Updated at 5:25 p.m.)
Washington (CNN) - A U.S. district judge granted a preliminary injunction Monday to stop federal funding of embryonic stem cell research that he said destroys embryos, ruling it went against the will of Congress.
The ruling by Judge Royce C. Lamberth was a blow to the Obama administration, which last year issued guidelines to allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Lamberth's ruling said all embryonic stem cell research involves destroying embryos, which violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment included in federal spending bills.
"The Dickey-Wicker Amendment unambiguously prohibits the use of federal funds for all research in which a human embryo is destroyed," Lamberth's ruling said. "It is not limited to prohibit federal funding of only the 'piece of research' in which an embryo is destroyed. Thus, if ESC [embryonic stem cell] research is research in which an embryo is destroyed, the guidelines, by funding ESC research, violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/23/stem.cell.funding/index.html
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Now a good question is, does this judge now get labeled as an "activist judge" or is it okay because of the ruling?
He's a friggin' jackass, living in the past, and afraid of the dark. I wonder how much the holy roller industry duked him for his ruling? :mad: :mad: :mad:
Once again religion stands in the way of science. . . Friggin' cave dwellers! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Quote from: Palehorse on August 23, 2010, 09:15:40 PM
He's a friggin' jackass, living in the past, and afraid of the dark. I wonder how much the holy roller industry duked him for his ruling? :mad: :mad: :mad:
Once again religion stands in the way of science. . . Friggin' cave dwellers! :mad: :mad: :mad:
My wish for him is, for him to come down AID's and Parkinsons Disease and live a long time. I don't want him to get Alzheimers, because I want he to remember and feel every pain the these other disease can give a person.
He doesn't want a cure, then let the son of a bitch suffer with them.
Quote from: The Troll on August 23, 2010, 10:30:03 PM
My wish for him is, for him to come down AID's and Parkinsons Disease and live a long time. I don't want him to get Alzheimers, because I want he to remember and feel every pain the these other disease can give a person.
He doesn't want a cure, then let the son of a bitch suffer with them.
But there is still stem cell research with harvested stem cells which could be just as or even more of a help or cure. The ruling does make one wonder why research can't be done on the outdated ones that are going to be pitched anyway if that was included in the ban. I'm sure they would still be useful in some way because IIRC that was one of the things they wanted to be able to do and was one of the arguments used before, that they should be able to use those.
Quote from: Palehorse on August 23, 2010, 09:15:40 PM
He's a friggin' jackass, living in the past, and afraid of the dark. I wonder how much the holy roller industry duked him for his ruling? :mad: :mad: :mad:
Once again religion stands in the way of science. . . Friggin' cave dwellers! :mad: :mad: :mad:
This is exactly where religion can kiss my a$$.
Religion is dictating governmental rulings. Let people die.
The judge can kiss my a$$, too.
RIP, bro.
Quote from: me on August 24, 2010, 02:07:14 PM
But there is still stem cell research with harvested stem cells which could be just as or even more of a help or cure. The ruling does make one wonder why research can't be done on the outdated ones that are going to be pitched anyway if that was included in the ban. I'm sure they would still be useful in some way because IIRC that was one of the things they wanted to be able to do and was one of the arguments used before, that they should be able to use those.
Why should a religious asshole in a black robe stick his damn nose into it. He had no medical training and he trying trying to shove his religion down our throats. These are the religious bastards I hate so much.
If they came up with a cure for a disease using the very stem cells he considers illegal and he had the disease, he would be one of the first to jump in the line to get it.
Then maybe they should amend the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Isn't it his job to interpet the laws of the land. If the Dickey Wicker Amendment says that federal monies can't be spend on research that destroys human embryos it is his job to prevent that. The fault is in the law. You can't have it both ways, either the laws are enforced or they need to be changed.
For the record, I am not against all stem cell research.
Quote from: Anne on August 24, 2010, 04:57:03 PM
Then maybe they should amend the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Isn't it his job to interpet the laws of the land. If the Dickey Wicker Amendment says that federal monies can't be spend on research that destroys human embryos it is his job to prevent that. The fault is in the law. You can't have it both ways, either the laws are enforced or they need to be changed.
For the record, I am not against all stem cell research.
But you are against some, even those embryos that will be destroyed. Right?
No, I would be against producing embryos to be used solely for research. If an embryo is to be destroyed I don't have a problem with using it for research.
Quote from: Anne on August 24, 2010, 04:57:03 PM
Then maybe they should amend the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Isn't it his job to interpet the laws of the land. If the Dickey Wicker Amendment says that federal monies can't be spend on research that destroys human embryos it is his job to prevent that. The fault is in the law. You can't have it both ways, either the laws are enforced or they need to be changed.
For the record, I am not against all stem cell research.
Ann has a good point here. He went with the law of the land rather than what his feelings may have been and that is exactly the way it should be. When it goes in your favor it doesn't seem to matter if the judge goes with their feelings rather than the law though does it? This didn't happen to so you're all ready to jump in his sh*t for doing his job.
Quote from: me on August 24, 2010, 06:38:35 PM
Ann has a good point here. He went with the law of the land rather than what his feelings may have been and that is exactly the way it should be. When it goes in your favor it doesn't seem to matter if the judge goes with their feelings rather than the law though does it? This didn't happen to so you're all ready to jump in his sh*t for doing his job.
This whole situation just validates the fact that the office of POTUS does not carry the power most of you automatically assume it does. . .
Quote. . . President Barack Obama signed an executive order in March 2009 that repealed a Bush-era policy limiting federal dollars for human stem cell research. Obama's act permitted the National Institutes of Health to conduct and fund studies on embryonic stem cells. . .
And the holy roller effect is clearly evident. . .
Quote. . .Monday's ruling involved a lawsuit against the National Health Institute filed by researchers opposed to use of embryonic stem cells, a group that seeks adoptive parents for human embryos created through in vitro fertilization, the non-profit Christian Medical Association and others.. . .
I've already stated my opinion on this whole line of "thinking" elsewhere within this forum, but all that is happening with this "Dickey-Wicker Amendment ", is the federal government is securing the future of this imperative scientific research for the private sector; which will make its eventual results the sole property of said private sector and enable them to rape the world in order to benefit from the science. And all of this simply because the holy rollers are afraid of science, just as they are afraid of the God they themselves created. . . .
You people make me sick. You bitch about the cost of medicine but enact legislation that assures its continual upward spiral!
The amendment was years ago. He cherry-picks it.
These are the kinds of bastards that let my brother die.
HE CAN STILL KISS MY A$$.
Quote from: followsthewolf on August 24, 2010, 07:01:35 PM
The amendment was years ago. He cherry-picks it.
These are the kinds of bastards that let my brother die.
HE CAN STILL KISS MY A$$.
And I'll also add,( based upon FTW's first hand experience), that this legislation also unnecessarily prolongs the research process and delays it; resulting in the added suffering and premature deaths of those who stand to benefit the most from it and whose very lives depend upon it!
QuoteInternational Law Search
Email this page Print this page
Cloning
Dickey-Wicker Amendment [United States]
In the United States there is no federal legislation prohibiting cloning for either reproductive and therapeutic purposes. However, under the 1996 Dickey-Wicker Amendment it is illegal to use federal funds to support research "in which human embryos are created, destroyed, discarded, or knowingly be subjected to risk of injury or death greater than allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204 and 46.207, and subsection 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act." Moreover, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment defines a human embryo as "any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of enactment of the governing appropriations act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells."
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has asserted jurisdiction over clinical research using cloning technology to create a human being. According to FDA, clinical research using cloning technology to create a human being is subject to FDA regulation under the Public Health Service Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This authority is based on the agency's oversight authority over all products intended to treat or prevent disease. Furthermore, FDA has indirect oversight authority over research cloning, as data obtained from such research may be used to support an application for new therapy procedures. The agency has further indirect oversight authority over the laboratory procedures that would be used to create cloned embryos "as part of a determination of the safety and effectiveness of the end product" (Javitt G, Suthers K, and K Hudson. Cloning: A Policy Analysis. Washington, DC: Genetics and Public Policy Center, 2005). It is important to note that the FDA has explicitly stated that it would not permit the use of cloning technology to create a human being due to "major unresolved safety questions" pertaining to the use of such technology.
President Bush announced in August 2001 that for the first time federal funds would be used to support research on human embryonic stem cells, while stating his strong opposition to "human cloning." Although not mentioned specifically in his speech, a fact sheet on the White House Web site states that federal funds will not be used for "the cloning of human embryos for any purpose." However, it is important to note that there is no current federal legislation prohibitions or restrictions on the use of private funds for either reproductive and therapeutic cloning research.[/b]
Following the president's announcement, in July of 2002 the President's Council on Bioethics released its report Human Cloning and Human Dignity, in which the council unanimously recommended a ban on reproductive cloning, and, by a vote of 10 to 7, a four-year moratorium on cloning for medical research purposes.
The current U.S. administration supports a comprehensive cloning ban; however, its efforts to adopt federal legislation on the subject have yet to be successful. In the past years the U.S. Congress, which remains polarized on the issue of cloning, has considered numerous bills – including one supported by a bipartisan majority – also without success.
In the 2002 report Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning, the National Academy of Sciences recommended that "human reproductive cloning should not now be practiced. It is dangerous and likely to fail." The NAS also recommended that an enforceable ban, subject to a sunset clause of five years, be adopted by the federal government. Regarding cloning for therapeutic or research purposes, the NAS recommended that cloning to produce stem cells should be permitted because of the potential for developing new therapies and advancing biomedical knowledge. While the NAS's 2005 Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research do not specifically address human reproductive cloning or apply to reproductive uses of nuclear transfer, the NAS continues to support the view that research aimed at human reproductive cloning should not be conducted at this time.
State human cloning laws
States with statutes specifically banning human reproductive and therapeutic cloning:
http://www.dnapolicy.org/policy.international.php?laws_id=36&action=detail
My cousin in Cal did have a stem cell transplant 2yrs ago and it did put his cancer in remission for a while but he lost the battle about 2months ago so it didn't cure it only gave him a little more time and allowed the family to do some things they had been wanting to do but would otherwise not have been able to had it not been for the transplant.
Quote from: me on August 24, 2010, 07:15:06 PM
http://www.dnapolicy.org/policy.international.php?laws_id=36&action=detail
My cousin in Cal did have a stem cell transplant 2yrs ago and it did put his cancer in remission for a while but he lost the battle about 2months ago so it didn't cure it only gave him a little more time and allowed the family to do some things they had been wanting to do but would otherwise not have been able to had it not been for the transplant.
And your point is??
So, by your reasoning, we should not pursue that branch of medicine, and we should just let people die.
Wow. That is so compassionate.
Certainly am glad you aren't a nurse.
Where did I say that?
Quote from: followsthewolf on August 24, 2010, 07:24:44 PM
So, by your reasoning, we should not pursue that branch of medicine, and we should just let people die.
Wow. That is so compassionate.
Certainly am glad you aren't a nurse.
That, although it was not a cure, it gave him time he might not have otherwise had without it.
Quote from: Palehorse on August 24, 2010, 07:17:51 PM
And your point is??
Quote from: me on August 24, 2010, 07:50:09 PM
Where did I say that?
That, although it was not a cure, it gave him time he might not have otherwise had without it.
Who in Hell gave you DO GOODERS the right to stick your nose in someone else sickness. Who in Hell gave you the right to prolong some one else pain and sickness. Just who in Hell do you think you are. A selfmade God.
If it isn't your embryonic stem cell, your embryo get the Hell out of the scientists way and let them find a cure for the horrible diseases.
It none of your Damn Business! Can I make it any clearer for you idiots?
Quote from: The Troll on August 24, 2010, 10:45:54 PM
Who in Hell gave you DO GOODERS the right to stick your nose in someone else sickness. Who in Hell gave you the right to prolong some one else pain and sickness. Just who in Hell do you think you are. A selfmade God.
If it isn't your embryonic stem cell, your embryo get the Hell out of the scientists way and let them find a cure for the horrible diseases.
It none of your Damn Business! Can I make it any clearer for you idiots?
when it comes to federal tax dollars we DO have a say in it......it IS some of my damn business.
All I am saying is, we need some strict guidlines on this whole embryo business....and I have not heard any of the details on how these embryo's are being gathered for this research.
another thing I have concerns on, is MOST of the studies I have read about is that the embryotic cells are NOT being successful, that they have been more "tumor" causing than being helpful....the adult stem cells has had a very postive outlook...
I have some concerns that women may decide to use their bodies as a embryo producing machine for cash...and THAT to me is border lining a criminal act.
But, I understand that those people who are dealing with tragic illnesses, and are desperate for cures....and I think we need to support, REAL and honest measures to find these cures, but politics has got to stay out of it.
but don't try to tell me it is none of my damn business......
I have a concern that people who are ignorant of the science behind this will continue to derail the possibilities.
Quote from: The Troll on August 24, 2010, 10:45:54 PM
Who in Hell gave you DO GOODERS the right to stick your nose in someone else sickness. Who in Hell gave you the right to prolong some one else pain and sickness. Just who in Hell do you think you are. A selfmade God.
If it isn't your embryonic stem cell, your embryo get the Hell out of the scientists way and let them find a cure for the horrible diseases.
It none of your Damn Business! Can I make it any clearer for you idiots?
What???? Troll get a grip and read what I wrote.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on August 25, 2010, 09:06:48 AM
I have a concern that people who are ignorant of the science behind this will continue to derail the possibilities.
I admit, I have not had dinner with any scientist who is using embronic stem cells, but I have read much about it....and for your information, I am not wanting to derail anything on this....I just want some strict guidlines put in place IF, my money is going to be mandated to such a project.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on August 25, 2010, 09:06:48 AM
I have a concern that people who are ignorant of the science behind this will continue to derail the possibilities.
...all the while telling us how they aren't trying to force their religion down our throats.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 25, 2010, 10:12:43 AM
...all the while telling us how they aren't trying to force their religion down our throats.
who, exactly is forcing religion down anyones throat?
The entire debate over stem cell research is centered on bullshit Christian beliefs.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 25, 2010, 10:30:42 AM
The entire debate over stem cell research is centered on bullshit Christian beliefs.
Not really....I think there is valid argument on how much is to be gained on using embryo's....and IF a woman is going to become an embryo making machine for profit.....you don't have to be a Christian to realize killing a baby is "killing"....and to do it for cash is just wrong in many peoples minds, Christian or not.
Bullshit. An embryo is not a baby.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 25, 2010, 10:35:29 AM
Not really....I think there is valid argument on how much is to be gained on using embryo's....and IF a woman is going to become an embryo making machine for profit.....you don't have to be a Christian to realize killing a baby is "killing"....and to do it for cash is just wrong in many peoples minds, Christian or not.
HH in spite of popular belief and what was spread around Bush didn't have a problem with stem cell research what he had the problem with was cloning and that is what he didn't want to spend federal dollars on. But, like you mentioned in an earlier post they have had much better luck with harvested stem cells which were not embryonic. I just don't understand why they wouldn't put more money into researching non embryonic stem cells since they've had better luck with those.
You should read more about the science then...not that not knowing about something has ever stopped you from forming an opinion before.
Ya know, if they were using chicken embryos and the PITA people were out in droves trying to stop it, and you know they would be, you'd be jumpin' all over that bandwagon.
Are the pita people the ones making those little flat bread sandwiches?
Quote from: Exterminator on August 25, 2010, 01:56:14 PM
Are the pita people the ones making those little flat bread sandwiches?
:food24: :rotfl:
Quote from: Exterminator on August 25, 2010, 01:56:14 PM
Are the pita people the ones making those little flat bread sandwiches?
Ya, and as a matter of fact they are flat flat bread sandwiches 'cause they won't eat meat so there's nothing but lettuce and maybe tofu in them...... :razz:
Oops finger fumble....PETA :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on August 25, 2010, 11:37:06 AM
. . . But, like you mentioned in an earlier post they have had much better luck with harvested stem cells which were not embryonic. I just don't understand why they wouldn't put more money into researching non embryonic stem cells since they've had better luck with those.
The first sentence in the quotation is subjective, depending upon what one is attempting to do with the ESC's. Making such a blanket statement proves you don't know squat about the subject but are parroting propaganda!
The second sentence only serves to further illustrate your lack of knowledge.
All very true, PH, but they'll use the same claim again next week.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 25, 2010, 02:10:32 PM
All very true, PH, but they'll use the same claim again next week.
Yup! Worse, the information has already been provided to them previously elsewhere within this very forum; enough to prove that the opinions they hold are dead wrong. But that doesn't fit their agenda!
Quote from: Palehorse on August 25, 2010, 02:17:27 PM
Yup! Worse, the information has already been provided to them previously elsewhere within this very forum; enough to prove that the opinions they hold are dead wrong. But that doesn't fit their agenda!
take a look in the mirror.....THAT is exactly what YOU guys are doing.
There has also been proof to the contrary posted elsewhere in the forum. Seems to me that it all boils down to which scientists proof to go with.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 25, 2010, 02:23:26 PM
take a look in the mirror.....THAT is exactly what YOU guys are doing.
Prove the position I am taking is invalid! You cannot even prove the definition of the start of life, outside of some religious belief based conjecture!
Quote from: me on August 25, 2010, 02:24:40 PM
There has also been proof to the contrary posted elsewhere in the forum. Seems to me that it all boils down to which scientists proof to go with.
No, that is called conjecture and theory, both based upon faith based (READ: religion) lies.
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm (http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm)
Check the Score: Adult Stem Cells vs. Embryonic Stem Cells
Benefits in Human Patients (from Peer-Reviewed Studies)
Adult stem cells has a complete list.............the embryonic cells has zero.
Adult Stem Cells[/t] Embryonic Stem Cells
- Cancers:
- Brain Cancer
- Retinoblastoma
- Ovarian Cancer
- Skin Cancer: Merkel Cell Carcinoma
- Testicular Cancer
- Tumors abdominal organs Lymphoma
- Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
- Hodgkin's Lymphoma
- Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
- Acute Myelogenous Leukemia
- Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia
- Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
- Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia
- Cancer of the lymph nodes: Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy
- Multiple Myeloma
- Myelodysplasia
- Breast Cancer
- Neuroblastoma
- Renal Cell Carcinoma
- Various Solid Tumors
- Soft Tissue Sarcoma
- Ewing's Sarcoma
- Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia
- Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis
- POEMS syndrome
- Myelofibrosis Auto-Immune Diseases
- Diabetes Type I (Juvenile)
- Systemic Lupus
- Sjogren's Syndrome
- Myasthenia
- Autoimmune Cytopenia
- Scleromyxedema
- Scleroderma
- Crohn's Disease
- Behcet's Disease
- Rheumatoid Arthritis
- Juvenile Arthritis
- Multiple Sclerosis
- Polychondritis
- Systemic Vasculitis
- Alopecia Universalis
- Buerger's Disease Cardiovascular
- Acute Heart Damage
- Chronic Coronary Artery Disease Ocular
- Corneal regeneration Immunodeficiencies
- Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome
- X-linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome
- X-linked Hyper immunoglobulin M Syndrome Neural Degenerative Diseases and Injuries
- Parkinson's Disease
- Spinal Cord Injury
- Stroke Damage Anemias and Other Blood Conditions
- Sickle Cell Anemia
- Sideroblastic Anemia
- Aplastic Anemia
- Red Cell Aplasia
- Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia
- Thalassemia
- Primary Amyloidosis
- Diamond Blackfan Anemia
- Fanconi's Anemia
- Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection Wounds and Injuries
- Limb Gangrene
- Surface Wound Healing
- Jawbone Replacement
- Skull Bone Repair Other Metabolic Disorders
- Hurler's Syndrome
- Osteogenesis Imperfecta
- Krabbe Leukodystrophy
- Osteopetrosis
- Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy Liver Disease
- Chronic Liver Failure
- Liver Cirrhosis Bladder Disease
- End-Stage Bladder Disease
[/t] NONE |
|
LMFAO! Henry, the site you are citing starts with the conclusion they want to present and then backs into it...not an unbiased approach to real research.
You might want to learn about GVHD if you think adult stem cells don't kill people.
Quote from: me on August 25, 2010, 11:37:06 AM
HH in spite of popular belief and what was spread around Bush didn't have a problem with stem cell research what he had the problem with was cloning and that is what he didn't want to spend federal dollars on. But, like you mentioned in an earlier post they have had much better luck with harvested stem cells which were not embryonic. I just don't understand why they wouldn't put more money into researching non embryonic stem cells since they've had better luck with those.
Come on "Me" why would you want to put all of your eggs in one basket. Why spend all of your time on just one cure. What would happen after spending years on one method only to find you were chasing ghosts. The waste of time, money and then to have to start all over again.
Bush had a problem with clones. Why make clones? When it so easy to make a person. Just look how some of these women can drop them.
Adult stem cells can only be utilized to regenerate cells from the exact same tissues from which they are derived. Adult stem cells are rare in adult tissues, so isolation of these cells from adult tissue is challenging, and methods for replication of ASC via culture have not been worked out, making them less useful in stem cell replacement therapy because massive numbers of stem cells are required for each treatment.
Embryonic stem cells can become any type of cell or tissue within the human body, and are easily replicated via culture, making them more desirable for stem cell therapy. One potential problem with the culturing process for replication are the mouse ESC's sometimes used as a coating for the dish; providing a feeder layer and a surface for the cells to adhere to. This represents a risk that viruses or other macromolecules in the mouse cells may be transmitted to the human cells. Science has however discovered methods to regenerate ESC's without using mouse ESC's and so this risk has now been addressed.
While not very efficient due to the inviability of a large number of initial cultures, once a successful culture is established it can produce millions of ESC's per culture, and even more with re-plating of the initial successful culture, making them ideal for stem cell therapy.
Embryonic Research Driven by Greed, not Science
(Original title: "The Great Stem-Cell-Research Scam) By Michael Fumento
Medical-research insiders know that embryonic-stem-cell technology is proving a dead end – Dr. Bernadine Healy, a former director of the National Institutes of Health and once an ES-cell-research enthusiast, calls it "obsolete." But the Obama administration has opened wide the federal funding floodgates – the triumph of a big special-interest PR and lobbying campaign.
In fact, the research will line the pockets of a relatively few individuals – at considerable cost for the rest of us, since the funding means billions that won't go to more promising areas.
Though ES cells have long been touted as the miracle just down the road, researchers keep driving into big potholes. For starters, there's the rejection problem: Your body naturally attacks foreign cells, even ones that might help you. So cell recipients must permanently use dangerous immunosuppressive drugs.
Further, the cells have a nasty tendency to become cancerous or to form teratomas – meaning "monster tumors." While usually benign, these can grow larger than a football and often contain hair and teeth. Yech!
Perhaps that problem can be solved someday, but even University of Wisconsin scientist James Thomson, the creator of the first human ES-cell line, says treatments and cures could be decades away.
Conversely, adult stem cells (AS cells, meaning any naturally found stem cell not from embryos), are far more controllable (that is, easier to direct to become the desired cell type) and have thus been saving lives for decades, via (for example) bone-marrow transplants. More recently, AS cells have treated illnesses including cancers, autoimmune disease, cardiovascular disease, immunodeficiency disorders and neural degenerative diseases.
Plus, AS cells are often "self-donated" – eliminating rejection problems (though AS rejection even from outside donors has turned out to be relatively minimal).
Researchers originally found promise in ES cells mainly because they thought only ES cells could be converted into all types of mature cells. But since 2002, dozens of published studies have shown the same can be done with a vast array of AS cells, from placenta to testes.
Then, two years ago, scientists discovered how to make "induced pluripotent stem cells" from human-skin cells. These are just as flexible as embryonic ones – but, as with AS cells, have neither the health drawbacks nor the moral problems associated with the embryonic variety.
In short, other lines of inquiry are unquestionably far more promising than ES cells – yet this research will now get a big funding boost. Why?
Basically, the lobby for ES-cell research succeeded in shutting down critics (or even questions) by presenting the question as "medical progress versus pro-life politics" (as one Newsweek cover put it).
The media, observes the Genetics & Society Center, consistently squeeze all reporting into a prefab story line of "scientists hoping to save lives versus opponents of abortion rights who see destroying stem cells as equivalent to taking a life."
And it's a very wealthy lobby. Research funding can generate tremendous income with no treatments, because human and animal ES cells, and materials and techniques used to manipulate them, can all be patented. Licensing fees make them worth a fortune.
One holder of many important ES-cell-research patents charges $75,000 to more than $250,000 per license, plus annual payments and royalties, The Wall Street Journal reports. "They clearly see this as the goose that lays the golden egg," an ES-cell researcher told the paper.
All this drives what wheelchair-bound medical activist Jim Kelly calls "the embryonic-research economic juggernaut."
The lobby displayed its awesome power in 2004 when backers of California's Proposition 71 outspent opponents by 60 to 1. The payoff: $3 billion shifted from taxpayer pockets to ES-cell researchers.
As journalist Neil Munroe has documented, researchers who cash in routinely present themselves – with enthusiastic media help – as neutral parties. Best known is Dr. Irving Weissman, director of Stanford University's Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, a frequent critic of AS-cell research who's made millions from ES-cell patents. In 2004, he appeared in TV commercials pleading for a "YES" vote on Prop 71 as "an MD" who "took an oath that the very highest priority was the treatment of patients." Prop 71 now funds his institute.
Weissman routinely attacks AS cell research, as when he declared in 2004 "Scientifically, there is no independently verified evidence today that a pure stem cell of one type – adult tissue, say blood forming – can turn into another tissue at all." Yet a slew of such studies had already appeared in peer-reviewed medical and science journals – including one co-authored by a certain Irving Weissman.
"There's a lot of pressure to give ES researchers what they want," says David Hess, a neurologist at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta. But "everybody is fighting over the same pie" – a dime spent on dead-end ES work is a dime unavailable for research, stem cell or otherwise, with true promise to heal the sick.
"People are dying, and they're going to continue to die, and people are paralyzed and will continue to stay paralyzed," says Jim Kelly, "all of them a victim of the embryonic-research economic juggernaut."
More bullshit from that same site with the aforementioned agenda (which is the same as yours), Henry.
I am finished trying to inform those who will not be informed. You want to keep on believing that bullshit go right ahead. It's like a giant booger on the end of your nose, and I am done telling you it is there. Wear it like a badge or crown. I do not care anymore.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 25, 2010, 03:28:10 PM
More bullshit from that same site with the aforementioned agenda (which is the same as yours), Henry.
Yup! And not surprisingly, a little digging led me to the folks behind that website.
http://www.cbhd.org/
"Provides news, information, and other resources on bioethics. Analysis from a Christian perspective.":rolleyes:
SO THIS SCIENTIFIC DOESN'T FIT YOU AGENDA EITHER SO IT IS BULLSHIT...
THERE IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF HYPOCRICY GOING ON HERE...........YOUR STUFF IS OKAY....ANYBODY ELSES IS NOT...
I GET IT.... :rolleyes:
HH, can't you see the difference in science that's supported by the vast majority of the scientific community as opposed to "science" (and I use that term VERY loosely) that is found on a site such as the one set up by the folks above?
From evolution, to stem cell research, so many facts of science butt up against core beliefs and values of the Christian community, but you fail to see why a Christian website putting forth information like you cited above is suspect?
Here's more:
The CBHD is a non-profit think tank affiliated with the evangelical protestant Christian Trinity International University located in the Deerfield Park suburb of Chicago.
So the parent organization of the CBHD is these folks right here:
http://www.tiu.edu/
Now the only thing I didn't do, is tie that website that you cited to all of these people so let me do that right here:
$ whois stemcellresearch.org
Domain ID:D6987558-LROR
Domain Name:STEMCELLRESEARCH.ORG
Created On:02-Jun-1999 20:29:02 UTC
Last Updated On:20-Feb-2007 14:49:56 UTC
Expiration Date:02-Jun-2013 20:29:40 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:16845332-NSIV
Registrant Name:Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity
Registrant Organization:Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity
Registrant Street1:ATTN insert domain name here
Registrant Street2:care of Network Solutions
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Drums
Registrant State/Province:PA
Registrant Postal Code:18222
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.5707088780
So if you are a Christian, then you are incapable of presenting SCIENCE or facts based upon science? or your scienceis distorted because the also have a belief in God?
and the founding members of the site I referenced;
Kevin FitzGerald, SJ, PhD
Associate Professor of Oncology
David Lauler Professor for Catholic Health Care Ethics
Georgetown University
C. Christopher Hook, MD
Hematology/Medical Oncology,
The Mayo Clinic (Minnesota);
Chair, Mayo Clinical Ethics Council,
Mayo Reproductive Medicine Advisory Board and DNA Research Committee
Ralph Miech, MD, PhD
Associate Professor Emeritus of Pharmacology
Brown University School of Medicine
Robert D. Orr, MD
Director of Ethics, FAHC
University of Vermont College of Medicine
David A. Prentice, PhD
Senior Fellow for Life Sciences
Family Research Council
Frank E. Young, MD, PhD
Former Commissioner,
US Food and Drug Administration;
Dean Emeritus,
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry;
Director, Reformed Theological Seminary,
Metro Washington, DC
Joseph Zanga, MD, FAAP, FCP
Director, Office of Generalist Programs
National Health Service Corp Ambassador
Professor of Pediatrics
Brody School of Medicine at ECU
are not qualified because they have a faith in God?
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics7.asp
(http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics7.asp)
http://www.isscr.org/public (http://www.isscr.org/public)
http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk
(http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk)
http://www.stemcellresearchnews.com (http://www.stemcellresearchnews.com)
http://www.isscr.org/public/faq.htm#4 (http://www.isscr.org/public/faq.htm#4)
For those truly interested in learning and forming an educated opinion, or just understanding the topic at a higher level.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 25, 2010, 04:17:07 PM
are not qualified because they have a faith in God?
I view those fellows in about the same light as I view these fellows:
http://www.discovery.org/fellows/
:wink:
Quote from: Locutus on August 25, 2010, 04:59:23 PM
I view those fellows in about the same light as I view these fellows:
http://www.discovery.org/fellows/
:wink:
Aren't they the group of intelligent design science folks who were "sent to Siberia"?
Quote from: Palehorse on August 25, 2010, 05:03:19 PM
Aren't they the group of intelligent design science folks who were "sent to Siberia"?
They are one and the same.
Although interestingly enough, they've changed their website around quite a bit probably in an attempt to mask what they're really up to.
Quote from: Locutus on August 25, 2010, 05:05:18 PM
They are one and the same.
Although interestingly enough, they've changed their website around quite a bit probably in an attempt to mask what they're really up to.
and what would that be?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 25, 2010, 05:05:51 PM
and what would that be?
This:
The Discovery Institute is a conservative non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses.[2][3][4][5][6] A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis",[7] through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[8][9][10] In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[7][9][11] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy,[12] describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[13][14]
^^
Translation just in case that isn't clear: They're pushing lies. :yes:
Quote. . .and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".
And that is my problem with these idiots. Interestingly, I find some of their theories and explanations are worth research to me personally; however, when they break out the podium and start preaching and aligning their work with religion, I pull the eject lever PDQ.
Several of them have done some pretty good work and established facts that warrant further research, but where they lose me is when they start trying to align the results with religious dogma; failing to account for the fact that "god", in every single aspect and version of it on the face of this earth, is a human creation that cannot be validated via empirical evidence. Moreover, the empirical evidence that can be produced validates the thought that God is something created by humankind, at a time when there were no reasonable explanations for the things we know today are scientifically explainable and normal.
One day science may very well prove some of these theories, but until the centuries old wall between religion and science is removed it is not likely to ever happen. It is after all, the eternal struggle!
Quote from: Palehorse on August 25, 2010, 05:51:31 PM
Moreover, the empirical evidence that can be produced validates the thought that God is something created by humankind, at a time when there were no reasonable explanations for the things we know today are scientifically explainable and normal.
Now you're goin' straight ta' hell fer' that one. That's blasphemy pure, flat out, and simple. :razz: ;D
:bible: :preach: :pope:
Quote from: Locutus on August 25, 2010, 06:02:15 PM
Now you're goin' straight ta' hell fer' that one. That's blasphemy pure, flat out, and simple. :razz: ;D
:bible: :preach: :pope:
:devil29: :devil29: :devil29: Burn Baby, Burn! :devil29: :devil29: :devil29:
As long as the Highway to Hell doesn't lead to a Disco Inferno, it's all good! :angel:
If he's going to hell for that, I won't even tell you what we taught in one of our workshops for science teachers.
I'm sure, though, that I'm being scrutinized carefully, and they've tossed my wings measurements.
Quote from: followsthewolf on August 25, 2010, 07:06:01 PM
If he's going to hell for that, I won't even tell you what we taught in one of our workshops for science teachers.
I'm sure, though, that I'm being scrutinized carefully, and they've tossed my wings measurements.
I've got an express ticket and reservations in the sun room already, based upon my "eternal struggle" postings. :biggrin:
Quote from: me on August 25, 2010, 11:37:06 AM
HH in spite of popular belief and what was spread around Bush didn't have a problem with stem cell research what he had the problem with was cloning and that is what he didn't want to spend federal dollars on.
Thank you,
me, for injecting a note of reality into this histrionic brouhaha.
QuoteBut, like you mentioned in an earlier post they have had much better luck with harvested stem cells which were not embryonic. I just don't understand why they wouldn't put more money into researching non embryonic stem cells since they've had better luck with those.
Not completely true. This is my kid's doctoral study, so I am fairly conversant in a pedestrian kind of way with the subject.
There are three problems:
1.) The embryonic strains approved by the Bush administration (which are the only ones most labs have had access to) are OLD, and are starting to mutate from too many copies. Think of that xerox of the office policies you have that was first printed twenty years ago. The copy you are using staggers down the page like it spent the night with the RMMT. Fresh strains are needed to avoid the problem of mutation.
2.) Stem cells are injected into the subject by means of a retrovirus. Evidence is accumulating that the retrovirus itself is causing new problems, including some forms of cancer. A new form of delivery is being researched.
(My kid holds the part of the patent on one of these!)3.) Cancers have stem cells. Yeah. What a bitch. All the radiation and chemo in the world won't turn the trick if you don't kill the cancer-causing stem cells. First we have to identify them.
(My kid is working on this too.)Now, so far, adult stem cell creations do not show the mutations seen in the twenty-year-old embryonic strains. However, they are not nearly as versatile as embryonic cells, and the problem with retrovirus delivery is exactly the same as that seen with embryonic cells. And the cancer-causing stem cells are still present.
I'm sorry I can't provide the links for all this stuff. Most of it is the property of the lab where my kid works. I have seen it (and I have the red eyes and headache to prove it) and, so far as this dilettante parent can tell, it holds up.
I wonder how umbilical cord blood would work for research. It seems to be a big thing now to store your baby's cord blood (which contain "young" stem cells).
Cord blood is rich in hematopoietic or blood stem cells and is currently being used as an experimental alternative to bone marrow transplantation. The collection process is completely non-invasive, the host-donor match required for transplantation is less stringent and cord blood has fewer mature immune cells and thus poses a lower risk of graft vs. host disease.
http://www.nationalcordbloodprogram.org/ (http://www.nationalcordbloodprogram.org/)
Quote from: Palehorse on August 25, 2010, 09:04:45 PM
Cord blood is rich in hematopoietic or blood stem cells and is currently being used as an experimental alternative to bone marrow transplantation. The collection process is completely non-invasive, the host-donor match required for transplantation is less stringent and cord blood has fewer mature immune cells and thus poses a lower risk of graft vs. host disease.
http://www.nationalcordbloodprogram.org/ (http://www.nationalcordbloodprogram.org/)
No thanks to the Rapture Christians and the, "no other way to say it" just plain dumbass and stupid Republicans resistance to modern science to stem cells research. The research will continue in this country and more especially other countries who will profit and control the benefits of stem cell research.
Who would have thought a spore of mold would fly through the window and land on a scientist's experiment would bring penicillin.
Quote from: Palehorse on August 25, 2010, 09:04:45 PM
Cord blood is rich in hematopoietic or blood stem cells and is currently being used as an experimental alternative to bone marrow transplantation. The collection process is completely non-invasive, the host-donor match required for transplantation is less stringent and cord blood has fewer mature immune cells and thus poses a lower risk of graft vs. host disease.
http://www.nationalcordbloodprogram.org/ (http://www.nationalcordbloodprogram.org/)
I read that same web site, what I wonder is could it be used in place of embryonic stem cells for research or would it be too mature (like adult stem cells) to produce the same results of embryonic stem cells.
Quote from: Anne on August 26, 2010, 10:18:59 AM
I read that same web site, what I wonder is could it be used in place of embryonic stem cells for research or would it be too mature (like adult stem cells) to produce the same results of embryonic stem cells.
Since they are already mature (blood stem cells) no. . .