Thursday, June 28. 2012
This is so typical of the media. The Vancouver Sun is reporting that, for the first time EVER, Type I diabetes in MICE has been reversed...with embryonic stem cells that is:VANCOUVER -- For the first time ever, University of B.C. scientists have used human embryonic stem cell transplants to reverse Type 1 diabetes in mice with the disease, giving hope to about 300 million people around the world who suffer from the chronic disease.
A 13-member team, whose milestone work is published in the journal Diabetes, shows that after transplantation, the stem cells matured into insulin-secreting, pancreatic beta-cells. The cells automatically sensed blood sugar levels to release the right amount of insulin and a few dozen diabetic mice were gradually weaned off insulin given to them over a period of months.
Insulin is produced by beta-cells to to help the body absorb sugar and use it for energy.
“Essentially, the mice were cured of their diabetes by placing the body back in charge of regulated insulin production as it is in healthy, non-diabetics,” said lead author Timothy Kieffer.
Sounds fantastic right? Embryonic stem cells cured Type I, also called Juvenile, diabetes in mice. Hooray!Except five years ago the Journal of the American Medical Association reported on a study where much the same was accomplished in HUMANS using a different approach and the the patient's own adult stem cells. This small Brazilian trial did not get much press in the United States, but U.S. Representative Dr. Dave Weldon tried to get the word out with this press release at the time:WASHINGTON, April 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In yet another advance in adult stem cell therapy, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) today released a study in which 14 of 15 Juvenile Diabetes patients demonstrated significant improvement as a result of an adult stem cell treatment. According to U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, M.D. (R-FL), the study is significant in that it's the first attempt at using stem cells of any kind to reverse the effects of Type I diabetes in humans.
"This is a very promising study for those who are suffering from Juvenile Diabetes," said Weldon, a Florida physician, who noted that while only a preliminary study, the treatment appears to be quite promising since 14 of the patients remain insulin-free after the adult stem cell transplant using their own adult stem cells. One patient has now gone 34 months without insulin therapy.
"It's very important that the public be told what this is: an adult stem cell success, not the much touted embryo stem cell research. Also, one of the first things I noticed was that this research was done by Americans overseas. Why? Because much of the American biomedical research community has placed an irrational reliance on embryo stem cell research above all others. Adult stem cell science in America is being crowded out and in some cases ignored. This bias is now denying American patients access to therapies that are much more promising. We need to focus on human treatments for today, not those with false hope for tomorrow."
But the embryonic stem cells in mice HAVE to be better right? Because the media says they are the BEST right?
Well let's see. If you read more carefully, the Vancouver Sun article reveals some interesting facts: 1. some mice were found to have cartilage and bone growing where the embryonic stem cells (ESCs) were injected and 2. the mice were designed to be unable to reject the ESCs that naturally come from another organism. Both are major obstacles to human trials:Although the research showed that stem cells may one day provide a cure for diabetes, it also revealed hurdles to overcome before agencies like the Food and Drug Administration in the United States or Health Canada can approve the therapy.
For example, some mice developed bone or cartilage in areas where the cells were inserted, an unacceptable side-effect that future experiments must resolve.
Another obstacle is figuring out how to make the therapy work for humans so they don’t reject the cells. Mice used in the study were bred to be immuno-compromised so they wouldn’t reject the human cells as foreign invaders.
So once again, likely issues with rejection and strange tissue formation. At least the article mentioned it. But where was the mention of the above study in HUMANS with a patient's own adult stem cells, meaning no rejection and no weird tissue formation? Maybe the reporter didn't know about it. My question then is: why didn't she?Well, I guess we have learned we cannot expect balanced reporting when it comes to stem cells. That would allow for the masses to actually be educated on the issue and that would be bad. (Because then we might ask our favorite charity, like the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, why they gave $2 million to adult stem cell research and $4.9 million to embryonic stem cell research in the same year.)
And with accurate reporting you wouldn't end up with such great bigoted comments like this one:All those against stem cell research should be banned from getting any treatment derived from it. But we all know they will be first in line. Once again, religion holding back progress.
Wednesday, June 27. 2012
I was not going to write about this new development in prenatal genetic testing for a couple of reasons. First because I have written about this technology that allows a peek into the womb from a maternal blood sample before. And second because I feel I have said what I am going to say so many times that I feel some poor dead horse somewhere will get an unnecessary beating.I am sure you have seen the news already. Scientists at the University of Washington have put together the entire genome of an unborn baby using only a maternal blood sample, with minute fragments of fetal DNA, and a paternal saliva sample. From DiscoveryNews:In a development scientists are calling a "tour de force," researchers have reconstructed the genome of a fetus using DNA samples from the parents....
Shendure and colleagues put together the fetal genome using a saliva sample from the father, and a sample of blood plasma from the mother. About 13 percent of the DNA found outside of cells in a pregnant woman's body belongs to her fetus.
They sequenced the regions of DNA they were aiming for with 98.2 percent accuracy, as confirmed after the baby's birth with a test on blood taken from the umbilical cord blood.
Shendure estimated that reconstructing the fetal genome cost roughly between $20,000 and $50,000.
But with the cost of genome sequencing expected to come down, and as the technique is further refined, Shendure said, the hope is that researchers can develop a clinical test that detects many diseases noninvasively. I feel compelled to write about this I am seeing the pro-life side once again slide into the rhetoric of how awful this technique is. It will naturally lead to more abortions and therefore is inherently evil.
If you are at all familiar with my writing on prenatal genetic testing you know what I am going to say. I reject that assumption. What these scientists did was a major achievement. They have proven beyond a doubt the humanness of the life growing inside the womb. An entire genome of an unborn human being without an invasive procedure. Amazing.
But because we live in a society where abortion on demand is prevalent, this is terrible news. The information provided with this technique will likely lead to more abortions for ever more trivial traits. The concerns of all pro-lifers are valid: what will this discovery mean for the safety of life inside the womb?
But is it the genetic testing that is inherently evil or is it the abortion that is inherently evil?
I fear that by focusing on the testing, we are simply ignoring the elephant in the living room. It is the abortion that kills not the testing. I feel it is easier to blame the testing which is a new, fresh target then attack the giant, seemingly immovable troll of the abortion industry.
And if we do reject the prenatal testing that clearly shows that a human being is being formed in the womb, we close that life off from potentially life-saving information.
Let's be honest. Without abortion, we would be jumping for joy at this new achievement.
We need to not be distracted by the latest prenatal technologies (there will always be another) chasing them each down as the true evil, scattering ourselves and our attention in the process. We need to continue to focus on the real killer: abortion.
Tuesday, June 26. 2012
While the country breathlessly waits for the Supreme Court to decide on Obamacare, there is another court battle to keep an eye on. While this battle is not as critical as the one on our health care system, it is important for the health of anyone with DNA.For decades the U.S. Patent Office has been issuing patents for naturally occurring genes. Many people are not aware that about 25% of all human genes are patented. This means that a company or university owns the genetic code that makes up that gene. They own the sequence of genes that you have and use in your body everyday and once your DNA is isolated from your body, they "own" your genes.Gene patenting affects you directly whether you know it or not.
Continue reading at Creative Minority Report >>
Monday, June 25. 2012
 Do you remember Saturday Night Live's Pat, the androgynous character played by Julia Sweeney? Sketch after sketch, the cast of SNL ask a barrage of questions trying to figure out of Pat is a boy or a girl. The assumption is that Pat is either male or female and hilarity ensues when anyone tries catch a clue as to which Pat is. The segments were called "It's Pat!"It is Pat. "It" is the pronoun used because, even though Pat is either a man or woman, we don't have any clue to which is correct.It seems that, in the English language, this is the conventional pronoun usage for any human being that we know has a gender, we just don't know what that gender is...yet.I am envisioning the endless "It's a girl!" balloons and "It's a boy!" napkins at my local party supply store. Lately, I am asking myself why not "She's a girl!" and "He's a boy!"? This conventional language usage is as unfortunate as it is inaccurate, because "it" is a pronoun more commonly used used for things that are not human.Which is why I think "it" is a pronoun that should not be applied to the unborn, either fetuses in their mother's womb or embryos in the IVF clinic. Even the earliest embryos are either male, having a Y chromosome, or female, lacking a Y chromosome. So why do we use "it" and "its" when we refer to them and their qualities? Why not use "he or she" and "his or hers"?I have referred to an embryo as an "it" before, as have many other pro-lifers. I vow to strive to never do so again.After all, embryos and fetuses are not "it"s. They are either a he or a she. Just because we don't know which does not mean they are any less human.
With a $5 million gift from alumni Elizabeth and Michael Gallagher, Notre Dame is ramping up its adult stem cell research. From Phys.org:Alumnus Michael Gallagher and his wife, Elizabeth, have made a $5 million gift to establish the Elizabeth and Michael Gallagher Family Professorships in Adult Stem Cell Research at the University of Notre Dame.
Their gift, which will fund three new endowed professorships in adult and all forms of non-embryonic stem cell research, will strengthen Notre Dame's leadership in the field of stem cell research and enhance the University's effective dialogue between the biomedical research community and the Catholic Church on matters related to the use and application of stem cells and regenerative medicine.
"As a Catholic university, Notre Dame carries a mantle of responsibility to use our scholarship and resources to help alleviate human suffering, and, in this area of research in particular, to do so with deep respect for the sanctity of all human life," said Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., the University's president. "These new professorships will enable us to effectively build upon an already strong foundation in this critically important field. We are tremendously grateful to the Gallaghers for making this possible with their transformative gift."
See no matter how many times advocates, politicians and the media repeat that the Catholic Church is against stem cell research it will not make it true. The Catholic Church is and always has been for stem cell research, the ethical kind whether little human organisms are not ripped apart for their harvestable biological material.
Continue Reading at LifeNews >>
Thursday, June 14. 2012
A British ethics committee has recommended going forward with creating human embryos with 3 genetic parents. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, an independent body that considers issues in biotechnology and medicine, has found the genetic engineering technique is ethical and should move forward even though the technique is currently against the law in the United Kingdom.Why would doctors want to engineer an embryo with the genetic material from 3 people? Because, it will “prevent” the inheritance of mitochondrial disease. Not all of our DNA that we inherit is in the nuclei of the egg and sperm that join at fertilization. In the cytoplasm of our mother’s egg are mitochondria. Mitochondria have their own DNA called mtDNA. We inherit our mtDNA only from our mother because sperm’s mitochondria are dumped at conception. There are genetic mutations that cause very serious disease found in mtDNA and a woman with a such a mutation cannot help but pass this mutation on to her children.This is where the three parent embryos come in.There are two different ways to approach the making of a embryo with 3 genetic parents. In the first method, called pronuclear transfer, doctors would take the nucleus out of an embryo that had a mutation in his or her mtDNA and put it into an embryo whose mtDNA was normal, after removing the nucleus of that embryo of course. (For an illustration of this method click here.) The alternative method, called maternal spindle transfer, would be to remove the nucleus of an egg from a woman with mitochondrial disease, place it into a donor egg with normal mtDNA (after the nucleus of that egg was removed) and then fertilize the engineered egg with sperm. (The Nuffield Council has a description and current state of research for both pronuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer.) In either technique, the result is an embryo with the nuclear DNA from its mother and father and the mtDNA from another woman.The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has determined that either technique would be ethical. The problem is that this kind of genetic engineering would be inherited not just by the child produced, but also by every generation after.Continue Reading at LifeNews.com >>
Wednesday, June 13. 2012
The first gay couple in the UK to be recognized as parents on a birth certificate have come to America to ensure they have a girl. Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow went to a U.S. IVF clinic and have hired a surrogate mother at the cost of £65,000 to "balance" their family with another girl. They have to travel to the Brave New United States because, like in most sensible countries, the sex selection is illegal in the UK. From The Daily Mail:
Britain’s first gay fathers have have spent £65,000 travelling to the U.S. so they can undergo IVF treatment which will ensure their next child is a girl.
Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow, from Chelmsford, Essex, hit the headlines 12 years ago when they they became they became the first same-sex couple to be legally recognised in the UK.
They have used a surrogate mother and egg donors to father four boys and a girl, spending more than £1 million in the process, but they are now desperate for another daughter and have looked to overseas fertility specialists so they can choose the baby's sex.
It is currently illegal to use IVF in the UK for sex selection purposes other than for medical reasons.
Two weeks ago, three embryos were implanted in a surrogate mother in California that the pair chose to provide their new baby.
Personally, I think dressing your kids in lederhosen and a dirndl to recreate the Von Trapps in a family photo might just be considered child abuse.Continue reading at Creative Minority >>
Tuesday, June 12. 2012
The Church has always rejected surrogacy and for very good reason. It objectifies both the woman whose womb has been rented and the child for whom a contract has been made for delivery. Nowhere is this arrangement more exploitive than when rich westerners go to places like India and get a uterus on the cheap. Not only are the embryos sometimes shipped by FedEx overseas to be transferred to a woman the parents have never actually met, but the dangers to the surrogate are substantial. Because she is usually poor and "working" to help support her family by renting out her body, the contract she signs often places the health and well-being of the child above her own, something that would not happen with a Western surrogate.The media often portray international surrogacy as a win-win for all involved and as empowering poor women. Those who have researched the practice know this is not the case. (I recommend Scott Carney's Red Market:On the Trail of the World's Organ Brokers, Bone Thieves, Blood Farmers, and Child Traffickers for a look into surrogacy and other body markets.) Finally someone is making sense regarding the need to protect poor women who are surrogates. Kishwar Desai writes in The Guardian:India's surrogate mothers are risking their lives. They urgently need protection
As rich westerners flock to India's unregulated baby factories, impoverished surrogates suffer appalling conditions
Premila Vaghela, a poor 30-year-old surrogate mother, died last month, while reportedly waiting for a routine examination at a hospital in Ahmedabad. The news was barely covered by the media – after all, she had completed the task she had been contracted for, and the eight-month-old foetus meant for an American "commissioning" parent survived....
Most mothers sign contracts agreeing that even if they are seriously injured during the later stages of pregnancy, or suffer any life-threatening illness, they will be "sustained with life-support equipment" to protect the foetus. Further, they usually agree to assume all medical, financial and psychological risks – releasing the genetic parents, their lawyers, the doctors and all other professionals from all liabilities.
Besides, in tragic cases like Premila's, the hospital would have quickly paid out the money owed for a 'successful' birth, so the family would be unlikely to complain. Premila herself had gone in for the surrogacy to provide her own two children a better life. In a country where thousands of women die every year in normal childbirths, who would complain about the death of one surrogate?
Anindita Majumdar, who is researching surrogacy for her doctorate, says she is personally distressed by how easily the "sheer horror" of it all is being swept away by the money paid out to the surrogates. There are many grey areas - and she fears that even the draft legislation, when it is passed, will favour the medical community over the rights of the surrogate.
Already many malpractices, such as implantation of more than four embryos in the surrogate's womb, as well as invasive "foetal reduction" frowned on the world over, are being followed. Often women undergo caesareans so the time of birth suits the commissioning parents....
I found that medical practitioners involved in it are rarely troubled about the fate of the women whose normal maternal cycles have been disrupted. As in Premila's case, they seem to be only interested in delivering the end-product: a child.
Of course the rich westerners rationalize all day long about how using these poor women to get the child they so desperately want is OK. This exchange between Megan, a woman who used an Indian surrogate and a donor egg to have a child of her choosing (I mean why not adopt? Seriously.) and Wesley J. Smith who argued that commercial surrogacy should be outlawed is a perfect example:Megan
My son was born through surrogacy – commercial surrogacy in India to be exact. We had the help of an egg donor, a different woman to our surrogate, and I am forever grateful to both these amazing women for the giving us the joy of our son Toby. You are making an ill-informed assumption that children born through surrogacy are in any way custom made. There is nothing special or different about Toby being born through egg donation and surrogacy as if i had given birth to him myself with use of my own eggs, other than the fact he was loved so much by three women, who wanted to give him life.
Wesley J. Smith
Megan: Just because you had a baby in that way doesn’t mean it is morally right. J means reproduction has become commercial and consumerist. Have you ever thought that your desire created a terrible impact on the surrogate mother? It often does.
Megan
@Wesley J. Smith, Maybe not morally right for you, but my morals aren’t your morals and you can jump up and down all you like about morality, there is no right morality or wrong morality or one-size fits all morality. How exactly do you know about impact on surrogate mothers? How many have you spoken to?
Wesley J. Smith
So, nobody has a right to want a certain public policy because you got what you wanted? Sorry, not how the world works, nor should it. You should read the stories of the problems with these Indian women. Then be proud.
Friday, June 8. 2012
When I talk to my fellow Americans about biotechnology, they have this idea that all the bad stuff will happen in places like China and that the horrors of Huxley's Brave New World will never happen here. Cloning, human genetic engineering and the like will happen somewhere else, but not in the good ol' USA.Unfortunately we Americans are woefully ignorant about biotechnology and the laws that govern emerging technologies in other countries. Essentially, that other countries have laws and we don't.Why not? We have Roe v. Wade. I am no constitutional scholar, but I can see the writing on the wall. See Roe v. Wade is not simply about abortion. Thanks to the landmark decision we think we have rights found in our Constitution that aren't actually in there: "reproductive rights." A right to reproduce or not. Which means a right to have a child or not. Which means children are a right, not a gift. I doubt the framers of our Constitution thought there was such a right, otherwise it would have been included, specifically. The Declaration of Independence does not say that part of our inalienable rights are, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.... oh! and a child when we want, however we want, and one of our choosing."The legacy of Roe means that anytime any federal legislation is proposed that would address the ethical implications surrounding new technologies like prenatal testing, IVF, cloning or genetic engineering, it will fail to pass (or will be struck down in court) because somewhere, somehow, someone's "reproductive rights" might be affected.Continue Reading at Creative Minorty >>
Dr. Jérôme Lejeune was a remarkable man. He was the geneticist who discovered the cause of Down Syndrome and his was a devout Catholic. Dr. Lejeune was appalled at the way his discovery was being used in a prenatal seek-and-destroy mission against those with Down Syndrome. My father met Jérôme Lejeune and spoke with him for a couple of hours. Read my father's touching recollections here.Dr. Lejeune died in 1994, but his tireless work for those with Down Syndrome continues on in the Jérôme Lejeune Foundation USA whose goal is to "help researchers find a therapeutic treatment that will improve the intellectual abilities of persons who have Trisomy 21."Two brothers are embarking on a grueling coast-to-coast bike ride to support this worthy foundation. From the press release:TWO BROTHERS RIDE FROM COAST TO COAST TO SUPPORT THE JEROME LEJEUNE FOUNDATION, USA.
On June 16, Marc and Patrick Leblond will embark on an extraordinary journey that will test the utmost limits of their physical endurance, mental resilience and commitment to a cause, and they will do it for their niece, Brigid, and to raise money to support the Jerome Lejeune Foundation, USA.
As Marc Leblond says:
“When my brother and I decided to participate in the Race Across America we wanted to test ourselves in this ambitious challenge, but we sensed an opportunity to accomplish something much more important. Patrick and I have a 6 year-old cousin with Down syndrome. This race provides us with a powerful tool to help promote a cause that is very close to us. The Lejeune foundation, with its focus on research, care and advocacy has been instrumental in helping children like our cousin Brigid live productive and joy-filled lives. We are humbled by the opportunity to partner with them and inspire others to help make a difference in the lives of children with Down Syndrome."
Continue reading at LifeNews >>
Thursday, June 7. 2012
More proof that the Church is not anti-science. It is anti-unethical science. From Reuters: A new collaboration has begun between the largest European family adult stem cell bank, Cryo-Save, and Europe's most important Catholic university, "Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore" (UCSC). Policlinico "Gemelli" University Hospital based in Rome, Italy, is part of the UCSC Faculty of Medicine and Surgery and is owned by the Vatican. The partnership aims at promoting and improving knowledge on the cryopreservation of mesenchymal stem cells from the umbilical cord tissue. Both parties strongly believe in the potential of their use.
Cryo-Save has also obtained funding from the Italian Molise region (630.000 euro). The 'Go!!!' initiative subsidies the start-up of innovative companies in this region and Cryo-Save has obtained funding for the development of cryopreservation techniques of cord tissue, in Campobasso, at the 'Giovanni Paolo II' Centre for Research and Training on High Technology.
Professor Giovanni Scambia, Head of the University's Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics and Scientific Manager for the UCSC, says
"The number of pathologies in which mesenchymal stem cells could play a role is growing exponentially:  there are over 2,400 studies on humans involving stem cells. It represents a significant clinical opportunity for applications in regenerative medicine."
Active in the collection, processing and cryopreservation of adult stem cells, Cryo-Save is the leading international family adult stem cell bank. The company's dedication to educating the public on the use of stem cells has led to collaboration with the UCSC aimed at increasing the influence of this new and exciting medical field.
Arnoud van Tulder, CEO of Cryo-Save, says
"The collaboration with UCSC and the Italian hospitals linked to it is a win-win association between private and public entities that supports our company's efforts to widely improve the knowledge of stem cell storage. It will increase public awareness and further strengthen our leading position and business in addition to helping to further develop therapeutic applications."
Wednesday, June 6. 2012
I have realized what separates the progressive way of solving humanity's problems and the right way. Poverty, disease, pain, disability, unintended pregnancy: all issues we have to deal with in this life. The right way acknowledges that man's problems are just that: of man. Humans are the owner and the problems belong to us. They are ours to solve. The right way to deal with these issues sees that every human life is valuable and that to address our problems we start there: intrinsic value of human life.The progressive way is to equate the problem with the person, then get rid of the person and call it good.Crisis pregnancy? Don't support adoption to a loving family, instead kill the fetus.Genetic disease? Don't find a cure, instead find a way to detect the problem earlier, and then kill the fetus or throw away the embryo. (And call that a cure.)Disability? Don't affirm and support the disabled, instead deny them treatment or food and fluids so they die. (Because no one would want to live that way after all.)Pain and discomfort with terminal disease? Don't find a better way to treat the pain, depression or discomfort, instead kill the patient with a lethal dose of drugs.Widespread poverty? Don't stabilize governments and institute policies for economic success, instead push "population control" complete with forced contraception, forced sterilization and forced abortion.A great piece on eugenics in The Guardian from February, reminded me of this progressive way of dealing with humanity's problems. When discussing the eugenic assertion that poverty was an inherited trait, Jonathan Freedland aptly points out the progressive mindset:"It was not poverty that had to be reduced or even eliminated: it was the poor."
The progressive has never abandoned this approach. They continue to advocate getting rid of the people with the problem instead of tackling the problem.The progressive way is not only evil, it never works. Why? Because untimely death is not a solution. Death instead steals away any possibility of a solution. The problem remains to plague another.
The right way recognizes this. The right way acknowledges that the way to solve our issues is to start from the foundation that all human life is valuable. Degrading and discarding life does nothing to remedy the underlying problem. Unless ALL human beings have moral worth and deserve dignity and respect, what would be the point of trying to solve our problems anyway?
Tuesday, June 5. 2012
Having a bit of writer's block this week so in the meantime, read my friend Chelsea's uplifting reflections on life in a wheelchair:Push Girls: When You Can’t Stand Up, Stand Out
Life in a wheelchair is not as awful as you might think.
Last night, the Sundance Channel premiered Push Girls, a new reality series about four women in wheelchairs. All of them have spinal cord injuries at various levels, three from car accidents, one from a ruptured blood clot in her spinal cord.
I watched the first episode online here yesterday afternoon. I wouldn’t exactly call it family-friendly television – maybe it will get better, but as for the first episode, one of the girls talks openly about an on-again-off-again sexual relationship (yes, we can still have sex and get pregnant) she’s in with a man and then the cameras follow her to a club on a date with another woman – but I’m excited about this series, nonetheless. It’s great not because it shows the challenges that those of us in wheelchairs face, but for showing what we’re still capable of and how life can still be enjoyed post-injury.
Continue reading at Reflections of a Paralytic >>
Friday, June 1. 2012
A Georgia man stepped on a piece of glass and decided to fix the injury himself...with super glue. (I use super glue to fix just about everything, but really?) Not surprisingly, it got infected. Unfortunately for him, his foot was infected with necrotizing fasciitis, more gruesomely known as flesh-eating bacteria. In an attempt to save this man's foot, a podiatrist tried an experimental procedure using stem cells from placenta. From Fox Atlanta:DALTON, Ga. - A cutting edge procedure in the fight against flesh-eating bacteria could land a Georgia podiatrist in the history books.
Seven months ago, Dr. Spence Misner started using an experimental procedure so that he would not have to amputate his patient's foot -- and it worked.
Bobby Rice, 50, cut his foot on glass last summer. He used super glue and bandaged it up. Weeks ago, it was infected. He was diagnosed with necrotizing fasciitis – the same bacteria that 24-year-old Aimee Copeland is battling.
Dr. Misner said that in November, he performed a stem-cell transplant procedure using placenta membrane, which contained growth factors and stem cells to help heal and repair Rice's foot.
"When it was in contact with skin, it allowed skin to grow. When it was with fat, it allowed fat to grow. It also helped to regenerate his nerves to the point where Bobby is now ticklish. Before, he was totally neuropathic, meaning he was totally numb," said Misner.
Seven months later, Rice is standing and moving using a walker.
"That's the reason why I'm still here, to show people that this is real and it's not like what they think about stem cells. It's something good," said Rice.
Awesome. Just awesome. But the last quote leaves a sour taste in my mouth. "...it's not like what they think about stem cells. It's something good."At the height of the stem cell debates, proponents of embryonic stem cell research (advocates, media, and the like) purposefully tried to blur the line between adult and embryonic stem cells. Their intent was to piggy-back onto the successes in adult stem cells and ride them into embryonic stem cell utopia.
Continue reading at Creative Minority Report >>
|
