DUers a right to Life whacko (head honcho) says stem cells always turn into tumors...

[roseBudd]

Is that true?

Here is the thread, you can register & post comments.

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=edit0202&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ae8ab9c9c-3e4b-46b9-a08d-a17c4ecdcdc7Post%3ac5119005-c0ba-4fef-91ec-fea0d108fe25&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com

[provis99]

1. well, actually stem cells produce human beings

Although I will make an exception in the case of right-to-life wackos, who are obviously tumors.

[rucky]

6. And human beings grow teeth

and so do tumors sometimes

but I rarely see a right-to-life wacko with all their teeth

so maybe tumors are superior beings

[Kerrytravelers]

2. A "right to lifer" (which is really just a pro-birther) says something... which makes me instantly

think it's a lie or a gross distortion of the truth. Let's face it, these people are not brilliant when it comes to science... or common sense.

[Ian David]

3. They only turn to cancer if the tiny little baby-soul living in the cells deem you an unworthy host.

[leftyladyfrommo]

4. That's right up there with raped women never get pregnant

because the trauma is so great that the body won't get pregnant.

[Hekate]

5. It's a tumor-rumor! Also too much book-larnin' makes womenfolks sterile.

Idiots.
:argh:

Hekate

[roseBudd]

7. Seriously I need medical research info to refute, it's Dr. wilke founder of Right to Life

[Richard Steele]

8. You do NOT need to refute it.

He made the claim, it's on him to produce info to PROVE it.

Don't fall into that trap- simply call his claim the
baseless bullshit it is.

[mrs_p]

9. not true

stem cells have the ability to divide and differentiate into various tissue types. if it were true, then we would ALL have cancer, as adults also have stem cells. but, i agree with other posters, no need to argue with such bullshit...

[roseBudd]

10. this is the second time wilke made the tumor claim, he also said they can have HIV...

President Obama says that Bush’s ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cells was political. He is dead wrong. It is not at all political. It is totally a moral issue. In order to get such cells, you must directly kill a living five-day-old human embryo. That is the moral objection. One doesn’t have to necessarily even consider the moral objection, however, as the practical and scientific objections to their use alone are sufficient to forbid their use.

There are three types of stem cells:
1. Embryonic stem cells obtained by killing five-day-old human embryos.2. Adult stem cells taken from your body’s various tissues and put back into your body, these also include placental and cord blood cells. 3. Pluripotent cells are your cells, so changed that they mimic embryonic stem cells, but without their disadvantages. Let’s take them one at a time:Embryonic stem cells: Embryonic stem cells are someone else’s tissue (eggs and sperm). As such they are foreign tissue and like a transplanted kidney, will be rejected by the person’s body receiving them unless continuous anti-rejection medication is given for a lifetime. Embryonic stem cells come from someone else. If that person had AIDS and you get their cells, then you have AIDS. If you get your own cells back, there is no possible way of getting a new infection.

To date, all attempts to use human embryonic stem cells in humans have failed. The main reason is that they grow uncontrollably into tumors which can be fatal. To date, there is no report of a single successful use of embryonic stem cells in humans, and the outlook for such successful use remains highly unlikely.
Adult Stem Cells: These are taken from your body, cultured, and re-implanted in your body. There is no tissue rejection as these are your own cells. Similarly you can’t give yourself a new infection, but what about tumor formation? To date there are suspicions but no reports of tumors yet. The record on treatment however is amazing. There are confirmed improvements or/and cures for over 70 disease and injury conditions and the reports keep coming, e.g. new muscle is now being grown on flabby weakened heart walls. Most amazing has been regeneration of the two segments of severed spinal cords. These people are walking again. Pluripotent Stem Cells: The third type of stem cells are the new pluripotent stem cells. These are now being developed from your skin cells. In effect these are turned backward in time to a state similar in development to embryonic stem cells. As such, they can grow into any of the cellular organs of our body. This is new within the last twelve months. Because these cells come from your own body they are not rejected. Most importantly it is now almost certain that these new pluripotent cells do not form tumors. Further these cells can be reproduced easily in cultures far more simply, cheaply, and as noted safely then any of the cells above. The bottom line again is that not only do we not need embryonic stem cells but they are dangerous and they don’t work. So why throw good money after them?

To return to the moral issues, do we want to the directly kill five-day-old human embryos in hopes that someone someday may benefit? The argument is made that these human embryos will be “discarded” in any case so why not use them. Using this rational we should be able to do lethal experiments on a condemned criminal before his execution, because he is going to die anyway. This specific argument was also used by Nazi doctors, who did lethal experiments on Jews who were going to be killed. This argument is morally bankrupt in all three of these cases. Finally, we understand that there is no law against them doing this if they can find someone willing to do it and the money to do it. But understand, while this may be science, it is bad morals, and it is even worse economics. This whole issue has been highly politicized by many people including our new president. But let me predict. In time Embryonic stem cell research will fall of its own weight. J. C. Willke, M.D.PresidentLife Issues Institute, Inc.

[Duer 157099]

12. The AIDS comment is technically correct

He says that if the donor cells are infected with HIV, then the recipient can get HIV - can't see how anyone could argue with that. But the assumption that the donor cells are infected and then USED is the flaw in his logic -- we certainly have the ability to screen for such things these days.

As to whether stem cells are tumorigenic, again, technically, that could be true. Stem cells generally get their signals to differentiate (and thus stop dividing) by their environment - certain proteins or other factors that are produced by neighboring cells, for example. In the absence of the appropriate signals, these cells can, in theory, continue to proliferate (which, stunningly, is also exactly why they are useful for research! doh!)

But even so, the guy is an idiot, just on general principles.

[roseBudd]

13. Unfortunately he is writing in such a way (medical terms) & has an MD after his name...

He is claiming the paralized are now walking due to adult stem cells.

[canucksawbones]

11. Geron Corp

has been approved for human embryonic stem cell therapy for spinal cord injury. This approval was just granted in January. Animal studies so far have not shown tumor growth on the spinal cord (where the modified stem cells are placed). So your whacko is wrong. Although there is a theoretical risk of tumour production from undifferentiated stem cells, stem cell therapy doesn't use unmodified cells. The cells do have to be triggered to grow into something (in the study above that would be oligodendrocytes). Geron is also working on modifying embryonic stem cells to produce insulin. Animal studies showed rats with this therapy alive at 50 days post treatment (without tumours) compared to no survival in untreated rats.