Does this have religous significance?

[OzmO]

Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/09/obama.stem.cells/index.html

 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama signed an executive order Monday repealing a Bush-era policy that limited federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research.
President Obama signs the executive order on stem cell policy Monday at the White House.

President Obama signs the executive order on stem cell policy Monday at the White House.

Obama's move overturns an order signed by President Bush in 2001 that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.

Obama also signed a presidential memorandum establishing greater independence for federal science policies and programs.

Critics of the Bush administration argued the former president allowed political factors improperly to influence funding decisions for science initiatives as well as to skew official government findings on issues such as global warming.

Obama's action is part of a broader effort to separate science and politics and "restore scientific integrity in governmental decision-making," White House domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes said Sunday.

In a conference call with reporters, Barnes said funding research is also part of the administration's plan to boost the plunging U.S. economy.

"Advances with regard to science and technology help advance our overall national goals around economic growth and job creation," she said, adding, "I think anytime you make an effort to try and separate these pieces of the puzzle, you're missing the entire picture."
Don't Miss

    * Congressman: Stem cell reversal a distraction
    * Obama to reverse embryonic stem cell ban
    * Q&A: The stem cell debate

But one prominent GOP critic on Sunday accused the administration of using the issue as a distraction from the country's economic slump.

"Why are we going and distracting ourselves from the economy? This is job No. 1. Let's focus on what needs to be done," Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, told CNN's "State of the Union."

Cantor, the Republican whip in the House of Representatives, has been among the leaders of GOP opposition to Obama's economic policies.

Because stem cells have the potential to turn into any organ or tissue cell in the body, research advocates say they could yield cures to debilitating conditions such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease and spinal injuries. But because work on embryonic stem cells involves the destruction of human embryos, many conservatives supported the limits Bush imposed by executive order in 2001.

Bush twice vetoed legislation -- in July 2006 and June 2007 -- that would have expanded federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

At the time, Bush argued that scientific advances allowed researchers to conduct groundbreaking research without destroying human embryos. Bush's actions led to Democratic criticism that he had put politics over science.

Dr. Harold Varmus, president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and co-chairman of Obama's science advisory council, said Sunday that Obama will "endorse the notion that public policy must be guided by sound, scientific advice."

Obama's order will direct the National Institutes of Health to develop revised guidelines on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research within 120 days, said Varmus, who joined Barnes in the conference call with reporters.

"The president is, in effect, allowing federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research to the extent that it's permitted by law -- that is, work with stem cells themselves, not the derivation of stem cells," he said.

Supporters of the ban said researchers could still obtain private funding or explore alternatives such as adult stem cells. Opponents said the research could be carried out using embryos left over in fertility clinics, which otherwise would be discarded.
advertisement

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, has said the Bush policy imposed ethical limits on science.

"My basic tenet here is I don't think we should create life to enhance life and to do research and so forth," Shelby said. "I know that people argue there are other ways. I think we should continue our biomedical research everywhere we can, but we should have some ethics about it."

[liberalismo]

Yes. Apparently embryos the size of my thumb are in fact "babies" with souls. 

[Migs]

nope.  It's actually the first and so far only policy I have agreed with from him.

[loco]

Great! Apparently, you guys now want your tax dollars to be wasted on the so far useless and dangerous Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

Christians support stem cell research, Adult stem cell research.  Christians do not support embryonic stem cell research because it involves the creation of embryos bound for destruction in the process.  But what many of you seem to be unaware of is that embryonic stem cell has always been funded by some private companies and by some non-US governments, yet embryonic stem cell research has yet to show any promise, while Adult stem cell research has already shown to promise.


List of Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patients
Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

Forbes Magazine provided additional confirmation that adult stem cell research is far more successful that embryonic stem cell experimentation.  In their September 3, 2001 issue, page 36, they quoted an article printed in the Wall Street Journal Europe by Richard Miniter.  

“Of the 15 US biotech companies solely devoted to developing cures using stem cells, only two focus on embryos.  Embryo stem cell research is at the drawing-board stage – not for lack of funds but for lack of promising research to finance.  Venture capitalists have no agenda beyond making money; if they see embryo projects that are likely to bear fruit over the next five to seven years – the usual VC time horizon – they will fund them.  That the market is speaking so loudly against embryo stem cell research probably explains why embryo researchers are so eager to reverse the ban on government funding.”

Diane Irving, Ph.D., a former professor of biology at Georgetown University and former biochemist with the National Cancer Institute, said, “I have argued that adult stem cells are better because they are closer to the stage of differentiation than embryonic or fetal cells – therefore they do not have as long a distance to travel differentiation-wise as the younger cells.  Therefore there is far less of a chance for genetic errors to be accumulated in the implanted cells and less side effects for the patient to deal with.”
http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/bradsarticle.html

These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities. The risks involved in using the cytomegalovirus promoter to drive over-expression of the transcription factor are undetermined. To avoid immune rejection, the ES cells have to be tissue-matched from a bank of stem cells created from ‘spare’ human embryos. Otherwise, a special human embryo has to be created for the purpose, by transferring the patient’s genetic material into an empty egg, a procedure prone to failure and morally objectionable to many, including scientists.

By contrast, adult stem cells could be transplanted directly without genetic modification or pre-treatments. They simply differentiate according to cues from the surrounding tissues and do not give uncontrollable growth or tumours. The adult stem cells also show high degrees of genomic stability during culture. There is no problem with immune rejection because the cells can readily be isolated from the patients requiring transplant. And there is no moral objection involved. Better yet, research can be directed towards encouraging adult stem cells to regenerate and repair damaged tissues in situ, without the need for cell isolation and in vitro expansion. By minimising intervention, risks are reduced, as well as cost, making the treatment available to everyone and not just the rich.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php

[liberalismo]

Scientists would not use embryonic stem cell research if other methods were more effective. Scientists are much more up to date on the most break through methods, and they know the differences.

Which ever method scientist find most useful or productive is what will be used. Trying to ban a specific method, or force the hand of science, never works.

You claim that non-embryonic stem cells are more effective? Find, Convince the SCIENTISTS this by proving it in peer reviewed journals and getting them to use this more effective method.

But do NOT try to get the public stirred up and try to ban a scientific method for religious reasons.

[MCWAY]

Scientists would not use embryonic stem cell research if other methods were more effective. Scientists are much more up to date on the most break through methods, and they know the differences.

Which ever method scientist find most useful or productive is what will be used. Trying to ban a specific method, or force the hand of science, never works.

You claim that non-embryonic stem cells are more effective? Find, Convince the SCIENTISTS this by proving it in peer reviewed journals and getting them to use this more effective method.

You mean like this one:

Peer-Reviewed References (not a complete listing, sample references) http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf

Or this one:


The Facts - Prentice, D. "Adult Stem Cells" Appendix K in Monitoring Stem Cell Research: A Report of the President's Council on Bioethics (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2004), 309-346 http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf

But do NOT try to get the public stirred up and try to ban a scientific method for religious reasons.

At last count, adult stem cells have cured/treated some 73 diseases; embryonic stem cells……..ABSOLUTELY NONE!!!!

I posted the last time someone brought it up, which you quickly ducked. In fact, it was the same link that Loco gave in his thread (only it was attached in an article from AIG; nevermind the fact that the interview was with a guy who actually runs a stem cell research company).
 
 
The score........

Great! Apparently, you guys now want your tax dollars to be wasted on the so far useless and dangerous Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

Christians support stem cell research, Adult stem cell research.  Christians do not support embryonic stem cell research because it involves the creation of embryos bound for destruction in the process.  But what many of you seem to be unaware of is that embryonic stem cell has always been funded by some private companies and by some non-US governments, yet embryonic stem cell research has yet to show any promise, while Adult stem cell research has already shown to promise.


List of Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patients
Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

Forbes Magazine provided additional confirmation that adult stem cell research is far more successful that embryonic stem cell experimentation.  In their September 3, 2001 issue, page 36, they quoted an article printed in the Wall Street Journal Europe by Richard Miniter.  

“Of the 15 US biotech companies solely devoted to developing cures using stem cells, only two focus on embryos.  Embryo stem cell research is at the drawing-board stage – not for lack of funds but for lack of promising research to finance.  Venture capitalists have no agenda beyond making money; if they see embryo projects that are likely to bear fruit over the next five to seven years – the usual VC time horizon – they will fund them.  That the market is speaking so loudly against embryo stem cell research probably explains why embryo researchers are so eager to reverse the ban on government funding.”

There you have it!!!!

As the saying goes, Loco, “If it don’t make $$$$$, it don’t make sense”.

Would you invest in a something wth an 0-74* track record?

That's why ESCR folks begged Obama for the loot.

Diane Irving, Ph.D., a former professor of biology at Georgetown University and former biochemist with the National Cancer Institute, said, “I have argued that adult stem cells are better because they are closer to the stage of differentiation than embryonic or fetal cells – therefore they do not have as long a distance to travel differentiation-wise as the younger cells.  Therefore there is far less of a chance for genetic errors to be accumulated in the implanted cells and less side effects for the patient to deal with.”
http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/bradsarticle.html

These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities. The risks involved in using the cytomegalovirus promoter to drive over-expression of the transcription factor are undetermined. To avoid immune rejection, the ES cells have to be tissue-matched from a bank of stem cells created from ‘spare’ human embryos. Otherwise, a special human embryo has to be created for the purpose, by transferring the patient’s genetic material into an empty egg, a procedure prone to failure and morally objectionable to many, including scientists.

By contrast, adult stem cells could be transplanted directly without genetic modification or pre-treatments. They simply differentiate according to cues from the surrounding tissues and do not give uncontrollable growth or tumours. The adult stem cells also show high degrees of genomic stability during culture. There is no problem with immune rejection because the cells can readily be isolated from the patients requiring transplant. And there is no moral objection involved. Better yet, research can be directed towards encouraging adult stem cells to regenerate and repair damaged tissues in situ, without the need for cell isolation and in vitro expansion. By minimising intervention, risks are reduced, as well as cost, making the treatment available to everyone and not just the rich.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php

To top it all off, the scientific research keeps popping up, indicating that you can indeed get plupotent stem cells from the adult cells. In other words, there is absolutely NO disease that embryonic stem cell can "potentially" cure that adult stem cell cannot cure.

Not to mention, scientists are finding more sources of valuable stem cells, including one I've mentioned previously: baby teeth.

*: I forgot about that recent article from CNN, about a guy with HIV being treated with ADULT stem cells.

[Dos Equis]

lol at the scoreboard.    

[MCWAY]

lol at the scoreboard.    

I believe they call that a "skunk".

[Dos Equis]

I believe they call that a "skunk".

Yes.  Or in softball it would be the "mercy rule."   

[liberalismo]

MCway, Scientist don't waste their time on things that don't produce results. If Embryonic stemcells were so ineffective, scientists would not waste time on them. The truth, however, is that we're still doing research. More research needs to be done on embryonic stem cells before cures can become viable. That's how it works. Let the scientists do their work and leave them the fuck alone. Trying to ban them from using microscopic embryos for stem cells is absurdity, even if you think it's ineffective, they have a choice to study it and if it produces no results then that is their career. If, after proper study, it is shown that they aren't required then they won't be used. Until then...Shut up.

[OzmO]

MCway, Scientist don't waste their time on things that don't produce results. If Embryonic stemcells were so ineffective, scientists would not waste time on them. The truth, however, is that we're still doing research. More research needs to be done on embryonic stem cells before cures can become viable. That's how it works. Let the scientists do their work and leave them the fuck alone. Trying to ban them from using microscopic embryos for stem cells is absurdity, even if you think it's ineffective, they have a choice to study it and if it produces no results then that is their career. If, after proper study, it is shown that they aren't required then they won't be used. Until then...Shut up.

Primitive people who worship writings of other primitive people cannot understand what you just wrote.

It makes a great sermon though. 

[MCWAY]

MCway, Scientist don't waste their time on things that don't produce results. If Embryonic stemcells were so ineffective, scientists would not waste time on them. The truth, however, is that we're still doing research. More research needs to be done on embryonic stem cells before cures can become viable. That's how it works. Let the scientists do their work and leave them the fuck alone. Trying to ban them from using microscopic embryos for stem cells is absurdity, even if you think it's ineffective, they have a choice to study it and if it produces no results then that is their career. If, after proper study, it is shown that they aren't required then they won't be used. Until then...Shut up.

Primitive people who worship writings of other primitive people cannot understand what you just wrote.

It makes a great sermon though. 

It appears that neither one of you can read very well, as of late.

"If, after proper study......"? There's been plenty of "proper study" happening with regards to embryonic stem cell research. Name one disease it has cured or treated successfully.


The big complaint among folks in the USA about this issue is that ESCR hasn't been "properly" funded. But, as Loco indicated from his post, other countries have had their governments fund ESCR for a number of years. And private companies both in America and elsewhere have had more than enough opportunity to invest.

The private companies don't invest in ESCR for one simple reason (that apparently neither you nor Ozmo seems to get): IT HAS PRODUCED NOTHING. Investors don't like losing money. Why don't you tell them how about the  "absurdity" of their NOT pumping their $$$$$ into ESCR.

[ToxicAvenger]

MCway, Scientist don't waste their time on things that don't produce results. If Embryonic stemcells were so ineffective, scientists would not waste time on them. The truth, however, is that we're still doing research. More research needs to be done on embryonic stem cells before cures can become viable. That's how it works. Let the scientists do their work and leave them the fuck alone. Trying to ban them from using microscopic embryos for stem cells is absurdity, even if you think it's ineffective, they have a choice to study it and if it produces no results then that is their career. If, after proper study, it is shown that they aren't required then they won't be used. Until then...Shut up.

agreed, and when we do come up for a cure for ..lets say Lupus from said forth research and you are a devout idio..errr limbaugheierr i mean christian...then DONT  ACCEPT the treatment and go meet jesus with a firm belief in  your iciocy firmly in place, and a praise jesus smily to boot, all the while flailing wildly around claiming that you can feel jesus inside of you  <wink nudge>


yanno..come to think of it...i dont wanna go to heaven...it'll be full of morons with low IQs and i'll end up begging for hell

[MCWAY]

agreed, and when we do come up for a cure for ..lets say Lupus from said forth research and you are a devout idio..errr limbaugheierr i mean christian...then DONT  ACCEPT the treatment and go meet jesus with a firm belief in  your iciocy firmly in place, and a praise jesus smily to boot, all the while flailing wildly around claiming that you can feel jesus inside of you  <wink nudge>


yanno..come to think of it...i dont wanna go to heaven...it'll be full of morons with low IQs and i'll end up begging for hell

The only way that happens is if heaven, in your case, is hall of mirrors.

One, why would I agree to accept a treatment to cure a disease that I don't have?

Two, You and Liberalismo are singing the praises of something that, TO THIS VERY DAY, hasn't cure one single disease; whereas I support the research that is cheaper, safer, has no ethical controversies, and has cured at least 70 diseases.....INCLUDING LUPUS (It's #28 on the list that Loco linked on his post). That would mean that it's a WASTE OF MONEY experimenting using embryonic stem cell research to cure something that adult stem cell research already covers.

Three, at the rate things are going, the Lord may return before embryonic stem cell research cures a single disease, let alone be the sole cure for any ailment.

[Butterbean]

Sunday, March 15, 2009
Charles Krauthammer
Why let embryos be used without limit?

Last week, the White House invited me to a signing ceremony overturning the Bush (43) executive order on stem cell research. I assume this was because I have long argued in these columns and during my five years on the President's Council on Bioethics that, contrary to the Bush policy, federal funding should be extended to research on embryonic stem cell lines derived from discarded embryos in fertility clinics.

I declined to attend. Once you show your face at these things, you become a tacit endorser of whatever they spring. My caution was vindicated.

Bush had restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to cells derived from embryos that had already been destroyed (as of his speech of Aug. 9, 2001). While I favor moving that moral line to additionally permit the use of spare fertility clinic embryos, Obama replaced it with no line at all. He pointedly left open the creation of cloned -- and noncloned sperm-and-egg-derived -- human embryos solely for the purpose of dismemberment and use for parts.

I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science, and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn. I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research -- a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.

On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists. This is more than moral abdication. It is acquiescence to the mystique of "science" and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as Obama can believe this within living memory of Mengele and Tuskegee and the fake (and coercive) South Korean stem cell research is hard to fathom.

That part of the ceremony, watched from the safe distance of my office, made me uneasy. The other part -- the ostentatious issuance of a memorandum on "restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making" -- would have made me walk out.

Restoring? The implication, of course, is that while Obama is guided solely by science, Bush was driven by dogma, ideology and politics.

What an outrage. George Bush's nationally televised stem cell speech was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last few minutes, the listener had no idea where Bush would come out.

Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the "false choice between sound science and moral values." Yet, exactly 2 minutes and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open the door to the "use of cloning for human reproduction."

Does he not think that a cloned human would be of extraordinary scientific interest? And yet he banned it.

Is he so obtuse not to see that he had just made a choice of ethics over science? Yet, unlike President Bush, who painstakingly explained the balance of ethical and scientific goods he was trying to achieve, Obama did not even pretend to make the case why some practices are morally permissible and others not.

This is not just intellectual laziness. It is the moral arrogance of a man who continuously dismisses his critics as ideological while he is guided exclusively by pragmatism (in economics, social policy, foreign policy) and science in medical ethics.

Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has nothing to say about what is permissible. Obama's pretense that he will "restore science to its rightful place" and make science, not ideology, dispositive in moral debates is yet more rhetorical sleight of hand -- this time to abdicate decision-making and color his own ideological preferences as authentically "scientific."

Dr. James Thomson, the discoverer of embryonic stem cells, said "if human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough." Obama clearly has not.

Charles Krauthammer writes for the Washington Post. His column is distributed by the Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th NW, Washington, DC 20071. Reach him at letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

[MCWAY]

This issue is as much about politics as it is about science (and to some degree, religious beliefs).

This move by Obama was more about appeasing the left, ending yet another policy by mean ol' "W", who they think was SOOOOOO determined to "hold back science" (nevermind the fact that he was the first president to federally fund stem cell research, in the first place).

In essence, we have yet another case where Obama did the very thing that he said he wouldn't do in his campaign: He put politics into a scientific issue.

And, the article you cited reiterated what Loco said on his post. South Korea is a prime example of a country that dumped loads of money into embryonic stem cell research, with few (if any) limits or restrictions.

Refresh my memory as to how many diseases and treatments were produced from that, again.

[ToxicAvenger]

 That would mean that it's a WASTE OF MONEY

you dont know till you try....

i'm not for sitting on my ass waiting for diving intervention


there is more proof for UFOs than there is for the existance of god 

[liberalismo]

It appears that neither one of you can read very well, as of late.

"If, after proper study......"? There's been plenty of "proper study" happening with regards to embryonic stem cell research. Name one disease it has cured or treated successfully.


The big complaint among folks in the USA about this issue is that ESCR hasn't been "properly" funded. But, as Loco indicated from his post, other countries have had their governments fund ESCR for a number of years. And private companies both in America and elsewhere have had more than enough opportunity to invest.

The private companies don't invest in ESCR for one simple reason (that apparently neither you nor Ozmo seems to get): IT HAS PRODUCED NOTHING. Investors don't like losing money. Why don't you tell them how about the  "absurdity" of their NOT pumping their $$$$$ into ESCR.

The stats you're posting aren't even credible. Stem cells are stemcells, and if stemcells from other places cam be used to treat a disease, so can stemcells from an embryo.
Moreover, If "ESCR" isn't reliable or viable then it will fade away. So far it hasn't, scientists think it has potential and thus so do I.

[MCWAY]

you dont know till you try....

i'm not for sitting on my ass waiting for diving intervention


there is more proof for UFOs than there is for the existance of god 

They've been tried, funded by governments with billions of dollars and no restrictions. The results remain.......




I'm not waiting for "diving intervention", either. 

The stats you're posting aren't even credible. Stem cells are stemcells, and if stemcells from other places cam be used to treat a disease, so can stemcells from an embryo.
Moreover, If "ESCR" isn't reliable or viable then it will fade away. So far it hasn't, scientists think it has potential and thus so do I.

Says who?

You asked for "peer-reviewed" studies to make the case about the superiority of adult stem cells. Loco and I have done that; and, once again, you continue to make excuses and duck the issue at hand.

For the hype it's received on the news (and all the blubbering that many on the left have done about the issue), if embryonic stem cells had cured JUST ONE DISEASE, we'd know about it by now.

But, that goose-egg remains in that column, as all the flap is about what ESCR "might" do or "potentially" do. They've done nothing, which is why few biotech companies will invest in it, and why it took Obama to sign it into law.

[Dos Equis]

What I've read is McWay posting actual facts and people attacking him rather than responding with their own statistics, etc.  I haven't followed this issue over the years, but after reading what McWay has posted both here and on the Politics board, it's pretty clear that adult stem research has produced results without the controversy that accompanies embryonic stem cell research. 

Rather than attack McWay, why not post contradictory research? 

[loco]

MCway, Scientist don't waste their time on things that don't produce results. If Embryonic stemcells were so ineffective, scientists would not waste time on them.

Sure they do.  Both scientists and investors have already put a lot of money, time, work and energy into the so far useless embryonic stem cells research.  Those scientists are still hoping it will produce results so they'll get their recognition and so they won't lose their funding.  Those investors are still hoping that it will produce results so that they'll make money instead of flushing down the toilet what they've already invested.

The truth, however, is that we're still doing research. More research needs to be done on embryonic stem cells before cures can become viable. That's how it works. Let the scientists do their work and leave them the fuck alone. Trying to ban them from using microscopic embryos for stem cells is absurdity, even if you think it's ineffective, they have a choice to study it and if it produces no results then that is their career. If, after proper study, it is shown that they aren't required then they won't be used. Until then...Shut up.

Those who believe in the santity of life, in defending those who can't defend themselves, in speaking for those you can't speak for themselves will always opose abortion and the destruction of human life for research's sake.

All of that aside, why would Americans want their tax dollars wasted on embryonic stem cell research?

And why is nobody here yet debating the evidence that McWay has posted?  Are you all blind, or do you just choose to be blind?  And then they say that Christians are sheep.   

[MCWAY]

Sure they do.  Both scientists and investors have already put a lot of money, time, work and energy into the so far useless embryonic stem cells research.  Those scientists are still hoping it will produce results so they'll get their recognition and so they won't lose their funding.  Those investors are still hoping that it will produce results so that they'll make money instead of flushing down the toilet what they've already invested.

Those who believe in the santity of life, in defending those who can't defend themselves, in speaking for those you can't speak for themselves will always opose abortion and the destruction of human life for research's sake.

All of that aside, why would American's want their tax dollars wasted on embryonic stem cell research?

And why is nobody here yet debating the evidence that McWay has posted?  Are you all blind, or do you just choose to be blind?  And then they say that Christians are sheep.   

Their bleating is due to the fact that, despite Liberalismo's claims, he's yet to show that the information posted wasn't credible. Last time, he dismissed it, simply because the stats I posted (link included) was part of an AIG article, ironically enough, done with Dr. Robin Crossman. He's the founder of BabyTooth Technologies, a stem cell company with a self-explanatory title, regarding the source of its research.

He asked for peer-reviewed studies. he's got them.....so what's the hold up, here?


Let's see them name one disease cured by the use of embryonic stem cells (last time I checked, that goose-egg is still on the ESCR side of the scoreboard).

What I saw on CNN last night (the Larry King Live show) confirms what I've been saying from the start. This is every bit a political issue. The daughter of Christoper Reeve was talking about how Obama's order has reversed an order made on fear. You will recall that Kerry had Reeve as part of his 2004 campaign, trying to paint the picture that embryonic stem cell research could possibly cure paralysis. And, of course, the only reason this "potential" miracle cure wasn't bein explored was due to, of course, mean ol' science-hating, Bible-beating, "W".

Well, that flap didn't work.

And, if I were a betting man, I'd say that, if there's a cure for paralysis using stem cells, it will be from the use of ADULT stem cells. Thus, it will add to the growing list of ailments and diseases that they have treated/cured.

Again, the score remains 74-0.....I'm actually counting that HIV case that CNN reported, in which the guy was treated with adult stem cells.

[loco]

Their bleating is due to the fact that, despite Liberalismo's claims, he's yet to show that the information posted wasn't credible. Last time, he dismissed it, simply because the stats I posted (link included) was part of an AIG article, ironically enough, done with Dr. Robin Crossman. He's the founder of BabyTooth Technologies, a stem cell company with a self-explanatory title, regarding the source of its research.

He asked for peer-reviewed studies. he's got them.....so what's the hold up, here?


Let's see them name one disease cured by the use of embryonic stem cells (last time I checked, that goose-egg is still on the ESCR side of the scoreboard).

What I saw on CNN last night (the Larry King Live show) confirms what I've been saying from the start. This is every bit a political issue. The daughter of Christoper Reeve was talking about how Obama's order has reversed an order made on fear. You will recall that Kerry had Reeve as part of his 2004 campaign, trying to paint the picture that embryonic stem cell research could possibly cure paralysis. And, of course, the only reason this "potential" miracle cure wasn't bein explored was due to, of course, mean ol' science-hating, Bible-beating, "W".

Well, that flap didn't work.

And, if I were a betting man, I'd say that, if there's a cure for paralysis using stem cells, it will be from the use of ADULT stem cells. Thus, it will add to the growing list of ailments and diseases that they have treated/cured.

Again, the score remains 74-0.....I'm actually counting that HIV case that CNN reported, in which the guy was treated with adult stem cells.

I agree!  It is political, it is about money, it is about pride, career, recognition, research funding.   You have presented the evidence.  liberalismo is naive to believe that scientists are immune to these things, as if they weren't human too.

[MCWAY]

I agree!  It is political, it is about money, it is about pride, career, recognition, research funding.   You have presented the evidence.  liberalismo is naive to believe that scientists are immune to these things, as if they weren't human too.

They certainly are not immune to them. Here's a blurb from Dr. Georgia Purdom:

Therapeutic Uses of Stem Cells

Researchers promise many cures as a result of ESCR, and the media tout a world free of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, and cancer. But, so far, these claims have gone unrealized. President Bush’s 2001 ban on government-supported research using new ESCs may have slowed progress in this area. Less reported in the media is that ESCs have been found to have great genetic instability (mutations and chromosomal changes) that is associated with tumor formation. If these ESCs are used in therapy, they could actually do more harm than good. In addition, anyone receiving these cells will need to take anti-rejection medicine their entire lives since the cells are not a genetic match. Also underreported is the fact that doctors have currently treated more than 70 different diseases and defects using adult stem cells. Although adult stem cells are more difficult to find and grow in the lab, they are more genetically stable. One type of cell, the Multi-Potent Adult Progenitor Cell (MAPC), has been found that may be able to form many different cell types, such as an ESC. It seems that adult stem cells have great, untapped potential.

Ethical Alternatives to Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Adult stem cells provide only one of several ethical alternatives to ESCR. They can be harvested from the individual who needs therapy without worry of cell rejection.A recent article in Nature indicates it may be possible to reprogram an adult cell to become more like an ESC. Currently this technology depends on the use of an ESC to reprogram the adult cell, but it is hoped that this requirement can be overcome.Several ethical alternatives to embryonic stem cell research that hold great promise are available.
Another popular alternative is to use umbilical cord blood. Since umbilical cord blood is rich in stem cells, it is collected shortly after birth. These blood cells have been used to successfully treat many diseases in adults and children. Several companies store such blood for a fee. The stem cells can then be used if needed later in life by that individual or possibly by their family. Stem cells found in baby teeth are capable of becoming several different types of cells, including neural cells. Such cells are extracted from the pulp of a tooth that a child has lost as a result of the transition to permanent teeth. Dr. Songtao Shi, discoverer of these cells, says this about their future, “We can ask parents to put [baby] teeth that comes out in milk, put it in the refrigerator and give a call the next day, and we can get stem cells out. You can freeze them in nitrogen and save them for years and years.” These cells hold great promise for use in future therapies.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/stem-cells

[liberalismo]

Says who?

You asked for "peer-reviewed" studies to make the case about the superiority of adult stem cells. Loco and I have done that; and, once again, you continue to make excuses and duck the issue at hand.

For the hype it's received on the news (and all the blubbering that many on the left have done about the issue), if embryonic stem cells had cured JUST ONE DISEASE, we'd know about it by now.

But, that goose-egg remains in that column, as all the flap is about what ESCR "might" do or "potentially" do. They've done nothing, which is why few biotech companies will invest in it, and why it took Obama to sign it into law.

I said that the stats that you're posing aren't credible. Not that there aren't a few studies showing that adult stemcells can be effective.

As far as I know, Adult stem cells haven't "Cured" any diseases. They have been shown to be effective in treating some diseases though, but then again, studies show that there are also many possibilities for embryonic stem cells to treat various diseases.