Embryonic Stem Cells Kill
Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:05 AM
By: Michael Reagan Article Font Size
What President Obama did when he reversed President Bush's executive order banning embryonic stem cell research was based not on solid science, but his desire to cater to the anti-life, pro-abortion forces and their media allies who helped elect him.
In doing this, he created the potential for an outbreak of potentially fatal cancerous tumors caused by the therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells.
Moreover, he killed another Bush presidential order that funded some of the most promising research on the creation of embryonic-like stem cells from harmless but potent adult stem cells.
What President Obama did when he rescinded President Bush's federal ban on certain lines of embryonic stem cell research ultimately could cost American lives.
Obama and his subservient mainstream media allies ignored science in favor of politics, and the results will prove to be disastrous.
What most people are unaware of is that there are three types of stem cell research: there is embryonic stem cell research (ESC), there is induced pluripotent (IPSC) research, and adult stem cell research (ASC).
When Barack Obama rescinded George Bush's ban on federal funding on certain types of embryonic stem cell research he also rescinded Bush's Executive Order 13435 that had provided federal funding for induced pluripotent stem cell research using harmless adult stem cells manipulated into mimicking embryonic stem cells without the risk ESC cells entail.
This is where 72 different diseases are now being remedied or cured.
There are no embryonic stem cells being used anywhere in the world on humans, with one tragic exception. A boy treated with embryonic stem cells for a rare genetic disease developed benign tumors, casting doubt on claims of the therapy's safety and effectiveness.
According to media reports, the boy, now 17, received the ESC stem cells in 2001 at a Moscow hospital and four years later scans showed brain and spinal tumors. Israeli doctors removed the abnormal growth from his spine and their tests show it most probably was caused by the stem cells.
The Moscow doctors should have known better. It is well known that lab animals given embryonic stem cells routinely develop tumors and other malignant growths that eventually kill them. There is a 100 percent mortality rate among lab animals that develop these tumors.
That's why George Bush banned this lethal form of research that Barack Obama, who should have known better, has now legitimized by overturning this life-saving ban.
The reason that major drug companies such as Merck and Pfizer are not funding ESC research is because they have seen the research and it scared the daylights out of them. They realized that if they injected ESC cells into human beings and like lab animals, they show signs of cancers or lesions or tumors there will be huge class action suits, because they would have ignored all of the available data in research that shows that that's exactly what will happen.
The fact of the matter is embryonic stem cells kill. The research shows conclusively that they help rats and mice die and an Israeli boy grow tumors.
Barack Obama rescinded Bush's executive order banning this dangerous research, which has failed everywhere it has been tried, and then went on to eliminate funding for some of the most promising research on the use of pluripotent adult stem cells.
Unfortunately, those opposed to these actions have made the mistake of concentrating on the pro-life aspects of this controversy, while ignoring the scientific aspects, which prove our case conclusively.
We can win this case, by concentrating on the science, which is on our side.
Anyone who is willing to inject embryonic stem cell into their bodies needs to understand that -- like the Israeli boy and the lab animals-- they will grow tumors and lesions.
http://www.newsmax.com/reagan/reagan_stem_cells_kill/2009/03/12/191214.html
:rolleyes:
:ditto:
Quotenot on solid science, but his desire to cater to the anti-life, pro-abortion forces and their media allies who helped elect him
....
That is a very true statement... :yes:
Anyone who believes this tripe should have been an abortion. :rolleyes:
Here are some articles:
http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/
Had to subscribe to get this one so it might not work:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/318/5858/1917
Originally published in Science Express on 20 November 2007
Science 21 December 2007:
Vol. 318. no. 5858, pp. 1917 - 1920
DOI: 10.1126/science.1151526
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports
Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Somatic Cells
Junying Yu,1,2* Maxim A. Vodyanik,2 Kim Smuga-Otto,1,2 Jessica Antosiewicz-Bourget,1,2 Jennifer L. Frane,1 Shulan Tian,3 Jeff Nie,3 Gudrun A. Jonsdottir,3 Victor Ruotti,3 Ron Stewart,3 Igor I. Slukvin,2,4 James A. Thomson1,2,5*
Somatic cell nuclear transfer allows trans-acting factors present in the mammalian oocyte to reprogram somatic cell nuclei to an undifferentiated state. We show that four factors (OCT4, SOX2, NANOG, and LIN28) are sufficient to reprogram human somatic cells to pluripotent stem cells that exhibit the essential characteristics of embryonic stem (ES) cells. These induced pluripotent human stem cells have normal karyotypes, express telomerase activity, express cell surface markers and genes that characterize human ES cells, and maintain the developmental potential to differentiate into advanced derivatives of all three primary germ layers. Such induced pluripotent human cell lines should be useful in the production of new disease models and in drug development, as well as for applications in transplantation medicine, once technical limitations (for example, mutation through viral integration) are eliminated.
1 Genome Center of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706–1580, USA.
2 Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53715–1299, USA.
3 WiCell Research Institute, Madison, WI 53707–7365, USA.
4 Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
5 Department of Anatomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706–1509, USA.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jyu@primate.wisc.edu (J.Y.); thomson@primate.wisc.edu (J.A.T.)
Mammalian embryogenesis elaborates distinct developmental stages in a strict temporal order. Nonetheless, because development is dictated by epigenetic rather than genetic events, differentiation is, in principle, reversible. The cloning of Dolly demonstrated that nuclei from mammalian differentiated cells can be reprogrammed to an undifferentiated state by trans-acting factors present in the oocyte (1), and this discovery led to a search for factors that could mediate similar reprogramming without somatic cell nuclear transfer. Recently, four transcription factors (Oct4, Sox2, c-myc, and Klf4) were shown to be sufficient to reprogram mouse fibroblasts to undifferentiated, pluripotent stem cells [termed induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells] (2–5). Reprogramming human cells by defined factors would allow the generation of patient-specific pluripotent cell lines without somatic cell nuclear transfer, but the observation that the expression of c-Myc causes death and differentiation of human ES cells suggests that combinations of factors lacking this gene are required to reprogram human cells (6). We demonstrate that OCT4, SOX2, NANOG, and LIN28 are sufficient to reprogram human somatic cells.
Human ES cells can reprogram myeloid precursors through cell fusion (7). To identify candidate reprogramming factors, we compiled a list of genes with enriched expression in human ES cells relative to that of myeloid precursors and prioritized the list based on known involvement in the establishment or maintenance of pluripotency (table S1). We then cloned these genes into a lentiviral vector (fig. S1) to screen for combinations of genes that could reprogram the differentiated derivatives of an OCT4 knock-in human ES cell line generated through homologous recombination (8.). In this cell line, the expression of neomycin phosphotransferase, which makes cells resistant to geneticin, is driven by an endogenous OCT4 promoter, a gene that is highly expressed in pluripotent cells but not in differentiated cells. Thus, reprogramming events reactivating the OCT4 promoter can be recovered by geneticin selection. The first combination of 14 genes that we selected (table S2) directed the reprogramming of adherent cells, which were derived from human ES cell–derived CD45+ hematopoietic cells (7, 9), to geneticin-resistant (OCT4+) colonies with an ES cell morphology (fig. S2A) (10). These geneticin-resistant colonies expressed typical human ES cell–specific cell surface markers (fig. S2B) and formed teratomas when injected into immunocompromised severe combined immunodeficient–beige mice (fig. S2C).
By testing subsets of the 14 initial genes, we identified a core set of 4 genes, OCT4, SOX2, NANOG, and LIN28, that were capable of reprogramming human ES cell–derived somatic cells with a mesenchymal phenotype (Fig. 1A and fig. S3). Removal of either OCT4 or SOX2 from the reprogramming mixture eliminated the appearance of geneticin-resistant (OCT4+) reprogrammed mesenchymal clones (Fig. 1A). NANOG showed a beneficial effect in clone recovery from human ES cell–derived mesenchymal cells but was not required for the initial appearance of such clones (Fig. 1A). These results are consistent with cell fusion–mediated reprogramming experiments, where overexpression of Nanog in mouse ES cells resulted in over a 200-fold increase in reprogramming efficiency (11). The expression of NANOG also improves the cloning efficiency of human ES cells (12) and thus could increase the survival rate of early reprogrammed cells. LIN28 had a consistent but more modest effect on reprogrammed mesenchymal cell clone recovery (Fig. 1A).
Here is the link that lead me to the above:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151526
With my serious back injuries...and associated medical problems...embronic stem cell research is my best chance at resuming a life that was filled with quality. Meanwhile, I will just wallow in the depression that medical infirmities engender. Too bad we had to wait eight years to get scince back on track.
Quote from: xman on March 13, 2009, 02:45:06 PM
With my serious back injuries...and associated medical problems...embronic stem cell research is my best chance at resuming a life that was filled with quality. Meanwhile, I will just wallow in the depression that medical infirmities engender. Too bad we had to wait eight years to get scince back on track.
But the other stem cell research has been proven to work and is, it would seem, a lot safer. It has already been used on humans and has proven to be effective whereas the embryonic stem cells have produced tumorous growths and not been as effective. Research was never stopped on the other type of stem cell research but has been ongoing.
Thats right, stem cell research has already helped a lot. They think they have found the cure for MS, diabeties and others. This is without the embryo stem cells. hmmmmmmmm
Who knows what they might have accomplished by now if they hadn't been hindered. Heck, they might have even been able to teach mcgonser how to spell 'diabetes'!
I no that u are so smart and perfect EX: it must b hard too have too be with someone so stupid. Gee I feel real real real real real sorry fur u.
I can't help it; my grandmother was an English teacher. :biggrin:
Its a shame that someone in your family didn't teach you tact and consideration.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 13, 2009, 04:27:41 PM
Its a shame that someone in your family didn't teach you tact and consideration.
My but aren't you the self-righteous one.
Actually no: I just don't feel compelled to correct everyone on their spelling or grammar. Must be a flaw in me.
Is literacy a bad thing now?
Quote from: Exterminator on March 13, 2009, 04:16:09 PM
Who knows what they might have accomplished by now if they hadn't been hindered. Heck, they might have even been able to teach mcgonser how to spell 'diabetes'!
this only means they will NOW get federal tax dollars.......now the States who aere struggling with their own economic situtations will more than likely contribute less and the same from philanthropists...
Quote from: Exterminator on March 13, 2009, 04:36:40 PM
Is literacy a bad thing now?
Literacy is the ability to read or understand something(from wikipedia) Can you not understand something if it is not spelled correctly?? Kind of a bad habit, correctlng everyone isn't it? :police: I now choose you to be our Spelling and Grammar police chief. Just please be a little more considerate and tactful ok.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 13, 2009, 04:48:27 PM
Literacy is the ability to read or understand something(from wikipedia) Can you not understand something if it is not spelled correctly?
The question isn't whether or not I can understand something but whether or not someone who is marginally literate can. If I read something, I typically understand it to mean what the author intended whereas when someone who doesn't read as well reads it, he or she may glean an entirely different meaning leading them to conclusions that are inaccurate. A lot of republicans do this. :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 13, 2009, 04:16:09 PM
Who knows what they might have accomplished by now if they hadn't been hindered. Heck, they might have even been able to teach mcgonser how to spell 'diabetes'!
It was still going on in other countries and they still haven't been able to get any kind of results. They already have proven results using other types of stem cells so why, other than also trying cloning which also has serious drawbacks, even continue with the embryonic studies?
Quote from: Exterminator on March 13, 2009, 04:57:42 PM
The question isn't whether or not I can understand something but whether or not someone who is marginally literate can. If I read something, I typically understand it to mean what the author intended whereas when someone who doesn't read as well reads it, he or she may glean an entirely different meaning leading them to conclusions that are inaccurate. A lot of republicans do this. :biggrin:
Too bad you never bothered to read any books on common sense and manners.
Quote from: me on March 13, 2009, 04:59:09 PM
It was still going on in other countries and they still haven't been able to get any kind of results. They already have proven results using other types of stem cells so why, other than also trying cloning which also has serious drawbacks, even continue with the embryonic studies?
Why not?
Quote from: me on March 13, 2009, 05:02:30 PM
Too bad you never bothered to read any books on common sense and manners.
Obviously, you haven't either but you seem to be under the misguided perception that I am here to try to impress you.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 13, 2009, 05:07:06 PM
Why not?
Wouldn't it make more sense to put the money toward something that has been proven to work than channel part of it to something that so far has produced no results or poor results?
Quote from: Exterminator on March 13, 2009, 05:08:35 PM
Obviously, you haven't either but you seem to be under the misguided perception that I am here to try to impress you.
If you are trying to impress it isn't working because I'm not. Making snide remarks and correcting other posters English and punctuation are about the only things you have contributed to any of the threads that I've seen. You have shown nothing to prove that you know anything other than how to be rude.
Quote from: me on March 13, 2009, 05:12:23 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense to put the money toward something that has been proven to work than channel part of it to something that so far has produced no results or poor results?
*I'm trying to stay out of this one*
But. . . this is the exact kind of thinking that got the world where it is today! It is especially dangerous in science, wherein humankind will stagnate if not for r and d. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on March 13, 2009, 05:16:53 PM
*I'm trying to stay out of this one*
But. . . this is the exact kind of thinking that got the world where it is today! It is especially dangerous in science, wherein humankind will stagnate if not for r and d. . .
I understand what you're saying but it's kind of like wasting money in one area on a whim when it could be spent in another area to improve what already works.
Quote from: me on March 13, 2009, 05:21:56 PM
I understand what you're saying but it's kind of like wasting money in one area on a whim when it could be spent in another area to improve what already works.
No. . . it is not. That tripe about esc's is based upon scare tactics. The Pro lifers lost ground and they are mewling like scared little kittens. The fact is that legislation had zero business being passed in the first place, and as has already been stated, it only served to obstruct the progress that was being made.
ESC's are the
best surrounding spinal regeneration research potential and what transpired only served to diminish the hope it holds for those that would benefit greatly from progression within that area. The truth is we had barely tapped the possibilities when W slammed the door shut, forcing research to "create" an alternative that increases the timeline for research incredibly, and that isn't anywhere near as promising, yet we progressed despite it; although at a cost.
Dolly scared the panties off the holy rollers and they saw this legislation as a means to put a wall up to scientific progress; just as religion has always done throughout history. These hysterical reactions are ludicrous and one would think society would learn from its mistakes instead of mindlessly repeating them!
"Oh but it's playing God!" cry the holy rollers. But think about that a little bit would you? Let's take the words of "the book"; (I paraphrase a bit here). . .God created man in his own image. . . So, I'll submit to that and take it a little farther down the path. If the creator did indeed start with this intention and also provided us with free will, did he not also provide us with the ability and the intelligence to learn that which "he" already knows? Why not? If he really didn't want us to go down a path wouldn't it be safe to say then that "he" would and should be the one putting up the barriers to the knowledge? Wouldn't he do so if it is "forbidden"? (Oh, that's right, there's the old apple and serpent parable. . .)
(I apologize for acknowledging the elephant in the room, forcing everyone to do the same; but when you get to the bottom line on this subject you will find the only reason we're talking about it is the religious objection to it in the first place!)
Quote from: me on March 13, 2009, 05:02:30 PM
Too bad you never bothered to read any books on common sense and manners.
You just showed what is wrong with the system. We have 2 football teams the Republicans and Democrats. Who must, by any means win. Our politicians are busy pleasing their party and not their voters. This have caused such a division that nothing can get done because they are too busy proving the other one wrong. Such a tragedy.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 13, 2009, 05:35:13 PM
You just showed what is wrong with the system. We have 2 football teams the Republicans and Democrats. Who must, by any means win. Our politicians are busy pleasing their party and not their voters. This have caused such a division that nothing can get done because they are too busy proving the other one wrong. Such a tragedy.
I think they should all, including anyone who might run for President, have to live for at least 6 months on the income of the average citizen on an income of around 35 to 50k a year and pay taxes just like we do so they will understand what it really means to be a working class citizen. Most Congressmen have no clue and some don't really care. I also think there should be a one or two term limit.
I think that they should not be able to vote in their own raises. And definitely not when we are in a financial crisis. I think the American people should vote on it when there is a ballot, or election scheduled. It can be put on the ballot.I also think there should be term limits on Senate and House pols.
Quote from: Palehorse on March 13, 2009, 05:34:36 PM
No. . . it is not. That tripe about esc's is based upon scare tactics. The Pro lifers lost ground and they are mewling like scared little kittens. The fact is that legislation had zero business being passed in the first place, and as has already been stated, it only served to obstruct the progress that was being made.
ESC's are the best surrounding spinal regeneration research potential and what transpired only served to diminish the hope it holds for those that would benefit greatly from progression within that area. The truth is we had barely tapped the possibilities when W slammed the door shut, forcing research to "create" an alternative that increases the timeline for research incredibly, and that isn't anywhere near as promising, yet we progressed despite it; although at a cost.
Dolly scared the panties off the holy rollers and they saw this legislation as a means to put a wall up to scientific progress; just as religion has always done throughout history. These hysterical reactions are ludicrous and one would think society would learn from its mistakes instead of mindlessly repeating them!
"Oh but it's playing God!" cry the holy rollers. But think about that a little bit would you? Let's take the words of "the book"; (I paraphrase a bit here). . .God created man in his own image. . . So, I'll submit to that and take it a little farther down the path. If the creator did indeed start with this intention and also provided us with free will, did he not also provide us with the ability and the intelligence to learn that which "he" already knows? Why not? If he really didn't want us to go down a path wouldn't it be safe to say then that "he" would and should be the one putting up the barriers to the knowledge? Wouldn't he do so if it is "forbidden"? (Oh, that's right, there's the old apple and serpent parable. . .)
(I apologize for acknowledging the elephant in the room, forcing everyone to do the same; but when you get to the bottom line on this subject you will find the only reason we're talking about it is the religious objection to it in the first place!)
You have absolutely captured the essence of the situation, PH. It is nearly impossible to explain how much serendipity plays a role in scientific investigation. I see it happen very nearly so often as to defeat the definition of the word.
Rather than go and see what is going on in research in many fields, most people will dismiss that funding that seems, on the face of it, to be worthless. If someone had investigated rats more thoroughly, perhaps the fleas on them would have been discovered earlier to be the culprits, and 1/3 of Europe's population would have been saved. The study of rats (fleas) as a carrier of disease was dismissed out of hand at the time.
I hope I need not go on about all the other scientific discoveries that were considered to be worthless research at the time.
Some of us NEVER learn.
But why continue something when you have something else that is working? Why not put more energy and money into something that is working and the person wouldn't have to take anti rejection medication for the rest of their lives to get the benefit from it?
Quote from: me on March 13, 2009, 06:17:27 PM
But why continue something when you have something else that is working? Why not put more energy and money into something that is working and the person wouldn't have to take anti rejection medication for the rest of their lives to get the benefit from it?
That which we cannot create, cannot buy, and cannot get back. . .time. . .
The alternatives present exponentially longer time-lines just to create and present unacceptable delays to progression. The fact is what is natural is usually better and for a reason. Science has proven this time and again and so it is with esc's. Cellular and genetic manipulation are increased when starting with synthetically/laboratory created sc's, presenting highly increased levels of potential for contamination incidents and unacceptable regeneration or results.
The fact is this can happen when using hesc's but the reduction in potential windows for these incidents due to the reduced number of required cellular and genetic manipulations makes them far superior to the alternatives for that very reason, among others.
What do we say to those that will benefit from this science; sorry you're going to suffer the rest of your life due to the delays, but right after you lay down for the long dirt nap we'll validate the cure for your problems? NO! For each and every one of these individuals time is the driver behind the importance and urgency in this research. They cannot buy it, they cannot create it, they cannot get it back. Don't you think it is then incumbent upon each one of us to ensure that it is used wisely?
When it was suggested that frogs may be the harbingers of a problem with pesticides and/or herbicides, the initial investigations were neutral.
Further investigation has, however, proven the original hypothesis to be wildly true.
We now, therefore, have a benchmark for the identification of certain chemicals that were never thought to have an adverse effect on our environment; ergo, on our children who play in them.
If scientists had given up the search, how would we have ever known?
BTW, the grotesque deformities in frogs continue today, precisely because too many people think they can apply "common sense" to too many situations, completely disregarding the scientific method.
The dirt nap continues for my brother.
Until we all join in.
Quote from: followsthewolf on March 13, 2009, 06:32:44 PM
The dirt nap continues for my brother.
Until we all join in.
Although I know it isn't anywhere near what you are going through, just the knowledge that someone I associate with has been victimized and touched directly by this
ignorant delay frustrates me beyond words. It is absolutely unacceptable to me as a human being!
My apologies on behalf of humanity for its ignorance my friend, and my own ignorance for utilizing such terminology in referring to any victims passing, and if it presented you with one nano-second of discomfort or offense! I can be quite crass at times. . . :'(
I have very strong personal and professional opinions on this topic that seem to run alongside your own; however it has not elicited from me that which it has taken from you and your family. I can only imagine how painful this must be for each one of you.
Quote from: followsthewolf on March 13, 2009, 06:32:44 PM
The dirt nap continues for my brother.
Until we all join in.
Maybe I'm being skewed because the stem cell transplant did help my cousin's husband so I know of what is available from that angle. Had the outcome been different for him I might possibly feel otherwise. I do intend to do a little more research on this when I have the time to sit here and actually be able to concentrate.
Quote from: Palehorse on March 13, 2009, 06:47:22 PM
Although I know it isn't anywhere near what you are going through, just the knowledge that someone I associate with has been victimized and touched directly by this ignorant delay frustrates me beyond words. It is absolutely unacceptable to me as a human being!
My apologies on behalf of humanity for its ignorance my friend, and my own ignorance for utilizing such terminology in referring to any victims passing, and if it presented you with one nano-second of discomfort or offense! I can be quite crass at times. . . :'(
I have very strong personal and professional opinions on this topic that seem to run alongside your own; however it has not elicited from me that which it has taken from you and your family. I can only imagine how painful this must be for each one of you.
No need for apologies, my friend. My brother accepted it much better than I did; perhaps because I am involved in research and have been thwarted so many times by ignorance that I have become a bit numb to it. Not, however, to my brother's passing.
We plod on, regardless of the harpies and naysayers, because we see the progress that is made.
Thanks.
the amount of money sunk into hesc's research would have been better spent on esc's research. one of my favorite actors, and a fine man, chris reeves may have been walking amongst us today if it were not for the fear of science that was, and is, thrust upon humanity by those who believe in the boogeyman. those are the poeple who deny empirical evidence because it decries those myths which they hold so near and dear to thier hearts. no virginia, there is no santa claus. and riendeer don't fly. and evolution is fact.
p.s. i apologise for mispelling embroynic in my last post on this thread. my keyboard is dyslexic. maybe esc's can fix that. ha.
Quote from: me on March 13, 2009, 06:51:00 PM
Maybe I'm being skewed because the stem cell transplant did help my cousin's husband so I know of what is available from that angle. Had the outcome been different for him I might possibly feel otherwise. I do intend to do a little more research on this when I have the time to sit here and actually be able to concentrate.
When science is making new discoveries, I think of Leeuwenhoek and how he may have been scorned and laughed at when he tried to convince people that bacteria exists. Without exploration and experimentation then we're in danger of not coming close to understanding the realms of possibility. We can't afford to not know.
What pro life/anti embryonic stem cell research yahoos forget to mention is that abortion isn't involved in the research.
What I was looking at is the fact that to this point the embryonic research has only produce poor results while they have had good results using the other two methods for some different things. Also research was still ongoing in other countries, with embryo's which were scheduled to be disposed of, and privately so it isn't like it was stopped altogether.
Let the researchers do the work, the potential benefits are amazing. Leave the politics and religious overtones out of it. The extremists only try to push their agenda when it is convenient and politically motivated.
One could argue that organ donors are morally corupt and should be outlawed by that line of thinking.
Quote from: me on March 13, 2009, 06:17:27 PM
But why continue something when you have something else that is working? Why not put more energy and money into something that is working and the person wouldn't have to take anti rejection medication for the rest of their lives to get the benefit from it?
Should medicine never have come farther than Penicillin? It works for some but not all but it works so we shouldn't have researched other medicines that could replace it?
Me when you have your science or medical degree I'll listen, but for now you are just regurgitating when you read in those whack websites.
Quote from: kimmi on March 14, 2009, 10:24:41 AM
Should medicine never have come farther than Penicillin? It works for some but not all but it works so we shouldn't have researched other medicines that could replace it?
Me when you have your science or medical degree I'll listen, but for now you are just regurgitating when you read in those whack websites.
Excuse me but I'm not reading whack websites in case you hadn't noticed some of the links I put up. I am not talking about moral or ethical issues nor am I going to believe what I read on the whacko left websites. What I originally posted is what raised the question on my mind and I'm trying to find information. Are those of you on the left so sure of what you're being told you just take their word for it instead of trying to find info that you won't bother to find links to put up too? Forget the politics, moral issues, and ethical issues this happens to be something I'm really interested in and would like to know more about.
Not all medicine is a good thing you know. My mom was given an arthritis medication and asked about the risks before she took it. Well, the Dr. told her, "the benefits out weigh the risks", she ended up with lymphoma as a result of taking the medication. She didn't hurt but was it really worth it when she could have taken something else and not suffered the consequences of that particular medicine? My daughters mother-in-law had her kidney's shut down and is now in very poor health because of this same medication. Her son-in-law died as a result of another arthritis medication. Benefits out weigh the risks? Not in these particular cases they didn't.
What does that have to do with stem cell research you ask. Well, same deal, they are saying, "oh this is so great and will cure all kinds of conditions and illnesses", but will it? What's wrong with questioning it and finding out the pros and cons and discussing it. Doesn't it behoove us all to be as informed as possible in case we're faced with having to make a decision of whether to have this or which one to go with at some point in the future? Just because I don't have a medical degree doesn't mean I should just automatically believe everything I'm told and not bother to check it out for myself or learn about certain things.
Quote from: me on March 14, 2009, 04:41:10 PM
Excuse me but I'm not reading whack websites in case you hadn't noticed some of the links I put up. I am not talking about moral or ethical issues nor am I going to believe what I read on the whacko left websites. What I originally posted is what raised the question on my mind and I'm trying to find information. Are those of you on the left so sure of what you're being told you just take their word for it instead of trying to find info that you won't bother to find links to put up too? Forget the politics, moral issues, and ethical issues this happens to be something I'm really interested in and would like to know more about.
Not all medicine is a good thing you know. My mom was given an arthritis medication and asked about the risks before she took it. Well, the Dr. told her, "the benefits out weigh the risks", she ended up with lymphoma as a result of taking the medication. She didn't hurt but was it really worth it when she could have taken something else and not suffered the consequences of that particular medicine? My daughters mother-in-law had her kidney's shut down and is now in very poor health because of this same medication. Her son-in-law died as a result of another arthritis medication. Benefits out weigh the risks? Not in these particular cases they didn't.
What does that have to do with stem cell research you ask. Well, same deal, they are saying, "oh this is so great and will cure all kinds of conditions and illnesses", but will it? What's wrong with questioning it and finding out the pros and cons and discussing it. Doesn't it behoove us all to be as informed as possible in case we're faced with having to make a decision of whether to have this or which one to go with at some point in the future? Just because I don't have a medical degree doesn't mean I should just automatically believe everything I'm told and not bother to check it out for myself or learn about certain things.
I have to agree with this. There are so many designer medications out there to which the side effects are simply deadly. A significant part of my medical problems are due to medications which I took without the knowledge of the potential side effects. Most physicians do not tell thier patients of those potentially and permanently dangerous side effects until it is too late.
I will no longer take medication w/o thorough research.
Your questioning of the research is valid.
Quote from: kimmi on March 14, 2009, 10:24:41 AM
Should medicine never have come farther than Penicillin? It works for some but not all but it works so we shouldn't have researched other medicines that could replace it?
Me when you have your science or medical degree I'll listen, but for now you are just regurgitating when you read in those whack websites.
I always ask questions about any medicines or treatments my doctor suggests. There was a time when we blindly followed their orders, but that has changes. Alot of it due to medications that were touted as wonder drugs and then had devastating side effects for some. It really wasn't the doctors fault most of the time. They believed what the Drug Cos. said
Quote from: me on March 14, 2009, 04:41:10 PM
Doesn't it behoove us all to be as informed as possible in case we're faced with having to make a decision of whether to have this or which one to go with at some point in the future?
It would behoove you to learn about the subject
first, then make comments. By your own admission, you don't know much about the subject yet you come here and post a thread entited, "Embryonic Stem Cells Kill," clearly indicating your bias.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 15, 2009, 11:30:22 AM
It would behoove you to learn about the subject first, then make comments. By your own admission, you don't know much about the subject yet you come here and post a thread entited, "Embryonic Stem Cells Kill," clearly indicating your bias.
What your comment clearly indicates is your smug know it all attitude. FYI my post was put there to do exactly what it has been doing, start a discussion so I could get some input and ideas of where else to look for information. I also gave my opinion what I thought up to this point concerning what I had read so others could counter.
Unlike you I do listen to other people's opinions. I may not always agree with them but I do listen. All you do is make snide remarks and offer nothing of value to the discussion.
Quote from: me on March 15, 2009, 11:55:38 AM
Unlike you I do listen to other people's opinions.
Sure you do. :rolleyes:
Dear Doctor Me, What would a plumber know about embryonic stem cells research. I have followed you writting on many things. As usually you are guessing , surmising, hoping, a few Amens and I think wrong again.
I know that if I had a terrible disease, I would try about anything to help it, even if I would die. Because I wouldn't want to live in the condition some of these poor people are living now. If you don't want to use them, fine. I would not stop research in embryonic stem cell research. Especially if they are using stem cell they are going to kill anyway. Again here we have people who want to stick their nose in someone Else's business and pain.
The Troll,.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 13, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
Actually no: I just don't feel compelled to correct everyone on their spelling or grammar. Must be a flaw in me.
Someone kneads too, specially cents their are a spell checker available hear on the bored.