|
|
|
|
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 10/4/2007 3:15:36 PM | I was wondering if anyone out there would agree to have a diseased organ replaced if it could be regrown by stem cells. I know alot of politicians would 'against' it if it didn't affect their loved ones, but once it does, they would quickly change their minds on things. If their child needed a new heart or liver I'm sure they would eagerly have the procedure performed.
Personally, I would have a new heart growing for myself. After 3 heart attacks there aint' much left to it. I would love to return to work and be able to do normal day-to-day things without being exhausted after 10 minutes.
What if it was you? Would you have it done? Does it depend on the organ involved or what? | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 10/4/2007 4:06:50 PM | I think this would lower the already low value we put on life.
The reason life is so special is because it does hang by a thread.
My hands are special because i can't replace them when they're gone.
If i was able to replace a heart then giving my my life to someone would mean less then it does today.
But it's great news for my slaves.
Not only can i genetically modify my slaves to do there work faster in making me more money but i can now push them so much further now.
Whaaaaaa haaa haa | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 10/4/2007 10:34:09 PM | Not long ago I was reading an article about growing organs via stem cells. In fact there is such promise in this research that quite a few people are opting to freeze the stem cells harvested, after the birth of a child. Most of those opting for this are people with a family history of certain disease.
The great thing about organs grown from your own stem cells, is that they are YOUR organs, and the body won't reject them when implanted.
There is also some concentration in skin development, for those in need of skin grafts.
Could be that some day, hospitals will automatically send stem cells to be frozen, as an insurance policy, so to speak, for the possible future needs of the child.
I think it's a fabulous idea, and with all the possiblilities, I just can't believe that more funding allowing greater research is not being extended. | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 10/4/2007 11:17:41 PM | | Because bush is against it because he is a genuine christian, there will be no more research in the US as long as he is in. He enjoys threatening other countries into never making people live longer. | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 6/30/2009 8:59:47 PM | | As I got ready for work a Dr was being interviewed about embryonic vs. adult stem cell research. He said that embryonic stem cells caused tumors were as adult stem cells have been effective in patching and replacement of organs. | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:41:12 AM |
I was wondering if anyone out there would agree to have a diseased organ replaced if it could be regrown by stem cells. I know alot of politicians would 'against' it if it didn't affect their loved ones, but once it does, they would quickly change their minds on things. If their child needed a new heart or liver I'm sure they would eagerly have the procedure performed.
Personally, I would have a new heart growing for myself. After 3 heart attacks there aint' much left to it. I would love to return to work and be able to do normal day-to-day things without being exhausted after 10 minutes.
What if it was you? Would you have it done? Does it depend on the organ involved or what? If the organ is grown from non-foetal-abortion stem cells, then there would not be a problem. There is ample technology to use non-foetal-abortion stem cells. There is no good reason not to use them. It solves any controversy.
RE Msg: 5 by VVendy:
As I got ready for work a Dr was being interviewed about embryonic vs. adult stem cell research. He said that embryonic stem cells caused tumors were as adult stem cells have been effective in patching and replacement of organs. I suspect that's because adult stem cells use your own stem cells, or even take your skin cells, and convert them into stem cells. Other people's cells are treated as a foreign body in your body. They are likely to be killed off by the immune system. But if they are not, then they are "outside the loop" of your body's mechanism. Your body won't tell them when to start reproducing and when to stop. So they'll act like any other virus, and just spread continually. When human cells act in this way, like a virus, we call them a tumour.
Adult stem cells made from your own cells, are treated as part of your body. So your body tells them when to reproduce, and when not to, just like any other body, and because they are the same types of cells are the rest of your body, they listen. So they act in accordance with your body, and don't act like a virus. No virus of human cells, no tumour. | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/1/2009 5:59:11 AM | | That sounds right. I am glad that we now have proof that it is not because our goverment is not funding the experiments that it does not work to use cells from our youngest humans but that it just does not work. My hope is this will stop the push for using them. | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/1/2009 8:58:12 AM |
Adult stem cells made from your own cells, are treated as part of your body. So your body tells them when to reproduce, and when not to, just like any other body, and because they are the same types of cells are the rest of your body, they listen. So they act in accordance with your body, and don't act like a virus. No virus of human cells, no tumour.
There is another problem with stem cells that applies equally to cells harvested from your own body as an infant.
You see stem cells are undiferentiated cells that can turn into into more than one type of cell. Skin stem cells can turn into fat, skin, nerve, ect, but can not turn into liver cells (without some clever biochemistry added that is). This means that ussing skin stem cells to patch a wound is perfect, because they can only turn into usefull cells.
However, if you take stem cells from the cord or embryo, then they can turn into far more things and there is a risk that they will go rogue and turn into cells that are not of use in that particular part of the body.
There is some new work being done to solve this problem, by turning cord or embryonic stem cells into stem cells from further down the line such as skin or heart stem cells, but so far the work is limited and there has not been enough time to collect any good results yet, but hopefully we will have cracked it soon.
 | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/1/2009 8:10:01 PM | RE Msg: 8 by Bright1Raziel:
There is another problem with stem cells that applies equally to cells harvested from your own body as an infant. I had not considered stem cells harvested from your own body as an infant, as an option. The research I had read, gave me the impression that one could take an adult non-stem skin cell, and convert it back into any type of stem cell. I based this on the info I had read over 20 years ago, that all cells contained the DNA for the entire body, but only the bits that related to THAT cell were active, and the rest were inactive, and that scientists were working on a way to reactivate all the DNA in any cells. I had assumed that this was what had been recently discovered. Was I wrong?
but can not turn into liver cells (without some clever biochemistry added that is). I was not aware that skin stem cells could not be turned into liver cells. I thought that all stem cells were the same, that normal cells only have the bits of DNA they use as active, and so stem cells had ALL their DNA active. Could you explain this a bit more?
