I just couldn't believe it. I read in one discussion forum where one person made a big stink about a current year long study using a deaf baby's own cord blood stem cells to treat the baby's own sensorineural deafness (which has so far appears to continue to
help restore the baby's hearing loss) saying it needs to be experimented on animals first to determine the safety of cord blood stem cells. First off, the blood cord stem cells are compatible only to the baby and not in some animal. That sort of ill-conceived logic was enough to make my jaw drop. Secondly, cord blood stem cells are being used to treat a variety of conditions and even injuries such as
Traumatic Brain Injury in children in one study which uses the same IV infusion process as with deaf children in a hearing loss treatment Phase I study.
A ground-breaking clinical trial is now underway at The University of
Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth) is an innovative step
in a growing number of studies exploring the potential of stem
cell-based therapies to help initiate repair and induce healing of
damaged brain tissue. The study is being performed in partnership with
Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital, UTHealth's major children's
teaching hospital.
The trial will involve children who have sustained traumatic brain
injuries and who have access to their own umbilical cord blood stem
cells, which were banked at birth. Children who meet the trial
qualifications will travel to Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital to
receive an IV infusion of their cord blood stem cells. They will then be
followed at six months, one year and two years.
"The reason we have become interested in cord blood cells is because
of the possibility of autologous therapy, meaning using your own cells.
And the preclinical models have demonstrated some really fascinating
neurological preservation effects to really support these Phase 1
trials," says Charles S. Cox, M.D., Children's Fund Distinguished
Professor of Pediatric Surgery and Pediatrics at the UTHealth Medical
School, director of the Pediatric Trauma Program at Children's Memorial
Hermann Hosptial, and principle investigator of the trial. "There's
anecdotal experience in other types of neurological injuries that
reassures us in terms of the safety of the approach and there are some
anecdotal hints at it being beneficial in certain types of brain
injury."
The Phase I safety study will enroll 10 children ages 18 months to 17 years who have suffered moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and are within 6 to 18 months of their injury.
People need to understand the potential self-healing (literally) factors of using your own cord blood stem cells. According to The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth) on cord blood stem cells:
Cord blood is one source of stem cells that has shown promise in
preclinical research and is now being explored in experimental
treatments for patients with brain injury. In the preclinical or lab
setting, research has shown that cord blood stem cells have the ability
to divide and change into neural-like cells. Additionally, these
stem cells have been shown to migrate to the area of injury, and to
secrete therapeutic factors, which may help repair brain damage. Further preliminary findings from studies underway at UTHealth indicate
that cord blood stem cells may also alter the body's immune response to
injury, by interacting directly with the organs and cells of the immune
system that enable the body to better repair itself.
In other words, you could possibly (and literally so) heal thyself using your own cord blood stem cells by enabling your body, in the example of
hearing loss in babies, to better repair itself. Especially among babies who gets treated early on and with the help of their own cord blood stem cells, and if it turns out to be successful for the full restoration on hearing, then it becomes a cure. This process would allow deaf babies early on take advantage of the 4 year window of opportunity to take advantage of the active auditory cortex and be able to grow up as a hearing person in every respect. With this Traumatic Brain Injury study and the
Hearing Loss study. We should know more the results of these studies by next year on whether cord blood stem cells treatment is a success or not.
21 comments:
Note that it is cord blood, not blood cord, as you keep calling it.
I never once mentioned you or your blog by name out of respect for your right to privacy, especially because you're married with children. I've tried my best to be vague so you wouldn't get harassed because of me. No matter how much I dislike you, I do have morals. I never once linked to your blog or to your youtube accounts either. Yet you've consistently called me out by name and linked the entire internet world to my personal online accounts. No one would have ever known I was talking about you if you hadnt constantly complained about it on your blog. even when you quoted me, it's very clear in the quote, i never called you out by name.
Have some class and stop this unhealthy cyber-stalking. It's getting really disturbing.
anony @ 7:37 AM: I have been saying "cord blood" but saw a few got switched. I've corrected it. Thank you!
Lotus, not sure why you responded in this blog piece on cord blood stem cells because my blog wasn't about you. Which is why I have not approved your comments because of your improper inputs.
I can see using cord blood for a TBI, or for regrowing a heart, or something that is LIFE THREATENING... but being deaf is not life threatening, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being deaf, there is no fix needed... I for one like being able to turn my ears off, yes, I am getting surgery for a CI, but I like being able to turn my hearing off, being able to sleep through thunder storms, not hear people snoring... why do people have to try to find a way to "fix" every single thing about someone who is different?
That Deaf Girl,
Using your logic then there is nothing wrong for a baby to be blind and has no need for stem cells treatment because being blind is ok and no need for "fixing." There are lots of treatments for non-life threatening conditions that can be done using stem cells. Also, you getting a CI is consider "fixing" your ear, too. Why bother with a CI? Nothing wrong with being deaf. The only difference with stem cells is that it helps the damaged ear to regenerate naturally.
Interesting.
There seems to be a difference on "fixing" vs. "regenerating".
Depends on what is defined as "fixing".
Fixing deafness or differentness? Is there such a word as differentness, lol? One word is about a sensory loss, the other word about, um, perception of how one is treated in society.
Is it better to fix deafness via man-made hearing technology, that is, hearing aids and CI's, or via a natural process of regeneration?
One methodology is artificial, using man-made technology, and the other, natural, using the body's own ability to regenerate.
The human body can regenerate the tongue, liver and nerves, and other animals like birds can regenerate cochlear hair cells, why not enhance this natural process in humans to heal something damaged...or different?
The process to regenerate what's damaged is already there in nature. Medical science just discovered the process. That's the difference.
'Scuse me if I seem to use the word "different" in its infinite variety. Meh.
Ann_C
They won't object if they eyes require "fixing" but they'll object to the ears being "fixed." They won't object if a spinal cord injury is fixed but they'll object to the ears being "fixed."
You can fix just about anything when it comes to the human body, such as stem cells, but don't you DARE fix the ears! See how absurd it has become?
Mike, there is no cure right now. Doctors won't admit tthis.
Anony @ 9:16 AM,
I never said there is a cure. In fact, I said in my last sentence, "We should know more the results of these studies by next year on whether cord blood stem cells treatment is a success or not." For those going around claiming that I'm saying it is now a cure are the idiot lots who know no better. There is still alot to go with this cord blood stem cells and the regeneration of the nerve and ear hair cells of the ear for nerve deafness. We are in a wait and see mode to see whether this procedure is a success. As I said before it appears that it is working. We need more time and evidence for this. And so we wait...
Ok, anony? Do you get it now?
Duh.
To answer your question, Lotus, I bring up my viewpoints only because you have targeted "that blogger" with erroneous information in a public forum in the effort to invite others to join in the fray who already know exactly who you're talking about. What you did wasn't done "out of respect." If that were the case then you would not have brought up "that blogger." Those people who responded to your posts are not idiots to not know who you're talking about. Neither am I and the many others who have seen your posts know who exactly who you're referring to. And lastly, you are the one who made the first move to target that "blogger" .... .twice! If you want correct information all you have to do is ask. But instead of that you choose go after that "blogger." So, please get off of your high horse on the need to talk about "morals" and "respect" here.
No, KokoNUT, it does not appear that it is working, because there has not been a rule out of other variables that could, and most likely are, responsible for any changes in sound response. In order for it to "appear to be working" the doctors would have to document a regenerative effect. They have not.
Additionally, cord blood is not just useful to the fetus from whom it is obtained. You are very mistaken in that.
Likewise, the auditory cortex does not cease to function at the age of 4. Seriously, if you wish to speak on these subjects, at least do the research, and if you don't comprehend, get someone who does to explain the details to you.
This is just another example of your intellectual dishonesty...portraying yourself as informed regarding topics you know nothing about and on which you have a very superficial comprehension.
