[Poundstone]

This kind of therapy should be made available in the US. Ridiculous that it isn’t.

[AntiKev]

Yep. Certainly is. There are some on this forum who want to completely ban stem cell research, no matter the source of the cells.

[Balding_Eagle]

This kind of therapy should be made available in the US. Ridiculous that it isn’t.

If only we had Nationalized health care................

[pnh102]

This kind of therapy should be made available in the US. Ridiculous that it isn’t.

Another thing you can blame on the Democrat party. Democrats want to do anything to sanctify abortion, so they all oppose any stem cell funding that specifically exempts cells harvested from dead babies. They only care about people like this child, or Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox only as long as it helps them to advance the cause of mainstreaming the murder of the unborn.

Me personally, I think we should fund such research, provided the cells are not harvested from murdered babies. When my baby is born, I plan to donate the cord blood for such research.

[nina0113]

This kind of therapy should be made available in the US. Ridiculous that it isn’t.

That's what pregnant American women said about that miracle morning-sickness drug which was only available in Europe. You know - thalidomide.

[ken21]

agree.

but there will be those on this forum who disagree.

[VOA]

This kind of therapy should be made available in the US.
Ridiculous that it isn’t.

If it isn't available in California, you'd have to give major credit
to The Los Angeles Times. That rag did make one big push to
strangle the use of cord-blood/umbilical stem cells.
The article, if it truly reflected the attitude of The LA Times
staff, could be summed up as "It's Embryonic Stem Cells,
or NOTHING!".
Apparently, the LA Times believes in "diversity"...except for
some areas of medical research.
Not a suprising POV as the LA Times was a major cheer-leader in
passage of the initiative to spend $3-$6 Billion dollars on
ESC research.

A couple of years ago, they ran a page-one article in their Sunday
edition that was a hit-piece on umbilical stem cell usage and
cord-blood banks.
In the article, the writers even did a bit of pimping for an
Orange County lawyer that was hoping to file a class-action lawsuit
against cord-blood banks. The lawyer was lamenting that he just
couldn't find enough clients.
(VOA: I have no idea if the lawyer found sufficient clients and/or
has filed the lawsuit.)

My general impression is that the article was written in a fit
of pique over the success of adult/umbilical stem cells
and as of the time of the article, none for embryonic stem cells.

In interests of full disclosure: I prefer the use of what works.
Which for the present moment, seems to be adult/cord-blood/umbilical type
of stem cells.
As for ESCs, they may yet prove to be great therapuetic agents,
but it sure seems like it's a slow-motion Manhattan Project in
bringing them into the medicinal armory.
But, realistically, that's often the story of research.