Doctors transplant windpipe with stem cells

 . . . you seem a bit confused.  They are fertilised.  That's the point.  They would have no embryo to work with if they weren't.

`proud `liberal,    Thats the point thats the point that e is making.   Typical liberals do not recognize the fact that it is ADULT STEM CELLS that have been making the news, not embrionic `fertilized` stem cells.   In order to get embrionic stem cells you need a source.  (|Ever wonder why the heated debate over Planned Parenthood?- We are not far from a shocking truth I believe).....I wonder why PP is protected from the law (anti-bigotry law, money auditing laws, etc).   After all the hoopla with the Journalist who uncovered the racial bias, and the refusal of the liberal house and senate to conduct audits (the `Navy Audits the Government) on PP  you begin to wonder.

Remember Proud Liberal-  there has been NOT ONE EMBRIONIC STEM CELL BREQAK THROUGH OR CURE-  they have all been ADULT STEM CELLS AS IN THIS CASE.

Remember Proud Liberal- there has been NOT ONE EMBRIONIC STEM CELL BREQAK THROUGH OR CURE- they have all been ADULT STEM CELLS AS IN THIS CASE.

This is like trying to "prove" the supposed sinfulness of gay marriage by pointing out that no gay marriages in the state of Michigan have lasted. Well, yeah... that's because there is no gay marriage in the state of Michigan.

No breakthroughs in embryonic stem cell research have made the headlines because, let's face it: Without federal funding available, and with research institutions fearful of backlash from the drooling, knuckle-dragging Medievalites in this country, there ain't gonna be much progress.

How come when a person who reads the bible disagrees with you they are automaticaly thumping the bible...

that is a VERY STUPID FRASE... Bible thumping.... I read the bible, but I don't walk around town, with a bible in one hand and hitting it like a drum with the other....

the reason why you use that frase is because you don't want to be told you are wrong....

Curata,

Hate to tell you but all the stem cell research started with embryonic cells, granted it was normally from other animals but still was embryonic.  We use Adults more and more, because using your own works better, as well as all the treatments used have been using blood marrow stem cells to get blood cells, ES cells might not turn to what we want so for right now that isn't being used, of course it is being looked at for many things specifically nervous system disorders.  So that doesn't mean as you are trying to make it sound that ES cells might not be needed, they may be needed for a few treatments but the idea there is to clone it from you, so that way it is yours as well.  Not to make a new human, but to get the 150 cells to maybe make you a new heart.

The facts are, there was never a plan to use embryonic stem cells all the time.  But it was a step to get to the end.

What you also have to ask if Cord blood is the babies or the mothers??  Most would say it is the babies being it is tossed out by the body at the same time, and it is saved for the baby to use if Leukemia or other things happen, so this is very much not "Adult" Stem cells.

Conservatives also think Embryonic comes from a fetus it does not, it comes when the cells are 4 to 5 days old only.  There is no heart at this stage, etc, it is only 150 cells.

Dave: you are seriously over-simplifying.  If you don't know what a phrase signifies, it doesn't do your argument any good to call it "stupid." 

A Bible-thumper isn't "anyone who reads the Bible who disagrees with you", it is someone who is incapable of constructing an argument that isn't based only on their interpretation of their religious scriptures--which is not of much interest to someone who doesn't accept the Bible as scripture, or else doesn't interpret it the same way. 

You can say someone is wrong all you like, I doubt that Proud Liberal cares a bit (so I would say you are wrong about that conclusion as well), but you are wasting everyone's time if you can't construct an argument, and just fall back on your conclusion "My interpretation of the Bible, which all right-thinking people agree with, proves that your position is just wrong."  You aren't going to convince anyone with that, and nobody else can debate with you if you just turn off your brain at that point.  I suppose the people who agree with your interpretation will give you high-fives, but that isn't a debate.

And if you want to use the word "phrase" (not "frase") more than once in your post again, I will save you the trouble of looking it up.  You're welcome.

Terra Incognita,

embryonic stem cell research is on the world stage.  The lack of advancedmets due to no federal funding is not wholly acurate.  Nobody in world has had advacements even with their respective countries funding.

"Conservatives also think Embryonic comes from a fetus it does not, it comes when the cells are 4 to 5 days old only.  There is no heart at this stage, etc, it is only 150 cells." - Daniel Sage

Only a 150 cells . . . no heart . . . Why not viability at 20 some weeks when the lungs can work?  What is the difference between 1 cell and 150 (or millions) in a human life?  All the lines are arbitrary.  A heart is very poetic.  Quite beautiful actually.  But arbitrary.  At sperm-meets egg point it is no longer moms DNA, no longer dads DNA, it has an independant genome and growing of its own accord. 

As far as researchers are concerned chord blood or chord tissue research is lumped into the adult stem cell arena.  It is differentiated beyond that of an embryonic stem cell.  Very exciting area of research as well.

Adult stems cell research is where the money is going because that is where the success is, not in embryonic.

e-437852

I am so glad someone took my bait thank you.

What your saying is that a zygote, even one cell is a new life.  If that is true, then being there is only an implantation rate of 50% for a healthy female, that means 50% of all human life is destroyed by the women of the world?  What should we do about that?  Should we collect their urine and see if we can find those 150 cells on day 4 and stick them back up in her to see if it attaches again?  Or should we just charge every woman with murder?

On day 5 is when the cell mass attaches to the wall but doesn't always happen, it can be affected by many things.  Even the Pope has said the Rhythm method works for birth control, but that is making sure the cell mass doesn't attach to the wall.  So are you saying the Pope condones Abortion?

Also if your protecting all human cells you are protecting tumors too right? I mean you won't try to kill that cell would you?  What about when you drink alcohol that kills cells too. Does any of this count? Or is it only for the zygote?

Daniel Sage, 

Do you ever watch the discovery channel or National Geographic.  Life is not always pretty.  Death happens.  It is a completely natural process.  Spontaneous abortion due to failure of attachment is an unfortunate and natural process.    The implantation rate is worse than 50% (about 46% - it's honestly a derived number though).  Do you really think we should compare spontaneous abortion, a natural occurance, and manipulation of a kid in a petri dish?  Of course I don't think we should test women, stick cells back in them or charge them for murder.  Do you charge a man who has a heart attack and dies for killing himself (assuming you could charge a dead person with anything)?  Of course not!  People die.  Some you get to know better than others. 

Tumors and embryos . . . A growing disease of differentiated cells vs. growing human with-out (hopefully) known flaw.  Awkward comparison.  I don't know where to take that.  Sounds like a very foolish comparison.  You need to work on that one.  A point of argument though: it seems when researchers get embryonic stem cells to do something promising it always turns into a cancer of kind (somebody please correct me here, I am honestly generalizing). 

I just have a couple of questions, where in the bible does it say that stem cell research goes against God? Why has the bible been brought into this thread? Please will someone explain it to me.

What does Planned Parenthood have anything to do with stem cell research? Oh btw, most Planned Parenthood offices are rented from the Catholic Church.

All of the above questions are off topic with no relevance to this story and I will be guilty of doing the same shortly. My apologies up front.

The fact that most Stem Cell Research is privately funded should be a huge wake up call to all, why are we impeding the progress of Medical Research that can potentially save so many lives?

Why are there so many people against this? I just don't understand the reasoning on this. If an ESC is used, would you rather have oh, let's say Einstein live, because of the use of an ESC or would you rather the EC just thrown away and have Einstein die?

I can understand the whole mad scientist thing about using ESC to create a superior race. But if we our government was smart and created laws to have watch dog groups to insure that no mad scientist is allowed to go unchecked or even better not allowed to get their hands on any ESC's or SC's, would that not be for the good of all mankind?

Can you imagine the medical ramifications of having cures at the ready instead of allowing people to just die or better yet having people die while awaiting an organ transplant. While taking medications to live until a transplant becomes available and still no guarantee that the transplant will not fail?

I sometimes wonder if the Pharmaceutical Companies are the ones that are stopping Stem Cell Research. Because with Stem Cell Research, will come cures that is being treated by medication that could go on for years. The Pharmaceutical companies bottom line is to make as much money as possible no matter the cost of lives that are shortened by the use of such medication.

Let us look at all the TV commercials that we all know cost's millions for the Pharmaceutical Companies that are selling drugs from ED all the way to Depression and more. Has anyone taken the time to listen to the side effects of these medications? I have read them as well as listened to them and all I can say is "are you kidding me", a great example is the medication for depression...."it can cause suicidal tendencies", did I just hear that? So a medication that is supposed to stop someone from being depressed may cause them to commit suicide. Does anyone besides myself see something wrong with this??? Sorry for going off Topic.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, I personally feel that Pharmaceutical Companies don't want Stem Cell Research to progress because of their bottom line and they are not out to help anyone but themselves.

I can always stand to be corrected, I am not a doctor nor a in the Medical Field.

I am SOOO GLAD that we will have a President with an  OPEN MIND on Jan. 20, 2009! We ave all suffered under the failed policies of "the current occupant" for 8  longyears. If our brilliant scientists were given the opprtunity, they might have come up with this brilliant breakthrough!

The notion that embryonic stem cell research is immoral because it comes from discarded embryos has some flaws in it.  Embryonic stem cells don't just come from discarded embryos, but can also be found in umbilical cords from newborns.  So why isn't there a market for stem cells from this source?

A lot of good the original post, pointing out what type of stem cells were used, did... hhahahhahahhaahha

I think this story was very cool!  Congrats to all involved.  Of course, there is no way the world can afford to go to such lengths for everyone.  Maybe someday, though, so we have to keep at it.

The embryos are never going to become full humans.  They are just part of the research.  Stopping it is just slowing down the process.  Eventually fully viable stem cells will be available without using embryonic stem cells.  The only question is:  how many extra people die needlessly to save some stupid clumps of cells frozen in liquid nitrogen that will never become anything more.  And they aren't sitting there, packed in vials at hundreds of degrees below zero with "souls" attached to them, either!!!

Terra - "drooling, knuckle-dragging Medievalitesdrooling, knuckle-dragging Medievalites" - thanks for the laugh!  Laughter is wonderful.  Loved it!

Do you really think we should compare spontaneous abortion, a natural occurance, and manipulation of a kid in a petri dish?

I'm sorry, e, but I'm afraid you just revoked your credibility, and any justification to suggest someone else's argument or comparison is either "awkward" or "foolish."

E

Is there manslaughter? If you put  a brick at the top of a ladder and it falls and kills someone, you will go to jail.  The reason is your actions caused the death of someone, not on purpose but it did.  Implantation what I found I was being nice saying 50% I found some numbers 30% healthy down to 1% for anyone in their 50s.   So was it natural? different things can cause it not happening, working out to hard, having a drink, smoking etc.   So wouldn't this all be manslaughter?   Again where is the right of the little cell ball?   If you have murder then you have to have manslaughter.   So why aren't you for protecting those, it isn't the same thing as the person dieing of a  heart attack that is someone's own body that failed.  This would also be a failure of the mother for it not attaching, so it would fall under manslaughter.

Mangus,

One where it says in the bible to them there is one place where they take the same for abortion.   But the problem is there are 4 places in the bible that say life doesn't happen till something breaths for the first time.   Not to mention in Numbers and I think Leviticus it states for a census that no person under one month should not be counted because they do not count.  That is one month after being born.   So there are flaws all over with their religion argument.

Your other point is a good one, if stem cells work the way they seem to be.  Drugs will just be till the stem cells can get collected and grown into something like the story.  So this is something to watch.  Like I said great point.

3 sheets-   As a scientist I am for research that proves true.   All Stem Cell research that has produced any cures has been Adult Stem Cells.   This panacea of embrionic stem cell research has been fueled by ignorant people.   We have no cures from embrionic stem cells.

The claim for research?   I wonder who they are keeping in business supplying embrionic stem cells-  Planned Parenthood perhaps?

So spouting liberal morals by telling people they are standing in the way.....`i wonder what sins of science they are hiding.....

The investors have spoken by the way,   they are behind adult stem cell research.  It has takin the Government to fund the Embrionic research, the investors won't touch it.   

Thanks for putting light on the subject... i sorta thought the same thing...

Liberals just want to live ANY WAY THEY WANT TO without Consequiences (spelling)

Curata, if you were any kind of scientist you would know that the argument has never been for embryonic stem cells instead of adult (someone's own) stem cells.  You have quite the agenda showing, with your conspiracy theories about Planned Parenthood.  I hope you don't think you are being either subtle, or clear about your problem with the organization.

You would also know that there have been major disappointments with experimental adult stem cells as well as the occasional success.  Nothing that would indicate that there is no place for embryonic stem cell research.  In which no BABIES are involved.  A few cells do not make a baby.

This story could be the beginning of a single success, which you would also know does not make a scientific statement. It is only a very nice indication that this may be worth pursuing.  Even this single case doesn't have a conclusion yet, and the doctor's involved pointed that out.

Curata:  Also, if you were any kind of scientist you wouldn't throw around a phrase like "research that proves true." 

Like you know before you do the research what your results are going to be?  That is the opposite of scientific.  Did you think nobody would notice?

Dave:

Looks like you are the one who only wants to hear someone say you are right, even if they seem to be less than honest about what they are saying.

Liberals just want to live ANY WAY THEY WANT TO without Consequiences (spelling)

You like silly blanket statements?  Here's one for you:

Bible thumpers want EVERYONE TO LIVE ACCORDING TO THE RULES THEY THINK THEY FIND IN THEIR RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURES.  (Which, by the way, even the Bible thumpers can't agree on.)

And if you know you can't spell something and are incapable of picking up a book, Dictionary.com is online and free.  You're welcome.

Curata, your comment makes me want to know how much research has actually been done with embryonic stem cells.  I was under the impression that there hadn't been much do to the controversy and the laws that Bush passed.  If the research hasn't been done, how do we know whether or not it will yield anything worthwhile?

How do we know it won't?  Why stop something that may advance the science over a bunch of frozen cells that will never be a thinking human being?

This research IS being done in the US more.  While the embryonic stem cell is still working away in the US and in Europe, the real breakthroughs have happened in the adult stem cell field.  First, it was an ear, now, a trachea.  As far as nerve tissue, there have been many reports of adult stem cells used to improve the functioning of quadriplegics from neck injuries using stem cells grown from the patient's own cell from the nose.

In the US, there are too many legal hurdles in the way of translating research achievements into actual procedures.  In this regard, the japanese, koreans and europeans have far fewer hurdles to overcome.  It is our legal problems in the way of US achievement.

clement,

I agree with most of what you said.

What I meant is there is a stigma in the US over stem cells no matter what it is.  People have been trying to block it every which way, that makes a huge problem.   We just don't seem to be using it here for anything, well besides the pixie dust for soldiers what I think rocks.

For the neck injuries I did not hear of the nose stem cell that you are talking about.  I did see that it worked on mice to use ES cells for spinal cord.  My thing is this, in those rare cases if ES cells need to be used we shouldn't shun it.  But we should look at using adult at all possible. 

I hope it is more than a subtilty, but it refers to her tb in past tense saying she suffered from it for years.  I think implying she no longer suffers from it but is left with the messy bronchi.  I could be wrong though.

`i agree,   this is not the first cure from ADULT STEM CELLS.   EMBRIONIC STEM CELLS have yet to produce one cure.   

Want sucess?   Go where the invvestors put their money.   The Government has had to bail out embrionic stem cell research- it has not produced one cure.

Oh, THAT'S scientific.  Embryonic stem cell research is RESTRICTED by the government, you can't pretend there is a level field, and as for suggesting life-saving medical treatments should be for-profit ventures...if that is your idea of morality, I am not impressed.  (Maybe you worship capitalism, which would make you the equivalent of a Bible thumper, only over an economic system.)

I've read one or two studies (very small) written up in a journal, which were not successes for adult stem cells (to treat heart damage, and to treat spinal cord damage), which doesn't mean they won't be doing further studies, and hopefully finding more success.

You keep saying there are cures from adult stem cell research, but when I look that up online (I assume they wouldn't be a big secret like your Planned Parenthood conspiracy) I find things like a website claiming there are more than 72 cures and treatments developed from adult stem cell research...

...only the 4 examples they showcase include 2 from cord blood--one for the MOTHER of the baby, which is kind of cheating to refer to as "adult stem cells" as if a whole baby wasn't produced to get the stem cells, and one for the baby herself--which seems ethical, but not exactly "adult", and 1 for a man who got 5 better years with Parkinsons--which is wonderful for him, but has been unsuccessful for other Parkinsons patients.  With those being the ONLY cases they choose to highlight, I have my doubts about their ability to count "cures and treatments."  And you haven't mentioned any, not even questionable ones.

If you had the slightest interest in science, you wouldn't be calling one person getting decent results (permanent or temporary) a "cure", and you wouldn't be calling one person getting decent temporary results a "treatment" when the number of failures keep it from being used as an accepted treatment.  If you are talking about anything, you are talking about "anecdotal evidence", not science.  One person does not make a cure.  Or a treatment, when more people were harmed or received no benefit.

Every single success, even if it is temporary is great, but it is NOT out of the research phase.  And none of it points to embryonic stem cell research being useless.  Regulating it to the point that it can hardly be accomplished doesn't say anything about the relative importance of it.

Isn't it just being held up by Bush?  He's gone.  How long before the limits are gone, too?

lorent, if that was to me :)

Bush did put some almost insurmountable restrictions on ESC research, such as limiting it to using a few "existing lines" of cells--some of which, I think I read,  turned out not to be viable which meant he "authorized" even fewer lines than he claimed he did.

But he isn't the only politician with a problem with ESC research, and it only takes one Congressperson to sponsor a bill, even if the executive requirements were lifted.  I don't remember if he ruled by Executive Order, or what, so I am not sure how much trouble it would be, or who would undo what he did.

Anyway, the fact that people make stupid arguments against ESC and support them with lies doesn't change the fact that this is an ethical minefield.  I am Far Left radical, militantly pro-choice, and old (and at least two conditions that might be treated with the results of ESC research run in my family) and I'm still very much of the opinion that this must be seriously regulated if it is permitted at all.  To the extent that ASC research is promising, I would hope it got funding enough to bear out the promise.

I wasn't especially impressed with Bush's compromise (although I am usually a big proponent of compromise) because of his stated position that it was unethical.  To say "so you can only do it a little bit" from a religious stance just didn't work for me.

My understanding is that is was an executive order.  So only Bush is holding up the show and Obama can reverse it at will.  Any congressman might be able to sponsor a bill, but with the makeup of the house and senate now, will any such bill make it through and would Obama sign it if he just reversed the executive order?  I very much doubt it.

I am all for it being regulated.  On all these issues, there is never much talk of regulating.  Each side is just fighting a black and white, yes or no battle with no gray area to discuss.  Discussing the gray area is tanamount to conceding to them.

lorent, thank you for your response.  I think we are in substantial agreement, but I have some reservations about sweeping changes being made by Executive Order. 

I believe James Madison wrote about the benefit of having competing governmental branches keeping each other from doing too much mischief (through checks and balances), and while we have probably all seen the limits of that benefit when nothing gets done--and something needs to--I have always had a sneaky sympathy for that point of view.  Some things SHOULD be hashed out, discussed interminably, really really thought through, by people who are able to make a good argument for their position.  Executive Orders are efficient, but bypass all of that in exchange for that efficiency.

Agreed on the lack of discussion where there are gray areas :(  We need to act like grownups and be able to look at the situation, but that really doesn't seem to be possible for people with a black/white idealogy.

Great how you seem to KNOW there is no point in studying embryonic stem cells.  If only all scientists had such vision, we wouldn't have to waste any money on unnecessary research!

Hadn't you heard, lorent?  The point of research isn't to learn anything--you already have to know, before  you research.  geez, where have you been?

You are just supporting deroty's point kam.  Nice going.

The embryonic stem cells that can be used for research are not from fertilized eggs waiting to be born.  Some of the few lines that were "permitted" weren't even viable any more.  And the eggs that proponents WANT to be available for research are ones that are going to be DISCARDED by the fertility treatment industry.  Discarded...tossed in the trash.  They are "waiting to be born" about as much as the eggs women slough off monthly--either unfertilized, or fertilized but not tenacious enough to implant naturally.

That would have to depend on what the necessary steps were, wouldn't it?

Religious objections seem to be based on someone's interpretation of Scriptures that even co-religionists may not agree on, and often, complete misinformation. 

But even people who believe that embryonic stem cells can and should be harvested for research ethically draw the line somewhere. 

It can't just be a matter of the importance of what is at stake overrunning every single possible objection.  Just because we can do something, or can try to do something, it doesn't follow that we should.

Even non-fundies could find that problematical Bee. 

Embryonic stem cells are harvested from a few cells...someone above suggested about 150, and I won't dispute that since I haven't taken the time to look it up. 

I'm betting that a miscarriage can result in the loss of something that looks very much like a baby, not an almost invisible to the naked eye clump of cells.  Even when an underdeveloped, non-viable fetus is born dead, I think almost anyone would believe the remains should be given more respect than to be used for medical research.

Although I've been surprised before.

Also, if the embryo wasn't able to be carried to term, there might be genetic problems that would make it a less than ideal research subject.

The other problem is that there is usually a reason God aborted it.  Not always, but there is normally a problem with the cells. Expecting "normal" DNA would be a mistake.

Dharma Girl,

Having been through several...not just myself but a member of my family, I can tell you this. When a miscarriage occurs most OB's, want you to retrieve said miscarriage along with the placenta. I have had to do this for a s-i-l and therefore was very aware of what to do when it happened to me. This is done for pathology and for those in the field to become educated about certain miscarriages.

My miscarriage happened on a Sunday and I had an appointment on Monday. I was able to catch the fetus as it left my body into a zip lock bag for the OB, I can say that when my husband and I looked at the fetus it did not look like a baby by any means. I was at 12 weeks and and had a due date.

I am grateful that this occurred because when we looked at what ended up in the bag and spoke to our OB about it the OB did say it could have had to many cells or something just went wrong. I scoured the internet to find a picture of a 12 week old fetus and again I was grateful that my body knew the difference between a viable fetus and one that was just a mass of cells and hair...sorry for being graphic.

I guess what I am trying to say is that most miscarriages happen for a reason and our bodies are miracles that know the difference between viable and non-viable.

Don't get me wrong there are those out there that the fetus does look like a baby, but no one can say if all of the organs are where they are supposed to be or if that the fetus went to full term there would not be problems, such as heart defects, lungs and every major organ we can think of.

With all that said would I want people to learn from my miscarriage...YES, we gave them permission to study the fetus. My hope is that they will learn from the fetus that left my body. It was our choice!

My hope is that this helps some of you understand that SC research is very important and if it is ESC or adult, they are important for everyone.

Thank you for responding, Magnus.  I am very sorry for your loss, and glad that you and your husband were able to achieve some closure both by seeing for yourself that there was some reason for it, and by generously choosing to allow study of the fetus, which may help others in future.

I hope I was clear that I was not saying study should not be allowed, but that it would not be acceptable to many to require it, and absent a requirement, that could not take the place of ethically developed ESC research. 

The family member whose miscarriage I am familiar with lost her baby much later in her pregnancy; she has always referred to the miscarriage as "the loss of her baby", and she and her husband were not able to consent to giving up the remains of their lost one for medical research.  They did choose to hold a small, private funeral and that seems to have brought them some comfort and closure, along with the conviction that, whether they ever knew what it was or not, there was some reason for what happened.  It really matters to me that the choice was theirs, as your choice was yours.  I guess I am pretty much all "choice."

I think my concern with this issue is two-fold: I really am militant about a woman's body being hers and hers alone.  A woman's ability to say that, much less rely on it is fairly recent in history, and requires actual vigilance, as there are many (not all male) who would would be willing to see that sovereignty compromised or even relinquished.

Secondly, while I can see a difference between the propagation of a small cluster of cells which are NOT a baby for vital research, and total abomination--I am not any kind of Christian, but I can still see the potential for whatever the secular equivalent of abomination might be. 

IMO, ESC research requires constant review according to the most current state of our understanding of medicine, and life, and ethics.  Meaningful regulation.  And true oversight.

Adult stem cell research, and particularly any procedure carried out with an adult's own stem cells seems less risky, ethically.  But I haven't seen anything but sadly unconvincing assertions by extremely unsophisticated posters, and a couple of websites that referenced a very few, and questionable "successes" while insisting that there were a lot of them, that suggest that ASC research has resulted in much of anything, yet.  Nothing that would suggest that ESC research is simply unnecessary.

Hopefully the single case in this article will have a positive and replicable outcome.

For the first person, they don't use the aborted fetus, because of the fact there could be a medical reason why it was aborted as some said.  Other, is you don't want to start people trying to make money off of it, and punching themselves in the gut.  Sick  I know but sorry it is a sick world sometimes.  This I think everyone can agree would be bad and wrong, for study of why it happened or using the body for science ok, but we don't want the sale of.

The process of ES cells, or (Embryonic Stem Cells) as I found is 150 cells, it is a ball of cells, and would be day 4 of the conception.  The two cells sperm and egg are put in a petri dish after merged, and it grows on it's own.  It has nothing to implant too, so never breathes, and never has a heart etc.   The chances of this cell mast not implanting (the cell mast connecting to the mother) normally is less then 50% the numbers I found show less then 30% but I am being nice.  Basically this is the stuff that gets flushed every day and no one knows or thinks about it.

Here is a link for more info on it, from the Mayo Clinic a source I greatly trust.

Dharma,

Each "natural abortion is different"  Part is the rate that the cells grow before it becomes a fetus and even after that.  Our doctor at the time we had our child was pregnant, and she had a still born miscarriage was right up to the point of birth about a month and she started to bleed, the baby got cut into by the umbilical cord, right through the gut.  So that one would very much look like a baby.  As Magnus said theirs was different and sadly didn't look the same.  Some might look nothing more then a jelly bean.   So where some would be "defective"  others just weren't lucky. 

For the ASC, I will try to supply links for them, so far all the "break troughs" have been done through that means.  You have the breast enlargement due to breast cancer, just one doctor in Japan has said he did over 200 of these.  My all time favorite "Pixie Dust" that is helping to regrow a guys finger, using his own but pulling it through the body, not pulling it out of the body like most.  There is the fusing of the human spine for back pain.  Here is a site that does stem cell work and say treatments they have done to help patients with these problems (ALS, Althemerizer, Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease, Spinal Cord Injury, Stroke).   The list goes on and on though, everything from baldness, to one researcher right now is working on regrowing teeth.  You also have to remember cord blood stem cells and that number used is huge and saved lots of people. 

Magnus,

Your situation is different, and I am sorry that you had to go through that.  It is very honorable of you to say you wanted them to study to help other people.   

Thank you for references, Daniel.  I will be very interested in following up on those.  It is quite a novelty for me to have someone else do the research--that is usually my job :)

I do have a problem with classifying cord blood stem cells as "Adult Stem Cells", since you have to produce a whole baby to get them.  This is what those who oppose ESC research say you are doing when you cultivate a few days worth of fertilized cells and use those.  I don't agree with that position, but I do have serious reservations about ACTUALLY producing a baby in order to get stem cells to use.  I think it is pretty important for a baby not to be a by-product of a medical procedure.

Dharma,

I agree with the cord blood.  The reason is it really isn't ESC, or ASC.  But it is from the baby, those cells only work well to the baby.  The mother can use them but rarely or a relative but there is a chance of rejection, only the baby can use them latter on.  Being it was developed in the womb it is almost FSC or fetus stem cells.

I do agree with your last part too.  ESC is different then producing a baby, but just to produce a baby to get stem cells would be extremely morally wrong.  It reminds me of Peta asking Ben and Jerry to use human milk.  All I could think is oh yes that would be great, let's have poor women getting knocked up to give their milk as a job then aborting late.  Just a horrible idea to think that some don't think the implication all the way through.

I do know the main idea for stem cells is that they will be cloned just those cells.  That would  be the "ideal".

Two more research thing, look up a company their stock symbol is STEM.   They just said that using stem cells on the retina can help age set on weaking of the eyes.  I do know too that like last year there was a researcher that has a method for stemcells to cure scars, but would also regrow hair in those areas.  It is to be used for baldness, and I think Johnson and Johnson bought the rights for it.

Thanks again, Daniel, I will add those to my To Research list.

Two points about what you posted above:

That website I mentioned that stated there were more than 72 cures or treatments already developed from Adult Stem Cell research described 4 individuals only.  The two problems I have with this are that it leaves me wondering if the site is using the words "cure" and "treatment" in a misleading sense--describing one positive outcome as a "cure" is misleading in a medical setting.  Religious, maybe, but nothing that relies on science is going to say one person getting a good result--even the best result--constitutes a "cure". 

Secondly, TWO of the only 4 specified "cures and treatments" were using cord blood.  As discussed, I don't have a problem with using stem cells derived from cord blood, but in the first case the stem cells were for a treatment for the mother--I think it was misleading to refer to it as ADULT Stem Cell research because they produced a whole baby to get those "Adult" Stem Cells.  The second one was a treatment for the baby, which seems kind of perfect--but again, I think it is cheating to call it Adult Stem Cell research.

I have only heard of one actual baby produced specifically to utilize the cord blood--in this case for an older sibling of the new baby.  It made my blood run cold, and I was very grateful that the story was accompanied by video.  The little boy whose life was saved by the birth of his little sister looked incredibly healthy, and the two of them were clearly loving and happy little sibs.

My second point is about the PETA/human milk story you mentioned.  I can't speak for PETA, I am not a member, but I really do doubt that this was a case of someone not thinking through the ramifications of suggesting the use of human milk for Ben & Jerry's.  I think the point, instead, is that PETA would like corporations to consider exactly what would be wrong with that scenario--using a milk source that is capable of giving consent.  Which the animals that are used, cannot.  From what I understand as the PETA point of view, coaxing companies to think about all that would be wrong with the scenario of using the one source that can give consent, might allow companies to see the PETA point of view of the wrongness of using animals that cannot.

Having given my purely speculative opinion, I will now have to go look that up, too.  You are very educational, Daniel!  Thank you for your response :)