Skip to comments.Science's Stem Cell Scam
Posted on 07/20/2006 4:55:28 AM PDT by 13Sisters76
Sciences Stem Cell Scam By Michael Fumento Thursday, July 20, 2006 Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) receive tremendous media attention, with oft-repeated claims that they have the potential to cure virtually every disease known. Yet there are spoilsports, self included, who point out that they have yet to even make it into a human clinical trial. This is even as alternatives adult stem cells (ASCs) from numerous places in the body as well as umbilical cord blood and placenta are curing diseases here and now and have been doing so for decades. And that makes ESC advocates very, very angry. How many diseases ASCs can treat or cure is debatable, with one website claiming almost 80 for umbilical cord blood alone. Dr. David Prentice of the Family Research Council, using stricter standards of evidence, has constituted a list of 72 for all types of ASCs. But now three ESC advocates have directly challenged Prentices list. Theyve published a letter in Science magazine, released ahead of publication obviously to influence Pres. Bushs promise to veto legislation that would open wide the federal funding spigot for ESC research. The letter claims ASC treatments fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine of the conditions on his list.
Well! One answer to that is that its nine more than can be claimed for ESCs. Further, there are 1175 clinical trials for ASCs, including those no longer recruiting patients, with zero for ESCs. But a better response is that the letter authors come from the Kenneth Lay School for honesty, as do the editors at Science.
In the detailed attachment to their letter, the Science magazine writers arent just at odds with Prentice but the medical community as a whole. For example, regarding sickle cell anemia, they claim adult stem cell transplants from bone marrow or umbilical cord blood can provide some benefit to sickle cell patients and hold the potential to treat sickle cell anemia. Some benefit and potential?
An article from the May 2006 issue of Current Opinion in Hematology notes that there is presently no curative therapy for sickle cell anemia other than allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Hematopoietic means from marrow or blood; allogeneic means the cells are from another person. Seminars in Hematology (2004) states, . . . curative allogeneic stem cell transplantation therapy has been developed for sickle cell anemia. Meanwhile, . . . curative allogeneic stem cell transplantation therapy [has] been developed for sickle cell anemia according to Current Opinions in Molecular Therapy (2003), while hematopoietic stem cells for allogeneic transplantation are currently the only curative approach for sickle cell anemia observes the journal Blood (2002). (All emphasis mine.)
What does everybody seem to know that the Science writers and Science editors dont?
Words like could and potential are trick phraseology used throughout the letter attachment for ASC curative therapies that have been used routinely for years. This appears to give them no advantage over ESC therapy, all of which boasts nothing but potential.
The writers are correct about FDA approval; but thats a trick. Some ASC therapies are approved in other countries but not yet here. More importantly, stem cell therapy is not a drug and therefore the FDA doesnt regulate it the same way. Some have been used successfully for decades with no one seeking or receiving federal approval.
For that matter, aspirin is a drug but by their standards it only has potential use for aches and pains since it never went through the clinical trial process and the FDA has never given it formal approval.
How can Science not know all this? Simple; it does. Ive written repeatedly of how Science has made itself a propaganda sheet for ESC research, as well as other political causes. At the least, it should change its name to Pseudoscience. Sometimes it prints easily falsifiable studies, such as this, attacking the usefulness of ASCs. Other times it falsely promotes ESCs. That culminated in January when the journal was forced to retract two groundbreaking ESC studies that proved frauds.
The journal wants to flood unpromising ESC research with taxpayer dollars because private investors know just how very unpromising it is. Now yet again Science has showcased the scientific and moral bankruptcy of the entire ESC advocacy movement.
Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Impossible! Scientists are above that kind of thing.
Science is a journal, and is written by journalists now, not by scientists.
There certainly are scientists who indulge in propaganda, especially when they are not writing about their own field, but this formerly well respected journal is becoming no better than a blog with respect to some fields.
Ah. Good to know.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue, this statement is ridiculusly illogical. If the research isn't funded, then there never will be applications for ESC. So to compare it with ASC is like comparing apples to oranges, but before the oranges have grown. I wish these writers would not abuse science and simply say ESC research is immoral rather than misusing science as propaganda.
Was this on Rush yesterday?
"Was this on Rush yesterday?"
Here's a link to the main page in case my direct link (as a "member" of 24/7) to the transcript doesn't work:
You seem to assume that lack of Federal funds means NO funds. That is ridiculous. Many millions are spent by companies and states on ESC research, as was done with ASC too. The push for Federal ESC research is ideological, not funding driven.
Correction. Public funding is used for basic research. Treatments entering clinical trials are the result of applied research where profits can easily be foreseen. What worries me is that there is no basic research being done on ESC and the limited work being done is locked away in the private sector. And if it is money driven, then ESC could be a cost savings because treatements would not have to be customized for each patient. Also, basic research would better contrast the two avenues and would provide cross-functional information. In other words, spin offs of ESC could make ASC work better.
The money is not available in the private sector for basic research. very few, if any, companies actually engage in basic research. there's no profit agenda behind it. I'm arguing research in general, not just the ESC issue. Most of the technological acheivements we have are derived from basic research. Sure, there is lots of development and some key findings from the private sector, but the foundation all came from tax dollars.
You do realize that the Bush Administration has provided over $90 million for ESC research.
And that is $90 million more than every prior administration combined.
And are you aware that the ESC lines supported by Bush has resulted in over 85% of all published ESC research?
"locked away in the private sector" indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.