Stem Cell Miracle

[spankyfrank]

I read this article in the New York Post this morning and I found it to be quite interesting:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an amazing medical first, doctors have given a woman a new windpipe that was entirley generated in a lab with the help of her own stem cells. The revolutionary procedure elimiantes the need for anti-0rejection drugs, doctors said. The transplant was given to Claudia Castillo, a 30-year-old Colombian mother of two living in Barcelona, Spain, who had suffered from tuberculosis for years. Doctors first secured a donor windpipe and then stripped off all its cells, leaving only a tube of connective tissue. They used the marrow;s stem cells to create millions of cartilage and tissure cells to cover and line the windpipe. Doctors then used a device to put the new cartilage and tissue onto the windpipe. The new windpipe was transplanted into Castillo in June. Details of the transplant were published online today in the medical journal, The Lancet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, waiting on a stupid kidney transplant list, am thrilled that this is occuring, I really hope that this medical procedure comes to the US soon so I can get on with my life.

[Furtherman]

It's not a miracle, just what you can do with our current scientific technology and advancements.

As soon as the ignorant dummies who, for not one good reason, oppose stem cell research are no longer in a position to dictate laws, this will become common practice and everyone will be better off.

Best of luck finding a donor.

[Zorro]

It's not a miracle, just what you can do with our current scientific technology and advancements.

As soon as the ignorant dummies who, for not one good reason, oppose stem cell research are no longer in a position to dictate laws, this will become common practice and everyone will be better off.

Best of luck finding a donor.

While I do not agree with them. People opposed to stem cell research have legitimate fears regarding their misuse and the misuse of the source. I don't think calling them ignorant dummies really advances your argument otherwise.

The question of science outpacing morality has been debated since the dawn of civilization. There was a time when eugenics was accepted science. Consdering what Germany did during World War II that might have been a good one to slow down.

[Freitag]

Does this mean Creepy Anti-Smoking Voicebox guy has hope?

[Furtherman]

While I do not agree with them. People opposed to stem cell research have legitimate fears regarding their misuse and the misuse of the source. I don't think calling them ignorant dummies really advances your argument otherwise.

Knowing what we know now about stem cells and their useful purposes, anyone opposed most likely thinks they're still extracted from embryonic cells. Advances have been made and no one needs to worry about a needle coming near the point of conception. But how many of those opposed know that? Ignorant dummies.

The question of science outpacing morality has been debated since the dawn of civilization. There was a time when eugenics was accepted science. Consdering what Germany did during World War II that might have been a good one to slow down.

OK, with the exception of some mad scientist cloning an army of himself in an abandoned East German laboratory, I think we can rule out any really bad things happening. Morality has nothing to do with advancing the benefits of stem cell technology.

[HBox]

To be fair, and it pains me greatly to do so, this looks like it was done without embryonic stem cells.

[Zorro]

Knowing what we know now about stem cells and their useful purposes, anyone opposed most likely thinks they're still extracted from embryonic cells. Advances have been made and no one needs to worry about a needle coming near the point of conception. But how many of those opposed know that? Ignorant dummies.



OK, with the exception of some mad scientist cloning an army of himself in an abandoned East German laboratory, I think we can rule out any really bad things happening. Morality has nothing to do with advancing the benefits of stem cell technology.

You know what you're right and anyone that has an opposing view is obviously stupid and worthless. Sorry to try and engage in a conversation.

[Zorro]

To be fair, and it pains me greatly to do so, this looks like it was done without embryonic stem cells.

yeah, but the embryonic are the tastiest.

[Furtherman]

To be fair, and it pains me greatly to do so, this looks like it was done without embryonic stem cells.

Exactly.

You know what you're right and anyone that has an opposing view is obviously stupid and worthless. Sorry to try and engage in a conversation.

Don't be sorry. I'm also thinking of all the dummies, and they are, from the 2004 election who brought up stem cell research was morally wrong, when the fact is prevalent that the technology can be advanced without even going near the embryonic cells.

BUT... let's hope Obama overturns the ban, because then we can develop even more life-saving treatments.

[K.C.]

You know what you're right and anyone that has an opposing view is obviously stupid and worthless. Sorry to try and engage in a conversation.

The problem with the opposing view on Stem Cell is that there's no factual basis to it.

It's in the same line of thought as people who don't believe in medicine, who let their children die from something easily treatable (these stories pop up every once in a while).

People are free to believe what they want, but you can't govern by that.



Now, I think there's is, and should be, a very legitimate discussion to how new medical technologies are regulated, and what this stuff should be used for.

But it's impossible to have a discussion about belief in the conception of life, because there's no factual rationale to it. It's just opinion and belief.

[spankyfrank]

I think I should clarify that miracle in this sense is the fact that we can take a few cells and literally rengerate a brand new organ without having to use any sort of anti-rejection drugs.

Also I think that the medical and science community acts regardless of how the world feels at the time, morallu, politcally, etc. and its because they work in secret that we are able to have proceudres like this comming about. Otherwise we would be debating and discussing until doomsday.

[scottinnj]

Exactly.



Don't be sorry. I'm also thinking of all the dummies, and they are, from the 2004 election who brought up stem cell research was morally wrong, when the fact is prevalent that the technology can be advanced without even going near the embryonic cells.

BUT... let's hope Obama overturns the ban, because then we can develop even more life-saving treatments.

Hey dude, I don't want to hear it okay? I can name you a bunch of dummies for stem cell research who bought the lie that "cures were right around the corner!"
I actually had a patient who was dying of some lung disease tell me "Bush killed me" because he really believed the LIE that told him he could have been cured, but nope, old evil bush would rather have him die then thaw out another embryo.

Stem Cell research was never outlawed, nor was embryonic stem cell research. Bush cut off federal funding for embryonic stem cell research but also allowed the current DNA lines extracted from embryos to be used.

My friend had stem cells with her cancer treatment because she had bone cancer. What Edison University did was take good bone marrow cells from her, extracted the stem cells from them, and let them multiply then re introduced them into her bones. It didn't take, so they discovered that the cells actually had a genetic pre-disposition to cancer. So they took her sister's stem cells and did the same thing, and now she is in remission.

So a lot of us aren't just dummies. A lot of us are for stem cell research, sorry though that our pesky morals have us asking questions about embryonic stem cells.

But I love the swagger of your tone. Do your morals make you opposed to the Death Penalty? A lot of people on this board are opposed to the Death Penalty because of personal morals or their religion. Should I go around calling them all a bunch of dummies because I disagree with them?

Or are we just dummies when our morals don't jive with yours when it's something you want?

[K.C.]

So a lot of us aren't just dummies. A lot of us are for stem cell research, sorry though that our pesky morals have us asking questions about embryonic stem cells.

But I love the swagger of your tone. Do your morals make you opposed to the Death Penalty? A lot of people on this board are opposed to the Death Penalty because of personal morals or their religion. Should I go around calling them all a bunch of dummies because I disagree with them?

Or are we just dummies when our morals don't jive with yours when it's something you want?

You just outlined why this is a topic that can't be debated.

Science vs. Religion always ends in stalemate, because once someone drops the word 'belief', they basically take away the opposing side's ability to argue.


The bottom line is that governments should not bend to the will of specific religious beliefs.

It is the government's job to analyze the facts and determine whether something is beneficial to the people it represents. In the case of stem cells, I haven't heard very many arguments about how this is damaging to humanity, other than the Christian belief that it's a perversion of the conception of life.

[scottinnj]

You just outlined why this is a topic that can't be debated.

Science vs. Religion always ends in stalemate, because once someone drops the word 'belief', they basically take away the opposing side's ability to argue.


The bottom line is that governments should not bend to the will of specific religious beliefs.

It is the government's job to analyze the facts and determine whether something is beneficial to the people it represents. In the case of stem cells, I haven't heard very many arguments about how this is damaging to humanity, other than the Christian belief that it's a perversion of the conception of life.

And that I agree with. I just wonder about when when life begins. I know the heart doesn't beat for a while, nor brain waves form for a while, and self-realization doesn't happen for a long time. But where is the moment where life begins? And what is the "thing" that causes life to begin from a mass of conjoined cells?

On the other hand, the stem cell debate has shifted my thoughts on the Death Penalty. If life is to be preserved "uber alles", then while we debate the future of conjoined cells, we should be having a parallel debate on the future of those who's life is in the balance regarding their actions. While I am still in favor of the Death Penalty for the truly evil, I'm not so sure I could sit on a jury and sentence someone to death based on circumstantial evidence and mitigating circumstances.

My problem with the embryonic stem cell debate is not the subject itself, it's the "poo-pooing" of those in favor of it who dismiss my questions as just another religious zealot in the way of scientific progress.

Edit: I'm also not one of those who have the Catholic POV regarding birth control or abortion. I love The Pill, I believe some abortions are necessary, and also can be persuaded to support stem cell research if science can show me where life is started with the embryo.

[jetdog]

The operation was not performed with embryonic stem cells. The stem cells were taken from this patient's bone marrow. It is important to point out that these particular cells are not as plastic (maleable) as embryonic stem cells, yet they are perfectly matched to one's own antigenic identity. As organisms develop, cells are progressively differentiated. This is the process we don't understand, the differentiation of cells, how do cells "know" to become connective tissue or muscle or skin. What was utilized here was an extractable population of bone marrow cells that were "coerced" into becoming epithelial cells and the epithelial cells were plated onto the scaffold of a 50-something year old man. Experimentaly this has been done in mice for, probably a decade now (patterning stem-cell derived tissues on scaffolds, whether they are plastic or cartilege). This feat does not address the issues of utilizing embryonic stem cells versus mature stem cells. These are two dramatically distinct cell types, both of which need to be intensely studied.
To equate an embryonic stem cell with a tissue derived stem cell is invalid.

[Furtherman]

Hey dude, I don't want to hear it okay?

Did you hit the word dummies and just stop reading? I already explained how procedures can continue without hitting the embryonic nerve of the argument.

But the lung cancer patient was never lied to... embroyonic stem cell research does have the potential to create cures. Not right away of course, and no one ever said it would. It will take years, but eventually will be able to help a great number of diseases to fester.

[skyscraper]

yeah, but the embryonic are the tastiest.

http://riotoseattle.com/StemCell1.JPG
you're breaking my balls.

[LaBoob]

But I love the swagger of your tone.

Me too! :wub:

[Zorro]

You just outlined why this is a topic that can't be debated.

Science vs. Religion always ends in stalemate, because once someone drops the word 'belief', they basically take away the opposing side's ability to argue.


The bottom line is that governments should not bend to the will of specific religious beliefs.

It is the government's job to analyze the facts and determine whether something is beneficial to the people it represents. In the case of stem cells, I haven't heard very many arguments about how this is damaging to humanity, other than the Christian belief that it's a perversion of the conception of life.

Without going on a rant "do you ever get out of the one track everything bad is happening because of religion mode"? Think for yourself once in a while. This lining up on one side of every argument is wearisome. Try getting out of the little box your thought process is in and see if maybe there's another side.

When we let science run amok we wind up with the stanford prison experiment, the tuskegee project, nazi's trying to develop a super race on and on. It wasn't religion that found these unacceptable it was the morals of society.

There is nothing wrong with stem cell research, but to say there should be no debate about it because you've simply decided it to be a religous issue so the government should have no role in deciding is stupid and shortsighted.

[sailor]

It's not a miracle, just what you can do with our current scientific technology and advancements.

As soon as the ignorant dummies who, for not one good reason, oppose stem cell research are no longer in a position to dictate laws, this will become common practice and everyone will be better off.

Best of luck finding a donor.

actually, the whole embryonic stem cell debate doesn't fit here. it was her own cells, which was the whole point of it not being rejected by her body. you're shoehorning your argument where it doesn't fit.

and i see now other made this point before me. eh.

[NewYorkDragons80]

For those who oppose abortion like I do, if the stem cells are coming from an aborted fetus, then the use of that aborted fetus's stem cells for the betterment of science is akin to a murder victim donating organs. I don't understand the opposition to this research from any part of the political spectrum. If you favor legalized abortion, then you're almost certainly a supporter of stem cell research. However, even if you feel a developing child has human rights, then you should also see that all kinds of people die of means that are immoral. A kidney or liver donation is just as ethical whether it comes from someone who dies of natural causes or a murder victim.

[west milly Tom]

It's not a miracle, just what you can do with our current scientific technology and advancements.

As soon as the ignorant dummies who, for not one good reason, oppose stem cell research are no longer in a position to dictate laws, this will become common practice and everyone will be better off.

Best of luck finding a donor.



Thanks for once again gracing us dummies with your enlightened thoughts.

[Furtherman]

You're welcome. But seriously, if the term dummies upset anyone who opposed a specific type of stem cell research, I apologize. I meant the people who opposed it on the basis of a misinformed moral ground. If you do what someone tells you to do without question or curiosity, then you're in danger of being labeled a dummy.

Anywho... anything either side says will not matter in the long run and I hope that long run resides in our lifetime, because the rest of the world has it handled.

China, India, Belgium, France, Sweden, The UK, and even Israel and even Saudi Arabia, whose government called it "the new oil of Saudi Arabia" are all conducting therapeutic embryonic stem cell research.

And once treatments become available for a variety of human problems, any opposition will melt away in our courts. It won't be for the proud reason of helping mankind, but rather it will be for the money it will create. Not proud, but it will be helpful.

[Zorro]

For those who oppose abortion like I do, if the stem cells are coming from an aborted fetus, then the use of that aborted fetus's stem cells for the betterment of science is akin to a murder victim donating organs. I don't understand the opposition to this research from any part of the political spectrum. If you favor legalized abortion, then you're almost certainly a supporter of stem cell research. However, even if you feel a developing child has human rights, then you should also see that all kinds of people die of means that are immoral. A kidney or liver donation is just as ethical whether it comes from someone who dies of natural causes or a murder victim.

Okay...not saying I agree, but here's the argument from the anti embryonic stem cell people. It's not so much that you use stem cells from aborted babies its that you abort babies to use the stem cells. You'd according to their side risk encouraging abortions to provide stem cells or wind up with some sort of Orwellian fetus farm where women are impregnated to harvest the fetus.

I think the argument is silly and I'm in favor of Gubm't funding, but I do agree that unchecked experimentation has not had a stellar record. Remember castrating retards...

[keithy_19]

I was always under the impression that most medical break throughs come from private labs rather than the goverment funded ones.

[scottinnj]

I meant the people who opposed it on the basis of a misinformed moral ground. If you do what someone tells you to do without question or curiosity, then you're in danger of being labeled a dummy.

I've always questioned authority, and that is partially how I came to the moral balance I have now. It's also my upbringing, and the enviroment around me as I grew up.

So unless a pro-lifer was raised by retards and grew up surrounded by waterheads, I wouldn't consider them a dummy. It's just that a pro-lifer, due to religion or a personal belief, not only considers the mother's life, but also considers the life of the fetus.