Adult Stem Cells: The New Plastic Surgery?
A new article in Live Science predicts that adult stem cells may replace silicone breast implants and other contemporary plastic surgery techniques. But first, a crucial admission you once would never see in a science-oriented journal. From the story:Stem cells are cells that have the ability to make more of themselves and to differentiate into special types of cells, like skin or other tissue types. Some stem cells, called pluripotent or multipotent, are capable of turning into many different kinds of cells and growing wide varieties of tissues ranging from bone to neurons to organs and muscle. While embryonic stem cells are the most well-known type (and the type that raises controversy), not all pluri- and multi-potent cells come from embryos. Certain so-called adult stem cells, which we make in our bodies, also have these abilities and would most likely be the cells used in plastic surgery.
What? That can't be true. And don't tell Dr. Steven Teitelbaum of Missourians for Lifesaving Cures who I saw testify that adult stem cells are merely unipotent, that is, become the kind of cell they are precursors for.
But never mind. The old ESCR junk biology shoveled by propagandists like Teitelbaum and William Neaves is fast becoming irrelevant. Even the news blockade on these matters is breaking down.
But back to the story:Today, as part of ongoing clinical trials and regular practice, doctors outside the United States are taking stem cells from liposuctioned fat and using them to make traditional fat grafts more effective.
Reconstruction surgery aside, I don't understand why women risk their lives and health for such procedures. But apparently adult stem cells are the next step forward.
Tom Baker, director of investor relations for Cytori, a San Diego-based company that makes machines for processing fat stem cells in the operating room, described how it works: First, a doctor liposuctions fat from a patient. Half that fat gets set aside, while the other half is processed to pull out a mixture of cells rich in stem cells. That mixture is then injected back into the reserved fat, which is grafted into place inside the patient. The result is a fat graft supercharged with stem cells.
Labels: Adult Stem Cells.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:32 AM
18 Comments
18 Comments:
Where are the non-embryonic stem cell deniers when all this good news about non-embryonic stem cells pops up? It's getting pretty quiet out there.
This comment from the article infuriates me most.
"Rubin said that around 2000 and 2001, researchers began to realize that these 'pre-fat cells' were actually stem cells that could become not just fat, but cartilage, bone, and even neurons and heart muscle. And, unlike other tissues rich in stem cells, such as bone marrow, fat tissue is easy to extract."
We've known since 2000 or 2001 that "adult" stem cells could become these other tissues, cartilage, heart muscle, neurons and bone etc?
Well where's this news been the last 7 or 8 years and who's been keeping that under wraps, or denying it all these years while saying others of us were tantamount to liars and didn't care about sufferes for insisting those same cells could be coaxed into becoming other and for saying it held tremendous promise to treat, cure, provide benefits for ailments?
If we keep seeing stuff like this-the writer in Live Science calls it "Stem cell magic", I wonder what this will do to the credibility of patient advocacy groups in the eyes of the sufferers they claim to represent, when those sufferers figure this out and start seeing successes from this kind of research that their "leaders," "represenatives," "advocates" or whatever they call themselves, produced powerful results against the predictions of their leaders and the wrong bets they made. I wonder what they payback will be when sufferers, who were preyed upon for political purposes, figure this out and hear about the results?
ESCR junk biology shoveled by propagandists
So studying pluripotent cells is junk biology huh Wesley? Since when? What did you mean when you said:
"IPSC research needs to proceed with our full support. "
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/04/new-reproductive-cloning-technology-or.html
When its convenient to attack one process (ESCr) you call it junk biology and propaganda, but when its fits your means (IPSc) you hail it a great thing, as the underlying questions seeking understanding of the complete cellular process are no different, only the context of how the cells were derived. If one is "junk biology" then so is the other, if you understand what your talking about.
You're so disingenuous in your ad hominem attacks on scientists that you dont realize that you are the Propaganda machine.
Whether studying pluripotent cells generated via ESCr or IPSc, researchers are aiming for the same goal. You fail to acknowledge that without ESCr study in the first place IPSc would not have been discovered. If you had your way from the start, no pluripotent research would be done, science would remain in a flat world geocentric brain trust.
I still have faith in science to find CURES and I have no problem saying it. Its amusing how you avoid the word Cure like the plague. We all hope many treatments will result from ASCr treatments, even though your narrow minded minions speak as if they have exclusive domain over ASCr as a replacement for ESCr. You're unable to conceive that in order to treat people effectively and faster science needs to understand the entire process. Instead your peers are encouraged to set up straw men saying if your for ESCr then you must be against ASCr and the entrails of BS that follow such statements. (refer to dons first comment here)
Of course you limit your argument to therapies while consistently failing to grasp that until ESCr spawned IPSc the study of mechanisms covering the entire life cycles were only possible using ESCr AND ASCr. You simply cant open a book in the middle and start reading, and then tell the whole story when your done.
I can understand the point of view that a prolife person feels ESCr is taking a persons life, but when you contradict yourself over the value of the science and information being discovered by IPSc and ESCr the flaws in your logic are painfully exposed.
But I do agree the climate of hostility for your discourse is increasingly irrelevant due to technological breakthroughs that come from understanding how ESCr and IPSc correlate. You can sit back and launch your armchair attacks against the bright minds that are still unlocking the secrets to our genetic makeup. but as they progress and broaden optimism for humanity your deaf arguments will continue to become increasingly irrelevant.
Cue the crickets...
DS: I am so weary of your misconstruing my posts. The junk biology to which I referred is not the assertion that pluripotent stem cells should be explored--which is an ethical question--but clearly the false assertions by advocates such as Teitelbaum and Neaves in support of their side of the controversy, such as that adult stem cells are unipotent, clearly a false statement.
Note how I have repeatedly praised James Thomson with whom I disagree about the ethical matter, but who is honest in his advocacy about the scientific facts, such as that SCNT is cloning and that embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of nacent human life.
So, either react to what I actually write or please don't react at all. Thank you.
When you hype phrases like 'junk biology' its seems logical you should be entitled to define them. However when you state things in the following manner it makes understanding potentially ambiguous.
"I also note that my comments about the success of Wu-suk Hwang creating cloned embryonic stem cells were later found out to be a total fraud.
Check it out. It's a good deconstruction of the junk biology that passes for science in much of this debate and most of what I said remains accurate and relevant to the ongoing controversy. "
smith-on-air
"Regenerative Medicine: Pathway to Cures," which I demonstrated conclusively is thoroughly mendacious, propagandistic, and permeated with junk biology.
The video, which claims to be "educational," is actually a 14-minute exercise in propaganda. It is a disgrace to the scientific community.
Within seconds of the video's opening, an announcer tells viewers:
Now with this revolutionary breakthrough of regenerative medicine doctors will actually be able to cure diseases, not just treat them with pills and shots. Insulin-producing cells will be injected into the diabetic child to cure diabetes. Retinal cells will be injected to make the blind see. Nerve cells will be used to make the quadriplegic walk again. Stem-cell research has the potential to cure over 130 million Americans plagued by chronic degenerative diseases and conditions. This is the potential that stem-cell research holds for us.
In reality, scientists do not know whether embryonic stem cells will ever "cure" anything. Indeed, it is possible that they will never be able to be used in human beings due to safety concerns--such as the potential for tumor formation and immune rejection. They might not work as hoped, or if they do, their most efficacious use might be to alleviate symptoms rather than effect actual cures. The point is: No reputable scientist would claim today that "nerve cells" created with embryonic stem cells "will be used to make quadriplegics walk again."
This reads like you were discussing the clinical research, but thanks for clarifying that you were only talking about semantics.
Still, you have in the past stomped on the potential of ESCr from a therapeutic standpoint as "Hype"
stem-cell-hype-being-reported-finally
beyond-hype-some-scientific-facts
and discouraged the potential of ESCr, it had nothing to do with your semantics. Then became more optimistic about the potential of pluripotency once IPS came along.
You still haven't refuted the basic reason why scientists needed to study ESCr in the past, to get the entire story of human Biology. We all hope that IPSc can lead to effective replacement for ESCr, but thank god we studied ESCr in the first place to develop an understanding of how to develop IPSc and complete the bigger picture.
James Thomson with whom I disagree about the ethical matter, but who is honest in his advocacy... that embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of nacent human life.
Are saying Dr. Thomson sees SCNT as killing a person as you do? If so, thats a good argument for your position.
If not, then why try twist the truth to make it sound like Thomson agrees with you when he doesn't?
Lets be forthright here. I've never seen Dr. Thomson say SCNT was destroying a person as you do.
You also assert that Teitelbaum said ASCr are merely unipotent. Well I searched and could not support what you "heard". I did find a statement attributed to him that said "Adult stem cells are by and large unipotent." Which is by and large true.
DS: I said: "Note how I have repeatedly praised James Thomson with whom I disagree about the ethical matter, but who is honest in his advocacy about the scientific facts, such as that SCNT is cloning and that embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of nacent human life."
You said: "Are saying Dr. Thomson sees SCNT as killing a person as you do? If so, thats a good argument for your position.
If not, then why try twist the truth to make it sound like Thomson agrees with you when he doesn't?"
More intentional misconstruing, since you have changed it to a "person," which is a subjective philosophical issue, rather than an objective scientific matter of whether an embryo is a living human organism, which is a matter of biology. Once again, I talk apples and you respond oranges.
I don't often say this, but I don't have time to interact with you any further given your constant prevarications. Feel free to continue to engage here, but I probably won't respond.
"an embryo is a living human organism, which is a matter of biology."
Youre not a Biologist, you've placed yourself as a bio-ethicist, with a blog discussing bio-ethics, but seem to be ducking the essence of the ethics.
Have you claimed an embryo is a person? Is an embryo worthy of your conceived human exceptionalism?
Not much point to agreeing with Thomson on a phrase if your definitions of that phrase are different, effectively spinning nothing.
So - is a human embryo a person?
You pose a lot of questions on this blog, but can you give a straight answer on this very basic bio-ethical question?
Why wouldn't the human embryo be a person?
Why wouldn't the human embryo be a person?
Good question.
If you believe a human embryo is a person and that "nascent human life" equates to embryos, then destroying nascent human life is destroying a person.
I inferred this was Wesley's viewpoint when he said Dr Thompson agreed "that SCNT is cloning and that embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of nascent human life."
Dr. Thomson does not agree with Wesley that Nascent Human Life constitutes a person. So I asked him to clarify that, to which he responded.
More intentional misconstruing, since you have changed it to a "person," which is a subjective philosophical issue,...I don't have time to interact with you any further given your constant prevarications."
See whenever I ask basic questions he avoids them and dives into a shell of semantics. It happens most times we try to shed light on reasoning for belief.
Meanwhile Wesley ignored my basic arguments for ESCr which basically state that science needs to study ESCr and ASCr in order to fully understand the mechanisms of cellular lifecycles, and that there will be an ongoing need for that type of research to make breakthoughs in the future.
I also acknowledged that IPSc resulted from knowledge gained through ESCr and it's hopeful that we can use this technology moving forward to conduct research, rendering ESCr controversy more irrelevant. to which he spoke nothing of. Instead hiding in semantics.
I'm not here to change his mind, but rather to offer perspective from a differing opinion.
Dark Swan, Dr. Thomson is on the record as saying that anyone who doesn't think that destroying human embryos for the purpose of stem-cell research is a big deal hasn't thought about the issue clearly. Why might this scientist consider the destruction of human embryos to be so thorny?
"Instead your peers are encouraged to set up straw men saying if your for ESCr then you must be against ASCr and the entrails of BS that follow such statements."
How do you explain the blockade against the good news about adult stem cells over the past seven or eight years -- the blockade that only now is beginning to crumble? How do you account for the media's repeated false claim that "adult stem cells are less promising"?
How do you explain the blockade against the good news about adult stem cells over the past seven or eight years
I'd like to see a peer reviewed scientist who said that ASCr was not a worthwhile endeavor.
I don't recall that happened, but if it was a conscience effort by the scientific community I'd say it was to insulate their research from being politicized by people like Wesley and others who campaigned against pluripotent research for years, until that same research they rallied against lead to discoveries that were "acceptable" to all groups via IPSc.
If Wesley had his way from the beginning, no research would have ever been conducted on pluripotent cells and we would never have known the origins of how cells develop and been unable to figure out why they specialize.
What floors me is that those same groups don't recognize the same life potential in IPSc as they say is in ESC based on the fact that they are not located in any random egg. The IPSc development is halted when lacking external stimulus in an egg very similar to the way Embryo development is halted when is lacking external stimulus from the womb.
But that doesn't fit into the political viewpoint of the ESCr opponents so he they won't fathom that point of view.
"If Wesley had his way from the beginning, no research would have ever been conducted on pluripotent cells and we would never have known the origins of how cells develop and been unable to figure out why they specialize."
"If Wesley had his way," we'd STILL have more than SIX DOZEN diseases being treated in humans with ASCs.
So whats stopping anyone? Apparently David Prentice knows of 6 dozen treatments available years
ago.
If current ASC therapies were really as viable as you say bio-tech companies would be falling over each other to capitalize.
So sidestep and ignore my point, but it remains true.
"If Wesley had his way from the beginning, no research would have ever been conducted on pluripotent cells and we would never have known the origins of how cells develop and been unable to figure out why they specialize."
"So whats stopping anyone? Apparently David Prentice knows of 6 dozen treatments available years
ago."
Many of those treatments are still in the human-trials phase. I'd like to see some evidence of Prentice (or anyone else) claiming that all of these treatments are widely available already.
"If current ASC therapies were really as viable as you say bio-tech companies would be falling over each other to capitalize."
That's where the private investment IS going, DS. The people who actually study the issue and the science before plunking their money down see that
adult stem cell research is already yielding positive results, and so that's where their money goes. The ESCR lobby sees plainly that the private money is headed towards the more promising ASCs; that's why they keep clamoring
for more PUBLIC money.
And allow me to amend your statement a bit so that it's at least closer to accurate:
"If Wesley had his way from the beginning, no research would have ever been conducted on pluripotent cells and we would never have known the origins of how (embryonic) cells develop and been unable to figure out why they
specialize."
I'd like to see some evidence of Prentice (or anyone else) claiming that all of these treatments are widely available already.
Why set up an argument no one was making? I agree, as Prentice himself said in Science Mag
"We have never stated that these treatments are "generally available," "cures," or "fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)."
-----
That's where the private investment IS going, DS.
Im sure it is to a limited extent, but not to the point were therapy is being widely marketed that I'm aware of. I havent heard any of those commercials with soft music and a guy throwing a football , sellng ASCr therapy.
Please provide a few instances of substantial corporate investment in ASCr so I may read about.
-----------
And allow me to amend your statement
Yes that is correct. If the anti-ESCr crowd had succeded in banning scientific efforts to study ESCr, then IPSc would not have been realized and we would be stuck in 20th century medicine, poking and hoping with ASCr treatments, with no basic understand of why a cell specializes and how to effect them in the early stages of development where most diseases begin and provide the most promising for treatment. this is not just my thought, its the thoughts of most respected geneticists in the world.
Have a nice day!
"Why set up an argument no one was making?"
Apparently, you were making the argument that David Prentice was making something up, or lying when he said there were more than six dozen diseases being treated with ASCs. If you're acknowledging that those 70+ diseases ARE being treated with ASCs, then what IS your point?
"I havent heard any of those commercials with soft music and a guy throwing a football , sellng ASCr therapy."
Stay with me now: that's because these treatments are still in the trials phase. It's not a prescribed heart medication, or something, DS.
"If the anti-ESCr crowd had succeded in banning scientific efforts to study ESCr, then IPSc would not have been realized and we would be stuck in 20th century medicine, poking and hoping with ASCr treatments..."
We'd be..."stuck"...with adult stem cell treatments that allow us to understand how those cells work, and allow us to treat thousands of human patients? "Stuck"?
Dear Dark Swan:
It is reassuring to see that embryology fanatics will go down swinging, proving my case beyond all doubt. Wesley needs no defending, so I won't presume, but I will make my case again for others to see.
ESC is not science, never was, and never will be, at least as far as implanting ESC into a live human being is concerned.
Embryology is the modern version of alchemy, and the result will always be the same as its predecessors of some 500 years ago.
First I'll start by renaming the non-appropriate term "adult" stem cells to REPAIR stem cells. That is what they do---repair any part of the human body that needs it.**
They do this by settling in to the spot that needs the help (as determined by a skilled treating doctor) and staying there, repairing AND growing more powerful so they can increase the repair rate until the symptoms of the patient are reduced and the patient gains a new, better quality of life. No, it does not work 100% of the time, but so far 75% seems about right for most diseases. Not bad for 100 medical conditions modern medicine considers "untreatable."
The embryonic stem cell is a proliferating cell, that is what it does, come heck, high water, or modern-day alchemists. Even though some ESC researchers can "train" ESCs to fight a particular symptom,
they will NEVER turn lead into gold, i.e. Proliferating SC to Repair SC.
The ESCs will not hang around and repair, but will wortk a little, then wander off to try and proliferate. Frequently these cells say the heck with it and and proliferate anyway. Not into a zygote, (because they don't find themselves in a fallopian tube or a womb), but into a tumor. And try as they might, disease treating ESC clinical trials of today's alchemists have failed over and over and over. Now you know why. They are not Repair cells and they do not stick around to repair.
Donald Margolis
Founder & Chairman,
The Repair Stem Cell
Institute LLC
Dallas, Washington, Bangkok
RepairStemCells.org
**The only reasons 100% of known diseases are not under attack from RSC are (1) Some diseases haven't a big enough market to pay for the research (2) More than half the number of different Repair SC available haven't been discovered yet. This year we are averaging TWO NEW SOURCES or NEW REPAIR STEM CELLS every month
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home