Stem Cell Research. The Real Deal and the Hype.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

diamond

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
May 3, 2002
Messages
12,849
Location
Tempe, Az USA
People from the left and pro abortionists are all for embryonic stem cell research.
People from the right are against it for moral issuses.
Ppl from the right are more in favor of adult stem cell research.

Recently C Reeve aka Superman died and the Kerry Campagn has attempted to bring politics into the debate:hmm:

Question 1-
Has embrionic stem cell research (Kerry's Mantra) cured anybody or made anybody's lives better yet ?

Question 2-
Have adult stem research (Bush's Mantra) made anybody's lives better?

Discuss.

db9
 
I'm not a "pro-abortionist" but I'm still in favor of stem cell research, and full blown research, not the half-hearted attempt Bush made.

I don't know how you can justify not helping people w/ diabetes, parkinsons, alzheimers, or any other disease that this research might help. I have/have had people in my family w/ diabetes and parkinsons, and they are both horrible things to live with.

Until babies are being aborted for the purpose of harvesting stem cells, I maintain my position.

I'm no expert, but I think no one has been "cured" because the research hasn't yet progressed far enough.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
I'm not a "pro-abortionist" but I'm still in favor of stem cell research, and full blown research, not the half-hearted attempt Bush made.



I'm no expert, but I think no one has been "cured" because the research hasn't yet progressed far enough.

Mrs.Springteen,

Why do you call Bush's plan more pro adult stem cell research approach "half hearted"?

Has embrionic stem cell bettered any people's life or is it hype?


db9
 
Because as far as I know, Bush didn't allow enough lines to make any significant progress.

And from everything I've heard and read, most doctors and researchers see it as very promising, not "hype".

I'm sure there are many people here who could answer this better than I can

I know when I see someone w/ severe Parkinsons or Alzheimers, I wish to God that stem cells could help them, and that politicians wouldn't get in the way.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
can

I know when I see someone w/ severe Parkinsons or Alzheimers, I wish to God that stem cells could help them, and that politicians wouldn't get in the way.

I don't think embrionic stems can help these ppl as much as adult stem cells.
Many Drs agree with this.

I think that adult stem cells help and have already helped ppl w/other afflictions.

From what I heard from a Dr the embrionic stem cells do not help whatsover.

He said that embrionic stems cells have be put into rats and they have all died.
He furthur stated that 'comparing embrionic cells to adult stem cells is like comparing dead rats to living human beings'.

Adult Stem Cells have helped thousands of ppl embrionic stems have not.

Therein lies the difference.

You have a proabortionists wanting to furthur an agenda, with no deemable results under the guise of compassion.

db9
 
Last edited:
Here's a more definitive article-

Spinning Stem Cells
A damning reporting pattern.

By Wesley J. Smith



he pattern in the media reportage about stem cells is growing very wearisome. When a research advance occurs with embryonic stem cells, the media usually give the story the brass-band treatment. However, when researchers announce even greater success using adult stem cells, the media reportage is generally about as intense and excited as a stifled yawn.


As a consequence, many people in this country continue to believe that embryonic stem cells offer the greatest promise for developing new medical treatments using the body's cells — known as regenerative medicine — while in actuality, adult and alternative sources of stem cells have demonstrated much brighter prospects. This misperception has societal consequences, distorting the political debate over human cloning and embryonic-stem-cell research (ESCR) and perhaps even affecting levels of public and private research funding of embryonic and adult stem-cell therapies.

This media pattern was again in evidence in the reporting of two very important research breakthroughs announced within the last two weeks. Unless you made a point of looking for these stories — as I do in my work — you might have missed them. Patients with Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis received significant medical benefit using experimental adult-stem-cell regenerative medical protocols. These are benefits that supporters of embryonic-stem-cell treatments have yet to produce widely in animal experiments. Yet adult stem cells are now beginning to ameliorate suffering in human beings.

Celebrity Parkinson's disease victims such as Michael J. Fox and Michael Kinsley regularly tout ESCR as the best hope for a cure of their disease. Indeed, the Washington Post recently published a Kinsley rant on the subject in which the editor and former Crossfire co-host denounced opponents of human cloning as interfering with his hope for a cure. Yet as loudly as Fox and Kinsley promote ESCR in the media or before legislative committees, both have remained strangely silent about the most remarkable Parkinson's stem-cell experiment yet attempted: one in which researchers treated Parkinson's with the patient's own adult stem cells.

Here's the story, in case you missed it: A man in his mid-50s had been diagnosed with Parkinson's at age 49. The disease grew progressively, leading to tremors and rigidity in the patient's right arm. Traditional drug therapy did not help.

Stem cells were harvested from the patient's brain using a routine brain biopsy procedure. They were cultured and expanded to several million cells. About 20 percent of these matured into dopamine-secreting neurons. In March 1999, the cells were injected into the patient's brain.

Three months after the procedure, the man's motor skills had improved by 37 percent and there was an increase in dopamine production of 55.6 percent. One year after the procedure, the patient's overall Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale had improved by 83 percent — this at a time when he was not taking any other Parkinson's medication!

That is an astonishing, remarkable success, one that you would have thought would set off blazing headlines and lead stories on the nightly news. Had the treatment been achieved with embryonic stem cells, undoubtedly the newspapers would have screamed loudly enough to be heard. Unfortunately, reportage about the Parkinson's success story was strangely muted. True, the Washington Post ran an inside-the-paper story and there were some wire service reports. But the all-important New York Times — the one news outlet that drives television and cable news — did not report on it at all. Nor did a search of the Los Angeles Times website yield any stories about the experiment.

Human multiple-sclerosis patients have now also benefited from adult-stem-cell regenerative medicine. A study conducted by the Washington Medical Center in Seattle involved 26 rapidly deteriorating MS patients. First, physicians stimulated stem cells from the patients' bone marrow to enter the bloodstream. They then harvested the stem cells and gave the patients strong chemotherapy to destroy their immune systems. (MS is an autoimmune disorder in which the patient's body attacks the protective sheaths that surround bundles of nerves.) Finally, the researchers reintroduced the stem cells into the patients, hoping they would rebuild healthy immune systems and ameliorate the MS symptoms.

It worked. Of the 26 patients, 20 stabilized and six improved. Three patients experienced severe infections and one died.

That is a very positive advance offering great hope. But rather than making headlines, the test got less attention than successful animal studies using embryonic cells. The Los Angeles Times ran a brief bylined description, while the New York Times and Washington Post only published wire reports. Once again, the media's almost grudging coverage prevented society at large from becoming acutely aware of how exciting adult-cell regenerative medicine is fast becoming.

Meanwhile in Canada, younger MS patients whose diseases were not as far advanced as those in the Washington study have shown even greater benefit from the same procedure. Six months after the first patient was treated, she was found to have no evidence of the disease on MRI scans. Three other patients have also received successful adult-stem-cell grafts with no current evidence of active disease.

It's still too early to tell whether the Canadian patients have achieved permanent remission or a cure, but there can be no question that the research is significant. Yet the story was only publicized in Canada's Globe and Mail and in reports on Canadian television. American outlets did not mention the experiments at all.

These Parkinson's and MS studies offer phenomenal evidence of the tremendous potential adult cell regenerative medicine offers. At the same time, the unspectacular coverage these breakthroughs received highlights the odd lack of interest in adult stem-cell research exhibited by most mainstream media outlets. Nor are these stories the only adult-stem-cell successes to have gotten the media cold shoulder.

It's worth recapping just a few of the other advances made in adult-cell therapies and research in the last two years, all of which were significantly underplayed in the media:

Israeli doctors inserted a paraplegic patient's own white blood cells into her severed spinal cord, after which she regained bladder control and the ability to wiggle her toes and move her legs. (I only saw reporting on this case in the Globe and Mail, June 15, 2001.)
Immune systems destroyed by cancer were restored in children using stem cells from umbilical-cord blood. (There was a good story in the April 16, 2001 Time, but other than that I saw no reporting.)
At Harvard University, mice with Type I diabetes were completely cured of their disease. The experiment was so successful that human trials are now planned. (This was reported in the July 19, 2001, Harvard University Gazette, but I saw no coverage at all in the mainstream press.)
Diabetic mice treated with adult stem cells achieved full insulin production and all lived. This is in contrast to an experiment in which embryonic stem cells injected into diabetic mice achieved a 3 percent insulin production rate and all the mice died. (According to the May 2001 STATS, published by the Statistical Assessment Service, the embryo experiment made big news while the media ignored the adult cell experiment.)
How many humans have been treated by embryonic stem cells? Zero. Indeed, before human trials can even be safely undertaken researchers will have to overcome two serious difficulties that stand between patients and embryonic-cell regenerative medicine: 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. Nor, at least so far, does adult-stem-cell therapy appear to cause tumors. This puts adult therapies years ahead of the game.

The media continue to imply that embryos hold the key to the future. But increasingly, it looks as if our own body cells offer the quickest and best hope for regenerative medicine. The time has come for the public to insist that the media stop acting as if adult stem cells are the "wrong" kind of stem cells, and report to the American people fully and fairly the remarkable advances continually being made in adult regenerative medicine
 
someone please correct me if im wrong but embryonic stem cells are believed to provide more of a long term benefit. thus asking how many lives have been saved at present by ongoing research leaves me wondering if some essential embryonic stem cells were pulled from diamonds embryonic stem cell pool.

it is akin to asking why, after years of space travel, there are about 3 humans, and a lot of probably dead monkeys, in space.
 
