STEMS AND STIMULATION

Evaluating Deep Brain Stimulation and Stem Cell Therapy in the search for Wellness.

My Opinion

This week, I am exploring popular treatment and research options, deep brain stimulation and stem cell research/implants. I have not set out to cast myself as an expert on these topics, nor do I wish to impose my personal views on you. I do, however, want to help inform you as much as possible, and cut through some of the hype that is thrown at us through the popular media.

Deep brain stimulation has been part of a package of treatment options for Parkinson’s disease since 1987. There are frequent stories in all forms of main media (TV, radio and newspapers) promoting this treatment as unequivocally beneficial, with very few adverse effects, and no failures. When we explore the scientific and manufacturers’ literature, we discover that this view is inaccurate.

Stem cell research is viewed as having the potential to change the way we treat a multitude of illnesses including Parkinson’s disease. The popular view is that stem cells can be cultured or cloned in a laboratory, implanted into our brain or nervous system in some way, and will grow there as the cells we require to attain a cure from our illness. Once again, when we explore the true nature of stem cells and the research that is being carried out at the moment, we can see that the popular view is far from the truth.

I hope that the following discussion will help you to understand how these treatment options may fit, or not fit, into your lifestyle plans, and allow you to make informed choices if you feel you need to do so. It is not intended to constitute medical or surgical advice and, if you are considering either of these options, you should speak with your doctor and all other health practitioners with whom you consult before making a final decision.

How Was Deep Brain Stimulation Developed?

In the early 1950s, doctors found that lesioning, or destroying, specific areas within the brain could help treat certain movement disorders. When areas of the brain involved in the disorder were lesioned, the symptoms often improved. Soon, lesioning surgeries became a standard treatment for reducing problems in motor control caused by conditions like Parkinson’s disease.

Unfortunately, lesioning surgeries were not ideal solutions. They weren’t always effective in reducing negative symptoms, and sometimes they resulted in damaging adverse effects. One of the main problems with lesioning surgeries is that their effects cannot be undone; a lesioned brain structure is permanently destroyed. As a result, unwanted adverse effects are usually irreversible.

In the 1970s treatment with the new drug, levodopa, commenced and could be used to control some of the same types of symptoms as lesioning, but without the risky brain surgery. Levodopa therapy quickly began to replace lesioning surgeries, mainly because of the advantages it provided patients including dosages that could be adjusted to suit individual needs.

After many years, however, long-term levodopa therapy was found to cause new problems. The brain eventually compensates for the effects of the drugs, the conversion of levodopa to dopamine is reduced, and homocysteine accumulates. The result was often serious. Patients were developing new movement control problems that were considered worse than the original symptoms.

Then, in the late 1980s, a new discovery was made. Experts found that the same effects caused by lesioning brain tissue could be achieved by stimulating the tissue with “harmless” pulses of electricity. This was an exciting find, because the effects of electrical stimulation are almost completely reversible. In fact, when the stimulation is turned off, the brain appears to resume its normal behavior. Similar to drug treatments, doctors could tailor the electrical stimulation to fit the exact needs of each patient. Unlike drug treatments, the electrical stimulation could be localized so that only intended parts of the brain were affected.

Treatments with deep brain stimulation (DBS) commenced in France in 1987, and were used on an experimental basis for several years, with positive treatment results being observed. In 2002, the use of DBS for conditions such as Parkinson’s disease was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in USA.

What Happens?

An implantable deep brain stimulation (DBS) device is made up of three main parts: the electrode, the pulse generator and the extension.

The electrode is a small tip-shaped device, about 1 mm thick, that is implanted deep into the region of the brain involved with the disease symptoms. The surface of the electrode has four metal pads used to transmit pulses of electricity. These pulses of electricity are small and only stimulate the brain tissue within close range of the electrode. This allows the electrical stimulation to specifically target only the brain region closest to where the electrode is implanted.

The pulse generator (also called the stimulator) is a small, box-shaped device that generates the electrical signals that are sent to the electrode. The pulse generator is usually implanted under the skin in a space near the patient’s chest. It includes a battery with a lifespan that ranges anywhere from two to seven years. The electrical patterns are generated in quick on-off pulses delivered at very high frequencies – usually over 100 times per second. Only at these high frequencies does the stimulation help reduce the unwanted symptoms.

The last component of an implanted DBS device is the extension, which is simply an insulated cable that carries the electrical signals from the pulse generator to the electrode implanted in the brain. Having any part of the DBS device go through the skin would create a risk of infection, so the surgeon typically tunnels a small path under the skin from the pulse generator to the electrode. As this is usually performed under local anaesthetic, it can be a very traumatic and painful procedure.

Patients are typically given a handheld device that uses a magnet to communicate through their skin to the pulse generator. This allows the patient to control the dosages of electrical stimulation he or she receives. A doctor sets the range of stimulation dosages within certain limits as there are some 60,000 possible settings, but the patient actually does the fine-tuning of the device based on his or her own individual needs.

How Does It Work?

You may already know that the brain is divided into many specialized areas, each responsible for different tasks. There are separate regions of your brain that play a role in controlling muscle movements, memory and emotions. These separate regions of the brain work together to accomplish larger goals such as walking, speaking, playing games or working at your job. When injury or disease prevents any one brain region from performing its role, the larger goals might not be met.

A good example of this is the basal ganglia. This is a group of brain structures that work together to help control body motions. As movements are planned and coordinated in the brain, information in the form of electrical brain activity flows between the structures of the basal ganglia. Each structure plays a role in modifying and refining the information to help fine tune muscle movements. When any part of the basal ganglia is impaired, the normal flow of information is altered. Widespread movement control problems are often the result, as in the case of Parkinson’s disease.

To find out where deep brain stimulation comes in, let’s stick with the example of the basal ganglia.

As mentioned above, the normal electrical flow of brain activity throughout the basal ganglia is disrupted by the effects of Parkinson’s disease or Parkinson’s medication. The purpose of an implanted DBS electrode is to counteract this abnormal brain activity, altering it in a way that decreases the disease symptoms.

The electrode accomplishes this by targeting one of several possible structures within the basal ganglia. For Parkinson’s disease, this is most commonly the subthalamic nucleus (STN). A deep brain stimulation electrode implanted in the STN sends out pulses of electricity, modifying its behavior. By altering the behavior of the STN, the electrode is ultimately altering all of the brain activity that the STN normally affects. This makes the DBS electrode very influential, since the STN is one of several structures in the basal ganglia that all work together.

Sounds simple enough, right? Well, what the experts haven’t fully worked out yet is exactly how DBS influences the brain structures it stimulates — although there are several likely possibilities. For example, the quickly repeating electrical signals emitted by the DBS electrode may act to block irregular brain activity. Another possibility is that the regular pattern of electrical pulses from the implanted DBS electrode would act to override irregular flows of information – “drowning out” the abnormal patterns of brain activity.

The complete story of how DBS achieves its effects is probably much more complex. It’s likely that the same pattern of deep brain stimulation affects different parts of the same brain structure in completely opposite ways. Although the mechanisms of DBS aren’t yet fully worked out, doctors have enough experience using DBS to believe in its safety and effectiveness. While some doctors have grave misgivings about the efficacy of this procedure, they choose to express their views away from public forums.

DBS is not a cure for Parkinson’s. Though the surgery may help improve patients’ movement, DBS does nothing for non-motor symptoms of the disease, such as depression, anxiety, balance problems, cognitive decline and memory loss. In some cases, the procedure can make these issues worse; in others, it can cause problems where there were none. In all cases, patients need sustained medical care after surgery, as their disease continues to progress. “Parkinson’s is a chronic, neurological disease,” says Dr. Michael Okun, a University of Florida neurologist and medical director of the National Parkinson Foundation, “so that means you still have to manage it over the long term.”

