re: - Self-Transplant for Parkinson's

[Guest guest]

shydrager wrote:

hi bill:

usually you are level headed

i understand your pessimism

but

in the past 3 years since diagnosis of PD

i have been paying attention to these sorts of announcements

some of the work that Levesque does has been published

see below

also, growing stem cells in vitro is a new field of tissue culture

growth factors, timing, new gene discoveries about development

will only accelerate as results come from stem cell studies now being

aproved by NIH

ray strand

..........................................................................

>

>Message: 3

> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:59:06 -0400

>

>Subject: Re: WebMD - Self-Transplant for Parkinson's.htm

>

>Jerry,

>

>That is a news article, not a scientific paper. It also has at least

>one error " It's already known that embryonic stem cell transplants can

>help people with Parkinson's disease " is wrong. In truth embryonic stem

>

right, a report was made at a meeting

with only one person undergoing the treatment

there are no statistics

indicating level of reproduceability

we wait for more testing

>

>cell transplants have cured PD symptoms in mice not humans. Fetal

>

Jim Finn is walking ad for fetal porcine implants for PD

also, not all the fetal transplants were negative in the Freed study of

human fetal transplants

(that paper is available free on the web)

he says stem cells next, but, some way has to be devised

to reduce the implant cell population if symptoms get too extreme

like with controlled exposure to a rare antibiotic that they are made

sensitive to

>

>tissue transplants did help many PD patients for periods of months up to

>three years. According to this article, the patient seems to still be

>taking Sinemet and the transplant seem to have helped adsorbtion

>especially at 12 months. Since no one has ever reported results like

>this with animals, it seems to me to be strange to experiment first on

>humans, after all there is a good chance you could

> kill the person by

>putting it directly into the brain (and where in the brain did they put

>them)

>

the subject of the experiment had the brain cells removed during a DBS

procedure

still dangerous

here in Minnesota, one of the doctors (Abbott Northwestern Hospital)

initially was doing brain biopsies and cites the number of successful

biopies

as his experience for performing DBS

which is probably easier from a routine/repeatable standpoint

targeting one area -- than the many of biopsies

>

>It took five years to develope the mouse experiments and find a way to

>measure results for the pluripotent stem cells. Now these people do it

>in no time and have a human experiment first???? Sounds too good to be

>true. I would still like to see a reviewed scientific paper on the

>

I'll check PUB-MED

>

>experiment. AND I would like to see it duplicated on more supervised

>tests (double blind). Since it is just an unverified news article - it

>could be a " Pro-Life " propaganda story. How do you measure brain

>dopamine in humans? I know how they do it in mice and would not what

>that done to me.

>

dopamine activity can be assessed with

PET and SPECT scans using radioactive dopamine

that is how my neurogist would like to better define my " probable " MSA

and distinguish it from PD

but, we have to see if insurance will cover the expense

my Mom (85) died last year

and she had a PET scan for her lung cancer

radioactive glucose was used and is metabolized faster by tumors than

normal tissue

and it was covered by Medicare and her private insurance

all $5,000

heck I just had my second MRI

at $2,000 each

and it is not conclusive

there has been recent discussion about " neuro protective " properties of

dopamine agonists

as defined in studies of progresson useing these scanners on people

with Parkinsons

>

>Take care, Bill

>

..........................................................................

other references to this guy's work in news releases at archives of PARKINSN

list serve

next

NMDA (dopamine precursor)

..........................................................................

Brain 1997 Nov;120 ( Pt 11):1937-59

Human hippocampal AMPA and NMDA mRNA levels in temporal lobe epilepsy patients.

Mathern GW, Pretorius JK, Kornblum HI, Mendoza D, Lozada A, Leite JP, Chimelli

LM, Fried I, Sakamoto AC, Assirati JA, Levesque MF, Adelson PD, Peacock WJ.

Department of Neurology, University of California,

(Brain journal is freely published on the web)

..........................................................................

Surg Neurol 1999 Feb;51(2):202-10

Presurgical contribution of quantitative stereotactic positron emission

tomography in temporo limbic epilepsy.

F, Levesque M

F.

Epilepsy and Brain Mapping Program, Cedars-Sinai Medical Office Towers, Los

Angeles, California, USA.

