Stem Cell Treatment To Cure the Most Common Cause of Blindness
The Times Online reports that researchers from the Institute of Ophthalmology at University College London and Moorfields eye hospital have developed stem cell therapy that can treat age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the most common cause of blindness. They are currently moving the treatment through the regulatory approval process, and clinical trials are expected to start within two years. Quoting:
"Under the new treatment, embryonic stem cells are transformed into replicas of the missing cells. They are then placed on an artificial membrane which is inserted in the back of the retina. ... [Professor Pete Coffey, director of the London Project to Cure Blindness] said the treatment would take 'less than an hour, so it really could be considered as an outpatient procedure. We are trying to get it out as a common therapy.'
IAAO (I am an Ophthalmologist).
Although the article does not mention what kind of cells and membranes are transplanted and wether it is going to be used in exsudative or non-exsudative AMD I would assume that it's retinal Pigment Epithelium and Bruch's Membrane being used in wet (= exsudative) AMD.
Therefore this seems to involve subretinal surgery, which is not a piece of cake and usually diminishes visual accuity.
Previous attempts in this direction have already been done (macular rotation, retinal pigment epithelium transplants, etc.), results have not been all too gratifying.
Most of the medical profession believes that adult stem cells are more likely to offer cures than embryonic stem cells, so your complaint will prove a non-issue.
...Kurzweil suggests we'll all be in robot bodies before the century's end...
I think I would rather have the robot augmentation than chance stem cells turning on me.
From the above link;
Then he was diagnosed with a brain tumor in 2005. That tumor, it turns out, grew out of the stem cells, obtained from at least two aborted fetuses, used in his brain.
Besides can stem cells give you telescopic vision? Now that would be cool!
Hi. Medical professional here. Do you have a source? Because that's not my thinking, or the thinking of most others I've discussed the issue with.
Responding because crying strawman or ad hominem incorrectly is something that highly irritates me. It also seems to be on the rise. The guy proposed a hypothetical future scenario and essentially made a slippery slope argument. That's not strawman. Strawman is inserting a new, similar argument and passing it off as the opponent's argument (a misrepresentation) and then arguing against that new argument.
Camping on quad since 1996.