Superior Stem Cells Shunned By Media

Weekly Standard: Non-Embryonic Stem Cells Have Proven Potential That's Being Ignored

(Weekly Standard)  This column was written by Michael Fumento.

---

While the Democratic-controlled House voted 253-174 to expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, it fell far short of the 290 votes needed to override a virtually guaranteed presidential veto. A tragedy for victims of everything from Alzheimer's to warts? Not at all. Each year there are stunning breakthroughs with adult stem cells, and 2007 has already brought its first.

Adult stem cells cure and treat more than 70 diseases and are involved in almost 1,300 human clinical trials. Scientists also keep discovering that adult stem cells are capable of creating a wider variety of mature cells. Perhaps the most promising of these was announced in the January issue of Nature Biotechnology.

Anthony Atala, director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, reported that stem cells in the amniotic fluid that fills the sac surrounding the fetus may be just as versatile as embryonic stem cells. At the same time they maintain all the advantages that have made adult stem cells such a success.

This has caused great consternation on the part of those seeking increased taxpayer embryonic stem cell funds. The reason is that there are currently no practical applications for this type of cell. There hasn't even been a single clinical trial involving them. Researchers admit we won't have approved embryonic stem cell treatments for at least 10 years.

One advantage of embryonic stem cells has been that most types of adult stem cells cannot be multiplied outside of the body for very long, while embryonic ones may replicate in the lab indefinitely. But Atala's new amniotic stem cells grow as fast outside the body as embryonic stem cells (doubling every 36 hours), and he's now been growing the same cell line for two years, with no indication of slowing.

That leaves embryonic stem cells with only one possible advantage — potential. Embryonic stem cells can be "differentiated" into all three "germ layers," or subtypes of cell. That means they should be able to be made into all of the 220 types of cells in humans. For a long while, adult stem cells were believed to be only capable of differentiation to a limited number of mature cells, depending on the type of adult stem cell with which you start. For example, a marrow cell could become any number of types of marrow or blood cells, but it couldn't become a muscle cell. That's a different germ layer.

Yet it's been virtually a state secret that for over five years researchers, beginning with a team headed by physician Catherine Verfaillie of the University of Minnesota Stem Cell Institute, have been reporting numerous types of adult stem cells (she used those from marrow) that in the lab could form mature cells from three germ layers. Experiments around the world have clearly shown that adult stem cells from one germ layer can be converted into those of another in a living human, such as those that turned marrow cells into heart muscle and blood vessels in live humans.

That said, amniotic stem cells may be the most easily differentiated of all — as well as among the easiest to extract in large amounts. Indeed, they are routinely recovered with a hypodermic needle during amniocentesis. While it's widely believed that this procedure slightly increases the chance of miscarriage, a sizable study last November of 35,000 women who underwent mid-trimester testing found "no significant difference in loss rates between those undergoing amniocentesis and those not undergoing amniocentesis."

There are over 4 million births each year in the United States, yet Atala calculates that merely 100,000 amniotic stem cell specimens could supply 99 percent of the U.S. population's needs for perfect matches for transplants. (That assumes a perfect match is even needed.) About 700,000 amniocentesis procedures are performed in the United States and Western Europe each year.

Some embryonic stem cell researchers have downplayed the Atala findings. The work will "still require a lot of replication from other groups before they can be conclusive," Stephen Minger, an embryonic stem cell scientist identified only as a "lecturer in stem-cell biology" told a British newspaper. "They have only shown that these particular stem cells can turn into a couple of different types of other stem cells. I would say that a hell of a lot more work is required." Other media outlets would say the same. Newsweek International claimed, "Many scientists are quick to emphasize that comprehensive human trials are still many years away."

The New York Times refused even to allow people to read between the lines — they simply never reported the news about Atala's work. When a reader complained to the "Public Editor," an online ombudsman, about the omission, the Times responded that its genetics reporter, Nicholas Wade, "looked at the Atala paper last week and deemed it a minor development." Wade said of the paper, "It reports finding 'multipotent' stem cells in amniotic fluid. Multipotent means they can't do as much as bona fide embryonic stem cells (which are called 'pluripotent')."

Neither Minger nor Newsweek nor Wade could be more wrong. As Atala told PBS' Online NewsHour, "We have been able to drive the cell to what we call all three germ layers, which basically means all three major classes of tissues available in the body, from which all cells come from." I pointed out in a response to The New York Times posting that merely reading the online abstract of the Atala paper indicated the same. Of course, this is the same paper that told readers in 2004 that there were no cures or treatments with adult stem cells. Not 70 cures or treatments, some dating back half a century — none.

It is neither paranoia nor exaggeration to say that The New York Times is engaged in a stem-cell cover-up.

What makes all of this worse is that Atala's work actually is a replication of numerous studies. He's just taken the research further and pulled his cells from amniotic fluid, whereas others have pulled the identical cells from the placenta. Amniotic and placenta stem cells are the same, as Atala himself noted. And as to human trials being "many years away," Newsweek is correct only if "years away" means "years ago." The New England Journal of Medicine carried one paper on a placenta stem cell trial back in 1996 and another paper two years later. There's been one ongoing clinical trial since 2001 to treat sickle cell anemia. The Washington Post's Rick Weiss, who has been accused of boosterism for embryonic stem cell research, tried to find a middle ground, saying that "The new [sic] cells are adding credence to an emerging consensus among experts that the popular distinction between embryonic and 'adult' stem cells — those isolated from adult bone marrow and other organs — is artificial."

Actually, what's "artificial" is the term "adult stem cell," which worked fine not so long ago when all adult stem cells were all pulled from bone marrow, but is confusing now that they're being extracted from placentas, amniotic fluid, and umbilical cords, which aren't exactly "adult" sources. But for discussions both scientific and moral, stem cells can still be broken down between the embryonic and the non-embryonic.

Scientifically, all embryonic stem cells tend to become cancerous; they require permanent, dangerous, immunosuppressive drugs because the body rejects them as foreign; and they are difficult to differentiate into the needed type of mature cells. Non-embryonic stem cells, however, do not become cancerous; they are far less likely to cause rejection (especially the youngest, including umbilical cord and amniotic/placenta); and they have been used therapeutically since the late 1950s (originally for leukemia) because they have the amazing ability to form the right type of mature cell merely upon being injected into a body that needs that type of cell.

It is these biological differences that have held embryonic stem cell research back, not a lack of federal funds.

As stem-cell researcher Malcolm Alison of the University of London told the Daily Mail, the amniotic cells "appear to be at least as malleable as embryonic stem cells but without all the ethical baggage."

For all the talk over the morality of using human embryos in medicine, perhaps there's another moral issue at play: Non-embryonic stem cell researchers are already performing miracles, such as growing new heart and liver tissue and treating multiple sclerosis — all in living humans. Yet they struggle to get federal funds for their research. Given the growing number of state initiatives that fund embryonic stem cell, but not non-embryonic stem cell, research and given that overall National Institutes of Health funding increases are unlikely anytime soon, is it truly moral to take away funds from a technology that's been saving lives for half a century in favor of another technology that promises nothing but "promise"?

[dvsden]

If you are against embryonic stem cell research, then you must be against In-Vitro fertilization to be consistent. Embryos are discarded every day by fertility clinics, yet the religious fanatics in this country are as outraged by that as they are by old rich men taking viagra for their young mistresses.
There is no reason why we can't do all types of embryonic stem cell research. The scientfific concensus is that embryonic research holds the most potential. We have to do the research to find out. Bush and his religious fanatic allies are destroying scientific progress in this country.

[djconklin]

hillaryin08,

I am not a Democrat and I don't approve of either abortion or lying about other people.

[stemcell1-2009]

January 29, 2007 06:00 AM Eastern Time
Pluristem Announces Evidence That PLX-I Cells Are Immune Privileged
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Pluristem Life Systems, Inc. (OTCBB:PLRS), a cell therapy company dedicated to the commercialization of stem cell products, today announced evidence that its PLX-I cells have proven to be immune privileged. PLX-I cells are Pluristem%u2019s first potential product dedicated to resolving the global shortfall of matched tissue for bone marrow transplantation by improving the engraftment of umbilical cord blood. PLX-I cells are mesenchymal stems cells obtained from the placenta and expanded by using Pluristem%u2019s proprietary 3D PluriX%u2122 technology.

Immune privileged is defined as the absence or diminution of rejection when implanted into unmatched recipients. Being immune privileged, the PLX-1 cells carry significant positive implications in the development of Company products for a variety of degenerative, malignant and immune diseases. Additionally, this immune modulating property could prove important in treating or preventing immune reactions associated with transplantation.

