New Stem Cell Breakthrough - 1 hour Boob Jobs

[General Zod]

Tummy fat 'can grow new breasts'
It takes six months for the results to appear, scientists say

Fat from the tummy or bottom could be used to grow new breasts in a treatment which could be carried out in an hour - or a lunch break.

Scientists say they can create a fat mixture with concentrated stem cells, which, when injected into the breast, apparently encourages tissue to grow.

The therapy, detailed in Chemistry and Industry Magazine, could help cancer patients who have had mastectomies.

And if licensed, it may rival silicone for those seeking bigger breasts.

Using fat from the patient's own body to rebuild other areas is not a novel idea, but such reconstructions often fail as the fat is simply reabsorbed.

However using fat-derived stem cells appears to overcome this problem, according to the company behind the procedure, Cytori Therapeutics.

Scientists say they are not sure quite how it works, but suspect that the stem cells emit signals that encourage blood vessels to grow and nurture new tissue.

Rajiv Grover of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (Baaps) said he saw the research as a "positive development for medical science", but doubted whether it would provide any immediate results in cosmetic surgery.

"We need to find out how these cells work once they are in the breast before any great claims can be made."

Antonia Dean, a clinical nurse specialist at Breast Cancer Care also said more work needed to be done - "both in terms of how long the new breast really lasts for, but most importantly the safety implications for women who have had tumours."

Filling out

The procedure - dubbed Celution - could be carried out in an hour.

Fat from the either the stomach, bottom or thigh can be taken out with a standard liposuction procedure, and the stem cells then extracted.

These cells are placed into a cartridge ready for injection one hour later. The company says the breasts will then fill out over the course of six months.

The largest trial so far has involved 19 women in Japan. All of them had had at least partial mastectomies and all responded well to the treatment, with no major side-effects.

Clinical trials are continuing, and the company hopes to introduce the therapy to Europe in early 2008.

It is expensive - costing a few thousand pounds per cartridge, but this is not dissimilar to the price of conventional surgery.

In the UK, about 45,000 people are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. Of these about 30% will have mastectomies.

I'm surprised nobody's posted this yet

[Superman]

YES!

[Tahlan]

How not to be flippant, disrespectful, or sarcastic? Oh, I forgot, this is SD.net.

If the procedure can be perfected, it's great news for thousands of women who are cancer survivors, that's if the insurance companies will pay for it. Otherwise only those wealthy enough can afford the procedure.

The other down side is the abuse of the procedure for purely cosmetic reasons, and not medical. Clarification: reconstruction after a masectomy is medical, although I will bet that insurance companies will say it's cosmetic and won't pay for it.

But one can imagine the use of the technique in lips as well as breasts. Can male transvestites get boobs and lips as well? Talk about gender confusion.

[Solauren]

Saying this as someone who knows cancer survivors, including those that have had breast cancer, this is a good breakthrough.

A lot of breast cancer survivors that can afford it, don't get boob jobs because of the psychological issues. "They're not my real breasts."

Now, it would be a case of "I regrew my breasts" instead of "i got fake ones."

Sure, it could be abused for non-medical treatments (i.e cosmetic), but you know what, so what? Most people prefer real boobs over silcone ones anyway. ANd they look better.

Win-Win for everyone.

[General Zod]

The other down side is the abuse of the procedure for purely cosmetic reasons, and not medical. Clarification: reconstruction after a masectomy is medical, although I will bet that insurance companies will say it's cosmetic and won't pay for it.

How exactly is it abuse if people choose to use it for purely cosmetic purposes? The more people who pay for the treatment means that the price will gradually be driven down so that those who genuinely need it for medical reasons can afford it if they aren't super-rich.

[Tahlan]

The other down side is the abuse of the procedure for purely cosmetic reasons, and not medical. Clarification: reconstruction after a masectomy is medical, although I will bet that insurance companies will say it's cosmetic and won't pay for it.

How exactly is it abuse if people choose to use it for purely cosmetic purposes? The more people who pay for the treatment means that the price will gradually be driven down so that those who genuinely need it for medical reasons can afford it if they aren't super-rich.

You're right, Zod. I am guilty for using the word abuse. In this situation, let's define abuse as "excessive use or treatment." IMO there will be women who have breasts, who will get bigger and bigger breasts, breasts they don't need. To use a medical procedure developed for cancer patients for a purpose other than what it was intended for is in my opionion, for lack of a better word, abuse. Not that abuse in this context is necessarily evil or morally wrong, or whatever. I mean, hey, I've abused alcohol a few times in my life, regretted it later, but I wasn't evil or morally wrong in my abuse.

Now use "abuse" in the context of child abuse or spousal abuse, etc., and yeah, in my opinion that's bad, morally wrong, and reprehensible.

So, if you can think of a better word than abuse which has this connotation that I've described, I'll be glad to use it.

[General Zod]

You're right, Zod. I am guilty for using the word abuse. In this situation, let's define abuse as "excessive use or treatment." IMO there will be women who have breasts, who will get bigger and bigger breasts, breasts they don't need. To use a medical procedure developed for cancer patients for a purpose other than what it was intended for is in my opionion, for lack of a better word, abuse. Not that abuse in this context is necessarily evil or morally wrong, or whatever. I mean, hey, I've abused alcohol a few times in my life, regretted it later, but I wasn't evil or morally wrong in my abuse.

See, there's a problem with this line of thinking. The treatment itself has primarily medical applications, but you could easily make the same argument for reconstructive plastic surgery. Your logic doesn't follow since you can't show that it's harmful in any fashion except for some idiotic variation on the "it's not natural" fallacy.

So, if you can think of a better word than abuse which has this connotation that I've described, I'll be glad to use it.

I'm not going to do the work for you if you can't figure out what you're trying to say.

[Molyneux]

Very, very nice; this is good news indeed for breast cancer survivors (and hopefully m-to-f transgender folk, as well).

Here's hoping it pans out.

[Tahlan]

You're right, Zod. I am guilty for using the word abuse. In this situation, let's define abuse as "excessive use or treatment." IMO there will be women who have breasts, who will get bigger and bigger breasts, breasts they don't need. To use a medical procedure developed for cancer patients for a purpose other than what it was intended for is in my opionion, for lack of a better word, abuse. Not that abuse in this context is necessarily evil or morally wrong, or whatever. I mean, hey, I've abused alcohol a few times in my life, regretted it later, but I wasn't evil or morally wrong in my abuse.

See, there's a problem with this line of thinking. The treatment itself has primarily medical applications, but you could easily make the same argument for reconstructive plastic surgery. Your logic doesn't follow since you can't show that it's harmful in any fashion except for some idiotic variation on the "it's not natural" fallacy.

Who's talking about logic? I was plainly discussing semantics and syntax and your condemnation of my use of the word "abuse." How obtuse of you.

So, if you can think of a better word than "abuse" which has this connotation that I've described, I'll be glad to use it.

I'm not going to do the work for you if you can't figure out what you're trying to say.

What, can't think of a word yourself? So sorry.

[LadyTevar]

Where do I sign up for the trial? I have the fat to spare...

[General Zod]

Who's talking about logic? I was plainly discussing semantics and syntax and your condemnation of my use of the word "abuse." How obtuse of you.

If you're trying to make an argument against something then you're expected to use a logical argument on here dipshit. I'll take that as a concession that you can't actually back up your point then.

What, can't think of a word yourself? So sorry.

I'm not psychic dumbass. If you can't phrase what you're trying to say then don't expect other people to do it for you.

[matus1976]

If the procedure can be perfected, it's great news for thousands of women who are cancer survivors, that's if the insurance companies will pay for it. Otherwise only those wealthy enough can afford the procedure.

Every single product, technology, or medical procedure that has ever existed has at one point in time been available "only to the rich" it is the natural progression by which things become available to everyone else. Can you name one single thing man made that was instantly available to 'everyone' This is just egalitarian nonsense.

The other down side is the abuse of the procedure for purely cosmetic reasons, and not medical. Clarification: reconstruction after a masectomy is medical, although I will bet that insurance companies will say it's cosmetic and won't pay for it.

What the hell do you care if someone gets a boob job who you think 'doesnt need it' its not your judgement call to make. The vast majority of things we do are not 'needed' What is it meant be 'needed' What is necesarry for mere survival? Hardly more than bread, water, and some berries, but I bet you consume a hell of a lot more than that. How many pairs of shoes and pants do you have? Surely you don't 'need' all those. How big is your apt? I bet its a hell of a lot bigger than what you 'need' to survive. Why do you have a computer? You certainly don't 'need' that to survive. What's with those contact lenses? You sure don't 'need' those to survive. You act as though someone must justify to you their 'need' for something, boob job or not. Is your life so un-interesting that you must life to dictate the lives of others? You are just a little social tyrant in training. Why don't you try living your own life instead of telling other people what is and isnt right for them do with their own bodies.

[Superman]

How not to be flippant, disrespectful, or sarcastic? Oh, I forgot, this is SD.net.

Are you talking to me, sir?

Ladytevar, you rock by the way...

[Tahlan]

How not to be flippant, disrespectful, or sarcastic? Oh, I forgot, this is SD.net.

Are you talking to me, sir?

No, Superman. I was disabusing myself of the idea of being flippant, disrespectful, or sarcastic (although I couldn't leave the sarcasm entirely alone). After I said, "Oh, I forgot this is SD.net" I should have perhaps said, "and it's OK if I'm flippant, disrespectful, or sarcastic."

[Zixinus]

So, if you can think of a better word than abuse which has this connotation that I've described, I'll be glad to use it.

Mis-use?

In this situation, let's define abuse as "excessive use or treatment." IMO there will be women who have breasts, who will get bigger and bigger breasts, breasts they don't need. To use a medical procedure developed for cancer patients for a purpose other than what it was intended for is in my opionion, for lack of a better word, abuse.

Currently, there are already silicon implants for breasts. This method, if safe enough, can be a much better alternative. What difference would it make if it the breast are more "natural" now then otherwise?

Call me sexists, but women already go at large lengths to get themselves noticed, and big boobs are flashing neon signs, and when they think that they need them, they get them. I feel a bit ashamed to live in a society where some women have to modify their body to raise their self-esteem or silence insecurities, but the same can be said about tattoos. And really, as Matus said, its their body, their choice and their life.

[Singular Quartet]

I feel a bit ashamed to live in a society where some women have to modify their body to raise their self-esteem or silence insecurities, but the same can be said about tattoos.

There's a difference between Tramp Stamps and (NSFW)Body Art. I suppose you are attempting to make the same point as with breast implants, how some implants go to women who've had masectomies(sp) and others go to women who want false self-esteem, but it doesn't fucking sound like it.

As a side note, there's also (VERY NSFW) PURE INSANITY.

[The_Saint]

Just wondering how this differs to breast implants when it comes to the nipple, as I understood it if a women got implants the nipple was rendered useless (in respect of breast feeding) whereas this sounds like it may leave 'everything' intact...

Of course this would only make a difference to cosmetic applications but something to think about.

[General Zod]

Just wondering how this differs to breast implants when it comes to the nipple, as I understood it if a women got implants the nipple was rendered useless (in respect of breast feeding) whereas this sounds like it may leave 'everything' intact...

Of course this would only make a difference to cosmetic applications but something to think about.

Since this seems to merely encourage the breasts themselves to grow as opposed to having to actually cut them open, it seems like it'd leave them completely functional going by the article. Though admittedly I'm no medical expert.

[Eulogy]

Now if only they can do this for limbs, organs and foreskins...

[Superman]

Look, it's the same with any cosmetic procedure. People who receive plastic surgery are either doing it because they were horribly disfigured in a car wreck, or they watch way too much television and think that they're supposed to look like the people on shows like "Friends."

This is nothing new. It's more of the same.

[chitoryu12]

Look, it's the same with any cosmetic procedure. People who receive plastic surgery are either doing it because they were horribly disfigured in a car wreck, or they watch way too much television and think that they're supposed to look like the people on shows like "Friends."

This is nothing new. It's more of the same.

Still haven't seen plastic surgery that actually makes people pretty without at the same time looking artificial.

[General Zod]

Look, it's the same with any cosmetic procedure. People who receive plastic surgery are either doing it because they were horribly disfigured in a car wreck, or they watch way too much television and think that they're supposed to look like the people on shows like "Friends."

This is nothing new. It's more of the same.

Still haven't seen plastic surgery that actually makes people pretty without at the same time looking artificial.

