Up until now, you have had two big choices for the care of local problems or systemic diseases, drugs and surgery. You now have a new option, regenerative medicine. And, in brief, then includes stem cells for regenerating body tissues and peptides pour up regulating your body’s own growth hormone to cause growth of new tissue and healing. Here, I review stem cells.
The two most growing, popular sources, umbilical and fat extracted, are available to you today. However, nobody understands them. Not even your doctor. That is because they’re new, for one, and big Pharma and the federal government have little interest in you learning about them.
At this point, there are very few sources available to educate a nation, a world, about the rapid advances in what we know about stem cells. I here present a summary, a heads up overview, comparing these two major sources of stem cells.
This is solely for the purpose of education. I want to bring you up to speed in 2019. Umbilical donor and fat extracted cells.
There is much mudslinging between these two camps. I am a member of a relatively new, growing camp that wants to use everything available to us in a very customized per patient, yet collaborative between clinicians’ approach.
Clearly, umbilical has its strengths. Clearly, fat stem cells have their strengths. Clearly, the umbilical donor source has its disadvantages. Clearly, the fat extracted source has its disadvantages. And I’ll try to process this in a heads up fashion where possible.
For, every child and adult deserve to receive the benefit of these newly discovered healing cells. Extracted fat stem cells come from a limited reserve. They are limited in that there’s only so many cells in your body to extract.
Further, as we age, they diminish in number and function – although some fat reserves like the love handles, their usage has been so little over the decades that they maybe youthful and plentiful number. And if your stem cells are becoming less and less functional and plentiful as we age, perhaps we should leave them to the body’s purposes as we move into our elder years.
So, as we age, they’re probably a less and less attractive source. But, while you are young, they represent a great source especially if large amounts are required for a use demanding more for better care because there’s no likelihood challenge with higher doses.
Some terrific uses of stem cells do require larger doses. So, in a more is better world (MS, renal failure, pulmonary disorders like COPD, autism), where you want more cells, using your own cells to avoid immune risk at the large numbers of cells required to get a desirable response may be wise.
And perhaps (perhaps) aging stem cells, possibly designed more to pass on also inflammation signals so that nature can accomplish her plan to age us off the planet to make room for her young – perhaps this is yet another reason to avoid using stem cells in the elderly.
Umbilical stem cells in contrast come from an unlimited reserve, donor cells to be cloned ad infinitum. But even if there are no limits in availability of numbers, there are limits here in how many we can use. The downside fee we pay here may be risk of immune rejection from the excessive use in numbers per deployment or numbers of deployments.
As they are not autologous, but rather are allergenic, they are foreign to our body, so there are upper limits how many we can use without triggering immune risk. So, necessarily having to use smaller doses of umbilical source cells may be a factor.
But it will not be a restrictive factor if used non-systemically – knees, penises, tendons. If localized uses require less stem cells because there are only so many receptors for the stem cells to interact with in confined small areas… We may not have a problem.
If the stem cell deployed is a native stem cell as is the case in autologous, fat extracts, their interaction with our tissue cells is direct and surely reproduces what our body would do with its tissues’ own cells. But is the signaling the same for umbilical, allogenic foreign cells from a donor? Does the effect linger with autologous cells? Is there a signal shut down with foreign sourced cells?
So, does one source produce a stronger longer result? Does one produce more of a delayed result because it’s less familiar to the tissue? Time will tell no lies. But anecdotally there seem to be differences. Both share limits in care for two main groups of disorders. Neither extracted stem cells are used in partnering.
Both sources of adult mesenchymal cells are extremely safe, and the feds, in having cleared them, allows us to say this. Both sources work as patient funded investigation is showing. Both have their sweet spots. And although there is still more work, this is not another episode of Jurassic Park.
This is an exciting time to be alive if you’re looking to improve quality of living, treat illness without drugs, or prolong life.
- Fat extracted: under 60 in general?
- Systemic diseases that require more numbers for systemic IV deployment?
- Umbilical: all ages especially over 60?
- Systemic disease so IV deployment okay but…. Avoid large doses? And autoimmune diseases?
The ones with twitchy self-destructive antibodies – let’s not trigger cascades with too much of our fat extracted cells – and perhaps stick to umbilical? The autoimmune disorders with defenses twitchy to foreign antigens – let’s not use too much umbilical per treatment or over time? And certainly, avoid aged fat stem cell donors to youth hosts unless it’s a last result? And when our hands are really tied for stem cells, rally to…
Peptides to up regulate the body’s own growth hormone signaling locally or systemically for the healing and regeneration that allows? That’s another story!
DAVID ALLINGHAM, M.D., MS