LISTSERV 16.0 - PARKINSN Archives

Dr. Levesque's comments at end of hearing,in response to questions from Sen. Wyden at 2004 hearing:
July 14, 2004 WednesdayTYPE: COMMITTEE HEARINGCOMMITTEE: SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SPACE SUBCOMMITTEESUBCOMMITTEE: SENATE COMMERCEHEADLINE: U.S. SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS) HOLDS HEARING ON STEM CELL RESEARCHWYDEN: (to Dennis Turner) Well, I just think when patients fight and have the kind of tenacity that you've shown, that's a big part of what treatment is all about and why you are such a good role model and why we're glad and thrilled that you are here and you tell us about your progress.Dr. Levesque, I want to ask you, though, a question with respect to Parkinson's and this whole matter of embryonic stem cells being used in research.When I asked you earlier about the comparison of adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells, you said -- and I appreciate your candor -- that you had not done work with respect to embryonic stem cells, and that to me was important. It may not be important to others, but that was important to me in terms of the comparison and particularly given the fact that you'd been pretty critical in your testimony of embryonic stem cell research.My question to you is, a lot of advocates for cures to Parkinson's, a lot of the organizations, would like to see embryonic stem cells used to help pursue cures in this area, at least that is my understanding. Given that, do you at any point plan to try, even for the purpose of comparison, since you are making these statements about adult stem cell lines versus embryonic stem cells, do you at any point plan to even try to have some patients assisted with embryonic stem cells so that at least you could back up the kind of statement you made in your testimony today?LEVESQUE: All right. Let me comment to the first statement. My testimony is critical from our aspect of the perception and benefit of cell therapy in general. Not only embryonic, but also adult. We have to understand where this type of therapy is in relation with other type of therapy that I've mentioned that in my testimony as well.And as I mentioned, other avenues are potentially viable and successful beyond the cell therapy. So I was critical of not only this type of embryonic cell therapy, there are things that we don't know. There is a lot of noise and push to move on to embryonic stem cell therapy, but it is unknown what are the safety issues and benefit issues using the stem cells, the embryonic stem cells.I agree, we need to do more research, we need to compare both types of cells, because the bottom line is that the embryonic stem cells will use the same pathways that the adult neural stem cell line will use to become differentiated neuron.So the embryonic stem cell can be used to become all kind of tissue, but you have to understand that the pathway to create the bottom neurons will be the same that we use for the adult neural stem cells.The risk and benefit of each of these types of therapies has to be evaluated.The approach I use has the benefit to be autologous, it's the same tissue than the patient, whereas the embryonic cells, these are cells derived from other patients, we don't know the risks of immune rejections using this tissue. From other type of research we know that there is an immune reactions when we implant cells or foreign tissue in the brain.So there are ways to evaluate and minimize these types of rejections. One company is encapsulating these cells with some type of a substance supposedly to minimize this immune reaction. Perhaps the nuclear cell transplant technology will also minimize the risk of rejection. We don't know. We need to do more research.WYDEN: Well, again, with all due respect, your testimony is quite critical of embryonic stem cell research and it is not critical of adult stem cell research. And the reason I asked you the question about whether at some point you would be willing to look at embryonic stem cells for the treatment of Parkinson's is I think that would certainly, in my own view as a legislator who spends a lot of time on science issues, that would be relevant to me.LEVESQUE: Well, I think, if I can interrupt, I think the current approved cell lines are inadequate to study these questions and obviously...WYDEN: Do you favor changing the federal government's policy?LEVESQUE: I think if the federal government...WYDEN: That's a yes or no question.LEVESQUE: Yes.WYDEN: Do you favor changing the administration policy on stem cell research?LEVESQUE: No. Don't change the policy. The policy is approving the cell. We have some cell lines that have been approved for research. However, these cell lines are inadequate. We need new cell lines. So yes, we need to add more cell lines to the current cell lines to answer these specific questions.WYDEN: Where would they come from?LEVESQUE: Well, these have to be obtained from embryonic IVF clinic, there are discarded tissue, or with the somatic nuclear transfer using an ovum from a donor.WYDEN: And you think all this can be done without changing federal law.LEVESQUE: We need to change the restriction on these cell lines, definitely.FAJT: I agree.WYDEN: All right. So, I think we're hearing something significant here.Dr. Levesque, you want to change federal policy on stem cell research.Susan, you want to change federal policy on stem cell research.Mr. Turner, do you think federal policy ought to be changed? Just based on what you know.TURNER: I would base my opinion on what Dr. Levesque said, because of his education. I am educated as a mechanical and electrical engineer, so I don't have the basis of the research to make that kind of decision.WYDEN: Extra points for candor.Laura, do you want to say anything on this. All right, you are off the hook and spared.I thank you all, and all of you have been very helpful. And, look, this is a field where there are differences of opinion. That's what I tried to talk about at the beginning.And, Dr. Levesque, understand that I am just thrilled with all that you have done for Mr. Turner. To have him come and to say what he said about you is thrilling.I am here because I want to change federal policy, because I think there can be a lot more people like these three wonderful witnesses that are at the table. And to do it, we've got to change federal policy to take the shackles off our scientists and let them do what they were trained to do, which is be scientific advocates.They weren't trained to do politics. They don't have election certificates. They were trained to be scientists. And the federal government has held them back, and it's wrong, and that is why I, and I think a lot of legislators of both political parties want to change it.

www.pdpipeline.org

-- rayilynlee <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Today this info is still out there but: (1) Turner's PD returned and
Levesque didn't answer my question about Turner. (2) Patricia Payne never
had Phase II -as Levesque just told you it is still on hold. (3) the KY
study has nothing to do with stem cells of any kind. It is the GDNF Amgen
study. This from the people who draw their moral lines on our sorry bodies.
According to a neutral source re Levesque's 2004 US Senate Subcommittee
testimony he conceded that not enough research had been done on ESCs to say
what was possible. I as yet have not found the text of his testimony.
Ray

Parkinson's disease
Parkinson's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder, the second-most common
disease of this type, after Alzheimer's disease. It is caused when nerve
cells responsible for the production of dopamine die or become impaired. It
is characterized by four common symptoms: rest tremor of a limb, slowness of
movement, rigidity, and poor balance.[46]
Adult stem cells have already been used to provide successful and effective
treatment for Parkinson's disease. In 1999, Dennis Turner was successfully
treated with his own adult neural stem cells by Dr. Michael Levesque, M.D.
At the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons
in 2002, Dr. Levesque described how Turner's symptoms were reduced by more
than 80 percent.[47] According to Turner, "Soon after having the cells
injected, my Parkinson's symptoms began to improve. My trembling grew less
and less until to all appearances it was gone, only slightly reappearing if
I became upset. Dr. Levesque had me tested by a neurologist, who said he
wouldn't have known I had Parkinson's if he had met me on the street. I was
once again able to use my right hand and arm normally, enjoying activities
that I given up hope of ever doing." [48] Because of the treatment he
received, Turner was able to travel to Africa to go on a safari and
photograph wild animals in their native environments.

Patricia Payne, a mother of five, has suffered from Parkinson's disease for
over 15 years and plans to begin treatment soon with adult stem cells. She
testified before the Massachusetts State Legislature in 2005: "I don't want
to see cures, even a cure for my terrible disease, to be obtained by
destroying a fellow human being at the earliest and most vulnerable stage of
their existence. To kill one human being for the benefit of another is never
morally justifiable." She added, "To kill the weak in order to benefit the
strong is even more objectionable."[49]

A 2005 study published in the Journal of Neurosurgery described how
University of Kentucky scientists were able to successfully treat ten
patients suffering from Parkinson's disease, observing noticeable
improvement in balance and motor function. The treatment involved
stimulation of the patient's own brain stem cells.[50] An earlier 2003 study
in Great Britain noted an average of 61 percent improvement in five patients
after their adult neural stem cells were stimulated with a similar protein
injection.[51]

Rayilyn Brown
Board Member AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson's Foundation
[log in to unmask]

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