Stems cells used to cure man's AIDS and Leukemia

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: daniel49
stem cell research has been going on since the mid 1800's ( source)there have been 72 cures and treatments developed using adult stem cells and "0" using embryonic stem cells.
As shown in this map most of the world has the policy your asking for and yet results still = 0.

Seems to me your obsessing over a 14k braclet on the ground, when the entrance to the motherload is 10 feet in front of you?

This is the sort of wild dishonesty from embryonic stem cell research opponents which utterly infuriates me.

As noted until the breakthroughs announced in November of 1998 embryonic stem cell research was at best a theoretical idea which there was no way to really go about trying to use it for medical research in order to produce human cures. At best you are passing off lies from other sources without bothering to do your own independent research.

Given the massive head start, its utterly unsurprising that adult stem cell cures are further along right now, and it proves nothing for those honestly willing to consider the issue. No-one I'm aware of is arguing that we should not support Adult Stem Cell Research at all, the question is whether embryonic stem cell research should also be supported. The fact of the matter is embryonic stem cells can potentially do things regular adult stem cells can't such as in the area of spinal cord injuries. There is a brand new theoretical approach that may allow adult stem cells that are altered in a certain way to behave the same as embryonic ones in treatments, but its not clear this approach will even work let alone in a timely manner, and it has not been proven like embryonic stem cells have already to some degree in animal trials.

I'm guessing you vote yes and I vote no.
Thats the way it goes. If we all agreed on everything it would be a boring world anyway.

But you vote "no" for purely ideological reasons that have nothing to do with the promise of the technology. What you can't see about yourself is that you let your dogmatic religious views interfere with your ability to objectively view the underlying science.

And the fascinating thing is that you think that you don't.
Its about, is an embryo a living thing or not?
If it is, to destroy it is to murder the most defenseless of all in our society. If the research can be accomplished through means other then the destruction of an embryo then I have no problem ith it.
It is not idealogical, its about a fundamental lack of agreement ,about when life begins.

If I were to take your tact, I merely dismiss your view that destroying an embryo is akin to popping a pimple on your face as you have dismissed mine.
(your idealogy is such that it makes you unable to consider the other world view)

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: TheDoc9

Originally posted by: Balt

The results of the experiment may point researchers to a new way of controlling the AIDS virus HIV that doesn?t force patients to take drugs for the rest of their lives. Scientists will now intensify their search for therapies that achieve the same effect, predicted Jay Levy, a University of California, San Francisco, AIDS researcher.

Drug companies aren't gonna like this.

That's why the majority of people with this disease will never see this cure.

That's utterly moronic. Whatever drug company or individual who makes the cure is going to be famous and quite wealthy from a cure. It's hard to make a cure for a disease that mutates as fast as every 8 hours.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: BigJelly
Cured by ADULT stem cells.

Conservatives are against EMBRYONTIC stem cells because embryos are destroyed/killed.

In fact this proves that conservatives were right about ADULT stem cells being the way to go, instead of embryonic stem cells, in the first place.

Get your facts straight troll.

EDITED:
FYI the debate has also ended since the Japanese along with University of Wisconsin determined how to make adult stem cells become embryonic stem cells:
Adult stem cells converted to embryonic stem cells
Adult stem cells converted to embryonic stem cells

QFT:thumbsup:
Typical example of the half truths often kicked around. All the breakthroughs have been in adult stem cell but lets blow the embryonic trumpet for the sake of abortion.

Speaking of half-truths... you're just as bad as the OP.

We've been doing research on adult stem cells longer than embryonic. It was only in the mid to late 90s that some big breakthroughs were made in embryonic stem cell research and they really started to show promise (the first line was only created in 98 I think). There's no telling how much embryonic stem cell research would have advanced over the last decade if it had federal funding and US scientists were allowed to engineer new lines. It's no surprise that embryonic stem cell research has stagnated over the years.

Speaking of half-truths indeed.

Plenty of other countries were not prevented from creating new embryonic stems cell lines, and even scientists in the US weren't prevented from studying the lines of embryonic stem cells that already existed. (btw, Clinton was the first president who signed a law placing restrictions on embryonic stem cells, fyi, until he flip-flopped on the issue in '99) If there was so much promise from embryonic stem cells then why didn't any amazing breakthroughs based on embryonic stem cells come from research outside of the US, or from research on the existing lines within the US? Surely you aren't suggested that valuable advancement could only have come from US research labs?

Let's face it. The OP came trotting in to take a partisan squat and owned himself in the process by failing to read his own article and think things through. Instead he relies on stale old lefty talking points that really never held any water under scrutiny in the first place. You are making claims based on shoulda, woulda, coulda, and they are nothing more than an attempted indictment based on wild speculation.

This.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Plenty of other countries were not prevented from creating new embryonic stems cell lines, and even scientists in the US weren't prevented from studying the lines of embryonic stem cells that already existed. (btw, Clinton was the first president who signed a law placing restrictions on embryonic stem cells, fyi, until he flip-flopped on the issue in '99) If there was so much promise from embryonic stem cells then why didn't any amazing breakthroughs based on embryonic stem cells come from research outside of the US, or from research on the existing lines within the US? Surely you aren't suggested that valuable advancement could only have come from US research labs?

The field only became viable became viable for real medical research potentially involving cures with a breakthrough by the University of Wisconsin in November of 1998. You're basically flat out making things up about Clinton, although he did in fact endorse the NIH proposed guidelines in 1999. Any real hesitation here was about understanding this new field and for that matter figuring out what research it made sense to actually provide funding to.

The reality it it can take a long time for research to lead to actual treatments for humans, so there isn't anything particularly odd about this situation. The restrictions hindered research in the US in a variety of ways including that practically all the existing lines Bush allowed became contaminated, severely restricting how they could actually be used. However it should be noted that the first human trials of an embryonic stem cell research treatment are to begin this year. (I'm personally not saying embryonic stem cell research has been completely stopped in the US, just severely hindered by Bush's policies on this issue.)

Making things up? I think not. Do some research on the Dickey Amendment of 1995, which Bill Clinton signed into law. Do some more research and discover that in 1999 Clinton did not endorse deriving new lines of embryonic stem cells. He endorsed studying the lines that had been created. The Dickey Amendment was still in force anyway, which prevented deriving new stem cell lines, because doing so required the destruction of an embryo.

Bush did nothing different that Clinton. Bush did not stop the funding of research on the 3 existing lines of embryonic stem cells. The only difference came from the partisan fever swamps of the left who so muddled the facts of the case in their zeal to make Bush look bad that, even today, few know the facts of the matter. Look at all the lefties spouting the old talking points as fact in here in this thread when they are nowhere near the truth.

Nor can you point out any solid proof that the restrictions of Bush hindered any research on the matter. That's pure speculation and bullshit party-line speak at its absolute finest.