BACKGROUND: We quantified the interictal metabolic changes associated with

temporal lobe epilepsy by using an accurate stereotactic method. METHODS: We

selected 16 patients who had proven unilateral focal or regional temporal onset

defined by SEEG criteria. Each patient underwent stereotactic MRI and

stereotactic [18 fluoro] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET).

RESULTS: Asymmetries (mean, +/- SD) were found in mesio-temporal structures:

amygdala (-0.033+/-0.027, p = 0.0002), hippocampus (-0.035+/-0.032, p = 0.0006),

and superior temporal gyrus (-0.036+/-0.032, p = 0.0004). Four of the sixteen

patients had previously had unlocalized qualitative nonstereotactic PET

analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The quantitative stereotactical PET method allows a

higher resolution study of mesio-temporal structures.

PMID: 10029429 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

................

...........................................................

Brain Res Mol Brain Res 2000 May 31;78(1-2):192-5

Fetal and adult human CNS stem cells have similar molecular characteristics and

developmental potential.

Palm K, Salin-Nordstrom T, Levesque MF, Neuman T.

Neurofunctional Surgery Center, Department of Surgery, The CSMC Burns &

Research Institute, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, UCLA School of Medicine, 8700

Beverly Boulevard, Building, Room 4018, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA.

The mammalian central nervous system (CNS) contains multipotent stem cells that

develop into neurons, astrocytes and oligodendrocytes. Our current data show

that fetal and adult human CNS stem cell isolates display similar proliferation

kinetics, differentiate into three major cell types of the nervous system and

express similar sets of regulatory genes. However, each individual CNS stem cell

isolate could be distinguished by its specific gene expression and development

al

potential.

PMID: 10891600 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

..........................................................................

Ray Strand

Prairie Sky Design

-----------------( on the Edge of the Prairie Abyss )---------------

when the sky is clear

the ground is visible

50/47dx PD/40? onset

http://folding.stanford.edu

join MSA TEAM CURE

#2508 h

}

[Guest guest]

Ray,

Yes, I'm from Missouri and you have to show me ) At a time that our President

is pouring

many, many millions into AIDs research and severely crippling Brain research by

saying that

adult stem cells show more promise, I do require some scientific evidence.

Since I have

read NOTHING of them experimenting on animals and getting these results (which

is standard

operating procedure in the USA). NIH will NOT fund research such as this

without animal

studies first (at least that is the rules I read).

The papers you site are only abstracts (and sketchy at that), but they mention a

study on

temporal lobe epilepsy and one comparing fetal and CNS cells (which admits that

fetal cells

are adult cells). There is absolutely no mention of growing stem cells into

dopamine

producing neurons in either of these papers. There are however, several papers

on growing

adult stem cells into neurons, BUT later papers say that the " neurons " are not

true neurons

- they only pretend to be neurons and can not produce dopamine.

I will be glad to back down if I see some sort of reproducible results. I hope

they do

find something that works soon. But, remember fetal cells worked, but did not

last. That

is why scientists went looking for a precursor cell to the fetal cell and found

the

pluripotent and totipotent cells.

Now let's look at the work that followed NIH guidelines and did animal

experiments first:

* Pluripotent stem cells which were grown into dopamine producing neurons (in

quality) were

implanted into mice and cured them of Parkinson's symptoms. This study has been

reproduced

in two more labs successfully.

* Pluripotent stem cells have also cured mice of ALS symptoms (to my knowledge

this has not

been reproduced to date).

* Pluripotent stem cells have been grown into cells which produce insulin (no

adult cells

have been able to do this as yet).

NOW comes my question - which tests show more promise and should be

continued???? If you

say the adult cell thing, I want to play poker with you for money. I don't have

a brain

disorder (although my daughter may disagree at times) ) But I have studied

Parkinson's

research since 1991 and MSA research since 1995. China did fetal tissue

transplants on

seven people in the 80's when the USA had those experiments banned. The ban was

in place

because Reagan felt that " fetal tissue transplant would cause more abortions " .

The whole

USA fetal tissue transplant studies probably only used the fetal tissue of about

800

fetuses and they were ALL donated fetuses (like a fetus whose mother was killed

in a car

accident before it was 6 weeks old) SO how did that cause more abortions

(according to Pat

on there are over a million abortions per year in the USA alone). In the

China

experiments they showed improvement in all patients but the studies did not

follow the

patients beyond 18 months - so the NIH study was much more scientific and showed

that the

benefits did not last beyond a few years at best.

I will be truthful, I will take the word of 40 Nobel laureates over Bush (a

lawyer) or this

one doctor any day of the week. This should NOT be a religious argument as you

then choose

one religion over another (don't forget that blood transfusions and antibiotics

are against

some religions). I thought that was against the U.S. Constitution. My mom

always taught

me that was why my ancestors came here from Germany, it also seems to me that

was the

reason so many Irish came here from North Ireland, so it works both ways.

P.S. a legal definition of cloning is reproducing exact same cells. If the

Brownback Bill

passes the Senate, that means any reproducing of even adult stem cells is

cloning. So will

that eliminate all stem cell research adult as well. But most Senators are

lawyers - who

else could lower taxes (and somehow raise mine) and in so doing add 10,000 pages

of legal

mumbo-jumbo to the US tax code (40,000 pages before the last " tax cut " ).

Somehow my income

taxes are higher this year than last on the same income, have you checked yours?

In high school, my Problems of Democracy teacher (who lost an arm in World War

II at Omaha

Beach) taught us to question our politicians. How many people today really know

what their

representatives are doing?

Take care, Bill Werre

[Guest guest]

Ray,

Yes, I'm from Missouri and you have to show me ) At a time that our President

is pouring

many, many millions into AIDs research and severely crippling Brain research by

saying that

adult stem cells show more promise, I do require some scientific evidence.

Since I have

read NOTHING of them experimenting on animals and getting these results (which

is standard

operating procedure in the USA). NIH will NOT fund research such as this

without animal

studies first (at least that is the rules I read).

The papers you site are only abstracts (and sketchy at that), but they mention a

study on

temporal lobe epilepsy and one comparing fetal and CNS cells (which admits that

fetal cells

are adult cells). There is absolutely no mention of growing stem cells into

dopamine

producing neurons in either of these papers. There are however, several papers

on growing

adult stem cells into neurons, BUT later papers say that the " neurons " are not

true neurons

- they only pretend to be neurons and can not produce dopamine.

I will be glad to back down if I see some sort of reproducible results. I hope

they do

find something that works soon. But, remember fetal cells worked, but did not

last. That

is why scientists went looking for a precursor cell to the fetal cell and found

the

pluripotent and totipotent cells.

Now let's look at the work that followed NIH guidelines and did animal

experiments first:

* Pluripotent stem cells which were grown into dopamine producing neurons (in

quality) were

implanted into mice and cured them of Parkinson's symptoms. This study has been

reproduced

in two more labs successfully.

* Pluripotent stem cells have also cured mice of ALS symptoms (to my knowledge

this has not

been reproduced to date).

* Pluripotent stem cells have been grown into cells which produce insulin (no

adult cells

have been able to do this as yet).

NOW comes my question - which tests show more promise and should be

continued???? If you

say the adult cell thing, I want to play poker with you for money. I don't have

a brain

disorder (although my daughter may disagree at times) ) But I have studied

Parkinson's

research since 1991 and MSA research since 1995. China did fetal tissue

transplants on

seven people in the 80's when the USA had those experiments banned. The ban was

in place

because Reagan felt that " fetal tissue transplant would cause more abortions " .

The whole

USA fetal tissue transplant studies probably only used the fetal tissue of about

800

fetuses and they were ALL donated fetuses (like a fetus whose mother was killed

in a car

accident before it was 6 weeks old) SO how did that cause more abortions

(according to Pat

on there are over a million abortions per year in the USA alone). In the

China

experiments they showed improvement in all patients but the studies did not

follow the

patients beyond 18 months - so the NIH study was much more scientific and showed

that the

benefits did not last beyond a few years at best.

I will be truthful, I will take the word of 40 Nobel laureates over Bush (a

lawyer) or this

one doctor any day of the week. This should NOT be a religious argument as you

then choose

one religion over another (don't forget that blood transfusions and antibiotics

are against

some religions). I thought that was against the U.S. Constitution. My mom

always taught

me that was why my ancestors came here from Germany, it also seems to me that

was the

reason so many Irish came here from North Ireland, so it works both ways.

P.S. a legal definition of cloning is reproducing exact same cells. If the

Brownback Bill

passes the Senate, that means any reproducing of even adult stem cells is

cloning. So will

that eliminate all stem cell research adult as well. But most Senators are

lawyers - who

else could lower taxes (and somehow raise mine) and in so doing add 10,000 pages

of legal

mumbo-jumbo to the US tax code (40,000 pages before the last " tax cut " ).

Somehow my income

taxes are higher this year than last on the same income, have you checked yours?

In high school, my Problems of Democracy teacher (who lost an arm in World War

II at Omaha

Beach) taught us to question our politicians. How many people today really know

what their

representatives are doing?

Take care, Bill Werre

[Guest guest]

Ray,

Yes, I'm from Missouri and you have to show me ) At a time that our President

is pouring

many, many millions into AIDs research and severely crippling Brain research by

saying that

adult stem cells show more promise, I do require some scientific evidence.

Since I have

read NOTHING of them experimenting on animals and getting these results (which

is standard

operating procedure in the USA). NIH will NOT fund research such as this

without animal

studies first (at least that is the rules I read).

The papers you site are only abstracts (and sketchy at that), but they mention a

study on

temporal lobe epilepsy and one comparing fetal and CNS cells (which admits that

fetal cells

are adult cells). There is absolutely no mention of growing stem cells into

dopamine

producing neurons in either of these papers. There are however, several papers

on growing

adult stem cells into neurons, BUT later papers say that the " neurons " are not

true neurons

- they only pretend to be neurons and can not produce dopamine.

I will be glad to back down if I see some sort of reproducible results. I hope

they do

find something that works soon. But, remember fetal cells worked, but did not

last. That

is why scientists went looking for a precursor cell to the fetal cell and found

the

pluripotent and totipotent cells.

Now let's look at the work that followed NIH guidelines and did animal

experiments first:

* Pluripotent stem cells which were grown into dopamine producing neurons (in

quality) were

implanted into mice and cured them of Parkinson's symptoms. This study has been

reproduced

in two more labs successfully.

* Pluripotent stem cells have also cured mice of ALS symptoms (to my knowledge

this has not

been reproduced to date).

* Pluripotent stem cells have been grown into cells which produce insulin (no

adult cells

have been able to do this as yet).

NOW comes my question - which tests show more promise and should be

continued???? If you

say the adult cell thing, I want to play poker with you for money. I don't have

a brain

disorder (although my daughter may disagree at times) ) But I have studied

Parkinson's

research since 1991 and MSA research since 1995. China did fetal tissue

transplants on

seven people in the 80's when the USA had those experiments banned. The ban was

in place

because Reagan felt that " fetal tissue transplant would cause more abortions " .

The whole

USA fetal tissue transplant studies probably only used the fetal tissue of about

800

fetuses and they were ALL donated fetuses (like a fetus whose mother was killed

in a car

accident before it was 6 weeks old) SO how did that cause more abortions

(according to Pat

on there are over a million abortions per year in the USA alone). In the

China

experiments they showed improvement in all patients but the studies did not

follow the

patients beyond 18 months - so the NIH study was much more scientific and showed

that the

benefits did not last beyond a few years at best.

I will be truthful, I will take the word of 40 Nobel laureates over Bush (a

lawyer) or this

one doctor any day of the week. This should NOT be a religious argument as you

then choose

one religion over another (don't forget that blood transfusions and antibiotics

are against

some religions). I thought that was against the U.S. Constitution. My mom

always taught

me that was why my ancestors came here from Germany, it also seems to me that

was the

reason so many Irish came here from North Ireland, so it works both ways.

P.S. a legal definition of cloning is reproducing exact same cells. If the

Brownback Bill

passes the Senate, that means any reproducing of even adult stem cells is

cloning. So will

that eliminate all stem cell research adult as well. But most Senators are

lawyers - who

else could lower taxes (and somehow raise mine) and in so doing add 10,000 pages

of legal

mumbo-jumbo to the US tax code (40,000 pages before the last " tax cut " ).

Somehow my income

taxes are higher this year than last on the same income, have you checked yours?

In high school, my Problems of Democracy teacher (who lost an arm in World War

II at Omaha

Beach) taught us to question our politicians. How many people today really know

what their

representatives are doing?

Take care, Bill Werre