Stem Cell Clinic

Banking wisdom: Teen saving stem cells in hopes of future treatment – LubbockOnline.com

Staff Writer | Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

By Elizabeth Herbert

A-J Media

A 16-year-old Lubbockite with rheumatoid arthritis recently banked her wisdom teeth for their high concentration of stem cells in the hope of using them in a future procedure.

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells, meaning they can become almost any specialized cell; researchers have been studying these cells to learn more about using them to treat ailments such as rheumatoid arthritis.

The oral and facial surgeon who removed the patients teeth, Dr. Robert Ioppolo, said there was virtually no downside to storing the teeth and cells because the procedure, which is necessary for most, is the same for the patient regardless.

Instead of putting (wisdom teeth) in a baggie, we put them in a vial; we put them in a little freezer-type cryopreservation box and off they go to the processing center, he said, so its very straightforward from our perspective, and it just provides an additional service to patients that we didnt have access to a few years ago.

Once the teeth have been sent to process at the Stemodontics lab, Ioppolo said specialists open the teeth and extrapolate the nerve tissue to obtain the stem cells.

The cool thing is that the stem cell population inside of wisdom teeth, especially in somebody thats young and healthy, is at its peak as far as the amount of cells, so the quantity, and also the quality of those cells, he said, so this is kind of a one-time opportunity that folks have to bank the best stem cells that they possibly can from their wisdom teeth.

Rheumatoid arthritis typically impacts adults. The Centers for Disease Control states 7.1% of people aged 18-44 years old report being diagnosed with arthritis; younger groups are not listed on the main, arthritis-related page.

Jamie Fields, the patients mother, said her daughter has undergone knee surgeries and is on medications but has not seen strong improvements in the seven months she has been receiving treatment.

Doctors tried a technique called microfracture in which tiny holes are drilled into the knee to produce new tissue, but this results in fibrocartilage and is more like scar tissue and less like the cushiony cartilage that joints need to function properly, according to an article from the Stanford Medicine News Center.

Preserving her daughters wisdom teeth and stem cells will cost Fields $2,000, but she said her alternative is to grow cells from the cartilage taken from a previous surgery which would cost about $46,000 for the graft alone and does not account for an accompanying procedure.

When I hear about these stem cells, Im like, Well, what if this would work, she said. If thats the route we have to take, then why not try this first?

Aside from surgeries, Fields said her daughters doctor prescribed medications to help slow or stop the dying cartilage behind her knee. There are many options, but medicines tend to have side effects and Fields said she does not want her daughter to have to use multiple, strong pharmaceuticals long-term.

He has a list, and he started her at the bottom of the list on the medications, and then he said we would just go up from there, but that way we dont do anything too harsh thats not needed, she said.

Rheumatoid arthritis tends to worsen with age, and Fields said her daughter, who already has a history of broken bones and surgeries, is impacted by her rheumatoid arthritis to the extent that she cannot participate in gymnastics, cheerleading or other fun activities she has enjoyed.

Fields could keep working down the line of medications most 16 year olds cannot pronounce, or she said she could save her daughters stem cells and wait for orthopedists to create a procedure that would use her daughters cells to help rejuvenate damaged areas.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime (opportunity), Fields said. If we dont do this now, where is she gonna get them from later, of her own?

Michael Longaker, Deane P. and Louise Mitchell Professor for the Department of Surgery and Co-Director for the Institute of Stem Cell Research and Regenerative Medicine at Stanford University, said using stem cells could help a number of issues due to the cells ability to change.

While we do some things really well, like cardiac bypass surgery or hip replacement et cetera, et cetera, itd be great if we could unlock the power of cells that can become other types of cells so that we could regenerate each of these things before they get to the point where they need a major operation, he said.

Stem cells can be found throughout the body, and removing wisdom teeth is a fairly routine procedure; the WebMD website states over 10 million wisdom teeth are removed annually.

Many of these teeth are disposed of, but Longaker pointed out that stem cells in wisdom teeth are unique to the individual and are great sources of stem cells.

In the soft part, the pulp, of those teeth are stem cells that - God forbid - that healthy, young patient whos having them removed, God forbid anything happens to them and they need something or they have a family history of disease - theyre all set and ready to go, he said.

Longakers teams research began with mice and found skeletal stem cells can be manipulated to become cartilage.

They used two major molecules, bone morphogenetic protein 2 and vascular endothelial growth factor, to help the cells start bone formation after microfracture yet stop the process halfway to create cartilage. Longaker said the next step in the research is to focus on larger animals; then human clinical trials can begin.

Stem cells from wisdom teeth would work best for things in the mouth such as bone and cartilage, but Longaker said the cells can be backed up, de-differentiated and guided in a dish to the point where the cell can become almost anything; once the cell is fully differentiated, or has changed into a specific type of cell the specialist intended, it can be implanted.

You take the stem cells from teeth and back them up, so to speak, so they can become almost any type of cell, and then you would guide them down the exit ramp, so to speak, to where you want them to go, he said.

It may be years before orthopedists use stem cells to improve arthritic conditions, but Longaker, who banked his own sons wisdom teeth, said advances happen regularly and that one never knows when their stem cells will be useful.

As a stem cell biologist, having someone already store stem cells that I could guide to become something else, God forbid they need it, that really makes sense to me, he said. I dont see a reason not to do it if a parent or patient wants to do it.

Although banking her daughters wisdom teeth will not yield immediate results, Fields said she believes god guided her on this path and that she has more to gain than to lose.

Our faith is really strong, and I believe that God has led us on this path to hopefully find something that we can do to help her because weve been on this path for so long and with no answers, she said.

More here:
Banking wisdom: Teen saving stem cells in hopes of future treatment - LubbockOnline.com

Mohammed Hussain Alqahtani Discusses the Future of Plastic Surgery – The Jerusalem Post

Dr. Mohammed Hussain Alqahtani has a rich insight into the world of cosmetic developments. In his expansive career, he has dealt with several surgical as well as non-surgical procedures. Plastic Surgery, or at least the cosmetic kind, has always been quite the trend. However, it was not always absolutely safe or, to say, readily affordable. Dr. Alqahtani educates us on how there has been a monumental shift in the industry, while also enlightening us about how safe and approachable the procedures are currently.

Dr. Alqahtani has shared his expertise on several forums and interviews. He champions the positivity cosmetic surgery brings in the life of a person. To begin with, he says, "It's not always about beautifying a certain part. In fact, it could also be a genuine necessity." He says people falsely associate cosmetic procedures with being limited to getting a fuller lip or breast augmentation. The truth is cosmetic treatments aren't gender-biased. They are safe procedures conducted by trained doctors adhering to the highest health and hygiene protocol.

The situation with plastic surgery earlier was different and has now undergone a sea change. The treatments and procedures have been standardized, ensuring patient safety. There is no longer fear of any contamination or hygiene issues. The surgery procedures are now assisted by highly efficient software and AI machines that bring in precision. The treatments are supervised by highly skilled doctors who recommend procedures only after considering your medical history.

Dr. Alqahtani says the most significant victory lies in the fact that plastic surgeries now can give burn patients, acid-attack victims, etc. a new lease of life. Victims can undergo a safe and secure treatment, which can help them forget their trauma. People should be able to opt for a cosmetic procedure if they wish to. The enhancement of facial features often adds to the self-confidence of a person.

The future will also have Integrated Stem Cell technology that will help regenerate new cells. Besides these, several ongoing medical experiments will bring about contributory changes in the future. For now, Dr. Alqahtani assures that plastic surgery is no longer a stigma but a new way of looking at your own life.

See more here:
Mohammed Hussain Alqahtani Discusses the Future of Plastic Surgery - The Jerusalem Post

The story of how a biotech co. came to the aid of an ill 9-year-old boy – Stockhouse

Nine years old. All of a boy. Pale in complexion with short brown hair, Cal’s hazel eyes smile beyond his predicament.

Running out of his classroom to his beloved music room, Cal was engrossed in his thoughts of playing Mozart’s Minuet in G Major perfectly for Miss Smith.

STOP his brain screamed! As he stopped to catch his breath, barely 40 feet from his classroom, Cal needed oxygen.

Defensively switching to a cheerful smile to cope with the classmates who ran by, Cal weaved to the wall, untangling his puffer from the ear buds in his pocket. The inhaler worked. Cal caught a breath as the medication permeated his lungs. Cal’s body continuously yearned the oxygen his lungs failed to produce. With his chest tightening relieved temporarily, Cal walked, then rested and walked the last 400 feet to the music room.

