AdultStemCell.com

Gerald Armstrong asked:


Did you know that aging begins at 30! And every second somewhere in the world someone turns 50! And the quality of life for the average person stops at age 51. After that, it takes medical intervention to manage their symptoms to maintain their “health”. And only 1 in 10,000 people makes it to 100 years old… and a shocking proportion of those people who reach the age of 100 are very poor! “Aging is a barbarick phenomenon that shouldn’t be tolerated in polite society,” says University of Cambridge gerentologist Aubrey de Grey. I Gerald Armstrong the owner of Gen Cells Cures agree. The stem cell research including therapeutic cloning and genomics research needs to bo done now to accomplish our goal of finding the cure for old age.

Why doesn’t everyone want the cure for old age? You tell me I simply don’t understand why more people don’t want the cure for old age. So little money goes into research to cure old age that it’s a crying shame! Maybe it’s because people don’t believe it can be done. Since the dawn of time there have always been critics and skeptics who sit at the sidelines and say it can’t be done or that we are pushing snake oil cures etc. Make no mistake about it Gen Cells Cures has our critics. Food for thought about skeptics and critics: The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits. Albert Einstein. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistingushable from magic. Arthur C. Clark. We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. Plato. Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former. Albert Einstein. Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed. Thomas Henry Huxley. In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei.

Main stream scientists are sometimes afraid to get involved in serious gerentology for fear of being branded whackos. Well. let me give it to you straight fom the horses mouth the technologies are now here to do the job. They are in our very own hands. I want to remind you that when Neil Armstrong (I like to call him Uncle Neil) became the first human to step foot on the moon, on July 20, 1969 I knew that humans would live to be 200 years old and beyond with just a little research. However since 1969 serious gerentology has been put on the back burner. Only in the past five years or so has the science of gerentolgy began to accelerate with the discovery of stem cells, cloning and rapid advances in genomics. With todays science nothing is impossible.

Lets talk about 1969 for one second, Viet Nam, Flower Power, free love, a new generation, my generation, we thought we would live forever, and we didn’t trust any one over thirty. I was right there in Hait Ashbury. I know the younger generations since then have envied our time and they should, it was the life! Jimi Hendrix’s guitar was screaming “All Along The Watchtower” and we still had Elvis too! Well, I am a baby bomer and want some of it back. Yes, I am young for 55 but I can see what’s coming around the corner for me and my fellow hippies from 1969 (If they are still alive). And it isn’t pretty. No matter what generation your from, just stop and imagine for one moment what it would be like to have your youth back. Have you ever noticed how time flys like a jet airplane. Something has got to be done and we are going to do it right here in the labs at Gen Cell Cures.

How are we going to find the cure for old age?

Through stem cell research including therapeutic cloning and genomics research.The most difficult part of the nearly unthinkable has already been done. Through therapeutic cloning technologies we can take a patients cell back to the beginning of life. Now all that’s lacking is to perfect these technologies and take them from the bench to the patient. The Koreans human cloning experiments have opened the door wider on therapeutic cloning. We here at Gen Cells Cures have found that the Korean’s new technique of squeezing out the DNA from the egg cell works much better than sucking out the DNA with a tiny needle. Their cloning process was a spectacular achievememt.

Our biologists can re-set your aging clock. It’s just a matter of time. Take a look at your own clock. What time is it? What year is it? How old am I? Where has my life gone? If you want to get the staight scoop on aging contact Miller Quarles of the “Curing Old Age Foundation” or ask Harry Bernstein (“How Do I Move On Without My Soulmate?” Newsweek). From King Tut to Howard Hughes we all face the same dread …No matter how well we succeed in life, we’re all fated to loose it in the end to that pitiless serial killer- old age.

So is Gen Cells Cures suggesting there is a cure right now? Absolutely not, and the anti-aging clinics may be just a little bit ahead of their time. We do disagree with some mainstream scientists in that they do not believe aging can be researched as a disease. We believe aging is at the top of list of the deadly incurable diseases that can be cured. The cure is just around the corner. But the research has to be done and the sooner the better because time waits for no one, no matter how big your wallet is. If you don’t reach into your wallet and do the right thing. Sooner or later you won’t even be able to lift a finger to write the check. Age can and will kill you. Make no mistake about it aging is a disease to be feared. Yes, the disease of aging brings out the fear of God. However, I believe God wouldn’t have given us the ability to cure aging if he didn’t want us to find the cure. Scientists have succeeded in extending the life of some model organisms and humans are next. Currently there is no magic pill. The magic pill will be found in research and to accelerate that research we are recomending private research. You have a family doctor and other specialists. The time has arrived for you to have your own life-sciences researchers. The future is in stem cell research, therapeutic cloning and gernomics!.

Growing old is not all fun. We’re proned to rheumatism, gout, vision loss, hearing loss, and worst of all sexual disfuntion. Some need new knees, new hips, a pacemaker. Aging can be cured the same as any other disease. There is a lack of funds and public support for genuine ant-aging research. Many people tend to see Cancer and Alzheimer’s disease as theoreticaly curable, like polio, but aging as inevitable. There will always be the nay sayers until the cure arrives. We are very excited about the future possibilities from our specialzed research. What good is it if we find your cancer cure, heart disease cure, or stroke cure if we just turn around and let you die from old age. Those of us who have become convinced that aging is the root of nearly all late-life illnesses have not yet won over those of you who have the power to fund further research. For those of you who can see the light at the end of the tunnel for curing old age as we see it clearly shining on the other side of that tunnel may contact Gerald Armstrong from Gen Cells Cures. We can discuss your personal involvement in the cure for old age and other incurable diseases. Yes, even one person can make a difference in our futures and that one person could be you.

Article by Gerald Armstrong- scientist0707@yahoo.com Gerald is the owner of Gen Cells Cures Visit his group for information about “the cure” for incurable diseases and aging. Group address http://www.msnusers.com/cures

You have my permission to publish this article electronically or in print, free of charge, as long as the bylines are included. A courtesy copy of your publication would be appreciated.

Sowjanya S asked:


Suddenly, stem cells are everywhere. Once referred to mostly in health journals, these microscopic clusters have made their way into news, research reports, business reports etc. The complexity surrounding these relatively simple cells has increased every second.

Recent studies suggest these cells may hold the secret to treatment, even cures for some of our most inexplicable diseases, including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

Embryonic stem cells are controversial. They come from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst (term for a fertilized egg). At the heart of the stem cell debate is a battle – over abortion as, these are cells from embryos. According to the religious orthodoxy, an embryo is life. But these cells also hold great promise for millions of ailing patients and their families. Moreover, many of the embryos would otherwise be unceremoniously discarded.

Until very recently, the vast majority of stem cells used in research came from discarded (or excess) embryos stored at in-vitro fertilization clinics. If potential parents decide against having more children, scientists working with stem cells might ask them to consider donating the unneeded embryos to research.

Adult stem cells taken from the blood or organs of healthy adults have recently demonstrated an unexpected adaptability in lab experiments. But these cells are marginally helpful to scientists, and do not show the same promise as those culled from embryos. Adult cells are fairly set in their ways, and don’t seem to grow or replicate themselves as quickly as their younger counterparts.

New techniques for gathering the cells are in quiet development; scientists are generally wary of disclosure, because public reaction is difficult to predict. Revelations that scientists at a privately-funded fertility clinic are growing human embryos with the intent of harvesting stem cells have provoked widespread hand-wringing, among both advocates and opponents of stem cell research. Advocates worry that publicizing such a blatant and systematic cell harvesting procedure can only harden hearts against the science; in the crude terms of public relations, using stem cells from discarded embryos is one thing, but purposefully creating an embryo only to dismantle it is something else altogether. Opponents of the research see the clinic’s methodology as the best indication yet that we are carelessly sliding down the slippery slope of destroying human life in order to advance our scientific curiosity.

www.BrandPrinciples.com

Don Margolis asked:


Wales native, Michael Epps was just a normal 21 year old, playing soccer everyday while working in a warehouse. In 2007, unfortunately, for no apparent reason, Michael started suffering from horrible pains throughout his body. The doctors examined him thoroughly and gave him the dreaded diagnosis of Motor Neurone Disease.

A disease that normally occurs in people over the age of 60, Epps is believed to be one of the youngest patients ever to suffer from Motor Neurone Disease. The complications of Motor Neurone Disease include muscle deterioration, loss of mobility, and the disease eventually affects the ability to breathe, speak, and swallow.

Luckily, Michael’s parents came up with a plan. After doing some stem cell research on the internet, they saw that adult stem cells were helping patients with similar conditions to Michael’s. Therefore, when Michael’s sister Rhys was born, they froze the umblicial cord stem cells extracted from the cord blood. Later on, the cord blood stem cells along with Michael went to China where a stem cell doctor implanted the matching cord blood stem cells into Michael’s spinal cord.

It took almost 6 months, but eventually Michael began to see signs of improvement. These days, although not yet 100%, Michael’s condition has stopped deteriorating and now he is actually improving. There is much more definition in his muscles and he doesn’t need a wheelchair anymore.

Michael’s doctors believed Michael would have died in March 2008 and while the future is still unknown for Michael, he has plenty of hope now and is still trying to improve his quality of life.

Yvonne Perry asked:

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a  chronic neurological disorder that produces symptoms such as confusion, decreased dexterity, insomnia, lack of motor coordination, memory loss, shaking, stiff muscles, and tremors. Stem cells are an undifferentiated group of cells, which, depending on their surrounding conditions, are capable of developing into other types of cells such as liver cells, kidney cells, brain cells, or any of the other 260 different types of cells that make up the human body.

When Dr. Mehmet Oz appeared on Oprah Winfrey’s show in March 2009, he showed a section of the human brain where lines are not present in a person who has Parkinson’s disease. He believes that stem cells could be placed in that area to regenerate the damaged brain. He predicted that the use of stem cells to treat Parkinson’s disease would begin in about eight years. What he obviously does not realize is that a clinic in Mexico has been using placental stem cells derived from placenta (afterbirth) to successfully treat  Parkinson’s for 18 years! That’s about how long actor Michael J. Fox (known in the early ’80s as Alex P. Keaton on the hit show Family Ties) has been living with the illness.

Since Mr. Fox is an advocate for stem cell treatment, it surprises me that he hasn’t taken advantage of treatments offered in other countries. Maybe he doesn’t know the treatment is available.  But it is, and ISCI founder Rita Alexander is a first-hand witness of the results seen in patients who have been treated for cancer, cerebral palsy, dermatomyositis, diabetes, hepatitis C, HIV, immune deficiency, kidney disorders, multiple sclerosis, migraines, muscular dystrophy, Parkinson’s, retinitis pigmentosa, rheumatoid arthritis, spina bifida, and stroke. Rita has personally received several treatments to relieve the debilitating effect of rheumatoid arthritis.

James Devlin is a resident of Hawaii, but his paradise became a nightmare 15 years ago when he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Unwilling to accept the reality of continual mental and physical decline, he sought answers around the world to stop the disease from taking over his brain and his life. His symptoms were the standard Parkinson’s package including stiff muscles, decreased dexterity and coordination, insomnia, memory loss, confusion, and tremors in his arms which made it difficult for him to feed himself. Normal daily activities such as dressing, eating, and writing became increasingly challenging. James was prescribed a long list of medications to manage the increasing number of symptoms. Two and a half years ago, he found the road to recovery from PD at the International Stem Cell Institute (ISCI).

When Rita first met Mr. Devlin, he was very stiff and rigid, battling constant tremors as he made his way through the airport. When he returned to the clinic six months after his first placental stem cell treatment, his body was relaxed, he walked with ease, the excessive tremors were gone, and a big smile replaced the vacant facial  expression he had just a few months before. After several additional stem cell treatments, James Devlin has been able to eliminate all Parkinson’s medication and spends his days surfing in paradise. At 67 years old, he enjoys a 75 percent recovery.

Unfortunately, not everyone is physically and financially able to travel to Mexico. That is why Rita Alexander started ISCI in April 2008. She wishes many more people who are suffering with Parkinson’s disease knew there were stem cell treatments that could change the course of their lives. ISCI assists with patient education, pre- and post-treatment support, travel logistics, and financial matters regarding treatment. Her goal is to help people access treatment that is already available and to bring the treatment to the U.S.

For more information about ISCI or to arrange a consultation or schedule an appointment, please visit http://www.iStemCelli.com or contactRita Alexander, Executive Director at International Stem Cell Institute, at 800-609-7795.

by RaeA

While yet-to-be parents are advised to plan for cord blood stem cell banking as early as the fourth month of the pregnancy, the costs of storing umbilical cord blood stem cells in private cord clood banks could come to quite a neat sum. Cord Blood Banking offers more information regarding, umbilical cord blood storage, tips for selecting cord blood banks and costs of cord blood banking.

Lawrence Ebert asked:


In January 2006, the journal Science retracted the 2005 paper by university professor Hwang Woo-Suk and co-workers which had proclaimed the existence of patient-specific embryonic stem cell lines. If the paper had been true, it would have suggested that tangible medical applications of embryonic stem cell might be close in time. Concerning the publication of this fraudulent paper, it is interesting to note BOTH that the referees and editors found no difficulty with the paper at submission AND that scientific experts in the embryonic stem cell field did not question the paper prior to the unraveling in December 2005. Nobody in the field could identify a fraudulent paper.

In my paper LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM THE HWANG MATTER: ANALYZING INNOVATION THE RIGHT WAY (88 JPTOS 239 (March 2006)), I noted that incidences of misstatements by academics in the published literature are not uncommon. For example, a Stanford University professor writing in the Stanford Law Review proclaimed that Gary Boone was the inventor of the integrated circuit. Mark A. Lemley, Patenting Nanotechnology, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 601, 612 (2005). This misstatement, ignoring the true inventors Noyce and Kilby, sailed right through the “review” process at the Stanford Law Review. Further, the “message” Lemley drew from the Boone invention of the IC was that The sum of all these stories is rather remarkable: for one reason or another, the basic building blocks of what might be called the enabling technologies of the twentieth century – including the computer, software, the Internet, and biotechnology – all ended up in the public domain. In reality, the IC is an example of a situation in which users had to pay royalties not to just one patent holder, but to two (Texas Instruments AND Fairchild).

Academic research is not the only area in which one must be wary.

Did New Jersey actually fund stem cell research?

A number of publications have suggested that the state of New Jersey was the first state to use public funds for research in embryonic stem cells:

New Jersey officials on Dec. 16, 2005 announced $5
million in grants for stem cell research, including
studies involving human embryonic stem cells. The
awards are said to be the first instance of a state
using public funds for such research.

The grants may appear to be modest compared with those
for other scientific endeavors, but they represent an
important step in New Jersey’s effort to establish a
stem cell research industry. With strong competition
already under way from California and Florida,
supporters say, New Jersey cannot afford to fall
behind.

”The grants we have awarded today are based on
science, not politics, and have been conceived by some
of the brightest minds and best institutions in our
state,” Acting Gov. Richard J. Codey said in a
statement. ”This funding will hopefully set the stage
for a new era in medical treatments that will ease the
suffering of millions and ultimately save lives.”

New York Times, B2, December 17, 2005

California’s pioneering initiative has caused a
backlash, as some states have enacted bans on publicly
funded embryonic stem cell research. Yet others —
including Connecticut, New Jersey, Texas and Illinois
– have recently approved small amounts of state
funding for research.

Los Angeles Times, B1, Feb. 27, 2006

“Californians’ decision to put out a welcome mat to embryonic stem cell research has prompted reaction among states that
don’t want to see a brain drain in biotech.
Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Jersey have passed
state laws to encourage embryonic stem cell research.”

New Jersey Law Journal, Feb. 20, 2006

At this point in time, it is not clear that both houses of the New Jersey state legislature actually approved this expenditure of money, or that actual money has gone from the state of New Jersey to research institutions for funding stem cell research.

Google uses citation hits, not accuracy, to determine ranking of hits in search engine results

People are still only willing to look at the first few tens of results. Because of this, as the collection size grows, search engines need tools that have very high precision (number of relevant documents returned, say in the top tens of results). Indeed, search engines want the notion of “relevant” to only include the very best documents since there may be tens of thousands of slightly relevant documents.

Briefly, Google, in part, assigns “rank” on its search engine results much as Science Citation Index (SCI) assigned the “value” of a scientific paper based on the number of papers who cite to it. Google assumes you will find a given webpage more valuable if others have created links to it.

–> If a human reads a web page and finds it relevant, that human might put a link to it on his or her own site.

–> The higher the number of pages that link to a given web page, the more relevant it is.

Thus was born PageRank, brought to us by a small search engine called Back-Rub that later changed its name to Google.

With Google, we have a strong goal to push more development and understanding into the academic realm. Academics love citation index, and create mutual societies of cross-citation: I’ll cite your paper if you cite mine. Although some will say this is “objective,” a more apt description is that it is “quantifiable” according to relatively simple rules.

The citation (link) graph of the web is an important resource that has largely gone unused in existing web search engines. We have created maps containing as many as 518 million of these hyperlinks, a significant sample of the total. These maps allow rapid calculation of a web page’s “PageRank”, an objective measure of its citation importance that corresponds well with people’s subjective idea of importance. Academic citation literature has been applied to the web, largely by counting citations or backlinks to a given page. This gives some approximation of a page’s importance or quality. PageRank extends this idea by not counting links from all pages equally, and by normalizing by the number of links on a page. Links from well-linked pages are better indicators of quality.

An interesting example of why Google’s ranking system is not necessarily effective was in a study of Google searches for +”patent reform” +2795, in the time period after Lamar Smith’s HR 2795 on patent reform was introduced in June 2005. Initially, Google searches seemed rather underinclusive, but at least gave hits relevant to the content of the bill. As time went on, the number of hits increased dramatically, but there was an almost selective “weeding out” of substantive hits (those which really discussed the content of HR 2795 and what it might mean) in favor of more popular hits giving only cosmetic discussion of the bill. Webpages with significant content were almost eliminated.

Of the integrated circuit theme, a Google search of +Noyce +Kilby +”integrated circuit” on April 21 produced 34,300 hits. A search of +Boone +”intgrated circuit” produced 23,300, the first two hits of the search being directed to the case:

#1. http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/comments/96_1514.htm on the case Hyatt v. Boone

#2. http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/Federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1514.html on the case

Lemley’s “Patenting Nanotechnology” was among the hits:

lawreview.stanford.edu/content/issue2/lemley.pdf

siepr.stanford.edu/programs/SST_Seminars/Patenting_Nanotechnology.pdf

Thus, Googling can lead you to the conclusion that Gary Boone invented the integrated circuit.