Stem Cells from Cadavers promise more Hope than Embryonic Stem Cells ever Promised

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 23rd, 2012

Week in Review

One of the most politicized subjects is stem cells.  The potential miracle cure for the worst that ails us.  They could make the blind see again.  And the paralyzed walk again.  The Left politicized Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve.  Saying we could cure Fox’s Parkinson’s disease and Reeve’s paralysis with the miracle of stem cells.  But not just any stem cells.  Embryonic stem cells.  That is if it wasn’t for the rascally Republicans who wanted Fox and Reeve to continue to suffer their maladies.  Even die.  Because Republicans opposed using aborted fetuses for ethical reasons.  While the Left wanted the use of embryonic stem cells as they would give abortions a higher purpose.  The gift of life.  After extinguishing life (see Cadaver stem cells offer new hope of life after death by Jessica Hamzelou posted 12/21/2012 on New Scientist).

Dead bodies can provide organs for transplants, now they might become a source of stem cells too. Huge numbers of stem cells can still be mined from bone marrow five days after death to be potentially used in a variety of life-saving treatments.

Human bone marrow contains mesenchymal stem cells, which can develop into bone, cartilage, fat and other cell types. MSCs can be transplanted and the type of cell they form depends on where they are injected. Cells injected into the heart, for example, can form healthy new tissue, a useful therapy for people with chronic heart conditions.

Unlike other tissue transplants, MSCs taken from one person tend not to be rejected by another’s immune system. In fact, MSCs appear to pacify immune cells. It is this feature which has made MSC treatments invaluable for children with graft-versus-host disease, in which transplants aimed at treating diseases such as leukaemia attack the child instead…

While only limited amounts of bone marrow can be taken from a living donor, a cadaver represents a plentiful source of cells, says D’Ippolito. “From one donor, you could take the whole spine, for example. You are going to end up with billions of cells…”

… Chris Mason at University College London sees a potential hurdle in using such MSCs in therapy. “The work is novel and intriguing… but it would be better to use a living donor,” he says. That’s partly because medical regulators oppose treating individuals with stem cells from more than one source. “You can always go back and get more stem cells from a living donor if you need them, but if you use a cadaver, you’ll eventually run out.”

They’re making great strides with adult stem cells.  From living donors.  And now from dead ones.  But one thing you don’t hear a lot about are advances made with embryonic stem cells.  Could it be that the Left was wrong all along?  That they were just looking for a noble purpose for abortions?  Perhaps.

A big problem with embryonic stem cells was their rejection.  Or complications that resulted in things like tumors.  Things that didn’t happen with adult stem cells.  Especially those harvested from the same body.  And now apparently from dead people.  People who have died from some other cause other than abortion.

The continued advances in adult stem cell research leave advances in embryonic stem cell research conspicuous by its absence.  Despite all of the false hope the Left gave people like Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve.  Suggesting that their arguments were more political than medical.  As everything with them is political.  For everything is about advancing their agenda.  And they were more than willing to lead medical research down a false path to advance their agenda.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,