At last some common sense in the rush for stem cell 'wonder cures'. 14 medical charities have written to The Times to warn that the claims for them are entirely overblown and, worse, untested and potentially very dangerous.
Ann Coulter on stem cell research generally: "Although there has been research on both adult and embryonic stem cells since the fifties, only adult stem-cell research (ed: morally ethical) has prodcued any cures- and lots of 'em. Adult stem cells have been used for decades to treat dozens of diseases, including Type 1 diabetes, liver disease, and spinal cord injuries. Currently, adult stem cells are used to treat more than eighty diseases...By contrast, the embryonic stem-cell researchers have prodcued nothing. They have treated nothing. They have not even begun one human clinical trial. They've successfully tereated a few rodents, but they keep running itno two problems: First, the cells tend to be rejected by the immune system. Second, they tend to cause malignancies called teratomas - meaning 'monster tumours'."
Scientist Michael Fumento says, "it was the very success of asdult stem-cell research compared with the abject failure of embryonic stem-cell research that led to the all-out PR campaign: 'Savvy venture capitalists have poured their money into ASC's, leaving the ESC reseatrchers desperate to feed at the federal trough'. "
Do you see why embryonic stem cell researchers - against all the failures of clarity of the real science - are desperate for public funding to keep them employed in useless embryonic stem cell research? They know only too well that private funding won't be forthcoming for something private venture capitalists KNOW can't work. So why whould the public purse pick up the tab for something real scientists and private science funders know is a loser?