Stem Cells Cure Boys Sickle Cell Anemia

By Bob Ellis on May 28th, 2009

Sickle cells (Credit: National Human Genome Research Institute)

Sickle cells (Credit: National Human Genome Research Institute)

No, it wasn’t embryonic stem cell therapy that cured Joseph Davis Jr.’s sickle cell anemia.  But from the “mainstream” media’s hype of embryonic stem cell research, you probably guessed it was.

While there is still not a single successful therapy derived from embryonic stem cell (ESC) research, the case of Joseph Davis Jr. is yet another success from a stem cell therapy that, unlike ESC, does not destroy innocent human life.

OneNewsNow ran an article today on the story of little Joseph Davis Jr., son of  Joe and Darlene Davis from Texas , who was born with sickle cell anemia, an autosomal recessive genetic disorder.  Because of this disorder, little Joe ran high fevers, experienced swelling of the hands and feet, and had to have frequent blood transfusions.

But when Joe Sr. and Darlene found they were pregnant with another child, they did some checking and found that their next child was a perfect match with Joe Jr. to be able to use stem cells from baby Isaac to treat Joe Jr.’s sickle cell anemia.

From the OneNewsNow article:

“[Cells from] Isaac’s umbilical cord blood, adult stem cells, [were] going to save my son’s life, and that adult stem cell got my son cured today. He is healed,” Darlene adds. “What I’m talking about is no more sickle cell, no more running to the hospital, no more fevers, no more blood transfusion. He’s a healthy child today.”

That was back in 2002 when Isaac was born and Joe Jr. was treated using Isaac’s umbilical cord stem cells, and the Joe Jr. is still doing fine.

CitizenLink ran an interview with the Davis family last year in which Darlene said of 8-year-old Joe:

He’s doing great and he’s loving life. When he was little, the doctors told me he would have to take antibiotics every day for the rest of his life. Guess what? He’s not taking anything. And I thank God for that.

The total number of successful therapies using adult stem cells, umbilical cord stem cells and other non-destructive sources is between 70 and 80 now. Therapies  include treatments for meningitis-related limb damage, brain injury, stroke, retina regeneration, heart tissue regeneration, angina, diabetes, bone cancer, nerve regeneration, cerebral palsy, cartilage regeneration, Parkinsons, kidney damage, liver cancer, lupus, multiple sclerosis,  and leukemia.

Last year I had the pleasure of meeting Carol Franz while I was in Washington D.C. Carol is an adult stem cell therapy patient and survivor of multiple myeloma cancer, a blood cancer. When I met her, she was energetically hopping into a 10th-floor elevator with her luggage in tow, and she was wearing a neon shirt which declared she had received adult stem cell therapy.  You can read Carol’s story at her website and see before-and-after pictures of her.

Unfortunately, despite the dozens of successful treatments dereived from benign sources of stem cells, some people insist on destroying innocent human life to harvest stem cells from human embryos.  Earlier this year President Barack Obama authorized taxpayer funds for embryonic stem cell research, using our tax dollars in connection with the destruction of innocent human life.

To some, it doesn’t seem to matter that one line of research is already yielding tremendous results while the other has yet to produce a single useful treatment.  It doesn’t seem to matter to some that ESC faces practical hurdles such as tissue rejection (like that seen in organ transplants) and tumor generation in the recipient, such as those afflicting the poor Israeli boy treated with fetal stem cells.  It seems irrelevant to some that an innocent human life is destroyed in the harvesting of embryonic stem cells.

Regardless of all this, they insist that ESC research go forward, and they insist you the taxpayer pay for it–even as some in the “mainstream” media are starting to admit that ESC research just isn’t necessary.

One has to marvel at the irrationality of today’s death culture.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

Powered By Wordpress Tabs Slides
  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags:

  • DCM
    It is time for the stem cell debate to END. Non-ESCR is successful, ESCR is not. Period. Anyone who keeps pushing for ESCR in the face of what non-ESCR can do has to be either uninformed or driven by ulterior motives; there's no way around it.
  • Brian Rutledge
    I wouldn't make the blanket statement that ESCR will never be as successful as non-ESCR, simply because not enough research has been done on ESC yet and more still needs to be done on non-ESCR. I wouldn't also make the blanket statement that those reseacrhers who still want to pursue ESC are uniformed or have ulterior motives.

    There are many Christian researchers who feel there are ways around destorying a blastocyst, but still extracing stem cells from these early embryos. Fertility physicians and animal researchers already are able to take a few cells from a blastocyst embryo, allowing them to produce stem cells and still have a perfectly normal, viable fetus. If that can be done and there is no harm to a very early embryo, shouldnt we at least research it.

    One of the reasons that umbilical cord stem cells are so effective is because these cells are closer to ESC tnah they are adultnon-ESC, which makes the point of pursuing ESC research.The stem cells from the sickle cell case came from the cord and these cells have not yet started differentiating, thus are more suited for transplant. The older the stem cell line, the more it will have started to differentiate.

    Science simply doesnt quit because one area seems more promising than another. If science can continue research and find a way NOT to destroy an embryo and still derive stem cells, what's wrong with that from a moral standpoint.
  • Did I say "never"? I couldn't find the word used anywhere in this post.

    But I think I can posit with a high degree of confidence that those who are pushing ESC research are uninformed or have ulterior motives, or both.

    Ignorance I can understand. If you don't know, you don't know. And with the propaganda and deception peddled by the "mainstream" media, it's easy for the unsuspecting person who doesn't take the time to research the matter for themselves to be misled.

    But for those who know better (or should), ignorance is not an excuse they can hide behind.

    With all that ESC research has going against it, and all that non-destructive forms of stem cell research have going for them, it's ludicrous to expend any significant effort whatsoever for the destructive, unproductive line of research.

    Unless, of course, one expects a considerable haul of loot from research grants, contracts, etc. from ESC research, or has no respect for human life, or both.

    Can you imagine the Wright Brothers saying, "Well, our Wright Flyer with its cloth wings actually flies, but let's keep working really hard on this 'flapping wings made of goose feathers' model--the one pilots keep dying in every time its tried"? Please.

    Were it not for the money involved, or the dark spiritual agenda involved, or both, people would objectively look on seriously pursuing ESC research as ludicrous.
  • DCM
    How long does ESCR have to keep on producing nothing before it will be officially recognized as a waste of time? It's already had, what, about 30 years?

    If there were *not* a successful line of research (non-ESCR) already producing the results sought from ESCR -- and one *without* ESCR's moral dilemmas -- it might be a different story. But the more non-ESCR produces while ESCR produces nothing, the less justification there is for pursuing ESCR.
  • Brian Rutledge
    I can understand your concern and belief that ESCR will cause the death of a blastocyst which you feel is a human life and I cant say it isnt. You consider it akin to murder and i can't say unequivacally it isnt

    But the real murdering, if you will, is going on right now in IVF clinics where some estimate the number of embryos destroyed in the last 30 years to be in excess of 100,000. So at least 100,000 have been destroyed that we know of and more are coming. Where is your protest ? Where is your outrage ? Seems like you would at least be as passionate about this issue, but I hear nothing from you

    If your motive is to preserve all life, shouldn't your cause be equally divided. I have followed this blog for a while and would like to know wheres the outrage against IVF and the discarding of embryos. This not not a potential future problem, but something that happens daily in the U.S. Why not protest these ongoing ' murders' that are happening right now? I cant think of one reason you don't.Enlighten me.
  • I'm pretty sure you and I have been through the humanity of the human fetus before, and it should be pretty obvious to anyone without a bias, so I won't cover that ground yet again.

    I'm well aware of the destruction of human embryos going on in IVF clinics, and it's a tragedy--one I've spoken out about before. However, as you might have noticed, Dakota Voice examines the headlines and issues being discussed in the public arena; IVF is seldom in the headlines, and as much as I'd like to cover every important topic out there on a regular basis, there simply aren't enough hours in the day or enough of me to go around. And I'd have to say that you really have a lot of gall to wag a finger at me because I'm not vocal enough on the IVF issue to trip your "importance" meter, while you regularly and routinely argue in favor of the destruction of innocent human life.

    Yes, sir, a lot of gall, indeed.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob You make a valid point that Dakota Voice deals with current or topical issues in the headlines and seriously dont mean to attack you personally. What i dont understand is why IFV is not in the headlines if creationists feel so srongly about the destruction of life. They could make it headlines by bringing it to the forefront, but they dont. Hunderds of thousands of lives are being destoryed without a whimper almost.

    If they galvinized behind this obvious massive destruction of life, it would be headlines. I am truly interested to know, do they feel it is a lost cause and their energies would be better spent fighting ESCR ?I am just confused as to why creationists pick one life destorying issue to combat( ESCR) and not IVC unless they just feel it is a lost cause. I can understand that. It just seems creationists would aim their efforts at where most of the damage and ' killing of innocent lives' is actually occuring.
  • Maybe creationists, pro-lifers, reasonable people or whoever don't expend a lot of energy "making it headlines" because frankly the pro-death culture has started so many other fires, we try to deal with the ones that are most egregious and ostensibly the easiest to grasp for someone even remotely unbiased. Just as I can't hit everything I'd like to, I'm sure other pro-lifers can't either.

    Why didn't we invade Japan in 1942? Well, there were a lot of other battles that had to be fought first before we could stand on firm enough ground to do that. Why didn't we storm the beaches of Normandy in 1943? Same reason. Why didn't we storm Normandy and mainland Japan at the same time on June 6, 1944? Again, there's only so much you can do at one time.

    There are more than 1 million innocent human beings every year being murdered through abortion. That's a pretty darn important beach head. If we don't stand against embryonic stem cell research, it won't be long before there will be a full-steam operation underway that deliberately creates human life with the specific intent of destroying it...all for the purpose dubious and unnecessary research. You probably have no idea the incredible damage the embrace of such a ghastly practice would do to the moral fiber of our society.

    Frankly, I strongly suspect you're trying to deflect attention from your obstinate support for the destruction of innocent human life here. As I said before, you have a lot of gall bellyaching that pro-lifers aren't giving enough attention to the IVF issue when you regularly defend the intentional destruction of innocent human life.

    You've been more reasonable than most that I debate with here, but I won't entertain any more of this hypocritical diversion. My suggestion would be that you change the subject if you want to continue to dialog.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob-- I don't blame you if you want to delete me and this will be my last comment on this subject. I do see why you would think that I am trying to divert attention from ESCR. The real truth is that I do have problems with this research which probably comes from a personnel viewpoint which I have mentioned before.....my adopted daughter.I assure you I don't have an obstinate goal or support for the destruction of human life.

    My writing and expressive ablity sometimes comes across as harsh, but most of the time I am trying to understand the creationist or religious take on things. You very adequately explained above why IVF isnt a main focus right now. I know people with strong convictions can't take on every cause in the world. In retrospect, it is a weak argument to say to someone that 'if you really feel strongly about something, you should also be doing so-and-so. That type of reasoning and verbage is childish.

    My true desire is to make sure there is absolutely no way ESCR can be done without harming an embryo. If that is the case, then I oppose ESCR as well.
  • Thanks for the clarification, Brian.

    If there was a way to utilize stem cells from human embryos without harming that human life, that would clear the main hurdle and objection to the research, and I could support it. Though it would still be of secondary importance and benefit, since it would still have the problems of tissue rejection and tumor generation to overcome---something not a factor with adult stem cell therapy.

    But it doesn't appear to be on the horizon that ESC research can be done without harm to the human embryo.
  • Bill Meadows
    As a nonbeliever, I must admit that I don't know when life begins. I do believe a 9 month old fetus is alive and if you work backward to the day of conception, I can't demarcate when life starts. So, for that reason, I can only hold that, to me,life begins at conception

    Thus , I cant condone the destruction of life at any stage of developement. I do disagree that, in general, science should give not up on one line of research just because it faces hurdles or if another line of research seems more promising. To many great discoveries would never have occured if that philosophy had been adopted. Again, ESCR has the dilemma of ' life ' to consider.

    I read the other day in England and South Korea that scientists are takind a few cells from blastocysts before they get implanted for IVF and saving them for later use( similiar to cord cells), with the stipulation they only be used for that child from which they came, if ESC research someday proves beneficial,That would do away with the rejection issues and maybe the tumor growth problem

    We know blastocysts can lose a few cells and still generate a healthy child, because the evidence is there after so many years of IVF being performed. It must be done by highly trained people to ensure no damage is done to the remaining cells. Insuring that no dama.ge is done is essential and might be hard to guarantee 100%. I still feel ESCR should be pursued , with the stipulation that the above mentioned hurdles can be overcome.
  • By "blastocysts" you mean a human embryo, right? "Blastocysts" is a favorite term of the pro-abortion crowd because it dehumanizes and detracts attention away from the fact that we're talking about a human being. So my ears always perk up when I hear that depersonalizing term.

    Having clarified that, it is pretty clear from even a scientific perspective that unique human life does indeed begin at conception, and I'm glad you acknowledged that.

    If we can know for certain that an embryonic human can spare a few cells--cells that could benefit them later on--without causing any harm to them, then it could be a permissible procedure.

    And it could be one that overcomes the issues you mentioned of tissue rejection and tumor generation. Incidentally, adult stem cell therapies also avoid these issues because the adult stem cells come from the patient's every own body, from places such as nasal, dental and even testicular tissue.

    I don't think anyone would disagree that if ESC research can go forward without destroying innocent human life, then it's a valid and worthy medical pursuit. But so far that is only a pipe dream, and the ESC research that is currently going on is doing so at the expense of the life of an innocent human being.

    That is what people like myself find unacceptable.
  • Kathy
    Having eaten organic foods and used herbs/supplements for years while constant efforts were made by certain vested interests to make vitamins and herbs illegal as we have them today, I'm very familiar with pharmaceutical/AMA marketing and lobbyihg efforts. There's a certtain "smell" to the way they slam their target and wave around pie the sky "cures." The reason adult stem cells are not given their due--with absolutely miraculous cures in so many areas--is because they're an enormous threat to profits.

    We Americans are drowning in our medical costs, but one's own stem cells would wipe out heart surgeries and surgeons' very profitable incomes. My stepfather had a stent put in and had to take drugs for the rest of his life The surgeon decided to do a bypass while he was at it, and my stepfather was never the same. He lost mental capacity. Stem cells would cut out the surgeon, the cutting through all the ribs, and the life-long drugs. A hell of a lot of money would have been saved, and my stepfather would have been himself, repaired by his own body's power.

    Look at the patents surrounding embryonic stem cells. Although they've never cured anyone already there's been court battle. It's all about $$. And we need to spread the word--and let the main stream media, which is owned by its powerful advertisers, to die a well-deserved death.
  • pbennett66
    I have a question about adult stem cells. If you bank adult stem cells when you are health and you need them later for some type of illness you have, when injected with your adult stem cells your body will basically reboot itself back to how your body was at the time that the adult stem cell were collected or will it go back further then that period of time?
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »