has been diagnosed with heart failure and will be seeking treatment in Germany that involves using stem cells from his body to try and stabilize his heart.
The procedure is currently unavailable in the U.S. Perhaps that is because former President Bush severely limited stem cell research during his termâ€"
He (Bush) didnt hate parapalegics, or folks with disease, he was not against advancement of cures for these problems.
He had a moral and ethical objection to the dissection and destruction of human embryo for research.
Hmmmm, but Bush had no moral or ethical objection to throwing embryos by the thousands in the trash at fertility clinics nationwide. Go figure.
As the article states:
QuoteIt is not criminal to use embryonic stem cells for medical procedures that can save lives. It is criminal to allow such cells to go to waste.
QuoteHmmmm, but Bush had no moral or ethical objection to throwing embryos by the thousands in the trash at fertility clinics nationwide.
How do you come up with this?? I bet he does have objections to this. Can you provide a quote or source that Bush thinks these embryos should be thrown in the trash? Cmon Faye..... ::)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 23, 2009, 02:39:50 PM
QuoteHmmmm, but Bush had no moral or ethical objection to throwing embryos by the thousands in the trash at fertility clinics nationwide.
How do you come up with this?? I bet he does have objections to this. Can you provide a quote or source that Bush thinks these embryos should be thrown in the trash? Cmon Faye..... ::)
BT, where was Bush's Executive order closing down fertility clinics? After all THAT is where more embryos get trashed than ever would get used in embryonic stem cell research.
Excellent post Thanksgiving news today!!!!
QuoteFriday, November 27, 2009
Emory wins 1st stem cell trial for ALSAtlanta Business Chronicle - by Urvaksh Karkaria Staff Writer
joann vitelli
Dr. Jonathan Glass: “It’s going to make us the center of attention for anybody who wants to do stem cell injections into the spinal cord for other diseases.â€
View Larger Emory University will be the site of the first U.S. clinical trail that focuses on using stem cells to slow the progression of adults with Lou Gehrig’s disease.
Rockville, Md.-based Neuralstem Inc. (Amex: CUR) hopes to use neural stem cells from the spinal cord of a fetus to slow the progression of adults with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.
The early-stage trial, which could include up to 18 patients, will test the safety of the injection process and the implanted stem cells.
“No one’s ever injected cells directly into the gray matter of the spinal cord,†Neuralstem President and CEO Richard Garr said.
ALS is a disease of the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that control voluntary muscle movement. ALS patients typically die within three years of diagnosis. About 30,000 people in the U.S. have the degenerative condition and about 7,000 are newly diagnosed each year. There are more than 500 Georgians with ALS.
Embryonic stem cell research is controversial locally and nationally. President Barack Obama signed an executive order in March lifting restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The Georgia Senate, however, OK’d legislation this year that would have shut down most forms of embryonic stem cell research in the state. However, the proposal, which failed in the Georgia House of Representatives, would not have prevented researchers from using new stem cell lines brought in from out of state or existing stem cell lines.
Unlike Neuralstem’s spinal cord-derived stem cells, most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in an in vitro fertilization clinic.
The internationally watched Neuralstem trial will put Emory’s ALS program â€" one of the largest ALS clinics in the country â€" on the map.
Emory was chosen as the site of the trial because it “has one of the best, if not the best, ALS clinicians and research groups,†Garr said. Emory neurosurgeon Dr. Nicholas Boulis developed the surgical techniques to implant the stem cells in the adult spinal cord.
The high-profile clinical trial will accelerate Emory’s translational research, said Dr. Jonathan Glass, principal investigator for the trial and director of the Emory ALS Center.
“It’s going to make us the center of attention for anybody who wants to do stem cell injections into the spinal cord for other diseases,†Glass said. “They’re going to come to us ... and say, ‘How do you do it?’ ‘What’s the best way to do it?’ and ‘Teach us how to do it.’ â€
The publicity surrounding the trial will also make Atlantans aware of the resources in their own back yard, Glass noted.
“When people get sick, some of them go to the Mayo Clinic,†he said. “The reality is that they have the best thing in town and maybe they need to see that.â€
People are born with a specific number of spinal cord neural cells, which typically last a lifetime. In ALS patients, certain neural cells die early. When that happens, the spinal cord isn’t able to send messages to the body’s muscles, which in turn atrophy.
Neuralstem hopes its spinal cord-derived stem cells will protect healthy neural cells and repair those that have ceased communicating with the patient’s muscles. That loss of signal triggers muscle atrophy and eventual paralysis that ALS patients suffer.
“The promise of stem cells has been hanging out there for probably more than a decade,†Glass said. “Nobody has really tried it in a systematic way.â€
Stem cells are able to find their way to the injured region and transform into nurturing cells, Glass said. “What I’m hoping for,†he said, “is that ... these [stem] cells will set up shop in this region of injury and provide some kind of nurturing effect that will protect the cells that are still there, and possibly even allow the sick cells to reconnect with the muscles.â€
Neuralstem reported in the online journal Neuroscience that three rats paralyzed by a specific spinal cord injury returned to near-normal ambulatory function six weeks after having stems cells grafted to their spinal cords. Three others showed significant improvement after two months. In all the grafted animals, the majority of the transplanted stem cells survived and became mature neurons, Neuralstem said.
The Phase I human trial will test the safety of the procedure which involves delivering the stem cells to a delicate spot â€" the spinal cord. “Just looking at the spinal cord can hurt it,†Glass quipped.
There’s a lot more at stake than Neuralstem’s fortunes. “If we mess up,†Glass said, “we could take the whole stem cell therapeutic idea and kind of set it back 10 years.â€
The trial, while small, is significant in terms of helping move the science forward and potentially develop a treatment for ALS, said Lucy Bruijn, chief scientist at The ALS Association.
“It’s a disease that’s desperately looking for a good treatment,†she said. “Stem cells have been extremely promising, but there haven’t been very many rigourous efforts, at least in the clinic ... to try this out.â€
ALS involves a complicated systems of cells that connect the brain to the spinal cord, which then connect to muscles, Bruijn said. “Clearly, it’s a tricky thing as to where exactly do you put these [stem] cells to have the best benefit,†she said.
Using technology, developed at the National Institutes of Health, Neuralstem can expand stem cells taken from the donated fetus, up to a “billion-billion times.â€
Neuralstem is able to produce enough cells to “transplant every spinal cord patient we have to ever transplant with these cells,†Garr said.
The company has invested more than $50 million in developing its stem-cell technology and getting ready for human trials. It expects to spend about $8 million to $10 million more to complete the clinical trial process.
If the Phase I trial is successful, Garr said, the next step would be a larger, possibly multi-site trial that would focus on the therapy’s effectiveness.
“Some day,†Garr said, “neural stem cells will be the universal delivery vehicle for all large-molecule therapies in the (central nervous system).â€
Reach Karkaria at ukarkaria@bizjournals.com
http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2009/11/30/story1.html?b=1259557200%5E2505061&t=printable
Excellent news!!!!
Bill Clark
Polling supports stem cell research
By Bill Clark
Monday, August 29, 2011
Advertisement
It has occurred to me that I was born a quarter-century too soon. For whatever reason, I have cartilage that doesn’t wear well. In the past 17½ years, I’ve had both knees, both hips and my right shoulder totally replaced. None of the five joints was ever damaged â€" the cartilage simply grew thin and then turned to dust, leaving the joints rubbing bone on bone.
Now I’m “blessed†with vanishing cartilage in my left shoulder, neck and lower spine. Maybe, if I had been born a quarter-century later, I wouldn’t be overloaded with steel, plastic and ceramic parts. Maybe stem cell research would have solved my problem. Maybe not. But the opportunity exists to find out.
In 2006, Missouri voters very wisely approved a law allowing stem cell research in our state. In our ultra-conservative tea party society, there simmers a desire to overturn such research. Ol’ Clark cannot understand why anyone would be opposed to making life better at the expense of nobody. I know the arguments, but I also understand the safeguards.
For your information, here’s what the voters approved in 2006:
•Missouri has the right to treatment with any stem cell cures that are allowed by the federal government and are available to all Americans.
•Medical institutions have the right to provide and help find new stem cell cures.
•Clear ethical boundaries and oversight requirements are in place for stem cell research, including a ban on human cloning.
I am a proud member of Missouri Cures, one of 150,000 members who feel stem cell research must continue and expand. In fact, a recent voter poll showed 62 percent of Missouri voters favor stem cell research, and 73 percent of Americans support use of embryonic stem cells left over from in vitro fertilization procedures, according to an October Harris poll.
The Harris poll listed 58 percent of Republicans in favor of stem cell research and 24 percent opposed. The poll also showed 69 percent of Catholics and 58 percent of born-again Christians in favor. Only 28 percent of those polled were against such research because it put the interests of medical science ahead of the preservation of human life â€" which includes human embryos.
Seems like Americans have spoken.
I recently received a list of stem cell advances and was elated to discover that cartilage damage was on the list of advancements. The list of successes includes Lou Gehrig’s disease, spinal cord injuries, macular degeneration, blindness, rare blood duplication for battlefield use, brain damage, multiple sclerosis, cancer, hearing loss, memory loss, both heart disease and damage, lung damage, Parkinson’s disease, stroke, tissue damage and diabetes.
Diabetes is the subject of a pair of upcoming Missouri Cures presentations.
The first is at 7:30 a.m. Wednesday at Stadium Grill in Columbia. Breakfast is on Missouri Cures. The program is twofold. Michael Nichols will discuss the University of Missouri as an engine for economic development. He will then be followed by Dana Ladd, the executive director of Missouri Cures, who will discuss how MU can work with not-for-profit organizations in supporting a pro-research, pro-science environment in our state.
To attend, call Debbie Davis at (800) 829-4133 or email ddavis@missouricures.com.
Then on Sept. 29, physician Camilio Ricordo, one of the world’s leading diabetes researchers, will speak at 7:30 p.m. at the Clayton Ritz-Carlton Hotel. He is the scientific director at the University of Miami Diabetes Research Institute. For more information, contact Jim Goodwin at jgoodwin@missouricures.com and tell him Ol’ Clark sent you.
And to the voters of Missouri, if the question of stem cell research should ever again appear on your ballot, make sure the research goes forward, not backward. There might still be time for such research to find relief for what cartilage I have left.
Bill Clark’s columns appear Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Reach him at 474-4510.
This article was published on page A2 of the Monday, August 29, 2011 edition of The Columbia Daily Tribune. Click here to Subscribe.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/aug/29/polling-supports-stem-cell-research/