http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1637528.ece

Quote :

"Diabetics using stem-cell therapy have been able to stop taking insulin injections for the first time, after their bodies started to produce the hormone naturally again. In a breakthrough trial, 15 young patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were given drugs to suppress their immune systems followed by transfusions of stem cells drawn from their own blood. The results show that insulin-dependent diabetics can be freed from reliance on needles by an injection of their own stem cells. The therapy could signal a revolution in the treatment of the condition, which affects more than 300,000 Britons. People with type 1 diabetes have to give themselves regular injections to control blood-sugar levels, as their ability to create the hormone naturally is destroyed by an immune disorder. All but two of the volunteers in the trial, details of which are published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), do not need daily insulin injections up to three years after stopping their treatment regimes. The findings were released to reporters yesterday as the future of US stem-cell research was being debated in Washington. Stem cells are immature, unprogrammed cells that have the ability to grow into different kinds of tissue and can be sourced from people of all ages. Previous studies have suggested that stem-cell therapies offer huge potential to treat a variety of diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and motor neuron disease. A study by British scientists in November also reported that stem-cell injections could repair organ damage in heart attack victims. But research using the most versatile kind of stem cells — those acquired from human embryos — is currently opposed by powerful critics, including President Bush. The JAMA study provides the first clinical evidence for the efficacy of stem cells in type 1 diabetes. Sufferers of the chronic condition, which normally emerges in childhood or early adulthood, have to inject themselves at least four times a day. Type 2 diabetes, which tends to affect people later in life, is linked to lifestyle factors such as obesity. There are almost two million type 2 diabetics in Briton, most of whom control their blood-sugar levels with pills or through diet. The new study, by a joint team of Brazilian and American scientists, found that one of the first patients to undergo the procedure has not used any supplemental synthetic insulin for three years. “Very encouraging results were obtained in a small number of patients with early-onset disease,” the authors, led by Julio Voltarelli, from the University of São Paulo in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. write. “Ninety-three per cent of patients achieved different periods of insulin independence and treatment-related toxicity was low, with no mortality.” Type 1 diabetes occurs when the body’s own immune system malfunctions and destroys the insulin-producing beta cells of the pancreas, causing a shortage in the hormone. By the time most patients receive a clinical diagnosis, 60 to 80 per cent of their beta cells have been wiped out. The disease progresses from this point very quickly, and can result in serious long-term complications including blindness, kidney failure, heart disease and stroke. Dr Voltarelli’s team hoped that if they intervened early enough they could wipe out and then rebuild the body’s immune system by using stem cells, preverving a reservoir of beta cells and allowing them to to regenerate. They enrolled Brazilian diabetics aged between 14 and 31 who had been diagnosed within the previous six weeks. After stem cells had been harvested from their blood, they then underwent a mild form of chemotherapy to eliminate the white blood cells causing damage to the pancreas. They were then given transfusions of their own stem cells to help rebuild their immune systems. Richard Burt, a co-author of the study from Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, said that 14 of the 15 patients were insulin-free for some time following the treatment. Eleven of those were able to dispense with supplemental insulin immediately following the infusion of stem cells and have not had recourse to synthetic insulin since then, he said. “Two other patients needed some supplemental insulin for 12 and 20 months after the procedure, but eventually both were able to wean themselves from taking daily shots,” he added. One patient went 12 months without shots, but relapsed a year after treatment after suffering a viral infection, and resumed daily insulin injections. Another volunteer was eliminated from the study because of complications. The therapy, known as autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, has already shown benefits to individuals with a range of auto-immune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease and lupus. There are still question marks about exactly how the treatment works, and further studies will be required to fully evaluate it’s safety and efficacy. “As a research scientist I am always hesitant to speak of a cure, but the initial results have been good and show the importance of conducting more trials,” Dr Burt said. Given the right funding opportunities, university hospitals in London could be conducting research into the therapy within the next 12 months, he added. “It will probably be five to eight years before we see a treatment being widely available,” he said. In an accompanying editorial in JAMA, Dr Jay Skyler, of the Diabetes Research Institute at the University of Miami, wrote: “Research in this field is likely to explode in the next few years and should include randomised controlled trials, as well as mechanistic studies." "

4/13/2007 9:19:59 AM

yeah, but don't you realize that YOU'RE KILLING BABIES!!!

4/13/2007 9:28:18 AM

Quote :

"followed by transfusions of stem cells drawn from their own blood."

4/13/2007 9:28:57 AM

BABIES ARE DYING

4/13/2007 9:37:30 AM

those babies would have been aborted anyway

4/13/2007 9:41:35 AM

good stuff. my wife, punchmonk is a type 1 diabetic so i'm looking forward to more research like this

4/13/2007 9:42:42 AM

This is most excellent.

4/13/2007 10:03:47 AM

although this therapy uses adult stem cells, i've always been surprised at the animosity toward using embryonic stem cells. probably 80%+ of molecular biology labs that do cell culture use cells derived from aborted fetuses in some capacity (thankfully, i guess, the public doesn't know about this).

4/13/2007 12:51:43 PM

^

4/13/2007 12:56:36 PM

^^ if the public is opposed to embryonic stem cell research, it's because 1) they've been misinformed, and 2) their opinions are being shaped by politicians with ulterior motives.

I would like to hear the following line of questioning to everybody who opposes embryonic stem cell research. I would also like to hear this asked to Bush (who's only veto yet was against stem cells) in a public forum:

Q: are you opposed to embryonic stem cell research?
A: yes
Q: why?
A: because I support the sanctity of life. we should not destroy life for something that might be
Q: Do you support in vitro fertilization?
A: of course
Q: why?
A: because people should be allowed every opportunity to have children, even if they're not able to naturally
Q: Do you know that the process of in vitro fertilization creates dozens of embryos, any of which might have potential to grow into a human, only one of which is planted in the uterus, after which only 1 in 3 women actually carry to term?
A: ummm, i'm not sure.
Q: Do you still support in vitro fertilization?
A: well, yeah, because those people have a right to have babies if they want them
Q: Do you realize that they discard all of the dozens of embryos that are created in the lab, except for the one that is implanted in the woman?
A: mhum.....
Q: Do you still support IVF?
A: yes, if it gives people who otherwise could not have children even the chance of having kids, then it is overall a good thing
Q: And you're ok with them discarding the 10's of embryos in an effort to create a single, viable embryo?
A: well, why can't they just create a single embryo per couple?
Q: because then the success rate would be nearly 0% and IVF would not be possible
A: ok then, I guess it's ok, as long as they try their best to create an embryo that could lead to the couple having a child
Q: Would you be opposed to using the embryos that are otherwise going to be, literally, thrown in the garbage for research that could benefit millions of people?
A: …… *crickets*

4/13/2007 1:58:33 PM

^ !!!!

4/13/2007 2:00:16 PM

Quote :

"although this therapy uses adult stem cells, i've always been surprised at the animosity toward using embryonic stem cells. probably 80%+ of molecular biology labs that do cell culture use cells derived from aborted fetuses in some capacity (thankfully, i guess, the public doesn't know about this)."

fucking retarded. BECAUSE EMBREYONIC STEM CELLS HAVE YET TO CURE SHIT! NO MATTER HOW HARD THEY TRY, THEY JUST CAN'T SEEM TO GET IT TO WORK.

4/13/2007 2:03:32 PM

science = hates our freedoms and tuks our jerbs

4/13/2007 2:13:55 PM

^^, maybe you'd like to fill the in the answers to ^^^^.
"NO MATTER HOW HARD THEY TRY, THEY JUST CAN'T SEEM TO GET IT TO WORK" - you know, for that statement to be true, you have to allow them to try first. These things don't happen overnight, and they've only been a work on this stuff a few years. Yes, private funding can still go towards this research, but it's been shown time and time again that federal funding is all but necessary for projects like this that take a long time to complete (and therefore have low short to mid-term ROIs for private companies) and to reduce redundant research (by controlling grants from a central location to allow researchers to build off of each other instead of doing the same work over and over again)

[Edited on April 13, 2007 at 2:16 PM. Reason : .]

4/13/2007 2:15:42 PM

^ I was unaware that they weren't allowed to try. If this magic embreyonic stem cell stuff has the curing power that it "potentially" does... then I figured it would have TONS of investors ready to cash in on the science.


But....

4/13/2007 2:21:01 PM

there actually is plenty of private and now state money (for me anyway-I'm in california). and it doesn't really matter if it ever cures anything: they're an interesting model system for studying development in general. they are a great thing to study regardless of any future potential therapies.

4/13/2007 3:01:21 PM

FIX MY DIABEETUS!

Please.

4/13/2007 4:33:53 PM

ok so if they're a research plaything, is it worth lives?

That's the whole issue here and you proved my point.

4/13/2007 4:34:50 PM

my point is more that the federal gov't already funds plenty of "killing" of embryos but no one gives a shit b/c they're not called embryonic stem cells.

4/13/2007 4:37:07 PM

FIX MY DIABEETUS!

Please

4/13/2007 5:31:24 PM

Quote :

"BECAUSE EMBREYONIC STEM CELLS HAVE YET TO CURE SHIT! NO MATTER HOW HARD THEY TRY, THEY JUST CAN'T SEEM TO GET IT TO WORK."

yep, just throw some stem cells around and they'll automatically fix everything....

it'll be at least 10-15 years before we even begin to understand all the complexities around how stem cells actually work so we can fully take advantage of what they have to offer

and it'll probably be another at least another 10-15 years before something really productive, marketable and qualified as "safe" is mass produced to treat the population

and then everyone will have to worry about how much these treatments/"cures" will cost

4/13/2007 8:49:53 PM

AMAZING... bring on attack of the 500lb former diabetics... how big can they get?

Seriously, stem cells seem to be the future. It is ridiculous to simply throw this stuff out like garbage when it can really help people.

4/13/2007 9:41:54 PM

don't be ignant, fool

Quote :

"Type 2 diabetes, which tends to affect people later in life, is linked to lifestyle factors such as obesity. There are almost two million type 2 diabetics in Briton, most of whom control their blood-sugar levels with pills or through diet. Type 1 diabetes occurs when the body’s own immune system malfunctions and destroys the insulin-producing beta cells of the pancreas, causing a shortage in the hormone."

type 1 diabetes has nothing to do with obesity

4/13/2007 10:33:41 PM

In fact, you can be a skinny fuck if you have type 1 diabetes.

See:

<--

4/13/2007 11:17:09 PM

Quote :

".co.uk"

ok i'll believe it when i see it

4/13/2007 11:30:55 PM

fool? Most people with diabetes have type 2 diabetes. Diabetes is more common among older adults, men, and minorities, according to the CDC.

Are you aware of the epidemic of obesity and rise of type 2 diabetes in this country?

In the United States, about 18.2 million people have diabetes, including 210,000 under the age of 20.

The rise in the rate of diabetes in this country is directly related to obesity.

New cases (incidence) of diabetes doubled during the last 30 years, mainly among obese people, write Caroline Fox, MD, MPH, and colleagues.

“The cause of the increase in diabetes incidence is likely related to changes in obesity and lifestyle,” write Fox and colleagues. “Obesity and weight gain are the leading risk factors for the development of diabetes.”

Diabetes, hypertension and other obesity-related chronic diseases that are prevalent among adults have now become more common in youngsters. The percentage of children and adolescents who are overweight and obese is now higher than ever before. Poor dietary habits and inactivity are reported to contribute to the increase of obesity in youth.


You want to call me ignant? because I linked obesity to diabeties? Its close to 90% of diabetics are type 2. We used to classify diabetics as insulin dependant, and nondependant.. but those numbers got skewed as historically insulin meant type 1..however as people became more obese, the type 2s couldnt control it with pills alone..and had to also take insulin.

4/13/2007 11:54:26 PM

this article and thread is about type 1 diabetes. your inability to distinguish the two shows your ignorance

4/14/2007 12:21:18 AM

Quote :

"ok so if they're a research plaything, is it worth lives? That's the whole issue here and you proved my point."

no, you missed the whole point.

embryonic stem cells may or may not cure anything in the future. But in order to find out, we are not wasting or destroying any lives. All embryonic stem cells that would be used would come from embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway because they are worthless and have no other uses. Nobody is going out and creating a bunch of embryos just so they can destroy them and start fucking around with them in the lab. The stem cells would come from left over embryos that are essentially the trash left from in vitro fertilization.
They are NOT taking lives, and they should NOT be banned by the federal government. If anyone or no one wants to use federal grants to actually perform research is besides the point. The point is, the gov't should not be denying money to do said research.

4/14/2007 12:33:38 AM

well, I don't know about "the gov't shouldn't be denying funding..." I'm not entirely sure that the gov't should be helping fund the research, but I will certainly agree that the gov't shouldn't ban the research altogether

4/14/2007 8:02:41 PM

^ ok, well that's reasonable.
And that's why there are institutions to deal with who gets money, like the National Institute of Health. It's up to them to determine what research is valid enough to deserve money. And if they decide stem-cell research is not worth the grants, then that's their prerogative, but like you said, they shouldn't be denied by law from making that decision themselves.

4/14/2007 9:48:47 PM

fyi

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/bedffcb2-1479-11dc-88cb-000b5df10621.html

6/7/2007 12:04:03 AM

FTL


Stem cell research FTW. Mostly not for me though, unless they find some way to stop my immune system, pop in new beta cells, pop in stem cells, and keep me from dying in the meantime until, quite magically, my aidsabeetus goes away.

6/7/2007 12:07:39 AM