 |
 |
Using one's own DNA is exactly what nuclear transfer does with an unfertilized egg. But an embryo is created, as has been done by Dr. Hwang in South Korea. The big argument now is about embryonic stem cell research, not fetal stem cells. Fetal stem cell research was done with aborted fetuses, with disastrous results. A blastocyst is not a fetus. Some scientists think using nuclear transfer instead of leftover IVF EMBRYOS NOT FETUSES, would solve the very rejection problem you describe. But opponents of ESCR, NT and parthenogenesis object because an embryo in the blastocyst stage is created which they claim is a person. We are talking about cells here not fetuses. It would be helpful if people understood what we are talking about. I have noticed on some blog posts that some people think we are talking about fetuses. Fetal stem cell is old, old research, which I don't think is being done. It is certainly not promoted in any legislation I know of. Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paula Nixon" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 5:14 PM Subject: non fetal stem cell research > Would it be so terrible if they could come up with cures using other than > fetal stem cells that can cause rejection and other problems? There > should be cheers going up for every new advance they come up with, esp. > ones that don't have added problems of their own. I wonder if using fetal > cells could require using anti rejection drugs for the rest of your life > like the people that have organ transplants? Wouldn't it be better to use > your own cells if they can do that? > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn