Q5, is it possible for you to participate in a debate without dragging it into the gutter of partisan politics? Are you capable of making an argument without first contructing a strawman of "the left" to burn down for your own amusement? Can we stick to the facts here instead of being drawn into your delusional opinions about what "the left" does or does not think on the issue? Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo second, how many more advances in practicable terms has ESC research given way to ASC research? huh?

It isn't opinion, it is established scientific fact that adult stem cells are less likely than embryonic cells to deliver medical benefits in future, regardless of the amount of time or effort expended on research. It's simple biology:

quote:

There are currently several limitations to using adult stem cells. Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Finally, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime. These potential weaknesses might limit the usefulness of adult stem cells.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp

It would be great if researchers could just move onto adult rather than embryonic stem-cells now, but the immutable laws of physics and chemistry preclude that from being an option. At the moment, embryonic stem-cells offer the best and only chance of curing the sorts of conditions that we're discussing.

quote:

the world kept spinning though, for anyone who believes that hESC research can go on unhindered by the bonds of the American tax-payer.

But this bill isn't just about removing funding for ESC research, it's about banning any federally funded organisations or any equipment originally purchased with government funds from being used in ESC research. It's not as though the NIH, or any other federally funded institution, can just start getting their funding from the private sector instead of the government, they're being prevented from performing this sort of research period.

Theoretically, yes, the option is available for the private sector to take-up the reasearching stem-cells, but this is unlikely due to the amount of research involved (measured in both time and money) into a process that may not end up being particularly profitable anyway. We need the government to fund ESC research for the same reason we need the government to build roads: these ventures just aren't profitable to the private sector. Surely even economic rationalists such as yourself can see this?

Besides which, most of the research into ESCs so far has been performed by federally funded and equipped institutions. By banning these institutions from continuing their research (or to even prevent them from, say, loaning out their facilities to corporations to continue the research) and just hoping that the private sector is willing to pick it up again from the beginning, we're effectively throwing away 20 years of research on the issue, meaning that all those precious embryos we've destroyed so far will have "died" for absolutely nothing. Can you please tell me how zygote-fetishists such as yourself (that's for the "baby-killer" remark ) can justify this attrocious waste of human life?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Q5, is it possible for you to participate in a debate without dragging it into the gutter of partisan politics? Are you capable of making an argument without first contructing a strawman of "the left" to burn down for your own amusement? Can we stick to the facts here instead of being drawn into your delusional opinions about what "the left" does or does not think on the issue? Thank you.

This is what politics in America has become Renegade, a dumb down concoction of partisan bitching about political affiliations. Its the easiest way to avoid examining the issues and to try and level insults that makes one feel they are acually making a point. This goes for the left and right, with the pluthra of simpleton jackasses that pop up on the television and speak on the numerous shows that cater to such gutter filth of political discourse. We all know the channels and shows whose hosts play those angles to feed the American public.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Q5, is it possible for you to participate in a debate without dragging it into the gutter of partisan politics? Are you capable of making an argument without first contructing a strawman of "the left" to burn down for your own amusement? Can we stick to the facts here instead of being drawn into your delusional opinions about what "the left" does or does not think on the issue? Thank you.

what, Opus gets a pass from your sudden sanctimony because why? yall share similar veiws from the left? this issue defines the right from the left in this country. sorry.

quote:

It isn't opinion, it is established scientific fact that adult stem cells are less likely than embryonic cells to deliver medical benefits in future, regardless of the amount of time or effort expended on research. It's simple biology:

if it's such simple biology, where is the simple funding?

lets debate the fundamentals of the two biologies. that would be refreshing.

more later.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what, Opus gets a pass from your sudden sanctimony because why? yall share similar veiws from the left?

Opus was directing his vitriol at the president, you were directing yours at an entire group of people that don't actually exist:

quote:

thats the problem with you blind haters. you have to tell yourself that Bushitler is the boogeyman so your rhetoric tastes better as you regurgitate it over and over again. good'ole fear mongering from the left never hurt anybody right?

Debate on what is actually being argued here, not on what you imagine someone else, somewhere else to be arguing at the moment.

quote:

this issue defines the right from the left in this country. sorry.

Which is why absolutely no Republicans voted for this bill! Of course, I get it now.

quote:

lets debate the fundamentals of the two biologies. that would be refreshing.

Gladly. I contend that there is more hope of finding cures with research into ESC than ASC because "adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found".

I eagerly await your evidence to the contrary.

EDIT:

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan This is what politics in America has become Renegade, a dumb down concoction of partisan bitching about political affiliations. Its the easiest way to avoid examining the issues and to try and level insults that makes one feel they are acually making a point. This goes for the left and right, with the pluthra of simpleton jackasses that pop up on the television and speak on the numerous shows that cater to such gutter filth of political discourse. We all know the channels and shows whose hosts play those angles to feed the American public.

Quite right, but believe me: this isn't a problem exclusive to US politics...

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Renegade on Jul-21-2006 at 15:31

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yes, because unlike you, who can't see further than 1 week on any given issue due to your blind hate, this administration sees the inevitable and unquentiable thirst for what fertility clinics provide in the function of giving life.

Ahh yes, this Administration does oh so well thinking long-term. Our lovely situation in Iraq, which the oil was supposed to fund the war campaign, and which we were supposed to be out of there many many months ago is a real testament to their broad long-term vision. Good one.

And if these fertility clinics give so much life, why are they throwing away some 90% of blastocysts that lead to that life? Why does this Administration allow such life to be thrown away with the veto rather than helping life AFTER birth by furthering research on diseases with those parts being thrown away?

You're really having a dandy of a time dancing around that issue, Q.

quote:

ideologically, your put yourself in a position defending your party that ignored and disestablished any alternatives to recieve Federal funding. a position you cannot defend. try, and look like a fool. i'm not gonna even ask you if thats who you want to support, woman, you do it here apologetically every day. it's pathetic. it's destructive.

Hey, Q, come back down on earth and tell me what the House and Senate vote was on this issue. Can you tell me, please? And then can you tell me how many of those ideologues from YOUR FUCKING PARTY decided to actually do something constructive with those blastocysts being thrown away and join the broad majority of folks from MY party in a BI-FUCKING-PARTISAN effort, including a well-known doctor by the name of Bill Frist?

The argument of this being partisan "hate" and ideology doesn't fit the bill very well here, cutie. Sorry. Unless you can explain why so many from YOUR party joined MY party in this support, and why so many from YOUR party in public opinion polls support this effort, well, this argument of yours just won't get yourself very far, sorry.

quote:

rehtoric backed up by veto. i'll take it everytime.

You didn't answer the question. How is it murder if the fed does it but it's not murder for the states and private sector?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo oh shit! now all of a sudden your the f**king expert biologist that "Rove and Snow" inheirently have no right to be. who's the hippocrite now? dolttruth is, you have no f**king idea what your spewing right now. your just makin shit up. "Few if any real credible scientists would consider it a point of contention that adult stem cells offer as much promise as the embryonic stem cell lines." wtf? first, what the hell is an "un-credible" microbiologist? do they all work at the NIH? second, how many more advances in practicable terms has ESC research given way to ASC research? huh?

I'll answer the rest of this later today, but I do believe Renegade answered this part well. I'll also answer more in detail if you so choose.

And in case you didn't know, my undergrad was a Bachelor of Science in Cellular and Molecular Biology (1997), my grad. was a Master's in Physiology with an emphasis in exercise and wellness (2000), and I am currently working on my Doctoral degree in Physical Therapy with a current research project in the animal model on chronic pain. My mentor and primary investigator is working in conjunction with a scientist from the Stower's Institute of Research here in Kansas City.

So if you're asking me if I'm an "expert" in the field of biology, I'd humbly say no. But I do feel a bit in my depth on most matters pertaining to the subject, including stem cell research. Now, do you really want to have a biological debate with me here?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no. you wanna tell me?

Well it looks like Opus and renegade expanded on the other points, but with respect to this question:

http://www.physorg.com/news9160.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...s-pe-california

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6032901308.html

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news...stemcell25.html

You know, I was really hoping that the veto would have come out at some point when congress was loading the spending bill with pork out of its ass, but now that I see what he was saving it for, I feel so much better for the future of our country.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo he asked me to explain why is there a "difference" basically. why the the Government wants it one way but presently advocates another. the difference is that fertility clinics are protected by law to provide the services they do. to facilitate life for those unfortunate. like any hospital, they lose life along the way. as far as i know the Federal Government is not obligated by any means to fund them in any way for the reasons we are discussing. some do recieve a modicum funding i'm sure but the ethical boundries that exist are there for a reason. blind to you and your ilk of course, but nevertheless... why don't you let him tell me how wrong i am.

Well he did, of course, but I find it strange that you continue to advocate these fertility clinics utilizing only about 1/10 of the blastocysts while openly discarding the rest to die a terrible, horrible, gut-wrenching death down the drain. Why you or this President continues to allow such an atrocity occur with his veto to allow these blastocysts being destroyed instead of somehow forcing them all to be used to create more life is quite mysterious to us still.

The basic question remains unanswered by you, Q: why allow these potential human lives being thrown down the drain in such a horrid manner with a veto, rather than either somehow protect them and keep them alive or utilize them for very potentially life-saving research?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo first off you can't ban IVF and there are already measures in place to protect unused embryos. even if it was wholly Federally funded, it's a classic red herring to hide your ideology behind though, that you're real good at, i'll give you that.

Guess we'd better tell Bill Frist how ideologically driven he's being with his vote on the matter, won't we?

And I'm sorry, I didn't realize how strong those measures to protect those unused embryos were, like this:

quote:

Despite the national soul-searching stirred up by stem cell research, human embryos are discarded all the time in fertility clinics -- and hardly anyone seems to mind. At one Bay Area clinic, they are flushed down the drain in a metal sink. At another, a technician drops them into a medical waste bin, to be picked up and incinerated by hospital staff. At still another, a "quiet area" is set aside in the lab, where frozen embryos are thawed and allowed to live out their last days -- usually no more than three or four at most. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../20/MN58092.DTL

So, protective measures like that, Q?

quote:

you seriously believe that?

It's not a belief - that's a fact with what Bush had done with his veto. Can you make a little feeble attempt and demonstrate to the contrary, sir?

quote:

thats the problem with you blind haters. you have to tell yourself that Bushitler is the boogeyman so your rhetoric tastes better as you regurgitate it over and over again. good'ole fear mongering from the left never hurt anybody right?

What was that Congressional vote again, Q? You tellin' your party members who voted on this bipartisan bill just how "Left" they are?

Funny how you resort back to your labelling and "hate" painting when that's pretty much all you have left.

Quite repetitive. Quite tedious.

quote:

no, the lawmakers that squashed any alternatives for federal funding in favor of exclusive hESC research dashed any hopes of "life-saving research". it's my opinion that all this was, was an attempted boondoggle for BigPharmiCo. i know you couldn't see that with your blinders on.

Okay, someone's going to have to decifer this code for me here. Not exactly sure how to read this. Q, were you aware that the two other alternative bills sailed through Congress? How did any lawmaker "squash" alternatives for federal funding in favor or exclusive hESC research? You really need to be a bit more clear with your thoughts here.

quote:

more fear-mongering. i mean if your dumb ass really believes that, you should advocate for some Federally mandated organ/tissue havesting legislation from terminally ill patients.

Well it wasn't long until you switched from your "hate" rhetoric to "fear-mongering". Only a matter of time with you, one just has to wait it out.....

I want to make sure I have your logic straight here. You are equating a group of 20 cells that have not developed into any life form of any sort to that of terminally ill patients, people with pain, heart beat, brain wave activity, higher cognitive processing, and so on?

Oh dear, you really don't have a clue as to what you're arguing, do you? You're really going to have to get past some serious ethical issues if you are trying to make such an argument about blastocysts, such as:

quote:

If embryos are persons, then IVF medicine must change dramatically. People who undergo the procedure should not, for example, have the option of deciding not to donate extra embryos to other couples. They would have to choose between implanting them, now or at some future time, or donating them to others. The government, in turn, should pay the cost of preserving abandoned embryos, just as it now covers emergency neo-natal intensive care for infants without caretakers. Until such changes are implemented, people truly opposed to killing embryos should refuse to subsidize fertility clinics. Yet such reforms might strike many consumers of IVF treatments as undesirable. Many people who create embryos for implantation are unwilling to see those embryos implanted in other people. Like some men who prefer not to donate to a sperm bank, many couples would rather not reproduce at all than reproduce without having any subsequent relationship with resulting offspring. Those who would oppose compelled donation do not, in other words, really think of embryos as children to be kept or given up for adoption. They think of them instead as special property, the destiny of which should be in their hands unless and until the property actually becomes persons. For those who embrace the view that embryos are persons, this common intuition about the status of embryos presents a challenge. They may describe stem cell research as homicide, but they must recognize that doing so entails a description of current fertility treatments as homicide as well, albeit homicide that is intimately linked to creating other lives. They would have to insist that all unutilized frozen embryos be preserved and made available to interested couples, regardless of the original couples' respective wishes. After all, one could not give up a child after birth but insist that the child be discarded or used for research. Perhaps more realistically, the pro-life opponent of stem cell research might simply oppose IVF altogether, a position taken by the Vatican. The person who believes that life begins at conception but supports stem cell research has a different problem on her hands. She, by accepting both of these arguments, implicitly accepts the notion that full persons may be sacrificed to save other full persons' lives. Would she feel the same way about unwanted persons who had already been born? http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20010801.html

quote:

i mean, Terry Schiavo was as much a clump of cells as some blatycists right? or can you make that distinction?

I believe we have something called "organ donation" on the back of our driver's licenses to this effect, do we not? If that individual makes a formal consent for tissue harvest after their lives have ended, then what exactly is wrong with harvesting such organs if the consent is with either the patient, legal guardian, or family members?

How many straws can you continue grasping for here, Q? This is becoming borderline silly.



oh shit! now all of a sudden your the f**king expert biologist that "Rove and Snow" inheirently have no right to be. who's the hippocrite now? dolttruth is, you have no f**king idea what your spewing right now. your just makin shit up. "Few if any real credible scientists would consider it a point of contention that adult stem cells offer as much promise as the embryonic stem cell lines." wtf?
first, what the hell is an "un-credible" microbiologist? do they all work at the NIH?[/QUOTE]

As I've mentioned previously, I feel fairly comfortable in this field, much more comfortable than our scientifically-challenged President.

How about you?

And speaking of NIH, in layman's terms:

quote:

Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become. Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies. A potential advantage of using stem cells from an adult is that the patient's own cells could be expanded in culture and then reintroduced into the patient. The use of the patient's own adult stem cells would mean that the cells would not be rejected by the immune system. This represents a significant advantage as immune rejection is a difficult problem that can only be circumvented with immunosuppressive drugs. Embryonic stem cells from a donor introduced into a patient could cause transplant rejection. However, whether the recipient would reject donor embryonic stem cells has not been determined in human experiments. http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

Another credible source to consider in layman's terms:

quote:

For many years, scientists have conducted studies to determine whether the stem cells in adult tissue have the same developmental capability as embryonic stem cells. The general consensus is that adult stem cells seem to be less versatile. Scientists think that embryonic stem cells have a much greater utility and potential than the adult stem cells, because embryonic stem cells may develop into virtually every type of cell in the human body. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, may only be able to develop into a limited number of cell types. Embryonic stem cells also continue to divide indefinitely when placed in culture, while this may not be the case for adult stem cells and this would reduce their capacity to form new cell types. Both adult and embryonic stem cell research should continue simultaneously as they are both critical to our understanding of the etiology, progression and treatment of disease. http://www.stemcellresearchfoundati...About/FAQ.htm#4

quote:

second, how many more advances in practicable terms has ESC research given way to ASC research? huh?

Here's a recent one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5154026.stm

One of my instructors is working in conjunction with a coupla instructors at University of Wisconsin-Madison:

http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/

You can also find some abstracts and literature from the website I listed: www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org

We can also discuss some of this research in detail, if you so choose:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...earch&DB=pubmed

I've got school access to most of the primary literature pertaining to this topic. Some I might have to order from online, if necessary, but it may also be useful to some of the research I'm assisting with so it may be worthwhile.

Just to reiterate, I am not advocating, nor is any serious scientist advocating ignoring whatever research adult stem cell lines brings. Indeed, there is some recent evidence examining the plasticity of these adult cells. However, current research strongly suggests that they do not have the level of plasticity that embryonic stem cells have, and we simply must go to where the evidence-based research leads us, ESPECIALLY if such blastocysts are being thrown away in the first place.

That is a simple point you continue to sidestep.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo maybe for you. no offense, but are you sure you weren't "dumbing it down" for yourself? news flash stevie boy! those 90% are free for the taking! ...and what supports your 10% utilization notion anyway? and if that were true, how could that even sustain the theoretical, new cottage industry of ESC research labs without farming more of the little guys for the express purpose of destruction with Federal dollars? let me dumb it down for you: Rogain turned into a multi-billion dollar boon for "Big-Damn-PharmiCo" with zero Federal subsidies. Bush spends $90 million on ESC research and is left with his dick in his hand. who do you think is smarter?

Sorry just had to get back with you with a source. I'm such a nerd, lol: http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_...cfm?DR_ID=25538

Here are some key points that support my rough estimate of 90% or notion as you put it. According to the article "approximately 84% of clinic directors reported that their clinics discard some unused human embryos originally created for IVF.....In addition, about 400,000 embryos created for IVF "languish" in frozen storage at clinics and are unlikely ever to be used, according to the study, the Mercury News reports."

edit: spelling mistake

Last edited by stevieboy32808 on Aug-08-2006 at 14:04