Stem Cell Research. The Real Deal and the Hype. - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-19-2004, 04:10 PM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:16 PM

Maybe Arnold was tired of sleeping on the couch after the RNC Convention and needed to find a way to appease the Mrs:

Check this headline out-

Schwarzenegger Says Pro-Bush Speech Irked His Wife


it was 14 days and the fellow was desperate.
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-19-2004, 04:48 PM   #47
War Child
 
Inner El Guapo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 609
Local Time: 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy


Is Wesley J. Smith an MD?
No, merely a lawyer who is now an author.

The other artcile was written by Robert P. George, a champion of the right's causes. He is on Bush's commitee of bioethics.
__________________

__________________
Inner El Guapo is offline  
Old 10-19-2004, 05:06 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,277
Local Time: 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
People have core beliefs regardless if they have 10 years of formal schooloing or 6 months of formal schooling.

Core beliefs and sound scientific knowledge are two completely different things, diamond.

You can believe that the sky is orange too, and it doesn't make it so.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 10-19-2004, 05:27 PM   #49
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 09:16 AM
If people have a moral problem with all these poor little cells being destroyed to save lives, may I suggest considering them nothing more than collateral damage? A means to an end? Isn't that a popular belief these days?

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 10-19-2004, 05:47 PM   #50
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:16 PM
schooloing

whew glad no one poked fun at my typos
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-19-2004, 06:41 PM   #51
BAW
The Flower
 
BAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The OC....!!!!
Posts: 11,094
Local Time: 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
schooloing

whew glad no one poked fun at my typos


The thought did cross my mind
__________________
BAW is offline  
Old 10-19-2004, 06:51 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,277
Local Time: 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
1) ES cells cause tumors, and 2) ES cells may be rejected by the immune system. Surmounting these difficulties — if they can be surmounted at all — will take a very long time and much expense. There is no risk of rejection with adult cells, by contrast, because they come from the patients' own bodies

thank u.

db9 [/B]
No, thank you.

1. BULLSHIT. If this is a true statement, there would be no further research. If you know anything about research, you would know that you have to meet certain cytotoxicity levels before you are allowed to even move to animal and human models. Read the science, not an anecdotal story here or there.

How many drugs you take "cause" tumors? Birth control pills? The aspartame in Diet Coke? Let's get real here about what is hwat.

2. DB9, tell me how you think that a bone marrow transplant is conducted? Those are adult, hematopoeitic stem cells. I work as an immunologist, I know about histocompatibility and HLA testing. ES stem cells "may" be rejected, just as you may reject your brother's bone marrow, but not your sister's. Obviously these things would have to be tested.

And "adult stem cells" do not go from the same person to the same person as you imply - again, look at bone marrow transplants, the most famous example of ES cell treatment, and it is not from self-cells, is it?
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 10-19-2004, 06:54 PM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


No, thank you.

1. BULLSHIT. If this is a true statement, there would be no further research. If you know anything about research, you would know that you have to meet certain cytotoxicity levels before you are allowed to even move to animal and human models. Read the science, not an anecdotal story here or there.

How many drugs you take "cause" tumors? Birth control pills? The aspartame in Diet Coke? Let's get real here about what is hwat.

2. DB9, tell me how you think that a bone marrow transplant is conducted? Those are adult, hematopoeitic stem cells. I work as an immunologist, I know about histocompatibility and HLA testing. ES stem cells "may" be rejected, just as you may reject your brother's bone marrow, but not your sister's. Obviously these things would have to be tested.

And "adult stem cells" do not go from the same person to the same person as you imply - again, look at bone marrow transplants, the most famous example of ES cell treatment, and it is not from self-cells, is it?

he would never reject my bone marrow
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 10-19-2004, 07:12 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:16 PM
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-23-2004, 06:34 AM   #55
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 11:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond

anitram,

I've always appreciated that you are an intelligent person.

People have core beliefs regardless if they have 10 years of formal schooloing or 6 months of formal schooling.

Some of us common lugs still have a litmus test, if it works let's and is for the betterment of all life let's do it.
If it's only a pipe dream and your taking out innocent life on theory we have a problem with it.
It's that simple.

If you're ok with what a Professor from Princton that he's educated enough and what has to say about this issue here are his words-

The Big Lie
An inhumane platform.

By Robert P. George

Every reporter covering the election should, after the second presidential debate in St. Louis, be demanding of Kerry an answer to the following question: Who are the scientists who told you that "we have the option" of curing Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal-cord injuries, or any other disease using embryonic stem cells? If they won't ask him, the Bush campaign should defy him to name the names. He won't be able to do it. No scientists — even those most pro-Kerry and aggressively in favor of the federal funding of embryo-destructive research — ever told Kerry any such thing.

What Kerry has done here is told the big lie about embryonic stem cells. The claim that "we have the option" of curing Parkinson's disease, diabetes, etc. with embryonic stem cells is outrageous. No one knows when — or even whether or not — human embryonic stem cells will be therapeutically useful in treating any major disease or injury. There are profound — perhaps insuperable — problems with the therapeutic use of these cells. So, despite the fact that there is no federal ban on embryonic-stem-cell research, and that such research can be funded with state money and is being publicly funded in various places abroad, no embryonic-stem-cell-based therapy is even in clinical trials.

For months now, the Kerry campaign and its surrogates, such as Ron Reagan Jr., have cruelly led suffering people to believe that cures for their diseases are just around the corner. All we have to do is replace Bush with Kerry, open the federal funding spigot, and presto! The blind see and the lame walk! The Kerry campaign's hyping of embryo-destructive research for political gain is the cruelest and most shameful episode in the story of the 2004 election.

What Elizabeth Long (the woman who asked Kerry the stem-cell question) said is true: "Thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical-cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?"

Kerry answered with a lie. A lie that will falsely inflate the hopes of countless people who would dearly love to believe that "we have the option" of curing them.

The Big Lie


I'llb e honest I hate posting in this forum... personally think the name should be changed to either the "lets all piss on America" forum or "Waste your time". But what I've seen here just far outweighs any self control I have.



1.) Diamond you seem to contradict yourself within your very post
first you claim that years of formal education are not necessary to form an opinion on the topic. And then you waive an article from a professor from princeton out like you came down from the mountain with a stone tablet. So either we can listen to the princeton guy (And I'm sure I can find 1,000 experts to contradict him with one google search). Or in fact agree with your point hat formal schooling isn't an issue and that his opinion is as good as anyone elses

Which is it???? I'm confused


2.) HUNDREDS of people died from the practice of blood transfusions until they discovered blood typing. Had people back in the day gone with your line of thinking, I hope you saved up your own blood cos your not gettign a transfusion. The practice of blood transfusions was considered to be "abhorrent" at the time as well...how many lives has it saved?Gene therapy has been responsible for the deaths of people as well,


3.) your brilliant article from this princeton dude doesn't cite a single fact all he really seems to be up in arms with is how easy kerry makes it seem.

4.) You imply the kerry campaign is exploiting the death of christopher reeves to push their agenda further, but Christopher reeves used his life to push the cause across, it's not like he was against it and the kerry campaign was using him as an example.


5.) Anitram's posts seem to highlight the fact that honestly, you've gotten too deep into a topic you know too little about. Yes Adult stem cells are CURRENTLY more promising, however perhaps embryonic cells hold the key to curing different types of illnesses, or perhaps will work in different patient paradigms better ( imuno compromised patients being one that comes to mind, hypertensive patients another etc etc) I don't claim to know this is true but I don't discount it off hand because it conflicts with my choice for president ( partially because it doesn't conflict with my choice for president).


6.) I extend Bill Mahers challenge to any right wing woman, if your so concerned with the embryo being used, have it implanted, and bring it to term...any takers? in his words " put your uterus where your mouth is". My point? the fact that these cell lines aren't going to be used for anything else no one is going to bring them to term, so lets try and see if we can save people that are walking around, trying to raise families and sell dimonsexy jeeps.

7.) The whole bush camp seems to be in love with this idea of trying to meld " science with ethics" ( and with another line I've stolen from my favorite political satirist) The two things the bush camp knows the least about...are...science and ethics.


