Clinical Trial of Embryonic Stem Cell-Based Therapy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

You may think I am against embryonic stem cell research. I am not. I am against creating embryos for the purpose of research and all forms of abortion. When the embryos can be obtained because they are naturally expelled through miscarriage, or situations like ectopic pregnancies, then that is fine. Yes, that is far fewer than farming them, but there is no willful destruction of human life. How many do you really need any way.

On top of that, embryonic stems cells have not been proven to do anything. Other stemcells have proven useful. There plenty of places to get stem cells with out destroying a human life. Some folk seem hell bent on mass embryo collections for the purpose of research just to put a pro-lifer’s nose out of joint. That’s really stupid reasoning for to chance your taking with human life.

42

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You ask;

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
What creation of human life are you speaking of?[/quote]

Then state;

And then I just sadly shake my head and sigh.

[/quote]

Your point? Or do you simply get a big fat F in logical reasoning? Again, I ask what embryos are created for the purposes of stem cell research? Embryos created in in vitro are not created for stem cell research. They are created so infertile couples can have children. As part of this process, there are often extra embryos that are not viable for in vitro use or that are not implanted for other reasons. These embryos already exist and would otherwise ROT and degrade if they were not used. If your beef is with in vitro, that battle is already lost, my friend.

So, what you basically rail against is using something already in existence to promote life that is otherwise destined for certain death.[/quote]

Which is another morally repugnant process and should be done away with. If you can’t get pregnant, there’s probably a good reason…No shortage of need kids for adoption. They don’t have to exit your pussy to be yours.
[/quote]

Like I said, separate issue. Different than railing against stem cell research on embryos that already exist and have no hope of ever becoming babies.

43

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You ask;

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
What creation of human life are you speaking of?[/quote]

Then state;

And then I just sadly shake my head and sigh.

[/quote]

Your point? Or do you simply get a big fat F in logical reasoning? Again, I ask what embryos are created for the purposes of stem cell research? Embryos created in in vitro are not created for stem cell research. They are created so infertile couples can have children. As part of this process, there are often extra embryos that are not viable for in vitro use or that are not implanted for other reasons. These embryos already exist and would otherwise ROT and degrade if they were not used. If your beef is with in vitro, that battle is already lost, my friend.

So, what you basically rail against is using something already in existence to promote life that is otherwise destined for certain death.[/quote]

Heh.[/quote]

Thanks for not answering. You have no answer because there is nothing to say to the fact that these embryos are being used for a life-promtoing purpose when they would otherwise inevitably degrade and(if you in fact consider them alive) ‘die.’

Opposing the creation of embryos solely for the purpose of stem cell research I can understand (and probably agree with).

44

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You ask;

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
What creation of human life are you speaking of?[/quote]

Then state;

And then I just sadly shake my head and sigh.

[/quote]

Your point? Or do you simply get a big fat F in logical reasoning? Again, I ask what embryos are created for the purposes of stem cell research? Embryos created in in vitro are not created for stem cell research. They are created so infertile couples can have children. As part of this process, there are often extra embryos that are not viable for in vitro use or that are not implanted for other reasons. These embryos already exist and would otherwise ROT and degrade if they were not used. If your beef is with in vitro, that battle is already lost, my friend.

So, what you basically rail against is using something already in existence to promote life that is otherwise destined for certain death.[/quote]

Heh.[/quote]

Thanks for not answering. You have no answer because there is nothing to say to the fact that these embryos are being used for a life-promtoing purpose when they would otherwise inevitably degrade and(if you in fact consider them alive) ‘die.’

Opposing the creation of embryos solely for the purpose of stem cell research I can understand (and probably agree with).[/quote]

Opposing the creation of embryos for all purposes should be the order of the day. After all, you’d end up with the cute run around of “cast-offs” going to the same industry you can understand opposing. A little run around your moral opposition.

No. They’re responsible for saving the embryos, not putting them on the menu.

45

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You ask;

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
What creation of human life are you speaking of?[/quote]

Then state;

And then I just sadly shake my head and sigh.

[/quote]

Your point? Or do you simply get a big fat F in logical reasoning? Again, I ask what embryos are created for the purposes of stem cell research? Embryos created in in vitro are not created for stem cell research. They are created so infertile couples can have children. As part of this process, there are often extra embryos that are not viable for in vitro use or that are not implanted for other reasons. These embryos already exist and would otherwise ROT and degrade if they were not used. If your beef is with in vitro, that battle is already lost, my friend.

So, what you basically rail against is using something already in existence to promote life that is otherwise destined for certain death.[/quote]

Heh.[/quote]

Thanks for not answering. You have no answer because there is nothing to say to the fact that these embryos are being used for a life-promtoing purpose when they would otherwise inevitably degrade and(if you in fact consider them alive) ‘die.’

Opposing the creation of embryos solely for the purpose of stem cell research I can understand (and probably agree with).[/quote]

Opposing the creation of embryos for all purposes should be the order of the day. After all, you’d end up with the cute run around of “cast-offs” going to the same industry you can understand opposing. A little run around your moral opposition.

No. They’re responsible for saving the embryos, not putting them on the menu. [/quote]

Disagree completely. I support in vitro fertilization as well as using excess embryos that are not viable for a life-promoting purpose as opposed to allowing them to rot.

46

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Disagree completely. I support in vitro fertilization as well as using excess embryos that are not viable for a life-promoting purpose as opposed to allowing them to rot.[/quote]

Isn’t it just convenient. As I said.

47

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Stop the baby murder arguement, I do not believe in abortion, it is not needed for this to be successful.

Ever hear of a Cord Blood bank, well now they can also save the afterbirth and uterine lining that comes with normal child birth and is rich in mesenchymal stem cells.

I am a very strong believer, but I have also done research in differentiation of the above material. Try to tell me there is something morally wrong with that.

Now if they are still using aborted fetuses, that is wrong there is no need. But to use basically the afterbirth and be able to do such useful things with it is amazing. [/quote]

If they are doing it the way you describe then I have no problem, and actually encurage it.

48

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Stop the baby murder arguement, I do not believe in abortion, it is not needed for this to be successful.

Ever hear of a Cord Blood bank, well now they can also save the afterbirth and uterine lining that comes with normal child birth and is rich in mesenchymal stem cells.

I am a very strong believer, but I have also done research in differentiation of the above material. Try to tell me there is something morally wrong with that.

Now if they are still using aborted fetuses, that is wrong there is no need. But to use basically the afterbirth and be able to do such useful things with it is amazing. [/quote]

If they are doing it the way you describe then I have no problem, and actually encurage it.[/quote]

I cannot vouch for everyone, but do know that there are a number of groups in the U.S. doing this research, we were actually doing it under the stem cell ban during G.W.B. Jr.

I actually encourage those who are having children do everything you can with at least one child to have access to their cord and menstraul tissue.

It can be used even with the parents. http://www.cordblood.com/ this is the group we use with our children.

I was specifically working on media for differentiation of cells, as well as bags to grow the tissue.

49

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Disagree completely. I support in vitro fertilization as well as using excess embryos that are not viable for a life-promoting purpose as opposed to allowing them to rot.[/quote]

Isn’t it just convenient. As I said.[/quote]

No.

50

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/embryonic_stem_cells_cure_nothing[/quote]

Ok, lots of stuff to comment on in this thread, but I’m going stream of consciousness now. I had to hit your post here because it is supremely WRONG. No offense meant, but this highlights a lot of misunderstandings widespread in the population about science in general.

Let’s leave the ethical part aside for just this post ok everybody? Speaking of pure science and practicality now.

5 years in any research field is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Hell, the FDA approval time for drugs is 10 fucking YEARS. So, even IF embryonic stem cells were an insta-cure with no further research needed at all you’d still be 10 years away from any cure because approval would be that long for medications.

Second, We’ve been after EVERYTHING for a long time without ESC. Cystic fibrosis, a “simple” disease–20+ years AFTER knowing exactly where the mutation takes place, the gene, and the protein. You and everyone esle bitching about ESCs “curing nothing” or being overhyped simply foist a ridiculous double standard on ESC research where it is not foisted on other research methods in the same fields. That is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.

5 years is the AVERAGE PhD dissertation period for a single grad student. Not even remotely plausible for bringing a whole cure to the market from scratch funding. It took me 2 years for my masters alone, which is a small part of a small building block of a potential medication of a potential drug delivery method. In other words, no one will ever see my work, although it will be built upon by others. And it took 2 years of struggle and long nights and longer days.

Most prescription medications on the market right now are 20+ years in the making from scratch funding. have they cured anything yet?

This is a LONG-TERM problem requiring LONG-TERM patience and LONG-TERM perspective along with enough funding to make it feasible. Just like ALL OTHER BIO-RESEARCH ANYWHERE.

51

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I will have none of that defeatist liberal attitude!

If some embryos must die so that others may live they die.

The glory of Rome demands it.

Plus, it is a guiding principle of US foreign policy that you can kill a shitload of people if you can somehow vaguely justify it in an utilitarian manner so I do not see why a few hundred embryos can not be killed so that millions might benefit. The death/reward ratio is most definitely better than in any of you foreign adventures so I say harvest away.

Its cheaper too?

It is downright conservative if you think about it, if you used embryos that would have been aborted anyway, at least then they did not die in vain.

As a sidenote, the question of property rights is kind of moot when you are as dead as the Dodo, so its not like we steal or anything, one could say that we homestead your organs.

[/quote]
HAHA well played.[/quote]

Oh SNAP. That was funny. Nice twist orion :).

52

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Stop the baby murder arguement, I do not believe in abortion, it is not needed for this to be successful.

Ever hear of a Cord Blood bank, well now they can also save the afterbirth and uterine lining that comes with normal child birth and is rich in mesenchymal stem cells.

I am a very strong believer, but I have also done research in differentiation of the above material. Try to tell me there is something morally wrong with that.
[/quote]

God, thank you for bringing this up!!! I was going to when I saw your post.

People have this crazy, indescribably misplaced and destructive belief that all ESCs come from cells that are capable of becoming individual human beings–in other words have total potential, or are “toti-potent”. In other words you have to “kill a person to use it”.

This is SIMPLY NOT FUCKING TRUE.

After reaching/passing the 16 cell stage in development, the cells in the embryo differentiate and any one of those cells, although useful for research, cannot, ever, IN ANY WAY, turn into another human being if you take it out of the embryo and implant it in a womb. It lacks the potential. The cells can still become any kind of cell line within certain limits, but never a whole embryo. So, take one cell from this stage of an embryo, and implant it into a culture to grow and multiply and differentiate, and you do not kill the embryo. In fact, fertility doctors often take one cell from an embryo before this stage to do genetic screening on the child the parents are trying to have. In fact, this testing has been used for more than 10 years. These kids are still getting born to their parents.

You do NOT kill the embryo by taking one cell out of it. And that one removed cell can never become a separate human being.

These undifferentiated stem cells can grow and be useful for research, and cannot and never will be able to form an entire human being if left to their own potential.

Now, if you disassemble the embryo to use most or all of the cells, then yes you kill the embryo. But there shouldn’t be a need to do that since you can multiply the single cell you remove into however many cultures you want, and none of those cultured cells are able to form human beings–you are not generating a culture of mini-humans-in-waiting.

53

BAM, Aragorn outta fucking nowhere.

Good posts.

54

Hey Aragorn I understand that R&D for things like medications and therapies take years to develop, I just thought that link contributed to the discussion. I just feel that ESCs get far more attention in the media than ASCs should.

But I am glad and hopeful about the clinical trial for ESCs, especially after what apbt55 said about after birth being rich in mesenchymal stem cells and what you said about how extracting stem cells from embryos doesn’t necessitate their destruction if the procedure you talked about is followed.

