No Immunosuppression

Why Immunosuppression Is Not Necessary For Implantation of BCRO Fetal Precursor Cell Transplants?

Immunosuppression – to use it or not to use it with fetal precursor cell transplantation – has been a subject of heated arguments among physicians practicing this field of medicine for the past 20+ years.

European physicians have not used immunosuppression after cell transplantation, even of cells of animal fetal origin, because they observed in their clinical practice that

  • Allergic reactions were infrequent (incidence less than 5%),
  • Anaphylactic shock was rare, and
  • Allergic reactions never caused death of a patient(!),

but they used a premedication by antihistamines and cortisone.

This was established beyond any legal doubt by the investigation ordered by German Supreme Court in the case # 1 BvR 420/97.

Since in Europe ~ 5 million patients have been treated by various forms of cell transplantation, mostly of animal fetal origin, and none of them received immunosuppression after implantation, there was hardly any need to search for scientific proofs. “Res ipsa loquitur! (Facts speak for themselves!)”

There are many published medical reports on hundreds of patients showing that changes of laboratory parameters of the immune system function before and after fetal precursor cell transplantation are minimal & statistically not significant.

This confirms the absence of any noticeable clinical immune reactions after cell transplantation providing cell transplants were prepared properly, such as by BCRO method.

  1. total U.S. experience amounts to less than a few thousand patients (and most of these patients had neurotransplantation where immunosuppression is absolutely unnecessary, as it is commonly known that implanted fetal brain tissue is non-antigenic).

The problem lies with immunologists.

The European fathers of immunology could be convinced already in 60-ies to personally observe the patient treatments with live fetal cell xeno-transplants and recognize – to their great surprise – that the recipient patients not only did not die of anaphylactic shock, on the contrary they exhibited no clinically apparent immune reactions whatsoever.

  1. thus – outside of clinical trials carried out in the U.S. with BCRO cell transplants in 1993 and 1995 – no U.S. physician has had an opportunity to ‘learn the truth’.

Until we will learn what life is, and many philosophers believe that it will never happen, and thus cannot explain many aspects of the function of living bodies, we have to be satisfied with the fact that implantation of ‘state-of-art’ BCRO type fetal precursor cell transplants does not cause untoward immune or allergic reactions.

The use of high dose immunosuppression has been one of the main reasons why the success rate of cell transplantation has been so poor in the U.S, as compared with Europe.

Long term immunosuppression is not only dangerous to the patients, it is also detrimental to the fetal precursor cell transplants, because these are very young cells, enormously sensitive to any toxin, and immunosuppressants are indeed highly toxic!

The controversy should have ended when we presented the existence of such method to the U.S. FDA in 1997.

The negative attitude of pharmaceutical industry toward cell transplantation makes no sense: throughout its 80+ years’ long history fetal precursor cell transplantation has been used predominantly

  • for patients with no longer treatable serious diseases who have not responded, or no longer responded, to the usual, or standard, medical treatment, or
  • for those who suffered from incurable diseases without any known treatment,

In other words cell transplantation has not replaced the orthodox medical therapies, which bring profits to the pharmaceutical industry.

So there has been no need to look at cell transplantation as a competition.