So, I got this email from a liberal friend of mine who, apparently, is only a headline reader – – not a reader of the entire article. The subject of the email?
The body of the email?
Ignoring the fact that President Bush hasn’t disallowed it – I can’t wait to point out to my friend that the stem cells in this case came not from embryos – but, rather, they were umbilical chord stem cells. Vinny had the same idea:
Forgetting entirely that liberals have a dirty little habit when discussing stem cell research of lumping embryonic and adult cells together, they would completely miss that the stem cells that supposedly got this woman walking again did not in fact come from an aborted fetus, but instead came from the blood cells of an umbilical cord.
Imagine that. Yet again the most progressive research on stem cells have come from stem cells that are not embryonic.
So – when you see the article that we are talking about . . . be careful, all you liberals out there – don’t let the headline fool you! Read the article first!
Now . . I’ve got an email to write 
I had seen this. I would like to know the severity of the spinal cord injury before passing judgement. I think this is wonderful if at face value it is true. I am surprised that after 20 years she did not suffer naropothy in either leg.
If you believe that this would have benefitted a sc injury such as Reeve’s though, you are sadly mistaken.
Hey, isn’t this the same type of stem cell usage that they have been using?:roll:
“the most progressive research on stem cells have come from stem cells that are not embryonic.â€
Isn’t that only because it is nearly impossible to even get embryonic stem cells?
I don’t understand how this country can make abortions legal, but using the aborted fetuses for research illegal.
It just doesn’t make sense.
I don’t think so Zelda. I have followed Johns Hopkins, in their research of Altzeimers(sp?) and they have come out denouncing embryonic s.c.’s in their quest for the cure of this particular disease. According to them, there is no need for it in this particular disease.
If you go back to 2001 and look at what the research community was sayng, it was the cord blood that was the key.
I think that the thought behind it is that you would have a whole underground working. $ for abortions.
What have they found a cure for with the stem cells that the government paid for in 2001? And I don’t think that it is illegal to use the aborted fetus, I think the government just won’t fund it 100%
As it is, you can save your childs cord after birth. In the case of one of my sisters, she has been given the choice of saving the cord contents in 2 out of 3 births of her children. I am sure that with this next one, she will be offered again.
There are plenty of other diseases besides Alzheimer’s disease. Who is to say that they couldn’t effectively utilize embryonic stem cells?
Who is to say it is? Where have they gotten with the lines that they have had available?
peejz;
Your sister can donate the cord blood. The probability that she will ever need it for her own children is very small, but others can use it now.
this is an interesting article that gives the flip side to this story
In Minnesota, pigs are being born with human blood in their veins. In Nevada, there are sheep whose livers and hearts are largely human. In California, mice peer from their cages with human brain cells firing inside their skulls.
These are not outcasts from “The Island of Dr. Moreau,” the 1896 novel by H.G. Wells in which a rogue doctor develops creatures that are part animal and part human. They are real creations of real scientists, stretching the boundaries of stem cell research.
Biologists call these hybrid animals chimeras, after the mythical Greek creature with a lion’s head, a goat’s body and a serpent’s tail. They are the products of experiments in which human stem cells were added to developing animal fetuses.
Chimeras are allowing scientists to watch, for the first time, how nascent human cells and organs mature and interact – not in the cold isolation of laboratory dishes but inside the bodies of living creatures. Some are already revealing deep secrets of human biology and pointing the way toward new medical treatments.
But with no federal guidelines in place, an awkward question hovers above the work: How human must a chimera be before more stringent research rules should kick in?
The National Academy of Sciences, which advises the federal government, has been studying the issue and hopes to make recommendations by February. Yet the range of opinions it has received so far suggests reaching consensus may be difficult.
During one recent meeting, scientists disagreed on such basic issues as whether it would be unethical for a human embryo to begin its development in an animal’s womb, and whether a mouse would be better or worse off with a brain made of human neurons.
“This is an area where we really need to come to a reasonable consensus,” said James Battey, chairman of the National Institutes of Health’s Stem Cell Task Force. “We need to establish some kind of guidelines as to what the scientific community ought to do and ought not to do.”
I also noticed that the article said that embryonic stem cells have a tendency to cause tumors.
It’s a legal and moral can of worms.
accordng to my sources, scientists are going to evil overseas countries because of the limitations Bush has put on reserch.
spinners love this topic.
using nonembryonic steamcells is the one moral way to do it the nazis used live people becuase they were animal rights actitivists:razz::grin:
Speaking from the point of view of a scientist – yes, there are a lot of experiments going on (even in the labs I work in) that involve non-embryonic stem cells. We get our SCs from cord blood as a lot of you have been aware of. What the media DOES NOT say is that there are a lot of other places that SCs can be taken from. For instance, we were working with a scientist who isolated SCs from adipocytes (i.e. fat cells) taken from tummy tucks! What the media DOES NOT tell you is that SCs are VERY RARE and a lot of tissue is used in all attempts to get these cell types. I recently gave a talk to explain this to a group at a community college. In our labs, the general contention is that ESCs (embryonic stem cells) will neither be needed nor used for general transplantation since sciencce is already moving in directions that should allow for the use of more mature adult stem cells that can be de-differentiated (or “turned back”) into embryonic-like SCs. This however, will require more research.
shiloh…sshhh…don’t tell anyone..I have secret for you…..George W. Bush is SATAN…….
Awwlllright…. somebody escort Ireece out. Your way too smart to be posting on this site.:shock:
Ha!!! Someone with relevant knowledge instead of blind ideology.
I agree with Rat.
#19:
#Ha!!! Someone with relevant knowledge instead of blind ideology.”
Hmmm… In post #2, it sounded like you were trying to suggest that embryonic stem cell research is illegal… (Your reference to aborted fetuses within a discussion of stem cell research tends to bring one to that conclusion…) In truth, research isn’t illegal in that line of stem cells, it’s just that federal funding is restricted to a limited number of lines of embryonic stem cells… There’s nothing stopping a research facility from obtaining private funding to do research on an embryonic stem cell line that’s not able to be federally funded.
Personally, I’ve been for additional research into stem cells obtained from cord blood for quite some time now. Not only do they sound like they’d have greater functionality and usage, but using these stem cells side-steps any ethical and moral dilemmas you run into with the embryonic stem cells.
Now, what was that about people with blind ideology again???