I'm against growing babies in labs just to harvest their cells. The point of conception is to bring a new life into the world, not to harvest tissue. If a baby dies or is miscarried, I think using it for stem cell research would be the same as a person donating their organs. I don't know anything about how stem cell research works so maybe that's not even possible. If there's a piece of my body or some cells I don't need that I can donate while alive, I'll be the first in line....
 
kobayashi said:
someone please correct me if im wrong but embryonic stem cells are believed to provide more of a long term benefit. thus asking how many lives have been saved at present by ongoing research leaves me wondering if some essential embryonic stem cells were pulled from diamonds embryonic stem cell pool.

it is akin to asking why, after years of space travel, there are about 3 humans, and a lot of probably dead monkeys, in space.

no no it's really not akin to that Kobe.

The Dr stated that it's a 'pie inthe sky' mentality and not realistic.
He also stated why there is more success with adult stem cells and not embrionic is that the embrionics have not matured enough, these are why all the rats have died.

Maybe PETA should get involved because of the dead rats Kobe.

Lastly I think it's cruel to mislead people on what works and on what does not.

db9
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
I'm against growing babies in labs just to harvest their cells. The point of conception is to bring a new life into the world, not to harvest tissue. If a baby dies or is miscarried, I think using it for stem cell research would be the same as a person donating their organs. I don't know anything about how stem cell research works so maybe that's not even possible. If there's a piece of my body or some cells I don't need that I can donate while alive, I'll be the first in line....
perfect answer:up:
 
diamond said:
Here's a more definitive article-

Spinning Stem Cells
A damning reporting pattern.

By Wesley J. Smith

Is Wesley J. Smith an MD?
 
Last edited:
I would have no opposition growing new embryos to harvest larger quantities of stem cells. A small bunch of cells is not a human life and if such an act has the potential to save lives I cannot see the logic in stopping it. Adult stem cells versus embryonic is also a case where they both have advantages and disadvantages but using them both would only increase the potential.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I would have no opposition growing new embryos to harvest larger quantities of stem cells.

However there is no need to do this. There are many unused embryos that are destroyed by fertility clinics.
 
ThatGuy said:
However there is no need to do this. There are many unused embryos that are destroyed by fertility clinics.

Exactly. If these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them? I think you have to balance what is more worth it: an embryo or a human being? Imagine if Christopher Reeve and others had been able to hug their children again. Imagine Michael J. Fox, the Pope and others have a day where shaking and twitching doesn't occur anymore. Imagine Ronald Reagan being able to spend the end of his life riding his horses instead of being out of the saddle becaues he couldn't remember how to ride a horse.

My grandmother is in the early stages of Alzheimers. She is constantly asking me the same questions because she doesn't remember the answers or telling the same old stories because she can't remember new ones. And this is only in the early stages. At some point, she won't recognize us, won't be able to talk to us. This won't help her but if it can help someone else in her position some day, its worth it.

An embryo is just an embryo. A person has family and friends who are affected by what is happening to them. They may not have paralysis or Parkinson's but they are also affected by the disease. If we can save FAMILIES from this pain, why shouldn't we? We should do everything we can to do so.
 
It's really interesting to me that people who believe an embryo is just an embryo (as I do) are the minority in the abortion thread. ;)

Or you were just smarter than I was, and simply stayed away. :wink:
 
I think it is totally criminal that we're not allowing full embryonic stem cell research. There is a plethora of diseases it could possibly cure, including but not limited to spinal cord injury, parkinson's, alzheimer's, some forms of cancers, possibly even AIDs. Is it proven that any of these things can or will be cured as a result of embryonic stem cell research? No. But is it proven that the possibility of it exists? Yes. If you truly want proof that embryonic stem cells either can or cannot lead to cures for the aforementioned diseases among others, then you should know that if research can't be conducted on the subject, then we'll never have proof one way or another. You can't have it both ways. You just can't. We owe it to humanity to find out if we can develop cures for these diseases with these cells. If it's a choice between letting these cells freeze until they're unusable, or using them to research medical advances that could give someone the ability to walk, control their movements, think(alzheimer's), live without cancer, etc etc, I choose the latter.
 
Last edited:
diamond said:


I don't think embrionic stems can help these ppl as much as adult stem cells.

And in my professional scientific opinion, you are wrong.

And most of the scientific community would agree.

And quoting MDs is weak. MDs are not research scientists and unless they have an accompanying PhD in the field, they know no more about the subject than an undergraduate biology student.

Frankly, the main problem with this issue is that the people fired up most about it are completely uneducated when it comes to what stem cells are, what cloning is, what undergoing selection means, what differentiation is, what terminal differentiation is, the difficulties of growing stem cells in culture and the fact it is impossible to keep lines going indefinitely (they have a defined lifespan, beyond which they are no longer considered pluripotent). This is a question of high academia, and it's not about being elitist or implying people are stupid, but it's something that you need many years of advanced (beyond a bachelor's degree) education or hands on experience to understand. Yet the people who crow about this to the heavens have never seen a stem cell under the microscope, have not an iota of practical knowledge about it, don't know how to culture it, don't know what it really does and how, etc.

Then what you hear is "morality" as a defense for ignorance.
 
I think more research needs to be done to fully understand the promise of stem cells of any kind. It's possible that both adult and embryonic stem cells can be useful, perhaps for different therapies. But research is vital...otherwise we will never know.
 
anitram said:


And in my professional scientific opinion, you are wrong.

And most of the scientific community would agree.

And quoting MDs is weak. MDs are not research scientists and unless they have an accompanying PhD in the field, they know no more about the subject than an undergraduate biology student.

Frankly, the main problem with this issue is that the people fired up most about it are completely uneducated when it comes to what stem cells are, what cloning is, what undergoing selection means, what differentiation is, what terminal differentiation is, the difficulties of growing stem cells in culture and the fact it is impossible to keep lines going indefinitely (they have a defined lifespan, beyond which they are no longer considered pluripotent). This is a question of high academia, and it's not about being elitist or implying people are stupid, but it's something that you need many years of advanced (beyond a bachelor's degree) education or hands on experience to understand. Yet the people who crow about this to the heavens have never seen a stem cell under the microscope, have not an iota of practical knowledge about it, don't know how to culture it, don't know what it really does and how, etc.

Then what you hear is "morality" as a defense for ignorance.


:up:



religion + emotions = silly arguments and bad science
 
This might only be Australia, but I was under the impression the only embryonic stem cells currently being used in research projects are those which are destined for being destroyed anyway.

The opposition to this research is completely beyond me.
 
deep said:

"A mother is killing her baby":( :sad:

Ok. :confused:

I don't really get how *that* line of my post said that, but all right.

My point was that a few threads away, you have people arguing embryos (exactly as we are describing here, if I understand them correctly) are a fully conscious lifeform, but here we have people saying the exact opposite. It's very interesting.
 
We all know Nancy Reagan is a bloody child killer!

They need to take a skin cell from some one with parkinsons

Clone it to embryonic stem cell

Then do worthwhile research

What genes affect parkinsons


This can work
 
Last edited:
Re: We all know Nancy Reagan is a bloody child killer!

deep said:
They need to take a skin cell from some one with parkinsons

Clone it to embryonic stem cell

Then do worthwhile research

What genes affect parkinsons


This can work

True. I asked my endocrinologist once about how likely stem cell research was to be an option. He laughed and said ignore the debate. When it is mastered and finally legal, I'd most likely be donating one of my fat cells to cure my condition.

Lucky I have plenty of fat cells to spare...
:wink:
 
Adult stem cell research has been beneficial, and yes, we've seen real results. But adult stem cells are limited in what can be treated with them. As far as I know, adult stem cells can only be used in bone marrow replacement and one or two other conditions.

While no real cures have been developed from embryonic stem cells, it is widely believed that the potential is there to cure parkinson's, alzheimer's, spinal cord injury. One embryonic stem cell can give rise to ANY kind of tissue. The same cannot be said about adult stem cells. This is what some people have failed to understand.

Kerry explained that there are more than 100,000 embryos frozen at fertility clinics, many of which will be destroyed. It makes no sense not to take those embryos and use them for the benefit of those who are suffering.

About 100 years ago, doctors were ridiculing the researcher who wanted to vaccinate people against a disease by exposing them to that disease. Now smallpox, polio, and a handful of diseases are history. My point is: no good will ever come out of embryo stem cells unless we actively search for it. I hope this answers the question.
 
When you consider that abortion, essentially the destruction of an embryo, is legal I truly don't find it hard to support the cause of Stem cell research. Now, I think that both, adult and embryonic have benefits, though I do believe that adult stem cell research has provided more helpful and conclusive research and progress. However, there are limitations. And when limitations are present in a scientific exploration, Time becomes a difficult factor.

I whole-heartedly believe that research is the way forward to ending cases and tragedies just like the one we saw on the 10th of October. Now, I do not agree with abortion. Not as simply a way of birth control. It serves absolutely no purpose, and the moral implications are dubious, at best.

Are moral implications not dubious in the discussed research? Of course they are. I am the first to admit that in reality we do not know what on Earth we are doing to the embryo. We will never know exactly what the embryo goes through in the process of this research, no more than we know exactly what it goes through an abortion. The difference here is that this research is vital, and I do believe it is, for further scientific advancement. I do believe that it is worth it.

In a society where you do allow abortion anyway, why not put such a phenomenon, the tampering with embryos, to a good

Ant.use?
 
Back
Top Bottom