Skip to comments.(Not Embryonic)Stem-cell Contact Lenses Cure Blindness in one Month
Posted on 06/04/2009 6:20:19 AM PDT by Dutchgirl
Here's something that people with poor or no vision will be excited about: three patients had their sight restored in less than a month by contact lenses cultured with stem cells.
All three patients were blind in one eye. The researchers extracted stem cells from their working eyes, cultured them in contact lenses for 10 days, and gave them to the patients. Within 10 to 14 days of use, the stem cells began recolonizing and repairing the cornea.
Of the three patients, two were legally blind but can now read the big letters on an eye chart, while the third, who could previously read the top few rows of the chart, is now able to pass the vision test for a driver's license. The research team isn't getting over excited, still remaining unsure as to whether the correction will remain stable, but the fact that the three test patients have been enjoying restored sight for the last 18 months is definitely encouraging. The simplicity and low cost of the technique also means that it could be carried out in poorer countries.
This is incredible and potentially game changing. It's stuff like this that makes you realize that we live in the future, and it's awesome. [UNSW via The Australian via GizMag]
WOW... just... wow.
Wow, what a great break through!!!
This is incredible. I wonder if this just works on certain types of blindness, or on regular near & far-sighted vision? It would seem that it would be only for cases of blindness relating to the cornea, but I would be interested in reading more about this.
I wonder if it corrects simpler issues, like astigmitisms? In other words, bring your eyesight to 20/20?
I’m legally blind....
Well, I need to have coffee. That ditto was for #5. lol
A couple of years ago adult stem cells saved the eyes of my son. He was losing his vision due to long-term effects of a chemical burn. The stem cells were taken from healthier parts of one eye and transplanted into both eyes. After just a few days (maybe 4), his sight was near normal, better than before the surgery, and after a couple of weeks, his sight was normal. Now a couple of years later you would never guess he had ever been injured.
Amen to that, and thanks for the thread, Dutchgirl!
Here's another link, same subject, with a link to the journal abstract where the study appeared...
My only beef with the article is that the fact adult stem cells were used isn't acknowledged.
son=son-in-law, but he’s like a son to me.
Injecting foreign tissues into one's body, be they of adult or embryonic origin, just isn't "natural". It's a measure of how much the abortion agenda has taken control of the MSM-reported debate over stem-cells that the key issue of autologous vs. everything else still goes widely unreported and unnoticed by the general public.
The pro-life movement would do well to focus the real debate on this point rather than characterizing this as embryionic vs. adult stem cells. "We want to help your body heal itself" has no rebuttal. Look at the literature. All of the real stem-cell results involve autologous stems, so there's no need to fall into the abortion trap in debating this issue.
Save and File
IF you see a LION at a supermarket. Thank them.
Why is the left determined to use embryos? I suspect there is a market for fetal tissue, anybody know what Planned Parenthood does with it? I sent them an email asking, never got a reply.
The answer should be obvious. The "stem cell debate" is just the latest flag of convenience being used to dupe the public into believing that some good will result from evil. By cleverly phrasing the debate as "embryonic" vs. "adult" the debate is steered into the familiar landscape of "choice". The pro-life movement falls into the trap when they argue for "adult" stem cells.
The real argument (for which the left has no response) is to phrase things as "natural" (autologous) vs. "artificial" (foreign tissue) cells.
There really is such a thing as "natural law". This is but one aspect of it.
Do you think this may be an option for you?
Of course you are right! To be technically accurate I, and they, should have used the term “autologous”. However, the battle of the day is to expose the evil, and therefore worthlessness, of pursuing “embryonic” stem cell use. My use the term “adult” was intended to serve that purpose — to make that distinction between the two. As soon as the baby-vs-adult battle is won, I’ll make an effort to keep my adjectives accurate. Thanks!
Turn the tables and recast the debate as "Helping your body heal itself" (the natural way) vs. "Injecting foreign tissues into your body" (the artificial way) and see how things change. Support for autologous stem cells means rejecting embryonic research in a way that plays to the organic "all natural" mindset.
Sometimes a bit of forensic ju-jitsu is called for in the public square.
Interesting. You may well be on to something there. Redefining the argument from “baby cells vs. adult cells” to “my cells vs. foreign cells” will draw even those ignoring their moral compasses into the correct side of the debate. The more self-serving and ego-centric they are, the more vocal an ally they become. For all the wrong reasons, they join the side of right. And “all natural” is a hot ticket right now. You’ve convinced me to try something new. It is a sound logical argument, and may well be a convincing one as well. Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.