Posted by
Maudie in Mandeville on Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:03:17 AM
Did you hear the news? Did you hear the news?? Straight from Reuters in London, 'British researchers have successfully implanted lung cells grown from embryonic stem cells' (aborted babies) 'into the lungs of mice in a move that may one day'(?) 'provide treatments for humans with severe breathing problems.' Woo hoo!! Maudie's saved, Maudie's saved!
Reuters continues, 'Until now, stem cells have been seen as a promising(?) avenue for conditions like diabetes and Parkinson's disease...' Notice how Reuters doesn't differentiate between 'stem cell' and 'embryonic stem cell' when they write of 'promising avenue'? Might it be because adult stem cell research has produced many 'promising avenues' while embryonic research has produced diddly squat (if you exclude tumors and lesions).
Adult stem cell research, as a result, is getting most of the private research monies from venture capitalists and drug companies. Embryonic must get its funding from Big Government, where results never matter except to the academics churning out term papers on the 'promise of embryonic stem cells' and collecting their research grants.
As you read further in the article, Reuters and the embryonic doctors call the research a "significant advance", although it would be many years before it's ready for testing on people. "Our study shows that embryonic stem cells really do have the capacity to recolonize damaged lungs ," the doctor announces. Well if they really do, then why aren't you 'doing it', Maudie asks rhetorically? Doctor Embryo goes on to say that this "might eventually" prove successful." Big whhoop.
Then the big let down. 'Scientists will not be rushing into the clinic, however.' "Stem cells are controversial and they haven't yet been proved safe, so we don't (even) yet know what might happen if we put them into people, and lung tissue is complicated." Wait, what? But what about all the hoopla by Reuters? They go on to admit that '(embryonic stem cells are) difficult to control what kinds of cells they will produce, leading to fears they might cause serious damage or cancer.'
So let Maudie synopsize for us. Some doctors shot some embryonic stem cells into mice. They went where they were supposed to go, but "really haven't shown the capacity to recolonize damaged lungs". Here's the real test. How long does a mouse live? If you haven't read a followup to this story in a few months, Maudie wouldn't want to wade through the sewers of London without a shotgun.