Stem Cells Restore Feeling In Paraplegic

Vicissidude writes "According to WorldNetDaily scientists in Korea report using umbilical cord blood stem cells to restore feeling and mobility to a spinal-cord injury patient. The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cytotherapy, centered on a woman who had been a paraplegic 19 years due to an accident. After an infusion of umbilical cord blood stem cells, stunning results were recorded: 'The patient could move her hips and feel her hip skin on day 15 after transplantation. On day 25 after transplantation her feet responded to stimulation.'"

Comments

Miracle Treatment

[Doc Ruby]

If god wanted her to walk, he wouldn't have set up that devastating accident.

What type of stem cells?

[tbcpp]

But what type of stem cells are they? I have yet to hear of embryonic stem cells ever working in a situation like this. Adult stem cells yes. That's the thing that makes this whole debate about the embryonic stem cell research null and void. Any comments by someone with a little more knowledge than me?

Scrambling for the truth

[fragmentate]

If this were to work out it would put a halt to the "I can justify abortion because I'm providing stem cells" argument.

We had a demonstration locally at an abortion clinic. Ironically, it wasn't anti-abortionists. It was pro-abortionists (versus pro-choice) touting the magic of embryonic stem-cells. I bet this discovery might put a damper on any such demonstration in the future.

I doubt it, though. I suspect that it's easier to keep being wrong than to admit being wrong and accepting an alternative.

Note: I made a distinction here between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion". I truly there are those that support a woman's choice, and are advocates for the women. Then there are those that just want abortion legal because they can't keep their peckers in their pants, or they can't keep the peckers out of their pants (depending on gender, obviously). They're just too cool for condoms!

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[MightyMartian]

Religous Right: No she didn't! It's a lie!

Researchers: We have video tapes. The evidence is irrefutable.

Religious Right: You are evil. Satan must be moving her hips, just like He did with Elvis!

Researchers: Umm...

Religious Right: We're going to phone President Bush. He's gonna whoop your asses and deprive you of funding, because he's a good Christian who knows that any science that doesn't agree with us is false and evil.

Researchers: We're moving to Canada. You have fun.

OMG!!!!!!!

[Wicked187]

Would people actually RTFA! Seriously.

Why are people asking what kind of stem cells were used? It states in the freaking article: umbilicle.

Why are people stating the Bush administration limited stem cell research? He cut federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Good. Maybe they should cut all funding for all research except for defense purposes and give the people their money back. If I want to support some tyoe of research, I can give them the money. If you want my money so you can do research, and I do not want to give to you, touch luck... I don't care. Robbery is a crime. Why are so many people obsessed with the idea of living in a nanny state? You cried and moaned and got angry with your parents for acting that way... then when you finally got out from under their thumb, you missed it and want the gov't to be your mommy and wipe your behind. Stop whining. Do something useful. If you cannot event admit that embryonic stem cell research is contraversial, you are a lost cause.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[LeonGeeste]

Your points considered and rejected.

Consider major government spending projects: ...

So, Mr. Geeste, free yourself from addiction! All you have to do is not

You argument is basically: Government produced X. Ergo, we would not have X or something better than X if not for government. That's such an absurd claim I'm not sure if it needs refutation, but I'll humor you anyway. When government funds something, no one specifically made the decision to spend their own money on it. When private agencies do, they rely on people "putting their money where their collective mouth is". Thus, voluntarily funded project necessarily satisfy the desires of the participants. Government projects may not, and in general, do not. If the government(s) hadn't done any of those things, and also had not hampered economic growth, we would have the same and, most likely, better.

If you couldn't follow that, your argument is like taking $100 from me, buying a candy bar, giving it to me, and saying "SEEE!!!! SEEE!!!! without theft, you wouldn't have candy! Rant about theft all you want, the fact is you benefit from it. Society benefits from it. If you're really against theft, you'd never eat candy!"

The fact is that there are some projects (including the ones above) that are either too large, too basic or too far reaching political scope that only the government can and should fund and run them.

The fact is, that's your unsupported assertion and by no means a "fact", just your prejudice.

me:Surely, reasonable people can see a big difference between "not funding" and "actively impeding".

you:Yes, there is a difference. However, why not lower funding for all medical research? By selectively prohibiting Federal funding on stem-cell research (as opposed to other medical research), the Bush Administration effectively has hamstrung national research on stem-cell reasearch.

Government should not fund research. Currently, government funds some research, but not others. So it gets it partway right. The remedy? Get rid of the part it does right, or make it do it all wrong?

Fine - here are some government programs that I would like to be convinced on: ... If you support thses programs, please tell me why these deserve Federal funding so much more than stem-cell research that may lead to tremendous medical advances.

Obviously I don't support those either. I don't know where you got that I did. I'll join with you in opposing them. Maybe those programs give you some perspective on government funding. Sure, you find those wasteful. And a lot of people find your pet projects wasteful. They should fund yours, but you shouldn't fund theirs. Hm...

me:Oh, and I don't need to hear the "corporations are short-sighted" argument either. You're short-sighted too in that you spend money consuming things you don't really need rather than saving it or investing it in new technology.)

you:Translated into a syllogism:

Premise #1: Corporations are short-sighted when it comes to basic research
Premise #2: People are short-sighted about stem-cell research
Conclusion: The government shouldn't fund stem-cell research

Now tell me again how the conclusion follows? Because I sure don't see it.

That wasn't the argument. I didn't even invoke Premise #2; it had nothing to do with the argument if you read it; that you deem it relevant shows you totally misunderstood the argument. I was rejecting shortsightedness in itself as a reason to deny or disparage the contribution of any one class. If there is a more elaborate argument (i.e., one usually not given when the "shortsightedness" of corporations is invoked), let's hear it

This is an attempt at reverse psychology, and a pathetic show of egocentric defensiveness. Please refrain from using this Slashdot cliche. Either stand up for your ideas or refrain from posting.

Hey, I've gotten modded down before for stating the obvious. It doesn't hurt to appeal to conscience.