Month Archives: July 2011

Gov. Rick Perry on upcoming prayer event

by FRC Media Office

July 14, 2011

In an interview with FRC President Tony Perkins and AFA President Tim Wildmon on Today’s Issues Washington Watch Edition, Texas Governor Rick Perry discussed the purpose of The Response prayer event on August 6th.

Here are a couple of points Gov. Perry made during the interview:

I hope literally hundreds of thousands if not millions across this country that day will go into a spiritual…fasting and praying mode. Lifting up this country and asking for Gods will to be done.

On the atheist lawsuit filed against the prayer event:

Isnt it just the type of intolerance to say that we cant gather together in public to pray to our God? That is amazing to me.

Listen to the entire interview here.

Nixon and Reagan: By Their Fruits You Will Know Them

by Robert Morrison

July 14, 2011

It was certainly good to see that former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci recently told Princeton students here for summer internships that Ronald Reagan was a great man and a great president. And it was also good to see Sec. Carlucci ascribe Reagans motives to his strong Christian faith.

Some men want to be president to compensate for deep yearnings within, and psychological wounds. Nixon was one of these. Others seek the presidency for the good they can do in that powerful office. Reagan was one of these.

While I agree with much of what Mr. Carlucci had to say about the two men, I think he falls into the common error of Washington insiders when he says that Nixon was considerably more intelligent than Reagan.

Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence uses a wonderful phrase: Let facts be submitted to a candid world. And as honest old John Adams said, facts are stubborn things.

Here are some important facts about the Nixon and Reagan administrations:

Nixon imposed wage and price controls that every knowledgeable economist knows will not work. (Obama is doing the same thing with health care).

Under Nixon, Americans stood in line for gas. We could buy it only on odd and even days. (I once had to drive into Canada on a Sunday in order to get gas.)

Reagan abolished all price controls on gasoline on Inauguration Day, 1981. Americans have never lined up one day since.

Nixon appointed a commission to study pornography. He packed it with liberals who said, not surprisingly, that pornography was not harmful and might even be good for you. When our POWs came home, they were shocked to find the America they left awash in smut. And many of these men were sailors. (Of course, if Nixon’s commissioners really wanted to study pornography, Nixon could have let them listen to his White House tapes.)

Reagan appointed a Pornography Commission with men like Ed Meese and Jim Dobson and women like Kay James. They found that pornography harms women and children most of all, but it harms men, too. So Reagan hired men like Pat Trueman to fight it in the Justice Department.

We are told Nixon understood statecraft, the great game of nations. He wrote books in his after years pumping for American power politics.

He gave Soviet dictator Brezhnev a new car from Detroit every time he met him. He sent Kissinger to Moscow to tell the Soviets we regarded them as our equals. The Soviets advanced in Asia, Africa, and Latin America while Nixon was president.

Not one person escaped from Communism while Nixon was president.

Reagan gave the Communists nothing. He called them an Evil Empire. He took away their parking space at the State Department, took away Grenada from them, and challenged them to “tear down this wall” in Berlin. Within months of Reagan’s uttering those words, the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Empire dissolved, with hardly a shot being fired.

Two hundred million people escaped from Communism as a result of Reagan’s policies.

Nixon appointed a population commission stacked with liberals who recommended abortion on demand. He signed Title X legislation that began to sluice billions to Planned Parenthood.

Reagan recommended giving no money—zeroing out—Title X and issued the Mexico City policy that said human life is the source of all wealth for advanced countries and the key to development for poorer countries.

When the Supreme Court handed down its infamous Roe v. Wade ruling, two days after Nixon’s second inauguration, Nixon sent a letter to Cardinal Cooke of New York saying he didn’t agree with it.

Reagan sent his Solicitor General to the Supreme Court to call for the repeal of Roe, terming it illegitimate. And President Reagan used the Bully Pulpit of the White House to appeal for the lives of unborn children. He used the State of the Union Address to call abortion “a wound in the nation’s soul.”

Nixon left office in disgrace, following the revelation that he had been lying and covering up for a year and a half about his knowledge of the crimes associated with Watergate.

Reagan left office loved and honored by millions. When he died, tens of thousands stood in line through a hot June night on the Mall, just for the chance to walk past his bier in the Capitol Rotunda. It was the un-Woodstock Nation.

When Nixon left office, he was the only one of our 44 presidents to resign. His own chosen successor said “our long national nightmare is over.” Barring a presidential pardon, he would likely have gone to jail.

Heres a story that illustrates the essential difference between these two men.

When President Nixon went to a Los Angeles hotel for a political fund-raiser, he had his dinner alone, consuming his ketchup and cottage cheese in isolated splendor. He invited then-Gov. Reagan to come up to the presidential suite to give him some friendly advice.

He told Reagan it wasnt a good idea for him to eat rubber chicken with the common run of party county chairman. He made a point, Nixon said, of always keeping some distance between himself and the button-holers and back slappers who frequented these gatherings.

Gov. Reagan smiled genially and graciously thanked the president for his adviceand then ignored every bit of it. Reagan liked people. They liked him. Reagan liked to get the feel of an audience. He never failed to connect with an audience. Nixon never succeeded.

Clark Clifford, one of the Wise Men of the liberal intelligentsia, met President Reagan at the White House. He went back to the cocktail party circuit in Georgetown, terming Reagan an amiable dunce. Clifford ended his career narrowly avoiding prosecution for influence peddling in one of Washingtons periodic money scandals.

The Bible teaches that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. It seems Reagan feared nothing else. He saved 77 people from drowning as a lifeguard on the Rock River in Illinois.

We also read in Scripture that you will know them by their fruits. The fruits of Ronald Reagans presidency reveal a practical intelligence that places him far above his peers. Thats what I would like to share with Washingtons bright young interns this summer.

Two People Injected in Eyes with Embryonic Stem Cells

by David Prentice

July 14, 2011

News reports indicate that the first two patients have been injected in their eyes with retinal cells made from human embryonic stem cells. The actual injection of the hESC-derived cells comes about a month after the trials’ sponsor, Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) announced that they had signed up the patients for the embryonic stem cell experiments. These are the first two patients of their two proposed trials, each supposed to enroll 12 patients and to last through July 2013. Little in the way of details is available, other than the information given on the clinical trials database for the trials on Stargardts macular dystrophy and for age related macular degeneration. Of particular concern is the lack of information on how long the patients will be monitored for potential tumor formation caused by the injected embryonic stem cell derivatives. In the only other embryonic stem cell experimental trial, Geron has said they will follow patients for 15 years, due to the significant problem of cancer developing from the injected embryonic stem cells.

In the meantime, over 2,200 adult stem cell clinical trials are ongoing or completed, and adult stem cells are treating over 50,000 patients around the globe each year. Adult stem cells have shown published success for patients with dozens of different diseases and injuries. Check out some of the patient stories.

God and Country…and Ronald Reagan

by Michael Skiles

July 13, 2011

Last week, Frank Carlucci (who served as Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan from 1987-1989 and, before then, had played very prominent roles in every administration since Nixon’s) sat down for an informal lunch with a few students from his alma mater, Princeton University. After providing many anecdotes and insights from his decades of service, he closed with an unexpected but deeply profound assessment of what ultimately differentiated Reagan from Nixon.

He felt that, while Nixon was considerably more intelligent and cunning than Reagan, the fundamental reason that Reagan will go down in history as one of America’s greatest presidents, “whereas Nixon will always have somewhat of a question mark next to his name,” was that Reagan was profoundly guided, in all of his actions, by his deep faith in God.

In Nixons case, faith was very much in the background, and his lack of faith caused him to develop a great cynicism towards other people. This caused him to lose respect for the truth, and led him to do what he found expedient, rather than what he knew to be morally right; in the end, this got him into serious trouble.

Reagan, by contrast, was driven profoundly by his Christian faith. It drove him to work tirelessly to share the gifts of freedom and respect, to which he knew all human beings were entitled by their nature, and to focus particularly on promoting religious freedom, which he knew was essential to the emancipation of the human race. His charisma came from the transcendent nature of his mission. So much of the world saw him not merely as a politician pursuing self-interested goals, but as a man deeply devoted to doing what he knew to be morally right. This enabled him to face Gorbachev and demand the destruction of the Berlin wall, not just as the President of the United States, but as the voice of every person everywhere who yearned for freedom, righteousness, and justice and who knew that the forces of good would always prevail, and that governments based on religious, social, and economic repression would always inevitably collapse.

Carlucci, a Roman Catholic, went on to say that in order to be an extraordinary president, one must be a man of extraordinary faith, either in God, or in some transcendent principle such as justice or democratic freedom, because it is these transcendent beliefs that give purpose to and shape one’s life, keep one on a righteous course, and motivate others with the knowledge that one really is acting for the good of mankind.

The Truth About Chemical Abortion and Womens Health: Updated FDA AERs on RU486

by Family Research Council

July 12, 2011

A summary of adverse event reports (AERS) recently released by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and obtained through Sen. Orrin Hatch’s office reveal that in the span of almost eleven years since the approval of the abortion drug, popularly known as RU-486, in the United States, at least 11 women have died as a result of complications related to taking the drug.[1] Internationally, the number of women who have died as a result of RU-486 is at least 17.[2]

Thats not all. The dangerous complications associated with this drug continue include hemorrhaging and infection. In the U.S., at least 612 women have been hospitalized after taking RU-486; and at least 339 women required blood transfusions as a result of serious blood loss after taking the abortion drug.

Clearly highlighting the need for more stringent medical oversight, the report also indicates that 58 women were prescribed RU-486 despite having ectopic pregnancies. Yet, [a]dministration of mifepristone and misoprostol is contraindicated in patients with confirmed or suspected ectopic pregnancy.[3] To state it more clearly, a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy and takes the RU486 regimen places her life in danger.

It is not only women in the U.S. who are suffering as a result of chemical abortion, it is a worldwide trend. A recent Australian health department audit of nearly 10,000 abortions performed in 2009 and 2010 compared the safety of RU-486 with surgical abortion, with the outcome being in the words of one major media outlet The Abortion Pill Less Safe than Surgery. The Australian report showed that 1 in 18 patients who used RU-486 had to be re-admitted to hospitals (a total of 5.7% of women vs. only .4% of surgical abortions.) The same study revealed that as many as 33% of women who had second trimester RU-486 abortions required some form of surgical intervention.[4]

Marketing the abortion drug as simple and painless, such as taking an aspirin, is dangerously misleading to women. RU-486 is in a class of drugs categorized as selective progesterone receptor modulators, which, in addition to blocking progesterone necessary for the developing baby, also suppresses a womans immune system. Additionally, it is sometimes the case that the remains of the pregnancy are not entirely expelled from a womans uterus, causing infection and other problems.

Despite the seriousness and intensity of adverse effects related to RU-486, use of this form of abortion is on the rise, and frequently the regimen is dispensed with less medical oversight than surgical abortion. Even more troubling, nationally and internationally, telemed dissemination of RU-486 is increasing.[5] Telemed abortions involved doctors proscribing RU-486 through skype or over the internet rather than during a patient visit.

The bottom line is that abortion drugs are not about improving womens health but are more accurately about advancing a radical pro-abortion agenda regardless of the impact on womens health, even when it proves deadly.



[2] Ibid.

[3] Jamie Walker, Abortion pill ‘less safe than surgery’, The Australian (May 7, 2011) (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abortion-pill-less-safe-than-surgery/story-fn59niix-1226051434394).

[4] EA Mulligan, Mifepristone in South Australia Australian Family Physician Vol. 40, No. 5, May 2011 (http://www.frcblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Australian-AERs_RU486_201105mulligan.pdf).

[5] Michel Martin (host), Growing Controversy Surrounds ‘Telemed’ Abortions, National Public Radio (January 24, 2011) (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/133182875/Growing-Controversy-Surrounds-Telemed-Abortions).

 

Angina Pain Eased with Adult Stem Cells

by David Prentice

July 11, 2011

Doctors at Northwestern University have shown that adult stem cells can relieve angina pain in heart patients. About 850,000 U.S. heart patients have angina—chest pain caused by blocked coronary arteries—that persists despite available treatments. The study examined 167 patients with refractory angina; patients received either a low or high dose of their own adult stem cells injected into their damaged heart muscle, or a placebo injection. The results, published in the journal Circulation Research, showed that patients who received their adult stem cells experienced significant improvements in angina frequency and exercise tolerance. Dr. Douglas Losordo, lead author on the study, says the improvements in the patients treated with adult stem cells were life altering for many patients. Dr. Losordo also noted:

To put it in human terms, patients who might have been able to sit and watch TV without symptoms could now walk at a normal pace without chest pain, and someone who could walk at a slow pace might be able to ride a bike.”

Early research across multiple disease categories suggests that stem cells generated within the body in adults may have a therapeutic benefit. This is the first controlled trial treating chronic myocardial ischemia patients with their own stem cells to achieve significant reduction in angina frequency and improvement in exercise tolerance.”

There is an emerging notion that our bodies — even the bodies of patients with significant disease — contain this natural biology that can heal. We are just beginning to understand and exploit this pre-installed mechanism for self-repair.”

In smaller previous studies reported in 2010, scientists in Florida and Brazil had found that adult stem cells injected directly into the heart could relieve angina in patients, and a Spanish group had also shown some improvement in angina patients’ symptoms.

Previous research has also show the ability of adult stem cells to shrink enlarged hearts and also long-term evidence that adult stem cells can treat chronic heart failure.

A Must Read Report on Planned Parenthood

by Family Research Council

July 8, 2011

My colleagues over at Americans United For Life released a very thorough report yesterday providing a glut of information about Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the nation’s largest abortion provider. I most highly encourage anyone interested in protecting life to take the time to read through this report.

It might seem a bit daunting at 174 pages, but the actual report is really only the first 31 pages, followed by a number of wonderful appendices, including Planned Parenthood’s financial statements from 1988-present, PPFA’s service reports from this same period of time, lawsuits against the abortion giant, and more. The report also gives excellent information on Medicaid fraud and how this relates to PPFA.

For any concerned citizen who really wants to do their part in defunding the abortion giant, I encourage them to read this new report in conjunction with a few paragraphs from our own FRC brochure, “Planned Parenthood—What Every Parent, Teacher, Woman, Community Leader and Elected Official Needs to Know.”

It is very likely that your local Planned Parenthood receives federal, state and/or local government funding. We are frequently asked by people who want to protect their children and the unborn what they can do to combat the Planned Parenthood message in their community. While every situation is unique, we would suggest the following steps.

a. Information Gathering. Do you have a local affiliate? A simple internet search will reveal any local Planned Parenthood affiliate. Find out its name and the leaders of the organization so that you are more aware of their local influence and whether they are on the local school board, hold public office, own businesses, etc. Not all Planned Parenthood affiliates perform abortions. Some offer only medical abortion (RU-486), others might also perform suction aspiration abortions, and dilation and evacuation (D & E) abortions. Some might refer patients to abortion clinics in the area. If they dont perform abortions, find out where they refer patients to. Ask if they perform abortions every day of the week. In some instances doctors fly in from out of state and abortions are performed only once a week. The more information you can find out, the better. It isnt difficult to obtain this information.

b. Funding. You have many options to learn more about your local affiliates funding. Knowledge is power. The more you know, the more you can do something to protect life. A good place to start is with your states health department. You can look on their website to see what family planning services and groups are funded through the state and find out which perform abortions.

i. As previously indicated, we suggest looking at federal funding streams to learn more about Planned Parenthood finances, as well. One good source is the previously listed site for HHS grants. You can also look through the HHS Family Planning Database to find who is a recipient of Title X (family planning project) funding in your state or local area. http://www.opaclearinghouse.org/db_search.asp.

ii. IRS 990 tax forms are public information, and can be relatively easily accessed. Request your local affiliates 990 form to see how much money they have made, where it is coming from, how much they invest, etc. Another way of accessing this information is through Guidestar. http://www2.guidestar.org/

iii. Check city, county and state budgets. In situations where grant or contract recipients are not listed, we strongly encourage you to ask and keep asking until you obtain a listing of the actual names of the groups providing the services mentioned in this booklet.

c. Familiarize yourself with and befriend city council members and state legislators to identify pro-life champions. Be active in your community. Networking, being knowledgeable about the groups in your local area, and having relationships with leaders in your community is critical in this process. One citizen was actively involved in a local coalition of health organizations, of which Planned Parenthood was a part. She knew that the coalition received significant county funding, but was unable to ascertain if Planned Parenthood was receiving part of that money. After seeing the annual report and finding the recipients were not listed, she began asking more questions of her local elected officials. At this point, having a friend who was equally concerned and had a relationship with a local elected official was important and helpful. In the end, she learned that Planned Parenthood was receiving a significant amount of county funding and helped to ensure that it was ultimately defunded.

d. Legislation. Call upon your state and local elected officials to pass legislation that will protect life and force transparency for Planned Parenthood. Americans United for Life have a variety of draft legislation here.

e. Sonogram. Offering free sonograms across the street from abortion clinics has sometimes led to their eventual closing. Sonograms are a wonderful tool in promoting the truth about the dignity of the unborn. Click here for more information. The provision of sonograms constitutes the practice of medicine and should always be used under the direction and supervision of a licensed physician. For more information on the provision of sonograms click here.

