Talk:Stem cell treatments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject
MCB Portal
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low-importance within molecular and cellular biology.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Oh my God

Why isn't the passage "Some scientists see shift in stem cell hopes" deleted? Apparently, it's the view of one researcher! Add to this - a researcher previously unheard of. Are we going to cite every single individual on Gods gray earth from now on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.8.10.77 (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baldness/2007

The treatment for baldness discusses predictions that it may be treated by "as early as 2007", which doesn't fit at this time. I'm just leaving it in the open, could someone update this?

Ask Ken Washenik, MD, PhD. Washenik is medical director for Bosley. Or see what he has published since 2004. Larry R. Holmgren 15:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[1] International Congress of Hair Research, Vancouver, Canada; June 13-16, 2007. "Tissue Engineering of Hair Follicles", 6-14-07 scheduled presentation by Washenik. It sounds like he is still working on it.

[edit] Spinal cord treatment

The case of the Korean scientists was found to have been faked. MSNBC Article MoHaG 14:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear MoHaG, Let me just be quick: Wrong. The article that you cite refers to the most famous embryonic stem cell quack the world has ever known, Hwang Woo-Suk, a Korean scientist that exploited the over-blown hype of the embyronic stem cell research that Ron Reagan, Jr. and John Edwards created during the 2004 Presidential campaign. The Korean scientists referred to in this Wikipedia article, that you incorrectly point to as a fraud, are a team of Korean scientists led by Hoon Han, who posseses an M.D. and a Ph.D. You are confusing the wonderful work done by an adult stem cell researcher, Dr. Han, and the bogus, fraudulent work done by Dr. Woo-Suk, a quack embryonic stem cell researcher. Please check your facts. the MSNBC artice that you refer to clearly talks about Dr Woo-Suk, not Dr. Han. Also, if you read the article that you cited, the MSNBC article, then you would have read: "The scientist had claimed in two papers published in the journal Science in 2004 and 2005 that he created the world’s first cloned human embryos and extracted stem cells from them." It does NOT state in anyway that Dr. Woo-Suk was working on spinal cord therapy work, the work that Dr. Han engaged in and is the work referred to in the Wikipedia article that you incorrectly criticize. --70.114.205.215 20:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE NEEDED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.53.142 (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The story of the spinal cord treatment which helped a woman (Hwang Mi-soon) walk, while true, it's not up to date. More recent articles have said that the second operation was a failure and question the results from the first treatment. Links: [2] [3]

[edit] Stem cell to gamete transformation

See this press release from Newcastle university. This happened in July but seems to have made not a ripple on Wikipedia.

[edit] This article needs some help!

References that don't go anywhere,! Links that are unimportant! Aggh! I guess I better get to working. Kopf1988 18:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs a lot of work.
I just did a partial revert on a comment that skin and bone marrow grafts are "stem cell treatments".
  • First, I'd point out that not all cell therapies are stem cell treatments.
  • Second, is that tissue grafting (allografts and autografts) is a long standing practice that I would be very reluctant to even call a cell therapy (they are tissue grafting or tissue therapies).
  • [Bone marrow transplant]s I guess could be called a stem cell treatment, although it is a very mixed population of stromal stem cells, haematopoietic stem cells, and other more differentiated cells. I'll leave it in and give BMT the most liberal interpretation in terms of being a stem cell treatment.
Dr Aaron 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deafness section

I've noticed that the deafness section seems a tad bit small, couldn't something be taken from the reference and paraphrased into the section? 76.16.94.24 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Redirected from Regenerative medicine)

I don't think Regenerative medicine is synonamus with Stem Cell therapy I think there are a wide veriety Regenerative medicines and therapies such as nanotechnologies in the future

I agree. Dr Aaron 07:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

I just took a firm hand and edited the page - it was becoming a bit wooly & out of control. Amongst the changes:

  • I removed a section on muscle stem cell therapy - it was on cardiac (heart) stem cell therapy & was completely unreferenced. I know of work on human stem cell therapy for muscular dystrophy that would go well in a muscle section, and if anyone wants to look into it before I get a chance, then go ahead.
  • I reordered everything to make it flow better - all the human therapies, animal therapies, controversy, then "updates". I actually think the updates stuff doesn't add much, but I thought I'd let people make comments before cutting these bits completely.
  • I cut back the sections of the controversy blurb that went into detail about US policy.
  • I did take a scrub cutter to the Stem cell therapies in China section. It seemed like an adverstisement for Chinese Biotech. Completely biased and inadequately referenced. I didn't cut the whole section as it is good to have non-US aspects to the page, though from a purely impartial standpoint I don't think it adds much to someone who wants to know about stem cell treatments. If there were some specific Chinese study results that were reported that would be something!

Anyway, that's my 2c for today. Dr Aaron 07:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup tag removal?

This article has been tagged the 10th of october, the reason is not present here. Incorrect facts? 50 or more revisions have been done since. If this article appears correct the cleanup tag can go. if this page is prone to innaccuracies and vandalism it should be a protected: stem cells is. if you are an expert on the subject, feel free to resolve this. cleanup tags are good but they just pile up as they are easy too use --Squidonius (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Research on the Chinese stem cell therapies

The Chinese therapy section here needed a lot of work. Beike is not the only company delivering therapy but I don't want to start a list inappropriately. At the same time, I'm interested to see how the Wikipedia community responds to sources outside of the western milieu. I'm researching the Chinese stem cell industry right now and, American standards of medical exploration aside, they're confidently delivering therapy to thousands of people here and now without fear. The top part of the article seems appropriate only through the lens of ethnocentric exclusion. Stem cell therapies are being delivered around the world--not just in China. It might be useful, and academically fascinating, to point out the dissonance between the eastern and western approaches to this science rather than simply deny therapy validity on western grounds of insufficient back-story--any FDA-approved process. The FDA's own historiographic vetting system is designed toward the anticipation of a short-term chemical rather than a long-term biological product.

It will be interesting to watch the development of this article. Like Columbus 'discovering' the new world and the native populations saying "Wait a sec," will the record resolve down to, as Eddie Izzard says, whether or not "you have a flag"?

Shoushan (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category & research centers

Currently Regenerative medicine redirects here, and there is no obvious category Regenerative medicine to sit above both stem cells and Rejuvenation (aging). If there is no objection, I will create the category in a day or two.

Also organizattiosn such as New York Stem Cell Foundation‎ and McEwan Center for Regenerative Medicine do not have a clear category.

Any ideas? History2007 (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)