Skin stem cells can turn into fat, skin, nerve, ect, I take it they can only turn into cells found in the area of skin, such as fat, skin, and nerves, because they are found in the skin.
This means that ussing skin stem cells to patch a wound is perfect, because they can only turn into usefull cells.
However, if you take stem cells from the cord or embryo, then they can turn into far more things and there is a risk that they will go rogue and turn into cells that are not of use in that particular part of the body. That's a huge problem. You don't want bone growing where bone ought not to be. I just assumed that the stem cells automatically copied what was there already, in a pre-established pattern by the DNA, and so I assumed that this couldn't happen. Was I wrong.
There is some new work being done to solve this problem, by turning cord or embryonic stem cells into stem cells from further down the line such as skin or heart stem cells, but so far the work is limited and there has not been enough time to collect any good results yet, but hopefully we will have cracked it soon. Well, maybe we might. But until we know for pretty damn certain, that makes embryonic and infant stem cell research, extremely dangerous. At least with the issue of tissue rejection, we have some very reliable immunosuppressant drugs. AFAIK, they do give you some serious health problems over long use. But at least you know that's the most likely problem, and that if they don't work, the worst is that your body will reject the foreign tissue.
But if you have cells that can grow something where they aren't supposed to, that leads to some symptoms of really nasty genetic diseases, like the people whose bones don't stop growing, or the people whose skin doesn't stop growing, and things like that. They seem to really suffer, and operations just seem to mitigate the situation, and just make it bearable to survive. But not much more than that.
I am far more worried about stem cells because of what you've written here, than any other side effects I had considered before. I'll stick with just looking after my body, and trying to keep it in good nick, so I don't need them.
But I'd be really interested in future developments, and I'd be in favour of funding them, as the possibilities for all types of stem cell research seem really useful. | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/2/2009 8:07:37 AM | I figure the gov't really boobed that call! Stem cell research should have been heavily funded!
they don't have enough prgan donors when needed as it is. The recipients have to take anti-rejection drugs the rest of their lives, caising a huge cost in health care. One replacement with your own stem-cell grown organ would more than pay for three or more "transplants" now!
Not to mention the lives saved.
Maybe the politicians are saving this proceedyure for themselves and their families! (Zachary Wheeler! Ever see that movie??)
when it comes to pouring money into health care...even with lont term benefits to it...the gov't is reluctant to move on it, until it hits them personally! | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/3/2009 4:57:49 AM | | There was a piece on TV the other night taking about "Induced pluripotent stem cells". Fascinating topic and worth Googling if you want to know more. | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/4/2009 8:58:33 AM |
I based this on the info I had read over 20 years ago, that all cells contained the DNA for the entire body, but only the bits that related to THAT cell were active, and the rest were inactive, and that scientists were working on a way to reactivate all the DNA in any cells. I had assumed that this was what had been recently discovered. Was I wrong?
Not wrong at all, the latest stem cell break through has been in turning skin stem cells back into embryonic stem cells. This is increadibly important work, but we can not assume that we have solved the problems with stem cells yet. We now need to be able to then turn those rejuvinated stem cells into more specific cell lines, such as heart or nerve stem cells, and we need to test them to make sure that the porcess dose not damage the cells and cause unforseen side effects.
I was not aware that skin stem cells could not be turned into liver cells. I thought that all stem cells were the same, that normal cells only have the bits of DNA they use as active, and so stem cells had ALL their DNA active. Could you explain this a bit more?
As you correctly pointed out earlier, all cells have the complete code for the human body within them, its just that in some parts of the body, certain genes are switched off.
Now a stem cell, is simply, a type of cell that is cpabable of turning into more than one other type of cell. Skin cells will generally only form other skin cells, but skin stem cells can form all of the tisues asociated with skin, such as fat, nerve and hair cells.
Not all stem cells are equal because they have difrent genes switched on or off. There is a general progresion from embryonic stem cell, to adult stem cells, that if mapped out would look like a tree. We call the difrent branches of this tree, a cell line. This tree starts with embryonic sem cells, from the very first stage of life, before cells begin to diferentiate, and it ends in each of the adult cell lines, skin, heart, nerve, muscle, ect.
Now the research that has been done so far, has managed to switch on all of the genes in a skin stem cell, that are found as active in an embryonic stem cell. But we do not yet know wether the cels have actually been rejuvinated as embryonic stem cells or wether they have been turned into some chimeric form of skin/embryonic stem cells. The probelm with the process is that we do not yet know the very presice biochemistry that controlls the progresion of the cell lines, and we may simply have created skin stem cells with extra genes swithced on. So far the results look promosing, but the science is still to new to be certain.
I take it they can only turn into cells found in the area of skin, such as fat, skin, and nerves, because they are found in the skin.
Yes, that is corect.
Skin stem cells have all the genes necissery to make only the cell types associated with where they are in the body, the skin, switched on, but the genes for pacemaker cells are not needed by skin cells so they are dormant.
The new cell therapies that have been developed can turn dormant genes back on, efectivly rejuvinating skin cells into earlier types of embryonic cell lines, such as budcells, which produces skin stem cells, bone stem cells, muscle stem cells and nerve stem cells. Another type of early cell line is the scafold cell, which produces the cells of the lungs and the arteries and the lymph. In turn, these budcells and scafold cells are just difren types of stem cell produced by yet another stem cell further up the line, right the way back to the embryonic stem cell.
Think of it like a company, where you start with just one employee, the buisness imporves so he hires new emplyess and designates them specific tasks, cleaner, stock room, cook, clerical, ect. The buisness developes futher and thes people become heads of thier own departments, with the cook hiring on pastry chefs, kitchen porters, ect.
That's a huge problem. You don't want bone growing where bone ought not to be. I just assumed that the stem cells automatically copied what was there already, in a pre-established pattern by the DNA, and so I assumed that this couldn't happen. Was I wrong.
Unfortunatelly, that was what we all thought, untill it was actually tried out and found not to be the case... some of the time!!! We were all wrong on this one.
It turns out that stem embryonic stem cells will often do the job properly, but not always. As yet, not fully understood mechanisms can cause embryonic stem cells to go rouge and produce cancerous growths or simply not grow at all.
Its now fairly sure that this is because of the complicated biochemistry of the body, telling the cells what they should and should not become, not always matching what the required imput for an embryonic cell line requires. You see, we now know that the mix and ratio of the cheimical signals is as important as the actuall chemicals themselves. For example, the ratio of bone growth hormone in the finger of a 14 year old boy is very diferent to the ratio in a 4 year old boy, a 14 year old girl, the toe of a 14 year old boy and even 14 year old brothers. There are millions of chemicals, with an almost limtless number of combinations, it will take quite a while for us to work out just how to prevent certain stem cell lines from going rouge, but with luck we will do it soon.
I am far more worried about stem cells because of what you've written here, than any other side effects I had considered before.
Fortunatelly, the porblems with stem cells are all ones that we hope can be overcome with time and funding. There are so many estimates as to just how soon we will be growing new organs from our own bodies, with some people saying it is as little as ten years away. I would prefer to be a bit more conservative, and say we will be ready to implant organs grown from our own bodies in perhaps 70 years.
I'll stick with just looking after my body, and trying to keep it in good nick, so I don't need them.
Definatelly, the best course of action. Even if we had the technology to replace any damaged organ right now, I would still advise to take care of yourself, because its still majour surgery and so caries a significant risk.
I would like to take this opertunity to explain to exeryone a little bit about what is ment with embryonic stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells.
These are the stem cells associated with an embryo, but not necicerily harvested from an embryo. There are several difren types of harvesting.
There is the contrioversial, embryo harvesting, where cells are taken directly from an embryo. With research this is most often done with aborted or unimplanted cultured embryos. Curently it is not legal to create emberyos specifically for this purpose. This is vey rare form of research though and is heavily regulated to ensure that a more suitable cell line could not be ussed instead.
You can also harvest stem cells from an implanted embryo. This is not done in humans, but has been ussed with great sucess in the animal cloning research worlds. The reason its not ussed on humans is because there is a slight risk to the embryo when taking the cell culture.
The most important source of embryonic stem cells, is cord blood. I highly recomend everyone gets a sample of thier childs cord blood stored away for future use, because it is taken from the afterbirth, but contain most of the final stage embryonic stem cell lines and so could potentially be ussed for any illness your child suffers later in life. There really arent any moral issues associated with this form of research, because the cell lines are from your own body and obtained from the afterbirth, totaly non-invasive.
I hope that clears up the issue a bit with regards to embryonic stem cells. | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/6/2009 12:39:12 AM | Oh yeah, because pain and suffering are oh so noble. If you've ever seen anyone die in a tremendous amount of pain, or even suffered it yourself you'd know there's nothing noble about it. Stem cells? Bring them on.
It's a very simple arguement. All the religious kooks against it don't have to utilize it. Let them die in pain and agaony and go forth to their god. The rest of us sane people will happily forgoe that. No one has a gun to anyone's head here. Hell, I wish more religious nuts would forgoe any scientific based medical treatment of any kind. The sooner they die off, the better it'll be for the rest of us sane people. | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/13/2009 11:19:55 AM | RE Msg: 12 by Bright1Raziel:
I've written a lot. But you've really piqued my interest. So bear with the length of my post.
Not wrong at all, the latest stem cell break through has been in turning skin stem cells back into embryonic stem cells. This is increadibly important work, but we can not assume that we have solved the problems with stem cells yet. We now need to be able to then turn those rejuvinated stem cells into more specific cell lines, such as heart or nerve stem cells, and we need to test them to make sure that the porcess dose not damage the cells and cause unforseen side effects. FYI, I'm all for funding this type of research. I can see everything right with it, and nothing wrong with it.
But speaking as a person who has a religion, then why don't we just mention these aspects of stem cells, that you've written here, and repeatedly point out that only the tiniest minority of research comes from embryonic stem cells from abortions, and if they had adequate funding, and religious people gave some of their children's cord blood, then scientists wouldn't need to do research on aborted foetuses.
I mean, can you imagine the slogans? Stop the abortions, give your money and your cord blood to medical research!
Methinks the scientific community need to start employing good quality spin doctors. Saatchi and Saatchi did wonders for Benetton.
Not all stem cells are equal because they have difrent genes switched on or off. There is a general progresion from embryonic stem cell, to adult stem cells, that if mapped out would look like a tree. We call the difrent branches of this tree, a cell line. This tree starts with embryonic sem cells, from the very first stage of life, before cells begin to diferentiate, and it ends in each of the adult cell lines, skin, heart, nerve, muscle, ect. I didn't realise this. But now it starts to make some sense, in that it suggests that cells go through an evolutionary process. However, it throws up multiple questions for me.
I used to think that the end-result cells, could replicate their own cells. Can they?
Further, this type of cell line development, throws up a few questions. If embryonic stem cells only differ in which genes are switched on, then why not develop from embryonic stem cells?
Another way of looking at things occurs to me. Suppose that the cells have different parts, that need to develop, over time. Surely that would take a long time. So it only makes sense that a cell has to differentiate early on, so that it can grow to develop those parts from its birth. Each cell evolves from its point of differentiation, which would occur as soon as it has been "born". They are like us. We don't start out being a plumber, or an evolutionary biologist, from birth. We start out by being born as open as possible, and then we slowly gain knowledge, skills, talents, houses, cars, as we go along. The end product is very specific. But it only develops over time.
However, then why would we need a series of such developments? Well, suppose that they are like us, but even more so. It took generations of physicians to develop the current state of medical advancements. Suppose that each cell develops over generations, with each cell becoming ever more specialised? A white blood cell, a "warrior" cell, might then only reach its level of warrior skill and abilities, by developing from other warrior cells, over several generations. So you might think of a human body as lots and lots of cultural levels of development and adaptation.
Now the research that has been done so far, has managed to switch on all of the genes in a skin stem cell, that are found as active in an embryonic stem cell. But we do not yet know wether the cels have actually been rejuvinated as embryonic stem cells or wether they have been turned into some chimeric form of skin/embryonic stem cells. The probelm with the process is that we do not yet know the very presice biochemistry that controlls the progresion of the cell lines, and we may simply have created skin stem cells with extra genes swithced on. So far the results look promosing, but the science is still to new to be certain. I am not sure of my theory above of generational cell differentiation. But if it is true, then true mitosis cannot occur, to produce embryonic stem cells. There are 2 options:
1) The change of genes restarts the growth process, and the cells get rid of the existing differentiated materials, and build everything from scratch. That's very doubtful, as such rapid changes would eliminate the need for such generational differentiation in the first place.
2) The skin stem cells are able to replicate new stem cells, that don't appear to be like their mother cells. The new stem cells would be built on the new genes, and would grow based on them. However, that still makes a problem, because the stem cells would inherit their mother's cell structures, and they would need to be ditched. Maybe they can be forced to change. But I think that's a stretch, even for stem cells.
3) The new stem cells are hybrids, that are able to make new cells, that are different from their own. But, if even if such hybridisation is possible, they would only have the the structures in place to make similar stem cells.
4) The new stem cells are semi-hybrids. Some of the new material grows, but most stays. But maybe, over generations, they can grow to be the new stem cells, like a doctor changing to become a poor soldier, but over generations, his grandchildren are great soldiers.
There is an alternative, though. Get some embryonic stem cells from cord blood, replace them with the switched-on genes, and let it grow from there. It would be useful to grow new organs that way. But for testing purposes, to figure out the processes of differentiation, we'd be better off just working with existing cells.
Unfortunatelly, that was what we all thought, untill it was actually tried out and found not to be the case... some of the time!!! We were all wrong on this one. I'm very glad to see that some scientists can admit to being wrong. If you can admit to being wrong, then we can all have far more faith that when you are wrong in the future, that you'll admit it, so that when you are saying you are right, we can trust that you probably are.
Its now fairly sure that this is because of the complicated biochemistry of the body, telling the cells what they should and should not become, not always matching what the required imput for an embryonic cell line requires. You see, we now know that the mix and ratio of the cheimical signals is as important as the actuall chemicals themselves. For example, the ratio of bone growth hormone in the finger of a 14 year old boy is very diferent to the ratio in a 4 year old boy, a 14 year old girl, the toe of a 14 year old boy and even 14 year old brothers. There are millions of chemicals, with an almost limtless number of combinations, it will take quite a while for us to work out just how to prevent certain stem cell lines from going rouge, but with luck we will do it soon. I've always thought so, but not explicity. Cells tend to absorb nutrients by diffusion. The endocrine system seems to work the same way. This had suggested to me, that it was the proportion of a certain chemical that induced certain changes, like the level of production of insulin, or glucogen. Each chemical works by reaching a certain chemical potential, that activates the production of yet more chemicals.
By the by, this is sort of how Asimov described his idea of a positronic brain, as working on electric potentials, and making decisions in much the same way. It might be a worthwhile view to how the body communicates chemically.
But how do cells know where exactly to put each nerve, each muscle? They all seem to grow so exactly in the same positions.
This suggests to me that the cells grow step by step, by each cell producing a chemical to a certain proportion, that then makes the next cell differentiate in a similar way, and that other cells might differentiate similarly, but not quite the same, when they are a little distant, because the chemicals will diffuse there, but to a lesser concentration.
These rules would have to somehow be encoded in the gene sequences. So cells would need an Analogue to Digital Converter (ADC). But that's probably inbuilt into the system, that one uses base pair sequences to accomplish this purpose, in a kind of digital code, kind of like storing numbers to predict the thresholds on which to differentiate.
This also might explain why Darwin observed that embryos follow the same line of development as he supposed in evolution. It might be that cells need to go through these stages, because cells have to go through logical stages according to the rules defined in the DNA, and because those rules have to happen in a reasonably logical fashion, because that would be the simplest and most compressed way to do so, and because they are the most logical series of changes. That doesn't mean that evolution is 100%. But it does mean that Recapitulation Theory is an observation that due to the requirement to fit everything into such a small thing as DNA, that the body must go through a series of logical steps, that are the same steps that we would expect if evolution went in a reasonably logical fashion.
This cell line system does seem to be a very complex structure. But maths might help a lot with this, because the structure described, has a lot in common with Brownian motion, and with Boltzmann (statistical) mechanics, where things develop according to distance, because the force diminishes with distance squared, very similarly to how diffusion spreads the strength of chemicals.
FYI, Boltzmann mechanics is the basis of quantum physics. So I'd expect that there are a lot of similarities between recent discoveries in quantum physics and recent discoveries in genetics and stem cell research.
Definatelly, the best course of action. Even if we had the technology to replace any damaged organ right now, I would still advise to take care of yourself, because its still majour surgery and so caries a significant risk. Definitely. I watched a programme on some of the most dangerous species out there. One was a caterpillar. I think it was in Brazil. I am not sure if it was the caterpillar, but one of the dangerous ones emitted a poison. That poison produced severe internal bleeding. What was really weird, was that all of the places that those people had previous cuts, due to operations or any other reason, were the places that started bleeding. It's as if the body doesn't really heal from cuts, but just puts clots in there to seal them, that turn hard, and this poison somehow broke down those hardened clots.
Another reason is that I have been informed before, that some people develop severe complications from surgeries, and we cannot yet predict who will, and who won't. Obviously, some of it is biological. But I've also been told by some people anecdotally, that those who had low morale going in, often didn't recover, and those who had high morale, did. So some of it seems to be one's attitude as well. Something as risky and as uncertain as that, is definitely something to avoid if possible. That's why I'm glad that I've only ever had local anaesthetics. Painful, but I'm still here.
The most important source of embryonic stem cells, is cord blood. I highly recomend everyone gets a sample of thier childs cord blood stored away for future use, because it is taken from the afterbirth, but contain most of the final stage embryonic stem cell lines and so could potentially be ussed for any illness your child suffers later in life. There really arent any moral issues associated with this form of research, because the cell lines are from your own body and obtained from the afterbirth, totaly non-invasive. Thanks for this. I definitely would do this. I'd also consider giving some of it to medical research, so they don't need cells from abortions.
Just a question: WHY IN HEAVEN'S NAME AREN'T WE MAKING THIS MANDATORY?
I mean, nearly all religious people don't mind, non-religious people don't mind, it can save so many lives in so many ways. Surely if there is anything that should be made into law, it's at least that we should all be required to keep some of it. Take it from everyone, store it in a massive centre, and charge a few pennies in tax for maintaining it. I mean, who but JWs would not want this?
JWs don't mind the cord blood being taken. They'd just object to being treated from them. Anyway, if they objected, we could always get rid of their cord blood later, like we'd do for people who've died.
So what's stopping us? | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/13/2009 11:49:16 AM | I just think it's amusing that people think aborted fetuses are a significant source of fetal stem cells.
Do some research, for crying out loud, don't just parrot something you read on an anti-fetal-stem-cell-research web page. | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/13/2009 12:52:55 PM | RE Msg: 16 by desertrhino:
I just think it's amusing that people think aborted fetuses are a significant source of fetal stem cells.
Do some research, for crying out loud, don't just parrot something you read on an anti-fetal-stem-cell-research web page. Problem is, the media do very little to even mention any other form of research. I try to read the teletext news almost every day, especially the science section. Yet I only ever read about the foetal form of stem cells, and other news sources are not exactly screaming about this type of stem cell research.
Considering that most people only hear about new research via the media news, doesn't this start to suggest that the whole controversy is being forced by the media?
Just think: if the media did what it's supposed to, report news, and not just controversy, then stem cell resarch would probably never have been banned under Bush. We'd be 8 years on. | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/13/2009 1:05:46 PM |
Sure I'd have a diseased organ replaced with one grown by stem cells...why not.
I'm with Cyke.
If I didn't have the procudure I'd die. Or I could wait for years and years for a transplant from another person and hope I don't die while waiting. I might have the procedure and something goes wrong or I develop some funky reaction and I'd die anyway. But it could work too.
So why not. | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/13/2009 4:08:29 PM | | i see nothing with the use of stem cells, you dont even need a fetus to obtain stem cells, you body naturally possess stem cells in your spinal coloum... i cant see why this is such a contraversal subject... | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/14/2009 4:48:31 PM |
The reason life is so special is because it does hang by a thread.
My hands are special because i can't replace them when they're gone.
Respectfully, I have to dissagree.
My life is special because of who I am, and my hands are special because of what I do with them.
If I could do the same things and think as I do, and act as I do with new hands, a new heart, new kidneys, etc. then I would continue to be special. . . forever.
There is no afterlife, so why not extend the one we're in now so all of us can be as special as we can be (since being special seems so special to you, I don't see how you can dissagree).
In my personal oppinion, people only make arguments about life being special for stupid reasons like its tenuousness when they don't truely have appreciation for their own lives. When they haven't actually lived their own lives to the fullest, so they don't really care that they die or don't. . . Or if they have some stupid belief in God and an afterlife that gives them an automatic out from any and all social responsibility.
I say that every politician who is against promising research should be required to be injected with whatever disease it is they are refusing to fund reasearch for.
Light a fire under their self rightious asses. | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/14/2009 5:02:19 PM |
Was I wrong?
Another victim of Fox News' selective reporting.
Twenty years ago is where your information is comming from?
The research being done is on all aspects. Yes they have been attempting to reactivate the dormant DNA in all cells to turn them into stem cells.
The problem really is that we're not yet 100% certain how that information becomes deactivated in the first place. The genome was only recently cracked, and over half of the actual coding in DNA codes for things other than the actual manufacturing of proteins, and those portions that don't code for proteins we are almost completely in the dark about.
If we could use adult stem cells as easily as social conservatives make it seem because they're agenda desperately needs it to be, then we wouldn't need stem cells at all, because we would know enough about the DNA itself to simply cure all diseases on a cellular level.
Gently put, yes, you are incorrect in believing that adult stem cells are just as good, and therefore there is no need for fetal stem cells.
This is a lie created by pollititians who would rather see discarded embrios wind up in medical waste incinerators than in research that could potentially save millions of lives. (Make no mistake, that's where we put them when they don't get used for implantation. They don't just sit there waiting for a host, they go in a red medical waste bag and are shipped to a facility equiped to handle the destruction of medical waste. Up in smoke.) | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/14/2009 5:54:14 PM | RE Msg: 21 by CerebralRomantic:
I wasn't asking you. I was asking Bright1Raziel, because he has shown me numerous times that he knows his stuff, very, very well.
I tend to be a bit more picky about who I ask things of, because I find too many people are telling me stuff here, that really doesn't add up, and often is wrong.
Another victim of Fox News' selective reporting. I'm in the UK. We don't get our info from the Fox Network. We only get jokes about Fox on The Simpsons, or Family Guy, or Charlie Brooker, a UK TV Critic. He did a wonderful piece about Fox News. They really have some unbelievably cooky reporters. One looked and talked like an ultra-ultra-conservative Rodney Dangerfield. But the rest were just as cooky. It's amazing that with reporters like that, that anyone watches Fox News altogether.
Twenty years ago is where your information is comming from? No. I try to keep up with the latest trends, which is why I read New Scientist almost every week. But that was the new stuff expected 20 years ago. So far, I've only seen the latest research in stem cells just about making some small breakthroughs there, and that's 20 years later. Kind of hard to adjust, when you're in IT, and the kind of changes in 20 years in stem cells, would count for about 2 months worth of change in IT.
The research being done is on all aspects. Yes they have been attempting to reactivate the dormant DNA in all cells to turn them into stem cells. They said that 20 years ago, on Tomorrow's World, an old UK Science News programme. I keep waiting for science research to say they've done it.
The problem really is that we're not yet 100% certain how that information becomes deactivated in the first place. The genome was only recently cracked, and over half of the actual coding in DNA codes for things other than the actual manufacturing of proteins, and those portions that don't code for proteins we are almost completely in the dark about. It took 20 years to get a complete human genome for at least a few thousand people. But there is still very little explained about how genes work in the first place, or what each gene does, even genes we knew about even 20 years ago, at least, not to what I see out there. It seems to me as if the processes and proteins generated by genes are being worked out on a trial and error basis, based on which genes we can see or not see, in which people have or don't have those processes and proteins in their bodies. That's not what I'd call a fast process. It also doesn't exactly give you much of a guarantee that it's exactly what definitely happens.
If we could use adult stem cells as easily as social conservatives make it seem because they're agenda desperately needs it to be, then we wouldn't need stem cells at all, because we would know enough about the DNA itself to simply cure all diseases on a cellular level. Well, if we don't, then we don't really know as much as we've given the general public the impression that we know, now, do we?
Gently put, yes, you are incorrect in believing that adult stem cells are just as good, and therefore there is no need for fetal stem cells.
This is a lie created by pollititians who would rather see discarded embrios wind up in medical waste incinerators than in research that could potentially save millions of lives. (Make no mistake, that's where we put them when they don't get used for implantation. They don't just sit there waiting for a host, they go in a red medical waste bag and are shipped to a facility equiped to handle the destruction of medical waste. Up in smoke.) Then someone ought to tell the public what we do and don't know, and how far away we are from discovering new things.
I know that scientists don't like to give realistic estimates. But every field has to work to realistic estimates, even in R&D. 90% of IT is R&D. But we have to, and when we don't, companies lose billions of dollars. If we refuse to give deadlines, then they lose far more. So we have to be very careful to develop the skills to give very realistic estimates of when things will happen.
I also know that some scientists don't like admitting what we don't know. But trust comes from consistency between what you say, and what you do. If you say you know something, and you don't produce results that reflect that knowledge, then people can no longer trust what you say. Scientists are cutting their own funding every time they don't admit to what they know, reckon but don't really know, and don't know, in an accurate fashion.
I seriously would suggest every scientist be forced to work in some capacity in an IT development company for 2 years. Then they'd understand why they find such difficulties in their fields. They'd see how people react in real life, to the things that you want to say and not say, and want to do and not do, in research. They'd know the bottom line, and how it cascades back to them. | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/15/2009 11:48:12 AM |
But speaking as a person who has a religion, then why don't we just mention these aspects of stem cells, that you've written here, and repeatedly point out that only the tiniest minority of research comes from embryonic stem cells from abortions, and if they had adequate funding, and religious people gave some of their children's cord blood, then scientists wouldn't need to do research on aborted foetuses.
Sorry, I should have been slightly clearer on this point. There is almost no useage of aborted fetal stem cells in medical research, what little research is done with aborted fetal stem cells is work that directly relates to fetal development or abortion.
Most fetal stem cells are obtained by mixing donor eggs with donor sperm and creating an entirelly new embryo, that is generally not alowed to grow to a stage where it would begin differentiating, this is about as far along as an embryo that has not been able to implant in the womb. Most people seem to have no problem with ussing forms of birth controll that still permit fetilisation but denny implantation.
The most important reason to use test tube embryos over aborted fetal stem cells, is that they are from earlier in the life cycle, meaning the cells have not differentiated at all.
I didn't realise this. But now it starts to make some sense, in that it suggests that cells go through an evolutionary process.
I'm not sure "evolutionary process" is the right description. Its more of a specialisation than an addaptation. Cells start of being able to do anything, but as they reproduce, certain genes get turned off and they start to specialise in one particular area. Think of it like growing up. You start out with limitless potential, but are shaped by enviroment to suit certain roles better as you grow, then you go to school and university and eventually you end up with a doctorate in a chosen subject. (okay, its not a great analogy, but it will do)
I used to think that the end-result cells, could replicate their own cells. Can they?
Yes.
All cells can self replicate with the exception of haem cells. Red blood cells forgoe nuclaic DNA in order to be more efficient oxygen transporters. Red blood cells are made by bone marrow, which can also produce other bone marrow cells, making it a type of stem cell.
Stem cells are simply cells that can produce more than one type of cell when they replicate. There are skin cells which produce more of themselves, and there are skin stem cels which can produce more of themselves, skin cells, fat cells, nerve cells, ect.
Suppose that the cells have different parts, that need to develop, over time. Surely that would take a long time.
Nope sorry. One of the wonderfull things about cells is that they produce new cells fully formed for thier purpose.
Cells are very much like self sustaining cities. They produce everything they need within thier own city limits. When it comes to making new cells, they produce all of the parts that cells will ever need, before splinching of. Cells are actually pretty stable, there is little to no change in thier essential structure over time. This makes them very robust, as change can cause complications, but it also means they are not very adaptable, so cells growing in the wrong place can cause severe problems.
So it only makes sense that a cell has to differentiate early on, so that it can grow to develop those parts from its birth.
Sorry, but cells start out fully formed for thier purpose. A good example of this, is haem cells. Red blood cells are quite unlike any other cells in the body, they do not even resmble thier parent cells.
The blueprint for every single cell is already contained within the body, and any cell is capable of accesing this blueprint and uttalising it to its full. Cancerous tumours are a good example of how this process can go wrong, but also of how every cell contains the information required to produce every other cell. Some of the larger non cancerous tumors removed have contained skin, hair, muscle, nerve, brain and even teeth.
http://www.ijri.org/article.asp?issn=0971-3026;year=2004;volume=14;issue=3;spage=257;epage=259;aulast=Hiral#
2) The skin stem cells are able to replicate new stem cells, that don't appear to be like their mother cells.
You are right on track with this one.
The new stem cells would be built on the new genes, and would grow based on them. However, that still makes a problem, because the stem cells would inherit their mother's cell structures, and they would need to be ditched.
Fortunatelly not. All that is required of the cells to make any structure, is the blueprints. So long as the DNA remains intact, any cell can be made by any other cell, if you just switch a few genes on.
There is an alternative, though. Get some embryonic stem cells from cord blood, replace them with the switched-on genes, and let it grow from there. It would be useful to grow new organs that way. But for testing purposes, to figure out the processes of differentiation, we'd be better off just working with existing cells.
Very, true. It is far easier to work backwards from a fully devolped adult cell, to an undiferentiated stem cell, in the same way that it is easier to trace a tree from one particular leaf to its roots, than it it is to trace it from its roots to one particular leaf without looking.
Cells tend to absorb nutrients by diffusion.
To get slightly pedantic here, the tendancy is actually to absorb gasses and fluids by diffusion. Solids are mainly absorbed by active transport.
Each chemical works by reaching a certain chemical potential, that activates the production of yet more chemicals.
True.
And to go slightly further, this also changes the epigenetics. Genes are switched on or off by chemical signals reaching certain levels, and slight alterations to a single gene can alter the chemicals that genes makes and the way that gene interacts with the chemicals in its suroundings.
A good example of this, is found in rodents, where the gene responsible for finger length (BMP2) were altered slightly, making them far more resistant to the chemical mssage telling them to stop growing. This resulted in the bones growing longer as it took a greater build up of the chemicals to make them stop. And because of this single change, we now have bats.
But how do cells know where exactly to put each nerve, each muscle? They all seem to grow so exactly in the same positions.
It all looks very precice, but when you actually get down to the cellular level, it becomes quite a chaotic mix. Cells tend to grow wherever they can, pushing other cells out of the way to do so. This can be seen most clearly with nerve cells, which will push thier dendrites past other cells in a very chaotic manner. If you look at the nervous systems of two difrent people, they will look a lot like trees in thier growth, showing a similar shape, but completely difrent placement of many of the branches. The smaller the branches the more random it becomes.
Identical twins have completely differnt nerv, blood vesel and lymphatic structures, despite having exactly the same genes, because the strutures formed are controlled by minute chemical signals that vary depending on the enviroment.
You also have to rember that it can require just a single molecule of a chemical message to tell the cell to grow or to stop growing. So by utalising active sites, cells can obtain direction to thier growth.
For a good example of this, look at the growth of beans, the anchor tendrills they send out grow fairly straight untill they brush up againt a solid object, at which point a chemical is released by the cells touching the object that tell neighbouring cells to stop growing. The cells on the other side of the tendrill keep growing at grows into a spiral around the object.
So cells would need an Analogue to Digital Converter (ADC).
Correct, its built in. We are now in the age of EPIGENETICS where DNA is olny part of the story, every one of these genes can either be switched on or off, and this alters how the code is expressed. Its really quite increadible in its complexity.
FYI, Boltzmann mechanics is the basis of quantum physics. So I'd expect that there are a lot of similarities between recent discoveries in quantum physics and recent discoveries in genetics and stem cell research.
I will have to get back to you on this one, there are definat similarites, but to what extent I do not know. I have been looking into mutation recently, and that has some profound links to the quantum world, as difrent types of mutation apear to be a result of diffrent ways in which the DNA interacts to ionic radiation.
What was really weird, was that all of the places that those people had previous cuts, due to operations or any other reason, were the places that started bleeding. It's as if the body doesn't really heal from cuts, but just puts clots in there to seal them, that turn hard, and this poison somehow broke down those hardened clots.
Scar tissue is a difrent type of tisue to regular skin. Regular skin gets its stength from being chaotic in its structure, but scars are made up of a latice of thread like filaments, this results in something that is not as strong as the original, but still funtional.
| |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/16/2009 5:53:40 AM |
Another reason is that I have been informed before, that some people develop severe complications from surgeries, and we cannot yet predict who will, and who won't.
The body is an increadibly complex thing and can do things that most people would belive imposible. There was a 30 year old woman in Vancouver who accidentally ran over her 4 year old son, and liffted the Buick of her son with her bare hands, ripping the muscle in half on one of her arms. A man in Vietnam was shot by a sniper through the brain and survived with just two minor wounds and no noticable brain injury.
Yet other people have triped on the curb, fallen flat on thier face and died from trauma. There really is no knowing who will survive what, some people seem remarkably resistant to injury whilst others could die if they sneeze baddly! It shows just how much we still do not know about the human body.
But I've also been told by some people anecdotally, that those who had low morale going in, often didn't recover, and those who had high morale, did. So some of it seems to be one's attitude as well.
Its not just anecdotal evidence. There have been many studies into the effects of the placebo effect and posotive thinking on healing.
One study, showed that under hypnosis, the body could be convinced that it had been burnt by a cold coin, and an imune response started, causing a coin shapped welt to appear where the cold coin had been placed.
Other studies have shown that talking kindly to a patient, helps to improve healing times. There have been hundreds of studies that show how prayer, both praying and being prayed for, can help to promote healing. And even uplifting music can help to reduce healing times.
Some of the most remarkable results, show that its not just the speed of healing that is varariable, but the quality of that healing. Some studies showed that posotive thinking, can not only improve the speed at which wounds heal over, but also reduce the apearcance of the scar tisue, reduce the prevelance of illness.
Just a question: WHY IN HEAVEN'S NAME AREN'T WE MAKING THIS MANDATORY?
For the same reason that we do not have an opt out system for organ donation. It makes sense, but no one is willing to push it through the red tape.
The other problem is that you have to get enough support, and whilst there are few people who would complain, they far out number the tiny amount of people who would actually get up of thier asses and support such a venture. Rember that most people can not be bothered to vote due to appathy.
JWs don't mind the cord blood being taken. They'd just object to being treated from them.
I have often wondered about this, I do not know enough about JW's, do they object to having thier own blood taken prior to an operation, to be ussed exlusivly on themselves? Never really understood it all, and the only JW I know is hardly a good example, the way she lies and cheats... anyways, back to the topic at hand.
| |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 7/16/2009 7:01:28 AM | If it were safe, sure! I'd do it in a heart-beat!
You can have stem cells extracted from YOUR OWN BODY, by the way. Over a period of months, a substantial amount can be collected. My sister is thinking about doing exactly this (in Mexico or the Bahamas, since it's not yet legal in the States) to reverse her MS, and I'm all for it!!! | |
|
| More Stem Cells; Organ Replacement
Posted: 9/13/2009 5:49:34 PM | | stem cells that are taken from the person who is receiving the end product are best. any other stem cell has been linked to tumors and rejection. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
