Success with stem cells

[Iridescence]

At the risk of being considered the 'most fluent of delusions'... abortion cannot be done within the earliest part of conception because the embryo has not yet formed enough... yet the heart starts to beat at five weeks. The brain and the nuerological wiring is obviously not formed until after. The issue I have with many is that, though the baby obviously has the soul, the spirit is questionably yet to develop... rather, that is, an independent spirit... This is something that potentially keeps some methods of abortion as more humanely optional than some levels of living...

As incomplete as this thought may seem, it prevents me from discrediting the proactive stance for continual stem cell research. Many things that are considered as cold-hearted and cruel by would be mothers may not necessarily be so if their lifestyles were to reveal certain things regarding detrimental living conditions. However, from what I also understand about stem cell research, the embryo must be as fully developed as possible...

 

[konradv]

Exactly how long does one waste time and funds on a line of inquiry, "to find out it doesn't work", before one concedes that it doesn't? And why is that span of time so much longer with ESCR than with virtually anything else in science?

What does time have to do with it? You're not qualified to make that kind of decision. It needs to be left to the people doing the work. They're the ones that know, if there's any there there.

Actually, if it's MY tax money being used for it, I have every right to demand answers to that question, and no intention of "just leaving it up to" the idiots who want to collect more and more of my money.

You weren't asking a question, really. You were telling us it had already taken too long, something you'd have no way of knowing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What does time have to do with it? You're not qualified to make that kind of decision. It needs to be left to the people doing the work. They're the ones that know, if there's any there there.

Actually, if it's MY tax money being used for it, I have every right to demand answers to that question, and no intention of "just leaving it up to" the idiots who want to collect more and more of my money.

You weren't asking a question, really. You were telling us it had already taken too long, something you'd have no way of knowing.

I believe I said we've wasted more time on it already than is typically spent on something that yields no results, as it has done.

 

[Si modo]

Actually, if it's MY tax money being used for it, I have every right to demand answers to that question, and no intention of "just leaving it up to" the idiots who want to collect more and more of my money.

You weren't asking a question, really. You were telling us it had already taken too long, something you'd have no way of knowing.

I believe I said we've wasted more time on it already than is typically spent on something that yields no results, as it has done.

Hmmmmm. As decades have been spent on basic research into biological and/or genetic reasons for autism, for example, and none have been pinpointed yet, then we should stop.

 

[Katzndogz]

You weren't asking a question, really. You were telling us it had already taken too long, something you'd have no way of knowing.

I believe I said we've wasted more time on it already than is typically spent on something that yields no results, as it has done.

Hmmmmm. As decades have been spent on basic research into biological and/or genetic reasons for autism, for example, and none have been pinpointed yet, then we should stop.

An excellent example. Suppose there was some beneficial treatment for autism that was showing promise of great success. Yet, the money being poured into autism research was going to support a line of research without a single success, but supported some other political and social agenda.

 

[Si modo]

I believe I said we've wasted more time on it already than is typically spent on something that yields no results, as it has done.

Hmmmmm. As decades have been spent on basic research into biological and/or genetic reasons for autism, for example, and none have been pinpointed yet, then we should stop.

An excellent example. Suppose there was some beneficial treatment for autism that was showing promise of great success. Yet, the money being poured into autism research was going to support a line of research without a single success, but supported some other political and social agenda.

What basic research ever supports any agenda other than the expansion of knowledge?

 

[Katzndogz]

Hmmmmm. As decades have been spent on basic research into biological and/or genetic reasons for autism, for example, and none have been pinpointed yet, then we should stop.

An excellent example. Suppose there was some beneficial treatment for autism that was showing promise of great success. Yet, the money being poured into autism research was going to support a line of research without a single success, but supported some other political and social agenda.

What basic research ever supports any agenda other than the expansion of knowledge?

The one that pays the most. Millions are being poured into embryonic stem cell research. Millions that should be going to support research showing results. The ONLY reason for this is that embryonic stem cell research supports abortion.

 

[Si modo]

An excellent example. Suppose there was some beneficial treatment for autism that was showing promise of great success. Yet, the money being poured into autism research was going to support a line of research without a single success, but supported some other political and social agenda.

What basic research ever supports any agenda other than the expansion of knowledge?

The one that pays the most. Millions are being poured into embryonic stem cell research. Millions that should be going to support research showing results. The ONLY reason for this is that embryonic stem cell research supports abortion.

hESC research supports nothing but the expansion of knowledge in science.

We don't stop doing basic research because there are no immediate applications. We'd still be in mud huts.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hmmmmm. As decades have been spent on basic research into biological and/or genetic reasons for autism, for example, and none have been pinpointed yet, then we should stop.

An excellent example. Suppose there was some beneficial treatment for autism that was showing promise of great success. Yet, the money being poured into autism research was going to support a line of research without a single success, but supported some other political and social agenda.

What basic research ever supports any agenda other than the expansion of knowledge?

She is talking about a relatively fruitless avenue of research that has been long demonstrated to be less helpful than other approaches.

Katzndogz brings up research to cure a specific disease, which is an 'apples to oranges' comparison.

But to answer your question, other agendas might be:
1. to make money doing research
2. to find new ways of making profit from the discoveries of the research
3. to provide support for an ideological/political slogan

 

[Si modo]

An excellent example. Suppose there was some beneficial treatment for autism that was showing promise of great success. Yet, the money being poured into autism research was going to support a line of research without a single success, but supported some other political and social agenda.

What basic research ever supports any agenda other than the expansion of knowledge?

She is talking about a relatively fruitless avenue of research that has been long demonstrated to be less helpful than other approaches.

Katzndogz brings up research to cure a specific disease, which is an 'apples to oranges' comparison.

But to answer your question, other agendas might be:
1. to make money doing research
2. to find new ways of making profit from the discoveries of the research
3. to provide support for an ideological/political slogan

Posters keep talking about basic research promoting an ideology.

The only ideology basic research supports is the expansion of knowledge in the sciences.

 

[Montrovant]

I didn't move any goalposts. I wasn't discussing whether a fetus is a human being rather than a person. My first comment here was in response to Cecilie's post, in which she mentioned the idea of being a person and connected it to appearance.

Yes, she brought the subject up since this continually repeated debate keeps covering the same terrain, and the person vrs hman being argument is a common defense for dehumanizing unborn babies and is a 'moving the goalposts' fallacy. The unborn baby is obviously a human being, so pro-abortionists want to change the topic to one of what a person is.

Your response affirmed that fallacy, whether you first brought the subject up or not.

Also, since I do not believe in a soul, I cannot believe that the presence of a soul is what determines whether something is a person or not.

The concept of the soul ties into the idea of that distinctiveness between people and animals, whatever yo uwant to attribute it to, metaphysical or natural cognitive ability as secular philosophers have long done. You dont have to believe in a spiritual realm to have some belief that this distinctiveness is valid.

And wow, that's quite a rant to go on based on my post which you didn't even really pay attention to based on your moving goalposts comment!

It is interesting that you think you have provided a rebutal to my 'rant' simply because you think I had gone off topic blaming you for something you think you didnt do.

Is that what passes for reason in your world?

Moving of goalposts would require me to have a position, then change something about that position to fit the evidence. You took my first position and called it moving goalposts. I think the problem is that I jumped into this late, and so my post was unintentionally linked to the rest of the discussion. I was commenting specifically on the post of Cecilie's I quoted, and the part of that post I bolded.

You are using a definition of soul I have not seen commonly used, so this is probably just a semantics argument there is no need to get into. I'll concede you may have been completely correct and that I merely misunderstood your use of the term.

I don't think I provided a rebuttal. I simply found it funny that you would feel the need to make such a long, impassioned response to my post, which I think was pretty limited. Part of the humor is that you would do that after claiming I moved goalposts when it was my opening position in the thread.

As this thread has clearly been derailed and I don't see a need to continue contributing to that, I'm perfectly willing to end this here if you are. We have different opinions about the idea of being a person; I won't claim mine are any more valid, they are just my opinions.

 

[Iridescence]

 

[konradv]

An excellent example. Suppose there was some beneficial treatment for autism that was showing promise of great success. Yet, the money being poured into autism research was going to support a line of research without a single success, but supported some other political and social agenda.

What basic research ever supports any agenda other than the expansion of knowledge?

She is talking about a relatively fruitless avenue of research that has been long demonstrated to be less helpful than other approaches.

Katzndogz brings up research to cure a specific disease, which is an 'apples to oranges' comparison.

But to answer your question, other agendas might be:
1. to make money doing research
2. to find new ways of making profit from the discoveries of the research
3. to provide support for an ideological/political slogan

How about, 4. to keep others under their thumb?

That's the only conclusion I can come up with, since their reasons dropping the research involves value judgements that they're not qualified to make. Man tried to fly for a long time before it happened. If the Wright brothers has listened to these types, we'd still be bound to the earth.

 

[konradv]

Actually, if it's MY tax money being used for it, I have every right to demand answers to that question, and no intention of "just leaving it up to" the idiots who want to collect more and more of my money.

You weren't asking a question, really. You were telling us it had already taken too long, something you'd have no way of knowing.

I believe I said we've wasted more time on it already than is typically spent on something that yields no results, as it has done.

Well, the IS NO "typical time". You're just trying to create a construct that helps your cause, but ultimately DOESN'T EXIST!!!

 

[Katzndogz]

What basic research ever supports any agenda other than the expansion of knowledge?

She is talking about a relatively fruitless avenue of research that has been long demonstrated to be less helpful than other approaches.

Katzndogz brings up research to cure a specific disease, which is an 'apples to oranges' comparison.

But to answer your question, other agendas might be:
1. to make money doing research
2. to find new ways of making profit from the discoveries of the research
3. to provide support for an ideological/political slogan

How about, 4. to keep others under their thumb?

That's the only conclusion I can come up with, since their reasons dropping the research involves value judgements that they're not qualified to make. Man tried to fly for a long time before it happened. If the Wright brothers has listened to these types, we'd still be bound to the earth.

I was merely responding to the example someone else brought up.

If you want to use the Wright brothers, didn't they fund their own research into flight? If someone wants to fund embryonic stem cell research they can. No problem. The government spending millions of dollars on something with no results to the exclusion of productive research simply to support a political and social agenda is totally wrong.

 

[Si modo]

She is talking about a relatively fruitless avenue of research that has been long demonstrated to be less helpful than other approaches.

Katzndogz brings up research to cure a specific disease, which is an 'apples to oranges' comparison.

But to answer your question, other agendas might be:
1. to make money doing research
2. to find new ways of making profit from the discoveries of the research
3. to provide support for an ideological/political slogan

How about, 4. to keep others under their thumb?

That's the only conclusion I can come up with, since their reasons dropping the research involves value judgements that they're not qualified to make. Man tried to fly for a long time before it happened. If the Wright brothers has listened to these types, we'd still be bound to the earth.

I was merely responding to the example someone else brought up.

If you want to use the Wright brothers, didn't they fund their own research into flight? If someone wants to fund embryonic stem cell research they can. No problem. The government spending millions of dollars on something with no results to the exclusion of productive research simply to support a political and social agenda is totally wrong.

But, there are plenty of results from basic research in hESC. Just not applications, yet. If there weren't results, clinical trials would not be approved. And, the results don't just include therapeutic. Advances in culturing procedures, differentiation mechanisms, cloning, etc. have also been realized.

 

[alan1]

Here's an article about artificial blood that researchers believe could be used as a safer supply for transfusions. The article brings up the possibility that embryonic stem cells could be used to make it in sufficient quantity to make it viable :

Artificial blood made from stem cells could be used in transfusions in just two years | Mail Online

It isn't a successful use of ESC's, but if they are actually much easier to replicate in large numbers, it's a potentially good use of them.

Thank you for that informative article, Montrovant.
It's not quit a success with Embryionic/Fetal stem cells though, it is a succuss with adult bone marrow stem cells thogh.
Snipped from the linked article.

The hope comes from Edinburgh and Bristol university researchers who have, for the first time, made thousands of millions of red blood cells from stem cells – ‘master cells’ seen as a repair kit for the body – taken from bone marrow. But with the average blood transfusion containing 2.5million million red blood cells, this is not enough.

Cells taken from human embryos in the first days of life are easier to multiply in large numbers, but the researchers have so far not managed to make such realistic blood.

 

[Montrovant]

Here's an article about artificial blood that researchers believe could be used as a safer supply for transfusions. The article brings up the possibility that embryonic stem cells could be used to make it in sufficient quantity to make it viable :

Artificial blood made from stem cells could be used in transfusions in just two years | Mail Online

It isn't a successful use of ESC's, but if they are actually much easier to replicate in large numbers, it's a potentially good use of them.

Thank you for that informative article, Montrovant.
It's not quit a success with Embryionic/Fetal stem cells though, it is a succuss with adult bone marrow stem cells thogh.
Snipped from the linked article.

The hope comes from Edinburgh and Bristol university researchers who have, for the first time, made thousands of millions of red blood cells from stem cells – ‘master cells’ seen as a repair kit for the body – taken from bone marrow. But with the average blood transfusion containing 2.5million million red blood cells, this is not enough.

Cells taken from human embryos in the first days of life are easier to multiply in large numbers, but the researchers have so far not managed to make such realistic blood.

Absolutely, this is a success for adult rather than embryonic stem cells. I found it interesting, and the implication that adult stem cells may not be able to produce it in sufficient quantities to make a true difference, but that embryonic stem cells might be able to, seemed relevant.

My knowledge of the subject is very limited, but the easily reproduced nature of embryonic stem cells compared to adult stem cells is one of the few things I've repeatedly seen given as an example of the differences between them, and why embryonic stem cell research may be an important thing to study either separately or in concert with adult stem cell research.

 

[JimBowie1958]

What basic research ever supports any agenda other than the expansion of knowledge?

She is talking about a relatively fruitless avenue of research that has been long demonstrated to be less helpful than other approaches.

Katzndogz brings up research to cure a specific disease, which is an 'apples to oranges' comparison.

But to answer your question, other agendas might be:
1. to make money doing research
2. to find new ways of making profit from the discoveries of the research
3. to provide support for an ideological/political slogan

How about, 4. to keep others under their thumb?

That's the only conclusion I can come up with, since their reasons dropping the research involves value judgements that they're not qualified to make. Man tried to fly for a long time before it happened. If the Wright brothers has listened to these types, we'd still be bound to the earth.

Again, that is comparing apples to oranges, as nothing the Wright brothers did required the killing of innocent lives

 

[Ringel05]

Here ya go.

Oh wait. These are adult stem cells....... again........

In Bolli's study, published in The Lancet, 16 patients with severe heart failure received a purified batch of cardiac stem cells. Within a year, their heart function markedly improved. The heart's pumping ability can be quantified through the "Left Ventricle Ejection Fraction," a measure of how much blood the heart pumps with each contraction. A patient with an LVEF of less than 40% is considered to suffer severe heart failure. When the study began, Bolli's patients had an average LVEF of 30.3%. Four months after receiving stem cells, it was 38.5%. Among seven patients who were followed for a full year, it improved to an astounding 42.5%. A control group of seven patients, given nothing but standard maintenance medications, showed no improvement at all.

Studies: Stem cells reverse heart damage - CNN.com