Pray and peacefully protest outside of your local Planned Parenthood. In the words of former Planned Parenthood director, Abby Johnson, Having a vigil outside an abortion clinic is vital…having people out there…praying, pricks the conscience of everyone walking in. Any time you brought a member of the clergy that was particularly effective.”

Economic Cost of Excessive Regulations Discussed

by Chris Gacek

July 8, 2011

With the terrible jobs report that came out today (7/8/11) it is only fitting that there have been recent articles discussing the crippling effects of government regulations on the economy. Yesterday (7/7) the Washington Times editorialized on this subject pointing out that regulations create great uncertainty as to future business costs for entrepreneurs who will then not risk their capital. The Times reports that 195 major rules were reported to Congress by federal regulatory agencies in the first two years of the Obama administration. A major rule is one expected to have an expected impact on the economy of $100 million or more, or a major increase in costs for consumers or producers, or a significant adverse impact on the competitiveness of an industry, among other factors. (This is a bipartisan problem: there were 178 major rules in the last two years of the George W. Bush Administration.)

The destructive impact of these regulations especially in the environmental and energy sectors are becoming obvious to any objective observer.

That is probably why former Democrat U.S. Senator Evan Bayh co-write a Washington Times commentary piece with Andrew Card, former GOP White House chief of staff, with this title: Regulatory Reform Restart: Congress Needs to Dial Back Obamas Rule-Making Machine. I like one of their suggestions about passing the Reins Act: A good place to start would be to pass legislation pending in Congress to guarantee an up-or-down vote, with no Senate filibuster, on regulations with an economic impact of more than $100 million.

For more on the Reins Act, see Jonathan H. Adlers article in Regulation (Summer 2011). It strikes me that the Reins Act’s greatest impact would be to make members of Congress take some ownership and accountability for regulations. Imagine the campaign ads that could come straight from monstrous verbiage presented in the Federal Register.

Shunting Aside the Declaration

by Robert Morrison

July 8, 2011

The Emancipation Proclamation is usually put on display only once a year. For just a few days in Januarys pale light, the much-faded document is offered to public view by the National Archives.

When President Lincoln sat down on January 1, 1863, to sign the document, he noted an error in the engrossed copy placed before him. He directed the State Department clerks to take it back and re-copy it. He knew that the document would be examined with a fine-toothed comb by hostile interpreters. These would include, no doubt, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the author of the infamous Dred Scott opinion that would have permitted slavery in the territories.

Lincoln went on with his New Years duties, shaking hands with thousands of Americans who lined up to visit the Executive Mansion every January 1st. (Actor John Wilkes Booth would have had little trouble filing through with other presidential guests that day.) When the corrected copy of the Proclamation was presented, the presidents right arm began vigorously shaking. He exercised his hand and arm.

Noting the perplexed expressions of his witnesses, he explained that he had been shaking hands for three hours. He wanted a strong, firm signature on the fair copy of the Proclamation. He said my whole heart and soul are in it. He wrote out his full name, Abraham Lincoln. Normally, he signed measures as A. Lincoln.

That will do, he said, as he handed the gold pen to Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. Today, when we see this vital document, Abraham Lincolns strong, black signature is the only part of the Proclamation we can actually make out.

And thats almost the case with the Declaration of Independence, too. Visiting the National Archives building with some young New Zealand friends this week, I wanted especially to see how the Declaration was faring. John Hancocks larger-than-life signature is still legible. He wanted the King to be able to read his name without putting on his spectacles. I put on mine.

I cannot say Im happy with the way the National Archives displays the Declaration these days. Its been shunted off to the left. Pride of place is given to the Constitution. It occupies center stage. But why?

Without the Declaration of Independence, without its immortal lines about our being Created equal, being endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, would we have become a nation capable of writing a Constitution? Without understanding those fundamental principles, can we even interpret our Constitution?

What is the relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution? In the 1850s, some Americans sneered at the Declaration. Its a self-evident lie, said one Democratic congressman from Indiana. John C. Calhoun, the great U.S. Senator from South Carolina, boldly asserted that Jefferson and the Founders were dead wrong: All men are not created equal, but unequal, wrote this brilliant defender of slavery. Calhoun understood that the Declaration was a stumbling block to all who would deny those inalienable rights endowed by the Creator.

Abraham Lincoln poetically described the relationship of the Declaration to the Constitution. He looked to Holy Scripture for his inspiration. A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver, Lincoln quoted Proverbs 25:11.