Chances are if you noticed it then it wasn't good plastic surgery. The trick is whether or not you can tell the difference with no foreknowledge of whether they've had the surgery.

[Superman]

True. I know a doc who is board certified in both urology and plastic surgery, and he does some outstanding work. Does gender reassignment surgery too...

[Tahlan]

If the procedure can be perfected, it's great news for thousands of women who are cancer survivors, that's if the insurance companies will pay for it. Otherwise only those wealthy enough can afford the procedure.

Every single product, technology, or medical procedure that has ever existed has at one point in time been available "only to the rich" it is the natural progression by which things become available to everyone else. Can you name one single thing man made that was instantly available to 'everyone' This is just egalitarian nonsense. (emphasis added)

WTH? You know matus, I've read and reread my comment time and again, and I have no clue as to how you came to say what you did. In fact, I don't know where to begin, but I will make the attempt.

First, I did not use the words you quoted: "only to the rich." So right off the bat you're misquoting me.

Second, my statement, "Otherwise only those wealthy enough can afford the procedure" proceeds from, and is directly related to, the preceding phrase, which is the sad fact that insurance companies will probably not pay for the procedure, which is what I said. At best I deserved a "duh" from the peanut gallery for making such an obvious statement.

Third, your poorly punctuated running tirade which was, Every single product, technology, or medical procedure that has ever existed has at one point in time been available "only to the rich" it is the natural progression by which things become available to everyone else. Can you name one single thing man made that was instantly available to 'everyone' absolutely baffles me. I understand the words you used, but I cannot make the connection between what I said and the impetus for your tirade.

Fourth, if I was espousing egalitarianism, I certainly would have done a better job of it, and belittling it as "nonsense" is simply juvenile. Do you really know what egalitarianism is? Here is the Merriam-Webster's definition: 1: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges; 2: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people. So where do you get egalitarianism from my statement that insurance companies probably won't pay for the procedure and the logical conclusion that only the wealthy will be able to afford the procedure?

So I finish this portion of my rebuttal with the phrase I began it with: WTH?

The other down side is the abuse of the procedure for purely cosmetic reasons, and not medical. Clarification: reconstruction after a masectomy is medical, although I will bet that insurance companies will say it's cosmetic and won't pay for it.

What the hell do you care if someone gets a boob job who you think 'doesnt need it'

I didn't say I did.

its not your judgement call to make.

I didn't say it was.

The vast majority of things we do are not 'needed'

Your words and not mine.

What is it meant be 'needed'

What? More bad grammar and missing punctuation? WTH does your sentence mean?

What is necesarry for mere survival?

I don't know. I didn't pose the question. You tell me.

Hardly more than bread, water, and some berries, but I bet you consume a hell of a lot more than that. How many pairs of shoes and pants do you have? Surely you don't 'need' all those. How big is your apt? I bet its a hell of a lot bigger than what you 'need' to survive. Why do you have a computer? You certainly don't 'need' that to survive. What's with those contact lenses? You sure don't 'need' those to survive.

So what's the point of your diatribe?

You act as though someone must justify to you their 'need' for something, boob job or not.

Oh, now it's my actions, and not only my words that condemn me. How do you even remotely justify your statement?

Is your life so un-interesting that you must life to dictate the lives of others?

Uh-oh. More bad grammar. Anyway, your denigrating question and speculation about my life smacks of Strawman Fallacy.

You are just a little social tyrant in training.

Another fallacy; I just don't remember which one it is; although I do think it is the Ad Hominem Fallacy.

Why don't you try living your own life instead of telling other people what is and isnt right for them do with their own bodies.

I do live my own life. Perhaps you should heed your own advice.

[Durandal]

I feel a bit ashamed to live in a society where some women have to modify their body to raise their self-esteem or silence insecurities, but the same can be said about tattoos. And really, as Matus said, its their body, their choice and their life.

So if cosmetic surgery didn't exist, would you still feel ashamed that so many people were going to the gym and dieting to raise their self-esteem and silence insecurities?

Let's be honest here. How many people do you really know that diet and exercise just to be healthy? If there were no health benefits at all to exercise and diet, people would still do it to make themselves more attractive.

I started exercising and watching my calorie intake for one simple reason. I looked in the mirror and saw the beginnings of a spare tire. And my face is just too damned pretty to sit on a fat guy's body.