 |
 |
61 Thursday, January 5, 2006 - OF LIES, LAWYER LIES, AND THE ADULT STEM CELL "CURE" LIST Read the following sentence carefully. "Russian team plays magnificently, wins strong second place; America plays poorly, finishes next to last." Is it clear that America won? This is what I call a lawyer lie; the "facts" are true, but the planned impact is utterly false. In the coming weeks, the United States Senate will hear debate on a proposed new stem cell law: House Resolution 810: the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. It is the most modest bill imaginable, which is why it passed the conservative-controlled House of Representatives so easily. Now it is waiting in the wings for the Senate's consideration. You might have heard that the President Pro Tem of the Senate, Bill Frist, supports this bill, for which he has taken a lot of heat from the anti-science folks. All the bill asks is this: that President Bush's stem cell policy has its cutoff date removed. Quick review: a couple goes to a fertility clinic, and makes some embryos to try and have a baby. Typically they end up with 12-15, of which the best 2 or 3, those most likely to survive, will be implanted in the woman's womb. Now what happens to those not used? They can be stored (expensive), donated to others (rarely accepted, most couples want their own), or-- be thrown away. Once that final decision is made, (remember we are talking about microscopic dots in a dish of salt water), they might instead be donated to stem cell research, to possibly save lives and alleviate suffering. The Bush stem cell policy allowed federal funding for stem cell lines made from the above procedure-but only if they existed on or before August 9, 2001. There are less than two dozen stem cell lines available for federal research funding, under the President's plan. No racial diversity, problems with contamination by rat feeder cells, other difficulties-it is almost impossible to find any scientist who thinks the Bush policy is sufficient. It must and will be expanded. Even so, when the hearing begins, I guarantee two things: One, every opposition speaker will mention Hwang Wu Suk of Korea, as if attacking one man can somehow discredit an entire field of science. And two: they will speak in hushed reverent tones of a wondrous list of "cures"-the more honest among them will say "treatments"-brought about by adult stem cell research. This is the famous adult stem cell cures list. It lists at least 58 (sometimes more, it tends to vary with the speaker) diseases and disabilities adult stem cell research has supposedly cured. This would be wonderful news indeed, if it were true. Makes you wonder where all the sick people are coming from, if adult stem research has brought so many cures. Unfortunately, the closer you look, the fewer the actual cures. On the list, for example, is an allegedly adult stem cell operation for spinal cord injury paralysis, a condition my son Roman suffers. If there is a cure for paralysis, I want to know about it. One scientist told me the operation actually has nothing whatever to do with adult stem cells, but let's give it a chance. The operation, by the way, is done overseas, where nobody sues for malpractice. The doctor reaches a scalpel up into the patient's nose, and scrapes off a little bit of brain, the part which lets us smell-Olfactory Epithelial Glia (OEGs) are what he wants-the only part of the central nervous system that regenerates itself. The OEG's are spread like jelly on the injured spine, and the patient is sewn back up. The results? Well, the patient usually loses his or her sense of smell. I know two people who had the operation. One told me he now can feel skin touch sensation near his left elbow, so that when the attendant dresses him, he can feel the sleeve go on. The other person did not get back that much return. Still others, whom I have not met, have claimed their bladder control is improved, which would be wonderful. But all remain paralyzed. Remember the Korean woman who was "cured", who walked with a walker? I heard her doctor speak at a biotech convention in San Diego not long ago; he stressed (through an interpreter) that she could walk in her walker before the operation, she could just do it more conveniently now. Those who say we don't need embryonic stem cell research like to show videos of paralyzed people moving again, as proof that cure exists. Does it? It is important to remember that many paralyzed people can move a little bit. Some (called "miracles" by faith-healers) can actually stagger across a stage before collapsing back into their wheelchairs. The faith-healer accepts the applause (and the donations) and the paralyzed person remains exactly as he or she was before the "miracle". Roman (in full body braces) can stand supported between chest-high parallel bars, and heave himself forward by the strength of his shoulders-is he healed? Another person can move his elbows. He can float on his back and "swim"-so if he is filmed doing this movable float, is that proof he is cured? (The next time you see such film, watch to see when they turn the camera off; it ruins the illusion when you see the difficulty of getting the paralyzed person in and out of the pool.) As of today, there is no cure for paralysis. To say, or imply, that adult stem cell research has found a cure for paralysis is cruel and misleading. What is actually inside the wondrous list? Experiments and treatments. Experiments and treatments, of course, can be made of anything. Cure cancer with an aspirin? That's an experiment, you could call it a treatment-it just doesn't do anything. Ancient history is full of experiments; Galen of Rome recommended pigeon dung to cure paralysis of wounded gladiators. This is an experiment, even a treatment; but I would not call it a cure. Adult stem cells have been studied since 1964. After almost sixty years, it is natural that they would have made contributions by now, and they have, in areas like bone marrow transfer, which was done for years before anyone called it adult stem cell therapy. Adult stem cells have been heavily funded: receiving about seven times as much federal money as embryonic last year: $191 million to adult, $24 million for embryonic. Embryonic stem cell research is brand new, only isolated in 1998-but already, formerly paralyzed laboratory rats have walked again, thanks to embryonic stem cells. But though I regard adult stem cell therapies as weak compared to embryonic, still I would not shut down that research. Both embryonic and adult stem cells should be studied, competing in the marketplace of ideas, and may the better procedure prevail. If just one adult stem cell therapy works, that's valuable, and we don't want to lose it. But take a closer look at the list-and remember, this is what we are offered as a substitute for embryonic stem cell research-who is the author? What august institution? Was this list drawn up by the National Institutes of Health? Or the National Academy of Sciences? Or the American Medical Association? (All of which organizations, by the way, support both embryonic stem cell research and Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.) The adult stem cell "list" was developed by a man named David Prentice. He works for the Family Research Council, perhaps the most powerful lobbying organization of the religious right. (The Family Bioethics Council, which is suing Proposition 71, is associated with a California arm of the FRC.) Dr. Prentice works closely with Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), who calls embryonic stem cell research "illegal, immoral, and unnecessary", and who proposes ten year jail sentences and one-million-dollar fines for SCNT researchers. Still, Dr. Prentice is described as an "Internationally Respected Stem Cell Scientist". He even has a large sign which proclaims this, in front of which he is photographed. Now an "internationally respected stem cell scientist" must surely have had many research projects funded by the National Institutes of Health, America's number one source of research funding. However, to the best of my knowledge, Dr. Prentice has had exactly one NIH-supported research grant-- and that was not on stem cells. What David Prentice did do was make a list of every experiment (successful or not, repeated or not) which might have anything to do with adult stem cell research- and then he printed up the list. That list has been used many times, and always as a way to attack embryonic stem cell research: an empty distraction, so we will not see what is being taken from us. In the House debate on HR 810, the adult stem cell "cure" list was mentioned by almost every anti-research speaker. It is not unlike Senator Joseph McCarthy's famous list of "communists in the state department", which list he waved frantically and frequently. It got him much media attention, and advanced his career. The fact that the list was a lie, and ruined people's lives was not important to Senator McCarthy. The adult stem cell "cure" list is a propaganda tool: with no scientific significance, except to block truly valuable research, which offers hope to millions. It is a thing of evil. A lawyer's lie. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn