Replies

but this is not what would be done in human treatments and it is not what is currently done in adult stem cell treatment. >>>

oh, you know? please explain. In many of the articles I've posted it was reported that the researchers did inject adult stem cells into the patients. How else are the stem cells, embryonic or non-embryonic, introduced into the patient? In most cases they are grown in a culture and then injected into the area.

"Yes, ESC created tumors in mice when directly injected into them... but this is not what would be done in human treatments and it is not what is currently done in adult stem cell treatment."

I have done a lot of reading on the subject of embryonic stem cells for the treatment of Parkinson's. I followed it because my wife has Parkinson's and I have researched all available treatments for the last 30 (yea... thirty) years.

They did some trials with ESC, and they were VERY unsuccessfully. The cells indeed reproduced in the subjects, and alleviated the PD symptoms, however they continued to grow and produce more and more dopamine until the patient was completely overdosed to the extent that they were worse off than before the procedure.

The problem with the embryonic cells is it seems, that they grow out of control. ie: tumors... they haven't found a way to turn the cell reproduction off.

Those who are not being entirely truthful are those who are claiming embroyonic stem cells are the path to enlightenment and health for all. There has yet to my knowledge been any confirmed successful treatment using embroyonic stem cells. There have been some promising uses but they tend to be double edged such as the example below.

"Hans Keirstead and his colleagues in the Reeve-Irvine Research Center at UC Irvine have found that a human embryonic stem cell-derived treatment they developed was successful in restoring the insulation tissue for neurons in rats treated seven days after the initial injury, which led to a recovery of motor skills. But the same treatment did not work on rats that had been injured for 10 months. The findings point to the potential of using stem cell-derived therapies for treatment of spinal cord damage in humans during the very early stages of the injury. The study appears in the May 11 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience."

Also there has never been a ban on embryonic stem cell use though we hear every time the issue comes up which is the most dishonest approach to the argument. The absolute worst place to place research dollars in my opinion is with the government while many very good military and space applications have arison from government funded research most assessments would conclude that such research is highly wasteful and for every success millions of dollars go down the tubes. The reason is because of the very structure of government bureaucracy which does not reward efficiency and is likely as not to continue funding a dead end or useless bit of research as they are to fund something substantial and promising. It isn't about the reasearch, it is about the control of funding and the promise of increasing funding.

I strongly support the use of adult stem cells. I don't know why we are even considering embryonic stem cells other than as an attempt to bulwark the empty "moral" argument of the proabortion prodeath left how else do you explain such support for something that has shown so little practical promis? The problem is the facts do not matter not even to conservatives when hope is what is for sale.