Slashdot Log In
"Miraculous" Stem Cell Progress Reported In China
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Apr 30, 2009 09:42 AM
from the we-can-cure-it-for-you-wholesale dept.
from the we-can-cure-it-for-you-wholesale dept.
destinyland writes "In China's Guangdong Province there's been 'almost miraculous' progress in actually using stem cells to treat diseases such as brain injury, cerebral palsy, ataxia and other optic nerve damage, lower limb ischemia, autism, spinal muscular atrophy, and multiple sclerosis. One Chinese biotech company, Beike, is now building a 21,500 square foot stem cell storage facility and hiring professors from American universities such as Stanford. Two California families even flew their children to China for a cerebral palsy treatment that isn't available in the US. The founder of Beike is so enthusiastic, he says his company is exploring the concept of using stem cells to extend longevity beyond 120 years."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Watch out for chinese stem cells (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They have lead in them...
<Ray Kurzweil>
Oh well, it'll just be a few more years before they develop stem cells to adjust the effects of lead on the human body. Singularity [wikipedia.org], here we come!
</Ray Kurzweil>
Re:Watch out for chinese stem cells (Score:5, Interesting)
Say what you will about the Chinese, but we could still learn a thing or two from them. At least they have the guts to try this stuff.
Parent
Re:Watch out for chinese stem cells (Score:5, Insightful)
Say what you will about the Chinese, but we could still learn a thing or two from them.
We've already got Fleischmann, Pons, and Taleyarkhan - what more do we need to learn about this kind of thing? Hu gives no numbers for success rates, and identifies FDA standards as a challenge. Anecdotes abound, and stats are lacking.
Parent
Complete bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
I will go out on a limb and say that this story sounds to me like complete bullshit.
First tipoff: TFA doesn't list any citations to peer-reviewed articles. (I couldn't find any on PubMed.)
Second tipoff: Hu claims to have treated >5,087 patients for ataxia, autism, ALS, brain trauma, cerebral infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, cerebral palsy, diabetics, Guillain-Barre, encephalatropy, and spinal cord injury.
If he could have treated any one of those diseases successfully, any major medical journal would have been happy to publish his report, doctors from all over the world would be flying over to learn his techniques, and pharmaceutical companies would be offering him wheelbarrows full of money for the rights to use his techniques. And it would have been on the front page of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
Third tipoff: The reporter who wrote this sounds like she doesn't understand the story at all. She doesn't ask one substantive question (like, "what peer reviewed journals have you published your work in?"). She sounds like she's asking generic questions from a list of standard interview questions her business editor gave her.
Fourth tipoff: The word "miraculous."
I'm not taking it seriously enough to look up the citations, but Science magazine had an article a while back investigating a Chinese doctor who claimed to be treating spinal cord injured patients, and it turned out that his patients weren't getting better and he hadn't published anything significant.
The WSJ had an article about a Chinese brain surgeon who was cutting a part of the brain to supposedly cure schizophrenia, depression, and a whole list of unrelated conditions, but he wasn't curing them, a lot of his patients were left with severe brain damage, families were paying him their life savings, he was making a fortune, American brain surgeons were shocked at his irresponsibility, and he performed several times more of these procedures than the rest of the world combined.
A friend of mine taught a course in science journalism in China a while back, and he was appalled to find out that Chinese journalists would just make stories up. They didn't understand the difference between telling a good story and telling the truth.
This is from the country whose pharmaceutical industry brought us contaminated heparin, contaminated milk, cough syrup that killed babies, and pet food that killed dogs.
To quote Thomas Paine, which is more likely: that a miracle could happen or that a man could lie?
It's not anti-Chinese to say this. In the U.S., the Chinese are some of the best scientists and science journalists.
China, for all its many virtues and accomplishments, is suffering from the results of Communism, the Great Cultural Revolution, and now unregulated free-market capitalism.
China is the same zoo of quack doctors and drug companies that the U.S. was in the days of Upton Sinclair, which led to the FDA. And we still have quacks here.
Parent
Sounds Like Cold Fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll believe it when I see it replicated.
Re:Sounds Like Cold Fusion (Score:5, Interesting)
Finding fraud in China [nature.com]: As Chinese research expands, who is looking out for faked results?
I don't want to come off as more racist than I already do or anything, but the last few miraculous discoveries in China were faked.
Parent
Re:Sounds Like Cold Fusion (Score:5, Interesting)
You're not coming off as racist. That's a cultural observation, and it's entirely appropriate.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By "Chinese" I mean the nation not the people. People who have left China for a better life I'm much more willing to trust.
Re:Isn't that exactly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Isn't that exactly... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure the poster mean when the experimental results are replicated independently by another lab.
Also, stem cells replicate relatively infrequently. Replication results in minor DNA damage, so the body keeps the source of new cells in as pristine a condition as possible by minimizing stem cell replication. One of the two new cells chills out until needed again while the other replicates as many time as is necessary.
That's actually one of the major concerns for adult stem cells. Taking cells from an adult, which has already endured a lifetime of genetic damage, and using them for a stem cell line is begging for some cancers to pop up. All the nastiest cancers known to man originate from stem cells. Fetal stem cells have the benefit of being the most pristine stem cells you can get.
Parent
Chinese Sputnik? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
America needs a good shake up to awaken people from this dumb political fuckfest and get their focus back on technology and science.
In short, turn off the damn tv and pick up a book!
Re:Chinese Sputnik? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, give me a break. People always say, "Things were different in [some time in the past] and now they're changing for the worst."
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Yes, we have our distractions today - typically in the form of computers and technology, but these things existed ten, twenty, and a hundred years ago, too. People's basic needs have not changed - food, shelter, needing to feel important, love, etc.
Interestingly enough, though, the reason it may seem like people are wasting more time is because they are (I know, I'm sort of contradicting myself). We are able to accomplish things much more quickly that we do have more time for important things as well as things like Twitter and Facebook. It really depends on how people choose to use their time.
As for the GP post, I, too, am concerned what the US is going to do in the future. There are a lot of very smart people in other countries, and the United States cannot rest on its laurels. It'll be interesting to see what the future brings.
Parent
Embyonic vs. Adult. (Score:5, Informative)
Unless I misread the article. It seems they found a way to make Adult Stem Cells behave like embryonic stem cells.
The moral issue of Stem Cells isn't the Stem Cells but the fact that if you needed Embryonic Stem Cells you needed to Abort/Terminate/Kill/(whatever verb you think best describes the process) the fetus.
As the anti-abortion groups see abortions as killing a human life, it makes it a situation where you kill one human life to save an other or many, which is a huge ethical dilemma.
Now if you can make adult Stem Cells work like Embryonic then the issue to the ethics is reduced, taking most major religions out of the fight. Only leaving a few Right Wing Crazies who will not even try to understand the difference.
Re:Embyonic vs. Adult. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Embyonic vs. Adult. (Score:5, Informative)
The moral issue of Stem Cells isn't the Stem Cells but the fact that if you needed Embryonic Stem Cells you needed to Abort/Terminate/Kill/(whatever verb you think best describes the process) the fetus.
Actually, you're playing right into the hands of the pro-life movement by saying that.
It is NOT (repeat NOT) that you needed to kill/abort the fetus so as to get stem cells.
The fetus was aborted already. It is now medical waste. The only question is if you can use the medical waste to save lives, or not.
The distinction is an important one, but one which is all to easily overlooked by those who wish to perpetrate the image of scientists aborting fetuses so they can get their hands on those precious stem cells.
Parent
Re:Embyonic vs. Adult. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not an expert on this in any way. However I would expect Adult Stem Cells from the same patient would make more compatible fixes vs. Embryonic cells from a different genetic group.
If I were to regrow a bone for my finger with Stem Cells I would expect mine to more closely match the one I loss, and would be accepted by my body better.
Parent
The U.S. lost ground by not doing what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The U.S. lost ground by not doing what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Limiting funding for embryonic stem cells did slow research into adult stem cells. Specifically, it slowed research into just what is and isn't possible to treat with stem cells. Adult stem cells don't function exactly as embryonic stem cells do, generally embryonic stem cells are capable of becoming any tissue in the body where as adult stem cells are limited to a subset of them.
For every tissue, it is probably possible to produce an adult stem cell that will be capable of becoming that tissue but it costs time, money, and equipment to create it. That same time and effort could have gone directly to working on and testing the treatment. So, yes you are correct that adult stem cells can probably be used to cure the same diseases embryonic stem cells can. But you are also wrong if you insist that the lack of embryonic stem cell funding didn't slow that research down, leading to thousands of untimely deaths.
That's not a judgement on the ethics of the situation, I'm just trying to lay out the facts as I see them.
Parent
The kind of article I'd like to see more often (Score:5, Informative)
Props to the submitter.
By the way, if this is even one-tenth as good as it looks in the article, it'll be awesome. For example, from the article:
One example is the recovery of a nearly blind sixteen-year-old girl, Macie Morse, who recently got her learnerâ(TM)s permit and started driving.
She came to one of our hospitals for treatment in July 2006, with 20/4,000 vision in one eye and only light perception in the other due to optic nerve hypoplasia.
After treatment, Macie now has 20/80 vision in one eye and 20/400-plus in the other!
Dumb Question... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dumb Question... (Score:4, Informative)
how are stem cell treatments suppose to work?
Using the intarwebs? YOU FAIL IT!!! [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Societal cost (Score:4, Insightful)
How are we going to pay for an increasingly older population? Will they be older and healthy and still working, or older, on expensive medications, and requiring expensive procedures to keep them living?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ethical nightmare (Score:4, Insightful)
(intellectual weakness: shouting "but the USA is worse" every time someone mentions any negative trait of any entity anywhere)
Wait until (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait until someone actually gets cured. This needs to show more than a placebo effect, and proof of cure from someone outside of the actors. The people who they claim to have cured may not have had anything wrong with them in the first place.
This sounds a lot like other snake-oil salesmen in the medical business. A lot of initial hype, and when results fail to appear they just quietly disappear again, taking their money with them. They do make a LOT of money on such scams, which is why they are so popular. $15,000USD per treatment would bring in a lot of money from desperate people.
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Informative)
> Republican conservatives move to block stem cell research
It's embryonic stem cell research that conservatives don't like. Adult stem cell research is fine.
Parent
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Informative)
It's not even embryonic stem cell research. It's destruction of embryos. Meaning:
1.) Bush's policy was to fund ESCR from already-existing lines.
2.) There are various attempts [wikipedia.org] to derive ESC lines that don't require destruction of embryos.
Parent
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Informative)
And it's not even destruction of embryos that was prevented. It's federal funding of same. This has to be one of the least understood and most poorly reported issues of the entire Bush administration.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was fun to watch this little game of telephone unfold:
eldavojohn: "Republican conservatives"
tcopeland: "conservatives" (dropped the 'Republican' part)
JeanPaulBob: "Bush" (converted 'conservatives' to 'Bush'. To be fair, Bush probably qualifies as a genuine conservative on this topic).
Gospodin: "prevented" (stuck with 'Bush', but changed gears from stuff that wasn't liked to stuff that was prevented).
Communication can be tricky sometimes.
But if I understand what you guys are saying, it was US policy for
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's not even destruction of embryos that was prevented. It's federal funding of same.
This is an oft-used, idiotic talking point.
The insinuation is, that if some lab is doing stem cell research, the feds won't pay for the stem cell experiments. Yes, that is true.
They also won't pay for anything else that lab does. The lab will no longer get a federal grant for anything.
If there are any research institutions affiliated with the lab, the pox infects them too. If anyone in a laboratory affiliated with a teaching hospital or a major university -or any other research institution even partially dependent on federal grant money- goes near an embryonic stem cell, or even writes a paper detailing a meta-analysis of embryonic stem cell experiments done in other countries, the entire institution will have to shut down.
Anyway, so that's all over. In the meantime, we've been far surpassed on this front by countries with no government restrictions, and say, hundreds of millions of couples constantly conceiving their second, forbidden children.
Basically the "federal funding" thing was just an essentially meaningless qualifier to make it more lawfully palatable in order to aid it through the legislature. Think "medical" in "medical marijuana". :)
Parent
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not a matter of being "conceptually close" to destruction of embryos. One of the mechanisms of emergency contraception (and the Pill) is destruction of embryos--preventing implantation.
I bet you didn't realize that "destroying an embryo" isn't necessarily the same as "abortion", did you? By the technical medical definition, "abortion" is ending a pregnancy, and we mark the beginning of pregnancy at the moment of implantation. (And there are sensible medical reasons for these divisions--but those distinctions are only relevant in some contexts.) So if you prevent implantation, they call it "contraception", not abortion--even though the fertilized blastocyst is being killed.
(Note: By some definitions, "embryo" only applies after implantation. But by that definition, the debate isn't about "embryonic" stem cell research--it would be about "blastocystic" or "zygotic" stem cell research.)
In other words, this website [princeton.edu] is bordering on misinformation. Technically correct misinformation, but misleading information.
To my knowledge, that typically comes from a theological disapproval of birth control, unrelated to destruction of embryos. Most often from Catholics. It's about the question, "Should we be taking control of getting pregnant out of God's hands?" It's not about a "every sperm is sacred" idea.
It may be for some... Hmm, actually, I have no idea what the breakdown is.
Of course. It's the same question as, "Should we use the results of Nazi medical research?" It's a difficult ethical question. Once the harm has been done, can we use the "tainted fruits"?
Parent
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Interesting)
It's destruction of embryos.
While technically true, the term "embryo" can be misleading: it could lead some to think that the thing being destroyed is something close to a fetus---i.e., something with a central nervous system and a beating heart. But typically, "Embryonic stem cell research" only involves the destruction of a blastocyst [wikipedia.org]. We're talking about a tiny cluster of cells that has *no neurons*. (If left to grow into a late-stage embryo then some of the cells in a blastocyst will have been the *distant ancestors* of the first neurons.)
And the anti-ESCR crowd objects to said destruction because...well it's not clear. I gather that some of them think a "soul" is injected into a zygote at the moment of its formation. (Of course, the meaning of that sentence hinges on what you think a "soul" is, and I rarely get a satisfactory definition out of religious types.)
But if there is such a thing as a human soul---loosely defined here as the mind of a person---then findings in neuroscience seem to suggest that a human soul is something generated by a human brain. In that case a common housefly would have greater capacity to bear a soul than a blastocyst, because at least a housefly has a brain!
So while I recognize that the anti-ESCR crowd has some deep emotional feelings about this, I also feel that the respect paid to them by policy-makers was not earned legitimately. How could it have been? The foundation of their argument is superstition.
Parent
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Informative)
And the article seems to indicate that the treatment was done with adult stem cells.
Dr. Hu - "In 2004, after three years of clinical studies observing more than 100 cases, I decided to build a company to supply and work on safe adult stem cells."
Dr. Hu - "As of February 2009, Beike has treated over 5,087 patients with cord blood stem cell injections"
Dr. Hu - "After all these years of observation and practice, I consider adult stem cell-based therapy to be safe."
Dr. Hu - "We will set the standard and criteria for R&D in developing adult stem cells and iPS."
Dr. Hu - "The adult stem cells we use are safe."
Dr. Hu's only mention of embryonic stem cells is the following....
Dr. Hu - "I think Geron's FDA clearance to begin the world's first human clinical trial of embryonic stem cell-based therapy is great news for the entire stem cell industry. More competition is inevitable."
The significance here is that China doesn't have the same restrictions regarding human testing that the US does. They've jumped into it faster, and Dr. Hu has been using adult stem cells rather than embryonic. According to this article, the only negative side effect to having an embryonic stem cell ban is that it reduces competition.
Parent
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Interesting)
The fist treatment that actually uses embryonic SC is scheduled later this year.
I really wish people would stop acting like we are so far behind because of Bush he only stopped research on embryonic not adult.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Insightful)
"Playing god" is vague & ill-defined. Talking about it that way abstracts the issue away from the actual concern of those who oppose destruction of embryos. Why not be specific?
Namely: It's about legalized organlegging [wikipedia.org]. As treatments emerge, we'll find out whether they're willing to sacrifice other human beings for their own health & longevity.
Or, we'll find out whether or not they really believe embryos are human beings.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Namely: It's about legalized organlegging [wikipedia.org]. As treatments emerge, we'll find out whether they're willing to sacrifice other human beings for their own health & longevity.
Let's be clear on three things:
1. You get ESC from 5 day old blastocysts. Not embryos from pregnant women. These embryos have to come from in vitro fertilization, by the time you can tell you're pregnant, even with a blood test, you can't extract ESC from that embryo: they've already turned used up their ESC. This will not lead to abortions, because if you know you have an embryo, it's useless as far as ESC goes.
2. ESC lines have been established. You won't need to destroy an embryo each time you need E
Conservatives are always dying (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Conservatives are always dying (Score:4, Insightful)
All other answers are philosophical in nature.
Or legal in nature, such as when does this life get rights and what rights does it get.
Parent
Re:A Dying Breed (Score:5, Informative)
I guess it's going to be a true test of ideals as Republican conservatives move to block stem cell research ... as they approach age 75.
With this development in China, suddenly playing god might not sound so bad.