Up to 2006, more than 35,000 patients around the world had DBS electrodes implanted in their brains, and there are 250 centres in the U.S. that perform the operation, plus many centres around the world who have developed clinics specifically designed for this procedure. We do not know how many operations of this type are performed each year.

Although it is no longer considered experimental, DBS is, for now, still used as a second- or third-line treatment, reserved for patients with relatively advanced cases of the disease and those for whom medication alone is inadequate or can’t be adjusted precisely enough to keep their tremors and writhing under control. “This surgery was a last resort, but that’s an evolving concept,” says Dr. Ali Rezai, a neurosurgeon and chairman of the Center for Neurological Restoration at the Cleveland Clinic. “Ten years ago we were only operating on the most severe, disabled, wheelchair-dependent patients, but now we’re operating on patients with moderate to severe Parkinson’s. They’re saying, ‘Instead of waiting another five or 10 years until I’m at my end stage with medications, why don’t I deal with this now and get more control over my life?'” From time to time, I meet a patient who has been offered DBS in the early stages of their diagnosed Parkinson’s disease.

The surgery required to implant a DBS device is an expensive and potentially risky procedure that doctors will recommend only for certain patients. First of all, the patient must be in healthy physical condition and able withstand the stresses caused by a major surgery.

It’s also important to ensure that DBS therapy will have a good chance of producing effective results. One indication that DBS will be an effective treatment is if the patient’s symptoms are responding to drug therapy. Drug therapies act on some of the same brain pathways as DBS, so if the drugs are having a good effect, deep brain stimulation might be beneficial as well.

So at what stage should deep brain stimulation be considered? Most specialists agree that DBS implantation should occur after drug therapies begin to produce their negative adverse effects but before the patient begins to experience a major decrease in quality of life. Quality of life is sometimes measured by the patient’s ability to perform activities of daily living.

The patient must also have realistic expectations regarding the outcomes of DBS therapy. It must be clear to the patient that DBS is not a cure for his or her condition, but rather a treatment that might alleviate some symptoms. Of course, the patient should also be fully aware of the risks and possible adverse effects involved with DBS implantation.

Although DBS is generally recognized as a very safe treatment, any major surgery – especially brain surgery – carries certain risks. One of the major risks is hemorrhaging, or excessive bleeding caused by damage to blood vessels. Brain tissue is very delicate, and navigating through the brain to implant a device can be challenging. The probability of major damage due to hemorrhaging is low, but if hemorrhaging occurs, the resulting complications can be severe and permanent.

Infection is another risk associated with DBS implantation surgery. The problems caused by infection are usually mild and treatable, but sometimes infections can cause serious problems. One more risk worth mentioning is breakage of the device. Breaks in the extension wire or movement of the stimulating electrode are two of the major causes of device failure.

The adverse effects caused by the electrical stimulation from the DBS electrode vary from patient to patient and commonly include minor sensory or motor control problems. Psychological adverse effects might include mood changes or feelings of depression. Fortunately, all of these adverse effects are usually temporary or can be reversed by turning off the stimulation. In most cases, the doctor can adjust the device’s electrical stimulation patterns to minimize side effects.

A few more health concerns and adverse effects of deep brain stimulation are

• Bleeding in the brain
• Infection
• Delirium
• Unwanted mood changes
• Movement disorders
• Lightheadedness
• Insomnia

In an effort to treat Parkinson’s disease, some patients that have received deep brain stimulation surgery have ended up with other undesirable adverse effects. These effects range in severity from panic attacks, speech difficulties and movement problems, all the way to suicide [source: MayoClinic.com].

An Australian study published in 2002 by Iansek, Rosenfeld and Huxham, showed that deep brain stimulation could reduce dyskinesia and the need for medication. However, there was a high rate of complications, significant medication was still required, the procedure was not completely accurate, and some complications were irreversible.

Below are some excerpts from the published study:

Discussion

This study demonstrated the benefits of deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus for people with Parkinson’s disease and difficult to manage motor fluctuations. There was improvement in almost all areas of motor function, associated with a medication-sparing effect that consequently reduced dyskinesias (although this effect did not achieve significance).

Our results compare favourably with previous reports of deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus. UPDRS motor performance scores in our study improved markedly, with particular improvement while taking medication. Reduction in medication was lower in our study (30%) than in others, where 50% has been reported. This may be related to the apparent increase in underlying disease severity observed in our patients when receiving neither medication nor stimulation. No patient in our study was able to stop taking medication.

The rate of minor complications in our study was high, although complications due to stimulation alone were minor and reversible. The most serious complication, frontal haemorrhage, left the patient with significant cognitive sequelae, necessitating supervised care. Similar complication rates have been reported by other groups.

The results of this study confirm that deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus can provide improvement in hypokinesia with reduction of dyskinesia by a medication-sparing effect. Overall, our results are promising, but suggest the need to improve accuracy and reduce side effects if this approach is to become an acceptable and more widely used form of management of endstage Parkinson’s disease.

(The excerpts above should be read in the context of the full study and in the light of later studies).

My View

The information above and all the studies I have read, indicate that deep brain stimulation can only be viewed as a desperate attempt to alleviate distressing and uncomfortable symptoms largely caused by the use of heavy medication over a long period of time. It is true that, if there is no treatment for this disorder (and no personal effort towards recovery, such as this program), we will develop increasing motor coordination difficulty over time. However, we also know that Parkinson’s medication creates motor difficulties as one of its adverse effects.

It seems much more sensible, therefore, to develop strategies to achieve wellness long before our motor challenges are so severe that we are in the position to consider Deep Brain Stimulation. Even at this stage though, it is possible to improve quality of life and reduce the use of medication without resorting to surgery or other desperate measures.

I have also been privileged to meet several patients who had deep brain stimulation some years previous to our meeting. I was horrified to observe that the Parkinson’s symptoms had subsequently increased in number and intensity despite the surgery. In many cases it seems that patients have some alleviation of symptoms following surgery, but these benefits are short lived [from 1 to 5 years] with a subsequent increase in symptoms that became intractable. One of my associates had seven deep brain stimulation procedures, yet still requires very high doses of Parkinson’s medication, finds walking extremely difficult, has almost unintelligible speech, and finds life very challenging.

In summary, I believe that deep brain stimulation is a high risk, desperate procedure that should only be considered as a last resort if no other treatments can help, or if you are unwilling to help yourself with activities and therapies similar to those contained in this program.

STEM CELL RESEARCH

Is this new or old?

Bruce Lipton, PhD, on stem cells

• I will never forget a piece of wisdom I received in 1967, on the first day I learned how to clone stem cells in graduate school. It took me decades to realize how profound this seemingly simple piece of wisdom was for my work and my life. My professor, mentor and consummate scientist, Irv Konigsberg was one of the first cell biologists to master the art of cloning stem cells. He told me that when the cultured cells you are studying are ailing, you look first to the cell’s environment, not to the cell itself for the cause.

• When I provided a healthy environment for my cells they thrived; when the environment was less than optimal, the cells faltered. When I adjusted the environment, these “sick” cells revitalized.

• In reality, the idea that genes control biology is a supposition which has never been proven and in fact has been undermined by the latest scientific research.

• “When a gene product is needed, a signal from its environment, not an emergent property of the gene itself, activates expression of that gene”. In other words, when it comes to genetic control, “It’s the environment, stupid.”

Extracts from “The Biology Of Belief” (pages 49-52), Bruce Lipton, Ph.D., Published by Mountain of Love/Elite Books, Santa Rosa, CA 95404.

Will Stem Cell Implants Cure Parkinson’s disease?

We are currently faced with an enormous amount of media hype on the alleged benefits of stem cell therapy, and the proposition that stem cell research will find cures for a wide range of disorders, including Parkinson’s disease. Does this make sense when we consider the knowledge summarized in the extracts from Bruce Lipton’s book above?

To understand the real impact of this research on the day to day challenges we face, we need to have an understanding of what scientists do to create dopamine producing cells from stem cells they extract from any source.

What is the history of stem cell research?

The history of stem cell research had a benign, embryonic beginning in the mid 1800’s with the discovery that some cells could generate other cells. Now stem cell research is embroiled in a controversy over the use of human embryonic stem cells for research. In the early 1900’s the first real stem cells were discovered when it was found that some cells generate blood cells.

The history of stem cell research includes work with both animal and human stem cells. Stem cells can be classified into three broad categories, based on their ability to differentiate. Totipotent stem cells are found only in early embryos; each cell can form a complete organism (e.g., identical twins). Pluripotent stem cells exist in the undifferentiated inner cell mass of the blastocyst (early fetus) and can form any of the over 200 different cell types found in the body. Multipotent stem cells are derived from fetal tissue, cord blood, and adult stem cells. Although their ability to differentiate is more limited than pluripotent stem cells, they already have a track record of success in cell-based therapies.

A prominent application of stem cell research has been bone marrow transplants using adult stem cells. In the early 1900’s physicians administered bone marrow by mouth to patients with anemia and leukemia. Although such therapy was unsuccessful, laboratory experiments eventually demonstrated that mice with defective marrow could be restored to health with infusions into the blood stream of marrow taken from other mice. This caused physicians to speculate whether it was feasible to transplant bone marrow from one human to another (allogeneic transplant). As we know, many bone marrow transplants are now successful and can save lives.

In 1998, James Thompson (University of Wisconsin – Madison) isolated cells from the inner cell mass of early embryos, and developed the first embryonic stem cell lines. In the same year, John Gearhart (Johns Hopkins University) derived germ cells from cells in fetal gonadal tissue (primordial germ cells). Pluripotent stem cell “lines” were developed from both sources. The blastocysts used for human stem cell research typically come from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. The ethical concerns over this type of embryonic stem cell research has been expressed widely in many forums, and it is now banned or severely limited around the world.

Significant Events in Stem Cell Research

• 1908 – The term “stem cell” was proposed for scientific use by the Russian histologist Alexander Maksimov (1874–1928) at congress of hematologic society in Berlin. It postulated existence of haematopoietic stem cells.
• 1960s – Joseph Altman and Gopal Das present scientific evidence of adult neurogenesis, ongoing stem cell activity in the brain; their reports contradict Cajal’s “no new neurons” dogma and are largely ignored.
• 1963 – McCulloch and Till illustrate the presence of self-renewing cells in mouse bone marrow.
• 1968 – Bone marrow transplant between two siblings successfully treats SCID.
• 1978 – Haematopoietic stem cells are discovered in human cord blood.
• 1981 – Mouse embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner cell mass by scientists Martin Evans, Matthew Kaufman, and Gail R. Martin. Gail Martin is attributed for coining the term “Embryonic Stem Cell”.
• 1992 – Neural stem cells are cultured in vitro as neurospheres.
• 1997 – Leukemia is shown to originate from a haematopoietic stem cell, the first direct evidence for cancer stem cells.
• 1998 – James Thomson and co-workers derive the first human embryonic stem cell line at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.[36]
• 2000s – Several reports of adult stem cell plasticity are published.
• 2001 – Scientists at Advanced Cell Technology clone first early (four- to six-cell stage) human embryos for the purpose of generating embryonic stem cells.
• 2003 – Dr. Songtao Shi of NIH discovers new source of adult stem cells in children’s primary teeth.
• 2004–2005 – Korean researcher Hwang Woo-Suk claims to have created several human embryonic stem cell lines from unfertilised humanoocytes. The lines were later shown to be fabricated.
• 2005 – Researchers at Kingston University in England claim to have discovered a third category of stem cell, dubbed cord-blood-derived embryonic-like stem cells (CBEs), derived from umbilical cord blood. The group claims these cells are able to differentiate into more types of tissue than adult stem cells.
• August 2006 – Rat Induced pluripotent stem cells: the journal Cell publishes Kazutoshi Takahashi and Shinya Yamanaka.
• October 2006 – Scientists at Newcastle University in England create the first ever artificial liver cells using umbilical cord blood stem cells.
• January 2007 – Scientists at Wake Forest University led by Dr. Anthony Atala and Harvard University report discovery of a new type of stem cell in amniotic fluid. This may potentially provide an alternative to embryonic stem cells for use in research and therapy.
• June 2007 – Research reported by three different groups shows that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic state in mice. In the same month, scientist Shoukhrat Mitalipov reports the first successful creation of a primate stem cell line through somatic cell nuclear transfer.
• October 2007 – Mario Capecchi, Martin Evans, and Oliver Smithies win the 2007 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for their work on embryonic stem cells from mice using gene targeting strategies producing genetically engineered mice (known as knockout mice) for gene research.
• November 2007 – Human induced pluripotent stem cells: Two similar papers released by their respective journals prior to formal publication: in Cell by Kazutoshi Takahashi and Shinya Yamanaka, “Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors”, and in Science by Junying Yu, et al., from the research group of James Thomson, “Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells”: pluripotent stem cells generated from mature human fibroblasts. It is possible now to produce a stem cell from almost any other human cell instead of using embryos as needed previously, albeit the risk of tumorigenesis due to c-myc and retroviral gene transfer remains to be determined.
• January 2008 – Robert Lanza and colleagues at Advanced Cell Technology and UCSF create the first human embryonic stem cells without destruction of the embryo.
• January 2008 – Development of human cloned blastocysts following somatic cell nuclear transfer with adult fibroblasts.
• February 2008 – Generation of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Mouse Liver and Stomach: these iPS cells seem to be more similar to embryonic stem cells than the previous developed iPS cells and not tumorigenic, moreover genes that are required for iPS cells do not need to be inserted into specific sites, which encourages the development of non-viral reprogramming techniques.
• March 2008-The first published study of successful cartilage regeneration in the human knee using autologous adult mesenchymal stem cells is published by Clinicians from Regenerative Sciences.
• October 2008 – Sabine Conrad and colleagues at Tübingen, Germany generate pluripotent stem cells from spermatogonial cells of adult human testis by culturing the cells in vitro under leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) supplementation.
• 30 October 2008 – Embryonic-like stem cells from a single human hair.
• 1 March 2009 – Andras Nagy, Keisuke Kaji, et al. discover a way to produce embryonic-like stem cells from normal adult cells by using a novel “wrapping” procedure to deliver specific genes to adult cells to reprogram them into stem cells without the risks of using a virus to make the change. The use of electroporation is said to allow for the temporary insertion of genes into the cell.
• 05 March 2009 Australian scientists find a way to improve chemotherapy of mouse muscle stem cells.
• 09 March 2009 US President Obama lifted federal funding limits on human embryonic instituted by former President Bush.

Stem Cell Basics – What is a Stem Cell?

Ultimately, every cell in the human body can be traced back to a fertilized egg that came into existence from the union of egg and sperm. But the body is made up of over 200 different types of cells, not just one. All of these cell types come from a pool of stem cells in the early embryo. During early development, as well as later in life, various types of stem cells give rise to the specialized or differentiated cells that carry out the specific functions of the body, such as skin, blood, muscle, and nerve cells.

Over the past two decades, scientists have been gradually deciphering the processes by which unspecialized stem cells become the many specialized cell types in the body. Stem cells can regenerate themselves or produce specialized cell types. This property makes stem cells appealing for scientists seeking to create medical treatments that replace lost or damaged cells.

Stem Cell Basics – Types of Stem Cells

Stem cells are found in all of us, from the early stages of human development to the end of life. All stem cells may prove useful for medical research, but each of the different types has both promise and limitations. Embryonic stem cells, which can be derived from a very early stage in human development, have the potential to produce all of the body’s cell types. Adult stem cells, which are found in certain tissues in fully developed humans, from babies to adults, may be limited to producing only certain types of specialized cells. Recently, scientists have also identified stem cells in umbilical cord blood and the placenta that can give rise to the various types of blood cells.

Will This Research Help Us?

An examination of past and current stem cell research shows us that focus is on producing particular lines of stem cells which can be patented, growing and differentiating stem cells in the laboratory, plus implantation techniques for patients with a variety of disorders.

The major benefits accruing to those of us facing challenging degenerative disorders is that the research helps us understand how stem cells function, their potential, and their limitations.

It has become abundantly clear that stem cells, in common with every cell in our body, respond dramatically to the environment surrounding them. In fact, the only way that stem cells can differentiate to become the cells that we require producing dopamine, anandamide, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters, is to surround them with an environment that will encourage them to become what we want. This change has nothing to do with genetic modification; it is totally dependent on the environment.

No matter what technique is used for implanting stem cells, the principles of producing appropriate cells for implantation are the same. Stem cells are extracted from the donor, nurtured in a laboratory by being provided with an appropriate environment, then implanted into the patient. The deficiency in this process is that little or nothing is done to improve the environment within the patient. Therefore, good quality stem cells are implanted into an environment which is deficient in nutrition, hydration, and vitality. It is almost inevitable, therefore, that the stem cells will fail to produce the desired results.

The research I have studied to date shows that benefits accruing from stem cell implantation seem to last for just a few months [6 months to 12 months]. It seems that some patients noticed a reduction in symptoms and an improvement in their well-being soon after implantation. However, after a few months, the condition tends to worsen rapidly, and usually becomes irreversible. I have been in contact with one person who had stem cell implantation about three years ago and is functioning reasonably well, but relies on large doses of Parkinson’s medication to get through the day. Their condition is deteriorating quite quickly.

There are laboratories in Europe implanting stem cells from sheep fetuses into patients with Parkinson’s disease! This procedure seems to bring short-term reduction in some symptoms, but needs to be repeated quite frequently, is very expensive, and becomes less effective with each procedure.

My View

In the future, stem cell implants may be of great benefit to patients with a variety of injuries and disorders if doctors and scientists will focus on creating a nurturing environment within the patient so that stem cells, when implanted, will have a good place in which to grow.

It is important to remember that most of the advice and therapies discussed this program are aimed at creating a nurturing environment around your own stem cells that are produced every day in nearly all parts of your body, thus encouraging them to differentiate into cells producing dopamine and other neurotransmitters that you need. We are doing for our own stem cells in our bodies what “experts” do in laboratories.

Stem cells are important for recovery, but we can change them in ourselves rather than relying on scientists to do it for us.

IMPORTANT

All views expressed in this class on Deep Brain Stimulation and Stem Cell research/Implantation are my own personal views and should not be construed as expert advice, or used to replace advice from practitioners expert in these therapies.

Always inform yourself thoroughly about any course of action before making a decision.

References

• MIMS Annual 2018: published MIMS Australia, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia. (MIMS is a major Australian drug reference guide available to all health practitioners)

• MARJAMA-LYONS Jill, M.D.; “What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Parkinson’s Disease”;  Warner Books, New York, USA; 2003

• COLEMAN John ND; “Stop Parkin’ and Start Livin’ – reversing the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease”; Michelle Anderson Publishing, Melbourne, Australia, 2005.