Adult Stem Cell Stories You Aren’t Hearing About

ChelseaAdult Stem Cell Research, Science, Sports, Stem Cell Research, Umbilical Cord BloodLeave a Comment

I haven’t done any adult stem cell success stories in a few weeks so here’s a bunch:

Heart Attack Patients Treated With Novel Stem Cell Therapy Experience Significant Improvement in Heart and Lung Function

Science Daily — Heart attack patients who received an new intravenous adult stem cell therapy, Provacel™, experienced a lower number of adverse events, such as cardiac arrhythmias, and had significant improvements in heart, lung and global function compared to those who received a placebo, according to six-month Phase I study data presented at the American College of Cardiology’s Innovation in Intervention: i2Summit in New Orleans…

Adult stem cells are designed by nature to perform tissue repair in a mature adult. It is believed that these cells can be used in patients unrelated to the donor, without rejection, eliminating the need for donor matching and recipient immune suppression. Once transplanted, the cells promote healing of damaged or diseased tissues.

First Human Trial Tests Stem-cell-based Treatment For Heart Attacks

Over the six month follow-up period, the stem cell-treated patients had lower rates of side effects such as cardiac arrhythmias, and had significant improvements in heart, lung and global function. Echocardiography showed improved heart function, particularly in those with large amounts of cardiac damage.

Stem Cells Speed Growth Of Healthy Liver Tissue

When large, fast-growing cancers invade the liver, some patients are unable to undergo surgery, because removing the cancerous tissue would leave too little liver to support the body.

Researchers at Heinrich-Heine-University in Düsseldorf, Germany, used adult bone marrow stem cells to help quickly regenerate healthy liver tissue, enabling patients to eventually undergo a surgical resection.

This one is pretty thought provoking:
For Athletes, the Next Fountain of Youth?

The latest curative leap to heal professional athletes and weekend warriors alike may sound like science fiction, but it could transform sports medicine. Some doctors and researchers say that in a few years the use of primitive stem cells from infants’ umbilical cord blood could grow new knee ligaments or elbow tendons creating a therapy that becomes the vanguard of sports injury repair.

Already, some sports agents are preparing to advise clients about banking stem cells from their offspring or from tissue taken from their own bodies as an insurance policy against a career-ending infirmity. Stem cell blood banks are promoting the benefits of stem cell therapies for the practical healing and rehabilitation of tendons, ligaments, muscle and cartilage. There are skeptics in the medical community who wonder how soon the technology will be viable, but enthusiastic advocates of the therapies say the time is near.

And here’s my favorite – if only we could find a way to bottle this common sense and give it to everyone:
Adult stem cells saved my mom’s life

My mom was one of those people that got cured of leukemia by getting a stem-cell transplant. My mom was so sick and chemotherapy couldn’t stop the leukemia from getting a lot worse, so she got a stem-cell transplant. My mom’s donor was a 21-year-old man who had a surgery to get these stem cells from his bone marrow and they were given to my mom. He is fine and was only feeling a little sore for a week or so. It did not kill him or have any serious effects on him. It has been two years since then and my mom is as healthy as ever!

The way I see it is that if doctors and researchers can cure people like my mom using adult stem cells and no one has ever been cured using embryonic stem cells, why would we ever choose to kill defenseless people? Hopefully, someday the world will realize that it is against God’s will to kill people, even if they are just embryos.

A Small Victory and Big Thank You to Rep. Cooper

ChelseaCloning, Politics, Pro LifeLeave a Comment

cooper.jpgI saw the President of Missouri Right to Life at Mass this morning and she informed me that HJR 11, the resolution to put a cloning ban on the Missouri ballot in ’08, passed out of committee, where it has been stuck for a number of weeks. Honestly I did not think there was much hope for that to happen at all.