Ora Burger PhD. V.P. of R&D at Pluristem states: "Our PLX-I cells possess immune privileged characteristics that can be used in the future for other applications involving transplantations.

[hillaryin08]

If it doesent support abortion murder, the Democrats want nothing to do with it.

[hillaryin08]

If it doesent support abortion murder, the libs want nothing to do with it.

[gaye5]

IMLibertaria you are dead right, but we dont have to kill another human being to do it.. a foetus (baby) is a parasite just as a new born baby is and if aborted or not fed they will both die, so why is one more valuable than the other... they aren't, they are both valuable they are both human, they are both potential working, loving, happy human beings..
We abort babies because the mother/father couldn't be bothered to say no or didn't take precautions to not get pregnant so aborting children has become a yarn type of thing, which in turn has made making babies to kill for stem cells just seem like another medical procedure...

[imlibertaria]

If you follow the story line developed by orgnaized religion, the god is the source of all. IF that is the case didn't the knowledge on how to use stem cells to help aid disease and infirmaty come from god? And, gien that premise, shouldn't we use that knowledge as he intended.
Seems to me the religious mafia is trying to have it both ways.

[anopinion1]

gpFrasco

thank you for not saying anything

we are all stupider for having read that.


So you no opinions about anything then i see. You just figure so called "GOD" knows the answer anyway so you shouldnt even think about it.

[thefarmer77]

I am finally glad to see an article in the media that states that embryonic cells have potential. I think this is a fact that gets left out when people debate this issue.

My question then becomes: why would people want to spend, possibly waste, money on something that is not proven?

Adult cells have been proven to work; so lets put the money there where it is known it will do good.

[bellal-2009]

The "controversy" was probably started by big pharma to prevent cures. They make a fortune from diseases like Alzheimers, Multiple Sclerosis, Type 1 Diabetes which could be cured with expnaded reserarch. If corporations were in control in the '50's we'd never have cured polio. It would be a chronic "treatable" disease guaranteed to cost a fortune to the victim.

[rray52]

I hate to use %u201CThe Man Of Steel%u201D as a example, but he was right in one aspect.
He reinforced his generals that were advancing with resources from the ones that were not.

[elz523]

Folks it is great that you have such a deep respect for human life. I too have great respect for human life. While I admit protection of clumps of cells, that are human embryos, would be a logical extension of a respect for human life. I don't believe that you can equate a human embryo, a very small grouping of living cells, with a fully developed, living, loving and suffering human life. To say that destroying an embryo is homocide and to hold this to be a wrong equal to that of a suffering living person is just too much. And it is where the right wing religious fringe truthfully loses everyone else.

[skyk-2009]

"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and private schools entirely supported by private contributions. Keep the Church and State FOREVER seperate.

President U.S. Grant
Des Moines, IA 1876

[skyk-2009]

When do we stop allowing our Taliban to determine our Science? That's the real question here. There is NO basis for NOT using embro's that everyone knows is going to end up down the drain except to appease the worst amoung us. Can any of you out there tell us ONE time the Religious Reich has ever been right in one of the Moror Debates during our history. When you look at the history of this organization you find the most EVIL creatures to inhabit this planet yet we are going to allow THEM to determine the morals of this nation. People you should NOT allow anyone to control the debate on Morals when they have NOTHING absolutely NOTHING in their history, their ENTIRE HISTORY, to point to as being MORAL. These creatures have stood up FOR Child Labor and Against Laws to stop Lynching. Go get some old news papers and LOOK at the things they have said and done.

[remade2]

If the word 'human' is involved, then we're talking about homocide.

[gpfrasco]

The previous comment asks "is it moral to deny sufferers a cure in defense of a group of cells known as an embryo?"

In my view, only God truly knows the answer to this question. Any opinion by any human being is just that: only an opinion.

The previous comment left out one word that seems important to me. "Embryo" should be replaced by "human embryo". A human embryo is human life at an early stage of development.

So the question is this: Is it moral to intentionally create and kill human life at an early stage of development in order to effect cures for fully developed human lives?

Once again, I would say that only God knows the answer to this.

My response to this question is intended to be made only with the greatest respect to all concerned. I appreciate the opportunity to interact with others in this public forum.

[elz523]

To answer your question... no it is not moral to take away funds from a technology that has been saving lives for a half a century in favor of another... FUND THEM BOTH!!!

Next question, is it moral to deny sufferers a cure in defense of a group of cells known as an embryo?