I made the assumption that "Anonymous," who questioned my take on the discovery of stem cells, was an honest criticism of my thoughts on this blog. I believe that critiques are good for the soul when done with honesty and the wish to find the "truth." It isn't easy to take criticism unless we realize the importance of getting down to the reality/to the truth of a given situation. I made the assumption that Anonymous had done a patent search and a literature search because Anonymous stated that as a fact for us, readers. Well, just on a hunch I did a "simple" search for patents and patent applications. There were 108 patents and 130 patent applications. Simple search, and I am to assume that Anonymous read all these and determined that none of these fit the criteria? I could not read that many patents in a few weeks (since the time Anonymous read my blog on stem cells). I have read patents that were only about 15 printed pages long but most are 30 pages or longer. Applications are much shorter, so one can breeze through them...most of the time. I spent some time yesterday looking at one or two of those patents (Stampfer's HMEC patent was one of the earliest patents on stem cells and human milk--1980's). There is a history of stem cell and human milk research that the lactation profession will be discounting, if they continue to believe that Mark Cregan "discovered" stem cells in human milk. In a way that dishonors the people who have done the basic research in the 70's, 80's, and 90's and now who are forgotten in a media blitz to proclaim something that has already been known for some time.
When I did a patent application search, I found that the US Patent Office has a patent application from Mark Cregan and Peter Hartmann called "Method for isloating cells from mammary secretion." Filed in June 2006. I won't say much about this application because I have already commented about their same patent at the European patent office in 2004. Although at the European patent office, one must pay to read the whole patent, so I didn't. The abstract is free. The comments to the announcement that stem cells are in human milk on the internet seem to be focused on "now we have an ethical way in which to collect stem cells." Whoa....stop, let's think about this. Certainly this is better then collecting stem cells from fetus's but the ethics of collecting it from human milk must be looked at carefully. Let's look at how the authors of this patent collected their human milk to make a patent application. Did women who donated to these researchers have an understanding of the intent of the research? Were they merely told that commercialization was a possibility with the research? And what does that mean? Does the study being done, reflect the purpose of the collection? What if your research is on one thing but you are collecting the milk for future research projects? What was done with the donated milk that wasn't used in this patenting? The value of this milk has just skyrocketed. Now the public knows it, will women so willing donate their milk? Or will a price war begin? It's going to be a challenge.
We are being asked to believe that this is new ground/a discovery. But there is evidence that this is not news to researchers in the field of mammary gland biology. This is just "news" for the public. The Gordon Conference on Mammary Gland Biology in 2002 had a whole section on stem cells. Who are the sponsors to this Conference who most likely sit in on these presentations? The pharmaceutical industry and it is worth noting one company in particular...Wyeth. It was Wyeth and PPL of Scotland that created Dolly (Dolly was created in part by a cell from a sheep's mammary gland). Wyeth has a good understanding of stem cells from mammary glands.
When we compartmentalize science, reduce it to its elements; we can easily be lead to believe that the organ, the tissue is separate from the cell which is separate from the secretion. But nature is not about separate elements. It is a complex matrix of interdependent elements. Reductionist thought creates separation when there is no separation.
There is a political need to sell the concept that stem cells in breastmilk is a "new discovery."
The media sells us a concept and we buy it because it is repeated and repeated. Who benefits from the belief? Some industries are off the hook because they can say we didn't know that human milk had stem cells. Milk banks can say they didn't know either. Anonymous seems to think that I made this magical leap because I mentioned stem cells in human milk in 2001. All I can do is shake my head. Are we going to erase the previous research in order to make it appear that no one knew there were stem cells in human milk? At one time on Lactnet, I wrote that there was a fire in them there hills (regarding the patenting of human milk components) and we needed to speak out (something like that). I wrote about the need to regulate human milk banking more stringently. Ignored and then the topic becomes forbidden (hide the problem). Then I got kicked off Lactnet. Simple solutions to problems you don't want to hear.
A simple solution to having a fire that you don't want to discuss, is to say there never was a fire. What fire? We didn't know about stem cells in human milk until 2008. What fire?
Copyright 2008 Valerie W. McClain
Well, just on a hunch I did a "simple" search for patents and patent applications. There were 108 patents and 130 patent applications. Simple search, and I am to assume that Anonymous read all these and determined that none of these fit the criteria? I could not read that many patents in a few weeks (since the time Anonymous read my blog on stem cells).
ReplyDeleteI SEARCHED FOR ‘HUMAN BREAST MILK’ AND ‘STEM CELL’. I SUGGEST YOU DO MORE THAN A SIMPLE SEARCH AND DON’T INCLUDE ALL IRRELEVANT PATENTS. ALSO, ALL PATENTS HAVE ABSTRACTS WHICH INCLUDE ALL THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO ENSURE YOU AREN’T READING IRRELEVANT INFORMATION. EVEN IF THERE WERE A 130 HITS, WHICH THERE AREN’T, USING ACCURATE SEARCH CRITERIA, IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO FIND ONLY THE SMALL NUMBER OF PATENTS THAT RELATE TO CELLS IN HUMAN MILK.
There is a history of stem cell and human milk research that the lactation profession will be discounting, if they continue to believe that Mark Cregan "discovered" stem cells in human milk. In a way that dishonors the people who have done the basic research in the 70's, 80's, and 90's and now who are forgotten in a media blitz to proclaim something that has already been known for some time.
YOU MISS THE POINT SPECTACULARLY ONCE AGAIN. THESE PRIOR INDIVIDUALS DID GREAT WORK BUT PROVED NOTHING IN RELATION TO STEM CELLS IN BREAST MILK. ONCE AGAIN, AND THIS IS GETTING REPETITIVE, CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE.
When I did a patent application search, I found that the US Patent Office has a patent application from Mark Cregan and Peter Hartmann called "Method for isloating cells from mammary secretion." Filed in June 2006. I won't say much about this application because I have already commented about their same patent at the European patent office in 2004. Although at the European patent office, one must pay to read the whole patent, so I didn't. The abstract is free. The comments to the announcement that stem cells are in human milk on the internet seem to be focused on "now we have an ethical way in which to collect stem cells." Whoa....stop, let's think about this. Certainly this is better then collecting stem cells from fetus's but the ethics of collecting it from human milk must be looked at carefully. Let's look at how the authors of this patent collected their human milk to make a patent application. Did women who donated to these researchers have an understanding of the intent of the research? Were they merely told that commercialization was a possibility with the research? And what does that mean? Does the study being done, reflect the purpose of the collection? What if your research is on one thing but you are collecting the milk for future research projects? What was done with the donated milk that wasn't used in this patenting? The value of this milk has just skyrocketed. Now the public knows it, will women so willing donate their milk? Or will a price war begin? It's going to be a challenge.
THE EUROPEAN PATENT IS DATED DEC 2003, NOT 2004. I SUGGEST YOU DO YOUR RESEARCH WITH A LITTLE MORE VIGOR. THE US AND EUROPEAN PATENTS READ AS IF THE SAME PATENT. AGAIN, PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH.
THE ETHICS OF USING THESE CELLS IS DEFINITELY UP FOR DEBATE, AND HERE WE AGREE.
IF YOU HAD BOTHERED TO READ THE PAPER OF CREGAN ET AL, YOU WILL HAVE NOTED THAT THE COLLECTION AND USE OF THESE CELLS FROM BREAST MILK WAS AS PER AUSTRALIAN HUMAN ETHICS RESEARCH LAW. THIS IS AS PER ALL WESTERN DEMOCRACIES, WHEREBY YOU CANNOT DO ANYTHING WITH THE SAMPLES THAT THE DONOR DOES NOT APPROVE. ALL PARTICIPANTS WILL HAVE BEEN FULL INFORMED. PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE PASSING SUCH COMMENT. US RESEARCH ETHICS WILL BE VERY SIMILAR TO AUSTRALIA I IMAGINE, SO NO NEED TO LOOK UP THE AUSTRALIAN LAWS, JUST FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THOSE LOCALLY.
We are being asked to believe that this is new ground/a discovery. But there is evidence that this is not news to researchers in the field of mammary gland biology. This is just "news" for the public. The Gordon Conference on Mammary Gland Biology in 2002 had a whole section on stem cells.
NOT STEM CELLS IN BREAST MILK. THE FOCUS, ACCORDING TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF THAT CONFERENCE, WAS IN RELATION TO THE TISSUE. NOONE MENTIONED BREAST MILK. AGAIN, I URGE YOU TO DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE COMMENTING. THIS IS AN ENTIRELY MISLEADING, NO, MORE THAN MISLEADING, UNTRUTHFUL COMMENT.
Who are the sponsors to this Conference who most likely sit in on these presentations? The pharmaceutical industry and it is worth noting one company in particular...Wyeth. It was Wyeth and PPL of Scotland that created Dolly (Dolly was created in part by a cell from a sheep's mammary gland). Wyeth has a good understanding of stem cells from mammary glands.
THIS IS ALL A MOOT POINT, SINCE THE CONFERENCE CLEARLY WAS NOT INTERESTED IN LACTATION AND BREAST MILK. PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE COMMENTING.
When we compartmentalize science, reduce it to its elements; we can easily be lead to believe that the organ, the tissue is separate from the cell which is separate from the secretion. But nature is not about separate elements. It is a complex matrix of interdependent elements. Reductionist thought creates separation when there is no separation.
AGREED. BUT MEDICAL SCIENCE MUST COMMUNICATE ITS FINDINGS. STEM CELLS WERE DESCRIBED IN HUMAN BREAST MILK WHERE THEY WERE NOT BEFORE. NOW WE KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS WONDERFUL HUMAN SECRETION THAT FEEDS AND NURTURES OUR YOUNG. DO YOU PROPOSE THAT MEDICAL SCIENCE BE SILENCED SO THAT THE BREAST AS AN ORGAN IS CONSIDERED TO BE THE SAME AS MILK? IS BLOOD AN IDENTICAL TISSUE TO THE HEART OR BONE MARROW, FROM WHERE IT WAS DERIVED? ONLY A FOOL WOULD SAY SO. BREAST MILK IS UNIQUE AND OF AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT COMPOSITION FROM THE TISSUE FROM WHICH IT IS DERIVED. THE TISSUES SYNTHESIZES AND REGULATES THE MILK COMPOSITION. PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH, AND BY THIS I DON'T MEAN QUOTING A SENTENCE OR TWO OUT OF CONTEXT, I MEAN DO YOUR RESEARCH PROPERLY, AND READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE.
YOU DO HAVE A POINT ABOUT REDUCTIONIST THEORY, BUT THE BENEFITS OF PROMOTING BREAST MILK OUTWEIGH THE DETRIMENTS OF NOT DOING SO. WE ARE IN ESSENCE FIGHTING THE SAME BATTLE ON 2 DIFFERENT CONTINENTS, AND YET YOU FAIL TO GRASP THE BASICS – THAT FORMULA IS CONSIDERED AN ACCEPTABLE REPLACEMENT TO BREAST MILK. THESE FINDINGS PUT BREAST MILK INTO THE STRATOSPHERE WHEN COMPARED TO FORMULA, AND YET HERE YOU ARE PLAYING INTO FORMULA COMPANIES HANDS. BREAST MILK HAS ALL THE GOODIES, AND FORMULA DOES NOT – WHY ARE YOU MISSING THE OBVIOUS IN SUCH SPECTACULAR FASHION?
There is a political need to sell the concept that stem cells in breastmilk is a "new discovery."
HOW ABOUT SELLING BREAST MILK OVER FORMULA. WHY ARE YOU SO ANTI-BREAST MILK? THERE ARE WONDERFUL DEVELOPMENTAL BENEFITS FOR INFANTS TO BE RECEIVING STEM CELLS. YOU FOCUS SO MUCH ON THE POTENTIAL, YET TO BE PROVEN, HYPOTHETICAL COMMERCIAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE MISSUSE OF BREAST MILK AND MISS THE POINT THAT THESE CELLS MAY HELP INFANT DEVELOPMENT, JUST AS OTHER COMPONENTS OF BREAST MILK DO.
The media sells us a concept and we buy it because it is repeated and repeated. Who benefits from the belief? Some industries are off the hook because they can say we didn't know that human milk had stem cells. Milk banks can say they didn't know either. Anonymous seems to think that I made this magical leap because I mentioned stem cells in human milk in 2001. All I can do is shake my head. Are we going to erase the previous research in order to make it appear that no one knew there were stem cells in human milk?
AGAIN, A SPECTACULAR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE MEDICAL SCIENCE. CREGAN PROVED THERE WERE STEM CELLS IN BREAST MILK. YOU AS A THINKER ON THE SUBJECT, WITH OTHERS, THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE THESE CELLS IN HUMAN MILK. OTHERS IN THE 50’s (YOU MISSED PAPANICOLOU WHEN PREVIOUSLY QUOTING THE RESEARCH) THROUGH TO THE EARLY 00’S FOCUSED ON NON-STEM CELLS IN BREAST MILK OR STEM CELLS IN THE TISSUE. REDUCTIONIST THEORY OR NOT, THIS IS A WORLD FIRST IN BREAST MILK. WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, THIS IS A BREAKTHROUGH FINDING. AND HAS POTENTIALLY HUGE BENEFITS TO THE BREASTFED INFANT. YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS ON THIS BLOG SUGGEST YOU ARE FIGHTING FOR THE PROMOTION OF BREASTFEEDING, BUT HERE YOU SOUND AS IF YOU ARE NOT WANTING TO PROMOTE BREAST MILK. FOR THE FIRST TIME, SOMEONE SHOWS THAT BREAST MILK CONTAINS STEM CELLS THAT MAY BE OF BENEFIT TO THE INFANT, AND HERE YOU ARE WANTING TO SHOOT THIS FINDING DOWN? YOU ARE DOING A GREAT DISSERVICE TO THOSE OF US TO DEDICATE OUR LIVES TO PRO-BREASTFEEDING INITIATIVES.
At one time on Lactnet, I wrote that there was a fire in them there hills (regarding the patenting of human milk components) and we needed to speak out (something like that). I wrote about the need to regulate human milk banking more stringently. Ignored and then the topic becomes forbidden (hide the problem). Then I got kicked off Lactnet. Simple solutions to problems you don't want to hear.
I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT I AM BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND WHY. YOU ARE TURNING THIS HUGE POSITIVE FINDING IN BREAST MILK, WHICH WE CAN USE TO PROMOTE BREASTFEEDING, INTO A NEGATIVE. YOU SHOULD BE USING YOUR BLOG TO DEMONSTRATE WHY BREAST IS BEST RATHER THAN PLAYING INTO THE FORMULA COMPANIES HANDS WITH YOUR ANTI-BREAST MILK POINT OF VIEW. PATENTS AND RESEARCH ARE HARMLESS UNLESS USED IN AN INNAPPROPRIATE MANNER. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS OCCURRING, OR WILL OCCUR. IF IT DOES, THEN I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SUPPORT YOU, BUT AS ALL EVIDENCE TO DATE IS THAT THIS WORLD-FIRST FINDING SUPPORTS BREAST MILK OVER ARTIFICIAL SUBSTITUTES, THEN THIS FINDING SHOULD BE USED AS A PROMOTION FOR BREASTFEEDING. IT IS HORRIFIC TO THINK OF THE DAMAGE YOU ARE DOING TO THE PRO-BREASTFEEDING CAUSE WITH THIS INAPPROPRIATE, AND (I HATE TO SAY IT) UNEDUCATED ATTACK ON THIS WORK. JUST BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, AND IN PARTICULAR WHAT REGULATES HUMAN MILK COMPOSITION, INCLUDING THE CELLS, DOES NOT MEAN YOU OUGHT TO BECOME ANTI-BREAST MILK AND AS SUCH UNDERMINE ALL THE PRO-BREASTFEEDING WORK BEING DONE HERE IN AUSTRALIA AND ALL OVER THE USA.
JUST OUT OF INTEREST. HAVE YOU TAKEN TIME TO PUT ANY OF YOUR CONCERNS TO THE RESEARCHERS INVOLVED IN THIS WORK FOR CLARIFICATION? EVEN TO SOMEONE OF MY LIMITED MEANS YOUR CLAIMS APPEAR NAÏVE. HAVE YOU YET CHALLENGED THE EXPERTS, OR DOES THE PROSPECT OF SUCH A CHALLENGE SCARE YOU? MARK CREGAN’S EMAIL ADDRESS IS ON THE PAPER. OH YES, THAT’S RIGHT, DESPITE ALL YOUR CLAIMS YOU HAVEN’T EVEN BOTHERED TO READ THE PAPER, OR THE PATENT FOR THAT MATTER WHICH IS QUITE EASY TO FIND. IF YOU NEED HELP – GO TO THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA WEBSITE, TYPE IN ‘MARK CREGAN EMAIL’, AND YOU WILL GET HIS EMAIL ADDRESS. DON’T JUST TYPE IN ‘MARK’ AS YOU APPEAR TO HAVE DONE FOR THE PATENT SEARCH - AS THIS WILL GET MORE THAN 100 HITS WHICH COULD NOT BE READ IN A REASONABLE TIME FRAME. TRY SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC, SUCH AS THE ACTUAL SEARCH PROFILE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.
FINALLY, IT IS TERRIBLY DISCONCERTING TO BE HAVING SUCH A DEBATE. I READ YOUR OPINION ON HIV IN JHL AND LOOKED YOU UP ON THE INTERNET (I SAW YOUR BLOG, AND HAD A READ). IT IS NOW CLEAR YOU DO NOT BASE YOUR OPINIONS ON EVIDENCE, BUT RATHER ON YOUR AGENDA, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE AT ANY GIVEN TIME. YOU DO REFLECT MY CONCERNS ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF BREASTFEEDING ISSUES, BUT EQUALLY, IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE NOT READ, OR UNDERSTOOD, THE EVIDENCE PLACED IN FRONT OF YOU. OPINION IS ONE THING, FACT IS ANOTHER. YOU WILL FIND FEW MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS WILLING TO LISTEN TO YOUR OPINION UNLESS YOU LEARN TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF MEDICINE AND MEDICAL RESEARCH. IT HAS ITS FLAWS, BUT EQUALLY, IT IS BETTER THAN HAVING AN UNEDUCATED OPINION.
I WISH YOU WELL ON YOUR QUEST, BUT I FEEL IT WILL BE A LONELY ONE. I DOUBT THOSE SUPPORTING BREASTFEEDING ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD COULD SUPPORT THOSE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE BASICS OF THE MEDICAL RESEARCH OF BREASTFEEDING, AND IN THEIR NAIVETY, PROMOTE THE ANTI-BREASTMILK AGENDA. YOUR PROBLEMS WITH LACTNET ARE NOW CLEAR TO ME.