Pictures of silver was the King James Versions way of describing what we would call a picture frame. To Lincoln, the Proposition that all men are Created equal, was the apple of gold, meant to be framed by the silver of the Constitution. It is to the Declaration that we should look when we interpret the Constitution.

We have a Supreme Court Justice today who says that the people of the United States can have abortion-on-demand if they want it; they should simply go to their state legislatures to get it and not to the courts.

How can that be? Only by ignoring what the Declaration has to say about why we have government at all. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. Which rights? Those inalienable, God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Could it possibly be the purpose of the Founders in framing the Constitution to deny those inalienable rights? Too many Americans believed that the Constitution was intended to protect slavery. Four million black Americans were denied their inalienable right to libertyuntil Lincoln signed that Emancipation Proclamation.

But both Lincoln and the abolitionist Frederick Douglass, a former slave, recognized that the Founders labored for liberty and toward liberty. Not one word in the original Constitution, said Douglass, would have to be changed to liberate the slaves. He was right.

Fifty-three million unborn children have been denied their right to life by an errant Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. It matters very much how we see the relationship of the Declaration to the Constitution.

So, I protest against the shunting aside of the Declaration of Independence at our National Archives. It is not a subordinate document. It is foundational. As Lincoln said at Gettysburg: Fourscore and seven years ago, our Fathers brought for upon this continent a new Nation. Eighty-seven years before he spoke those words brings us to 1776, the date on the Declaration of Independence. It is from that time and those words that we date our national existence. And our highest purposes.

Adult Stem Cells Help Create Synthetic Windpipe, Save Cancer Patient

by David Prentice

July 8, 2011

A cancer patient has received the first synthetic windpipe transplant. The new windpipe was created using the patient’s own adult stem cells which were seeded onto a synthetic scaffold to grow the new tissue. According to his doctors, the patient—36-year-old Andemariam Teklesenbet Beyene, a father of two—no longer has cancer, will be released from the hospital today, and is expected to have a normal life expectancy.

Professor Paolo Macchiarini, of Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute, led the team that performed the transplant operation on 9 June 2011 at Karolinska University Hospital in Huddinge, Stockholm. Professor Macchiarini also led the international team that developed the artificial windpipe, which included Professor Alexander Seifalian from the University College London, UK, who designed and built the nanocomposite tracheal scaffold, and Harvard Bioscience, a Boston, USA company that produced a specifically designed bioreactor used to seed the scaffold with the patient s own adult stem cells from bone marrow.

According to the Karolinska institute:

Because the cells used to regenerate the trachea were the patient’s own, there has been no rejection of the transplant and the patient is not taking (anti-rejection) drugs.”

Creating a new windpipe using the patient’s own adult stem cells and a synthetic scaffold is a tremendous breakthrough, allowing production of tubular organs for transplant within a short period of time. As Prof. Macchiarini noted:

It makes all the difference. If the patient has a malignant tumor in the windpipe, you can’t wait months for a donor to come along.”

Dr. Macchiarini said he planned to use the same windpipe-transplant technique on three more patients, two from the U.S. and a nine-month-old child from North Korea who was born without a trachea.

Prof. Macchiarini and his team have previously used a similar technique to transplant new windpipes into throat cancer patients, as well as other patients who needed tracheal replacements due to various conditions. The team’s first such tracheal transplant was in 2008, for a young Colombian woman with a trachea damaged by tuberculosis.

In these previous cases, the patient’s adult stem cells were seeded onto a scaffold made from cadaver windpipe which had all the cells removed. The seeded adult stem cells attached to the cartilage scaffold and created the new tissue for the transplant.

In this newest advance, a synthetic scaffold was used. The patient’s bone marrow adult stem cells were seeded onto this artificial scaffold where they attached and grew for two days prior to the transplant. The growing trachea was then transplanted into the patient, where it continued to develop new tracheal tissue and functioned like a natural trachea. Imaging and other tests showed appropriate development of the new tissue. Using the patient’s own adult stem cells prevented any problems with transplant rejection.

Tissue-engineered organs have also been constructed for patients by other teams, including development of new urethras as well as the construction of functional bladders.

This new transplant research and creation of a synthetic trachea research is not yet published. The first bioengineered tracheal transplantation was published in The Lancet, and some of the subsequent work is published in various journals, including published in Biomaterials.

Prof. Macchiarini has also developed a bioengineered human larynx.

(first published on LifeNews.com)

June 2011 «

» August 2011

Archives