So far "The List" plus the notion that ESCR kills babies have succeeded in
stalling embryonic stem cell research.

# 285 Wednesday January 24, 2007 - "THE LIST": ALLEGEDLY SUCCESSFUL ADULT
STEM CELL TREATMENTS AND CURES

Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research frequently make statements
like:
".adult stem cell research shows far more medical potential than
embryonic.Adult stem cells have been used to perform at least 72 successful
treatments for.diseases, such as brain cancer, ovarian cancer, Parkinson's
disease, stroke damage and sickle cell anemia (and). heart failure. Congress
should not consider funding embryonic stem cell research."-Sen. David B.
Vitter, R-LA, U.S. Senate, July 28, 2006.

The number of "successful treatments" or "cures" supposedly derived from
adult stem cells varies from speaker to speaker: sometimes it is 58, 65, 72,
or higher. Where does this amazing list come from? Is it accurate?  Or is it
a deliberate twisting of fact, a pseudo-scientific falsification of data,
compiled by an employee of a religious lobby?
The accuracy of "the list" matters a great deal-if we have all these cures,
the argument goes, there is no reason for Senate Bill 5, the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act, to ease restrictions on federal funding for
embryonic stem cell research.
In a July 13, 2006 Science Magazine article, scientists Shane Smith, William
Neaves, and Steven Teitelbaum, identify and dissect the ubiquitous list.
"Opponents of research with embryonic stem (ES) cells often claim that adult
stem cells provide treatments for 65 human illnesses. The apparent origin of
those claims is a list created by David A. Prentice*, an employee of the
Family Research Council who advises U.S. Senator Sam Brownback(R-KS)  and
other opponents of ES stem cell research.
"Prentice has said, "Adult stem cells have now helped patients with at least
65 different human diseases. It's real help for real patients." On 4 May,
(2006) Senator Brownback stated, "I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the record the listing of 69 different human illnesses being treated by
adult and cord blood stem cells."
"In fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested in all required phases of
clinical trials and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
are available to treat only nine of the conditions on the Prentice list, not
65 (0r 72). Contrary to what Prentice implies.most of his cited treatments
remain unproven. Other claims, such as those for Parkinson's or spinal cord
injury, are simply untenable.
".A review of the references Prentice cites as the basis for his list.
reveals that Prentice not only misrepresents existing adult stem cell
treatments but also frequently distorts the nature and content of the
references he cites.
"By promoting the falsehood that adult stem cell treatments are already in
general use for 65 diseases and injuries, Prentice and those who repeat his
claims mislead lay people and cruelly deceive patients." (emphasis added)
Here is Dr. Prentice's response to the article:
"Dr. Prentice: It's easy for someone to put words in your mouth and then
claim that those words are false, which is exactly what the Science letter's
authors did. Do No Harm has not claimed that current adult-stem-cell
treatments are "cures" or "generally available" at this time. We have
consistently said these are examples where patients have been helped by
adult-/cord-blood stem cells and shown some benefit and improvement,
something that can't be said to be even remotely close for embryonic stem
cells."- July 19, 2006, National Review online.
He has a point.
However, I do not recollect him ever correcting Representative Vitter, or
any of the conservatives who talk about the long list of adult stem cell
treatments and cures.
To hear his side fully, go to his website.
If you go to http://stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm, you can see
the latest version of the Prentice list, now carefully called "benefits".
For the article's views on "the list" see the "chart compiling and analyzing
Prentice's list of 65 diseases allegedly treated by adult stem cells", which
can be viewed at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1129987/DC1
The chart is worth visiting.
Here are some examples, with my own comments interspersed.

"Table S1. Disease and Injury Chart: overview of Facts about the Diseases
and Injuries on the Prentice List of 65 purported Adult Stem Cell
Treatments."

Sometimes the science talk is hard to follow. But it is worth the struggle,
please stay with me all the way through this short article.
The table lists the diseases, one by one: set up in four columns, so you can
look up a disease, and see what effect adult stem cell treatments or cures
(if any) are having on it.

Disease or injury cited in Prentice List. (hereafter, DISEASE)
Is there an FDA-approved adult stem cell treatment generally available to
treat this disease or injury? (FDA TREATMENT AVAILABLE?)-- a yes or no
answer.
Actual nature of the study or studies cited by Prentice. (STUDIES CITED)
This lists the evidence Prentice offers as proof for his claims on the
general wonderfulness of adult stem cell therapies-and a reason for not
allowing new embryonic stem cell lines to be federal funding.
As you read the following examples, ask yourself: is adult stem cell
research all we need?
Quoted examples from the chart will be in bold. My comments are in regular
print.
For instance:
DISEASE: Brain Tumors (Medullablastoma and Glioma)
FDA TREATMENT AVAILABLE?   No
STUDIES CITED: Two clinical studies and one literature review indicated that
some patients who have their brain cancers treated with high-dose
chemotherapy show improved long-term survival rates when transplants of
adult stem cells from bone marrow are used to alleviate side effects of the
chemotherapy.
COMMENTS: Adult stem cells from bone marrow are not used to treat brain
cancer. They are sometimes used to alleviate side effects of the toxic
chemotherapy and radiation treatments used to treat the disease.
Nobody suggests it is not a good thing to treat side effects.  A person with
a broken arm will be glad for pain-relief drugs to help ease his suffering.
But aspirin is not a cure.
DISEASE: Breast Cancer
FDA  TREATMENT AVAILABLE?  No.
STUDIES CITED: Four clinical studies reported that patients with high-risk
or advanced breast cancer had improved survival rates when intensive
radiation and/or chemotherapy was followed by a transplant of adult stem
cells derived from bone marrow or blood.
COMMENTS: In these studies, adult stem cells from bone marrow were not
intended to treat breast cancer. Rather, because they alleviate side effects
of toxic chemotherapy, adult stem cell transplants can enable doctors to
apply a stronger chemotherapy dose. However, this approach does not appear
to benefit all women with breast cancer, and the National Cancer Institute
now says that adult stem cell transplants in combination with high-dose
chemotherapy are no better than standard chemotherapy alone in the treatment
of breast cancer.
Any cancer sufferer (including several members of my family) who has been
through the agony of chemo is glad for anything that relieves the suffering;
and pain relief allows a greater dose of chemotherapy.
But we need treatments to cure the cancer, not the side effects.
DISEASE: Parkinson's Disease
FDA TREATMENT AVAILABLE? No
STUDIES  CITED:  One abstract from a 2002 scientific meeting reported
clinical experience with one Parkinson's patient who received a transplant
of his own brain stem cells. Two references reported Congressional testimony
by the author of the above abstract and the transplanted patient. The
testimony was given before Senator Sam Brownback's Science, Technology and
Space Subcommittee on July 14, 2004, and does not contain sufficient
information to assess the claims made. Two additional references cited
irrelevant papers that do not address a cell-based therapy of any kind for
Parkinson's.
COMMENTS: While transplants of cells from various sources have been tried on
an experimental basis in Parkinson's diseases, the clinical outcomes have
been mixed.Neither the published scientific literature nor the cited papers
support the claim that an effective stem cell therapy is available to
Parkinson's patients.
The one person who received the adult stem cells is Dennis Turner. He
reportedly had a symptom-free time, which is wonderful. But what we are
usually not told is that he also had a Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS)
operation as part of the experiment-and that DBS operation may have been the
reason for his "vacation" from Parkinson's. According to someone who has had
personal contact with him, Mr. Turner's Parkinson's has returned.
DISEASE: Spinal Cord Injury
FDA TREATMENT AVAILABLE?  No.
STUDIES CITED: This reference was testimony from one scientist and two
patients with spinal cord injuries given before Senator Sam Brownback's
Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee on July 14, 2004.
COMMENTS: The cited testimony referenced the work of one Portuguese
physician who claimed to treat spinal cord injury with transplants of stem
cells from patient's nasal lining. There is no evidence these claims have
been subjected to rigorous scrutiny by the scientific and medical community.
No FDA-approved stem cell treatment of any kind is currently available to
patients with spinal cord injury.
Naturally, this is particularly infuriating to me. To have spinal cord
injury listed as one for which there is a "treatment" or "cure" available?
 I am very familiar with the "treatment" referred to, involving the taking
of cells from the patient's nose, and spreading them on the injured spine. I
have spoken to people who have had that operation. They are still paralyzed.
Here is one, as quoted in Wired News, June 03, 2005, article by Kristen
Philipkoski:
"A spinal cord patient has charged that Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Florida) used
her image without permission and misled Congress and the public by
suggesting that her case offers evidence that adult stem cells can help
severely injured people walk again...
"On May 24, as Weldon tried to persuade members of the House of
Representatives that embryonic stem cell research was not only unethical but
unnecessary, he held up a poster-size image of himself standing beside Fajt,
who is clutching a walker in the photo.
"This poster is of a young lady who was paralyzed for years and had an adult
stem-cell transplant," Weldon said that day, "She is able to stand up."
"The bill passed, but not with enough votes to overcome the veto promised by
President Bush.
"If Weldon wouldn't have used me and said a cure is going to be found with
adult stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research may have been
federally funded," Fajt said in an interview.".
DISEASE: Heart Damage
FDA APPROVED TREATMENT AVAILABLE? No
STUDIES CITED:  Seven experimental or early phase clinical studies,
including one placebo-controlled clinical trial, indicated that transfusion
of a patient's own bone-marrow-derived stem cells into the heart shortly
after heart attack is relatively safe and is associated with regeneration of
heart tissue and improved heart function. Two single case studies reporting
a transplant of muscle stem cells into heart were also included.
COMMENTS: The cited studies suggest that transplantation of adult stem cells
from bone marrow is associated with improved recovery after heart attack.
However, larger and more rigorous clinical trials are needed (emphasis
added) to establish this protocol as a standard treatment for heart attack
sufferers. Importantly, a 2006 clinical trial evaluating a similar protocol
failed to improve heart function.even though it appeared to reduce the area
of damaged heart tissue.
Three "larger and more rigorous" trials did in fact take place, in Germany
and Norway, in which heart attack victims were given adult stem cells. and
the results?
"Adult stem cells little or no help to heart: Results of studies point to
need for embryonic stem cells, scientists say
"Largest studies to date.three new studies, reported in Thursday's New
England Journal of Medicine, are the largest and most scientific tests yet
of whether stem cells derived from adult patients can improve heart
function.
"Giving heart attack survivors stem cells from their own bone marrow did
little to repair their damaged hearts, according to the three best studies
to date.
(the adult stem cells brought) "no difference in length or quality of life.
"The modest results suggest more study is needed-and, some scientists say,
demonstrate the need to lift political limits on using cells from embryos,
which offer more promise for turning into heart-repairing tissue."
-Associated Press, September 20, 2006
 America would indeed benefit by "lift(ing)  political limits on using cells
from embryos".
Millions of us join in that request: we, the parents, patients, scientists
and doctors who support embryonic stem cell research: we ask that the United
States fund research on new embryonic stem cell lines, as requested in
Senate Bill 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
But it will never happen if the Prentice list is accepted as unchallengeable
truth.
This is not just one scientist praising a particular approach. That would be
fine.
Adult stem cell authorities (like Dr. Catherine Verfaille of the University
of Minnesota) deserve respect, and their projects should be judged
individually.
But Dr. Prentice does not merely want to advance one kind of research; he
wants to deny others.
Here is a public statement by Dr. David A. Prentice, on embryonic stem cell
research:
"Federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research is illegal,
unethical and unnecessary." National Review online, February 26, 2001.
Have you heard that line before? Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) uses a
similar line, "Embryonic stem cell research is illegal, immoral, and
unnecessary," (press release, "Brownback Blasts NIH Guidelines", August 23,
2000).
The similarities are understandable;  Dr. Prentice is science advisor to
both Brownback and the previously-mentioned Representative Dave Weldon
(R-Florida).   Weldon and Brownback co-authored legislation to put
researchers in jail for studying the advanced form of stem cell research
called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), with penalties of ten years
imprisonment and fines of one million dollars.
The Prentice list offers intellectual "justification" for those would deny
federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. It is the backup for
anti-science propaganda.
"The List" must not go unchallenged.
By Don Reed, Californians for Cure   www.stemcellbattles.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn