Stem Cell Controversy

Stem cell research has expanded infinitely since its benefits were first discovered in the 1960’s. Now, stem cells can be used to treat many chronic diseases, including leukemia, lymphoma, and schizophrenia. These special cells can develop into different types of cells in the body, and also repair tissues by almost limitless dividing to replenish other cells. After dividing, the cells can either become specialized, such as be a muscle cell, or a red blood cell, or stay as a stem cell. Because of a stem cell’s regenerative abilities, it is extremely useful in chronic disease treatment.

Presently, there are three types of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, and induced pluripotent stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are able to transform into any type of body cell because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are more limited – they can only divide into the same cells from their original tissue. Induced pluripotent stem cells are genetically reprogrammed adult cells that function like an embryonic stem cell (National Institute of Health, 2011).

As you can see, stem cells offer an amazing potential for treatments of many diseases.  Not to mention, the regenerative medicine and cloning sectors can benefit from stem cell research. Researchers can learn more about the development and growth of human cells. Furthermore, with stem cells, scientists will not have to experiment on animals and humans any longer. Drugs can be tested directly on a cell population. Regarding stem cell therapy, researchers are able to study the developmental stages of a human embryo, which will lead to a better treatment for abnormal development in pregnancies. In addition, stem cell therapy lowers the rejection risk of adult cells because they come from the same human body (Health Guidance, 2011). Thus, stem cell therapy has the potential to be more beneficial than other types of treatments.

Adult stem cells have the disadvantage that they can only divide into cells of the same type. Therefore, embryonic stem cells are much more valuable beneficially. The controversy surrounding stem cell research focuses on embryonic stem cells. From using stem cells for research, blastocytes from the laboratory-fertilized human eggs are destroyed. This brings up the ethical debate of what a human is, and when human life exactly begins. Some people believe that human life begins at the exact moment when the sperm fuses with the egg (becoming a zygote). Thus, to these people, embryonic stem cell research and use is morally and ethically wrong. On the other hand, because there is so much still that needs to be explored in the area of stem cell research, there may also be unknown long-term side effects due to stem cell therapy (Health Guidance, 2011). So what do you think? Which side of this controversy do you agree or disagree with?

One thing’s for sure – before using stem cells as regular treatment for chronic diseases, scientists have a lot of work ahead of them!






References
"What Are the Similarities and Differences between Embryonic and Adult Stem Cells? [Stem Cell Information]." NIH Stem Cell Information Home Page. National Institute of Health, 20 Jan. 2011. Web. 27 June 2011. <http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp>.

Ladock, Jason. "Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Therapy." Health Guidance.com. Health Guidance. Web. 27 June 2011. <http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/12366/1/Pros-and-Cons-of-Stem-Cell-Therapy.html>.

Diabetes

Yearly deaths from diabetes total more than breast cancer and AIDS combined. The facts about diabetes are widely available everywhere, and yet there are still numerous websites that encourage myths. In this blog post, I will pick apart one such site, and lead you to reliable websites that give trustworthy information about diabetes.

Take a look at the following website:  http://30daydiabetescure.com/

The first indication that this is an unreliable site, is the advertisement that pops up asking you to purchase a book.

 
The following is a list of other factors:

1.    “Dr. Ripich” is not a medical doctor.

Stated clearly on the “About Dr. Ripich” tab, he is a nurse practitioner. Compared to a doctor’s many years of training, a nurse practitioner only has 24 months (Gupta, 2002). How can a registered nurse’s knowledge of health compete with that of a doctor’s? If nurses and doctors were exchangeable, “we would have stopped using doctors in primary care years ago; doctors would only be in specialty fields” (Gupta, 2002).

2.    He does not take any responsibility for his patients and even admits that the information he provides on his site is not a substitute for professional advice. The disclaimer at the very bottom of his site says:

“The information on this site is intended solely for general educational purposes, and it is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or before making changes to your medication program, diet, or exercise regimen. Reliance on any information provided on this site is solely at your own risk.”

3.    The evidence provided is all anecdotal. There are numerous videos that Dr. Ripich posted of his patients giving testimony to the wondrous results they gained from Dr. Ripich’s methods. Here is a screen-shot of one:

Plus, you get $20 back if you agree to a testimony, so there’s no way to tell if the testimonies are true or something book-buyers were forced to say.

4.    A potential bias is that Dr. Ripich is selling his book for $49.95. As incentives, he offers eight free gifts for purchasing his book online. If you take a look at the Page Source of this website, you will see that he uses “marketing.yahoo.com” and “moonraymarketing.com.” These sites are clearly centered on marketing, and further prove the notion that Dr. Ripich’s priority is to sell his book. Here is a picture of the book that details his “ingenious 30-day plan.”

5.    Dr. Ripich claims that the drug industry will “lose billions of dollars in profits if the truth gets out” – the truth being his “natural cure” for diabetes. However, the World Health Organization (WHO) says that there is a great economical impact on society caused by diabetes. For example, “in the period 2006-2015, China will lose $558 billion in foregone national income due to heart disease, stroke and diabetes alone” (2011).

6.    Dr. Ripich offers “Diabetes Healing Superfoods that you’ll discover on Day 10 of The 30-Day Diabetes Cure.” However, the American Diabetes Association says that “diabetic and ‘dietetic’ foods generally offer no special benefit.” They still raise blood glucose levels, even though they are more expensive. If these “Superfoods” have sugar alcohols, they can also have a “laxative effect” (American Diabetes Association, 2011).

Dr. Rip, as his "patients" affectionately call him? More like Dr. Rip-off!




References
American Diabetes Association. (2011). Diabetes Myths. Retrieved from http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-myths/

Gupta, Rahul. (2002). Nurse practitioners increase access to quality health care for many patients. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1123683/

World Health Organization. (2011). Diabetes. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs312/en/index.html