NationStates Jolt Archive

Yesterday, my girlfriend had me read a chapter in the book Physical by James McManus titled, "Nukular Transfer." I've never liked Bush and on a daily basis, I like him less and less. But what his administration has done to scientific and medical research is absolutely nauseating.

My girlfriend has Type 1 or Juvenile Diabetes. The author of the book has a daughter with the same condition. His daughter has had to go through a vitrectomy, open eye surgery to remove blood clots and scar tissue, which he describes as, "... she needs to remain awake while a gonioscope is held against her eye and an ophthalmologic surgeon burns her pigment epithelium abotu eighteen hundred times with two hundred milliwatts of light. In each eye." Something my girlfriend may have to look forward to in her future. Blindness, kidney failure, amputation - these are just some of the things that people with juvenile diabetes have to look forward to. And unlike Type 2 diabetes, this disease is not reversible.

At least not yet.

Embryo research offers hope to those with Juvenile Diabetes as well as those with Parkinsons, Alzheimers, spinal cord injuries and those with damaged hearts and arteries.

The author describes the process using embryo's in this way, "A human egg is fertilized either by in vitro fertilization or by somatic nuclear transfer, or SCNT. First in the sterilized micromanipulation room of a laboratory, the nucleus of an unfertilized egg is removed. No normal egg is ever fertilized, no embryo ever forms. No life is destroyed during the process. Without it's genetic material, the egg becomes an empty incubator into which a donor cell is boinked by an ultrafine-bore glass pipette wielded by a steady-handed technician watching a cathode-ray screen on which the egg, magnified 250 times, resembles a gray fuzzy donut. Delicately manipulating a joystick, the technician maneuvers the pipette, which has a blunt mouth about twenty micrometers wide. When she hits the trigger, the pipette attaches to the egg like a vacuum nozzle sucking a beach ball.

...

At three to four days, the cluster of cells reaches what is called the compacted morula stage; after five to seven days, there are between one hundred to two hundred cells, called the blasotcyst stage.

...

The blastocyst's inner cell mass is removed (thus "murdering" the blastocyst, if that's how you choose to think of it) and placed in a petri dish, where the embryonic stem cells can form a new line by reproducing themselves."

These cells can then be re-programmed as pancreatic islet cells, nerve cells and muscle cells. No big thing, right?

The President's Council on Bioethics is chaired by Dr. Leon Kass who has both a M.D. and a Ph.D. Impressive. Dr. Kass came up with the idea of the Wisdom of Repugnance. In that, if it makes you say, "yuck"; don't do it. Apparently the technology to give my girlfriend a healthy, normal life gives Dr. Kass the willies. This man also opposed invitro ferilization in the seventies, saying that the children born of this process would be disfigured. Until it turned out he was wrong and he reversed his statement. Had he been in charge, many families simply would not exist today.

"According to the editors of Nature, Kass's "support of human instinctive distaste as a fundamental moral measure of new developments suggests a determination to confront the research agenda not only with ethical discussion but also with irrational fears and pessimistic foreboding."" -from the book. Way to use your education, Dr. Kass.

Also in the book is this quote by William Safire of the New York Times,

"Some argue that we should see if adult stem cells may someday do the regenerative trick. But "someday" doesn't help todays victims. Support is growing for federal regulation of new reproductive techniques, combined with the approval of the use in medical research of some of the several hundred thousand frozen embryos that are stored in fertilization clinics and likely to be destroyed... If public opinion, already trending towards the rights of the afflicted, can be affected by the association of the warmly remembered Reagan name with a federal impetus to stem-cell research and rigorous cloning control, I say it's a good thing. If such reulatory legislation is passed by Congress included a Reagan Biomedical Research Initiative at N.I.H., Bush should feel comfortable signing it."

In 2002, 80 Nobel Laureates sent an open letter to Bush: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37117-2001Feb21?language=printer

Sorry about the length of this. But it's something I feel strongly about.

What possible reason could you come up with for not giving my girlfriend and this author's daughter a right to hope for a normal life?

Even with Ronnie the Cold War Hero's wife pulling for it, the Right still isn't willing to reverse their decision. Someone once said something about Bush being loyal... he clearly is not.

Well someone has to stand up for the sanctity of shapeless blobs of undifferentiated cells. Also I'm pretty sure that the bible prohibits advanced medical research.

My brother's girlfriend is T1, insulin pump 24-7. Apparently there's been a CURE for this type of diabetes for years now. She'll probably die young without the chance of receiving treatment. Why? Drug company monopoly, pure and simple. $$$

My brother's girlfriend is T1, insulin pump 24-7. Apparently there's been a CURE for this type of diabetes for years now. She'll probably die young without the chance of receiving treatment. Why? Drug company monopoly, pure and simple. $$$
You're fucking kidding me.

Even an embryo can't be equalled to a life. The problem is no one is told the truth about this. Instead, Father O'Malley preaches against science of all types and can only win in this sector.

You're fucking kidding me.

Nope. When she and my brother found this out, she went into an unholy depression and we had to calm her down for like a week afterwards.

How has his refusing to pump additional federal dollars into the corporate medical research field wrecked the scientific community. It sounds to me like she's reading a bunch of propaganda designed to get more free money to cover their RD costs. Quite frankly, using tatics such as this would cause me to start closing down their little operations. If the field shows promise, then the corportate research facilities and universitites they are joined at the hip with, will fund the research for it without hesitation and without additional welfare to cover the risk.

How has his refusing to pump additional federal dollars into the corporate medical research field wrecked the scientific community. It sounds to me like she's reading a bunch of propaganda designed to get more free money to cover their RD costs. Quite frankly, using tatics such as this would cause me to start closing down their little operations. If the field shows promise, then the corportate research facilities and universitites they are joined at the hip with, will fund the research for it without hesitation and without additional welfare to cover the risk.

Right-wing doublespeak for "tough shit. We don't care about your problem."

The Bush Administration is killing us all a little, on the inside.

But yea, that's pretty messed up. The Republicans need to stop fucking with the advance of medical science.

Nope. When she and my brother found this out, she went into an unholy depression and we had to calm her down for like a week afterwards.
*sighs* I no were you'er coming from, man... me and my sister are Diabetic too.

I hate the right.

My brother's girlfriend is T1, insulin pump 24-7. Apparently there's been a CURE for this type of diabetes for years now. She'll probably die young without the chance of receiving treatment. Why? Drug company monopoly, pure and simple. $$$


There is a type of rare cancer (can't remember the name-- it was spinal iirc) that had been found to react(hell go away totally) to a certain drug. I can't remember the name of either the product or the manufactuer, but I saw this on DateLine about a year or two ago. Anyway, at the time this special was being filmed, they were down to their last vials of this medicine. The manufacturer stopped producing this stuff cause the cancer it positively effected was such a rare cancer, that whoever stood to to profit, couldn't because of the rarity.

There is a type of rare cancer (can't remember the name-- it was spinal iirc) that had been found to react(hell go away totally) to a certain drug. I can't remember the name of either the product or the manufactuer, but I saw this on DateLine about a year or two ago. Anyway, at the time this special was being filmed, they were down to their last vials of this medicine. The manufacturer stopped producing this stuff cause the cancer it positively effected was such a rare cancer, that whoever stood to to profit, couldn't because of the rarity.

YAY! Capitalism!:rolleyes:

There is a type of rare cancer (can't remember the name-- it was spinal iirc) that had been found to react(hell go away totally) to a certain drug. I can't remember the name of either the product or the manufactuer, but I saw this on DateLine about a year or two ago. Anyway, at the time this special was being filmed, they were down to their last vials of this medicine. The manufacturer stopped producing this stuff cause the cancer it positively effected was such a rare cancer, that whoever stood to to profit, couldn't because of the rarity.

And this is the type of people that will be benifiting from federal funding of medical research. If its not profitable, they won't do it.

I have trouble with this Kevin treudeu introduced concept of the cure won't make drug companies rich so the don't release them idea. I think if any one who was involved in finding the cure who didn't just screw the company he worked for and than marketed the cure after the company refused to would have to be nuts. Think of all the money. Think about the impossability of a successful lawsiut by the drug company. Less of course you are suggesting some measure of physical threat was being used to keep the researchers happy. Or that all researchers have " honer among thieves ".

Maybe she will have a chance to a normal life as the UK is working with stem cells and is (according to news reports) making progress with research into cures, with diabetes being one of the main focus's, as it costs the UK's NHS a huge amount of money in cost's for diabetes treatments.

The President's Council on Bioethics is chaired by Dr. Leon Kass who has both a M.D. and a Ph.D. Impressive. Dr. Kass came up with the idea of the Wisdom of Repugnance. In that, if it makes you say, "yuck"; don't do it. Apparently the technology to give my girlfriend a healthy, normal life gives Dr. Kass the willies. This man also opposed invitro ferilization in the seventies, saying that the children born of this process would be disfigured. Until it turned out he was wrong and he reversed his statement. Had he been in charge, many families simply would not exist today.
I almost can't imagine how we ended up with such boneheaded idiots on the bioethics council, but then I remember that's pretty par for the course.
What possible reason could you come up with for not giving my girlfriend and this author's daughter a right to hope for a normal life?
None, of course. Not like that'll stop Kass, Fukuyama, and friends from trying to halt everything in its tracks, though.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1826

Personally, I like the Bush administration, but that's neither here nor there. Hopefully the article above will give everyone who is counting on stem cells a little hope.

Maybe she will have a chance to a normal life as the UK is working with stem cells and is (according to news reports) making progress with research into cures, with diabetes being one of the main focus's, as it costs the UK's NHS a huge amount of money in cost's for diabetes treatments.
That's the problem with a society so focused on putting everything into the hands of corporations like the US. The government has no stress put on it and has no reason to pursue useful technological development and the corporations have no reason to solve a problem and sell the solution a million times when they can sell a band-aid a million times over and over again.

The idea that cures are being supressed is ridiculous. They're being stalled by freaks like Bush and Kass, but assuming there is a cure out there for any chronic illness and no one has come forward to talk about it - aside from whatever it is the young woman with the insulin pump read about - is not reasonable. The amount of people involved in medical research is too high and at least one of them has a diabetic sister or a father losing his mind to Alzheimer's to come forward and say, this is wrong.

Besides, as was already pointed out, the amount of money that would pour in from a cure from any chronic illness would far outweigh the current treatments. Recently the insulin inhaler was approved and there are already at least two companies planning to distribute the product - nobody knows how expensive it will be yet but it certainly will be expensive, considering it will keep needles out of many people's lives permanently. And the insurance companies will have to cover the cost. A cure will cost a LOT per person, and surely from that will come a vaccine, and since Type I can strike anyone and since Type II is the result of obesity and poor diet there will be billions running for it. Anyway, the amount of money that is currently being spent taking care of people who are dying or wasting away from diabetes costs the government and insurance companies tremendously. There was an article in the NYTimes recently - read it. It's disturbing and gives a good picture of what the future holds for many diabetics, particularly those who live in poverty and have poor diet and treatment options.

That's the problem with a society so focused on putting everything into the hands of corporations like the US. The government has no stress put on it and has no reason to pursue useful technological development and the corporations have no reason to solve a problem and sell the solution a million times when they can sell a band-aid a million times over and over again.
And what's to stop anybody who decides they want to develop a cure from selling it? There are any number of scientists who'd quite like to come up with one, and are working on them. It isn't like every person other than the sick people are in the employ of the corporations.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1826

Personally, I like the Bush administration, but that's neither here nor there. Hopefully the article above will give everyone who is counting on stem cells a little hope.
No doubt that research into adult stem cells or MAPC should be carried out but not at the loss of embryonic stem cell research.

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005730E-D73B-12B9-969983414B7F0000&pageNumber=1&catID=9

*sighs* I no were you'er coming from, man... me and my sister are Diabetic too. I hate the right.

It really FUCKING pisses me off. I don't often get pissed, but when I do it's with good reason. There's a cure for T1, (not for T2 which is totally different and unrelated).. and the money-grubbing f-ing JERKS that run the show want to keep everyone sick and dependent on expensive drugs. It's all about the $$$ . WT *Fuck!* Okay. I feel better now.

It really FUCKING pisses me off. I don't often get pissed, but when I do it's with good reason. There's a cure for T1, (not for T2 which is totally different and unrelated).. and the money-grubbing f-ing JERKS that run the show want to keep everyone sick and dependent on expensive drugs. It's all about the $$$ . WT *Fuck!* Okay. I feel better now.
Do you have any links to anything regarding this?

I'm very skeptical about the idea.

bump (What's the etiquette on bumping a thread?)

bump (What's the etiquette on bumping a thread?)
*asterisks*
or
competition based on another thread ...
or
a further emphasis, italicized...
something along those lines, i guess.
*nods*

*asterisks*
or
competition based on another thread ...
or
a further emphasis, italicized...
something along those lines, i guess.
*nods*
I see, I see. I thought I should reply so that maybe my pet thread will get rolling again even though, in my heart, I know it is destined to be forgotten in the last pages of General.

Embryo research offers hope to those with Juvenile Diabetes as well as those with Parkinsons, Alzheimers, spinal cord injuries and those with damaged hearts and arteries.

I hate to tell you this but according to the lancet you are an idiot

so far every single medical advance that has come of stem cells has come from adult doner

even if you could get cures by killing people how exactly has Bush stopped this? what restrictions has be put on embryo destructive research?

the UK is working with stem cells and is (according to news reports) making progress with research into cures

like what for instance

Schrandtopia']I hate to tell you this but according to the lancet you are an idiot

so far every single medical advance that has come of stem cells has come from adult doner

even if you could get cures by killing people how exactly has Bush stopped this? what restrictions has be put on embryo destructive research?
Only an idiot would call it "killing people." Sorry to tell you this.
Your questions are answered in my first post and what is not there can be answered in the most cursory Google search.

I completely am opposed to the US heath care system (and in this case, the Bush Administration too), because of this reason. Even though Canada's is going through a crisis, the thought of being able to get any kind of help of any kind for free, is a privledge that I'm greatly satisfied with, even if it's not necessarely as good as other countries.

I know this for a fact that with my mental disability, we could NEVER afford the costs for mental treatment, which I hear that health insurance doesn't necessarely cover. As well, Canada is much more left wing, at least right now, so I can see them using this research in our country.

This may sound a little biased, but maybe if you can afford it, move to Canada? For those who need constant medical care, it's a lot cheaper.

you have in fact not answered my question - what measures exactly has the Bush admistration taken to repress this junk science?

*Interjects* About as much effort as he's done finding a peaceful resolution to world relations, oil dependance, US debt, trade deficit, and reducing corruption in the government.

Which is none.

I see, I see. I thought I should reply so that maybe my pet thread will get rolling again even though, in my heart, I know it is destined to be forgotten in the last pages of General.
It wouldn't appear so, now! :)

which I hear that health insurance doesn't necessarely cover.

thats why you read your policy before you sign

As well, Canada is much more left wing, at least right now, so I can see them using this research in our country.

no, they won't

you see - there are no restriction on this research but no private company would ever fund it becuase its too risky (adult stem cell research how ever finds all the private funding it needs) so these people want government funds which your country can't give them

*Interjects* About as much effort as he's done finding a peaceful resolution to world relations, oil dependance, US debt, trade deficit, and reducing corruption in the government.

Which is none.

ssoooo........they are infact not trying to kill this john's girlfriend?

Schrandtopia']you have in fact not answered my question - what measures exactly has the Bush admistration taken to repress this junk science?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6142664/

Research any scientist who is trying to research embryonic stem cells.

It wouldn't appear so, now! :)
Finally... but now I have to go for a few hours. The irony...

all that say is that the president only gave 25 million to this research

again I say to you - how are they preventing this research?

Finally... but now I have to go for a few hours. The irony...
...i have a sneaking suspicion you'll be back ... ;)

My brother's girlfriend is T1, insulin pump 24-7. Apparently there's been a CURE for this type of diabetes for years now. She'll probably die young without the chance of receiving treatment. Why? Drug company monopoly, pure and simple. $$$
This is why capitalism cannot be trusted with our health.

This is why capitalism cannot be trusted with our health.

thats why you can't be trusted with your health

who is this capitalism? I trust myself enough to provide proper insurence

BTW, that post you were quoting was pure bullshit

Schrandtopia']I hate to tell you this but according to the lancet you are an idiot

so far every single medical advance that has come of stem cells has come from adult doner

even if you could get cures by killing people how exactly has Bush stopped this? what restrictions has be put on embryo destructive research?
Ha! You really don't know a thing about stem cell research do you? A stem cell is just that, a cell. Sure, it's a possible person, but there are so many possible people in our systems that there's maybe a 2.5% chance that any of those will become a person.

And also, if by any chance someone in Bush's administration is reading this, FUCK YOU!

Edit: And if you don't know what capitlism is...just get out of this thread.:rolleyes:

And also, if by any chance someone in Bush's administration is reading this, FUCK YOU!
If i may be so bold, i would like to extend that offer to anyone who defends Bush administration tactics.
*nods*

Schrandtopia']all that say is that the president only gave 25 million to this research

again I say to you - how are they preventing this research?
Maybe you missed this part:

"Bush said he would allow research using embryonic stem cells already in existence as of the day of his speech. He said there were more than 60 such stem-cell lines available — and lots of federal money would be available to support research on these cells.

Moreover, as anyone who has bothered to follow this issue knows, there are nothing like 60 stem-cell lines around. The president did not tell the truth. There are no more than 23. And no credible scientist believes that this number is sufficient to undertake a serious clinical research program on embryonic stem cells."

The book I was reading lowered this 23 to ten which were actually usable and not tainted.

Or maybe you missed this:

In addition, the $25 million the president has allocated for embryonic stem-cell research is absurdly low. It's about the same amount of money that has been set aside to study complementary and alternative medicine. The president’s alleged compromise has produced funding on a par with money for studies of St. John’s wort, tai chi and black cohosh root.

Or this:

The president says that embryo destruction is wrong, but does absolutely nothing to prevent the daily destruction of embryos in fertility clinics across the United States. What?

Then there is this:

"Q. How exactly has President Bush's ban on federal financing for most embryonic stem cell study affected your research?

A. It made it more difficult, to say the least. Long before Bush's speech, we had planned stem cell experiments. Afterward, we were able to go forward because the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Juvenile Diabetes Association and Harvard alumni provided private funding.

However, because of administration policy, we had to set up this whole new laboratory that was separate from everything else here at Harvard.

And we had to separate the money in a really scrupulous way. We have an accountant who makes sure that not a penny of federal funds goes to embryonic stem cell research. We have separate everything - light bulbs, computers, centrifuges.

This can be burdensome. Most of the activities at this university receive federal money in some indirect way. So you have to ask yourself, "How can you do the research without any imprint of federal funding?"

And we're not just talking about equipment and real estate; it's people. Let's suppose there's a graduate student who's receiving a federally funded fellowship, can he or she participate in thinking about this research or even look at the data? The answer is no."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24conv.html?ex=1295758800&en=220023f9f9fe5f41&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Finally, there is no loss of life since no life was ever conceived. You say that this is junk science but Adult Stem Cell research is not junk science? Where are you getting this from? Perhaps you don't know that embryonic stem cells are much more adaptable than Adult Stem Cells? Either both is junk science or they're both science. Which do you subscribe to?

...i have a sneaking suspicion you'll be back ... ;)
Ok... you win... but really, I must be going in a minute.

Schrandtopia']you have in fact not answered my question - what measures exactly has the Bush admistration taken to repress this junk science?
"Junk science", you say? Do you actually know anything about this, or are you just tossing in a random assertion?
Anyway, I'd say these aren't junk science:
http://www.liebertpub.com/publication.aspx?pub_id=125
http://www.liebertpub.com/publication.aspx?pub_id=9

Ok... you win... but really, I must be going in a minute.
As do i. IRL and all ... ;)

"Junk science", you say? Do you actually know anything about this, or are you just tossing in a random assertion?
Anyway, I'd say these aren't junk science:
http://www.liebertpub.com/publication.aspx?pub_id=125
http://www.liebertpub.com/publication.aspx?pub_id=9
He calls stem cells people. Do you really think he knows a single thing about SCR?

there is no cure for juvenile diabetes at this time.

well some people can benefit from a pancreas transplant. if you want to go that route, talk to your doctor.

no cure is being suppressed for lack of money. the money that would be made on curing diabetes is huge.

stem cell research may or may not come up with a treatment some day. its not guaranteed. its not just a matter of throwing money at the problem. but if you are interested in it, you can donate money to the cause.

maybe europe can carry the research on this one until a president with a different attitude is elected. why is it the job of the US to do all this research when there are labs all over the world working on it?

there is no cure for juvenile diabetes at this time.

well some people can benefit from a pancreas transplant. if you want to go that route, talk to your doctor.

no cure is being suppressed for lack of money. the money that would be made on curing diabetes is huge.

stem cell research may or may not come up with a treatment some day. its not guaranteed. its not just a matter of throwing money at the problem. but if you are interested in it, you can donate money to the cause.

maybe europe can carry the research on this one until a president with a different attitude is elected. why is it the job of the US to do all this research when there are labs all over the world working on it?
The best doctors in the world are in America. Bush is delaying something that could save the lives of millions of people. I have no doubt the work will be carried out, the real question is "when?".

A pancreatic transplant is not feasible for all diabetics, only those who are the sickest usually qualify and by that time, complications have already made their mark.

I agree with you that the research is not being suppressed for monetary reasons.

Moreover, as anyone who has bothered to follow this issue knows, there are nothing like 60 stem-cell lines around.

60 lines around for federal funding - why can't they pull in outside funding?

The president says that embryo destruction is wrong, but does absolutely nothing to prevent the daily destruction of embryos in fertility clinics across the United States. What?

he tries

Long before Bush's speech, we had planned stem cell experiments. Afterward, we were able to go forward because the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Juvenile Diabetes Association and Harvard alumni provided private funding.

so they've got the lines, they've got the money and they've had 5 and a half years - what have they done? where are the cures

Finally, there is no loss of life since no life was ever conceived.

when an egg is fertalized.......

You say that this is junk science but Adult Stem Cell research is not junk science?

its got results

He calls stem cells people. Do you really think he knows a single thing about SCR?

I called an embryo a person

in case you're tarded

I agree with you that the research is not being suppressed for monetary reasons.

then for what exactly?

The Bush Administration is killing us all a little, on the inside.

But yea, that's pretty messed up. The Republicans need to stop fucking with the advance of medical science.

The Reps are ruining this nation in the name of God.
I don't want a Theocracy for a government, The US better not turn into the Christian version of Iran.

Religious nuts are ruining the world.

Perhaps some of the angrier people here should spend some time reading about the real questions involving Stem Cell research. Embryonic stem cell collection is not a magic bean, it is not the genie's lamp to all of our problems.

One does not simply squeeze a handful of embryos in a garlic press and out pours ambrosia.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/stemcells.html

Still we'll never know if we're not allowed to DubyaGoat.

Schrandtopia']I called an embryo a person

in case you're tarded
Hate to break it to you, but for the first quarter or so of pregnancy, and embryo is basically a fish.

Why are some people thinking that only embryos are used in stem cell research!.

Most labs are using pure stem cells from umbilical cords of newborn baby's.

In his recent State Of The Union address, President Bush publicly declared his contempt for human life. He advocated blocking the research that will save the lives of children with Down's Syndrome. He advocated blocking one of our most valuable avenues in pursuing a cure for cancer. He made no beans about his belief that a blastula is more valuable and worthy than any living human being.

But then, nothing new there. Bush has always been a member of the Fetus Fetishists of America. Their "culture of life" is so beautifully named that it would make George Orwell weep; all "human life" is sacred, until it is born and becomes and actual living human. At which time it immediately depreciates in value, such that we should not waste time healing it, educating it, or even providing it with sufficient food. Rather, we should neglect it, degrade it, and send it off to die for our ego as soon as it is old enough to do so.

Yeah and for that matter if he wanted to he could legalize experimenting on unwilling adults, that would really speed up the cures for the disease...

Come on people! I may not totally agree with him on stemcell research but you can't tell me he's purposely holding it back because he doesn't want these diseases cured...these conspiracy theories are bugging me.

Yeah and for that matter if he wanted to he could legalize experimenting on unwilling adults, that would really speed up the cures for the disease...
And once again we see the blastocyst held up as equivalent to a born human being.

Gee, I guess if we allow people to eat cattle then we might as well eat each other! Because cattle and people are the same thing!


Come on people! I may not totally agree with him on stemcell research but you can't tell me he's purposely holding it back because he doesn't want these diseases cured...these conspiracy theories are bugging me.

It's not some mysterious conspiracy. It's simple, basic, uncomplicated politics. Lots of Americans participate in Fetus Fetishism, and Bush knows it. He knows what plays well. It's kind of like how I am pretty sure Bush doesn't give a damn about gay people or "the sanctity of marriage," he just knows that hating on the faggots is a great way to win over a major demographic.

As far as I'm aware, Bush's hostility to stem cell research is leading to companies who are funding this sort of research elsewhere. (North Korea, for a start.) Obviously medical firms are far less important to the economy than Haliburton...
Just out of interest, of those of you claiming that a blob of undifferentiated tissue is already a person, how many of you support the death penalty?

Bottle good point I guess, but the embryos you're talking about are more complicated than "blobs of tissue"

And I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty.

Fetus Fetishism? Oh come now, deliberate nastiness is not a position. It is simply reminiscent of days gone by, like when white civil rights advocates were called "Ni.... Lovers" like that was a bad thing or somehow was a counter to their demand for equal rights for minorities.

Might as well call the pro-choice advocate's position nothing but descendant dissipation.

Bottle good point I guess, but the embryos you're talking about are more complicated than "blobs of tissue"
Possibly, but it's a far more accurate description than referring to the things as babies or people. Do you honestly feel that aborting foetuses is less acceptable morally than damning kids to a miserable childhood under parents who aren't capable of looking after them?

And I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty.
Good for you: I was assuming that anybody who's complaining about this was likely to be the sort of hypocrite who sees nothing wrong with executing people so long as they're old enough to vote.

someone mentioned uk research earlier on, this link outlines the goverments position and also gives info about some other countries policies

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/uksci/index.htm

Good for you: I was assuming that anybody who's complaining about this was likely to be the sort of hypocrite who sees nothing wrong with executing people so long as they're old enough to vote.

Really, how is that position hypocrital? The death penalty is a punishment. It is the result of a conscious decision made by the individual who is being put to death. The killing of a human fetus, on the other hand, is the result of another person's decision.

What is the good of saving a life if it kills another? Killing one so that others may live is simply barbaric. Although I deeply symphatize with you, perhaps there is a reason for her suffering. Killing an innocent life to save someone whom is living, however, is brutal, and if you use the "But they will be dead anyway" logiuc, you are following in the steps of Adolf Hitler, he used the exact same logic the justify experimentation on Jewish prisoners.

As for abortion, it NOT your body that is growing inside you, it is another human. So stuff the rights talk, because you have no right to kill someone else, even if they are unborn

What is the good of saving a life if it kills another? Killing one so that others may live is simply barbaric. Although I deeply symphatize with you, perhaps there is a reason for her suffering. Killing an innocent life to save someone whom is living, however, is brutal, and if you use the "But they will be dead anyway" logiuc, you are following in the steps of Adolf Hitler, he used the exact same logic the justify experimentation on Jewish prisoners.

And this thread is finished.

As for abortion, it NOT your body that is growing inside you, it is another human. So stuff the rights talk, because you have no right to kill someone else, even if they are unborn
It is not legally defined as a person until can exist outside of the body, and it certainly doesn't warrant being treated as one until such time as it's organised its nervous system into the condition that will exist when it's born.

Newtsberg: I just find it hilarious (and a little pitiful) that so many people think it's an abomination to dispose of something that isn't actually a human being yet but don't have a problem with killing somebody who has been one for at least eighteen years: if all human life is sacred (which is what most anti abortion propaganda boils down to) then a murderer on death row is no less so than one of the unborn.

As for abortion, it NOT your body that is growing inside you, it is another human. So stuff the rights talk, because you have no right to kill someone else, even if they are unborn

If they're unborn, are they really someone else?

This is not an abortion debate thread, I just thought Id mention it. As said before, this thread is finished. :headbang:

And this thread is finished.
Until such time as it's pointed out that the experimentation on prisoners was based on petty sadism rather than research that had any real purpose, of course.

Actually, they experimented new weapons on the Jews. Bio weapons, machine guns, you name it, they did it. Also, Jews where used as living cadavers for medics.

Check your facts before you try an restart a debate that I ended :P

As you can tell, I am a hard right reactionist :P

Actually, they experimented new weapons on the Jews. Bio weapons, machine guns, you name it, they did it. Also, Jews where used as living cadavers for medics.
As I say, petty sadism rather than anything constructive. Comparing this sort of ridiculous nonsense to stem cell research is pretty offensive.

Until such time as it's pointed out that the experimentation on prisoners was based on petty sadism rather than research that had any real purpose, of course.

He busted out the Godwin.

Neocons attitude against medical research is really scandalous. It won't help much, but you and your girlfriend have my complete support on this issue. I really hope the future will be better before it's too late for her.

What pisses me off the most is all the money wasted in military, advertising, ... and the record profits of drugs company while medical research is struggling for its funding, but that's another issue...

Good luck !

What is the good of saving a life if it kills another? Killing one so that others may live is simply barbaric. Although I deeply symphatize with you, perhaps there is a reason for her suffering. Killing an innocent life to save someone whom is living, however, is brutal, and if you use the "But they will be dead anyway" logiuc, you are following in the steps of Adolf Hitler, he used the exact same logic the justify experimentation on Jewish prisoners.
You my friend...

Let's start at the beginning. Nothing is being killed. Life is prevented from starting. It is all done in a lab. Cells... just freaking f'n cells.

There is no reason for her suffering. The slightest suggestion of this by you has tightened my stomach into a knot and it's only your ignorance which makes me not lose it.

Your comments on the Holocaust do not merit reply.

Neocons attitude against medical research is really scandalous. It won't help much, but you and your girlfriend have my complete support on this issue. I really hope the future will be better before it's too late for her.

What pisses me off the most is all the money wasted in military, advertising, ... and the record profits of drugs company while medical research is struggling for its funding, but that's another issue...

Good luck !
There is infinite more hope for her than for some others with diseases that stem cell research may help cure. Diabetes is, thankfully, controllable to a certain degree.

There is a type of rare cancer (can't remember the name-- it was spinal iirc) that had been found to react(hell go away totally) to a certain drug. I can't remember the name of either the product or the manufactuer, but I saw this on DateLine about a year or two ago. Anyway, at the time this special was being filmed, they were down to their last vials of this medicine. The manufacturer stopped producing this stuff cause the cancer it positively effected was such a rare cancer, that whoever stood to to profit, couldn't because of the rarity.

This may sound harsh, but... what would you WANT the company to do then ? Go bankrupt ? Let the government aid by investing millions of dollars ? But why in a *rare* disease then ? Lots of common diseases also require more funding, more aid, more money.

To show the ethical dilemma: some people require treatments that cost over $100 000 a year. With that money one could also keep 1000 other people, with less expensive diseases, alive.
What should one do ? How much is a single human life worth ?

This may sound harsh, but... what would you WANT the company to do then ? Go bankrupt ? Let the government aid by investing millions of dollars ? But why in a *rare* disease then ? Lots of common diseases also require more funding, more aid, more money.

To show the ethical dilemma: some people require treatments that cost over $100 000 a year. With that money one could also keep 1000 other people, with less expensive diseases, alive.
What should one do ? How much is a single human life worth ?
It's worth as much as you're willing to fight for it. I'm sure if you were dying of this rare disease, you'd find comfort in the fact that at least the company that could have cured you didn't have to file chapter 11.

I understand what you are saying but it only shows that health care is an imperfect system. It remains a problem to be solved, not one to be given up on with the thought, "well, that's business."

This may sound harsh, but... what would you WANT the company to do then ? Go bankrupt ? Let the government aid by investing millions of dollars ? But why in a *rare* disease then ? Lots of common diseases also require more funding, more aid, more money.

To show the ethical dilemma: some people require treatments that cost over $100 000 a year. With that money one could also keep 1000 other people, with less expensive diseases, alive.
What should one do ? How much is a single human life worth ?

The problem is that such an ethical dilemma is also a false one: pharmaceutical companies are not so borderline-unprofitable that they need boner and hair-growth pills to keep them afloat instead of cures for cancer. They make record profits all the time, and they do so primarily by slightly reinventing old products to repatent and using government-funded research to create products that usually appeal to the vanity of boomers. The problem is the quest for profit over the public good, not the ethics of creating Levitra vs. an unprofitable AIDS vaccine.

Check your facts before you try an restart a debate that I ended :PYou didn't win it. You violated Godwin's Law, which says that no once somebody evokes the name of Hitler in an online debate, the debate is over and the person who evoked it is the loser.

You didn't win it. You violated Godwin's Law, which says that no once somebody evokes the name of Hitler in an online debate, the debate is over and the person who evoked it is the loser.
He seems to just want the issue to go away. What a wonderful tactic. See a thread you don't like, evoke the name of Hitler (or is it invoke?) and see the argument disappear.

Cells... just freaking f'n cells.

how many cells till you give it the same care as your girlfriend?

what is the magic number where it is no longer "just cells" and a human being?

It really FUCKING pisses me off. I don't often get pissed, but when I do it's with good reason. There's a cure for T1, (not for T2 which is totally different and unrelated).. and the money-grubbing f-ing JERKS that run the show want to keep everyone sick and dependent on expensive drugs. It's all about the $$$ . WT *Fuck!* Okay. I feel better now.
Here's a cure (http://www.healthtalk.ca/diabetes_cure_031005_899333.php), and it has nothing to do with stemcells.

Just out of interest, of those of you claiming that a blob of undifferentiated tissue is already a person, how many of you support the death penalty?
GOOD f*cking question. *bows*


?

As for abortion, it NOT your body that is growing inside you, it is another human. So stuff the rights talk, because you have no right to kill someone else, even if they are unborn
How 'bout if they aren't your religion?

This is not an abortion debate thread, I just thought Id mention it. As said before, this thread is finished. :headbang:
...free to go... *shoo-ing motion*
Cahnt asked a good question, and frankly, it's worth it to see more responses from the earlier posters on this thread.

Kill them. Kill them all. You must wreak pre-emptive vengeance.


Seriously though, I've always thought this particular stance of the Bush administration was fucked up.

How has his refusing to pump additional federal dollars into the corporate medical research field wrecked the scientific community. It sounds to me like she's reading a bunch of propaganda designed to get more free money to cover their RD costs. Quite frankly, using tatics such as this would cause me to start closing down their little operations. If the field shows promise, then the corportate research facilities and universitites they are joined at the hip with, will fund the research for it without hesitation and without additional welfare to cover the risk.

Have you ever heard of the National Institutes of Health? It is not a corporate entity.

Have you ever heard of the National Institutes of Health? It is not a corporate entity.
I'm coming to the conclusion that the fella cited the wrong organ in her/his nation name. More along the lines of what was used in the movie Porky's.

Schrandtopia']how many cells till you give it the same care as your girlfriend?

what is the magic number where it is no longer "just cells" and a human being?
Heartbeat might be a good place to start. But then we start getting into other issues and I am also pro-choice.

Here's a cure (http://www.healthtalk.ca/diabetes_cure_031005_899333.php), and it has nothing to do with stemcells.
Wow...for some reason in other threads you've said that people not from the US shouldn't have human rights, but you get all uppity about abortion. Hyprocrite.

Here's a cure (http://www.healthtalk.ca/diabetes_cure_031005_899333.php), and it has nothing to do with stemcells.
That does offer much hope. But still no reason why research shouldn't be carried out with stem cells for other debilitating diseases along with curing type 1.

Heartbeat might be a good place to start. But then we start getting into other issues and I am also pro-choice.

so when does human life start? when do you have the right not to be aborted?

That does offer much hope. But still no reason why research shouldn't be carried out with stem cells for other debilitating diseases.

becuase to do it you need to kill people?

Schrandtopia']becuase to do it you need to kill people?
Explain to me how stem cell research is carried out because I don't think you understand it in the slightest.

Schrandtopia']so when does human life start? when do you have the right not to be aborted?
birth? heartbeat? i dunno, nor do i care, so long as my freedoms aren't restricted because of someone else's religion.

Schrandtopia']so when does human life start? when do you have the right not to be aborted?
When you say, "Waahhh."
This is off topic.

Explain to me how stem cell research is carried out because I don't think you understand it in the slightest.

an egg is fertalised with some substance, allowed to grow for a period, killed and cells are extracted

other means of stem cell research are conducted but as I understand it that is how the type we're talking about and the type the president doesn't like

birth? heartbeat? i dunno, nor do i care, so long as my freedoms aren't restricted because of someone else's religion.

this has nothing to do with religion - why do you feel the need to bring that up?

Schrandtopia']an egg is fertalised with some substance, allowed to grow for a period, killed and cells are extracted

other means of stem cell research are conducted but as I understand it that is how the type we're talking about and the type the president doesn't like
From my first post:
"the nucleus of an unfertilized egg is removed. No normal egg is ever fertilized, no embryo ever forms. No life is destroyed during the process."

Schrandtopia']this has nothing to do with religion - why do you feel the need to bring that up?
obviously it does, because abortion is 99% a religious issue.

From my first post:
"the nucleus of an unfertilized egg is removed. No normal egg is ever fertilized, no embryo ever forms. No life is destroyed during the process."

what would happen if that egg was left to live?

revoming the nucleus from an unfertilized egg would make that person a clone but still a person

obviously it does, because abortion is 99% a religious issue.

I assure you if that was true I would have gotten the memo

Schrandtopia']what would happen if that egg was left to live?

revoming the nucleus from an unfertilized egg would make that person a clone but still a person
Do you have any clue what you are talking about?
If the egg cell wasn't fertilized, and had its nucleus taken out, it wouldn't contain genetic material. There would be no way for it to become anything, and I rather doubt it would be able to function much without a nucleus.

But what is it that you think would make it a clone? Gametes contain only one set of chromosomes. That is half the amount needed for a living organism. So no, there's nothing about clones involved at all.

Schrandtopia']I assure you if that was true I would have gotten the memo
It's a top concern of the Religious Right which our President subscribes to.

Schrandtopia']what would happen if that egg was left to live?

revoming the nucleus from an unfertilized egg would make that person a clone but still a person
UNFERTILIZED. It is no more killing someone than if a man decided not to have sex with his wife during the period she was fertile. A cell is not a person. If it was, my body would be guilty of over 100 million counts of murder.

Abortion and stem cell research are two different subjects. Abortion is much messier than stem cell research.