The committee votes were split 5-5 and Rep. Jim Lembke, who sponsors the resolution, rececntly started collecting signatures on a discharge petition – a “nuclear option” if you will – to bypass a vote (not to mention leadership) to get it out of committee. It has been moving very slowly and last I heard they were only up to roughly 20-30 signatures, when they need 55. So yesterday Rep. Wayne Cooper, chairman of the Health Care Policy Committee, and a co-sponsor of the resolution, seized the opportunity to get the bill passed when he noticed that one of the committee members – a Democrat opponent of the measure – was not present for the executive session. I must admit that I was shocked to hear this because this is something that takes a little guts and a strong commitment to the cause you are trying to advance. Pardon me if I have been a little skeptical of the level of commitment among some of our legislators to this particular issue. This is never a popular way to go about moving legislation, but it is certainly legitimate and an option that members on all sides of the issues take advantage of when faced similar dilemmas. This is the game of politics.

Now the resolution goes to the Rules committee where it will hopefully move to the House floor. Then, if it passes in the House it will go to the Senate where we could have the biggest problem. Some Democrats have already vowed to filibuster it – most notably Sen. Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair because of a spinal cord injury he received in a car accident a number of years ago. He is a staunch advocate for embryo destructive research.

Elizabeth Edwards

ChelseaEmbryonic Stem Cell Research, Stem Cell Research, Suffering3 Comments

elizabethedwards.jpgProbably because her breast cancer has returned, Elizabeth Edwards is campaigning for the expansion of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research while also campaigning for her husband, Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards. It is generally expected that if you, or someone you love, has a disease or disability they must always be in favor of this research, and the high profile “sick people” or relatives of sick people have not failed to disappoint in this regard – Christopher and Dana Reeve, Michael J. Fox, Mary Tyler Moore, Nancy and Ron Reagan etc… This is largely due to the fact that our society cannot deal with physical suffering. Physical suffering, next to cigarette smoking, is seen as the greatest moral evil in the modern world and should be eradicated at all cost. Nancy Reagan, who I mentioned, finally could not bear watching the effects of President Reagan’s Alzheimer’s disease and when she felt that she could “no longer reach him” began advocating for embryo destructive research. This despite the fact that, I’m quite sure, her husband would probably have adamantly opposed such research. But his suffering was too much for her to bear and she decided that something must be done to stop it from happening to others in the future, even if that “something” requires the destruction of human life.

Elizabeth Edward’s arguments are the same arguments used over and over again – this is only research on a tiny clump of cells and the embryos are going to be discarded anyway, blah blah blah… It’s just sad because science and ethics are becoming less and less relevant in this debate (if it ever was relevant) and is being replaced by pure emotion. We need CURES, CURES, CURES! And nothing should stand in the way of finding these CURES!

Keep This Woman – and Her Child – In Your Prayers Today!

ChelseaAbortion, Prayer, Pro Life, Right to LifeLeave a Comment

Last week I told you about this woman who had scheduled an abortion and was having what she called a “meltdown” about it. She was feeling guilty already because she fully realized that she was carrying a child and that she was, in fact, going to kill it. Today is the day she scheduled her abortion, so please say some prayers for her and her unborn child!

Prayer of Spiritual Adoption:

    “Jesus, Mary and Joseph, I love you very much. I beg you to spare the life of [baby’s name] the unborn baby that I have spiritually adopted who is in danger of abortion.

    – Prayer of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen”

View her post

Feinstein-Hatch Fiasco

ChelseaCloning, Politics, Pro Life1 Comment

Two weeks ago I told you about the bogus “cloning ban” that Senators Dianne Feinstein and Orin Hatch introduced, the craftily worded Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Protection Act. Today Wesley Smith weighs in on the Daily Standard. This bill eerily reminds me of Amendment 2, mostly in the way that it falsely defines human cloning as the implantation of the product of SCNT rather than the process of SCNT itself. It’s just filled with junk science and is all around bad legislation.

Smith and others also weigh in on the egg donation/payment problem in the bill, which we had with Amendment 2. Interestingly, at a life issues forum yesterday for my diocese, the president of Vitae Caring Foundation and Life Communications Fund offered us some post election polling data about Amendment 2 and said that the egg problem was not a big issue when it came to changing from a yes to no vote on the amendment. The issue, as he put it, is CLONING CLONING CLONING! The more people realized that Amendment 2 expressly protected human cloning, even for research, the more they opposed it.

