 |
 |
Thank you, Linda. The one PD patient referred to is Dennis Turner who I talked to by phone on 4-24-06 and Brownback, Coburn, et al have not updated their list nor has Matt of Coburn's office emailed their promised list of purported ASC treatments for PD. I'm just waiting for the debates on Monday and Tuesday. Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 9:33 AM Subject: Re: Prentice lies disputed by scientists Thanks Ray for this information. This is what the report said about Prentice's claims that adult stem cells are being used to treat PD: FROM: Supporting Online Material for ADult Stem Cell Treatments for Diseases? Science, July 13, 2006 Linda Disease or injury cited in Prentice list: --Parkinson's Disease Is an FDA-approved adult stem cell treatment generally available to treat this disease or injury? --No Actual nature of the study or studies cited by Prentice: --"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 (129). 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 (130, 131). Two additional references cited irrelevant papers that do not address a cell-based therapy of any kind for Parkinson's (132, 133)." Additional comments: --"While transplants of cells from various sources have been tried on an experimental basis in Parkinson's disease, the clinical outcomes from these attempts have been mixed, with a more recent trial indicating that a fetal cell transplant confers no treatment benefit (134, 135). Neither the published scientific literature nor the cited papers support the claim that an effective stem cell therapy is available to Parkinson's patients." References: 129. M. Levesque, paper presented at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons Annual Meeting, April 8, 2002 2002. 130. in Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space. (Washington, D.C., 2004). 131. in Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space. (Washington, D.C., 2004). 132. S. Love et al., Nat Med. 11, 703-4. (2005). 133. S. S. Gill et al., Nat Med. 9, 589-95. Epub 2003 Mar 31. (2003). 134. N. Nakao, A. Shintani-Mizushima, K. Kakishita, T. Itakura, Brain Res Brain Res Rev 25, 25 (2006). 135. C. W. Olanow et al., Ann Neurol. 54, 403-14. (2003). 136. in Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space. (Washington, D.C., 2004). 137. in Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space. (Washington, D.C., 2004). 138. in Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space. (Washington, D.C., 2004). www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1129987/DC1 Linda -- rayilynlee <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From the Washington Post - on page 2 of this article scientists claim only 9 of the 60-70 diseases cited by Prentice as recipients of effective adult stem cell treatments are for real: Clash Over Stem Cell Research Heats Up Scientists Dispute Claims of Leading Foe of Bill to Ease Embryo Restrictions By Rick Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, July 15, 2006; Page A04 With just days to go before the Senate is scheduled to vote on a hotly anticipated bill that would loosen President Bush's restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research, both sides of the scientifically and ethically charged issue have ramped up their publicity machines and attacks on each other. As the week drew to a close, commentators opposed to the research, such as William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, released fiery commentaries urging senators to reject the bill. And several scientific and medical groups, including the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, released countervailing warnings that patients and their families would suffer if the bill failed. Saving options 1. Save to description: Headline (required) Subheadline Byline 2. Save to notes (255 character max): Subheadline Blurb None 3. Tag This Article Yesterday, in one of the more incendiary volleys, the journal Science published a letter by three researchers documenting apparently significant misstatements made by a leader in the movement to block the bill. The legislation, already passed by the House, would for the first time allow scientists to use federal funds to conduct research on new colonies of the medically promising cells, which are controversial because human embryos must be destroyed to obtain them. The bill would override rules put in place by Bush five years ago that restrict federal funding to research on only those embryonic stem cells that were in existence as of August 2001. That policy is aimed at protecting human embryos, but it has been widely decried by researchers and patient groups as a roadblock to the development of treatments for a range of diseases. The letter to the journal focused on David A. Prentice, a scientist with the conservative Family Research Council. Prentice has been an adviser to Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) -- a leader in the charge to maintain tight restrictions on the research -- and an "expert source" often cited by opponents of embryonic stem cell research. Prentice has repeatedly claimed that adult stem cells, which can be retrieved harmlessly from adults, have at least as much medical potential as embryonic cells. He often carries a binder filled with references to scientific papers that he says prove the value of adult stem cells as treatments for at least 65 diseases. In the letter to Science, however, three researchers went through Prentice's footnoted documentation and concluded that most of his examples are wrong. "Prentice not only misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments but also frequently distorts the nature and content of the references he cites," wrote Shane Smith of the Children's Neurobiological Solutions Foundation in Santa Barbara, Calif.; William B. Neaves of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, Mo.; and Steven Teitelbaum of Washington University in St. Louis. For example, they wrote, a study cited by Prentice as evidence that adult stem cells can help patients with testicular cancer is in fact a study that evaluates methods of isolating adult stem cells. Similarly, a published report that Prentice cites as evidence that adult stem cells can help patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma does not address the medical value of those cells but rather describes the best way to isolate cells from lymphoma patients and grow them in laboratory dishes, the letter said. And Prentice's reference to the usefulness of adult stem cells for patients with Sandhoff disease -- a rare nerve disorder -- is "a layperson's statement in a newspaper article," the scientists reported. CONTINUED 1 2 Next > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn