FDA OKs First Embryonic Stem Cell Research Trial on Humans, Despite Concerns

FDA OKs First Embryonic Stem Cell Research Trial on Humans, Despite Concerns

lifenews.com

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Obama administration has approved the bid by cloning company Geron to undertake the first trial involving the use of embryonic stem cells in humans. They have never been used before in people because the cells cause tumors and have immune system rejection issues when tried in animals.

Scientists and pro-life advocates say human embryonic stem cells are not ready for trial because problems associated with the cells in animals haven't been solved. The embryo.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Despite stem cells causing tumors and immune sytem rejection in animal tests, the FDA, under the Obama administration, gives the go ahead for human trials?

What's wrong with this picture? We can't even wait for successful results in laboratory animals before we subject humans to yet unknown consequences of this controversial study.

It's my guess that there's a surplus of human embryos and the government is trying to make use of all the dead babies that's allowed to be slaughtered.

Go ahead. Flame me, but research has shown that stem cells can be extracted from adults cells so there's no need for embryonic stem cells extraction.

I'm pro-life but I don't want this thread to turn into a pro-life or anti-abortion thread. I want it to stick to the FDA decision to go ahead with human research knowing to complications and risks involved.

lifenews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 30/7/10 by Intelearthling]

Don't we already know that adult stem cells work and are much much safer to use?

Wtf FDA... WTF...

Originally posted by DaMod
Don't we already know that adult stem cells work and are much much safer to use?

I don't know a whole lot about the issues, but you might be interested in this NPR article about embryonic stem cells.

Simple answer is no, there is reason to believe that embryonic stem cells will be able to do things that adult stem cells can't, because they're less differentiated.

There are still concerns about safety; that's why the first studies are going to be small-scale and focused on safety concerns.

It's really fascinating stuff, but I would remind people not to get all their info from anti-choice sites, who obviously have a bias.

Despite stem cells causing tumors and immune sytem rejection in animal tests, the FDA, under the Obama administration, gives the go ahead for human trials?

This does not make any sense to me what so ever.

If we all shared your mentality - the world would never have known Penicillin. It would never have become available if it were required to be tested on Animals first.

Had Penicillin been tested on Guinea Pigs instead of Humans, we'd probably still be fighting Polio, because Penicillin kills Guinea pigs.

reply to post by Snarf


You must be a comedian of some sort. Penicillin doesn't cure polio and the anti-bacterial effects of the penicillin mold was discovered by accident.

Besides, what makes you think that human stem cells will work in humans when mouse stem cells don't work in mice?

I'm all for research to find cures for presently incurable diseases, but let's be carful with this stem cell thing. Mixing blood types is fatal if not properly introduced to a recipient. What's there to say the same thing is not happening with embryonic stem cells.

Snarf. You're a riot!

reply to post by Intelearthling


This is great news! A decision from the Administration that I can actually get behind... Can't screw up everything I guess.

reply to post by Snarf


What are you talking about? All medical/medications have to be tested on animals first by law.

reply to post by americandingbat


Well, I'm extremely pro-life but that isn't the issue here. The subject isn't whether they should be able to harvest them in the first place, it's that they are being tried on people now even though they are known to be dangerous.

Personally I think we should just look into Adult stem cells a bit more before we start working with the "clean slate" cells so to speak. Might help us over a few hurdles. Personally I think it's way way too soon for human testing...

Originally posted by DaMod
The subject isn't whether they should be able to harvest them in the first place, it's that they are being tried on people now even though they are known to be dangerous.

I would just like to see that stated by an unbiased source. Preferably a source that believes the use of embryonic stem cells to be theoretically ethical, but doesn't have a personal stake in it one way or another.

The medical sources I've seen so far saying that this study is premature have been noted as working on treatments that could be directly threatened if this turns out to be more effective than theirs. Other than that I've seen sources like the one you gave that have a moral objection to any use of embryonic stem cells and are pulling in the safety issues to muddy the waters.

It seems quite possible to me that the studies are premature -- it wouldn't be the first time the FDA gave the go-ahead without adequate non-human trials. But it seems equally possible that the concerns about safety are being hyped by various people with an axe to grind, whether it's an anti-abortion axe or a "my work is being threatened" axe.



edit to amend:

Actually, as I think about it, it seems less likely that the FDA would have approved these particular trials if they didn't have adequate preparatory studies. Just because it's such a hot-button issue and the repercussions of allowing a flawed initial study would be political as well as scientific.

[edit on 7/30/2010 by americandingbat]

reply to post by americandingbat


They approved the SwineFlu Vaccine with no trials whatsoever. Not a promising track record. Plus anything that causes cancer in mice, causes cancer in us. Why do you think we use mice as our primary vessels of study?

You can call me biased but really besides what I think about harvesting embryonic stem cells I think we just don't know enough about them and have not tested them enough to begin human trials. Many extreme treatments such as these take decades before they are used on a single human being and for good reason.

I'm sorry but I can't support expediting the process.

Stem cell research is taboo worldwide, however few countries allow and practice it with the leading country - China. The practice yield very impressive results, almost like miracle, success is not 100% however.

Conspiracy Sidetrack:
Forget Botox, we got stem cell injection, make you 20 years younger!

[edit on 30-7-2010 by RainCloud]

The good ole America that used to care about the sanctity, sacredness and dignity of human life and all life is rapidly
being exterminated by TPTB with Satin leading the charge.

Most Americans though are good, they help above and beyond their capacity when the chips are down, for other people in need. If you want to know who really cares, go to any inner-city area and look who is helping them.

The culture of death is alive and kicking in this country. Times may get tough, and a lot of us have not yet had our courage tested. Just remember to be brave, speak the truth, help one another. When that happens, whatever else may be happening in our country, Americans will fight the good fight and we will prevail.

Originally posted by Intelearthling

I'm pro-life but I don't want this thread to turn into a pro-life or anti-abortion thread. I want it to stick to the FDA decision to go ahead with human research knowing to complications and risks involved.

You did bring us an article from a pro-life publication, so, in my opinion, the article may be somewhat biased. I haven't followed studies on stem cell research, so this reply is strictly personal.

My own feelings are though, that the babies the stem cells will come from, are already dead. They had no chance at life, so why not contribute to somebody with a spinal cord injury who is alive? To me it's the same as using parts from any dead person who has a donor notation on a drivers license, for any organs that may be used to benefit somebody else.

If a person with a spinal cord injury is suffering because of it, and has a low quality of life, does it really matter if the testing you think needs to be completed is finished to your satisfaction?

I guess what I mean to say is, what do these people have to lose, already?

If I were in the position of being locked in a wheelchair, and paralyzed from the neck down, I'd be the first one in line for one of these treatments!

reply to post by Intelearthling


A.) Are the fertilized. EDIT. Retarded question. Embryo. Not egg.

B.) Why aren't they using adult ones that work better?

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by americandingbat


www.scientificamerican.com...

www.pharmastrategyblog.com...

after safety concerns were raised by an animal study

online.wsj.com...

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91



Thanks for those article links. I'm sad I couldn't read the whole article in the 3rd link without subscribing!

Interestingly, it seems from the first 2 articles, that the tumors did show up where the boy received the stem cell injections, and that the growths were not from his own tissue.

I do find it interesting though, out of the 3 articles, it didn't mention if the injections helped with the disease he had, only that he got the tumors, which were benign. I'd like to know, outside of the growths, if the injections helped him otherwise.

Originally posted by Gorman91
www.scientificamerican.com...

From your source:

Savitz has just begun enrolling patients in a study on treating adult stroke victims with their own—adult—stem cells.

www.pharmastrategyblog.com...

A blog written by a biotech business consultant. First off, she backs off a bit in the comment section when it's pointed out that the case she highlighted isn't really applicable (they used fetal neural tissue, not embryonic stem cells). Second, I wonder if she counts adult stem cell researchers among her clients?

online.wsj.com...

Yes, this study was postponed because of safety concerns. Presumably they used that time to research those concerns and ensure that the study is ethical and as safe as possible.

The patients enrolled in the new study have presumably been warned of the dangers inherent in participating in a test of a brand-new treatment, and have decided that the possible benefits outweigh the disadvantages. The study has been subject to intense scrutiny by the FDA and finally greenlighted.

this is great news, imho... stem cells are the future.... imagine the possibilities... i just had a molar tooth pulled, and while i was laying their the thought popped into my mind about the use of stem cells to re grow adult teeth... just one aspect i know, and the more serious uses would be for organs and limbs and such...

just a point, if anyone has the chance to save their newborns cord blood, do it!!! July is Cord Blood Awareness Month ya know... look it up..
www.thestarpress.com...

[edit on 30-7-2010 by 2012DragonSlayer]

reply to post by americandingbat


I'd still rather no destruction of human life. It is a dangerous road. Stems cells from adults seem to be safer. It's like aspartame vs Sucrose. Aspertame is just too controversial and has too many back hands to use, as oppose to sucrose, which is just slightly less dangerous to health, but a fractal crap tone more proven to be safer and less controversial.

At the end of the day, all life is programmed by simple genetic structures and the specialization bio-chemicals. We've turned bone marrow into sperm and egg cells. I see no reason why we can't take adult stem cells and simply reprogram them to reproduce rapidly and do the job of any stem cell variant, then insert a simple termination codon that responds to a simple non-toxic chemical, activating the termination codon and ceasing reproductive acceleration. This is done via having two reproducing dna codes in the dna strand. The chemical injected at the right time bonds to the right code and replaces the fast reproducer with the regular one, destroying the rapid reproducers.

This seems complicated, but in fact it is not that complicated with current technology. It saves time, money, and increases safety concerns. No controversy too. Everyone wins.