Don't results have to start with potential? Before gene therapies began showing results, they had "potential".
That is why this stem cell stuff is so important. If we hog tie stem cell research at the "potential" stage, we'll never see the "results". This argument infuriates me to no end. I know, because it's the one my parents make. Prove to me that stem cells can cure, then i'll support your research. Uh, we have to do the RESEARCH befor we can CURE! On 10/26/06, Russel Madere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This shows something from Gene therapy that I have not seen from stem cell > research, results in humans. In my training as a Geologist I was taught > results trump potential any day of the week. When I can see a 37% > inprovement is 75% of the test subjects of a stem cell study in humans I > will be just as accepting, until then, I want to see results, not potential. > > >http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-10/sg-s2m101306.php > > > >Not really sure what you are after here. Are there alternatives? Yep. Do > any > >of them show as much promise, right now, today, as stem cells? Nope. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:218445 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
