Ayup, here as in virtually all cases of effectual treatments, the stem cells came from the patient, not an embryo.
I think this is great. I am glad to see so many advancements that have come from Stem Cells. It is a wonderful gift of sight for those who have lost their vision. Embrionic Stem Cells may not be neeeded after all which is a good thing.
“virtually all cases of effectual treatments”
all cases. absolutely all cases.
But..but..but we MUST figure out a way to do this that requires us to kill as many embryos as possible!
Yep. If it had been fetal stem cells, it would have been HUGE news.
True, but the research to develop effective treatments often begins with embryonic cells. Since there is a HUGE supply of ethical stem cells just waiting to be harvested (umbilical cords) I can’t fathom why some find it necessay to use aborted embryos.
It doesn't really matter. Cases like these will still be used to justify "embyonic" stem cell research.
From what I've seen so far, though, most successful treatments use specific, targeted stem cells from the patient.
An inconvenient truth that that the supporters of embryonic-stem cell research (that is, those who want to industrialize abortion for disgusting profits) is that embryonic stem cells are far more like to mutate into cancer cells than adult stem cells.
This, in and by itself, should be reason enough to cease using embryonic stem cells (aside from the horrific moral issue).
Using someone else's stem cells when your own are available brings to mind using Saab auto parts to fix your Chevy. Sure they may be similar and may even work to a degree, but why would you do that?