> That's what I've been saying. ASC results are for results now, ESC > are > for the future, maybe. Given the choice of where to invest, they went > with the better odds.
This statement: "Turns out the immediate fix was adult cells all along." Implies that adult cells are a "fix" for the diseases people are looking to correct with stem cells, period. This is simply not true. The fact that any money was directed to ESC research would indicate otherwise. Adult cells are not a "fix" for the use of ESC, they are just further along in the process for those conditions that can conceivably be treated by either, and considerably so for those conditions for which ESC will never be useful (as mentioned in the article, one example being generating new heart muscle). Choosing to direct more money to ASC research means nothing about the effectiveness of one over the other. There are many examples in science where the most effect ways of treating something were the hardest to develop. Cancer research in particular ABOUNDS with examples of this type. It's easy enough to bombard the entire body with radiation and/or chemicals, but medical researchers have with years of effort been making more selective ways of targeting cancer cells without the side effects that come from systemic treatment. Such therapies are vastly more difficult to develop and test, and require years of commitment to achieve. The fact that they take much longer though means nothing about how much more effective they are. --- Mary Jo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:306855 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
