For every scientific article that disputes the claims against Embyronic Stem Cell research (and there are very few to my knowledge), I could show you a dozen that report it's benefits. Despite what you hear or read in the news, Embryonic Stem Cells right now are the best source for cell therapy simply because you don't have to reverse engineer them, so the process of using them is less cumbersome. That, of course, doesn't mean that new techniques aren't in the process of being perfected to make it easier to use adult stem cells, but for right now the cells of choice in many research studies are embryonic. They can also be induced into pluripotent stem cells, such as neural stem cells (NSC's). A lot of the studies I have read that talk about injecting stem cells into rats, and other lower organisms, and observing nails, teeth, etc. growing were done when stem cells were first being researched were done a few years back when the science was new. The science has evolved since then and I don't believe anyone would just inject multi potent stem cells into an organism anymore (but I could be wrong). As a matter of fact, many Universities are beginning human trials this year. Researchers have also found that the stem cells also come with a ton of nerve growth factors that induce your own stem cells to begin growing and repairing damaged tissue. Also, the nervous system is what is termed "immuno privileged" (because an immune reaction inside of your nervous system would, essentially, begin to destroy your own nerve cells, the nervous system has a very weak immune response to any foreign bodies), so when you do transplant embyronic stem cells into a nervous system, they are not rejected by the host (at least not from the studies they have done thus far). So, that takes care of the autologous question. However, immune rejection will pose a problem with the other organs of the body. The reason, I believe, why scientists in America are so busy trying to find ways to make stem cells from your own body is to eliminate the ethical dilemma of using aborted fetuses, and because of the aforementioned immune rejection response of other organ systems. So the fact that Mark has claimed that embryonic stem cell therapy is of no use to an injured brain is completely ridiculous and should be disregarded. I just don't see the logic behind it. If it is because of personal moral reasons Mark, then that is completely understandable. However, you shouldn't get into the habit of discrediting science just because you don't personally believe in the methods used to carry out the research (sorry, that is my little soap box rant from being a research scientists years ago who was constantly pestered by the P.E.T.A people for our use with animal models).
But quite honestly, the research is so new and controversial that no one really knows what will come of it. The only thing that we do know is that, as Mark put it very well, the research is happening very quickly and has thus far shown great promise. I do know that they are currently doing stem cell therapy (embyronic and adult) in other countries and are seeing some pretty amazing results from it, albeit they are all anecdotal. A great example is of a girl from Fort Collins, CO who was diagnosed with some sort of vision disorder (sorry, can't remember which one off the top of my head), was considered legally blind and was told she would never be able to drive a car. She traveled to China, received adult stem cell therapy on her eyes, and a couple of months later, got her drivers license. There are other similar stories that can be found through google.


I'm sorry to hear Mark that the person you saw never recommended neurofeedback for you. If you don't mind me asking, who was it? Also, have you even tried to do it to see if it would be beneficial or not?