Misdiagnosed four times with asthma, Cal finally, the day before, learned he needed a heart and lung transplant. He was terminally ill. With Cal at her side, the Doctors at MSU gave his Mom the bad news: Cal had idiopathic pulmonary hypertension and a congenital heart defect. With a heart/lung transplant, he was given five to seven years to live. Unfortunately, without it, his lung condition would worsen very rapidly.

Cal struggled to remember the exact term the doctor used to describe his condition. Idiopathic, he remembered. Ruminating for the term, Cal greeted Miss Smith with a smile and a hello!”as he stepped into the classroom and sat at the piano. Idiopathic pulmonary hypertension,” Cal blurted unconsciously aloud. Pardon me,” asked Miss Smith? Cal shrugged his shoulders and smiled as he turned to Miss Smith: Mozart Minuet in G Major, Miss Smith,” he said.

Just then, Cal flashed the look on the doctor’s face when he told him that he had an inoperable hole in his heart, too. Inoperable because his lung pressure was three times normal. That explained the tightness in his chest.

Composed. Cal closed his eyes, smiled to himself, opened his eyes and started playing Mozart’s Minuet in G Major on the piano, perfectly.

Six days later, Cal’s Mom found ACP-01 online. Was it the answer to her prayers? It certainly seemed promising.

Two appointments later with Dr. G, Cal was told his own stem cells converted into angiogenic cell precursors (ACP) by Hemostemix (TSX-V:HEM, OTC: HMTFX, Forum) could treat his lung condition and perhaps reverse it. Dr. G explained his options: 1. Cal could wait and hopefully be eligible for a heart/lung transplant, if a donor match could be found in time. Or, 2. Immediately, Cal could use his own stem cells to regenerate lung function in a week. If it worked, he would regain lung function he thought was lost forever.

Looking at his Mom, Cal saw could read her face Finally, Cal, I think our prayers may be answered.”

Within two months of the procedure, Cal’s lung pressures decreased 50% and stabilized. Within three months, Cal's heart repair surgery was a go! Verified by imaging, following ACP-01 treatment, Cal’s heart was remodelling itself back to its normal size.

Cal has since lived nine years without medication and one year, the 10th since his procedure, with medication. Cal will undergo a second ACP-01 treatment shortly.

A true story, Cal is one of 500 hundred compassionate care patients who have been treated with their own stem cells processed into ACP-01. Like nearly 80% of recipients, Cal regained a quality of life he thought was lost forever.

In our view, given the Company’s current valuation ($7,600,000), Hemostemix represents one of the best biotech risk reward investments on the market.

For more information, Contact: Thomas Smeenk, Co-Founder, President & CEO 905-580-4170

FULL DISCLOSURE: Hemostemix Inc. is a client of Stockhouse Publishing.

Read more:
The story of how a biotech co. came to the aid of an ill 9-year-old boy - Stockhouse

Where Amy Coney Barrett Stands on IVF – Glamour

Nobody knows how Barrett, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, would vote on Roe v. Wade, or how it will affect the business of IVF. (The industryis estimated to be worth$25 billion globally, and is predicted to grow to $41 billion by 2026, according to Catherine Waldby, author of The Oocyte Economy: The Changing Meaning of Human Eggs.) But overturning Roe v. Wade, chipping away at abortion access, or even supporting personhood legislation threaten not only fertility treatment like IVF, but stem-cell research, contraceptives, and even the treatment of miscarriages (including one proposed bill that would mandate funerals for miscarriages).

IVF is pro-family.

Infertility is a disease, says Lora Shahine, M.D., a reproductive endocrinologist specializing in infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss at Pacific NW Fertility and IVF Specialists in Seattle, referring to the World Health Organizations definition of infertility as a disease. For people trying to build a family, IVF is the only medical treatment to the disease. Its that simple. You would be limiting the ability of Americans to build families. For someone who is dedicated to families, that seems kind of intuitive. IVF is pro-family.

Should Amy Coney Barrett be seated to the Supreme Court, with her publicly stated positions that would severely hamper fertility treatments making them less effective and less safe, we fear that reproductive health care would be set back many decades, endangering the families for which we care, the doctors wrote in Fertility and Sterility.

IVF parents like me are speaking out with the hashtag #ThanksIVF.

Most of us know someone (or are that someone) who has used IVF to help build their families, tweeted Pietro Bortoletto, M.D. (@BortolettoMD). We are all worried about SCOTUS nominee ACB's view on IVF.

While some criticize IVF, I remain grateful that this path to parenthood exists, says infertility advocate Jennifer Jay Palumbo. To meet my son or to look in the eyes of any other child conceived through assisted reproductive technology and dismiss their existence is unconscionable. While there are many family-building options available, we all have the right to explore the God-given gift of medical science first to try to have a biological child, if thats what we wish.

Amy Klein is the author of The Trying Game: Get Through Fertility Treatment and Get Pregnant Without Losing Your Mind.

Go here to see the original:
Where Amy Coney Barrett Stands on IVF - Glamour

Regeneron, Trump, and the alleged hypocrisy of the pro-life movement – Christian Post

By Michael Brown, CP Op-Ed Contributor | Thursday, October 15, 2020

Have you heard the latest? Trump cannot be pro-life since he used and is promoting the anti-COVID drug Regeneron, which was allegedly developed with the help of fetal tissue. And pro-life organizations are being hypocritical by refusing to condemn the drug. Is there any truth to these charges?

As reported by the UK Metro, Trump faces hypocrisy allegations after it was revealed Regeneron is made from stem cells originally taken from an embryonic kidney. That kidney was taken during an elective abortion performed in the Netherlands during the 1970s.

More bluntly, the MIT Technology Review claimed, Trumps antibody treatment was tested using cells originally derived from an abortion.

The Trump administration has looked to curtail research with fetal cells. But when it was life or death for the president, no one objected.

As for pro-life organizations, a lengthy headline on Business Insider stated, Antiabortion groups say they stand behind Trump's use of a drug tested on cells derived from an aborted fetus because the president was not involved with that abortion.

How should pro-life Trump voters respond to these concerns?

Lets say that Regeneron was actually developed with the help of fetal tissue. Does anyone actually think that doctors came to Trump and said, Mr. President, we have an experimental drug that was tested and developed using tissue from an aborted baby from the 1970s. How do you feel about using this?

Only the most hardened anti-Trumper could imagine such a scenario. In the world of reality, the very thought of it is absurd. And, even if the fetal tissue charges are true, who knew about this? Was this something that any of the doctors would have been aware of? I very seriously doubt it, especially when, as we shall see, Regeneron itself denies the charge.

Join over 250,000 others to get the top stories curated daily, plus special offers!

Join over 250,000 others to get the top stories curated daily, plus special offers!

It is therefore completely ridiculous to claim that Trump is being hypocritical in using Regeneron, as if he knew the alleged history of the drug.

But that leads us back to the big question: Did Regeneron use fetal tissue from a baby aborted in the 1970s?

Another headline on Business Insider stated, One of Trump's COVID-19 treatments was developed using tissue that originally came from an abortion. He's tried to ban this kind of research.

This is being widely reported as established fact. But is it true?

In an official statement for the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, David Prentice, Ph.D. and Tara Sander Lee, Ph.D., wrote:

The Regeneron therapy given to the president was made in Velocimmune humanized mice, a novel platform that uses genetically modifiedmouse embryonic stem (ES)cells to generate antibodies describedhereandhere.Development of Regenerons antibody cocktail is detailed in the journalScience, describing how they identified their antibodies made from Velocimmune miceandblood from recovered patientspreviously infected with SARS-CoV-2.The final antibody pair used in theREGN-COV2 therapycocktail was then produced inChinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells.Results from Regenerons REGN-COV2 clinical trials to treat COVID-19 patients are reportedhere.

Mouseembryonic stem cells and genetic modifications to make such mice date back to 1981, have been extensively studied, and were instrumental in the discovery of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, another fully ethical alternative to fetal material, as discussed in thisNaturereview.iPSCs are much easier to use thanhuman embryonic stem cells,more flexible in their uses, and are not ethically controversial. No one has ever advocated against using mouse embryonic stem cells for development of therapies only against destruction of human lives.

In a statement made to The Christian Post, Alexandra Bowie, a spokesperson for Regeneron, explained, We did not use human stem cells or human embryonic stem cells in the development of REGN-COV2. We did use the HEK293T cell line to test our antibodies ability to neutralize the SARS-CoV-2 virus (they were used to make pseudovirus that looks like the Spike protein).

HEK293s are considered immortalized cells and are a common and widespread tool in research labs. The cell line was originally derived by adenovirus transformation of human embryonic kidney cells in 1977.

After this, it was further transformed at Stanford in the 80s with SV40 T-antigen (hence the T). HEK293T wasnt used in any other way and fetal tissue was not used in this research.

Im not a medical doctor or a scientist, but it seems clear from these descriptions (and from what I could glean from Regenerons technical article published in the journal Science, also cited above) that there is hardly a direct connection between the drug and an aborted baby.

Still, there is so much misinformation going viral online that Dr. Tara Lee started a Twitter account just to rebut the misconceptions. (Lees Twitter bio identifies her as Researcher, Clinical Scientist, Science Policy Advisor. PhD. Senior Fellow & Director of Life Sciences @lozierinstitute. For LIFE in this world and the next.)

She summarized the evidence in simple and clear terms: NO human embryonic stem cells or human fetal tissue were used to produce the treatments President Trump received period.

So, Regeneron denies that it used embryonic cells and other scientists deny it. This completely undermines the charge that pro-life groups are being hypocritical for not condemning the use of the drug (and the presidents promotion of it).

That being said, some pro-life groups have, in fact, opined that, even if testing for the drug could be traced back to an abortion in the 1970s, Trump had nothing to do with any of this and is therefore not being hypocritical in promoting the drug.

Is there some hypocrisy in this response?

Thats a fair question, and its the type of question that ethicists debate. If you could save the lives of many people using a drug that was developed with the help of aborted fetal cells, is that justifiable?

My answer to those accusing the president with hypocrisy is threefold. First, as stated here, its unlikely in the extreme he had any idea of the alleged abortion connection. Second, scientists from Regeneron deny any connection to human fetal cells, and Trump would presumably take them at their word. Third, if Regeneron had been developed with the help of an aborted baby, there would then be a serious ethical debate as to its use.

Still, with all that being said, it is grasping at straws to question the pro-life commitment of these organizations (along with that of President Trump). Thats because we are comparing the willful killing of more than 60 million babies in the womb, often out of convenience, with the possible, distant connection of a life-saving drug to a baby aborted in the 1970s. Who would seriously make such a comparison?

When it comes to the question of the benefit of embryonic cells in the development of medical cures, Dr. Lee noted that, Fetal tissue from aborted babies is not required for medical advancements. After 100+ years of research, no therapies have been developed that needed aborted fetal tissue to begin with. Newer & better ethical alternatives are available & being used now to make humanized mice.

There is, therefore, no justification for using embryonic fetus cells in medical research, and the Regeneron drug does not contradict this at all.

Of course, as readers here know well, I have no problem identifying President Trumps many, evident shortcomings, some of which can be quite destructive. And I continue to shake my head over some of the things he says.

But to call him a hypocrite or to question his pro-life commitment because he used Regeneron is to reveal ones anti-Trump animus. It indicts the accuser far more than it indicts the accused.

Join over 250,000 others to get the top stories curated daily, plus special offers!

Join over 250,000 others to get the top stories curated daily, plus special offers!

Dr. Michael Brown(www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicatedLine of Fireradio program. His latest book isEvangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test?Connect with him onFacebook,Twitter, orYouTube.

Go here to see the original:
Regeneron, Trump, and the alleged hypocrisy of the pro-life movement - Christian Post

Life Sciences – a year to remember – Lexology

The Life Sciences sector has not been as newsworthy, pressured and flush with investors in living memory. The arrival of COVID-19 in 2020 has suddenly and emphatically focused attention on Life Sciences. The perception of the sector, and the reality of how it operates, has shifted. But in truth, Pharma was already changing.

Trends unrelated to the pandemic began with the shift away from searching for big-earning blockbuster drugs treating broad indications. Cost-effective opportunities in this type of market are dwindling, in the face of ever-increasing R&D and approval costs. Meanwhile, the shift to precision medicine has accelerated. Digital technology and biotechnology continue to make deeper inroads and stronger interconnections in how treatments are researched, developed and consumed. And those are just some of the developments.

Back in the distant, pre-COVID world of 2019, the Pharma industry was being dogged by the competing pricing concerns of payers and producers, with increasing pressure against companies seen to be benefiting from a monopoly on human health. Calls for tighter regulation on prices were particularly prevalent in the US, becoming a major theme of political debates.

A change in perception

Then along came COVID. Much as a global conflict usually sees major advances in weaponry, this global pandemic has seen a rapid boost in life science technology, collaboration and funding, as pharma companies, research organisations, SMEs and universities collectively search for a vaccine. The perception of Big Pharma has shifted correspondingly, from profiteers to potential saviours. It is probably true to say that never has so much been known about the sector by so many, in such a short space of time.

The growth of interest in Life Sciences has included investors; funding in 2020 has been incredibly strong. Biotech companies comprised 80% of all US IPOs in the first quarter and the US Nasdaq Biotechnology Index neared a five-year high in late April.

The US is the leader for investment by a big margin, but China has also seen some large investment rounds. Investors apparently see the sector as economy-proof and this is underpinned by a stronger public perception.

Tech advances

What of the technology? It has changed the R&D landscape, significantly reducing costs. Closer ties between tech and biotech are driving speedier, more targeted drug development, replacing the previous time-consuming trial and error required to prove theories. Interaction simulations can be run at the click of a button and clinical trials can progress more rapidly and cost-effectively through technology-aided efficiencies.

As R&D expense reduces and the remaining available blockbuster indications diminish, addressing smaller markets and niche illnesses has become more commercially viable alongside the long-standing medical needs. AI is invaluable in finding links in the rapidly accumulating global data resources. It is also creating more platform plays and modular business plans designed for biotech companies to bolt onto. And it is assisting clinicians by enabling faster, accurate reviews, such as analysing scans for breast cancer.

Enabling better prevention

Technology is also improving the quality of preventative medicine. Apps are helping doctors carry out remote diagnosis and secure more real-time, comprehensive feedback. Taking advantage of the Internet of Things, devices such as smart toilets can collect and analyse samples, and provide early warning of kidney or gastro-intestinal diseases. Spotting problems before they develop has physical, emotional and financial benefits for individuals, and the use of virtual coaches can support this by guiding patients through a healthier, preventative lifestyle.

More effective therapies

At the leading edge of life sciences, tech is helping new therapies to be better understood and utilised. Cell therapy is identifying and developing stem cells suitable for specialised uses, such as dopamine producers that could combat Parkinsons disease. Better gene editing tools are delivering improvements in gene therapy, while next-generation genome sequencing is allowing the development of precision medicines to previously unattainable levels.

The race for a vaccine

Crucially, and taking us back to where we started, vaccines can be constructed differently a point more pertinent than ever as science attempts to race towards an effective COVID-19 cure.

And its side effects

Is there a downside to all this? Yes. COVID has understandably monopolised attention and pushed back most other drug trials. Around half of non-COVID trials have been delayed this year, with critical developments put on hold and many biotech firms effectively in hibernation.

Whilst the true impact of these delays remains uncertain, there have nevertheless been a number of positives for the life sciences sector in 2020.

Positives for life sciences

Public and investor perception of pharma and life sciences has improved, with a resultant increase in funding and greater interest in careers in the sector. More specialised, precision medicine is giving fresh hope to those facing currently untreatable illnesses. Advances in tech-enabled diagnosis, drug development, dosing and monitoring have accelerated progress, with the spotlight on vaccines, genetic testing and monitoring leading to greater prominence on prevention.

Many of us are getting accustomed to the new normal acknowledging that post-COVID life will never be quite the same as it was before. The pandemic has resulted in a new normal emerging for life sciences too: greater collaboration, potentially faster trials and approval, and more integration of technology leading to more targeted and effective prevention and treatment.

Memories are often short, so how long life science advances will stay in the limelight is open to conjecture. But at this point in our state of the nation review, the life sciences sector is looking encouragingly healthy.

See more here:
Life Sciences - a year to remember - Lexology