The key here, folks, is education. Talk to your friends, neighbors and relatives and let them know what cloning is and the tricks that are being used to change the language of the debate.

Some Resources:

Family Research Council
President’s Council on Bioethics
Mary Meets Dolly
Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics
The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity

The Fiat Heard Round the World

ChelseaPro Life, Religion, Right to Life, VocationLeave a Comment

The AnnunciationToday we celebrate the feast of the Annunciation, when the Archangel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced that she had found favor with God and would conceive and bear a son who would be called the Son of the Most High. This day calls to mind two very specific moments which correspond with the culture of life.

The first is Mary’s response to the Angel’s message. Imagine that you are a young girl – roughly between the ages of 12 and 15 – not yet married and an angel of the Lord informs you that you shall be with child. This surely was not something that she would have ever expected and most likely did not understand at the time. But Mary, being “full of grace”, surrendered humbly to God’s will saying, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word,” (Lk 1:38). By accepting this precious gift of life, Mary become not only the Mother of God, but a supreme example to all mothers. Mary’s role as the Mother of God reveals the dignity and sacredness of maternity.

Secondly, Mary’s fiat marks the exact moment of the incarnation, the Word Made Flesh. By the incarnation Christ, the Son of God, intimately united Himself to the entire human race and revealed, in the words of JP II, the incomparable value of every human person. Not only did Christ elect to take on our human nature, becoming like us in all things but sin, but he chose to begin his life on earth as the weakest and most defenseless among us, an unborn child. Because of this saving event we realize the splendor of all human life – including the unborn child and the unformed embryo.

The Annunciation – Luke 1:26-38

In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth,to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming to her, he said, “Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you.” But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.

He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, 11 and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” And the angel said to her in reply, “The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived 13 a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren; for nothing will be impossible for God.”

Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.

Recommended reading:
Mary of Nazareth

A Godsend For Sure

ChelseaUmbilical Cord BloodLeave a Comment

I really like this story about umbilical cord blood banking from ABC news: Umbilical Cord Cells: Godsend or Gimmick. I think it provides a practical approach to to the subject without being overly negative. I am very much in favor of cord blood banking, but I would not say that it is necessarily for absolutely everyone. First of all, it is very expensive and, as the story points out, it may not ever need to be used by the family. There may be different uses for it in the future, but right now it is primarily used as an alternative to bone marrow in patients with leukemia. So banking makes sense in families with ill siblings or a history of illness or leukemia. For those families without much of a medical history a better alternative would be cord blood donation which costs nothing and could help others in need.

Of course I would not discourage anyone from banking their own UBC blood. It has happened that the parents’ decision to bank their child’s cord blood has lead to a life saving miracle. Some consider it a sort of insurance policy, well worth the money. But for those who can’t afford it or for whom it may not be necessary, donation should also be considered.

As far as the question of whether UCB is a gimmick or a godsend I think the story answers it when it quotes Dr. Cladd Stevens: “There are people who are alive now who otherwise would’ve been dead if there hadn’t been a mother who donated their cord blood.”

Where Does Your Church Stand?

ChelseaEmbryonic Stem Cell Research, ReligionLeave a Comment

The Center for American Progress has an article on embryonic stem cell research and the differing viewpoints in some of the major religious denominations. What position does your church hold?

Assemblies of God: The Assemblies of God oppose embryonic stem cell research, saying, “Potential medical benefits do not justify destroying human life at any stage of development.” The Assemblies also oppose somatic cell nuclear transfer on the basis that it involves “the creation and destruction of human life for medical research.”

The Catholic Church: There is some debate among Catholic ethicists, but the Catholic Church officially opposes embryonic stem cell research, frequently citing Pope John Paul II’s plea for a “culture of life,” grouping the science with abortion, euthanasia and “other attacks on innocent life.”

The Christian Reformed Church in North America: The CRCNA has yet to make a formal statement on ESC research, but released a statement encouraging adherents to “promote action and legislation that reflect the teaching of Scripture regarding the sanctity of human life.”

Church of the Brethren: The COTB has not yet taken an official position; they are expected to release a statement in July 2007 at the COTB Annual Conference.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: The LDS has not made a formal statement on embryonic stem cell research. Yet one interpretation of the Mormon doctrine of ensoulment states that “an individual human life only begins…when the spirit joins the physical body some time following conception.” Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), a Mormon, has used this interpretation to defend the research.

Conservative Baptist Association of America: The Conservative Baptist Association of America has not made an official statement regarding embryonic stem cell research.

The Episcopal Church: The Episcopal Church supports embryonic stem cell research and was especially supportive of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 before it was vetoed by President Bush. A letter signed by two representatives of the church reads, “The Episcopal Church celebrates medical research as this research expands our knowledge of God’s creation and empowers us to bring potential healing to those who suffer from disease or disability.”

The Evangelical Lutheran Church: The Evangelical Lutheran Church has not yet made an official statement on embryonic stem cell research, but preliminary work is being done to select members of the council that will eventually draft a social statement on the research and other genetic issues. The Evangelical Lutheran Church will not likely consider the statement any earlier than at the 2011 Churchwide Assembly.

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church: The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has not taken an official position regarding embryonic stem cell research.

The Foursquare Church: The Foursquare Church has not made a statement on embryonic stem cell research, but it is probable that a position will be taken at some point in the near future.

Jehovah’s Witnesses: The Jehovah’s Witnesses have not explicitly addressed stem cell research. They have stated opposition to abortion, believing that life begins at conception, and they have also stated that “the willful destruction of an embryo would be viewed as abortion.”

The Lutheran Church: Missouri Synod: The Lutheran Church: Missouri Synod does not support embryonic stem cell research because the technology, citing 2001 Resolution 6.13, “necessarily involves the intentional destruction of human beings.” Research on adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood is supported by the LCMS.

Mennonite Church USA: The Mennonite Church has not made an official statement regarding embryonic stem cell research.

Open Bible Churches: The Open Bible Churches have not yet adopted a stance on embryonic stem cell research.

Orthodox Church in America: The American affiliation of the Orthodox Church opposes the research, stating, “The extraction of stem cells from embryos, which involves the willful taking of human life…is considered morally and ethically wrong in every instance.” The church states that it does support advances in therapeutic medicine, but it does not do so “at the expense of human life.”

The Presbyterian Church (USA): The Presbyterian Church (USA) stated at their 213th General Assembly in 2001 that, “With careful regulation, we affirm the use of human stem cell tissue for research that may result in the restoring of health to those suffering from serious illness.” Throughout its statement on the topic, the notion of responsibility is repeated several times, making it clear that although the church supports the research, the endorsement is not a blank check.

The Reformed Church in America: The Reformed Church in America states that “different sources of embryonic stem cells call for different moral evaluations.” The RCA is in favor of extracting stem cells from miscarried fetuses, but they are not supportive of the production of embryos for the explicit purpose of testing. The RCA also cautions against “using a surplus of embryos that would otherwise be disposed of,” since doing so could lead to the perception of humans as “mere objects and a source of spare parts.”

Seventh-Day Adventist Church: The Seventh-Day Adventist Church has not yet made a statement regarding embryonic stem cell research, but they have stated their support for somatic cell nuclear transfer, writing on their website, “If it is possible to prevent genetic disease through the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer, the use of this technology may be in keeping with the goal of preventing avoidable suffering.”

Southern Baptist Convention: The SBC is opposed to embryonic stem cell research, citing “vigorous opposition to the destruction of innocent human life, including the destruction of human embryos.” The Convention also encouraged Congress to maintain funding restrictions on the technology, and also encouraged existing laboratories that engage in the science to “cease and desist.”

Union for Reformed Judaism: The Union for Reformed Judaism supports embryonic stem cell research, saying “The Jewish tradition teaches us that preserving life and promoting health are among the most precious of values.” The URJ was a vocal advocate of H.R. 810.

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations: The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations supports the science of stem cell research, saying in a letter to President Bush, “We believe it is entirely appropriate to utilize for this research existing embryos, such as those created for IVF purposes that would otherwise be discarded but for this research.” the UOJC is, however, opposed to the creation of embryos for the specific purpose of research.

Unitarian Universalist Association: The UUA was a vocal supporter of H.R. 810, and continues to support a woman’s right to donate eggs and a couple’s right to donate embryos so long as there “is no intention of human reproductive cloning.” In addition to supporting embryonic stem cell research, the UUA supports somatic cell nuclear transfer as a viable and valuable advancement in therapeutic medicine.

United Church of Christ: The UCC is fully supportive of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research within “ethically sound guidelines…and the limitations set forth by the National Institutes of Health.” They cite their belief in Jesus’ healing as foundational for their support of this research.

United Methodist Church: The United Methodist Church supports embryonic stem cell research, but has four ethical conditions that must be met. The embryos used must not have any future for procreation, the couples donating the embryos must have given consent to have their embryos used for research, the embryos must not have been created solely for research activities, and the embryos must not have been purchased or sold in any way.

United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism: The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism supports lifting the restrictions on funding embryonic stem cell research, saying “Support of stem cell research evolves from the view in Jewish law that an embryo does not have ‘full capacity or status’ until it is 40 days old.”

At first I wondered what Catholic ethicists were debating ESC research, but then I realized that you can find Catholic ethicists, theologians, and even clergy members who will debate any area of Church teaching.

Hat Tip: Mary Meets Dolly

Baby Killers

ChelseaAbortion, Pro Life, Right to Life, videoLeave a Comment

Kevin McCullough, at Townhall, has a video response to the outrage over terrorists using children at suicide bombers in the Middle East:

This isn’t to get into an argument or a judgment over which killing is worse, but to remember that we are also killing our own children over here in the United States.

Governor Blunt Does Something Right

ChelseaAbortion, Cloning, Missouri, PoliticsLeave a Comment

blunt1.jpgMissouri Governor Matt Blunt decided to do something to make pro-lifers smile this week. When he called for increased funds to go to the Show Me Healthy Women Program which funds cervical and breast cancer screenings, he found out that previous administrations allowed some of that money to go to Planned Parenthood and he immediately put a stop to it:

“Patients should not have to go to an abortion clinic to access life saving tests,” Blunt said. “Today I put an end to taxpayer dollars going to Planned Parenthood in Springfield and Joplin through the Show Me Healthy Women Program. This ensures women may access important preventative care without contributing to abortion providers’ goal of facilitating the destruction of innocent life.”

I am not a big Blunt fan these days. Don’t get me wrong, I am grateful that he is “pro-life” on many issues and has helped some good pro-life legislation get through. But, if it wasn’t for him, we would have had a cloning ban in place in the state of Missouri two years ago and might not have had to deal with the whole Amendment 2 disaster (which he was in favor of). You see, Blunt is “pro-life” on certain issues, but draws the line at human cloning, which he believes doesn’t create human life (I didn’t know this when I voted for him). I had a meeting with him in 2005 when Senator Matt Bartle introduced a bill to ban human cloning in MO and Gov. Blunt came out against it (causing the majority of Republican Senators who co-signed the bill to withdraw their support). In the meeting the Governor explained that he didn’t think that somatic cell nuclear transfer created human life because it was not the union of sperm and egg – the way God intended human life to be created. He also told me that he doesn’t believe that they will ever find a cure with cloning research, but because it doesn’t create “human life,” and therefore isn’t “unethical”, it shouldn’t be banned. There really was nothing more to say after that. His rationale is completely unreasonable. He doesn’t believe that SCNT creates a human embryo, but thinks that the implantation of this non-human embryo would bring about the birth of a cloned human being and should be banned – or something like that. I tried to talk through with him and understand his position and got completely lost.

Anyway congratulations, and thank you, Matt Blunt, for sticking to your other pro-life beliefs and at least reminding us that, while you’re not perfect, you’re at least better than the alternative – which was Claire McCaskill. You can bet she would never take money away from Planned Parenthood.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com – although I did hear about it earlier this week.

BTW: Before he was endorsed by Missouri Right to Life, Blunt did fill out and sign a survey that said he would support a ban on human cloning in the state of Missouri (I saw the form). Needless to say, I won’t be voting for him again.