[shhrubbery!]

And saying embryonic stem cell have not shown "any promise" is a BS statement.

I could just as well say that my left toenail shows "promise" of turning into a pumpkin.

There is no "promise" until someone shows, with at least animal studies, that such experiments have provable and lasting benefits. Sweden and many other countries have been experimenting with embryonic stem cells in human subjects for many years. So far the results have been disastrous, with patients' nervous systems going horribly and irreversibly out of control.

You'll say that problem will likely be "solved" with more experimentation. But there are precedents in this area. I heard an recently with Dr. Oliver Sachs, the neurologist who wrote "Awakenings" and who has many, many years experience with patients who have Parkinsonism.

Sacks's interviewer recalled the great hoopla surrounding what was hoped to be the "miracle cure" for Parkinson's, L-Dopa. Sadly, although L-Dopa seemed to hold great "promise" at first, it too caused patients' nervous systems to go out of control.

After all these many years of work with L-Dopa, it has never fulfilled its "promise"; and Sacks believes that it never will. Some things, Sacks said, are simply beyond our control.

Would someone please give me a factual argument, with links, showing why stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood don't show just as much "promise" as stem cells dissected from unborn babies?

[Your Nightmare]

I could just as well say that my left toenail shows "promise" of turning into a pumpkin.

Come on. Be reasonable.


There is no "promise" until someone shows, with at least animal studies, that such experiments have provable and lasting benefits.

Yes there is. The promise is why they try to prove there are benefits. Sometimes the promise pans out, sometimes it doesn't. That's the scientific process.


You'll say that problem will likely be "solved" with more experimentation.

I didn't say that.


Sacks's interviewer recalled the great hoopla surrounding what was hoped to be the "miracle cure" for Parkinson's, L-Dopa. Sadly, although L-Dopa seemed to hold great "promise" at first, it too caused patients' nervous systems to go out of control.

It didn't "seem" to hold great promise, it did hold great promise. "Promise" is not an outcome, it's an indication of future success. When the research was done it turns out the indications were wrong. That's science. So should we stop all research trying to cure Parkinson's because L-Dopa didn't fulfill it's promise?


Would someone please give me a factual argument, with links, showing why stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood don't show just as much "promise" as stem cells dissected from unborn babies?

So you are admitting embryonic stem cells show promise. That's a start.

I think they both show promise and both should be studied.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Would someone please give me a factual argument, with links, showing why stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood don't show just as much "promise" as stem cells dissected from unborn babies?

Bingo!!! And they can't.

[kathsua]

great post!! There's a real good essay calling those who advocate embryonic stem cells frauds at

http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/stem_71804.html