Posted on 12/02/2004 10:26:36 AM PST by neverdem
Reason's link didn't work. Here you can access the entire article, not just it's abstract and related links.
This was posted days ago.
This woman may well have been able to walk on her own. There is no proof that any stem cell miracle is at work here. This is National Enquirer tabloid stuff.
Here's the secret of this story. If the cells can be taken from the umbilical cord, there's no reason to kill the baby.
Exactly! Also, and I've said this for years, there is far more value in learning how to create stem cells from mature cells (so that one can use them without fear of rejection) than from using stem cells from another person.
This author is wrong in his premise if he thinks this will "re-ignite" the embryonic stem cell debate. To the contrary, it should be one more nail in its coffin.
Those who oppose embryonic stem cell use support the use of stem cells from umbilical cords and placenta, as well as adult stem cells. That's the point -there are nondestructive alternatives that actually show more promise than embryonic stem cells.
"harvested embryonic stem cells from blood taken from umbilical cords"
Here's the secret of this story. If the cells can be taken from the umbilical cord, there's no reason to kill the baby.
Right on. I wonder if John Edwards has received notification of this?
ping
This story from Reason was posted?
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
Same case, but a different source with more information. Don't be so hasty with regards to possible breakthroughs.
Thanks for keeping me updated, 'neverdem'.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner here! I read that if they saved the "embryonic stem cells" from the umbilical cord (and maybe placenta, but I don't know), they would have all the lines they need for ANY and ALL stem cell research as well as banking for future medical needs. No reason to kill babies to "harvest" these stem cells.
This isn't about debate. These scientists are working on possible cures. Their work has and will continue with or without the political, religious and social bickering.
We don't use the word "embryonic" to refer to cord stem cells.
"Embryonic" stem cells are plenipotent cells from a very early stage of division. You must kill a baby to get them. Cord stem cells are multipotent cells from the umbilical cord - they are like adult stem cells, but they are easy to get at.
I know. ;^)
The point is that the treatment is using umbilical cord stem cells. Embryonic cells have never shown 1/10th the promise.
By definition, those are adult stem cells.
These are, by definition, adult stem cells. The author is redefining words to confuse the issue.
If I weren't so familiar with the technical illiteracy of journalists from years of sending in corrections to firearms reporting, I might suspect a conspiracy to blur the distinction between the various types of stem cells by the embryo-dismembering lobby.
Would you please add me to your ping list?
Thank You, this is good stuff.
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.