Totally Weird

It seems that some people will go to great lengths to fight off the effects of aging. If you thought botox was bad, a form of botulism toxin that actually paralyzes muscles near the injection site and therefore diminishes wrinkles, get a load of this. In Moscow, beauty salons are injecting stem cells into clients in order to reverse the signs of aging including grey hair and wrinkles. The only problem with this is it’s completely phony.

In the November 8th issue of Newsweek magazine, authors Nadya Titova and Frank Brown reported this sham in an article entitled, “Stem Cell Rip-off”. According to the article about 50 beauty salons and medical clinics around Moscow are using stem cell therapies to treat less than emergent ailments, aka wrinkles. These salons/clinics have no government or adequate medical supervision and just about anyone can get such treatments because in some cases a medical history is bypassed. The treatments have no scientific merit. Sometimes the stem cells are injected under the skin and other times they are administered intravenously. Basically, the hype surrounding stem cell research and its potential ability to cure the incurable has led many people to believe these cells are the fountain of youth. A few scandalous business owners are using that hype to their monetary advantage. The article cited one woman with an annual salary of $65,000 spending over $15,000 on a stem cell treatment to cure her insomnia. This woman spent almost a quarter of her annual income on a treatment that isn’t even medically proven. According to the woman her insomnia went away after the stem cell treatment but who’s to say some of her well rested nights weren’t due to the placebo affect.

The risks of such stem cell treatments of cosmetic purposes are unknown. Along with infection in the blood, tumor onset, and a repressed immune system, no one really knows what stem cells injected into the body for cosmetic purposes can really do. The article proposes that Moscow is now inadvertently running the world’s largest clinical trial on the effects of stem cell therapies for cosmetic purposes in humans, but due to the lack of scientific organization, regulation, and documentation, the results are nearly indecipherable. Some claim that is works, like the insomniac while others such as Vladimir Bryntsalov, who went in for a stem cell treatment to get rid of his grey hair and wrinkles, suffered from pea sized tumors on his face a few weeks after treatment.

So what kinds of stem cells are actually injected into these naive and youth seeking clients? The injections vary but include: embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, pig embryonic stem cells, or just plain old skin cells that were advertised as embryonic stem cells. The article cites Andrei Yuriev, an official with the Federal Inspection Service for Health and Social Development, as saying “None of these beauty salons operates legally.” But says it is not his department’s job to crack down on this issue.

I thought this article was beyond bizarre.

Highlights

Below are links to three blog entries that I consider to be some of my best.

How Infertility Clinics Contribute to the Stem Cell Debate

A Baby from a Skin Cell?

Symposium and Open Forum

Full Speed Ahead

This month in Portland Oregon the first-ever fetal stem cell transplant into a human was performed at the Doernbecher Children's Hospital at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU). The experimental therapy is described in the article entitled, “Stem Cell First at OHSU” by Peter Korn of the Portland Tribune.

The young patients at the heart of this experimental stem cell therapy are children that suffer from a fatal condition known as Batten disease. Batten disease is a neurological disorder that begins in childhood and results in death by the teens. Batten disease is inherited. This disease is caused by the build up of fats and proteins in the brain, leading to blindness, impaired motor function, impaired cognitive function, and eventually death. More specifically, the disease arises from a defective copy of a gene that encodes enzymes that break down fats and proteins in the brain, leading to the build up of these molecules in the brain.

In this experimental study at OHSU purified neuronal stem cells were directly injected into the brain of a Batten disease patient. So far only one patient has been operated on but the study will include a total of six patients. The California company called StemCells Inc. of Palo Alto developed the stem cell product and is looking at its effectiveness in humans. The company has already tested the therapy in mice with a Batten-like disease. The stem cells used in this transplant procedure were derived from aborted or miscarried fetuses, with the consent of the woman. The stem cells for this surgery did not come from unused embryos from a fertility clinic.

In order to protect the privacy of the patient and family there is no word on how the patient is doing since the transplant. Both the medical staff and staff members at StemCells Inc. of Palo Alto refused to comment on the experimental surgery. It is important to bear in mind that this transplant surgery is only experimental and that there is no guarantee that the patients’ condition will improve. According to the article, Robert Steiner, the OHSU vice chairman of pediatric research at Doernbecher, described [in regards to the transplant surgery], as "a landmark study" and stressed that, as a Phase One trial, the primary goal is to evaluate the safety of the stem cells as a potential treatment.

Stem cells therapies have been forever aimed at treating neurological disorders and spinal cord injuries. Unlike bone or muscle tissue in the human body, neuronal tissue is very hard to regenerate. If stem cell therapies prove useful in regenerating damaged neuronal tissue a wide range of neuronal diseases and injuries could be treated with stem cells.

Personally I find this article thought provoking. I was unaware that stem cell therapies were advanced enough to be in the clinical trial stage already. I hope researchers and doctors find a way to improve the lives of these young patients. The source of the stem cells used in this trial will spark some debate, undoubtedly.

Adult Stem Cells used to treat Dogs

Muscular dystrophy describes an inherited disorder of the muscles. Muscular dystrophy causes the muscles to become very weak and over time the muscle tissue is replaced by fatty deposits. In an article entitled, “Stem Cells Aid Dogs with Muscular Dystrophy” describes how stem cell therapies given to dogs with Muscular Dystrophy greatly improved the dogs’ symptoms. The article stated that two dogs “severely disabled” by the disease were able to walk faster and even jump after stem cell treatment. Keep in mind these studies were conducted with dogs, and researchers are not positive this kind of treatment will work for humans with muscular dystrophy.

The study focuses on a certain type of Muscular Dystrophy known as Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, primarily affecting males, prohibits muscles from developing in early childhood and may even result in crippling. According to the article, children with this type of Muscular Dystrophy have trouble walking by the time they start preschool and loose their ability to walk between the ages of 7 & 12 years. Commonly, children with this disease die in their early twenties due to heart and lung weakness.

The dog study was conducted by Giulio Cossu, director of the stem cell institute at the San Raffaele Scientific Institute in Milan, Italy, along with colleagues in Italy and elsewhere. The study worked with golden retrievers that had a form of dystrophy similar to the human form. Most interestingly to me was the fact that the scientists used adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells, and got a good result. Adult stem cells from healthy dogs were repeatedly injected into the bloodstream of the crippled dogs. The major downfall of this type of stem cell therapy is the need for anti rejection treatments in the patient. Since the injected adult stem cells come from healthy dogs, the crippled dogs needed to be treated with anti rejection therapies in order for the stem cell therapy to take effect.

The article describes a number of dogs before and after treatment with adult dog stem cells. Two dogs ‘severely impaired’ by the disease regained the ability to move faster, jump and one even ran after treatment, although neither could use hind legs normally. According to the article, the adult stem cell therapy worked because the stem cells fused with regenerating muscle fibers and pumped out a protein that dogs with the disease cannot synthesize on their own.

The one major aspect of this study that stuck out to me was the successful use of adult stem cells. It seems there is a lot of discrepancy within the literature over the usefulness of adult stem cells. There was an article not too long ago about the uselessness of adult stem cells entitled, Adult Stem Cells Little or No Help to Heart. It is a little difficult to accept both arguments. Ultimately I think this shows the need for research in both areas, adult and embryonic stem cells. Obviously, there is not enough information gathered to make a definite argument about adult stem cells one way or another and more information is needed.

Amendment 2 Narrowly Passes

For those who haven’t already heard, Amendment 2 passed, but only by the slimmest of margins. The final vote came down to 51% in favor of the amendment and 49% against the amendment. This is just about as close as it gets. But this is to be expected when such an issue as controversial as embryonic stem cell research is on the ballot. If it passed by overwhelming margins then I would say it really isn’t that controversial. Obviously, this is not the case. With the approval of Amendment 2, any form of stem cell research authorized by the United States Federal Government will be permitted in Missouri.

The November 9th edition of Newsweek Magazine (online) has an article entitled: By a Whisker, In Missouri a Measure Supporting Stem Cell Research Passes Narrowly but the Fight Isn’t Over. This article, by Arian Campo-Flores, chronicles the differing opinions of two voting Missourians, gives a detailed history of Amendment 2 and also records the events in the days leading up to the election. The article opens with the story of a Kansas City woman who supports the amendment. The article then goes on to describe the history of the amendment. According to Campo-Flores, the idea of Amendment 2 emerged one year ago when a number of organizations around Missouri ranging from medical to faith organizations grew weary of the fact that state lawmakers were considering blocking stem cell research or even criminalizing it in the state of Missouri. Thus the amendment was created, and made it on to this November’s ballot.

Just recently, before the November 7th election, a controversy stirred over one of Claire McCaskill’s campaign commercials that featured Michael J. Fox. The author mentions this commercial to highlight the intense amount of controversy that surrounded and continues to surround Amendment 2. The author also mentions how in the last few days leading up to the election, those groups opposed to Amendment 2 tried to “derail” the amendment support, and mentions how well these ‘derailing efforts” worked. Quoted in the article is Donn Rubin, chairman of the pro-stem cell Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, “Before long, support for the amendment, which had consistently outpaced opposition by double digits, narrowed. “The opponents [did] a good job of polarizing the issue … on partisan lines,” says Rubin (in response to opposition efforts to deter supporters).

Overall, the author mentions a very good point at the end of the article. The point being that stem cell research really isn’t a bipartisan issue. The author gives two examples of how stem cell research can split members of the same party. In the case of the Democrats, the author mentions the “liberal pro-choicers” versus the “catholic pro-lifers”. On the other hand, there were divisions among the Republicans namely the “social conservatives” versus the “business oriented conservatives”. Finally the author closes with the story of a retired teacher who is passionately against embryonic stem cell research.

In my opinion, one of the paramount take home points from this article is the fact the stem cell research is not a bipartisan issue. Republican or Democrat, there is no set algorithm for formulating an opinion about stem cell research. Just because a voter considers himself a republican does not mean he will be against stem cell research because it really in not about liberal versus conservative. This issue is really a personal one that each person can only decide for themselves, and don’t be afraid to change your opinion. As more information becomes available about embryonic stem cell research, individual opinions will undoubtedly change. The article as a whole does a good job of presenting each side of the case. The author opens the article with a testimony of support and ends with a testimony of opposition.

Symposium and Open Forum

On Wednesday October 25, 2006, the University of Missouri-Columbia College of Arts and Science Student Council held a symposium and open forum entitled “Know the Facts About Stem Cell Research”. There were three speakers each designated to cover a specific aspect of the research. The first of the three speakers was Dr. Mark Kirk. He discussed the science behind stem cell research, both adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research. During his presentation, Dr. Kirk showed a video of stem cell therapies in mice. Basically, the video showed two different mice with spinal cord injuries. The two mice had spinal cord bruises around their 9th or 10th Thoracic vertebrae. One of the mice was treated with stem cells while the other one was not. The untreated mouse (the control) had no movement in his hind legs or tail. The mouse treated with stem cells was able to stand on his hind legs alone and swing his tail. To conclude his presentation, Dr. Kirk discussed Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) and mentioned how therapeutic cloning is different from human reproductive cloning.

The second speaker was Dr. William Bondeson. Dr. Bondeson discussed the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research and presented two big questions for the audience to ponder. His first question for the audience was, “Why are we voting on a constitutional amendment?’ Dr. Bondeson’s second question for the audience was, “Is therapeutic cloning morally permissible?” Also, he raised the question about killing with respect to destroying blastocysts. When a blastocyst is destroyed in order to harvest the stem cells inside, is that the same as killing a full grown human being? Does a blastocyst have human rights such as the right to not be harmed, or do those human rights come into play further down the line? Dr. Bondeson also mentioned that the major source of blastocysts is from in vitro fertilization clinics around the country and mentioned that Amendment 2 would strictly prohibit human reproductive cloning but would allow therapeutic cloning.

The third speaker was Vicky Riback Wilson. Ms. Riback Wilson discussed the political side of stem cell research, specifically the Missouri politics and discussed in detail Amendment 2. She gave a brief history of the causes of Amendment 2 and heavily stressed how voting on Amendment 2 is not a stem cell research issue but it is rather in issue of public policy.

I was surprised at how many people attended the symposium and open forum. It was not just college students but people from the community of all ages. Audience members were allowed to ask questions during each of the speakers’ presentations but there was also a question/answer session following the three presentations. Dr. Kirk’s video of the injured mice raised a number of questions. One audience member wanted to know if these types of stem cell therapies could be used to regenerate skin for burn victims. Theoretically, yes they could. Another member wondered why so much of the stem cell therapies are tested in mice? Why didn’t researchers try testing stem cell therapies in animals that are more closely related to humans, such as apes? I thought this was a great question because I have wondered this myself. If there was scientific evidence of an ape regaining movement in his lower extremities after a spinal cord injury, I would feel more certain that such therapies would work with humans. Dr. Kirk responded by stating that more basic research is needed to test for safety before higher animals are tested. He also mentioned that mice are the easiest “in lab” animal. The part of Dr. Kirk’s presentation on SCNT was confusing for a lot of audience members so we spent a lot of time on those figures. Overall, the most confusing aspect of stem cell research for the audience was how to get a stem cell to differentiate into a specific type of cell, such as a nerve cell or skin cell.

Dr. Bondeson’s presentation was different from Dr. Kirks. In Dr. Kirk’s presentation the questions had scientific answers that Dr. Kirk himself could provide, but the questions raised during Dr. Bondeson’s presentation were questions each individual had to answer for themselves. One audience member asked Dr. Kirk’s opinion on some of Dr. Bondeson’s questions, since Dr. Kirk is obviously supportive of stem cell research. Dr Kirk believes the benefits of stem cell research far outweigh the human rights of the blastocyst but he acknowledges that not everyone will agree with this and said that it is a personal decision that each person must make for themselves. Dr. Bondeson asked the audience why Missouri is voting to amend the constitution. This is where he handed the discussion over to Ms. Riback Wilson.

Ms. Riback Wilson stressed continuously that amendment 2 is more an issue of public policy than an issue of stem cell research. For a number of years bans on stem cell research in Missouri have been raised by certain groups. An amendment would eliminate all possibility of any future bans on stem cell research in Missouri, because a law on stem cell research could potentially get overturned. There was a lot of confusion in the audience over what Amendment 2 was really proposing. Basically, Amendment 2 would allow Missouri to follow federal laws regarding stem cell research and would prevent the state from enacting a ban on stem cell research in Missouri.

I thought this symposium and open forum was an excellent idea. I was glad to se so many people of all ages interested in stem cell research in Missouri. With an issue as complicated as stem cell research, it is crucial that voters get informed not only on the scientific aspect but of the ethical and political aspects as well. I cam away from the symposium and open forum with a lot more knowledge on the political side of Amendment 2; I never understood why we were voting on an amendment but now I have a better idea. It is nice to know Missouri voters are putting in time and effort to make the most educated decision they can on Amendment 2.

Little Hope with Adult Stem Cells

Adult stem cells are basically any stem cells that are not derived from an embryo. Adult stem cells are actively studied in order to find cures that would circumvent the need to destroy embryos, as with embryonic stem cell research. According to an article entitled Adult Stem Cells Little or No Help to Heart Repair, adult stem cell therapies were not successful in treating patients with heart damage. This article describes three studies that used adult stem cells to repair heart damage in patients with hopes that the adult stem cells would restore some function to the hearts damaged by heart attacks. More specifically, the studies looked at adult stem cells ability to remedy damage to the main pumping chamber of the patients’ hearts because heart attacks weaken heart muscle an reduce its ability to pump blood.

The first study described in the article was a Norwegian study that focused on 50 patients who had had heart attacks in recent weeks. These 50 patients were given bone marrow stem cells and were compared to patients who received no such treatment. This study found that the patients who were given the adult stem cells showed no significant improvement compared to those patients who did not receive adult stem cells. In the second study German researchers infused 101 patients who recently had had heart attacks with adult stem cells. 103 heart attack patients were given fake infusions. Here, the patients who received the adult stem cell infusion improved heart function 5.5 percentage points four months after the treatment, whereas those who received the fake infusion reported improved heart function by 3 percentage points. In the third study described in the article German researchers gave 28 patients infusions of bone marrow stem cells, 24 patients infusions of circulating blood stem cells and 23 patients no infusions (control group). Bone marrow stem cell infused patients reported a 3 percentage point increase in pumping ability compared tot eh other two groups.

In each of these three studies, adult stem cells were infused into patients’ hearts via cardiac catheterization. Meaning, a tiny balloon is threaded into the heart and inflated to momentarily block normal blood flow while the adult stem cells are injected. Cardiac catheterizations are routinely used for gathering information on the pumping ability of the heart muscle. Success was measured by changes in the amount of blood pumped with each heart beat.

The second and third study shows a modest success with adult stem cell therapies, while the first study shows no measurable success. In research, it is important to recognize that no result is still a result. What these studies are really showing is the need to explore embryonic stem cell treatments. Some scientist believe embryonic stem cells have a better potential for treating ailments such as heart damage and this study could be used to formulate an argument for lifting the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. One thing I learned from this article was how they actually used stem cells to treat patients. I was not aware that stem cells could just be injected into the organ (in this case the heart) and given a few minutes to take root. I was a bit disappointed after reading this article that adult stem cells had little or no ability to improve the heart function of heart attack patients.







Associated Press. "Adult Stem Cells Little or No Help to Heart Repair." MSNBC. MSN. 22 Oct. 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/.


"What is cardiac catheterization?" Cardiac Catheterization. The American Heart Association. 22 Oct. 2006 .