And please..unless you have something substanial to say don't reply, I dont want some kiddie syllogism that your so known for, or supposed witty repartee...I want concrete reasoning.


All this being said, in 15 years diamond your stance may be a lot more valid than it is now...but currently...it is utter rubbish.
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 11-02-2004, 09:29 PM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Arun V




I'llb e honest I hate posting in this forum... personally think the name should be changed to either the "lets all piss on America" forum or "Waste your time". But what I've seen here just far outweighs any self control I have.



1.) Diamond you seem to contradict yourself within your very post
first you claim that years of formal education are not necessary to form an opinion on the topic. And then you waive an article from a professor from princeton out like you came down from the mountain with a stone tablet. So either we can listen to the princeton guy (And I'm sure I can find 1,000 experts to contradict him with one google search). Or in fact agree with your point hat formal schooling isn't an issue and that his opinion is as good as anyone elses

Which is it???? I'm confused


2.) HUNDREDS of people died from the practice of blood transfusions until they discovered blood typing. Had people back in the day gone with your line of thinking, I hope you saved up your own blood cos your not gettign a transfusion. The practice of blood transfusions was considered to be "abhorrent" at the time as well...how many lives has it saved?Gene therapy has been responsible for the deaths of people as well,


3.) your brilliant article from this princeton dude doesn't cite a single fact all he really seems to be up in arms with is how easy kerry makes it seem.

4.) You imply the kerry campaign is exploiting the death of christopher reeves to push their agenda further, but Christopher reeves used his life to push the cause across, it's not like he was against it and the kerry campaign was using him as an example.


5.) Anitram's posts seem to highlight the fact that honestly, you've gotten too deep into a topic you know too little about. Yes Adult stem cells are CURRENTLY more promising, however perhaps embryonic cells hold the key to curing different types of illnesses, or perhaps will work in different patient paradigms better ( imuno compromised patients being one that comes to mind, hypertensive patients another etc etc) I don't claim to know this is true but I don't discount it off hand because it conflicts with my choice for president ( partially because it doesn't conflict with my choice for president).


6.) I extend Bill Mahers challenge to any right wing woman, if your so concerned with the embryo being used, have it implanted, and bring it to term...any takers? in his words " put your uterus where your mouth is". My point? the fact that these cell lines aren't going to be used for anything else no one is going to bring them to term, so lets try and see if we can save people that are walking around, trying to raise families and sell dimonsexy jeeps.

7.) The whole bush camp seems to be in love with this idea of trying to meld " science with ethics" ( and with another line I've stolen from my favorite political satirist) The two things the bush camp knows the least about...are...science and ethics.


And please..unless you have something substanial to say don't reply, I dont want some kiddie syllogism that your so known for, or supposed witty repartee...I want concrete reasoning.


All this being said, in 15 years diamond your stance may be a lot more valid than it is now...but currently...it is utter rubbish.


As Bono is an educated entertainer in the fight on Aids/Africa/Debt--

I think Mel Gibson is also an intelligent entertainer and articulates how most Americans feel about EMBRIONIC Stem-cell research.

Here are his words-


Braveheart Stands Athwart a Brave New World
Mel Gibson takes on government-funded Twilight Zone research.

Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez

"I would find it difficult to look at myself in the mirror if I didn't take a stand against this disingenuous proposition," says Academy Award-winning director Mel Gibson in an interview with National Review Online. Last week, Gibson publicly joined the campaign against Proposition 71 (the California Stem Cells Research and Cures/Bond Act), a $3-6 billion California referendum to fund embryonic-stem-cell research and human cloning. Under the false promise of panacea cures, Proposition 71 would also create a constitutional "right" to conduct human-cloning research.


In addition to his concern for the sanctity of human life, Gibson offers frugal common-sense points in his opposition to Prop. 71. "Why," Gibson asks, "is the state with the lowest credit rating and the highest debt cost in the country responsible now for borrowing money to pay for dubious research for the rest of the world?"