Publish this.
@Mike,
No I am not attempting to "fix" Myself. I am only going to be using the CI as a tool... I am not expecting anything out of it... except a little access to sound, I know I am not broken, and I know I would be perfectly fine and just as successful without the CI. I am making the choice for myself, so why does that frighten you?
And just so you know, the thread was started out of respect. It was respect for the D/deaf population and the hearing parents of deaf children that you continually attempt to misinform. Respect for you, not so much. Respect for the intelligence of readers to absorb the entire article and not just the pieces that you feel suit your agenda.
Publish this.
anony @2:59,
We both do not know if this improved hearing gain was because of the cord blood stem cells treatment. Again, I made clear that "We should know more the results of these studies by next year on whether cord blood stem cells treatment is a success or not."
I never said auditory cortex ceases to function at age 4. Read again. I said, "This process would allow deaf babies early on take advantage of the 4 year window of opportunity to take advantage of the active auditory cortex..."
It's about a crucial critical period of window of opportunity (age 0 to 4). This is a medical fact involving the auditory cortex.
Dishonest? Again, coming from an anonymous commenter who won't reveal him/herself?
Since you have violated the rules for commenting in here on name calling, your next comment won't be accepted unless you adhere to my posting rules.
anony @3:18 PM,
Out of respect? You're an anonymous person. Doesn't mean much as compared to people who do leave their names behind.
I provided a link for the readers their own perusal. Nothing I wrote was misconstrued. You have a habit of misreading on what gets written (you from Montreal, Quebec and certainly not in "DC," how many times are you going to say "respect" here and elsewhere?) such as the auditory cortex comment you made earlier.
The Deaf Girl,
I didn't say that you were attempting to "fix" yourself, I said, "you getting a CI is consider 'fixing/ your ear, too." I am addressing your logic on getting a CI versus not getting a CI because one is fine on being deaf. I understand if it's related to tinnitus just to get some sound in.
You can make whatever choices you want. Not mine to decide. I am just pointing out that other people consider getting a CI is about "fixing the ear" in order to access sound.
At any rate, good luck with your CI!
Your personal bias and grudges are showing. Anonymous is not the poster you keep attacking. She is a poster from the U.S. who also thinks you are far too impressed with what little knowledge you possess. Think hard. I bet you can figure out who I am, but I am not Lotus, nor am I from Montreal. And the reason I chose anonymous is because everyone knows if I posted my name you would not hestitate to send my posts to the trash bin. We know how you work.
Publish this one, too. And keep making a complete fool of yourself by accusing the wrong person of correcting you, lol.
anony@9:13PM,
As long as you follow the rules (link provided in comment box) your name doesn't matter. What you're saying is a crutch excuse. Just because you have a name doesn't mean automatic trash bin. There are some I don't like but they are welcomed to post comments here. Read the rules and you'll understand. Stay on topic, tho.
anony@7:39 AM,
Who are you? Some anonymous person pretending to be somebody else? Lots of "I"s there I see. Hmmmm...
I never called "that person" out by his/her personal name. I don't even know "that person" personal name and don't care.
If "that person" had morals then why continue discussing "that blogger" in a public forum? "That person" have targeted "that blogger" with erroneous information in a public forum in the effort to invite others to join in the fray who already know exactly who "that person" is talking about. What "that person" did wasn't done "out of respect." Those people who responded to "that person's" posts are not idiots to not know who "that person" is talking about. Neither am I and the many others who have seen "that person's" posts know exactly who the person being referred to. And lastly, "that person" is the one who made the first move to target "that blogger".....twice! If anybody wants correct information all they have to do is ask "that blogger." But instead of that "that person" choose go after "that blogger." So, please get off of the high horse on the need to talk about "morals" here. Especially laughable when "that person" post comments anonymously on the issue of cyberstalking. Talk about being paranoid.
That's it, I guess.
Re-visiting again? So soon? How's the weather in Canada?
Post a Comment