Stephanie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> No, actually, I have another old friend, who had a
> hematopoietic stem cell transplant several years
> ago. This was using her own adult stem cells. She
> has stayed involved in the research ever since and
> is in total remission. The difference is that
> they won't do it on patients with major organ
> problems. There is also another negative trade
> off in that you lose all your vaccinations and if
> you get re-vaccinated, well, the disease comes
> back. The reasoning being is that her body is
> still geared to being herself. Kind of funny
> about that, imo, considering that I developed
> rubella from a vaccine as a child.
>
> Here's a couple articles from the other side of
> the trenches in regards to the differences between
> adult and embryonic stem cells:


Thanks, I will read them.

> > As I see it, the problem is that people are
> > fooling around with nonsense and danger like
> the
> > hybrid sheep/human and battling over
> embryonic
> > stem cells, when they could focus on adult
> stem
> > cells, especially if that is what has shown
> > promise. One of the points in the show was
> that
> > part of the political move pushing towards
> > embryonic stem cell work is closely allied
> with
> > cloning. Some of this is not focusing on
> helping
> > patients, but is a something of a toy for
> > scientists.
>
> Hybrid sheep and cloning are one thing but,
> honestly, dismissing embryonic stem cells is not
> nonsensical and dangerous.

I did not say it was. You've reproduced what I wrote, but apparently misread it. I specificall said "the problem is that people are fooling around with nonsense and danger like the hybrid sheep/human and battling over embryonic stem cells, when they could focus on adult stem cells" The "nonsensical and dangerous" applies only to the sheep/human hybrid. The "battling over embryonic cells" is another matter, hence the "and". As I understand it, time and resources are being spent on campaigns and lobbying rather than research, as far as embryonics cells go.


I think it would be
> far better if both adult and embryonic stem cells
> were equally studied so that we would know when
> it's okay to use one and when it's preferable to
> use the other. In the case of autoimmune disease,
> using one's own stem cell doesn't cure a person.
> The patient still has the same bad information
> there and runs a risk of just getting sick all
> over again. Even implying that esc studies should
> be stopped because of associations with cloning is
> going way too far. Yeah, cloning really should be
> curbed but why dispose of something that can
> really help people for something that's only a
> patch job?

From what was discussed in the show I saw, there are some serious practical problems with embryonic cells that advocates fail to mention. Personally, I am not against research in this area, unless it's demonstrable that it's unlikely to help as much as adult cells. One of the doctors interviewed said that embryonic cells are unpredictable and uncontrollable, and that they act more like cancer cells in that they can grow out of control. For reasons that are not clear, the adult cells, don't do this. Understanding why that happens probably would help, but I can't see wasting resouces if something else looks truly promising.


> Please read the articles that I've put up. I
> really think you need to get some different
> perspectives other than that based on a show that
> has its religious dogmas dictating it.

You don't say if you watched the show or not. I am well aware of Catholic bias against abortion and the use of fetuses in research; however, I did not find this particular show to have been dictated by any religious dogmas. I saw it offering a different perspective from the constant scientism promoting of the networks.