Report: Amniotic Fluid Yields Stem Cells -----but........

there are too many 'buts'when we have the real cells now (but for the WH ideology).

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/01/07/national/a102222S53.DTL&type=printable

Report: Amniotic Fluid Yields Stem Cells
- By PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology Writer
Sunday, January 7, 2007

(01-07) 10:22 PST , (AP) --

Scientists reported Sunday they had found a plentiful source of stem cells in the fluid that cushions babies in the womb and produced a variety of tissue types from these cells — sidestepping the controversy over destroying embryos for research.

Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells. They reported they were able to extract the stem cells without harm to mother or fetus and turn their discovery into several different tissue cell types, including brain, liver and bone.

"Our hope is that these cells will provide a valuable resource for tissue repair and for engineered organs as well," said Dr. Anthony Atala, head of Wake Forest's regenerative medicine institute and senior researcher on the project.

It took Atala's team some seven years of research to determine the cells they found were truly stem cells that "can be used to produce a broad range of cells that may be valuable for therapy."

However, the scientists noted they still don't know exactly how many different cell types can be made from the stem cells found in amniotic fluid. They also said that even preliminary tests in patients are years away.

embryonic stem cells. I say let's study the hell out of this and let's get them out there. Less time waging ethical battles means more time helping people get better.

done in foreign countries, where Evangelical Christians are just a far away nightmare.

I'd love to see how they collect those fluids. An interesting challenge I'm sure.

that the cells are in the placenta "which just gets thrown away" anyway. 1% of cells in amniotic fluid are these AFC cells, and 1 in 50 women get an amniocentesis... so i'll bet the lion's share of these cells will be from placentas.

I've signed consent forms for three of them. Amniocentesis should only be performed when there is suspicion of serious birth defects.

Screening urged for all pregnancies

All pregnant women, regardless of age, should be offered screening for Down syndrome in their first trimester, according to new practice guidelines being issued today by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The main reason: Tests far less invasive than the long-used amniocentesis are widely available, some that can tell in the first trimester the risk of a fetus having Down syndrome or other chromosomal defects.

Pregnancies identified as being at risk can then be offered further screening with invasive, and more dangerous, tests such as amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling, according to the guidelines published in the January issue of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Invasive tests have been offered routinely to women older than 35, who are most at risk of bearing affected children. But the risks in older women have been managed so successfully that the largest number of Down syndrome children are being born to younger women, said Dr. Edward McCabe, of the Mattel Children's Hospital at the University of California, Los Angeles.

More: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2003503173_down31.html

whose "water" broke BEFORE I ever made it to the hospital, with BOTH my kids.

..but if almost-Mom goes along with it and the delivery bed is already set up for it, it shouldn't be a problem.
Just a bit of prior planning and engineering so the 'catch basin' doesn't interfere with the main event.

I know, I'm waaaay oversimplifying, but you get the idea :shrug:

just so they can have amniocentesis for the stem cells, which poses a tiny but real risk to the fetus, which could hypothetically die.

Yeah, right. Then when they miscarry we have a baby roast.:sarcasm:

They will find a way to call this evil. Just watch.

line that says this is a human and that isn't. Yes, I know that is is commonly held that many women miscarry without ever knowing they are pregnant (although I have never seen an original source for that statement.) Also, I don't worry about the loss of eggs or sperm. I wouldn't dare tell an infertile couple not to try in vitro insemination. I have no idea what to do with all the embryos now on ice.

That said, some might call me a fundy for not being whole heartedly in favor of deriving stem cells from embryos. For the record, I want to state that obtaining stem cells from amniotic fluid sounds like a great idea that sidesteps any moral quandaries.

http://www.babyhopes.com/articles/chemical-pregnancy.html

What is a chemical pregnancy?

A chemical pregnancy is the clinical term used for a very early miscarriage. In many cases, the positive pregnancy test was achieved before the woman's period was due but a miscarrige occured before a heartbeat was able to be seen on an ultrasound.

With the ultra sensitive pregnancy tests on the market today, it is easier than ever to get a positive result 3 or 4 days before your period is due. It is wonderful for those who NEED to know, but does have it's down side. Early testing shows chemical pregnancies which would not have been detected had the woman waited for her period to arrive.

Chemical pregnancies are unfortunately very common. 50 to 60% of first pregnancies end in miscarriage very early in pregnancy. Most occur without the woman even knowing that she was pregnant.

What Causes a Chemical Pregnancy
Most chemical pregnancies are due to chromosomal problems in the developing fetus. Other possible causes are inadequate uterine lining, uterine abnormalities both congenital or acquired like fibroids, low hormone levels, luteal phase defect or certain infections.
How can I Prevent Chemical Pregnancies
Most chemical pregnancies can not be prevented. If you have recurring chemical pregnancies, your doctor should be able to investigate and help you formulate a treatment which is best for you. Potential treatments include vitamin B6 (at least 50mg a day), progesterone cream, and baby asprin. Be sure to discuss potential treatments with your doctor.

If infection is the cause, antibiotics prescribed by your Doctor can help.

embryo that was just going to be thrown in the trash anyway............

Never had a problem with the student surgery lab in vet school getting dogs who had used up their time at the pound and were slated for euthanasia being used for a day of surgery lab (under anesthesia) before being put down (without waking up), either.

The death is inevitable in either case - why allow waste if there is no suffering attached to doing so?

:shrug:

the unused embryos were thrown in the trash. It never made sense to me that the people who were against stemcell research didn't demand legislation that required every embryo created for possible reproduction to be used for that purpose. :shrug:

will be against this because it does not promote abortion. How stupid are these ignorant rednecks!! Wait, don't answer, we know how stupid those "morans" are. The goal is to heal sick people and an endless supply of embryonic stem cells is perfect. Abortion is simply the right to choose to abort your baby after one has been raped by an ugly, insane predator ( most likely some FReeper father).

Gotta hand it to those FReeks, they are always good for a yuckle!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

It's not as if women would get pregnant in order to meet the demand.

Why is it so appalling to have something positive result from an abortion?

Women are hired to get pregnant and have abortions right before the tenth week. The tissue is for stem cells and cosmetics. The government is seeking ways to control it, but it doesn't appear to be against the law as now written.

I read that story on Kos about newborn babies being killed for stem cells, but haven't heard about abortions-for-hire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6171083.stm

This is a link to the main story that BBC did. I'll try to hunt up more later today. I am in an online discussion group for Ukraine adoptions and much of what I've come to know about it has come from people who have been over there adopting children. There seems to be an ongoing fear in Ukraine (and perhaps other countries as well) that Americans are adopting children to cut up for spare body parts. It is inconceviable to us how they could imagine such a gruesome thing and much discussion has focused on where they could have gotten it. One possible source of this mindset are the stories (true or false though they may be) about the stem cell industry that has caught on in Ukraine.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/09/dba646e5-c6ed-43d2-a4a5-5234659f51f4.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1461654,00.html

I can't link out to this, but if you have access to a database you might read:
Russian scientists voice concern over “stem-cell cosmetics”.
The Lancet, Volume 365, Issue 9466, Pages 1219-1220
T. Parfitt

from the phrasing it was ambiguous whether the women are persuaded to have abortions for $, or women already planning abortions are paid to have them later than they would have otherwise.

that stuff about animal stem cell injections is creeeeeepy.

I think things have run amok in Ukraine because there are no regulations and it seems to be all about the money. Outsiders may not be privy to all the information, but it does seem strange that the country is one of the leading places for stem cell researh, pay offs to women, and the statistic that the average is nine abortions for every woman in the country.

I think we need to be prepared to have some kind of oversight or regulations if we do get the research restrictions lightened up here. We have regulations about organ donation and research and even some nebulous regulations about egg, sperm, and embryo technology. I remember friends in college selling platelets to make a few extra bucks. The same type of thing appears to be happening with stem cells in Ukraine.

It's a murky field and I think we should be ready to have a debate about it. There are many directions we can take--maybe stem cells harvested from clinics and sold to either researchers or cosmetic comanies could be used to pay for abortions, and the procedure would be free to everybody.

it doesn't say anything about women being hired to get pregnant and have abortions.

I can believe that people exist who would murder newborns to make money. And I can understand where a woman who opts to terminate her pregnancy might choose to donate or sell the fetus for stem cell research. But I have a tough time imagining a woman who would risk her own reproductive health, getting pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=399376&in_page_id=1879&in_page_id=1879&expand=true

I'm not sure I can understand the depths of poverty that drive people to do the things they do.

especially after having already gone through several months of nausea, vomiting, etc. Just like we want to be raped, right? Yeah right, we get preggers so we can hold abortion parties, etc.

Scientists isolate new stem cell source
Last Updated: Sunday, January 7, 2007 | 10:44 PM ET
The Canadian Press

Research called interesting
Mick Bhatia, director of the Stem Cell and Cancer Research Institute at McMaster University, called the research "very interesting" in that the AFS cells appear to fulfil the criteria for "pluri-potency" — the ability to give rise to different cell classes.

"But having said all that, in my opinion, it's not completely novel," Bhatia said from Hamilton.

"I think the source is novel, but … other people have shown that there are cells in adult animals — non-embryonic — that seem to when cultured for a period of time have properties of embryonic stem cells."

"It's too early to tell whether this will generate cells that will be as robust, i.e., can you really freeze, thaw and send them to other labs and get them to grow easily?" he said. "It's very complex."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/07/stem-cell.html

On the Today show this morning Dr. Nancy Sniedermann went out of her way to stress how soon this would be viable.

This deserves research.

I heard this on hate radio (guess who). This was stated with such certainty I just had to check it out. Expect a full on misinformation campaign on this.

See post below.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHD6vrADHY6U&refer=home

Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Stem cells from amniotic fluid may open a third avenue of research for scientists seeking to regenerate human tissue that is less controversial than embryonic cells and more versatile than adult stem cells.

The amniotic cells don't carry the same ethical and political concerns as stem cells harvested in a way that requires destruction of embryos. They also are easier to work on in the laboratory than adult stem cells, and may be able to grow into a wider variety of cells, the researchers said.

One major difference is that, unlike embryonic stem cells, the amniotic cells don't form tumors, called teratomas, that contain a variety of cell types, Atala said. That may offer an advantage if the cells turn out to be able to regenerate tissues that are lost in Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and other disorders, he said.



There's no evidence that research on the amniotic cells is a replacement for work on embryonic stem cells, which have shown the ability to replace cells throughout the body, said Eve Herold, director of public policy research and education at the Genetics Policy Institute, a Washington-based nonprofit research advocacy group.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-08-2007/0004501972&EDATE=

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Genetics Policy
Institute (GPI) applauds the discovery of apparently versatile stem cells
in amniotic fluid as a positive development, but cautions that the research
does not eliminate the need for embryonic stem cell research. "This
discovery is a welcome development that opens up a new line of research,"
said Eve Herold, who is GPI's director of public policy research and
education and also the author of the recent book, Stem Cell Wars: Inside
Stories from the Frontlines. "However, much more work needs to be done
before anyone can determine the cells' future clinical value." Over the
weekend, a team of scientists led by Anthony Atala at Wake Forest
University School of Medicine announced that it had cultured what appeared
to be highly versatile stem cells, which were taken from the amniotic fluid
of women who were about ten weeks pregnant.


"People have been excited about new cell types in the past and were
later disappointed," Herold cautioned. "Science is a slow process.
Experiments need to be repeated and independently verified before they
become established as facts. However, this line of research should
definitely be pursued along with all other types of stem cell research.
This early report does not suggest that we should abandon the science that
has been proven over and over again to be so promising."

So anyone who tries to say they'd be just as good as embryonic cells and could be used as a replacement, has absolutely no scientific data to back up their claims. I do expect the fundies will try it though.

He even had a caller who set it up for him (see RNC.org's talking points section and call in phone numbers)

IMHO

(who happens to be pregnant with a very-much wanted child) is not big deal :wtf:

Amniocentesis CAN cause premature labor or possibly even injure the baby..

Tossed aside frozen embryos that no one wants seems to be a safer method..

the artificial breaking of the amniotic sac, which is routinely done on pregnant woman about to deliver.

I have no issue with embryonic stem cells. None at all. But i feel that the battle, on both sides, serves no purpose.

I am just not seeing what the beef is. This is simply a new avenue to explore. Isn't the point to explore all avenues to helping people find cures.

I am not sure someone with a degenerative disease, where time is of the essence, would care where the stem cells come from. An affective cure is what matters. Ethical arguments and retaliatory responses be damned.