So far the score between fetal stem cells and adult stem cells is 74-0 Adult stem cells.
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm
I just do not understand why we think fetal stem cell research is a good idea, since nothing has come of it.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Hey Aragorn I understand that R&D for things like medications and therapies take years to develop, I just thought that link contributed to the discussion. I just feel that ESCs get far more attention in the media than ASCs should.
But I am glad and hopeful about the clinical trial for ESCs, especially after what apbt55 said about after birth being rich in mesenchymal stem cells and what you said about how extracting stem cells from embryos doesn’t necessitate their destruction if the procedure you talked about is followed.
However ESCs would have certain limitations that ASCs do not have unless the ESCs are your own(which would be cool), one of those is that the tissue grown with replaced with ESCs have a different genetic makeup which would require the use of immunosuppressant drugs vs tissue grown and replaced with ASCs which wouldn’t need those drugs.
However you seem far more informed than I am on the topic and would like to learn anything you are willing to share on this forum.[/quote]
Thanks for linking the discussion in any case :). I only wished to bring the “timeline” issue to bear because it is a seriously fallacious argument to make. And Brother Chris is alluding to it in the post directly above mine (yet again)…saying “nothing has come of it”. Well, that’s because a) it hasn’t been funded and b) it takes a long-ass time. Oh, and c) ASC stem cell research is both new and complex to apply with several serious technical issues yet to solve (beyond the immediate scope of our thread currently).
True, the immuno-suppressant issue is there. And make no mistake about it, ASCs can be very useful as well. However, there are underlying issues in terms of the versatility for ASCs, in particular with their ability to be cultured indefinitely and some of the the desired cell lines. I personally think ASCs should definitely be pursued. However I’m not sure they should be the only approach pursued.
This is a fascinating issue to read about, whatever someone’s stance on the issue! 
However, one has to be careful about WHERE they read their information. “org” sites written by laymen who do not understand the science are…spotty…sources of information at best. And most times the information is biased horribly and/or manipulated and twisted.
…such as the site that Brother Chris is quoting a bit above me (stemcellresearch.org). The approach they advocate in their “facts and information” page—“induced pluripotent stem cells” is rife with problems…including those induced cells being incredibly tumorigenic. Which is a very very bad thing btw.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
a bunch of bad attempts at satire, mixed with drivel, mixed with hideously poor analogies.[/quote]
So, are you against embryonic testing of a baby for genetic diseases in the mother’s womb? …a baby the mother fully intends on having? Which, btw, is fully formed, fully functional, includes all organs and limbs. Because you can do something IDENTICAL to that testing procedure to start an ESC culture…without harming the embryo the cell is taken from.
Kindly do not spout off about things you obviously have no idea about.
Let us compare the difference in ESC vs ASC. With embryonic the ‘potential’ to cure disease has been there to cure a multitude of diseases. Yet the number has NEVER changed. There is NOT a single person who is alive through the use of embryonic stem cells. So the number is ZERO.
Now lets look into adult stem cells that are derived from the patients own skin sample. Because of that reason alone, the patient will NEVER reject the cells/therapy. I attended a dissertation four years ago by Dr. David Prentice and way back then there was a few hundred successful cases. A year later the number had grown even more. Last numbers I heard were nearing into the multiple THOUSANDS of patients who are alive because of ASC.
Lets recap, a technology that has potential to help lots yet never has a single time. Compared to almost ten thousand people who are alive today because of ASC. If you still believe time, energy, resources, money, etc., needs to be wasted in a technology that leads no where, your too fucking stupid to reproduce.
facepalm And we wonder why this country is in the current shit hole it is.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Let us compare the difference in ESC vs ASC. With embryonic the ‘potential’ to cure disease has been there to cure a multitude of diseases. Yet the number has NEVER changed. There is NOT a single person who is alive through the use of embryonic stem cells. So the number is ZERO.
Now lets look into adult stem cells that are derived from the patients own skin sample. Because of that reason alone, the patient will NEVER reject the cells/therapy. I attended a dissertation four years ago by Dr. David Prentice and way back then there was a few hundred successful cases. A year later the number had grown even more. Last numbers I heard were nearing into the multiple THOUSANDS of patients who are alive because of ASC.
Lets recap, a technology that has potential to help lots yet never has a single time. Compared to almost ten thousand people who are alive today because of ASC. If you still believe time, energy, resources, money, etc., needs to be wasted in a technology that leads no where, your too fucking stupid to reproduce.
facepalm And we wonder why this country is in the current shit hole it is.[/quote]
But here’s the rub—One has to ask the question as to WHY that number is precisely zero from ESC. And the overarching reason is because IT WAS NOT FUNDED!!!
All research depends on funding. If you can’t get funding, if the gov’t bans your research, then you by definition CANNOT lead productive research to help people. This is a fallacious argument against ESC research because of that reason. It’s not because it is unable to help people, it’s because it was NEVER ALLOWED TO BE PURSUED on a national scale. This “grand scale”, interestingly enough, is precisely the scale needed to create long term success. And it is the scale seen with all other biochemical, genetic, and biophysical research, INCLUDING ASC research.
I though there was a only a ban on federal funding of ESC research that involved the creation or destruction of embryos. That isn’t the same as banning ESC research as states like California and 8 others have funded it and RD companies could fund it if they wanted to just like they do with there other drugs.