Debate Over

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Friday, September 1, 2006 00:38
VIEWED: 4120
PAGE 1 of 1

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:56 PM

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID
=2006-08-23T170452Z_01_N23403167_RTRUKOC_0_US-SCIENCE-STEMCELLS.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-healthNews-3

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Massachusetts company said on Wednesday it had developed a way to make human embryonic stem cells without harming the original embryo, a finding it said could dispel ethical objections to promising medical research using such cells.

"It is possible to generate stem cells without destroying the embryo and without destroying its potential for life," said Dr. Robert Lanza, chief scientist at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts.

--- Sorry Merck.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:03 PM

I wonder what reason the nut jobs will find for not using stem cells now?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CAUSAL

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:12 PM

Cool!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I wonder what reason the nut jobs will find for not using stem cells now?

Actually, I haven't heard of ANY one, nut jobs or otherwise, who are against using stem cells. The point of contention for the religious right is the use of 'embryonic' stem cells. Other than that one caviot, there's no problem.

And FYI, George Bush is the 1st President in US history to spend ANY $$ on stem cell research. Carter didn't, Clinton didn't. Neither spent one damn cent of Fed $$ for such research.

Just so ya know.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:03 PM

Auraptor,

You have a point, and miss a point.

The point you have is that no one did a damn thing for these researchers, and it was going on when Carter was president. I remember when my sister, who has a chimeric bone disease, was told that "someday soon there would be something called stem cells."

The missed point is that the story is about embryonic stem cells, now a moot point. I don't know if Citizen missed this point, and you were just responding to him.

But I also feel that Merck is behind this, since every time the USGovt. doesn't pay a stem cell bill, Merck pays it in exchange for shares in the company. Since Merck is Bush's biggest supporter, (bigger lobby than oil) that they asked him to not fund stem cells. A very simple, direct line conspiracy theory, not one of these twelve dot hops.

I think Bush supports his monopoly friends at a great cost to corporate america as a whole. It's part of the part where I think he's a commie pinko traitor. IMHO. If it makes you feel any better, check out the thread where I was just much rougher on Clinton.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:09 PM

STEM CELLS ARE PATTERNED AFTER EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS AND AS SUCH ARE POTENTIALLY LIFE-CREATING AND TO SUPRESS THAT POSSIBILITY IS SUPRESSING AND THEREFORE KILLING A LIFE!
That good enough for ya, Citizen?

Pardon me, I must read this Penthouse and rid myself of thousands of potential kids now Chrisisall

HERO

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I wonder what reason the nut jobs will find for not using stem cells now?

Actually I kind of thought this would happen. I never understood why they couldn't harvest from unbilical cords either.

So here is my pro life, anti-science response to this latest development on this important issue:

Fine with me...if it don't hurt nobody (or any potential little nobody's out there) then go research all you can. Just no clones (except Jessica Alba, lets face it we all could use one of those).

H

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:12 PM

Quote:
I wonder what reason the nut jobs will find for not using stem cells now?

Religion.

Prolly the next argument is something on the nature of messing with the divine providence of god, etc etc.

Meh, I don't have a whole lotta room to talk on that one, as I think nuclear fire is the 'fire of the gods' and we shouldn't be playin with that, most especially not weaponising it - but I don't go round ramming my beliefs down on other folks neither.

-Frem

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:12 PM

I hit the button ONCE, how could it double up?
Bleh, stupid glitch, how bout this for an idea to make double posts worthwhile...

THIS SPACE FOR RENT!

-Frem

CITIZEN

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:33 PM

Dream:
Would it be possible to edit your link? Horizontal scrolling is no fun.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Actually, I haven't heard of ANY one, nut jobs or otherwise, who are against using stem cells. The point of contention for the religious right is the use of 'embryonic' stem cells. Other than that one caviot, there's no problem.

Like I said, I wonder what excuse they'll use now.

Quote:
And FYI, George Bush is the 1st President in US history to spend ANY $$ on stem cell research. Carter didn't, Clinton didn't. Neither spent one damn cent of Fed $$ for such research.

Neither did Lincoln, Kennedy, or Nixon, which is hardly surprising since the benefits of embryonic stem cell research only became apparent in the late 90's and it takes time to put legislation into place.

Well this is an interesting bit of spin. Clinton's administration said they would fund embryonic stem cell research; the resulting legislation was halted by the Bush administration and later cut down to limit funding.

And FYI Bush is the only President to veto congress' decision to loosen restrictions of funding.

Just so ya know

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:16 PM

Dream - I plead ignorance on much of the stem cell issue. Embryonic or otherwise. Me not a bio chemist. But what little I've gleaned from listening to folks who ARE bio chemist and the like, is that 'adult' stem cells are proving to be far more beneficial than those from embryos. To date, the hooplah over e.s.c.'s are primarily theoretical. And that's not me scoffing at the idea. Maybe down the road, much greater benefit can come from e.s.c's, but just not now. Kinda like how fusion reactors are the goals for solving our energy needs, when all we have today is the technology for fission .

Quote:
Well this is an interesting bit of spin. Clinton's administration said they would fund embryonic stem cell research; the resulting legislation was halted by the Bush administration and later cut down to limit funding.

And FYI Bush is the only President to veto congress' decision to loosen restrictions of funding.

Citizen, you'd better sit down, son. It's you who is spinnin'. Clinton SAID they'd fund ? WOW! What leadership! What vision! What a load of crap! As our beautiful warrior woman once said.. " sayin' ain't doin'! " I stated a simple fact. That Bush was the 1st President to FUND any sort of stem cell research. Bush used his 1st ( and so far only ) veto to NOT spend MORE money on a project he already said he was against! What a relief!

Here's something for you to consider, huckleberry - * Regarding President Bush's veto: 1) expansion of funding was vetoed, not continuation of funding; 2) federal funding, not private funding, was vetoed; 3) only embryonic stem-cell research was affected, not non-embryonic stem-cell research; 4) the toll of human suffering due to dread diseases may be lessened through stem-cell research that does not require destroying one life to treat another.

You've got nothing to debate with, pal. let me do the math here -- nothing into nothing, carry the -- Yep. You got nothin'.

* http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060820/OPINI
ON02/608200303/1009/OPINION

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Citizen, you'd better sit down, son. It's you who is spinnin'. Clinton SAID they'd fund ? WOW! What leadership! What vision! What a load of crap! As our beautiful warrior woman once said.. " sayin' ain't doin'! " I stated a simple fact. That Bush was the 1st President to FUND any sort of stem cell research. Bush used his 1st ( and so far only ) veto to NOT spend MORE money on a project he already said he was against! What a relief!

Here's something for you to consider, huckleberry - * Regarding President Bush's veto: 1) expansion of funding was vetoed, not continuation of funding; 2) federal funding, not private funding, was vetoed; 3) only embryonic stem-cell research was affected, not non-embryonic stem-cell research; 4) the toll of human suffering due to dread diseases may be lessened through stem-cell research that does not require destroying one life to treat another.

You've got nothing to debate with, pal. let me do the math here -- nothing into nothing, carry the -- Yep. You got nothin'.

* http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060820/OPINI
ON02/608200303/1009/OPINION

Given that you're already trying to turn this into a flame war this is the last time I will speak to you on this matter UNLESS you show yourself to actually be interested in a debate rather than implying I'm an idiot because I don't agree with you in your next post. Please notice I haven't liberally splashed either my last post nor this one with derogatory nicknames nor attempts at humour at your expense "you got nothin'" very imaginative. Also don't call me son again.

Your stating of a simple fact, as you put, without properly quantifying it is the spin. Lie by omission and clouding of the full facts as it were.

It takes time to get things through, Clinton set the ball rolling, then the processes take over, it just so happened that Bush was president when it happened, he didn't want to I'm sure, but had very little choice.

If you'll notice the National Institutes of Health announced it would fund embryonic stem cell research in 2000, still under Clinton’s term, it took time to put together the legislation, until 2001 when Bush was president in fact. Ergo it was Clinton’s administration that enacted the funding, it was an accident of temporality that had Bush in power when it was ready to go through, very much a different situation as to how you'd paint it, yet still the same facts are in evidence, just one of us is excluding some from consideration, one of us is not.

Further proof that things take time to come through:
Congress wanted Bush to loosen restrictions way back in 2001/2, yet it took until 2006 before congress managed to put a vote together.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:56 PM

Ah crap. I posted my response on a concurrent thread that someone else started (Hope for stem cell research). I'll cross-post here.

Quote:
It would seem so [to be a good thing]. But I'd hate to BE that embryo from whom they plucked 10% of my cells (1 cell out of the 8-10 cell stage). I mean, do we REALLY know what that would do to the person--ya know if he ever gets to grow up? It is experimenting on a human being without his consent, assuming that the embryo won't be discarded. And if the embryo is never going to get to become a full grown human, why go through all that trouble?

All this stem cell controversy makes me sick. In the 50's through the 70's, a guy named Robert Becker MD was doing some extremely promising research on dedifferentiation of normal cells. Yep...taking a full grown differentiated cell and converting it into a "pluripotent" embryonic-like undifferentiated cell. His lab got shut down in 1981, for who knows why. If he had been able to continue with that line of research, or if anyone else had joined in that line of research, we'd probably be able to create stem cells by now, without involving embryos at all. The technology is there. No one wants to touch it. Instead, they hem and haw about how they can't progress with curing diseases because of the ethical controversies of stem cell research.

Bullshit. Sorry, this topic really, really pisses me off. I have a very good friend paralyzed in a wheelchair. When I think she might be that much closer to walking today if Becker's lab hadn't been shut down, or if someone else had picked up his work, it gets my goat that they use the stem cell controversy as an excuse to not make any progress.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:13 AM

CTTS

Congratulations, you've just invented the incredibly weak argument that the Merck elite can use to help deprive the world of cures for fatal illnesses in exchange for power and profit.

Actually, I'm quite certain it would have no effect on them at all. One of the things that makes stem cells special is that they have no generation loss. It's entirely possible to grow a second set of stem cells for your embryo without harming the outcome, or, for that matter, effecting the outcome at all.

The whole thing is of course a cover, disease and disability has always been more profitable to the medical community then cure.

When Jonas Sauk discovered the polio vaccine, he got 400 angry letters from doctors, all to the affect of "you idiot, you just cured the goldmine, with polio, our funding is gone, our chance of a perpetual treatment jackpot drug are gone."

All of which goes to prove my point that you really have to watch the incentives you set in place, call it social engineering or whatever, but the guiding hand must be there to make sure that you don't make death more profitable than life.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:15 AM

Just because I'm a nice guy.

Someone else dupe posted this story, I'm reposting that post so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle:

Quote:
MISSTRESSAHARA:

Hope for stem cell research.
"You gonna make biscuits? You gonna make biscuits? You gonna make biscuits?" "No Gir, I'm never making biscuits again" O__O
Scientists Harvest Stem Cells Without Destroying Embryo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Breakthrough technique might get around moral issues, experts say
By Amanda Gardner, HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, Aug. 23 (HealthDay News) -- In what could prove to be a medical milestone, researchers have succeeded in generating new lines of human embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo.

The breakthrough may enable scientists to circumvent the ban on federal funding of stem cell research, paving the way for gains in treating or curing diseases such as diabetes, spinal injury and Alzheimer's disease.

"The whole goal of this is to increase the number of stem cell lines available for federal funding and give the field a badly needed jump-start," said Dr. Robert Lanza, senior author of a paper appearing in the Aug. 24 issue of Nature and medical director of Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass.

Lanza was cautiously optimistic, although he said the final say on whether this strategy could widen U.S. embryonic stem cell research depends on politicians, not scientists.

"The approach described here does not involve the destruction of an embryo, nor does the biopsied cell ever develop into an embryo at any point. Therefore, we hope this method can be used to increase the number of stem cell lines available for federal funding - and thus give the field a badly needed jump-start," Lanza said. "But I guess we'll have to see what the President and Congress have to say about it all."

The promise of embryonic stem cells lies in their ability to be "pluripotent," and develop into any cell type in the body. Experts envision a future where stem cells might help replace diseased or injured tissue, thereby treating a host of ailments.

However, many object to the destruction of embryos inherent in this research. For that reason, embryonic stem cell research in the United States has been severely restricted since Aug. 9, 2001, when President Bush placed limits on federal funding of the field. As of that date, federal funds could only be used to study stem cell lines derived from embryos that had been already been destroyed before the limit was set.

This has turned out to be fewer lines than originally thought, and even fewer high-quality lines.

And while some state and private money has emerged to fill the gap in research funding, experts say it's not been nearly enough. Most scientists agree that federal resources are needed if any credible research gains are to take place.

So far, scientists have obtained embryonic stem cells by taking groups of cells from early embryos before they implant in the uterus. However, this process involves the destruction of the embryo.

Lanza's new paper improves on research his team did last year. In that study, the Massachusetts group succeeded in cultivating mouse embryonic stem cell lines by removing just one cell from the mouse embryo. The procedure is similar to that used for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, used to check for genetic disorders during in vitro fertilization (IVF). In this case, the mouse embryos survived.

But then, a roadblock. "We tried to apply that to a human system and found that it does not work," Lanza said. "We had to work out a different technique and initially we weren't sure that it was going to work. It was pretty tough. Eventually it worked like a charm."

Here's how. According to Lanza, the new research involved 16 human embryos left over from IVF.

"We used a single-cell biopsy technique to pluck out one cell when the embryo was at the 8-to-10-cell stage," Lanza explained. This is the same stage used for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Excising a cell at th

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:27 AM

Okay,

First, can some tell me how to make the forum not be 2000 pixels wide?

Next, Citizen. Chill. Clinton sucks, Bush sucks, neither one of them are worth a minute of your time defending.

Auraptor,

I took two years of concentrated biochem and a year of concentrated chem during my history studies (which took me many years, I was an unfocused student.) Anyway, I know the subject reasonably well.

Adult stem cell tech has been allowed to develop, this is why it has had more successes, but embryonic stem cells will be able to treat different types of conditions, if allowed to develop, such as my sisters chimeric bon disorder (which means some of her bones came from a different embryo, are genetically different from her, and never took.) So it's an embryonic stem cell issue. Paralysis is often one, organ failures, blood diseases, spinal induries, the list goes on, but all of this misses the point.

The stem cell centers are lacking funding because opposition remains, this discovery should remove that opposition. Arlen Specter said he thought he could drum up enough votes by January to override a veto, now maybe he won't have to, or if he does, this will help.

I responded by buying some stock, I'm not a guy with a lot of cash, but it doesn't seem like a dumb investment. STEM, ASTM, GERN are the major companies in the industry, VIAC is a new entry, but they still have issues.

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:52 AM

CTS- It's NOT THAT EASY to make pluripotent cells from differentiated cells. In fact, it's darn near impossible, which is why the whole fuss with Dolly (the cloned sheep- I'm sure you remember her). It took over 600 tries before they got to Dolly.

And as far as Becker is concerned, I looked him up: he believes colloidal silver can cure everything. So, just to see if there was anything to that line of tought, I went to Pub Med and searched on silver stem cells. What I got out of that search is that silver is toxic and that silver nanoparticles especially so. You may recall back in the old days they used to give newborns silver nitrate eyedrops to kill possible STD germs on the eyeballs?

It seems to me that, as Rue said, you believe anything that's out of the mainstream and disbelieve anything that's in the mainstream.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS- It's NOT THAT EASY to make pluripotent cells from differentiated cells.

Never said it was easy. By 1981, Becker was able to dedifferentiate cells in amphibians and even rats (the first mammals). But if Becker's work had been continued, we'd have 25 more years of research that could have very well gotten somewhere with humans.

Quote:
And as far as Becker is concerned, I looked him up: he believes colloidal silver can cure everything.

He never said any such thing. If you want to hear what he said about silver, look up his papers or read his books.

Quote:
It seems to me that, as Rue said, you believe anything that's out of the mainstream and disbelieve anything that's in the mainstream.

Uh huh. ANYTHING. Prove it.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Congratulations, you've just invented the incredibly weak argument that the Merck elite can use to help deprive the world of cures for fatal illnesses in exchange for power and profit.

Huh?

And you think they need MY argument to deprive the world? Wow. Is there a reward for such ingenuity?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Okay,

First, can some tell me how to make the forum not be 2000 pixels wide?

Split the url in your first post. Depending on your browser, FFFn doesn't do word-wrap for URLs.

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:21 AM

Quote:
I plead ignorance on much of the stem cell issue. Embryonic or otherwise. Me not a bio chemist. But what little I've gleaned from listening to folks who ARE bio chemist and the like, is that 'adult' stem cells are proving to be far more beneficial than those from embryos. To date, the hooplah over e.s.c.'s are primarily theoretical. And that's not me scoffing at the idea. Maybe down the road, much greater benefit can come from e.s.c's, but just not now.

Rap, you have GOT to stop taking your cues from right-wing talking heads! Do you KNOW what stem cells are??? Prolly not, so here goes....

Each cell contains all of the genes necessary to grow a complete human being. Why don't they? Why don't you get eyes growing on your hand and hair growing in your stomach? It's because a large number of genes in each cell are turned off. In fact, most adult cells are not only highly differentiated they have only 6-12 divisions in their future due to the shortening of the telomeres with each division. www.genlink.wustl.edu/teldb/tel.html

So, if that's the case, how do we keep growing new skin, new blood cells etc? It's because adults also have stem cells. But there are a number of issue related to using adult stem cells including the fact that pluripotent cells have nto yet been found. Also, there is

Quote:
evidence that adult stem cells may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells. Finally, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in DNA replication the course of a lifetime.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:26 AM

CTS- Okay, ALMOST anything.

As far as Becker's original work, the only thing I can seem to pull up is stuff about silver. Are we talking about the same guy? Because if you have links to his original work, that would be better than just doing a hand-waving reference.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:33 AM

One last comment- Do y'all recall cold fusion? Human cloning?

Until this is duplicated in another lab, I'll keep the champagne on ice. If it turns out to be the real thing, I'll be happy to pop a few corks with you all!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:40 AM

Signym,

And if I recall reading that Dolly was not in fact a true clone, but a twin, and that the first actual clone was two weeks later, a rat was cloned in costa rica.

I suspect Colloidal silver is not a miracle cure.

WHIMSICALNBRAINPAN

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:49 AM

I so hope this is true! I think stem cell research could help a lot of people who are suffering.

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." http://whimsicalnbrainpan.blogspot.com/

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS- Okay, ALMOST anything.

And where did I disbelieve the mainstream in this instance? Or believe something that is out of the mainstream?

Quote:
As far as Becker's original work, the only thing I can seem to pull up is stuff about silver. Are we talking about the same guy? Because if you have links to his original work, that would be better than just doing a hand-waving reference.

Yeah, the same guy. Becker did do a lot of work with silver. But he never advocated its indiscriminate use. He was always very cautious and used silver (or any of his experimental treatments) only as a last resort when all other traditional treatments have failed.

http://www.earthpulse.net/Becker.htm
Here is a bibliography of his work. (Scroll down past the top links.) Here is an example of his published research.

Quote:
NeuroRehabilitation 2002;17(1):23-31

Induced dedifferentiation: a possible alternative to embryonic stem cell transplants.
Becker RO.

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Upstate Medical Center, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA.

Induction of local tissue regeneration in the human would best be accomplished if the patient's own cells at the desired site could be caused to dedifferentiate into the required embryonic stem cells. A system involving the electrical iontophoretic introduction of free silver ions into human wounds for their antibiotic effect has been in clinical use since 1975. In addition to a major antibiotic effect, the technique was found to produce the regeneration of all local tissues, apparently by stimulating dedifferentiation of mature human cells. More recently the use of a newly developed silvered nylon fabric has been found to have similar results without the need for electrical parameters. The results of a preliminary laboratory and clinical study of this material are presented.

PMID: 12016344 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Last time I looked, I didn't know the journal "Neurorehabilitation" was out of the mainstream. Just because the mass media doesn't harp on this line of research doesn't mean it is "alternative." If you do a search in Pub Med, you'll that a number of mainstream journals (such as Nature) have published Becker's work.

Anyway, I'm a little tired of that accusation of supporting a double standard. I like you and Rue, but I do wish you guys wouldn't flame me when I disagree with you. Can't we just carry on a civil conversation about the issues without attacking my integrity? Please?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

MISSTRESSAHARA

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:00 AM

It is a good thing, and to hell with the naysayers. If this could have solved breast cancer my mother would still be here.

I'm all for it.

If I'm a bitch, then life just got interesting

RUE

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:17 AM

Forgive me. It's been busy, I just got some things finished I needed to get done, and the mental fizz is starting to foam out of the bottle.

My first random thought was about the title: 'debate over'. Now, I know what it means, and it's perfectly good colloquial English, but you could read it as "debate over ....." Let's have a debate! BYO topic!

My second random thought was - I'm a clone! What's wrong with cloning? Except, you know, mebee 'one' is the, ahem, failed one.

Third - 'The Arm of the Starfish' (classic sci-fi) sounds like Becker's work. (Robert O Becker - has "The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life" for sale at Amazon.)

And then this caught my eye - "Lanza's team let its fertilized eggs grow to the 8- to 10-cell stage. The embryo at that stage is no longer able to divide into twins but the cells can still form any cell or tissue in the body." Actually, a 3 day embryo is in the 8-10 cell stage. Humans can become separate mz twins up to about 12 days, after 12 days they become conjoined mz twins.

So ChrisIsAll - I may have your gottcha. That single cell COULD be the nucleus (so to speak) of a whole 'nother individual ! And then they go and perversely keep it alive but KILL its person-hood, damn them ! Turning it into just another mass of tissue. :croccodiletears:

And now to go home to a nice bottle, OH! I meant glass ... GLASS of wine ...

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:25 AM

Quote:
If you do a search in Pub Med, you'll that a number of mainstream journals (such as Nature) have published Becker's work.

CTS- I did search PubMed. All I found under Becker Robert O was two articles, one of which was in Journal Altern Complement Medicine, the other already cited.

I also looked into about a dozen papers that showed up under silver+ stem+ cell to see if it was an active line of research. None of them advocated or studied the use of silver for healing with the exception of ONE paper, which looked at the possible cytotoxic effects of silver-impregnated bandages (cytotoxic for the first day, however burned areas recovered as fast under silver as not). OTOH the use of silver as a TOXIC material was widely discussed.

I also did a google search, and pulled up the same stuff as before. Whatever work Becker did in the 70's didn't make it onto the net. That's why I'm asking for somehting more substantive, 'cause one perr-reviewed article sure isn't much to go on.

I'm very familiar with the many ways that science got it "wrong" from the germ theory of ulcers to continental drift but nobody has duplicated Becker's work. Not a good sign! Also, it's been well-known for decades that some animals (like the starfish that Rue mentioned) are able to re-grow entire limbs. There is a specific mouse (MLR) that can regenerate- perhaps the subject of Becker's study. Even humans can regrow fingertips, The trick was not knowing that it happened but how, and how to induce it in situations where it might not have otherwise occurred.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:26 AM

Just weighing in here.

I didn't know we were taking this colloidal silver seriously. Colloidal silver is a fruitcake identifier. Like crop circles, no offense. Some far out theories turn out to be true, and much of our scientific knowledge, and history, is a collection of those. But 90% or more aren't so lucky. Sort of like frozen embryoes.

I knew a guy who was a heavy believer in this stuff. I think there's an alex jones of science out there bouncing it around. To me, it's a simple rule: Unless you're certain *why* it works, don't use it. This is why I generally avoid allopathy. Allopaths can almost never tell you why a particular pharmaceutical works, it's almost a faith healing institution. The drugs are created through trial and error with no understanding of the mechanisms involved.

Colloidal metals don't make sense. You're body didn't evolve to us colloidal metals, the metals you take in are almost always trapped in some biological molecule. The lifeforms that make those molecule are generally plants. The simple way to better health is better food. The taking in of food in a natual animal process. A lot of other methods are not. The biggest exception I see is that taking a toxin which kills bacteria, without killing you, is a valid idea, but it would also probably make more sense to do it in food form.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:43 AM

Signy,

Enter the Pub Med ID of the one abstract I sent you, and you'll find "related links" on your right by other authors doing work along the same lines. Becker was at the forefront of regeneration research. It wasn't only starfish. He painstakingly studied mechanisms for triggering regeneration in salamanders, frogs, and finally with rats. In all cases, regeneration takes place after triggering dedifferentiation in already differentiated cells.

Try Google Scholar.
http://scholar.google.com.pe/scholar?q=Robert+O.+Becker&hl=en&lr=&star
t=10&sa=N

Quote:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v235/n5333/abs/235109a0.html
Stimulation of Partial Limb Regeneration in Rats

ROBERT O. BECKER

Veterans Administration Hospital, and Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse, New York

INJURY1,2, nerves3 and hormones4 have been identified as essential for limb regeneration in amphibia. There seem to be differences in the "current of injury" between regenerating and non-regenerating types of amphibians5; partial limb regeneration can be induced in the latter type by simulating the "current of injury" of the regenerating form6. The cellular process of fracture healing in the amphibian is directly related to the electrical phenomena produced by the fractured bone7 and maximally effective ranges for current density can be determined at the cellular level. This led to the concept of a control system the key element of which was the induction of blastema formation in response to appropriate electrical factors8. The absence of regeneration in the mammal may therefore be due to the absence of adequate electrical factors. We report here the consequences of restoring factors which seem to be of practical as well as theoretical interest.

If you want a one stop summary of the history of his work, his book "The Body Electric" (now on sale at Amazon.com as Rue pointed out) describes his experiments in detail.

Much of his work has been duplicated, some hasn't. That's why I'm bitchin' about others not picking up the slack. They haven't even tried and failed. I'm NOT touting Becker as some miracle man. I am saying if billions of dollars had been poured in this direction with competitive research by hundreds of researchers instead of a handful, if his lab hadn't been shut down, the body of Becker's work is promising enough that I am pretty confident we wouldn't have the stem cell debate we have today. He showed that dedifferentiation CAN be artifically triggered and the general direction of how. It remains to work out the details in mammals and humans, and a lot of progress COULD have been made in the last 25 years instead of near zilch.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I didn't know we were taking this colloidal silver seriously.

No, we're not talking about colloidal silver. People who sell colloidal silver often misappropriate Becker's work with silver ions to market their product.

Becker did a lot of work with silver. But silver was only a fraction of his entire body of research. His work was on regeneration. If you cut off a salamander's leg, it will grow a new one. The way it does this is to turn already mature cells into stem cells, which then grow back into new bone, nerve, blood, muscle, skin cells. This is called DEdifferentiation and REdifferentiation.

Becker found that tiny electric currents could trigger regeneration in non-regenerating animals. He was able to trigger regeneration (dedifferentiation and redifferentiation) in frogs, rats, and to a limited extent in humans. In a fraction of this research, he used silver ions in addition to the tiny current.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I did search PubMed.

Try "Becker RO". He authored under that name. I just did this in PubMed and pulled up more than 2.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

GEEZER

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:18 PM

I expect that the spinmeisters for the Religious Right will take the tidbit about one cell of the embryo being removed for screening during the IVF process, and blow it into a whole other controversy. After all, the stem cell issue isn't about ethics; it's about politics.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:46 PM

CTS- I didnt' claim that Neurorehabilitation was out of the mainstream. In fact, if you read my reply I cited it as the one peer-reviewed article.

So I scrolled through Becker's bibliography. He seems to have a wide variety of topics under his belt; his main area of interest seems to be the effect of electromagnetic fields but ranges from using silver to disinfect bones to tracing acupuncture conduction paths.

I think that prolly his research on regeneration was before its time. Electrical currents have been used to regenerate bone for a long time so its practical use was in place, but the understanding of genes- what turns them on and off- was not "there" yet.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS- I didnt' claim that Neurorehabilitation was out of the mainstream.

No, you said I was believing things out of the mainstream. I used that Neurorehabilitation as an example that Becker's work (as a whole) was not out of the mainstream, so I am not sure where that accusation came from in this thread.

Yes, Becker's work was way ahead of its time. It doesn't bother me so much (ok relatively speaking) that his peers didn't jump on the bandwagon right away as Becker's claim (and I have no reason to doubt him) that the powers that be suddenly cut off his funding and shut down his lab ON THE CONDITION HE STOPS WORKING ON REGENERATION. He acquiesced, just to save the jobs of his lab staff. But it didn't last long. They shut down his lab anyway.

THAT pisses me off. Makes me all conspiracy-minded about the power of the pharmaceutical industry. I mourn the lost years of research and the potential for getting that much closer to curing the suffering of countless people. Every time I hear stem cell controversy, I get peeved. That's all.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DreamTrove:
First, can some tell me how to make the forum not be 2000 pixels wide?

Put a space in the middle of the link so that it can wrap.

Quote:
Next, Citizen. Chill. Clinton sucks, Bush sucks, neither one of them are worth a minute of your time defending.

We're on the same page here, and I'm not defending anyone, I just think credit where credit is due. Auraptor seems to believe GWB is god and all dissent should be silenced. I don't see why I should Chill and let him get away with his borderline troll post made toward me.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:39 PM

DT,

Quote:
Allopaths can almost never tell you why a particular pharmaceutical works

Naturopaths and homeopaths also don't know 'why' their stuff works, and if one is telling you otherwise - - - RUN !! Or hobble, limp, crawl, or whatever you can manage.

I agree that taking good care of yourself is vital, in every sense. But even if you were to take perfect care of yourself the human body fails in all sorts of ways. And at this point you can't escape man-made chemicals, human-induced super-germs etc. So at some point medical intervention will be inevitably necessary.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:26 PM

Rue,

That's not a direct parallel. An herbalist is a merchant, parallel to the pharmacist. The scientists who promote treatments on the web are the doctor parallel, and if they want to sell the product, they explain the underlying science. I don't buy anything that doesn't. And they understand it. This is because PhD's are actually much better educated than MD's. It's a harder science course. The scientists who tell you to take 5-htp or l-carnatine, and the people who make the supplements, know exactly why you should take it. The doctors and drug companies that promote and make paxil etc., have no idea why it works, relatively speaking.

I don't buy flakey stuff which says "take wandaweed, it makes you relax" I want to hear "Rj29 blocks the alpha K+ channel on the gaba neuron stimulating a gaba release."

Herbals also have the plus side that people have usually been taking them for centuries, (and studying them for decades, which is why we know these details) and if there were serious side effects, we're know them already. If the new drug Gwatoximine has ill effects, no one knows but the people in the lab with the dead rats, but that information was supressed.

A look at how allopathy work is enlightening. There is almost no biological science in that science. They try to make unique hard to reverse engineer chemicals, get their patent, and test them on rats to see what happens. If the parkinsons rats show even a 5% improvement, then it's "Hey! we have a new parkinsons drug" regardless of the fact that 6 months later the rats livers turned to tapioca.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

So ChrisIsAll - I may have your gottcha. That single cell COULD be the nucleus (so to speak) of a whole 'nother individual ! And then they go and perversely keep it alive but KILL its person-hood, damn them ! Turning it into just another mass of tissue. :croccodiletears:

How DARE anyone not let a potential human live, so that they cannot die in a war-to-come!?!?!?
HOW WASTEFUL!!!!
We need every grunt for the meatgrinder.

Now I'm scared Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:23 PM

Quote:
Your stating of a simple fact, as you put, without properly quantifying it is the spin. Lie by omission and clouding of the full facts as it were.

It takes time to get things through, Clinton set the ball rolling, then the processes take over, it just so happened that Bush was president when it happened, he didn't want to I'm sure, but had very little choice.

If you'll notice the National Institutes of Health announced it would fund embryonic stem cell research in 2000, still under Clinton’s term, it took time to put together the legislation, until 2001 when Bush was president in fact. Ergo it was Clinton’s administration that enacted the funding, it was an accident of temporality that had Bush in power when it was ready to go through, very much a different situation as to how you'd paint it, yet still the same facts are in evidence, just one of us is excluding some from consideration, one of us is not.

Further proof that things take time to come through:
Congress wanted Bush to loosen restrictions way back in 2001/2, yet it took until 2006 before congress managed to put a vote together.

citizen, there is no 'lie', nor is there any 'spin' on my part what so ever. The only problem you're having w/ my post are that you can't bash Bush over this nearly as much as you'd like to. Clinton had 8 yrs to 'set the ball rollling', as you put it. An outgoing President can do what ever he/she wants, and leave it up to the next President to either get the glory, or clean up the mess. Likely Clinton had hoped that Gore would benefit from this legacy, and wanted to play politics over the issue of stem cell research. But if it was sooooo important, why not start this YEARS ago, or at the very least, pull a Executive Order out of his shirt sleeve?

Ya gotta give Bush his due here. Be at least that much of a stand up guy and admit Bush was responsible for this.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:43 PM

Hi DT,

Some disagreement, some agreement.

Yes, getting a PhD is harder than getting an MD. What I want to know is - if you get both, but get your PhD before your MD, does the MD training take you backwards?

To reply to your post ... pharmas have mostly PhDs working for them. So the new drugs are the work of PhDs, not MDs who merely prescribe them.

MDs, PhD and MD/PhD's, and pharmas do know about mode of action - you will find that "Benzodiazepines work selectively to enhance the action of the gamma-aminobutyric acid A (GABAA) receptors" for example. The question to both groups - traditional and alternative - is: "Then what?"

No one knows all the places in the brain with that receptor, what other receptors and locations might be involved (agonistic or antagonistic), what feedback mechanisms are invoked or suppressed, what does that communicate to other parts of the brain, and what, ultimately, causes the observed effect.

And while I think that 'natural' cures can be better - for example, light therapy works as well as traditional antidepressants, except it's faster and cheaper - the problem is not that pharmas are making bogus complicated expensive molecules. It's that they're making things that work but don't solve important problems. (Unless less than astounding 'performance' is a life and death issue.)

I hope you don't think I trust in the pharmas or even the FDA all that much. I generally subscribe to the dictum as told to me many years ago (by a very capable doctor - yes they exist): never be the first to use a medicine, but never be the last.

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Ya gotta give Bush his due here. Be at least that much of a stand up guy and admit Bush was responsible for this.

Bush is as responcible for it as Clinton is, yes Clinton set the ball rolling, and Bush enacted a cut down version of the legislation that came from Clinton. The spin is suggesting that this was all down to Bush, look what a great guy he is.

I've already told you why it wasn't done years ago and as for an executive order? Seems a little extreme to bypass standard procedure for scientific research, and even EOs as I understand it are ussually based on existing legislation, which is not the case here. He wasn't exactly an outgoing president when he did it either, the announcement that the federal government would start funding research was made in January 1999.

I don't think Bush was responcible for this, he's pro-life for crying out loud, he would never, in a million years, come up with legislation like this.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, August 25, 2006 1:09 AM

Rue,

Sure, I was oversimplifying. But the reality is herbalism is more of a science, as it's based on actual knowledge of how the systems interact biochemically. Allopathy has become pretty much a science of trial and error.

I assume you know somthing about this, either you're a pharmacist or something.

'Nobody knows' is a cop out, imho, and generally not true. For instance I know the chemical path p
of 5htp. I believe no one knows the chemical path of paxil. why is taking 5htp together with b6 a problem? b6 mods 5htp into serotonin, if allowed to do so in the blood, serotonin attacks fat, and fosters receptor generation. Otherwise 5htp crosses the blood barrier in about one second, and is transformed into serotonin in the hypothalmus. the excess serotonin is converted to melatonin which gives you the drowsy effect. it's a very simple mechanism.

How does Luvox work? Lexapro ie l-celexa? If try to find this stuff out and there's an awful lot of vague guesswork.

The truth is, I suspect, Allopathy is a one trick pony. Every compound is a toxin which shuts down some biochemical function. Just about all systems in the body are in balance with pro- and anti- systems, as the result of how evolution developed. Rather than just have something which does 'X' you also have some 'anti-X' fighting it. Block anti-X augments the effect of X, block X augments anti-X, or reduces X. The problem is that, since all the compounds are unnatural toxins, they have to be to be patentable, they don't have natural matches in the body. They may malfunction slightly, or they make effect multiple systems. Anti-X blocker boosts X, but it also has an agonist effect on the secretion of anti-Y. Low Y becomes a side effect, even if the systems X and Y themselves aren't interdependent.

Step one, create a new and different compound that no one else has.
Step two, patent it.
Step three, test it one a wide variety of rats with a wide variety of illnesses.
Step four, collect the data and select your treatment pitch
Step five, pitch to the fda, which is run by one of your own employees, make a convincing enough case that the regular suits are satisfied.
Step six, market it to hapless humans.
Step seven, by the time there's a problem and you have to pull it, you have a new drug on the market.

The reason eating dumbweed makes you stupid is that your ancestors ate dumbweed, and the compounds of dumbweed got integrated into our biological system (binding to GABA-B?)
Of course there are many false analogues in nature, and it's a slippery slope overall (THC is a nasty one, Valerian is a GHB+ a methyl, which is not so bad, but there's another one out there with an alcohol or something that causes an imbalance, the name slips my mind at the moment.)

But still, it's a choice between a compound running on known biochemistry, and a toxin with interactions that are anybody's guess. Better safe than sorry.

RUE

Friday, August 25, 2006 1:29 AM

Quote:
But still, it's a choice between a compound running on known biochemistry, and a toxin with interactions that are anybody's guess. Better safe than sorry.

There's the rub - you claim these compounds run on known biochemistry, while medicines don't. How do you feel about salicylates? Would you count them in the 'known' or 'unknown' column?

SIGNYM

Friday, August 25, 2006 1:40 AM

Quote:
Herbals also have the plus side that people have usually been taking them for centuries, (and studying them for decades, which is why we know these details) and if there were serious side effects, we're know them already

But ehre ARE serious side effects. I presume you take that into account too?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, August 25, 2006 4:33 AM

salicylic acid bind to adenosine, I don't know much else about it, I think that these thinks are basically understood, on a much better level than psycho pharmaceuticals.

Signym,

Side effects, not in the same way.

For instance, if you take Kava, which is an adrenal blocker, then the effects are those of blocking adrenaline, including possible liver damage.

With an understudied pharm, there may be other binding properties that no one has yet noticed.

Certainly, I'm not saying herbs are all safe la di da, I'm saying they're better understood, and so the educated consumer can make smart decisions.

There's no way to make smart decisions about pharmaceuticals, because the problems are not yet known, because people haven't been taking them for years and years. You make a trusting decision.

I have no more trust left, so I can't do that. I think we're at a point where if we made trusting decisions, we'd be the guineapigs of the Bush crowd, and not just in medicine.

CITIZEN

Friday, August 25, 2006 4:25 PM

Herbal side effects are never anywhere near as bad, the ingrediants are in much more natural proportions and they aren't concentrated.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Friday, August 25, 2006 4:59 PM

Hi DT,

The reason why I asked about salycilates (from salix - willow) is because their mode of action is now only just being teased out. If you think of all the hoopla about Vioxx (withdrawn from the market), COX-1 and COX-2 inhibitors, heart disease and kidney disease etc, aspirin and other salicylates are right in there. Aspirin itself causes severe stomach bleeding as a side effect.

So this to me is not as simple as it may look at first blush.

RUE

Friday, August 25, 2006 8:06 PM

Bump - hey DT, did you get any of my msgs? I sent 3.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, August 26, 2006 12:59 AM

Quote:
I don't think Bush was responcible for this, he's pro-life for crying out loud, he would never, in a million years, come up with legislation like this.

Then you'd be wrong.( shocker there, eh? ) Bush WAS responsible for this, and there's no denying it. Stem Cell research has NOTHING to do w/ being 'pro-life'. Only EMBRYONIC , and all Bush did was limit what the Fed could do in regards to funding He STILL didn't ban any research. That's the small nail which has you hung up on the issue. Bush DID fund research for Stem Cell research. Not Clinton. Get it ?

Be a man, for once, and admit this was ALL Bush.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, August 26, 2006 1:50 AM

Quote:
Herbal side effects are never anywhere near as bad, the ingrediants are in much more natural proportions and they aren't concentrated.

all generalizations are bad

actually it's that they're less 'side' rather than 'less'
as I said, Kava blocks adrenalin. up to 100% That's a wholy moly of an effect, but it can also kill you.

Rue,

No I didn't get the messages. Where to PMs land when you send them?

Acetosalicylic acid is a natural complace salt. Vioxx is an artifically synthesized analog. True, human ignorance doesn't make something more dangerous. Anything can harm humans, if taken incorrectly, or without moderation. But I suspect the harmfulness of aspirin has been exaggerated by companies that want to sell you something else.

On the surface it's not that dissimilar from vioxx, which is in the same category, but the key IMHO is the naturalness.

Natural compounds are ones which we evolved in the company of, and interact with our system in a more natural way. Can one synthesize a better drug? sure, it's possible, it's just not likely. There are so many unknowns in the system, and the interaction of natural compounds are more likely to have some sort of stablizing effect in the body which prevents them from causing sudden death. With a synthesized compound, there are unpredictable effects that your body has not evolved to handle.

You're descended from mice who may, and probably did, gnaw on willow bark and similar forest debris. But nothing in your evolutionary past popped vioxx.

A host of unknowns occur like "maybe cox1 and cox2 have to exists in the system in a balance." It's entirely possible. There's no way of knowing, except an exceedingly long case study. Aspirin has been through that exceedingly long time of use, and it's known to be an anticoagulant, and an acid. These cause the effects we see, and so we need to bear that in mind, and take it in moderation. We're descended from mice who gnawed on willow bark, not mice who ate whole willow trees.

RUE

Saturday, August 26, 2006 1:59 AM

DT

DANG! I used the site's msg'ing. I don't know where they went, then. And I trashed my text files so I can't get them back. Anyway, I DID appreciate your message to me. I may not always agree with you, but I do sincerely want to hear what you think.

Rue

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:00 AM

Auraptor,

This debate is not about what this debate pretends to be about. It's about Merck getting control of the stem cell industry.

Bush had little to do with Stem Cell legislation, it was foisted on him by his own party. A sitting president cannot veto his own parties legislation.

The only time I know of this happening was when John Tyler was president. He vetoed the national bank bill, and the Whigs kicked him out of the party.

Then Bush Vetoed the all-Republican Stem Cell bill, just now. I think that kicking Bush out of the GOP would be a terrific move. It would prove that sanity was still in charge.

RUE

Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:25 AM

HEY DICK-WHACK

Stem cells only go back to 1998.

GET IT ? Should I repeat that for you?
Stem cells only go back to 1998.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec98/cells_11-6.html
Nov. 6, 1998
"After more than a decade of work, researchers said today they have isolated and grown basic human stem cells."

By 1999 there was a REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL ban on embryonic research to prevent stem cell work
Section 511 of the Labor/HHS appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1999, enacted as part of Public Law 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999.

However Varmus, head of the NIH appointed by CLINTON APPROVED federal funding for embryonic as well as other stem cell research.
Statement of Harold Varmus, M.D., Director of the National Institutes of Health Before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, January 26, 1999. APPROVING federal funding for embryonic stem cell research

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUSH's ROLE - obstruct, oppose, and try to take credit.

YOUR ROLE - being an ignorant sh-t-spewing a--hole
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Bush DID fund research for Stem Cell research. Not Clinton. Get it ?

Be a man, for once, and admit this was ALL Bush.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:27 AM

Quote:
Then Bush Vetoed the all-Republican Stem Cell bill, just now. I think that kicking Bush out of the GOP would be a terrific move. It would prove that sanity was still in charge.

Ok. Fair enough. Bush won't run on any GOP ticket in '08. Good for the GOP.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:34 AM

rue, your selective reading of your own post makes you a moron. Sorry.

Quote:
Stem cells only go back to 1998.
Should I repeat that since for you?
Stem cells only go back to 1998.

No, brain donor, stem cells go back to before the origins of life. That's BILLIONS of your Earth years. OUR STUDYING of stem cells is some what more recent.

Quote:

By 1999 there REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL ban on embryonic research

That's FEDERAL funding, not private funding. Pin head. Bush went on to FUND stem cell research. Clinton never did.

Grow the fuck up, punk.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, August 26, 2006 3:27 AM

Rue,

Dick Wack is not a diplomatic term.
I had a conversation with a physician about stem cell research, by that name, in 1978.

Auraptor,

I'm quite serious. The independent president Bush. It would be a healthy move. And not meaningly. It would mean that GOP senators would not have to support Bush unquestioningly because Bush would no longer hold the purse strings.

My mom still thinks Bush is going to run in '08

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, August 26, 2006 3:28 AM

Double Post

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, August 26, 2006 3:36 AM

Triple post. For the record, there's nine minutes there, so the server is kicking around.

BTW,

Grow the f^&k up, pin head, and moron also lack diplomatic appeal.

RUE

Saturday, August 26, 2006 8:24 AM

DT,

It's not that no one knew about stem cells back then. But there were issues. The first was that they didn't know much about differentitation - when it happened, how it happened (all at once or little by little), how much potential there was for going backwards. (There is STILL a lot they don't know. They used to think all of six months ago that skin stem cells could be used to repair heart tissue for example, but just recently found that the cells fused rather than differentiated into fxt'l tissue.) So pre 1998 unless you got cells very early you always had a mix of committed cells and stem cells and couldn't do meaningful research. And then they couldn't be kept alive and pluripotent in culture. Up till 1998 the only cells that could be successively cultured ad infinitum were cancer cells.

That's what made the 1998 breakthrough so meaningful. UNTIL 1998 NO STEM CELL RESEARCH WAS POSSIBLE.

PLEASE don't try to teach me about stem cells. I know a lot more about them than you do.

And the reason I called Unwrapped Dick-Whack is b/c he's an arrogant rabid ignorant ass. Like his master, Herr Bush.

RUE

Saturday, August 26, 2006 8:30 AM

Dick-Whack

And your point is in looking even more ignorant and childish than before? Did you not read the part where a CLINTON appointee during CLINTON'S administration said NIH funding could be used for embryonic stem cell reserach. BUSH'S brilliant contribution was to limit federal funding ALREADY IN PLACE. A--HOLE.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, August 26, 2006 10:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Dick-Whack

And your point is in looking even more ignorant and childish than before? Did you not read the part where a CLINTON appointee during CLINTON'S administration said NIH funding could be used for embryonic stem cell reserach. BUSH'S brilliant contribution was to limit federal funding ALREADY IN PLACE. A--HOLE.

Besides your infantile tirade of ad hominems, you're really not saying anything new here. Bush 1st spent $$ on ANY stem cell research of any kind, what so ever, by the Fed Gov't. That's a fact you just can't seem to wrap your brain around.

Callin' others names won't change the facts. Or haven't you figured that out yet ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Saturday, August 26, 2006 11:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Then you'd be wrong.( shocker there, eh? ) Bush WAS responsible for this, and there's no denying it. Stem Cell research has NOTHING to do w/ being 'pro-life'. Only EMBRYONIC , and all Bush did was limit what the Fed could do in regards to funding He STILL didn't ban any research. That's the small nail which has you hung up on the issue. Bush DID fund research for Stem Cell research. Not Clinton. Get it ?

Be a man, for once, and admit this was ALL Bush.

WE'RE talking about embryonic stem cell research, hello. There's no small nail, but since you evaluate all events on "How good can I make Bush look with this" I'm sure you think so.

I don't like Clinton anymore than Bush; I certainly, unlike you with Bush, have no interest in singing Clinton's praises. Bush enacted a crippled version of Clinton’s legislation. Get it? No I didn't think so. The funny thing is if positions had been reversed you'd be throwing your toys out of the pram about how no one recognises this was all Bush's doing.

Okay there’s no intelligent debate with you, you aren't interested or capable of it. It seemed like you were going to be a man for once and enter into an actual open dialog, which lasted for one whole post, just go back to your hero worship and leave me in peace, I want to talk to people, not sycophants.

Quote:
Callin' others names won't change the facts. Or haven't you figured that out yet ?

This is simply priceless.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, August 26, 2006 4:49 PM

Quote:
Okay there’s no intelligent debate with you, you aren't interested or capable of it. It seemed like you were going to be a man for once and enter into an actual open dialog, which lasted for one whole post, just go back to your hero worship and leave me in peace, I want to talk to people, not sycophants.

How is it 'hero worship' when I state a FACT that Bush is the 1st President to authorize Fed funding for stem cell research?

You're hatin' on the wrong person, citizen.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Saturday, August 26, 2006 5:14 PM

No one mentioned Bush, you took this as an opportunity to sing Bush's praises, like most threads you post on.

You repeated the spin that turns Bush's action from merely signing off a crippled version of someone else’s legislation as proof that he's such a great guy and supporter of science.

I pointed out the simple fact that it was Clinton's legislation, from Clinton's administration, and that Bush just happened to be the guy in the seat when it made it through, that the Clinton administration was prepared to fund this research in early 1999 and you say it's irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, if Clinton’s administration hadn’t put together the legislation Bush wouldn't have cut it down to virtually nothing and signed it. He wouldn't have become the first president to start funding embryonic stem cell research if the Clinton legislation hadn't been put down in front of him.

Your spin is in suggesting it's all down to Bush when it is not, that is a FACT. It's called spin, it's called lie by omission you don't have to tell an untruth in order to lie, just select which truths you put out.

And don't give me this hating nonsense; you're spitting accusations of me not ‘ever being a man’ all over the place. I merely told you I want a debate with someone, not trade insults with a sycophant that goes into insult overdrive if anyone dares to mention that maybe Bush isn't god, which is so far about all you've done. I realise you don't realise its hero worship, but that's because he's your hero and you think it's all true and justified.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, August 26, 2006 5:23 PM

Quote:
PLEASE don't try to teach me about stem cells. I know a lot more about them than you do.

Rue,

See it's this sort of arrogant attitude. If you have credentials, post them. Are you a stem cell researcher? I find it unlikely that the rank and file of doctors knows more about them than I do. You don't know how much I know, there's sort of an assumption built in there. I'm not an expert in the issue, but so far you haven't posted anything I didn' know.

Quote:
And the reason I called Unwrapped Dick-Whack is b/c he's an arrogant rabid ignorant ass. Like his master, Herr Bush.

No offense, but he may not be alone.

BTW, I don't support his absurd position "Bush, hero of the stem cell world." That's like "Bush, peacemaker of the middle east."

RUE

Saturday, August 26, 2006 11:00 PM

Hey DT,

I'm not comfortable posting too much identifying information out here.

I'm not a doctor but my educational and professional background is biology and medicine, with enough chemistry thrown in that that's what I now do for a living.

Embryonic tissue culture used to be a job in a university /research setting, now it's a a topic of interest I keep up with.

OOC, what's your background?

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, August 27, 2006 12:41 AM

Rue,

I actually don't think this forum calls for paranoia. A whole lot of us have posted enough for bin laden to track us down and blow us up, and yet nothing has happened.

As for me, I farm tomatoes. My degree is in history. I went to college for about 20 years, and took everything. My school didn't have much in bioengineering, we did some PCR on dna strands, worked with some cultures, but no create-an-organism type stuff, it's just a peripheral NY state school which is nothing like a peripheral CA state school. As for what I do for a living, currently I sell children's books, but careerwise I'm a programmer/database designer, though I've also done a fair amount of teaching.

You just can't know too much. When I was taking very ill with a debilitating condition that also made me insane (I suspect it's similar to what pirate news has) I saw 18 doctors, and talked to a dozen more, including a lot of experts, and eventually concluded that psychiatry is as 12 monkeys says, a religion. I had to go study neurochemistry and cure myself, which took me a couple of years. I figure there's not a lot out there that I can't handle, informationwise.

My interest in stem cells comes from the fact of that conversation nearly 30 years ago, and my sister who can't walk, and stem cells being really the only possible treatment that might work.

LISSA37

Sunday, August 27, 2006 12:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I wonder what reason the nut jobs will find for not using stem cells now?

Actually I kind of thought this would happen. I never understood why they couldn't harvest from unbilical cords either.

So here is my pro life, anti-science response to this latest development on this important issue:

Fine with me...if it don't hurt nobody (or any potential little nobody's out there) then go research all you can. Just no clones (except Jessica Alba, lets face it we all could use one of those).

H

I like how you said this and I think most people of the same pro-life sort (of which I am also a member) would agree, since the main complaint with stem cell research before was that it would hurt "potential little nobody's". So, I don't think too many people will be able to come up with a reason for opposition now. Who would oppose a harmless method of helping people? With any luck... that means all will be shiny with this issue now.

Credit for screencaps belongs to: http://still-flying.net/ and http://www.leavemethewhite.com/caps/index.php

RUE

Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:13 AM

Hi DT,

Sorry to get back to you so late. I tend to be off the i-net for days at a time, and by the time I get back the topics have dropped a long ways down.

I was born and raised outside of Buffalo by immigrant /firstgen Polish parents and went to school at SUNYAB, so we come from the same end of the continent. The ppl I hung out with back in my other incarnation were all Canada-philes, a great shaggy herd leaning on the wire strands looking for a way north to those blue skies with high white clouds and open fields and forests. I spent a fair amount of time in Canada, and I knew, and know, a fair number of Canadians / Canadiens. So I feel that my formative years were influenced by being brought up in one culture, living in another, and heavily influenced by a third.

My experience with 'up-staters' (for non-NYS people, that means anything outside of NYC's direct influence ) is that those from larger cities tend to be politically liberal (though personally conservative), while rural and small-town up-staters are extra-ordinarily conservative. That's probably the reason for our political divide - we are both the results of our environments.

But we agree on this - I personally feel no learning is ever wasted.

We could probably have an interesting correspondence on biochem, neurochem etc., along with SignyM who's been an avid researcher by necessity and apt student by nature.

When shall we get together to rule the world with our superior knowledge ??

JUST kidding !!!

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:54 PM

Rue,

It took me many years among the conservative rural folk here to realize that they were right. I was emersed in the whitewash of liberal intellectual thought too, but in time, i've dried out.

The way I see it now is that liberal academia and the intellectual elite are high on their own ideas, and never seriously consider any dissenting opinion. As a community, they are trapped inside their own heads and egos, and they become a monotony of their own ideas reiterated through generations. If an idea was wrong or misguided, it was never tested, never questioned, and so it got passed from generation to generation through the education system, as each new class was indoctrinated into the same old ideas.

It's been pretty much true for a while, liberalism increases with education, conservatism increases with life experience. The most fringe liberals tend to be young intellectuals, like citizen, and the most conservative tend to be old people, I assume say geezer. I've come to see this education thing as more of an indoctrination now. A lot of liberal conditioning is embedded into our education system, by teachers who are a product of that system. The basic fallacy arguement we're given is: There are two kinds of people in the world, those who want to give away money, help people and puppies (liberals,) and those who want to steal all the money and kill people and puppies (conservatives.)

All of this doesn't really define partisan. I think political parties are basically inherited. About 90% of people vote for the party their parents voted for, which is odd considering only 10% or listen to the same music, or in general try to follow the same life path.

So, when you get down to politics, you have all these people who were taught to be liberals, supporting the democrats, who never do a damn thing for poor people, puppies, etc. The educated intellectual left fall back on their education, which has taught them that the ultimate ideal is the far left, and the only reason it can't be enacted is that people who disagree are stupid and evil. The new liberals will now reject the democrats as being "not left enough" because that's the way their education has taught them. They'll go on to dream about ideologies such as socialism, that, in spite of many years of disasterous failure in practice (need I enumerate?) remains as the intellectual ideal, untempered by reality. The only acceptable excuse for past social experiments is that "They just didn't do it right."

Which is not to say that conservatives are perfect, there's a fair amount of ignorance involved sometimes, you can get to 90 without knowing a damn thing, and people do it. And so those people are led to support these people (Bush and co) in spite of them having like nothing in common.

But Bush and co themselves are products of the intellectual community. They were the arrogant pricks who thought they knew better. They were the most avid students of socialism, and they sat up in their brain trust clubs and dreamt up ways to improve on the idea. No one had ever done it right, because no one was as smart as them, and they could take markers to marx, and write their own new great social plan.

So, not to nitpick, no learning is wasted, but some is misguided programming disguised as learning.

Logically, I think we can deduce that the villagers in africa are far more conservative than the many liberals who strive to help them. Just a thought.

As for this area. Particular places are centers of liberalism. It's radiated by universities. Ithaca is probably the most extreme, and not coincidentally, one of the most advanced, because education is a good idea, even if it is laced with indoctination rhetoric.

Me and barb, the now absence limi, discussed this in an earlier thread, and came to the conclusion that conservatives dropped the ball, and basically sat around while liberal took over education, and that led to this result.

BTW the most conservative folk here don't have towns.

RUE

Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:54 PM

"BTW the most conservative folk here don't have towns."

From my observation near Lake St George and Candor, there are two very conservative types of ppl. One set lives in, literally, tar paper-shacks, does construction and tourism-related jobs during the summer, and hunts and traps during the winter. The other set is the nouveau, high-tech well-educated off-the-grid types. No offense.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, September 1, 2006 12:10 AM

Nah, I think there's just one type. Those of us who build spiders on the internet in our free time are actually the same ones who farm tomatoes. There's something else out there that's stolen the name conservative, but it's a doppleganger, and I like to call it commie. Commieservative? Hmm. How about christo-fascist. Judeo-fascist. That has a better ring to it. No offense to any of the above.

RUE

Friday, September 1, 2006 12:38 AM

HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ...

I was in fact actually wondering if the divide still exists - the dirt poor rurals and the 'moderne' high tech rurals.