From TFA:
As of February 2009, Beike has treated over 5,087 patients with cord blood stem cell injections for diseases like ataxia, autism, ALS, brain trauma, cerebral infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, cerebral palsy, diabetics, Guillain-Barre, encephalatropy, and spinal cord injury â" many of these are considered incurable diseases.
Cord blood stem cells was NOT under any restrictions from the previous administration. For that matter, the Bush administration was the first US administration to fund this type of stem cell research.
I understand your desire to blame everything on Republicans, but you should really try to give credit where credit is due and stop making stuff up to make them look bad.
Parent
If there is genuine life extension... (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess it's going to be a true test of ideals as Republican conservatives move to block stem cell research ... as they approach age 75.
This is why there will probably be genuine life extension, because the elderly and soon-to-be elderly in our society control so many resources.
Once there is an upsurge in life extension, this should be followed by an upsurge in curing cancer. Why? Because if you extend the lifespan of a mammal long enough, it's going to die of cancer.
http://www.sens.org/ [sens.org]
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html [ted.com]
Parent
Re:If there is genuine life extension... (Score:5, Funny)
More money is currently spent on research into skin treatments, breast augmentation, and penile enlargement/enhancement treatments, than neurodegenerative disease (like alzheimer's) treatments.
In other words, in 20 years' time the world is going to be full of 80-year-old people with firm skin, perky tits, big throbbing erections, and absolutely no fucking memory of what to do with them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
With this development in China, suddenly playing god might not sound so bad.
Actually, immortality has always been a big deal in Chinese mythology and history. Many real life Chinese Emperors tried everything from drinking mercury to sending out massive expeditions searching for mythical islands or legendary items in hopes to live forever.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Observe and learn (Score:5, Insightful)
"SH: Osiris in the U.S. is our biggest competitor. We are way ahead of most of the Chinese stem cell companies."
Also from reading the article, they don't seem to be doing anything terribly scientific. They are basically injecting stem cells into patients, along with "holistic" treatment like accupuncture. And the head guy seems like more of a business-guy than an actual researcher. So this all smells like a lot of BS to me.
Parent
Re:Observe and learn (Score:5, Insightful)
China just beat us there. Regardless of your personal morals, you can't deny that we jumped on the brake, China didn't, and now we're sending them our professors.
As I stated earlier, this research was from cord blood stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. The federal government under GWBush funded this type of research and only banned funding from embryonic stem cells coming from new lines.
I believe that China's success in this field may be the result of much less oversight and fewer regulations. We don't know how many "patients" died or were mutilated in the process of supposedly perfecting this treatment. That sort of thing wouldn't fly in the US.
Parent
Re:Observe and learn (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that China's success in this field may be the result of much less oversight and fewer regulations.
Or maybe less scrutiny/peer-review on their results? Untying a researcher's hands and letting them do whatever they want could let them advance more quickly (I'd cite a couple of counter-examples, but I don't want to Godwin the thread). But, I suspect that what we're seeing isn't a huge banner showing success due to Chinese freedom, but a big PR campaign. As soon as Chinese doctors start hiring on at the Mayo Clinic to fix people using these techniques, I'll apologize for my skepticism.
Parent
Re:Observe and learn (Score:5, Informative)
China just beat us there. Regardless of your personal morals, you can't deny that we jumped on the brake, China didn't, and now we're sending them our professors.
As I stated earlier, this research was from cord blood stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. The federal government under GWBush funded this type of research and only banned funding from embryonic stem cells coming from new lines.
You know that, and I know that, and you can say this until you're blue in the face, but the hard core Bush bashers probably aren't going to listen. They'll still believe and repeat the lie that Bush "banned" all "stem cell research" to the day they die, just as a good many of them actually believe Sarah Palin really said "I can see Russia from my house" - when in fact it was comedian Tina Fey who said that in a skit on SNL.
Vitriol flows better when truth doesn't get in it's way.
I'm not even a "pro-life" conservative, for that matter; I'm just sick and tired of hearing this disinformation repeated ad nasueum.
The truth is, Bush didn't ban stem cell research. Bush didn't even ban embryonic stem cell research. He only banned federal level funding for it. The States and the private sector were free to do as they pleased.
Further, he didn't even ban federal funding for research on existing lines of embryonic stem cells, only on new lines.
And all other forms of stem cell research, and their funding (cord, adult) were not restricted whatsoever.
Parent