Gibson's opposition to Prop 71, embryonic-stem-cell research, and human cloning does not make him — as the knee-jerk rhetoric often goes — "anti-science." Recently, for instance, and not for the first time, Gibson donated $10 million that will be split between Mattel Children's Hospital at UCLA and the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center to help care for seriously ill children.

As you'll read below in his interview with NRO editor Kathryn Lopez, Gibson is no half-heart in his campaign against Proposition 71 — this is no casual celeb endorsement of the "No to 71" campaign. Rather, Gibson is a California citizen concerned with the Brave New World the Golden State is about to usher in; he won't let it happen without a fight.

National Review: What is it about Proposition 71 that made you want to speak out against it?

Mel Gibson: I'm interested in cures and in eradicating diseases. This touches my own family. It was brought to my attention that this proposition is deceptive. It's a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.

They use scientific terms to obfuscate their true intent. They don't want to talk about human embryos or the cloning of human embryos so they use arcane scientific terms that mean the same thing, like "pluripotent stem cells" and "somatic-cell nuclear transfer."

Truthfully, I would find it difficult to look at myself in the mirror if I didn't take a stand against this disingenuous proposition, particularly in light of the fact that in 23 years of research with embryonic-stem-cells not one single cure has been obtained.

Not so with adult and umbilical-cord stem cells, which have resulted in more than 300,000 effective cures including spinal-cord injuries, Parkinson's disease, stroke, and multiple sclerosis. That's not what Prop 71 is about.

NRO: Your governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, supports legal abortion. So are you surprised that he is for Prop 71?

Gibson: I'm still surprised that he supported it given the fiscal ramifications.

Why is the state with the lowest credit rating and the highest debt cost in the country responsible now for borrowing money to pay for dubious research for the rest of the world? Research has always been done on a pay-as-you-go basis.

NRO: Isn't this just a typical Election Day bond issue?

Gibson: Not at all. Bond measures are the most expensive way to finance any governmental activity. Prop 71 is a $300 million annual constitutional entitlement that lasts for ten years even if the research falls flat after three years.

And who will be looking over the shoulders of the political appointees as they hand out the $3 billion of our money?

Not the public. The commission deliberations are exempt from the California Open Meeting Laws.

Not the press. The commission is also exempt from the California Public Records Act under the same terms.

Not the law. The working groups that will score and recommend projects for funding are completely exempt from California's Conflicts of Interest Law.

Do you want to know how your $3 billion is spent? You'll never know under Prop 71.

NRO: This stem-cell issue, of course, goes way beyond just California. Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards recently suggested that a Kerry administration would, basically, have saved Christopher Reeve's life — and let him walk again! Michael J. Fox, whom we've all watched deteriorate from his acting prime, is for Prop 71. How do voters — especially people who need hope, who want to be compassionate — vote against that?

Gibson: There's nothing compassionate about using a worthy cause to peddle false hope so that some special interests can succeed in a money grab.

NRO: What questions would you want every California voter to ask himself before voting on Prop 71?

Gibson: Why has there been a deliberate attempt to mislead the taxpayers? Why are the taxpayers rather than the private sector being asked to shoulder this burden? How much will big medical-research firms and drug companies stand to profit from the $6 billion of your money? Do you believe you'll see any of these profits?

What about California schools, nursing homes, hospitals, and trauma centers that are already strapped and closing down as we speak?

Why did the $30 million to support Prop 71 come from the very same biotech companies that stand to benefit from it?

Where will these embryos come from? Are we going to turn women into egg factories using follicle-stimulating-hormone drugs, which are known to cause cancer?

Why are they misleading the public into believing there's a promise of cures through human cloning when all of the science so far says just the opposite?
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 03:03 AM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 11:16 PM

Looks like the hype is winning the election.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 06:40 AM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:16 PM
Dr Teeth,
People who love innocent life over unproven science won.

db9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 07:52 AM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:16 PM
Californians bought the fools gold of Prop 71. Just what we need - more taxes....
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 11:34 AM   #60
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 11:16 PM
Oh right


I forgot that mel gibson was a leading scientist in the field.
__________________

__________________
V Nura is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com