Fighting Off the Onset of Alzheimer's Disease

Support adult stem cell research. That's where the results have been.

But not where the REAL results WILL be....

Given the controversy around embryonic stem cell research it would be less fraught if adult stem cells offered the same potential as embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. It is the ability of the embryonic cell, in theory, to become all types of tissue that offers such hope of cure for many diseases.

http://alzheimers.about.com/od/research/f/stemcells_which.htm
 
why don't we just support stem cell research and start with the least offensive source and work our way up? Maybe we'll hit paydirt without having to stunt progress while pissing people off..
 
why don't we just support stem cell research and start with the least offensive source and work our way up? Maybe we'll hit paydirt without having to stunt progress while pissing people off..

Because people are dying while they're futzing around with things that won't work as well.

If they find it offensive, I respect that. But then they should opt not to benefit from any treatment resulting from stem cells. In the meantime, we're falling behind much of the world. Me? If a loved one or I have an illness, I want every possible effort made to cure or treat the problem.
 
how do you know they won't work as well unless we try?


Where is the progress while debating and arguing about stem cells for three years into a political standstill?
 
how do you know they won't work as well unless we try?


Where is the progress while debating and arguing about stem cells for three years into a political standstill?

To the best of my knowledge, they HAVE been doing research on adult stem cells. It's just not as effective. Adult stem cells don't have the pliability that embryonic stem cells have.

There is no rational reason to not use all tools at our disposal. No one is going to choose to have an abortion or terminate a pregnancy if they think those cells are going to be used for science. Conversely, NOT using the cells won't have one bit of effect on abortion rates. Why not use cells that serve no other purpose?
 
What about menstrual blood? It seems that sources for viable stem cells have been popping out of the woodwork lately. Indeed, That's about as pliable as it gets AND unlimited in resource, eh?


Please don't get wrapped up in the rhetoric and make stem cells another abortion issue. You will be crippling progress towards a common goal. Yes, there is plenty of reason to consider the opinions of those who don't believe the way we do about reproductive cells. I'd rather not have to wait 30 years until this gets raked through he coals of the supreme court to actually get somewhere.

Can you guarentee results on embryonic stem cells? If not, then siding with caution when a significant portion of our population gets rightfully uneasy, is reason to start low and work our way up to more divisive options.
 
What about menstrual blood? It seems that sources for viable stem cells have been popping out of the woodwork lately. Indeed, That's about as pliable as it gets AND unlimited in resource, eh?


Please don't get wrapped up in the rhetoric and make stem cells another abortion issue. You will be crippling progress towards a common goal. Yes, there is plenty of reason to consider the opinions of those who don't believe the way we do about reproductive cells. I'd rather not have to wait 30 years until this gets raked through he coals of the supreme court to actually get somewhere.

Can you guarentee results on embryonic stem cells? If not, then siding with caution when a significant portion of our population gets rightfully uneasy, is reason to start low and work our way up to more divisive options.

Significant portion? Or powerful portion? And what if it were AIPAC campaigning against it? Would you still say, "[side] with caution".

It isn't another "abortion issue" except that's what the radical right has made it because they insert the same dogma into the science that they do into "creationism" and things like the Terri Schiavo matter.

We're not going to agree on this, which is ok.

As for menstrul blood. Honestly? I've never heard of that as an option. And, frankly, the issue of collection seems a little er... odd.
 
Significant portion? Or powerful portion? And what if it were AIPAC campaigning against it? Would you still say, "[side] with caution".

It isn't another "abortion issue" except that's what the radical right has made it because they insert the same dogma into the science that they do into "creationism" and things like the Terri Schiavo matter.

We're not going to agree on this, which is ok.

As for menstrul blood. Honestly? I've never heard of that as an option. And, frankly, the issue of collection seems a little er... odd.

Would that be placenta for getting the cells?
 
I would side with caution because they have a valid concern about destroying life that can be circumvented by fielding out every OTHER option for a breakthrough instead of turning this into the next 40 years of supreme court tug of war.

and yes, it IS damn near exactly like the issue of abortion because it concerns the viability of potential human life. This isn't some right wing talking point. This isn't about dogma. This is about taking the concerns of your fellow fucking americans into consideration so that they have a reason to consider YOURS the next time around. We have options beyond running strait to that which pisses off half the nation. If you can't see the utility in trying the non-confrontational options first then so be it. You can point fingers at radical right and i'll point my finger at you acting like the radical left.

Terry Schiavo? gimme a break. What the fuck does Terry Schiavo have to do with it?

Menstrual blood could be a good source of stem cells

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...15/menstrual_cells_071114/20071115?hub=Health

Menstrual blood yields stem cells
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_1590861.htm

Concern over menstrual blood bank
According to the company, menstrual stem cells - which come from the womb lining shed during a woman's period - have the advantage of being easily harvested in a painless, non-invasive manner as compared to some other stem cell sources such as bone marrow
And their use gets round the ethics of using stem cells taken from embryos.

Yet like other stem cells, early lab work suggests they too have the potential to turn into many other types of cell, including heart, nerve, bone, cartilage and fat, Cryo-Cell claims.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7086548.stm

New menstrual blood bank for stem cell storage
http://www.geneticsandhealth.com/2007/11/14/new-menstrual-blood-bank-for-stem-cell-storage

Medistem Announces Discovery of Novel Stem Cell Population in Menstrual Blood: Endometrial Regenerative Cells (ERC)
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=793422

Cells Discarded From Womb Lining During A Woman's Period Are New Type Of Stem Cell
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071115082303.htm



Options that don't piss anyone off while we look for cures. I'm not one to let dogma get in the way of progress either.... But with options available I see no reason to be stubborn to the point of delaying said progress for 30 years while we bicker about it in the supreme court.
 
Muchas Gracias.
istockphoto_2026288_flex_your_muscle.jpg




Jillian, I still love ya, doll, but I think it makes sense to work our way up in the long run. If cures are found with menstual blood then we have the proverbial fountain of youth visiting every pre-menopausal woman every 28 days without having to stub our toes on ethical arguements. win win. If not, then we can say we tried everything else before trying that which chaffes our fellow 'mericans.


SHOGUN FOR PRESIDENT!
 

Let me know when they come up with any successful results with embryonic stem cell research, Jillian. Embryonic stem cell enthusiasts keep talking about the great cures/treatments that embryonic stem cell research is going to achieve, but that's all it is/has been to this point--hopeful, wishful thinking. In the meantime, the adult stem cell researchers have produced significant results that show that using human embryos is not necessary to get desired results. If any of my tax money is spent to fund stem cell research, I want it to be used for adult stem cell research which has/is producing results that can be/are being used now as we speak.
 
I don't know if this is related to Shogun's source, but found this interesting:


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGIxNTliZDdhMWQ0ODdkMDFmODM3ODY0YjdmMzJlMGE=

Goodbye to Dolly? [Yuval Levin]

The Telegraph reports that Ian Wilmut—creator of Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal—is giving up on his efforts to use cloning techniques in humans, to produce cloned embryos that could then be destroyed for their stem cells. Wilmut’s reason, the paper reports, is the potential of so-called “somatic cell reprogramming”, a technique to transform a regular adult cell into the equivalent of an embryonic stem cell but without the need for embryos. Wilmut says the new approach is not only “easier to accept socially” but also scientifically more efficient and, he says, “100 times more interesting” and capable of producing the same result.

The idea of cell reprogramming has been around a few years now. The President’s Council on Bioethics discussed it in 2005, and President Bush pointed to it in 2006 as an example of a potential scientific solution to the ethical quandaries of embryo destruction and cloning. But until now, most stem cell researchers and most political advocates of embryonic stem cell research have insisted that this alternative technique wasn’t a substitute for cloning or embryo destruction, and wasn’t far enough along to make a difference to them.

Wilmut hasn’t lost his mind. What has changed is the science. His reversal appears to be the first tremor in what is looking to be a massive and swiftly approaching quake in stem cell science and in the stem cell debate. Rumors have been circulating for weeks that researchers have for the first time found real success with somatic cell reprogramming in humans, and that a couple of different teams (including some of the biggest names in embryonic stem cell research) will publish several different methods that have worked—producing the genuine equivalent of human embryonic stem cells, genetically matched to cell donors, and shown capable of being differentiated into the various cells of the body, without the need to use or harm embryos.

If it’s true—and the evidence is mounting that these publications are coming very soon, perhaps in the next few weeks—it will transform the field, and could mark a beginning of the end for the political debate over stem cells and cloning. It would also bring sweet validation for President Bush’s much-maligned approach to this subject: insisting that creative science could find a way around the ethical problems, and so encouraging the exploration of ethical alternatives, not the funding of embryo destruction.

If it’s true.
 
Because people are dying while they're futzing around with things that won't work as well.

If they find it offensive, I respect that. But then they should opt not to benefit from any treatment resulting from stem cells. In the meantime, we're falling behind much of the world. Me? If a loved one or I have an illness, I want every possible effort made to cure or treat the problem.

People are dying while they're futzing around with embryonic stem cell research.

People die. That's the way it is.
 
Unless of course it's someone near and dear....

And...are you allowed to say "futzing around" with a Texas accent? :eusa_think:

Has nothing to do with "near and dear." Seems to me "near and dear" attracts only the desperate who are willing to gamble on any-and-everything to cling to life.

And you just have to drawl out to "fu-u-utzin' aray-ound.":lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top