Cancer as a side effect isn't legit? How about this for legitimacy? So far, there have been - as far as I know - no documented cases of success with the use of embryonic stem cells, whereas adult stem cells have had plenty of success stories and continue to gain more. Even if the potential for embryonic stem cells is there, look again at the potential side effects compared to adult stem cells. Furthermore, look at the fact that adult stem cells are already working. See, embryonic stem cells are often rejected by a patient's body, much like an organ transplant would. But with adult stem cells there is no risk of rejection because they come from the patient's body... assuming the adult stem cells in question actually did. Obviously you cannot harvest embryonic stem cells from an adult unless perhaps it is a pregnant woman but again embryonic stem cells have no success rate and plenty of failures against them. As I said, adult stem cells are the more logical choice of the two - not just to me, but to a huge part of the medical community which you seem to not realise exists. As for that "one boy," I already said there were several more cases of this and even told you why I believed that, something that can easily be checked by somebody who professionally knows a lot about the issue. For instance, my father or his colleagues, etc. But now it's your turn. You say all stem cells have the potential to have downsides, which is true. But do you care to look for a story of adult stem cells going wrong, or a case of embryonic stem cells doing what they were intended? Once again, even if embryonic stem cells could provide relief in the future, adult stem cells are already there, have no current detrimental side effects, and avoid the moral line that embryonic stem cell research crosses. Hell, just over a month ago UCLA reported that they successfully performed a neural stem cell transplant into a patient with Parkinson's. That patient has since acquired motor skills that are 80 better than what (s)he had before the transplant. Even if embryonic stem cells could eventually do this, what's the point? We already have amazing results. This is as logical as it gets.
I for one am against embryonic stem cell research for both ethical and scientific reasons. But I feel like I must have angered you because there is no other reason for you to attack my father's stellar practice as a surgeon. My father is actually pro-choice, if that's what you were getting at, and as a doctor he would never place his morals above his duty. As I said, he is scientifically against stem cells and I've already stated several reasons why anybody should second-guess their use.
no subject
How about this for legitimacy? So far, there have been - as far as I know - no documented cases of success with the use of embryonic stem cells, whereas adult stem cells have had plenty of success stories and continue to gain more. Even if the potential for embryonic stem cells is there, look again at the potential side effects compared to adult stem cells. Furthermore, look at the fact that adult stem cells are already working.
See, embryonic stem cells are often rejected by a patient's body, much like an organ transplant would. But with adult stem cells there is no risk of rejection because they come from the patient's body... assuming the adult stem cells in question actually did. Obviously you cannot harvest embryonic stem cells from an adult unless perhaps it is a pregnant woman but again embryonic stem cells have no success rate and plenty of failures against them. As I said, adult stem cells are the more logical choice of the two - not just to me, but to a huge part of the medical community which you seem to not realise exists.
As for that "one boy," I already said there were several more cases of this and even told you why I believed that, something that can easily be checked by somebody who professionally knows a lot about the issue. For instance, my father or his colleagues, etc.
But now it's your turn. You say all stem cells have the potential to have downsides, which is true. But do you care to look for a story of adult stem cells going wrong, or a case of embryonic stem cells doing what they were intended? Once again, even if embryonic stem cells could provide relief in the future, adult stem cells are already there, have no current detrimental side effects, and avoid the moral line that embryonic stem cell research crosses. Hell, just over a month ago UCLA reported that they successfully performed a neural stem cell transplant into a patient with Parkinson's. That patient has since acquired motor skills that are 80 better than what (s)he had before the transplant. Even if embryonic stem cells could eventually do this, what's the point? We already have amazing results. This is as logical as it gets.
I for one am against embryonic stem cell research for both ethical and scientific reasons. But I feel like I must have angered you because there is no other reason for you to attack my father's stellar practice as a surgeon. My father is actually pro-choice, if that's what you were getting at, and as a doctor he would never place his morals above his duty. As I said, he is scientifically against stem cells and I've already stated several reasons why anybody should second-guess their use.