Posted on 01/07/2007 4:16:03 PM PST by edpc
Scientists reported Sunday they had found a plentiful source of stem cells in the fluid that cushions babies in the womb and produced a variety of tissue types from these cells - sidestepping the controversy over destroying embryos for research.
Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells. They reported they were able to extract the stem cells without harm to mother or fetus and turn their discovery into several different tissue cell types, including brain, liver and bone.
"Our hope is that these cells will provide a valuable resource for tissue repair and for engineered organs as well," said Dr. Anthony Atala, head of Wake Forest's regenerative medicine institute and senior researcher on the project.
It took Atala's team some seven years of research to determine the cells they found were truly stem cells that "can be used to produce a broad range of cells that may be valuable for therapy."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
That was my thought, too. Research so far overwhelmingly favors the use of adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells, but leftist politicians and leftist reporters simply ignore it.
It doesn't satisfy their need to worship Baal.
I think this thread got started this aft. under a slightly different name.
If you have the link, could you post it for cross reference? This Newsmax article was just posted a little over an hour ago.
Bush was right. There is a better way to harvest stem cells. Too bad this report came two months too late. I wonder if Michael J. Fox is feeling a little stupid right now.
ping.
ping.
Hmmm...this has even broken in the MSM...
http://news.google.com/news?as_q=&svnum=10&as_scoring=r&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=%22amniotic+fluid%22&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nsrc=&as_nloc=&as_occt=any&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=8&as_minm=1&as_maxd=7&as_maxm=1
Must Murder Babies! Yep- I fully expect they will- yet another blow to their genocide agenda- Hope this amniotic fluid deal gets pushed real hard though- shut hte abortion crowd up once and for all- tired of their 'fetal cells are our only hope for cures and anyone that opposes must not care about cripple people' rhetoric. http://sacredscoop.com
"sidestepping the controversy over destroying embryos for research"
If it doesn't serve to devalue life of the unborn it simply will not do. Count on the left to argue that these stem cells just aren't as good as the one's you get when you destroy life.
NewsMax is notorious for changing the titles of stories they get off the AP wire.
Incredible, but I (non scientist that I am) have always wondered about this and when I read the article, I thought, "well, of course!"
But as you say, that's not going to matter. The "stem cell" thing is all about promoting abortion and has nothing to do with anybody seriously wanting a cure for any disease or condition.
I don't really fault Fox for wanting a cure for what he's got- but I do fault him and others in his camp for the angry rhetoric he used against hte President for having moral concerns
excellent news----won't see the light of day----doesn't fit the agenda template, don' cha know?!
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
More news that will get buried by the left.
The stem cells are supposed to be pluripotent.
:-D
I am a WALKING harbinger of life. :)
Fox has the moral concerns of your typical Ba'al worshipper.
You certainly are! :-)
Cool, we can harvest stem cells from welfare breeders in exchange for benefits!
In contrast, the mainstream media does seem accurate in what it posts--it only tends to post one side of a story, though, and often contains commentary, opinions, and a biased slant to the writing.
The Washington Times seems to be a newspaper that generally has conservative articles on actual things that happen.
I happen to know that stem cells embryonic fluid has been saved since at least 1964, when my son was born. I was shown the freezer where it was kept, so I take it with a grain of salt what some call "possibliites". There is really nothing new. I have not seen any advances so far.
Well I understand that but he's also suffering from something that has stolen his life, and as an unbeliever, he doesn't have insight into moral issues or God's plans for our lives- I'm not condoning his feelings- just stating that I can understand how he might feel faced with what he has.
I believe God always provides an ethical path to success and progress- if we can find it and follow it.
We aren't going to need abortion to do this. IMHO
Of course, that was junk science, so this problem continues to need to be overcome if embryonic stem cells are used. At the same time, stem cells from someone else, even from amniotic fluid, will still bring about an immunologic rejection.
Victims of the practitioners of the dark art of stem cell transplanting will need to take autoimmune suppressor drugs the rest of their lives.
The best bets continue to be the adult stem cells in your own body ~ not someone else's.
Give credit where credit is due. The amniotic fluid stem cell story has been on the radio news, WABC 770 AM, in NYC tonight.
A Tissue Engineer Sows Cells and Grows Organs
Same Dr. Anthony Atala on that link.
posted by Paulsrevenge at 2:08
Researchers Say Amniotic Fluid Reveals Stem Cells
make that normsrevenge
At the moment, harvesting amniotic fluid remains very dangerous for the fetus.
Remarkable.
These are concepts I personally identify with and defend.
So when you say "breeder," say it with respect.
Buddy.
I believe it depends on how much you harvest, and at what time in the pregnancy. I think that ultrasound has advanced to the point where you can do a needle biopsy (amniocentesis) of a couple of cc of fluid in mid-trimester with less than 1% chance of sticking the baby or triggering contractions.
(It might not be ethical to expose the baby to ANY unnecessary risk, though. I wouldn't do it unless it had some therapeutic justification for my baby, individually, and not just for the advancement of research generally.)
But that's just my impression. Anybody out there have any details about the degree of risk?
Great, maybe now we kill the patient without killing an embryo first. Our how about trying adult stem cells -- you know the ones that can heal instead of just giving you cancerous tumors?
The whole situation reminded me of Baal worship too.
As somebody who has worked with human embryonic stem cells, I applaud this finding. The reasons:
1. Banking amniotic stem cells is far easier than creating them de novo. Plus, for embryonic stem cells to be useful for men, somatic cell nuclear transfer must be used. This has never been accomplished for humans (although it is quite technically possible) and has the ethical problem that it requires egg donation from women to work.
2. We (as scientists) are sensitive to the concerns of the public. Although very few biologists believe that blastocysts are human life, you all pay our grants. We don't want you to think that we are callous to your concerns. One, for the purely selfish reason that you'll be less likely to vote to fund our research. Two, part of being a biomedical researcher (same as an MD) is to maximize benefits to humanity for the least cost. Three (and this is a critical part of any scientists' outlook), *we could be wrong*. Blastocysts could indeed be human life.
If you are wondering what you, as an individual, can do to divert the course of biomedical research away from hESCs, the answer is simple. Donate to charities that fund research on amniotic/cord blood/adult stem cells. The problem right now is that hESCs are the "gold standard" of stem cell research.
Although it is true that hESCs are the most promising, in theory, the ethical and technical concerns make them less practically promising than other stem cells. However, the problem with funding research on other stem cells is that they are not totipotent (capable of forming every possible tissue). Therefore, the research money on pluripotent stem cells (capable of forming nearly every tissue), is discouraged, as years of research could be "wasted" by working on the wrong cell type. We are still too far away from medical benefits from hESCs/pluripotent stem cells for funding to be biased toward the easier to establish pluripotent stem cells. Non-federal funding of other types of stem cells could go a long way toward changing the direction of the field.
Because this research will be done. And the way it looks now, especially with research funding the way it is in the US, it will primarily be done on hESCs. Your money could go a long way in preventing further "lives" (the quotes are in no way a dig at anyone's beliefs, but simply an indication that I do not believe blastocysts are human life) from being lost. And your money will fund saving further lives in the future. Because stem cells (no matter what their origin) are going to be critical in therapies in the next 30 years.
The therapeutic benefits are early detection of disease by amniocentesis, which may affect your diet/habits during pregancy, and how the baby is treated during neonatancy. Also, the amniotic stem cells are a perfect match for the baby, so problems that crop up later in life could be treated by banked amniotic stem cells with very little risk.
That's my biggest problem with the whole stem cell debate. President Bush does not want to publicly fund embryonic stem cell research, but does not restrict private donations or research. Those who howl and whine the most about the need for this research are in the financial position to fund it. It's a pure political power grab, nothing more.
Bump
Buddy.
For self-sufficient breeders, I say it with nothing but.
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.