Adult stem cells have restored feeling in the bodies of people paralyzed with spinal cord injury–indeed, even permitting some to walk with assistance. From the story:
The injuries in the study patients were 18 months to 15 years old. The patients, ages 19 to 37, had no use of their legs before the treatment. One paraplegic treated almost three years after the injury now ambulates with two crutches and knee braces. Ten other patients ambulate with physical assistance and walkers (with and without braces). One 31-year-old male tetriplegic patient uses a walker without the help of knee braces or physical assistance. When the stem cell transplant and scar removal process was combined with an advanced form of rehabilitative training that employs brain-initiated weight-bearing movement, 13 patients improved in the standard measures used to assess functional independence and walking capabilities.
Remember, these are still early studies and much terrain needs to be covered. But can you imagine the headlines if this were an ESCR study? Alas: Just as Dr. Carlos Lima’s earlier similar success was utterly ignored by the media, this advance appears to be another case of “not the right kind of stem cell success to make news.” Indeed, paralyzed rat ESCR experiments get more press than these amazing human advances. (See my, “The Great Stem Cell Coverup,” from the Weekly Standard.)
October 19th, 2009 | 12:39 am
There is no evidence to suggest that this therapy worked or not. The same results have been observed after intense physical therapy with no stem cell therapy. The article provides no ASIA scores (American Spinal Injury Association) and no observations about bodily function recovery (bowel/bladder). I fully support adult and embryonic stem cell research, but this is bad practice. What Dr. Lima in Portugal is doing is injecting undifferentiated cells into the spinal cord and putting them through rigorous physical therapy. When they start get stronger, he attributes the “recovery” to the cell therapy. When in reality, people are just strengthening the functioning muscles they have left, giving them the impression that they’re recovering function. This could all be proved with a simple pin prick test below the level of injury before and after the therapy. They would see no recovery of sensation, much less bodily functions. Support real stem cell research, such as Geron, Dr, Wise Young, and Dr. Stephen Davies.
October 19th, 2009 | 10:34 am
Apart from ideology, I see no reason why ESCR is being done. ESCR is essentially the same as an organ transplant. Organ transplants are good (when no coercion is involved and the plug isn’t pulled too early just to harvest the organs in a more fresh state — something that’s hard to enforce), but from my understanding, it’s filled with problems such as rejection and the requirement that organ recipients must take anti-rejection drugs for life. It may be a worthwhile risk and tradeoff, but it’s not the preferred treatment. Even if the embryo before a certain age was proven to everyone’s satisfaction that it was not alive yet, I don’t see how ESCR can be any different than organ transplants.
Since adult stem cells are taken directly from the patient, there should be no risk of rejection and it should be possible to harvest the stem cells directly from the patient so there are far fewer ethical loopholes to worry about.
It seems clear cut. Given all this, why is it so hard for Christians to convince the public that ESCR is to be rejected in favour of adult stem cells no matter what your views are on the embryo?
October 19th, 2009 | 12:27 pm
Matt: Not true. Here is the Abstract link. http://nnr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/1545968309347685v1
Here is what a stem cell scientist friend of mine said about the actual peer reviewed paper:
Regarding exercising muscles they have left, this is from the abstract regarding PRE-operative exercise:
“Preoperative rehabilitation that emphasized lower extremity stepping using either overground walking training or a robotic weight-supported treadmill training was provided for 25 to 39 hours per week for a median of 4 months at 3 sites. No change in ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) motor scores for the lower extremities or AIS grades of completeness was found.”
POST-operative, from the abstract:
AIS grades improved in 11 of 20 patients, 6 (A → C), 3 (B → C), and 2 (A → B), and declined in 1 (B → A). Improvements included new voluntary EMG responses (15 patients) and SSEPs (4 patients). Scores improved in the FIM and WISCI (13/13 tested), and urodynamic responses improved in 5 patients.
Further, it needs to be kept in mind that these patients were treated well after the injury (1 ½-15 years after); according to International Campaign for Cures of Spinal Cord Injury Paralysis (ICCP), a highly-respected group of spinal cord scientists note that most spontaneous recovery takes place in the first 3 months after injury, and rarely any improvement after 18 months.
Note that the Geron trial only proposes to treat patients within the first 2 weeks after injury, based on what they had seen with the 2 published rat studies.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact