8 ms·

I assume it's the same method they've successfully used to eliminate Multiple Sclerosis. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43435868 https://www.bbc.com/news/hea

I assume it's the same method they've successfully used to eliminate Multiple Sclerosis. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43435868 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43435868 How are we not pumping billions more into stem cell research?!?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
save_ferris 8y ago
Perhaps because it's controversial on religious grounds. W. vetoed multiple embryonic stem cell research bills during his administration, the Catholic Church still formally opposes it[0], as well as the Southern Baptist Convention. [0]: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/stem-cell-research/index.cfm http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignit...
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  My understanding is that embryonic stem cells are no longer needed for today’s stem cell research. If a domain expert sees this, call me out if I’m wrong. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-stem-cells-no-embryo/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-stem-cells-... (Human Stem Cell Breakthrough: No Embryos Required, 2007)
- rayiner 8y ago
  This treatment was actually done with stem cells from an adult donor.[1] (Stem cell research is a bit of a black eye for liberals in my opinion. W. Bush's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research were not particularly draconian. It was limited to use of federal funds, and even then only restricted creating new embryonic stem cell lines. And the left was just wrong on how much could be done with adult stem cells. That is not to say that adult stem cells are an alternative in every case, but rather that a lot of the folks calling Republicans anti-science were themselves wrong on the science of how promising adult stem cell research was.) [1] I'll also add: the question of whether destroying embryos for research is moral is not a religious one, but rather a political issue on which religions have strong opinions. So long as the government makes it illegal to kill people, it must as a purely political question define what a "person" is and what the exceptions are to that rule. Thus, the death penalty is a political issue rather than a religious issue, even though e.g. the Catholic church and several protestant denominations officially condemn it.
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    I don't think anybody knew at the time how useful adult stem cells would be. I'm glad that they are, though.
  - harshreality 8y ago
    That seems like a post-hoc rationalization. Because in hindsight it turned out that — at least as they're understood today — embryonic stem cells were not the holy grail some thought they would be, it was therefore perfectly fine for Bush, for obviously religious (not secular political) reasons, to restrict use of federal funds in certain ways relating to embryonic stem cells? The rationalization against embryonic stem-cell research, or against first-term abortion as commonly expressed, is in almost every case drawn from religious motivation. I don't know why you're claiming they're primarily political. They're political in that people of faith will export religious dogma into the political sphere, but that doesn't make it primarily a political issue like you suggest. It's possible to make a (tenuous) secular argument against abortion (though it's pretty rough going and is easy to demolish), but... can you put forward any plausible secular argument against embryonic stem cell research, except by assuming the conclusion you want — which is that embryonic stem cells are largely problematic, and adult stem cells can be made to work pretty well, for most things?
    - rayiner 8y ago
      I don’t think it’s a hindsight issue. People discounted the potential of adult stem cell research because they needed to in order to be consistent with their political objectives. As to the secular argument against embryonic stem cell research: embryos are both human, and alive. Both facts are undisputedly true as a matter of biology. So the general rule against killing humans should apply unless some other exception is implicated. What those exceptions are is a political issue, even if it happens to also be a religious issue. Note also that the secular justification for abortion doesn’t carry over to stem cell research. With abortion, there is the argument that, whatever the nature of the embryo happens to be, it doesn’t outweigh the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. But these embryos are already removed and frozen. Destroying them for research requires a different justification than destroying them for purposes of abortion
dorchadas 8y ago
Because certain subsets of society have issues with it, sadly. They view it as killing babies, and Baby Bush put a ban on stem cell research funding in the US.
- imatworkyo 8y ago
  looking at this response, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19307693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19307693 it seems to use your own stem cells, and is not used because of its risk factor
- masonic 8y ago
  This is wrong on multiple fronts, as well explained in another comment[0] under the parent. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19307854 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19307854
steelframe 8y ago
I've had MS for 20 years. The procedure for MS is HSCT. It's erroneously called "transplant," as it actually is stem-cell rescue. The basic idea is to extract your own stem cells, kill of most (not all) of your existing immune system, and then re-infuse your stem cells to "reinstall" your immune system. Hopefully before you get an infection while you don't have any defenses. This treatment has been shown to be effective for the most mild form of MS, Relapsing Remitting (RRMS), and only in the early stages of the disease. It's relatively risky, and if we were to do the procedure for everyone diagnosed with RRMS today, hundreds (if not thousands) of people would die from the treatment. Either from complications from the procedure, or from increased instances of cancer years down the road, since the poison part of the treatment is known to be carcinogenic. Meanwhile, there is Rituximab, which is a monoclonal antibody targeting the CD20 protein that has had its patent recently expire. This means it can be manufactured as a generic. Clinical trials recently run in England have shown that not only is it extremely effective at controlling the disease in the most mild form (RRMS), but CD20-targeting monoclonal antibodies are the only drugs known to be in any (meaningful) way effective for the more serious forms of the disease, Secondary Progressive (SPMS) and Primary Progressive (PPMS). Given the choice between HSCT or Rituximab, in terms of effectiveness, safety and cost, Rituximab wins as a treatment for MS, hands-down. For those stuck in the United States, the FDA will let you get Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), which is basically Rituximab tweaked enough so that Genentech could get patent protection for it. With that patent protection, they got the financial incentive to run it through the FDA approval process so they can now sell it to you for the bargain price of about $80,000 per year. It's just about as effective as Rituximab and maybe only a little more dangerous.
- pcnix 8y ago
  It sounds like the more complicated version of the aggressive bone marrow translpants for cancer back in the 80s, and like those, causes increased risk for cancer down the line due to the carcinogens used. I've been looking into MS drugs recently for someone I know, and Rituximab definitely sounds like the better option.
- ascorbic 8y ago
  And for those wondering, in the UK Rituximab costs the NHS £349.50 for a course. https://bnf.nice.org.uk/medicinal-forms/rituximab.html https://bnf.nice.org.uk/medicinal-forms/rituximab.html

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

save_ferris 8y ago

Perhaps because it's controversial on religious grounds. W. vetoed multiple embryonic stem cell research bills during his administration, the Catholic Church still formally opposes it[0], as well as the Southern Baptist Convention. [0]: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/stem-cell-research/index.cfm http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignit...

toomuchtodo 8y ago
My understanding is that embryonic stem cells are no longer needed for today’s stem cell research. If a domain expert sees this, call me out if I’m wrong. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-stem-cells-no-embryo/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-stem-cells-... (Human Stem Cell Breakthrough: No Embryos Required, 2007)
rayiner 8y ago
This treatment was actually done with stem cells from an adult donor.[1] (Stem cell research is a bit of a black eye for liberals in my opinion. W. Bush's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research were not particularly draconian. It was limited to use of federal funds, and even then only restricted creating new embryonic stem cell lines. And the left was just wrong on how much could be done with adult stem cells. That is not to say that adult stem cells are an alternative in every case, but rather that a lot of the folks calling Republicans anti-science were themselves wrong on the science of how promising adult stem cell research was.) [1] I'll also add: the question of whether destroying embryos for research is moral is not a religious one, but rather a political issue on which religions have strong opinions. So long as the government makes it illegal to kill people, it must as a purely political question define what a "person" is and what the exceptions are to that rule. Thus, the death penalty is a political issue rather than a religious issue, even though e.g. the Catholic church and several protestant denominations officially condemn it.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  I don't think anybody knew at the time how useful adult stem cells would be. I'm glad that they are, though.
- harshreality 8y ago
  That seems like a post-hoc rationalization. Because in hindsight it turned out that — at least as they're understood today — embryonic stem cells were not the holy grail some thought they would be, it was therefore perfectly fine for Bush, for obviously religious (not secular political) reasons, to restrict use of federal funds in certain ways relating to embryonic stem cells? The rationalization against embryonic stem-cell research, or against first-term abortion as commonly expressed, is in almost every case drawn from religious motivation. I don't know why you're claiming they're primarily political. They're political in that people of faith will export religious dogma into the political sphere, but that doesn't make it primarily a political issue like you suggest. It's possible to make a (tenuous) secular argument against abortion (though it's pretty rough going and is easy to demolish), but... can you put forward any plausible secular argument against embryonic stem cell research, except by assuming the conclusion you want — which is that embryonic stem cells are largely problematic, and adult stem cells can be made to work pretty well, for most things?
  - rayiner 8y ago
    I don’t think it’s a hindsight issue. People discounted the potential of adult stem cell research because they needed to in order to be consistent with their political objectives. As to the secular argument against embryonic stem cell research: embryos are both human, and alive. Both facts are undisputedly true as a matter of biology. So the general rule against killing humans should apply unless some other exception is implicated. What those exceptions are is a political issue, even if it happens to also be a religious issue. Note also that the secular justification for abortion doesn’t carry over to stem cell research. With abortion, there is the argument that, whatever the nature of the embryo happens to be, it doesn’t outweigh the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. But these embryos are already removed and frozen. Destroying them for research requires a different justification than destroying them for purposes of abortion

dorchadas 8y ago

Because certain subsets of society have issues with it, sadly. They view it as killing babies, and Baby Bush put a ban on stem cell research funding in the US.

imatworkyo 8y ago
looking at this response, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19307693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19307693 it seems to use your own stem cells, and is not used because of its risk factor
masonic 8y ago
This is wrong on multiple fronts, as well explained in another comment[0] under the parent. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19307854 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19307854

steelframe 8y ago

I've had MS for 20 years. The procedure for MS is HSCT. It's erroneously called "transplant," as it actually is stem-cell rescue. The basic idea is to extract your own stem cells, kill of most (not all) of your existing immune system, and then re-infuse your stem cells to "reinstall" your immune system. Hopefully before you get an infection while you don't have any defenses. This treatment has been shown to be effective for the most mild form of MS, Relapsing Remitting (RRMS), and only in the early stages of the disease. It's relatively risky, and if we were to do the procedure for everyone diagnosed with RRMS today, hundreds (if not thousands) of people would die from the treatment. Either from complications from the procedure, or from increased instances of cancer years down the road, since the poison part of the treatment is known to be carcinogenic. Meanwhile, there is Rituximab, which is a monoclonal antibody targeting the CD20 protein that has had its patent recently expire. This means it can be manufactured as a generic. Clinical trials recently run in England have shown that not only is it extremely effective at controlling the disease in the most mild form (RRMS), but CD20-targeting monoclonal antibodies are the only drugs known to be in any (meaningful) way effective for the more serious forms of the disease, Secondary Progressive (SPMS) and Primary Progressive (PPMS). Given the choice between HSCT or Rituximab, in terms of effectiveness, safety and cost, Rituximab wins as a treatment for MS, hands-down. For those stuck in the United States, the FDA will let you get Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), which is basically Rituximab tweaked enough so that Genentech could get patent protection for it. With that patent protection, they got the financial incentive to run it through the FDA approval process so they can now sell it to you for the bargain price of about $80,000 per year. It's just about as effective as Rituximab and maybe only a little more dangerous.

pcnix 8y ago
It sounds like the more complicated version of the aggressive bone marrow translpants for cancer back in the 80s, and like those, causes increased risk for cancer down the line due to the carcinogens used. I've been looking into MS drugs recently for someone I know, and Rituximab definitely sounds like the better option.
ascorbic 8y ago
And for those wondering, in the UK Rituximab costs the NHS £349.50 for a course. https://bnf.nice.org.uk/medicinal-forms/rituximab.html https://bnf.nice.org.uk/medicinal-forms/rituximab.html