The problem with stem cells, is that they like to form tumors when placed in the body, so programming a stem cell to do what you want is very difficult, we dont know alot about stem cells, and how they are able to differentiate. iN DIABETES pn, people dont even know how nerves are damaged by being diabetic. Let say it works, but the healing will reverse itself, because you are still diabetic(assuming your not type 1) and the damage will re-occur even after treatment.

In the early days of stem cell research, the controversy about cancer induction, was talked about quite a bit.

But with the new techniques used today, this has mostly been improved upon, and the risk of cancer minimized:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4510452

I really am suggesting that you, neuroproblem, use links to illustrate your comments and opinions. Then the readers here can read more about the topic and then form their own opinions regarding risk vs. benefit.

How to link and quote sources on the internet is explained in our guidelines. The link to that explanation is in my signature on every post.

Northerngal, I don't live with peripheral neuropathy but (day job stuff) I have a reasonable understanding of molecular cell biology.

"Stem cell" is a technical term in that context.

Questions which I would ask my doctor include:

(1) Which stem cells is s/he referring to - there are lots of different kinds of them?

(2) What criteria did s/he use to show that s/he had isolated stem cells (rather than any other kind of cell type) from your abdomen?

(3) Were they grown in cell culture (this is easy to do) before putting them back?

I stress that I am not seeking to present as a "wet blanket" here - it is just that "stem cell therapy" has become a trendy label.

If your doctor can provide coherent evidence-based answers to the questions that I have asked you above, that is fine.

If s/he can not, I would be very cautious about this alleged therapy.

@kiwi:

This may help:
Northerngal has another thread with many details included that answer your questions today.

http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/sh...highlight=stem

Thanks for that link mrsD.

A short summary article about Adipose Stem Cells in Regenerative Medicine:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20853072

Dave.

Neuroproblem,

I searched 'cancer caused by stem cells' and found multiple articles on the theory that ONE'S OWN stem cells drive cancer growth and development, but none on re-introduced stem cells definitively causing cancer. Here is one such article, which also explains the second, less controversial theory of cancer growth:

http://m.eurostemcell.org/de/cancer

One should always amass all the knowledge, not just scan the headlines - 'A Little Learning is a Dangerous Thing'

Dave.

PS. If you read the News report in MrsD's Post you will see that, even here, it is the retrovirus delivery system causing risk - not the stem cells.

I did not say cancer, no where in my post it said it, you are misreading. It has a tendancy to form tumors, doesnt mean it will always form tumors. Pls reread the post.

Neuroproblem

Quote
The problem with stem cells is they like to form tumors
Quote

Quote
Tumour noun
a swelling of a part of the body, generally without inflammation, caused by an abnormal growth of tissue, whether benign or malignant.
Synonyms: cancerous growth, malignant growth, cancer, malignancy
Quote

Being a double cancer survivor, who has had one tumour removed by surgery and one destroyed by radio/chemotherapy, I understand the terminology and the fact that 'tumour' and 'cancer' are synonyms.

I would like to read the articles you are citing, I would not like to get into a disagreement over semantics.

Dave.

i looked at my previous post, i never mentioned cancer with tumor in the same post.