All Submissions May Be Edited

With things as hectic as they were this week because of the election I haven't been paying too much attention to whether or not the Des Moines Register published a letter I wrote them a few weeks ago. This letter was in response to a letter from someone who claimed to be working on research using adult stem cells yet claiming that the only stem cells that offered any hope were embryonic. I got off a letter in response to refute what she said. I had a call from The Register to confirm that I wrote it. Then when I saw another letter from someone else responding to that letter I figured mine probably wouldn't make it.

Anyhow, I was just checking their website to see what letters had been published this week & lo & behold I discovered that my letter had been published (sort of) on Tuesday 7 Nov. Why do I say sort of? Because they cut out about 1/2 of the letter. It does keep part of the message, but it cuts out the heart of my message, the truth about what embryonic stem cells really offer vs. what adult stem cell treatments are succeeding in doing. Did it surprize me?, NO. To print the whole message would have laid out the evidence I offered in support to uphold my claims for all to see. & shown up her claims for the lies they were. & clearly, that would undermine something that the Des Moines Register (A Gannett Newspaper) doesn't want undermined. My reasoning, given how big the issue has been this election cycle, they could have clearly done an article studying both sides of the issue. To the best of my knowledge, they didn't.

Here is the letter as they published it:

Adult stem cells are working right now

November 7, 2006

I am extremely puzzled by the claim made by Gina Schatteman in an Oct. 20 letter ("Only Embryonic Stem Cells Offer 'Promise of a Cure'). She said adult stem cells do not currently offer any hope for slowing the progression and treating the symptoms of a myriad of diseases. She accuses Jim Nussle of misrepresenting the facts. Sadly, she is the one who is misrepresenting the facts.

There are currently over 70 different diseases that have treatments using adult stem cells. Adult stem-cell treatments are truly offering real hope, right now, without sacrificing the lives of the unborn. The choice is obvious.

- Allen Troupe,

Dubuque.

Here is what I actually wrote:

"Quite bluntly I am extremely puzzled by the claim made by Gina Schatteman in a letter published last week. She made the claim that adult stem cells do not currently offer any hope for slowing the progression and treating the symptoms of what she says are a myriad of diseases. She accuses Nussle of misrepresenting the facts. Sadly, she is the one who is not merely misrepresenting the facts, she is outright lying about them.

There are currently over 70 different diseases that have treatments using adult stem cells. They include brain tumors (I have a friend who knows a person who had brain cancer & was treated by an adult stem cell treatment.)

A complete list can be found on the internet (with links to a list of peer reviewed treatments & a report by the President's Council of Bioethic's at: http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm.

Nussle was right when he says that adult stem cells are "providing hope, not false hope" like those pushing for embryonic stem cell research. In fact I just read a Reuter's report about an embryonic stem cell research project on rats for Parkinson's that was stopped when the saw the possible development of tumors at the sites of the injected stem cells. The article went on to say: "Scientists have long feared that human embryonic stem cells could turn into tumors, because of their pliability."

Adult stem cells treatments are truly offering real hope, right now, without sacrificing the lives of the unborn. The choice IS obvious."

Quite a difference, isn't it?