Newsweek International in its 22 January edition says of the Atala amniocentesis stem cell paper in Nature Biotechnology, "What's more, the stem cells are also found in the placenta, which is thrown away after birth - so doctors may obtain them from all infants, not just those subject to amniocentesis." It proceeds to tell us, however, that "Many scientists are quick to emphasize that comprehensive human trials are still many years away." Really? Then "many scientists" are unaware that if you go to the government's clinical trials.gov website you'll find that there's already a trial underway using placental cells against multiple sclerosis. Too bad many editors don't realize they have science writers who don't understand - or worse, misrepresent - science.
Still ignoring my previous post, Fumento? Question too hard for you?
Then let me point out the problem with your post here, where you assert that Newsweek "blows" the reporting on the study by saying:
Many scientists are quick to emphasize that comprehensive human trials are still many years away."
Your evidence against this?
One study.
In my book, one trial does not make "comprehensive human trials".
Note the term COMPREHENSIVE and plural TRIALS.
The only thing that blows here (interesting choice of words. Always interpret it to indicate closet homosexuality, btw) is your blogging.
Much scientific misrepresentation is done in the name of profit.
On the other thread I posted a bunch of successes with embyonic stem cells.
I also posted a Rabbi's view of embyonic stem cell research.
So far no reply fom Mr. Fumento.
"In my book, one trial does not make "comprehensive human trials".
Get a new book. It IS a comprehensive trial; I provided a link to it. Read it. It began almost six years ago and is still recruiting new patients. And where does Newsweek (and you) get off on saying trials are "many years away" when there's one going on even as we speak? Oh, but it's "trial," singular. So if somebody said to you, "The ability of the Chinese to shoot down satellites is years away," you'd agree because, after all, they did only shoot down one satellite a few days ago. In the event, I only referred to trials found at clinicaltrials.gov. Using PubMed it took mere seconds to find another clinical trial in the July 18, 1996 New England Journal of Medicine: "Placental blood as a source of hematopoietic stem cells for transplantation into unrelated recipients."
The reason I didn't respond to you the first time is because you didn't deserve a response. It is the same reason I will not respond to whatever smarmy next posting you come up with.
The link above points to a trial related to treatment of sickle cell. Do you have the link to the one on MS? I'd be extremely interested in reading about it.
The reason you didn't respond to me the first, second or third time, nor M. Simon, nor Joe Katzman (even) is not because we don't "deserve" a response, Fumento, it's because you're not capable of supplying one.
As comment #4 clearly illustrates.
Honestly, I didn't think you'd take my advice to have a Cranial Liposuction seriously, but it looks like you did.
What....a....monumental.....tool.
Michael, you are not really doing yourself any good here.