I spent all weekend reviewing articles and lists on CP to get more 
info to help Case. One thing I found out is that they are already 
using stem cells for CP in other countries and with some good 
results. They have found out embryonic stem cells are no better than 
adult cells and we all have those. There were a couple of articles on 
severely damaged brains that regained cells. They did not say if this 
was proven through before and after MRI's or just how. Human trials 
are illegal in the US so this is being done in Mexico and the 
Dominican and I think Russia.
According to this family, one blind CP child could see after the 
treatment and started tracking things. Very amazing results in some 
cases. Also it can help adults as much as children evidently. Anyone 
here ever tried anything this far out?

All the best,

Linda

At 09:01 AM 9/11/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: melanie [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 05:58
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Melanie Phillips's Articles has been updated
>
>
>Melanie Phillips's Articles has posted a new item, 'The near-death 
>experience of
>the medical profession'
>
>You may view the latest post at
>http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=449
>
>
>September 11, 2006
>The near-death experience of the medical profession
>Daily Mail, 11 September 2006
>
>The ghastly prospect that, as a result of catastrophic illness, doctors might
>write you off as dead even though you are well aware of what is going on but
>can't communicate that you are still alive, is the stuff of nightmares.
>
>Such concern is often expressed about patients in a persistent 
>vegetative state
>(PVS), but until now this has been pooh-poohed by doctors as fanciful and
>alarmist.
>
>They have asserted with unchallengeable confidence that the damage to these
>patients' brains means that it is physically impossible for them ever again to
>be aware of anything.
>
>As a result, ever since the landmark 1993 case of the Hillsborough disaster
>victim Tony Bland, the law has allowed doctors to stop giving such 
>patients food
>and fluids on the grounds that this permits them finally to die and thus end a
>'living death'.
>
>Actually, since they are not dying, it does nothing of the sort; it is more
>truthful to call it legalised killing. This objection, however, is 
>brushed aside
>on the basis that, since they feel nothing, such patients are as good as dead,
>and protesters are dismissed as cranks or religious extremists.
>
>But now, graphic evidence has been produced that such clinical arrogance is
>wholly misplaced. A team of Cambridge neuroscientists has reported 
>that a woman
>who had suffered a severe head injury in a road accident, and seemed unable to
>communicate or respond to any stimulus, actually played tennis in her head and
>made a mental tour of her home when asked to do so by the research team.
>
>Doctors said she retained the ability to understand spoken commands and to
>respond to them through activity in her brain which they were able to monitor
>and which was the same as the brain activity of a healthy person.
>
>This revelation, which has astounded the medical profession, has the most
>profound ethical implications. It proves dramatically that even where a doctor
>pronounces that a patient will never recover consciousness, this 
>certainly does
>not mean that the patient is dead. And it raises the horrifying 
>possibility that
>PVS patients may have been starved or dehydrated to death even 
>though they might
>have felt what was happening to them.
>
>It also calls sharply into question the practice of switching off the
>life-support machines of others who are in a deep coma. The fact is that these
>patients are alive, and the Cambridge experiment rubs the doctors' 
>noses in this
>most inconvenient fact - one that they have tried so hard to deny.
>
>The case exposes the total absence of humility of a medical profession that
>pretends to know what it cannot possibly know. Much that goes on in the brain,
>especially around the issue of consciousness, remains utterly mysterious and
>unexplained.
>
>Yet doctors arrogantly assume that they know enough about the brain 
>not only to
>declare that their patients will never recover any sensation but, worse still,
>that in some cases they are actually dead.
>
>This has implications even more sensitive than for sufferers from PVS. For the
>medical definition of 'brain-stem death' underpins organ donation, which gives
>people who would otherwise die of chronic disease the chance of gaining a
>healthy life through an organ transplant.
>
>A new law that has just come into operation has deprived relatives of their
>power of automatic veto over the removal of organs from loved ones who carried
>donor cards. This is aimed to tackle the chronic shortage of organ 
>donors, which
>means that every year some 500 people die waiting for a transplant.
>
>Doctors will now be able to override relatives' objections unless 
>they feel that
>these are overwhelming. But relatives are often reluctant to give 
>their consent
>for organs to be removed because they see that the body of their loved one
>remains healthily pink and with a heart that is still beating.
>
>The philosopher Baroness Warnock, that self-appointed national 
>arbiter of where
>life begins and ends, says such squeamishness is inevitably based on 
>'irrational
>sentiment or irrational dogma'. But this is simply as ignorant as it is
>offensive.
>
>For the fact is that the medical profession has redefined death purely for the
>benefit of the transplant programme. It has defined the point of death as the
>failure of the brain-stem to respond to certain tests, with the resulting
>additional diagnosis of the irreversible loss of the capacity for 
>consciousness
>and the capacity to breathe.
>
>But testing the brain-stem cannot exclude all possibility of recovery in every
>case - not least because it does not test the higher parts of the 
>brain that may
>still be functioning. That is why, as a recent report from a German
>neurosurgical unit revealed, two of their patients diagnosed as 
>brain-stem dead
>actually 'recovered'. In other words, they were not dead at all.
>
>Moreover, some anaesthetists who paralyse 'brain-stem dead' patients to enable
>their organs to be removed give them a general anaesthetic as well- 
>just in case
>they may still have some feeling during the procedure.
>
>Whoever heard of anaesthetising a corpse to avoid the slightest chance of
>causing it pain or distress? This in itself demonstrates that, even 
>for doctors
>involved in organ removal for transplant purposes, the definition of death is
>wholly artificial and even meaningless.
>
>Yet such is the pressure of the transplant programme, they insist on 
>ignoring or
>even denying the considerable body of evidence giving rise to such 
>doubts within
>the profession. The Royal College of Anaesthetists recently upheld the
>brain-stem death definition and repeated the claim that is frequently made in
>such circles that 'death is a process rather than an event'.
>
>But this is absurd. Dying is a process; death is indeed an event. The
>distinction has been blurred simply because death has become too inconvenient.
>Organs for transplant cannot usefully be extracted from the dead, so they are
>being taken instead on occasion from people who may at most be dying -at which
>point the 'event' of death certainly does take place.
>
>Of course, it is a noble ideal to save the lives of those who are desperately
>ill. And some whose organs are harvested are undoubtedly dead. But what if the
>transplant programme does not always take organs from corpses but from living
>people who are actually killed by this process - and more horrifying 
>still, may
>even have some awareness of their surroundings?
>
>The uncomfortable fact is that we have redefined our understanding of death so
>that it no longer applies in circumstances where life has become too
>inconvenient. Our society no longer believes in absolutes - even those such as
>life or death - if they stop scientists from fulfilling their 
>promise to deliver
>happiness to all.
>
>Thus when the traditional understanding that human life begins at conception
>started getting in the way of embryo research, which was said to benefit
>infertile couples or help find a cure for genetic disease, Lady Warnock
>obligingly and arbitrarily shifted the start of life to 14 days' gestation.
>
>Thus, when the traditional understanding that death occurs when the 
>heart stops
>beating started preventing organs being harvested for transplant purposes,
>doctors redefined the point of death as the failure of the brain stem instead.
>
>Medical science, in other words, has been playing God. The Cambridge 
>experiment
>has demonstrated just how horrifyingly wrong that was.
>
>Permalink
>
>
>
>top of page
>
>
>
>Best regards,
>melanie
>[log in to unmask]
>
>-----------------------
>
>To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
>
>http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy