• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

P&Ns middle name is and

Page 1545 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
29,159
13,256
136
ES cells are ES cells--they are pluripotent and can generally be teased into being any other cell. The cell line from 1973 was derived from kidney tissue (though also embryonic--so endodermic cells that are already past pluripotency)--these are kidney cells and no other cells. They will only ever be kidney cells. Thousands and thousands of common cell lines are maintained this way in common research, and some are many more decades older than that line from 1973.

So, no, there is no real contradiction in those two statements.

Anyway, it is still fetal tissue that was, originally, harvested from a human embryo, so that still stands. It's just that some people are conflating fetal tissue with ES cells, and these are two different things.
Look, if B is derived from A, and B was used to make C, as far as I can tell A was used to make C. I don't see anything in your post explaining why that is not the case.

Unless "derived" is being used in the theoretical sense?
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
9,244
5,353
146
Look, if B is derived from A, and B was used to make C, as far as I can tell A was used to make C. I don't see anything in your post explaining why that is not the case.

Unless "derived" is being used in the theoretical sense?
So none of it is placental, it's actually all supernova matter, right?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: dank69

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
29,159
13,256
136
I recommend you watch the video I posted above in #38606 of Flynn discussing it. Like seriously, how stupid do you have to be to hear the idea that "they" are going to put it in salad dressing and not immediately dismiss it as quackery just based on several factors like "how do you control dosage?" or "if you could just eat it why the fuck are we getting shots?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
18,231
5,441
136
I recommend you watch the video I posted above in #38606 of Flynn discussing it. Like seriously, how stupid do you have to be to hear the idea that "they" are going to put it in salad dressing and not immediately dismiss it as quackery just based on several factors like "how do you control dosage?" or "if you could just eat it why the fuck are we getting shots?"
Imagine this. Man was in charge of the Defense Intelligence Agency once. He's still pissed that Obama got rid of him, because he was a nut then. He hasn't changed.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
16,880
6,636
136
I recommend you watch the video I posted above in #38606 of Flynn discussing it. Like seriously, how stupid do you have to be to hear the idea that "they" are going to put it in salad dressing and not immediately dismiss it as quackery just based on several factors like "how do you control dosage?" or "if you could just eat it why the fuck are we getting shots?"
Its pure Q control… Flynn knows exactly what he is doing.
Pathetic.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,242
21,280
146
Look, if B is derived from A, and B was used to make C, as far as I can tell A was used to make C. I don't see anything in your post explaining why that is not the case.

Unless "derived" is being used in the theoretical sense?
It wasn't though. B was harvested to make C. A was never involved in the experiment. This is an extremely important distinction--from the perspective of anyone doing the experiment, publishing the work, and handling all the important questions from the reviewers.

What you're proposing up there is that we might as well call your arm an ES cell, because it was, at some point! It's meaningless and immaterial.

I know what you're saying, but from the perspective of a developmental geneticist--it's very important to make this distinction, and I was only commenting on why those comments in the article weren't contradictory, because they were acknowledging this distinction.

--I didn't use derived as "theoretical"...I don't know what that would mean, lol. I just meant that the kidney cells, derived from original kidney tissue, were simply collected from that original tissue, and cultured over tens of thousands of generations and are thus maintained. I don't think any thing has been done to that line (not for the purpose of making this drug, certainly). ...But there likely exists many different strains of that same line that were variously mutated and treated in different ways over the years by various labs working on their projects and perpetuated separately, passed around to other investigators and submitted to cell banks (this happens, and probably exists for this line? There are companies that you can just buy the various cell lines that they keep in storage forever, and possibly hundreds of them are just various lines with specific, separate mutations, all derived from one original wild type tissue).

In the end, the overall topic should still be infuriating to pus-brained theocratic conservatives because it involved the destruction of a human embryo, regardless of the stage in which it was destroyed.
 
Last edited:

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
29,159
13,256
136
It wasn't though. B was harvested to make C. A was never involved in the experiment. This is an extremely important distinction--from the perspective of anyone doing the experiment, publishing the work, and handling all the important questions from the reviewers.

What you're proposing up there is that we might as well call your arm an ES cell, because it was, at some point! It's meaningless and immaterial.

I know what you're saying, but from the perspective of a developmental geneticist--it's very important to make this distinction, and I was only commenting on why those comments in the article weren't contradictory, because they were acknowledging this distinction.

--I didn't use derived as "theoretical"...I don't know what that would mean, lol. I just meant that the kidney cells, derived from original kidney tissue, were simply collected from that original tissue, and cultured over tens of thousands of generations and are thus maintained. I don't think any thing has been done to that line (not for the purpose of making this drug, certainly). ...But there likely exists many different strains of that same line that were variously mutated and treated in different ways over the years by various labs working on their projects and perpetuated separately, passed around to other investigators and submitted to cell banks (this happens, and probably exists for this line? There are companies that you can just buy the various cell lines that they keep in storage forever, and possibly hundreds of them are just various lines with specific, separate mutations, all derived from one original wild type tissue).

In the end, the overall topic should still be infuriating to pus-brained theocratic conservatives because it involved the destruction of a human embryo, regardless of the stage in which it was destroyed.
This is all very much over my head. To me the bottom line question would be: if we never harvested a single embryonic stem cell ever in human history (just threw every aborted/miscarried embryo/fetus into the trash/ground/fire like God intended), would it be possible to have made this drug? I think the answer is no, in which case every pro-life/anti-stem cell jackass touting this drug can go fuck themselves.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY