posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 05:26 PM
Forbes Magazine provided additional confirmation that adult stem cell research is far more successful that embryonic stem cell experimentation.
They quoted an article printed in the Wall Street Journal Europe by Richard Miniter.
"Of the 15 US biotech companies solely devoted to developing cures using stem cells, only two focus on embryos. Embryo stem cell research is
at the drawing-board stage - not for lack of funds but for lack of promising research to finance. Venture capitalists have no agenda beyond
making money; if they see embryo projects that are likely to bear fruit over the next five to seven years - the usual VC time horizon - they will fund
them. That the market is speaking so loudly against embryo stem cell research probably explains why embryo researchers are so eager to reverse the
ban on government funding."
To date, current research on embryonic stem cells has resulted in no promising results. Ironically, a leading pro-ESCR advocate is the Juvenile
Diabetes Foundation, but ESCR research has failed in fighting this disease.
Past supporters of this controversial research are now speaking out about the false hype surrounding the results. The San Francisco Chronicle
recently reported that doubters are coming out of the woodwork. Paul Billings, who studied stem cells' effects and co-founded a stem cell bank, said
that hopes for major new medical treatments based on embryonic stem cells are "very remote". "The problems are so complex that we're not likely
to be able to tackle them with the stem cell gambit in the foreseeable future."
Researchers in China met with a disastrous result. Fetal tissue injected into a patient's brain produced temporary improvement, but within two years
the patient developed a brain tumor and died. An autopsy revealed that the fetal cells had taken root, but had then metamorphed into other types of
human tissue - hair, skin and bone. These grew into the tumor, which killed the patient.
A devastating result occurred at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons, and was published in the New England Journal of
In some of the patients, the implanted embryonic cells apparently grew too well, churning out so much of a chemical that controls movement that they
writhed and jerked uncontrollably. Dr. Paul E. Greene called the uncontrollable movements developed by some patients as "absolutely devastating."
He said, "They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their writs flex and distend. It's a real nightmare. And we can't selectively turn
it off. No more fetal transplants. We are absolutely and adamantly convinced that this should be considered for research only."
Diane Irving, Ph.D., a former professor of biology at Georgetown University and former biochemist with the National Cancer Institute, said, "I have
argued that adult stem cells are better because they are closer to the stage of differentiation than embryonic or fetal cells - therefore they do not
have as long a distance to travel differentiation-wise as the younger cells. Therefore there is far less of a chance for genetic errors to be
accumulated in the implanted cells and less side effects for the patient to deal with."
In stark contrast to the failures of embryonic stem cell research, the future looks very promising for treatment with adult stem cells.