I'll ask again, why isn't at hand a huge medium circus around the paralyzed patients that can stroll again?
The paralyzed patients that went to china to get stem cell cures and are now on their foot again with their dead nerve cell regenerated(not to mention the other cured patients like the ones with damaged heart and bones).
Answers:
the media doesn't want to cause a big stink. the use of stem cell is very controversial and is not widely accepted.
i think that next to proper restrictions it is great way to save people.
i do not agree beside abortion but if a woman chooses to murder her baby, then at least that opening the precious life was not completely wasted.
near are ways to utilize adult and even umbilical cord stem cells.
the spontaneous abortions (miscarrying the baby-naturally!) should be used when used when available and researchers should be STRONGLY DISCOURAGED from using aborted fetuses and those who use stem cell cells from the proper sources [adult, umbilical, spontaneous abortions, etc...] should be rewarded-additional grant money for extra research would be ideal. Source(s): studying to become an MD/PhD Infectious Disease/Microbiology & Immunology
and a mother of two
I have see a similar documentary about patients who were damaged by a chemically contaminated dubious drug that caused the death of the cells of the Substantia Nigra surrounded by the brain. People with Parkinson's disease also have damage to the Substantia Nigra cell in the brain. The people affected by this drug be very disabled, had poor balance, and several be barely able to walk. A select group go overseas and received stem cell transplants into their brains and after a recovery time, demonstrated remarkable changes in their resources to coordinate movements and balance. Some went from only person able to shuffle their feet a few inches at a time to riding a bicycle.
The Ethical situation surrounding this issue seems to be the chief reason more research is NOT done and more documentaries do not exist. Fetal cells are the least differentiated (most primitive and flexible surrounded by their ability to develop into any kind of cell in the body). Unfortunately, they must come from any an egg fertilized outside the body or from an aborted fetus. Either way, once the cells are manipulate, the fetus is not viable and therefore "dead". Ethically, the question is at what point within the process does the fetus represent a person with the same rights as any other character. This blends issues of religion and law together in a way that does not appear possible to resolve to everyone's satisfaction.
The simple answer is just that: they went to China. China is notorious for not individual forth-coming with data on their patients and procedures, so it is really hard to take independent verification of claims they make. In the medical profession, people try not to capture too excited about something until it has been powerfully documented and proven and widely accepted, because otherwise you undermine people's trust in robustness care providers. What I find even more exciting, though, and is happening right here in the cohesive states, is the use of embryonic stem cells to regrow cardiac cells on patients who had a heart attack.
Both that and the claim within your question would be huge advances, but remember you are dealing with an nouns of science that is poorly understood, and to create a "media circus" around it would possibly unfairly get people's hopes up prematurely hoping to cure life-long ailments. I assure you, once treatments like that are better implied and approved, the marketing campaign around it will be nothing short of a circus, and insurance companies will charge a ridiculous amount to cover you for it.
Sound resembling urban legends. What's your primary data source?
Related Questions:
Correcting a chemical discrepancy contained by the brain - Increasing the production of serotonin?
Can you designation any Expired drugs that are scarily deleterious?
Case Study comfort please?
Answers:
the media doesn't want to cause a big stink. the use of stem cell is very controversial and is not widely accepted.
i think that next to proper restrictions it is great way to save people.
i do not agree beside abortion but if a woman chooses to murder her baby, then at least that opening the precious life was not completely wasted.
near are ways to utilize adult and even umbilical cord stem cells.
the spontaneous abortions (miscarrying the baby-naturally!) should be used when used when available and researchers should be STRONGLY DISCOURAGED from using aborted fetuses and those who use stem cell cells from the proper sources [adult, umbilical, spontaneous abortions, etc...] should be rewarded-additional grant money for extra research would be ideal. Source(s): studying to become an MD/PhD Infectious Disease/Microbiology & Immunology
and a mother of two
I have see a similar documentary about patients who were damaged by a chemically contaminated dubious drug that caused the death of the cells of the Substantia Nigra surrounded by the brain. People with Parkinson's disease also have damage to the Substantia Nigra cell in the brain. The people affected by this drug be very disabled, had poor balance, and several be barely able to walk. A select group go overseas and received stem cell transplants into their brains and after a recovery time, demonstrated remarkable changes in their resources to coordinate movements and balance. Some went from only person able to shuffle their feet a few inches at a time to riding a bicycle.
The Ethical situation surrounding this issue seems to be the chief reason more research is NOT done and more documentaries do not exist. Fetal cells are the least differentiated (most primitive and flexible surrounded by their ability to develop into any kind of cell in the body). Unfortunately, they must come from any an egg fertilized outside the body or from an aborted fetus. Either way, once the cells are manipulate, the fetus is not viable and therefore "dead". Ethically, the question is at what point within the process does the fetus represent a person with the same rights as any other character. This blends issues of religion and law together in a way that does not appear possible to resolve to everyone's satisfaction.
The simple answer is just that: they went to China. China is notorious for not individual forth-coming with data on their patients and procedures, so it is really hard to take independent verification of claims they make. In the medical profession, people try not to capture too excited about something until it has been powerfully documented and proven and widely accepted, because otherwise you undermine people's trust in robustness care providers. What I find even more exciting, though, and is happening right here in the cohesive states, is the use of embryonic stem cells to regrow cardiac cells on patients who had a heart attack.
Both that and the claim within your question would be huge advances, but remember you are dealing with an nouns of science that is poorly understood, and to create a "media circus" around it would possibly unfairly get people's hopes up prematurely hoping to cure life-long ailments. I assure you, once treatments like that are better implied and approved, the marketing campaign around it will be nothing short of a circus, and insurance companies will charge a ridiculous amount to cover you for it.
Sound resembling urban legends. What's your primary data source?
Related Questions: