Saturday, May 02, 2009

Blaming proponents for lack of access

Families flying toddlers to China for stem-cell treatments

With the libelous subhead: "Bush-era limit on research leaves U.S. lagging"

"Driven mostly by hope, two California families will travel more than 6,000 miles to China for an experimental stem-cell treatment for their children. Aleesha and Michael Klomp of Hanford, California, say they don't need guarantees - they're willing to take a chance so their son Gryphon Klomp, 2, might walk and grasp a spoon some day soon.

Fresno, California, mother Jennifer Schmidt has the same faith about the benefits of umbilical-cord stem-cell therapy for 2-year-old daughter Brooke Schmidt-Jordan.

Both toddlers have cerebral palsy. Their families' situation highlights the real-world effects of the prolonged national debate over stem-cell research.

That research in the United States has been delayed amid concerns about the use of stem cells taken from embryos destroyed in the process."

THIS KIND OF RESEARCH IS NOT BEING DELAYED BY CONCERNS ABOUT EMBRYOS BEING DESTROYED, BECAUSE THIS KIND OF RESEARCH DOES NOT DESTROY EMBRYOS. It's being delayed by pencilnecks at the FDA who treat each new adult or cord blood stem cell protocol as if it's a new drug. Opponents of EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH are the ones screaming bloody murder that the FDA is stonewalling. But the "compassionate" proponents of ESCR aren't raising a stink, because they DO NOT WANT CURES FROM ADULT STEM CELLS OR CORD BLOOD STEM CELLS. Every treatment with adult or cord blood stem cells is another nail in the ESCR coffin. So they perpetuate the myth that it's ESCR opponents putting up the roadblocks.

I suppose it should be no surprise that people who embrace killing should have no qualms about bearing false witness.

They block true research. They make false promises and instill false hope. They kill real hope. They bear false witness against those who are pushing for true research, making real progress, offering real hope.

What level of Hell is appropriate for such deplorable people?


Kathy said...

The media that perpetuates these myths are just as much to blame -- for their poor research and writing, if nothing else. They use the term "stem cell research" as if there were only one kind, note that some people are against embryonic SCR, then act like those opponents are blocking all SCR. Sigh...

Plus, this leaves open the impression that whenever there is a breakthrough in SCR -- which is always from adult stem cells (and I include umbilical cord blood in that, merely to distinguish it from embryonic) -- that the average Joe will think that the breakthrough is from ESCR, when it's not. It's the blind leading the blind!

Oh, have you seen the episode of Oprah with Michael J. Fox and Dr. Oz, when the good doctor said, "I know this is controversial, but as far as I'm concerned, embryonic stem cell research is dead," and went on to elaborate on all the problems with ESCR and all the benefits of ASCR! If you haven't seen it yet, look it up on youtube. I am so glad that Dr. Oz was honest -- but Fox was definitely unpleasantly surprised.

Christina Dunigan said...

I saw a YouTube of the Dr. Oz on Oprah thing. She and Fox will pretend they never heard it. Even though Fox NEEDS to hear it. It's his only hope. But it's like once you accept the idea that ESCR is the answer, you become deaf to anything else.

Anonymous said...


It seems that you don't understand how the FDA works, or what its function is, since your post here is riddled with inaccuracies.

First, the FDA is charged with overseeing the safety and efficacy of any new biomedical drug, device, or treatment. The "pencilnecks" you refer to (hard working professional scientists) are charged with examining every new treatment that comes on the market. That is the job of the FDA.

Every new adult or cord blood stem cell protocol is a new treatment by definition. You even admit this by using the adjective "new." If something is "new" then it must be evaluated.

You write: "Every treatment with adult or cord blood stem cells is another nail in the ESCR coffin." There is no logical basis for this claim, since ESCR and ASCR are apples and oranges. It's like saying every new treatment with amoxicillin is another nail in the gene therapy coffin.


Christina Dunigan said...

Chad, if a doctor decides to use an NSAID off-label to treat a cancer, he doesn't need to treat the NSAID as if it's a new drug and wait for permission. He can use his medical judgment and go ahead with it. But if he wants to use adult stem cells -- which have already been shown safe and effective in other protocols -- in a new way, it gets treated NOT as an "off-label" use of stem cells, but as if it's an entirely new drug.

And YES, the ESCR fanatics HATE when a new ASCR protocol is successful, because it shows that it's not necessary to kill embryonic human beings to develop treatments.

Tonal Bliss said...

I have noticed a bias by pro-ESCR against ASCR when I'm in conversation with them. It is also easy to see the same bias perpetrated by the media. Thanks for the blog post, GrannyGump.

Anonymous said...


The comparison of off-label analgesic use and ASC research is completely without merit. First of all, off-label usage occurs when a clinician is reasonably sure of the mechanisms and kinetics of the medication, and more importantly, is aware of potential side-effects and contraindicators. To compare NSAIDs and ASC-derived therapy completely misses the point that ASC research is experimental for many proposed conditions. While it is true that some ASC-derived therapies have shown successes with some conditions (namely cancers of the blood), to propose off-label usage for the mobilization, collection, in vitro manipulation and finally re-introduction of cells back into a patient is completely absurd. There’s not a clinician on God’s green earth that would agree with you.


John C. Hathaway said...

How can you label a person's own cells?

*That* is absurd.
It should be treated as a surgical procedure, not a drug.

As for the FDA, the FDA is completely based upon the interests of Big Pharmacy. If they're truly interested in the best interests of patients, they'd allow the perfectly acceptable rubella virus that the Japenese developed without killing any babies. However, the FDA's main interests are supporting Big Pharmacy and Big "Science."