3 ms·
> Your second point is unsubstantiated They're touting the use of adult stem cells [edit: from a separate source in the body] which have never been shown to p
by tbrake 10y ago
> Your second point is unsubstantiated
They're touting the use of adult stem cells [edit: from a separate source in the body] which have never been shown to provide the kind of results that embryonic stem cells have. That is snake oil. At best it wouldn't have made anything worse but also not made anything better. When your best case scenario is "you won't be any worse off than you started" you lose the right to call that a treatment.
Of course I somehow doubt it was explained to those women that way.
> Sometimes we have good reason to think a treatment might work, but it fails upon trial.
Given the nature of the source of the stem cells, no one would have had good reason to expect this to work.
- chroem- 10y ago>They're touting the use of adult stem cells which have never been shown to provide the kind of results that embryonic stem cells have Actually that is false. As someone who is currently losing their eyesight due to retinal degeneration (and in their 20's no less), I've done quite a bit of reading on this subject. Most of the stem cell treatments and gene therapy that I've seen rely on the patient's own cell cultures in order to prevent autoimmune rejection. Normally the retina has immune privilege, but as it breaks down it becomes vulnerable to attack by the immune system, which adds an extra level of complication. Honestly, this whole thread has me pretty worried that I might be cut off from access to experimental treatments just because they're not guaranteed. I know you all mean well, but going blind with your whole life ahead of you and no treatment whatsoever is a really scary thing. These women made a fair trade, and honestly I would accept the same risks that they did. Having a chance at not being blind is better than for sure going blind.