Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[Coyote]

Palerider,
I would just like to point out to you that your thread has been totally hijacked. This was a thread about stem cell research, and since certain people know that the only successful stem cell research has been with adult stem cells, they turn the conversation to an abortion thread.

Who's talking about abortion pussycat?


And, considering that embryonic stemcell research has had precious little time to show results (read NIH's statement) - I fail to see how any valid conclusions can be drawn yet.

I am neither pro nor con - I just don't see how you can draw such sweeping conclusions based on so little information.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Who's talking about abortion pussycat?


And, considering that embryonic stemcell research has had precious little time to show results (read NIH's statement) - I fail to see how any valid conclusions can be drawn yet.

I am neither pro nor con - I just don't see how you can draw such sweeping conclusions based on so little information.

Not sure what my "sweeping conclusions" are, since this thread has turned to abortion, not stem cell research, and you do know that the only successes in stem cell research are with adult stem cells. Those would be facts, not conclusions.

 

[Coyote]

Not sure what my "sweeping conclusions" are, since this thread has turned to abortion, not stem cell research, and you do know that the only successes in stem cell research are with adult stem cells. Those would be facts, not conclusions.

I'm talking about stem cells, not abortion.

I also know that adult stem cells have been studied for almost a century while embryonic stem cells have only been studied for a decade.

Those would be facts, not conclusions.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I'm talking about stem cells, not abortion.

I also know that adult stem cells have been studied for almost a century while embryonic stem cells have only been studied for a decade.

Those would be facts, not conclusions.

embryonic stem cells first started being used in research in 1981, so, you are over a quarter of a century off on that.
I'm pretty sure adult stem cells weren't study as a medical treatment until the 1960's, I may be wrong, but it certainly hasn't been "almost a century".

 

[ArmChair General]

Basically, what it comes down to, is that Palerider Doesn't know what the definition of a human being is.

Its actually pretty funny too.

 

[palerider]

I use the words blastocyst, embryo, and fetus - in themselves scientific terms describing the stage of development. Common usage of child is to describe one already born. The term "the unborn" is new verbage that is a deliberate term to evoke an emotional response. People use the term "with child" and they also use the term "loaf in the oven". Does that mean the product is bread?

But you do not use the terms as they should be used if accurate science is your goal. If you did, you would say human blastocyst, human embryo, and human fetus so as to distinguish them from non humans. Your use of the words is aimed to dehumanize a human being so that you may do with them as you will, thus making you no better than a klansman shouting ni*ger or a nazi pointing and screaming juden.

Be a grown up and face yourself for what you are.

 

[palerider]

Palerider,
I would just like to point out to you that your thread has been totally hijacked. This was a thread about stem cell research, and since certain people know that the only successful stem cell research has been with adult stem cells, they turn the conversation to an abortion thread.

I wonder often if they "know" anything of if they are really in such a state of denial that they genuinely believe the things that they say. And the number of things that they attempt to believe. Just look at this thread. coyote and fonz have thrown all manner of crap against the wall attempting to get someting to stick. Do they believe all of the arguments that they have presented? Any of them? And they roam about the internet as a little tag team losing this discussion wherever they go. Interesting psychology don't you think?

 

[palerider]

Hmmm...good point. Ok, I give up this argument

I will be watching to see if you use it on other boards where you and your "me too" bud fonz try the same tired old arguments.

 

[palerider]

And, considering that embryonic stemcell research has had precious little time to show results (read NIH's statement) - I fail to see how any valid conclusions can be drawn yet.

This argument is a loser as well coyote. By your own concession, adult stem cell research only began in earnest in the 1980's. By the time a decade had passed, there were no less than 35 diseases that had been successfully treated with them. Now, about another decade later, the number is over 80 and new treatments are succeeding so quickly it is difficult for doctors to keep track.

In the same time it took adult stem cells to successfully treat 30 diseases, embryonic stem cells have successfully treated none and the groundbreaking work was already completed by adult stem cell researchers. I fail to see how anyone can justify the continued killing of human beings in the name of scientific research if they don't have some other political agenda. Would you like to explain?

I am neither pro nor con - I just don't see how you can draw such sweeping conclusions based on so little information.

Don't lie. This isn't the only place you post. Your views on abortion are no secret.

 

[palerider]

I'm talking about stem cells, not abortion.

I also know that adult stem cells have been studied for almost a century while embryonic stem cells have only been studied for a decade.

What is it with you? Do you think that if you and I establish that a thing is not true, that you can turn around and tell the same lie to someone else to see if you can trick them with it? From your own post"

"Stem cell research has been around for almost as long as microscopes. Though it is only within the 1980s that more sophisticated genetechnology developments have allowed for the culturing (growing of cells) in laboratories"

You conceeded the point to me that adult stem cell research has only been going on in earnest since the 1980's and now here you are, barely 4 pages later telling the same lie again and this time, we both know that you know it is a lie.

And in the first decade of adult stem cell research, at least 35 diseases were successfully treated.

 

[palerider]

Basically, what it comes down to, is that Palerider Doesn't know what the definition of a human being is.

Its actually pretty funny too.

More sniping? Feel free to jump in if you care to try me. And do tell, what is a human being if not any member of species homo sapiens sapiens?

And what is funny is that you have been reduced to impotent mewling from the sidelines since you know as well as I that you really aren't up to this sort of discussion. Let me change that. It isn't funny, it is damned sad.

 

[Coyote]

But you do not use the terms as they should be used if accurate science is your goal. If you did, you would say human blastocyst, human embryo, and human fetus so as to distinguish them from non humans. Your use of the words is aimed to dehumanize a human being so that you may do with them as you will, thus making you no better than a klansman shouting ni*ger or a nazi pointing and screaming juden.

Be a grown up and face yourself for what you are.

So, now you are reducing yourself to flinging emotional insults? You're no better then those whom you critisize.

The topic of this thread is human stemcell research is it not? Therefor why is it necessary to qualify blastocyst, embryo and fetus with the term "human" - it is what it is. I have also never denied it is a member of the species "homosapiens" have I?

My understanding of stemcell science may be weaker then yours, which I admitted - however, that does not mean I do not understand or have had education in science.

My choice of words is scientifoc. It is you, my friend, who is attempting to add an emotional charge to them as is clearly evident by your rant above. You have no idea what my feelings or thoughts are on this matter - yet you feel quite free to make the crudest assumptions on them. Generally, when people resort to these kind of insults, it indicates they can not make a rational argument.

The issue - in my mind - comes down to this:

A human blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is homosapiens - it is no other species. Scientifically this can be proven. I believe we are in agreement.

However - at what point does it become a "human being", or a person? Your argument, that it is a "person" from the moment of conception is not something that science can easily prove. In fact - it is something of a modern idea. For example, the Catholic Church long held that it was not a "person" until it "quickened". Fonz has posted arguments on the neural development and the development of "conscience" in a fetus for example, that distinquishes it as a "human being" rather than merely "homosapiens" - as something distinct from the rest of animal life. Without it - it is no different from any other animal. With it - it is a human being.

 

[Coyote]

embryonic stem cells first started being used in research in 1981, so, you are over a quarter of a century off on that.
I'm pretty sure adult stem cells weren't study as a medical treatment until the 1960's, I may be wrong, but it certainly hasn't been "almost a century".

Do you have a source for this? What I found was the following - pinpointing 1998 as the first time human embryonic stem cells were isolated:

In 1998, James Thompson (University of Wisconsin - Madison) isolated cells from the inner cell mass of early embryos, and developed the first embryonic stem cell lines. In the same year, John Gearhart (Johns Hopkins University) derived germ cells from cells in fetal gonadal tissue (primordial germ cells). Pluripotent stem cell "lines" were developed from both sources. The blastocysts used for human stem cell research typically come from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures.​

On adult stemcells:

A prominent application of stem cell research has been bone marrow transplants using adult stem cells. In the early 1900's physicians administered bone marrow by mouth to patients with anemia and leukemia. Although such therapy was unsuccessful, laboratory experiments eventually demonstrated that mice with defective marrow could be restored to health with infusions into the blood stream of marrow taken from other mice. This caused physicians to speculate whether it was feasible to transplant bone marrow from one human to another (allogeneic transplant). Among early attempts to do this were several transplants carried out in France following a radiation accident in the late 1950's.​

Source is: http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/history-of-stem-cell-research-faq.htm


It is also interesting to note how this has gotten bound up in "abortion" issues because they are using the surplus or damaged embryos from invitro fertilization, not aborted embryos. It's a bit of a different issue that leads to questions:

What do you do with the surplus embryos, particularly since many of them are likely to be nonviable?

Is it any different then organ donation at that point?

 

[Coyote]

I will be watching to see if you use it on other boards where you and your "me too" bud fonz try the same tired old arguments.

If you have read my posts on other boards then you can see that my thoughts evolve and I am capable of changing my mind.

Are you? Or do you just pick and choose?

 

[Coyote]

This argument is a loser as well coyote. By your own concession, adult stem cell research only began in earnest in the 1980's. By the time a decade had passed, there were no less than 35 diseases that had been successfully treated with them. Now, about another decade later, the number is over 80 and new treatments are succeeding so quickly it is difficult for doctors to keep track.

There is a difference between "began in earnest" and the beginning of research.

According to http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=history+of+stemcell+research&btnG=Google+Search, adult stemcell research was beiing done prior to 1980's in attempting to treat leukemia. A lot of the groundwork was already laid by the time research began in earnest. The same argument can be said for fetal stemcell research however - from what I have read, fetal stemcells behave very differently then adult stemcells.

What is also comes down to is why exactly must it be an either/or argument? Why not conduct research on both until it is clear that one is a dead end? I don't happen to think that it is yet.

You also never addressed the funding aspect of it - without federal funds this type of research is extremely difficult to do and what can be done is limited by both law and funding.

In the same time it took adult stem cells to successfully treat 30 diseases, embryonic stem cells have successfully treated none and the groundbreaking work was already completed by adult stem cell researchers. I fail to see how anyone can justify the continued killing of human beings in the name of scientific research if they don't have some other political agenda. Would you like to explain?

Yes. They don't consider them "human beings". That is your definition. I don't agree with it. Yes, they are homosapiens - but are they are human being yet? I don't feel that human blastocysts are any different then any other animal at that point in development and there is nothing I have seen yet to scientifically prove that they are - except for potential.

Don't lie. This isn't the only place you post. Your views on abortion are no secret.

I haven't lied. AND, unlike you - I try to post sources to back up my statements. You like to twist my words don't you? And use inflammatory terms like "grow up" and "lie". Yet look at how you twisted the following: stemcell research did not begin in earnest until.... - while I said I might concede that point - that same source also indicated there was quite a groundwork laid before then on using stemcells for the treatment of radiation poisoning and leukemia (which you didn't bother to note) - yet you turn around and use that same argument that this vast history of research on adult stemcells laid the groundwork for fetal stemcell research thus is should have showed more results by now since it had less ground to cover. You can't have it both ways.

In addition - from what I've read, embryonic stemcells behave very differently from adult stemcells and this is causing problems.

You are pathetic. You can't address the points so you attack the speaker. Well done.

Since you seem to know my views on abortion - perhaps you'd like to tell me what they are? Or are you going to cherry pick through them and twist them out of context - without the guts to actually debate them head on?