The following comes from a Dec. 4 story on NewsMax.com
Pro-life groups are pleased that funding for stem cell research has shifted in recent years from embryonic stem cells to adult stem cells in both liberal California and Maryland as well as funds from the federal government.
Gene Tarne, Senior Advisor of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, who tracks the money spent on stem cell research for the research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List, said that a large share of the funding for stem cell research has moved toward the “ethical” research using adult cells and away from human embryos, The Washington Times reported .
According to Tarne, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the group that issues state grants for stem cell research, gave all 100 of its 2007 grants to research stem cells derived from human embryos. But n 2012 the institute gave six out of 21 grants to embryonic stem cell research, while the remaining 15 went to non-embryonic research projects.
There is a similar trend in Maryland, where in 2007 the Maryland Stem Cell Research Commission issued 11 grants for projects using human embryos and four using adult stem cells. By contrast, in 2013, 28 non-embryonic projects were funded and only one embryonic stem cell project.
A significant amount of federal dollars, $504 million, funded non-embryonic projects — more than three times the $146.5 million that went toward research using human embryos.
Chuck Donavan, president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, said that the shift is due to a preference in the science community for “ethical” stem cell projects.
“The best hope for rapid medical advances lies with morally unproblematic alternatives,” Donovan said.
“It’s a matter of starting to recognize that where all the ‘return’ is — especially if we’re talking about helping a patient — is in adult stem cells,” said David Prentice, senior fellow at the Family Research Council and Kansas adult stem cell research center advisory board member.
However, Alan Trounson, the current president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine told The Times that the science community has not changed its position, but that “it just takes time for some stem cell types to sort of evolve into usefulness, clinically….”
To read the entire story, click here.
Maybe the reason they are moving away from human embryonic stem cell use is due to the horrific outcomes found when they used embryos. I read where small feet and hands were seen growing from an area where embryonic stem cells were used in patients. If that doesn’t give the medical community pause, I don’t know what will.
Do you think the New York Times would put this finding on the front page? Never!
One has to dig deep to find out any information, regarding the horrors of using human embryos. May God have mercy on mankind. Prayers, prayers, and more prayers.
From the beginning, the use of human embryonic stem cell lines has proven limited (at best): one problem is that there is a much higher likelihood of rejection of the embryonic cells. This then requires powerful immuno-suppressant drugs to overcome the body’s likelihood of rejection, putting the patient at risk for other invasive infections and diseases. By contrast, adult stem cell lines at first seemed limited in stem cell production: but when they originate from the body of the same patient (usually from bone marrow) and are re-introduced, the problem of rejection is overcome (in France, this bio-technology has been developed for nearly a decade). (Info: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.) Another issue is that embryonic stem cells grow uncontrollably and are very likely to create tumors when introduced into a patient (see: Pennsylvania Pro Life Federation’s web site, which has a very good Q & A on the state of the science on embryonic vs. adult stem cells.) Among the successes with adult stem cells are: use combatting Chron’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, MS, sickle-cell anemia, Parkinson’s disease, corneal re-generation, and several other chronic illnesses. Adult stem cell lines are not a cure, but there is significant progress in counteracting the diseases.
Now really it gets down to the politics, which is to try to justify abortion to women with the red-herring/lie that “your fetus will benefit science.” Less than 1 in 100 frozen embryos can be “harvested” (I hate that word) for stem cells (see: Pennsylvania Pro Life Fed on this factoid), and those that are harvested introduce enormous risks of uncontrollable growth and simultaneous rejection.
Steve, I know one little girl who was greatly helped with her problems from her own cord blood. It did not solve everything, but it did solve an eye problem without surgery all on its own. One doctor at a major hospital said she had never seen such a problem solved without surgery before this. On the other hand, I knew a woman who got the embryonic treatment and she passed away. It did not help her at all. It was so fraudulent that the group who gave her the treatment ask her to make an advertisement about how it had helped her even before she had the treatment. It is criminal what some “scientists” are doing.
The former was done in this country and the latter in another country.
I have let and do let all my family and friends and even strangers know the difference between ethnical (skin, cord blood, adult.) and non ethical (embryonic stem cells from abortion children) whenever I can. I also tell them besides the one kind being non ethical, they do not work but often make medical problems worse.