Stems cells used to cure man's AIDS and Leukemia

[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.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Good thing that the GOP held back research into the use and applications of stem cells for almost a decade.

Those darned immoral Germans didn't hold back though.

Sounds good. Why don't we just steal the research from them instead of paying for it ourselves.

And W put more money into this than Clinton ever did.

 

[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.

 

[theeedude]

Who cares if these stem cells are harvested from discarded embryos or not? I sure as hell don't. The same conservatives who are so concerned about fertility clinic embryos being destroyed are the first to complain about the woman who gave birth to 8 of those embryos collecting welfare to support them.

 

[daniel49]

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.

http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/media_myths.html
Myth Number 3 is very revealing.

 

[frostedflakes]

Your link says exactly what I pointing out. Adult stem cell research is decades ahead of embryonic. It wasn't until the late 90s that the first embryonic stem cell line was even created. Embryonic stem cells could have a lot of potential, but people need more time to research the stem cells and apply their research to create treatments.

So saying that embryonic stem cells hold no promise or haven't cured anybody yet is kind of disingenuous. Kind of like claiming that fusion power research is pointless because current reactors can't generate a surplus of power. The research is still in it's infancy and I think we should do everything we can to foster it.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Your link says exactly what I pointing out. Adult stem cell research is decades ahead of embryonic. It wasn't until the late 90s that the first embryonic stem cell line was even created. Embryonic stem cells could have a lot of potential, but people need more time to research the stem cells and apply their research to create treatments.

So saying that embryonic stem cells hold no promise or haven't cured anybody yet is kind of disingenuous. Kind of like claiming that fusion power research is pointless because current reactors can't generate a surplus of power. The research is still in it's infancy and I think we should do everything we can to foster it.

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?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The OP makes an attack against conservatives. Well FU too. For a moment I thought you cared about the story you were posting, instead it?s the means to an end.

As for the story, 1 out of 3 people die in this procedure. I wouldn?t call it a cure until it can safely be replicated in other patients. Lots of breakthroughs can occur but they only mean something if we can apply them.

I did touch a nerve?

The attack against conservatives is duly warranted after their stonewalling funding for stem cell research at every single opportunity.

As for my motives, I posted the same story in ATOT w/o any shots at conservatives because I wanted to get this story as much exposure as possible.

If the fact that those that you have voted for to support your beliefs and/or ideals are responsible for slowing the progress and you are somehow feeling angered at me because I point out that fact, I think that you have more problems than worrying about a slight against your political icons by me.

You are so mixed up right now. This story is about Adult stem cell's which the GOP didnt block funding for on a govt level. The GOP also didnt block funding on a private level for embryonic stem cells. Any private organization was free to spend their own money researching it.

This is an epic fail thread for you. In your frothing attempt to bring back the glory years of 04-08 on this msgboard for liberals. You clearly failed to understand the article and its implications at home.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Your link says exactly what I pointing out. Adult stem cell research is decades ahead of embryonic. It wasn't until the late 90s that the first embryonic stem cell line was even created. Embryonic stem cells could have a lot of potential, but people need more time to research the stem cells and apply their research to create treatments.

So saying that embryonic stem cells hold no promise or haven't cured anybody yet is kind of disingenuous. Kind of like claiming that fusion power research is pointless because current reactors can't generate a surplus of power. The research is still in it's infancy and I think we should do everything we can to foster it.

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?

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. It was only in the last decade that human embryonic stem cells were isolated and lines created that could be used to develop experimental treatments. You are dismissing embryonic stem cells too quickly. Research on bone marrow transplants begin in the early 50s, but it wasn't until 1968 that the first successful transplant was done. Researchers have had decades to create and improve treatments based on adult stem cells, if given a few decades to research embryonic stem cells I'm sure new treatments will come from that as well.

And I've never claimed we should abandon adult stem cell research, they hold a lot of promise for certain treatments. But embryonic stem cells also hold a lot of promise, so I'd like the government to fund both.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Your link says exactly what I pointing out. Adult stem cell research is decades ahead of embryonic. It wasn't until the late 90s that the first embryonic stem cell line was even created. Embryonic stem cells could have a lot of potential, but people need more time to research the stem cells and apply their research to create treatments.

So saying that embryonic stem cells hold no promise or haven't cured anybody yet is kind of disingenuous. Kind of like claiming that fusion power research is pointless because current reactors can't generate a surplus of power. The research is still in it's infancy and I think we should do everything we can to foster it.

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?

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. It was only in the last decade that human embryonic stem cells were isolated and lines created that could be used to develop experimental treatments. You are dismissing embryonic stem cells too quickly. Research on bone marrow transplants begin in the early 50s, but it wasn't until 1968 that the first successful transplant was done. Researchers have had decades to create and improve treatments based on adult stem cells, if given a few decades to research embryonic stem cells I'm sure new treatments will come from that as well.

And I've never claimed we should abandon adult stem cell research, they hold a lot of promise for certain treatments. But embryonic stem cells also hold a lot of promise, so I'd like the government to fund both.

That based upon a warm fuzzy feeling or do you have some hard facts?

 

[frostedflakes]

Um, how about because they're pluripotent and can differentiate into any type of human cell. I don't know how you can claim pluripotent cells (be it embryonic or induced from adult stem cells) don't hold tremendous promise for medical science.

And something to mull around in your tiny head, induced pluripotent stem cells are the result of scientists comparing embryonic and adult stem cells, which allowed them to identifying the genetic code responsible for pluripotency. So basically the holy grail of the anti-embryonic stem cell folks is only possible because of embryonic stem cell research. Kind of ironic, huh?

 

[kitkat22]

The key to this is understanding that if we take a person's stem cells, manipulate them to exclude CCR5, then reimplant them we can effectively come up with a solution to treating HIV. With further research this actually might be cheaper and more effective than the current strain on the health care system. One treatment of this and you are essentially protected for life? Sure beats the constant pill popping and IV lines.

The other point to make is they may not find HIV in his system, but I really, really doubt that it is gone, it's just in hiding. Maybe there is a way to eliminate it from the body. Throw in some more research and we might actually find the cure for AIDS.

 

[AFMatt]

It's easy to blame Bush for the lack of government funding for emryonic research, but only because Clinton mulled over it and delayed it just long enough to drop it in Bush's lap....to make the same decision Clinton probably would have.
Basically, it came down to the perception that the research is linked to aborting fetuses. That is something a lot of people feel would be quite hypocritical of the government to fund if they are, at the same time, anti-abortion. Obama, who seems to be pro-choice, will likely reverse that policy.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: AFMatt
It's easy to blame Bush for the lack of government funding for emryonic research, but only because Clinton mulled over it and delayed it just long enough to drop it in Bush's lap....to make the same decision Clinton probably would have.
Basically, it came down to the perception that the research is linked to aborting fetuses. That is something a lot of people feel would be quite hypocritical of the government to fund if they are, at the same time, anti-abortion. Obama, who seems to be pro-choice, will likely reverse that policy.

The thing is, they aren't using aborted fetuses for this kind of research. They would be using embryonic cells that would normally be **thrown out** from fertility clinics. When you do in vitro fertilization, you take a bunch of eggs out of the woman and add sperm, but only one or two of the fertilized eggs will be implanted back in the woman; the rest would end up in the biohazard bin.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Um, how about because pluripotentand can differentiate into any type of human cell. I don't know how you can claim pluripotent cells (be it embryonic or induced from adult stem cells) don't hold tremendous promise for medical science.

And something to mull around in your tiny head, induced pluripotent stem cells are the result of scientists comparing embryonic and adult stem cells, which allowed them to identifying the genetic code responsible for pluripotency. So basically the holy grail of the anti-embryonic stem cell folks is only possible because of embryonic stem cell research. Kind of ironic, huh?

Note: People seem to resort to insults when they have few supporting facts.

Yes, they are pluripotent and they also tend to cause tumors.

I see nothing you can do with embryonic that you can't do with adult stem cells .Text

Question: where would you harvest these embryonic cells from.
The destruction of Embryo? Definately some ethical questions there.
would embryonic germ cells be good enough for you?

Financing. why must the govt finance it. In case you haven't heard Obama's got the next 4 generations sucking air financially anyway.

If it is so promising get a group of investors together.
I just bought my wife one of her 3 Epilepsy medications for a 3 month supply the insurance company and I just paid over 700.00 for it. that translates to about 2.60 a pill.
Her second medication runs about 1200.00 a bottle about 3.50 a pill, fortunatly her third one is cheaper.

Now how do you think they paid for the R and D to develop those. and why do they get a 10 year protection before generic is produced?
multiply my personal med. costs times the estimated 60,000,000 people that have epilepsy in the world. Any potential for profit there?

I would think a thing as promising as you suggest it is, would have investors beating down the doors. Due to the vast potential cures available.
Uncle Sam is broke, he married Old Mother Hubbard.

Besides after 10 years of research as you stated, I would still expect at least one practical cure or treatment. You have yet to show me one.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: AFMatt
It's easy to blame Bush for the lack of government funding for emryonic research, but only because Clinton mulled over it and delayed it just long enough to drop it in Bush's lap....to make the same decision Clinton probably would have.
Basically, it came down to the perception that the research is linked to aborting fetuses. That is something a lot of people feel would be quite hypocritical of the government to fund if they are, at the same time, anti-abortion. Obama, who seems to be pro-choice, will likely reverse that policy.

You're at best wildly misinformed on this issue.

The discovery which really made Embryonic stem cell research a viable field was made just over 2 years before the end of Clinton's Presidency. It took time for other researchers to get fully familiar with all the implications of this research and really get going on their own work, so it was a matter of the research not getting far enough along to actually get government funding quite yet prior to Bush taking over. Clinton however had clearly explicitly come out in support of the NIH guidelines which put very limited restrictions on this research prior to the end of his term, and Bush outright reversed this policy once he took over. THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY WHATSOEVER of Clinton implementing a policy in the way Bush did on this issue. At most there would have been far more minimal restrictions in some particular areas of research and certainly not something like refusing to fund any research using new embryonic stem cell lines.

It should be noted that the embryonic stem cell certainly won't come from ordinary abortions, because by the point someone is aware they are definitely pregnant and seeks one the cell in question are old enough that they are no longer desirable for this research since they have specialized too much. The cells that are talked about being used now are excess fertilized eggs from fertility clinics which are otherwise getting thrown away. (Not everyone insists on using up all of them and having 13 kids.)

Obama has already said he will reverse the policy, and he is also looking at getting legislation passed to make it tougher for a Republican President to just reverse this again upon taking office to create a little more certainty for federal funding in the field.

 

[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.)

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: daniel49
Besides after 10 years of research as you stated, I would still expect at least one practical cure or treatment. You have yet to show me one.

You have very little understanding of how long this medical research can take starting off from a flat out theoretical basis. It often takes quite awhile to prove something both works and is safe enough in animal testing to try on humans. What you're missing is that the medical industry is highly reliant on government assistance for the earlier theoretical research and they like to actually spend their money on things further along so there is less time from the initial investment until it is released on that actual market for a potential profit. Another reality is allot of potential treatments might just be used a couple times before they effectively cure the issue, limiting its profitability, especially given potential public pressure to keep what they charge to cure a serious medical illness reasonable. Once California actually started giving out grants to support research that helped somewhat, but up to that point research had been greatly impaired by the Bush funding policies.

Incidentally the first human stem cell trials to determine if they are safe to use as a treatment for spinal cord injuries is starting this very year.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/23/stem.cell/

 

[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.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: daniel49
Besides after 10 years of research as you stated, I would still expect at least one practical cure or treatment. You have yet to show me one.

You have very little understanding of how long this medical research can take starting off from a flat out theoretical basis. It often takes quite awhile to prove something both works and is safe enough in animal testing to try on humans. What you're missing is that the medical industry is highly reliant on government assistance for the earlier theoretical research and they like to actually spend their money on things further along so there is less time from the initial investment until it is released on that actual market for a potential profit. Another reality is allot of potential treatments might just be used a couple times before they effectively cure the issue, limiting its profitability, especially given potential public pressure to keep what they charge to cure a serious medical illness reasonable. Once California actually started giving out grants to support research that helped somewhat, but up to that point research had been greatly impaired by the Bush funding policies.

Incidentally the first human stem cell trials to determine if they are safe to use as a treatment for spinal cord injuries is starting this very year.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/23/stem.cell/

would that be the same California that is now broke and begging its broke uncle for money?

 

[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.

 

[palehorse]

This is a fascinating scientific/medical case, but what does it have to do with embryonic stem cells?

Also, just for the record, I'm fine with any form of stem-cell research... but that doesn't change the fact that the premise of this thread is false.

 

[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.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: palehorse
This is a fascinating scientific/medical case, but what does it have to do with embryonic stem cells?

Also, just for the record, I'm fine with any form of stem-cell research... but that doesn't change the fact that the premise of this thread is false.

Yes, I am kinda of confused about this thread too..

 

[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.