Do stem cells cause cancer?
asks the cover of the latest (Dec. 27) issue of Forbes Magazine,

Dirks and a handful of other mavericks argue that this indiscriminate approach is wrongheaded. They believe a single type of cell may be cancer's main growth engine:mutant stem cells that, though barely present, spawn other cells that then spark growth. "This has profound implications," says researcher Thomas Look of Boston's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. "The major cells you see under a microscope may not be the ones you need to kill in order to cure the disease." He adds that the theory "is definitely still very controversial" in some quarters.

Figure out a way to isolate these mutant cells and target only them, Dirks says, and maybe cancer can be stopped outright--and the kids he treats might stop dying so soon after he operates.

These mutant stem cells already have been found in breast cancer, two types of leukemia and multiple myeloma. This fall Dirks and six scientists at the University of Toronto proved the existence of the cells in human brain tumors, pinpointing a small group of cells believed to be the driver of the tumors' growth. "In every brain tumor we have looked at, in both adults and kids, we are able to find these cells," Dirks says.

Again, it's the non-embryonic stem cell research that's producing the most promising results. Just a few days ago Betsy was posting about the woman who is walking again after doctors used stem-cell therapy to replace her damaged spine after being treated with umbilical cord stem cells, and the use of the patient's own stem cells to cure incontinence. Commenting about Newsweek's articles, Betsy concludes "It seems, however, that the major media is uninterested in stem cell research that is actually working now if it can't be used to beat up conservatives." That would be bad enough, yes, but the crucial question is, is the MSM emphasis on embryonic stem cells causing a diversion from the research (and the subsequent funding) that is actually rendering results?