% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


  • krycap64 krycap64 Jun 19, 2014 12:24 PM Flag

    Can a doctor explain the difference between STEM and ACTC cells used?

    Why would ACTC's cells be more effective than STEM's.
    My understanding previously based on reading was that ACTC's cells were more effective and directly related to curing disease rather than STEM's.

    Please explain?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • STEM makes their NERVE cells from aborted fetuses, which makes them, despite the belief otherwise in certain ill informed communities, ADULT cells. ACT makes RETINAL cells, from embryonic cells it created, years ago, and which are an inexhaustible source, from a single cell that it extracted from an intact embryo, using a method that can leave the embryo unharmed (it's basically a method used to test embryos, pre-implantation, at Invitro Fertilization Clinics. ACT's cells come from the earliest stage embryo, when they are 4 to 8 cells large. Once the line is created, those cells are a renewable resource, and they never have to go to an embryo again.

      ACT's cells, as mentioned, are then differentiated to become RETINAL PIGMENT EPITHELIUM cells, which are basically the cells that turn into all the cells of the retina, and which cannot reverse into other types of cells once they mature along that cell destiny. So they are 1) very safe; 2) very vigorous, because they are embryonic, but also because they are this special kind of very early embryonic cells (from a blastomere); and 3) they are retinal cells, exactly the type of cell that is deteriorating in AMD. STEM's never cells do not replace retinal cells, and STEM does not entirely know how their therapy works. What they speculate is that their cells cause the eye to generate other conditions, trophic factors, that may slow the development of AMD.

      ACT's retinal cells actually appear to, at least initially, and logically, recapitulate, or rebuild the previously dying retina. So it appears to be what I would refer to as a more realistic "regenerative" strategy, because it directly replaces the tissue that is dying, with extremely young and vigorous new tissue of the same sort that is deteriorating. STEM does not provide such tissue in its treatment. Rather, it hopes that it's nerve cells cause the eye to deteriorate less rapidly.

    • It's just as important about the cells that do NOT make it into the eye, as those rogue cells could potentially turn into tumors. ACT has a very precise method of sorting their highly differentiated cells and eliminating these rogue cells that could cause problems, and all companies will have this risk associated with them going forward.

      When you consider the "cost" of production, and the number of cells required to halt the disease (remember that ACT isn't out to cure) and possibly even improve the patients condition, ACT should have an edge among her peers. I'm unsure if STEM is grafting instead of injecting, but if they are that alone is much more expensive, IMO. It sounds like they're injecting a lot more cells with their initial trials, which leads me to wonder how many of those cells are even surviving. ACT, remember, only sees about 10% of the cells injected that ultimately survive. It was a change in their delivery method that took it from 0 to 10%, so I imagine that other companies are faced with the same challenges. Of course, ACT may have improved their survivability rate by now, which would be a big plus if that was the case.

    • Kry, wouldn't it be better if you did the research on ACT & STEM ,and their stem cell differences in treatments for dry AMD, since you brought it up. Otherwise it's awful bold of you to ask us to do the research for you, don't ya think?

    • Ask Keep_WettingHisBed. He knows everynothing.