This recounts two attempted therapies, a succesful one with autologous stem cells, and one with poor success using genetically manipulated donor stem cells.
Yet the word autologous, and the word adult, do not appear in this article. This may account for the MSM playing this story as an embryonic stem cell case -- their "science" reporters may be so poorly educated as to not know the difference, and they have the template all ready. (Dim, but brilliantly coiffed....)
However, another MSM technique is also at play... and it may also have been used by the authors of this study! It is to avoid detailed discussion of the source of the stem cells, and to deliberately elide the difference between autologous and umbilical stem cells (which have been very successful) and embryonic stem cells (which, despite much research, are still at a stage wherein they are unsafe for human trials).
But yes, for anyone asking -- this is an adult cell, non-destructive therapy.
The article also contains an outright false statement: that stem cells have not been used therapeutically. According to science (and war) correspondent Michael Fumento, "for the last few years persons suffering from limited vision or outright blindness from corneal defects have had their vision restored through corneal stem cell transplants."
Fumento links to this site:
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002392.html
And his own post (with more info about stem cell therapies) is here:
http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2006/11/election_wont_h.html
Be sure to find his index of stem cell posts and articles. He has written prolifically on the subject.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Good catch! I'm so used to seeing the term "stem cells" used haphazardly, I do it sometimes myself, that I just assumed that she was referring to embryonic stem cells.
"Stem cells have been touted as the way to regenerate numerous failing tissues — but none have yet become tried-and-tested human treatments."
Thanks for the links.