Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Posted on 10/21/2004 5:05:30 AM PDT by rhema
Christopher Reeve and I had several things in common — we were both born in 1952, we both shattered our spinal cords and our lives through unforeseen accidents, and we've both wanted desperately to be free from our wheelchairs and the many medical problems associated with spinal cord injury.
I was saddened to hear of Reeve's death, as I've appreciated the awareness he's brought to curing spinal cord injuries. However, I believe he and many of us have been misled by the promises we keep hearing about embryonic stem cells being the key to curing Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and a host of other maladies. After supporting spinal cord research for years and exploring the possibilities, I believe adult stem cells, not embryonic, are far more likely to produce successful treatments.
Although we hear plenty of general testimonies that play on our emotions, there appears to be almost a blackout of accurate scientific information about stem cells.
Stem cells are cells that can proliferate (duplicate many times) and differentiate (change into specialized cell types needed by the body). For example, stem cells in your blood continuously produce new blood cells to replace worn-out ones.
Stem cells found in both adults and embryos are currently being studied by researchers to replace cells lost through disease or injury. However, research is showing that adult stem cells are actually medically superior to embryonic stem cells.
First, a patient's body will reject embryonic stem cells as foreign. Adult stem cells obtained from the patient's own body are perfectly matched genetically and do not cause tissue rejection. Also, embryonic stem cells are prone to abnormal genetic "expression," and scientists acknowledge a lack of suitable tests to detect such abnormalities.
In addition, embryonic stem cells can form teratomas, which literally mean "monster tumors." These tumors often contain different cell types, such as teeth, hair or bone tissue. Adult stem cells, which are easier to control, do not form these tumors.
Proponents of embryonic stem cells allege that only embryonic stem cells can form all body tissue types, but researchers are continually showing that adult stem cells can also form specialized cells of other tissues.
For example, a University of Minnesota research team has discovered adult stem cells in human bone marrow that can be made to differentiate into many different cell types and that do not form teratomas.
Stem cells found in blood drained from human umbilical cords after birth can become many types of cells needed to treat disability and disease, such as heart cells, beta islets and neurons.
Embryonic stem cell researchers admit they are years away from effective procedures safe enough for human use, while the medical world is continually exploding with new treatments using adult stem cells.
For example, American spinal cord injured patients have gained some return of function after traveling to Portugal to have tissues rich in stem cells from their own nasal cavities transplanted into their spinal cords. The Spinal Cord Society, to which I belong, will be undertaking human trials in January, using this technique in combination with other treatments.
Stem cells isolated from the blood of a teen, whose heart was pierced with a 3-inch nail, were injected into the coronary artery that supplies blood to the heart. A few days later, his heart's functioning began improving, indicating possible rebuilding of heart muscle. Today, he's again playing high school soccer.
A California man with Parkinson's disease was treated by removing tissue from his own brain, culturing stem cells from this tissue and then injecting them back into his brain. A year later, the man's symptoms were reduced by more than 80 percent. He has remained in clinical remission for four years.
One astute participant in the second presidential debate asked the candidates:
"Thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical-cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?"
We who have a vested interest in cure would like to ask our politicians and researchers the same question.
Ping
Bump. Good article. Good question. Why, indeed? (I think we know)
This lady needs to join Bush in his campaign!
This is just excellent I am sending it to lot people who have mixed (ignorant) feeling regarding this - I am for more research there should be no division on this issue.
BUMP
Since the actual source invites one to e-mail the article -- I sent the source and the editorial to my local paper!
It is becoming clear that the phrase 'embryonic stem cells' is being tapped for the obfuscation value by the left. Better is to say Embryo stem cells ... embryonic invokes the mistaken notion that the stem cells are separate from an individual human being and are in the earliest stage of differentiating, a notion only partially correct (less than 40% correct) and ripe for building mass confusion in the uninformed upon whom the liberate elitists prey with their distain. We especially ought try to use the phrase 'embryo stem cells', signifying the being from whom stem cells are ripped.
BUMP ... Have you got your ping list handy? I'm out of town and cannot access my ping list ... the distinction between 'embryonic' (as in 'not yet human' according to liberal leftists) stem cells and EMBRYO stem cells needs to be discussed more, don't you think?
Yes. Just got home and will PING the list.
Travel safe my brother.
Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Christopher Reeve put his eternal soul in great jeopardy for nothing. I have little respect for him. (I would feel the same way about Reeve even if embryonic cells were effective. But ironically they aren't.)
Killinh humns in their earliest age of their lifetime in order to rip their cells out for treating older humans is nothing more or less than cannibalism. Of course the hell-directed liberals won't like such a clear accusation, but there it is.
Agreed.
They'll never admit it either.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Thanks for article. I'm just beginning research on stem cell topic in order to talk with a co-worker who has diabetes. I feel for his problem, but his belief that Bush is impeding a path to his cure seems unfounded to my knowledge so far... and the more I learn about adult vs embryo and federal vs private funding the more it seems the leftist godless f--ks have totally won the propoganda war for my coworker's mind.
2) The focus on life-ending embryonic stem cell research in spite of more effective and ethical methods demonstates a much larger agenda on the part of a much larger group: to further desensitize culture to the deliberate destruction of some life in the interest of the betterment of other life. That opens the way for the scope of this mode of social engineering to expand beyond embryos.
3) It is my opinion that anyone, no matter their malady, who demands another human being die so that they will have a better life is by that very demand not worth dying for.
Parkinsins is awful. Diabetes is a terrible yoke to bear (my wife has it). But ALL of of life is this way, and we will all meet our end some day, sooner or later. Ending innocent lives to save others is not only not the answer but reprehensible to humans' sense of justice.\
For my part, I would fight to the death to avoid receiving any treatment that cost another (especially an innocent) human being their life. It sounds like it's time for a national registry...
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.