However ESCs would have certain limitations that ASCs do not have unless the ESCs are your own(which would be cool), one of those is that the tissue grown with replaced with ESCs have a different genetic makeup which would require the use of immunosuppressant drugs vs tissue grown and replaced with ASCs which wouldn’t need those drugs.

However you seem far more informed than I am on the topic and would like to learn anything you are willing to share on this forum.

55

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Stop the baby murder arguement, I do not believe in abortion, it is not needed for this to be successful.

Ever hear of a Cord Blood bank, well now they can also save the afterbirth and uterine lining that comes with normal child birth and is rich in mesenchymal stem cells.

I am a very strong believer, but I have also done research in differentiation of the above material. Try to tell me there is something morally wrong with that.
[/quote]

God, thank you for bringing this up!!! I was going to when I saw your post.

People have this crazy, indescribably misplaced and destructive belief that all ESCs come from cells that are capable of becoming individual human beings–in other words have total potential, or are “toti-potent”. In other words you have to “kill a person to use it”.

This is SIMPLY NOT FUCKING TRUE.

After reaching/passing the 16 cell stage in development, the cells in the embryo differentiate and any one of those cells, although useful for research, cannot, ever, IN ANY WAY, turn into another human being if you take it out of the embryo and implant it in a womb. It lacks the potential. The cells can still become any kind of cell line within certain limits, but never a whole embryo. So, take one cell from this stage of an embryo, and implant it into a culture to grow and multiply and differentiate, and you do not kill the embryo. In fact, fertility doctors often take one cell from an embryo before this stage to do genetic screening on the child the parents are trying to have. In fact, this testing has been used for more than 10 years. These kids are still getting born to their parents.

You do NOT kill the embryo by taking one cell out of it. And that one removed cell can never become a separate human being.

These undifferentiated stem cells can grow and be useful for research, and cannot and never will be able to form an entire human being if left to their own potential.

Now, if you disassemble the embryo to use most or all of the cells, then yes you kill the embryo. But there shouldn’t be a need to do that since you can multiply the single cell you remove into however many cultures you want, and none of those cultured cells are able to form human beings–you are not generating a culture of mini-humans-in-waiting. [/quote]

Thank you for explaining much better than I did. That was my whole point in response to Sloth’s babbling. Many of these embryos being used never ever EVER have any hope of becoming a viable human being, and the stem cell research done on them does not, by any means, destroy the embryo ANYWAY.

56

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Stop the baby murder arguement, I do not believe in abortion, it is not needed for this to be successful.

Ever hear of a Cord Blood bank, well now they can also save the afterbirth and uterine lining that comes with normal child birth and is rich in mesenchymal stem cells.

I am a very strong believer, but I have also done research in differentiation of the above material. Try to tell me there is something morally wrong with that.
[/quote]

God, thank you for bringing this up!!! I was going to when I saw your post.

People have this crazy, indescribably misplaced and destructive belief that all ESCs come from cells that are capable of becoming individual human beings–in other words have total potential, or are “toti-potent”. In other words you have to “kill a person to use it”.

This is SIMPLY NOT FUCKING TRUE.

After reaching/passing the 16 cell stage in development, the cells in the embryo differentiate and any one of those cells, although useful for research, cannot, ever, IN ANY WAY, turn into another human being if you take it out of the embryo and implant it in a womb. It lacks the potential. The cells can still become any kind of cell line within certain limits, but never a whole embryo. So, take one cell from this stage of an embryo, and implant it into a culture to grow and multiply and differentiate, and you do not kill the embryo. In fact, fertility doctors often take one cell from an embryo before this stage to do genetic screening on the child the parents are trying to have. In fact, this testing has been used for more than 10 years. These kids are still getting born to their parents.

You do NOT kill the embryo by taking one cell out of it. And that one removed cell can never become a separate human being.

These undifferentiated stem cells can grow and be useful for research, and cannot and never will be able to form an entire human being if left to their own potential.

Now, if you disassemble the embryo to use most or all of the cells, then yes you kill the embryo. But there shouldn’t be a need to do that since you can multiply the single cell you remove into however many cultures you want, and none of those cultured cells are able to form human beings–you are not generating a culture of mini-humans-in-waiting. [/quote]

Thank you for explaining much better than I did. That was my whole point in response to Sloth’s babbling. Many of these embryos being used never ever EVER have any hope of becoming a viable human being, and the stem cell research done on them does not, by any means, destroy the embryo ANYWAY.[/quote]

Quite simply, embryonic stem cell research need not involve either the creation or destruction of human embryos.

57

Except their cells, used for their product, weren’t derived from cord blood or any other such thing discussed above…

Now, as far as potentially getting the same applications from cord blood or other non-destructive means, I’ve mentioned–positively–those very things in other threads.

58

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

Nothing vampirish about that…[/quote]

No, no, of course not. Maybe one day the human embryo recycling industry will cure that darn disease, “Old age.” I’d say it inflicts more people than any other malady.

The blood is the life.[/quote]

Like I said: if you don’t like it, don’t accept the treatment. Simple.[/quote]

Well, there’s always political recourse, too. [/quote]

Once Big Pharma gets a hold of these treatments, a few key political contributions and it’ll be a done deal. Money talks and bullshit walks, and there’s no such thing as a moral politician in either party.[/quote]

You don’t oppose evil only once it’s the popular and easy thing to do. The difficulties don’t concern me.[/quote]

But I do oppose evil. I’ve met people with MS and Azheimers and I’ve dealt with their families as well. I’ve been to my share of nursing homes. (BTW - Nursing homes suck.) I can think of few things that would be more evil than telling these people and their families “There is a potential cure out there that can both save your life and allow you to regain your lost function. Sorry, you can’t have it.”

I suggest you volunteer in a nursing home. It may not change your mind, but at least it will allow you to have a more informed opinion.[/quote]

You still have to kill humans to do it.[/quote]

So?

We kill human beings for less.

[/quote]

Killing someone for the purpose of extending someone’s life, when the person being killed is not immediately endangering the other person’s life is morally wrong.[/quote]

You are right. Instead we should let these embryos, which already exists, continue to rot. Thus, killing them at a much later point.[/quote]

They shouldn’t have been harvested in the first place.

59

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Stop the baby murder arguement, I do not believe in abortion, it is not needed for this to be successful.

Ever hear of a Cord Blood bank, well now they can also save the afterbirth and uterine lining that comes with normal child birth and is rich in mesenchymal stem cells.

I am a very strong believer, but I have also done research in differentiation of the above material. Try to tell me there is something morally wrong with that.

Now if they are still using aborted fetuses, that is wrong there is no need. But to use basically the afterbirth and be able to do such useful things with it is amazing. [/quote]

Oh MY FUCKING LIFE! What! NO fucking way! You are telling me we have this and people still kill babies!

Just kidding, I knew this but as we know babies come less often to these labs than in vitro fertilized eggs.

60

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Stop the baby murder arguement, I do not believe in abortion, it is not needed for this to be successful.

Ever hear of a Cord Blood bank, well now they can also save the afterbirth and uterine lining that comes with normal child birth and is rich in mesenchymal stem cells.

I am a very strong believer, but I have also done research in differentiation of the above material. Try to tell me there is something morally wrong with that.
[/quote]

God, thank you for bringing this up!!! I was going to when I saw your post.

People have this crazy, indescribably misplaced and destructive belief that all ESCs come from cells that are capable of becoming individual human beings–in other words have total potential, or are “toti-potent”. In other words you have to “kill a person to use it”.

This is SIMPLY NOT FUCKING TRUE.

After reaching/passing the 16 cell stage in development, the cells in the embryo differentiate and any one of those cells, although useful for research, cannot, ever, IN ANY WAY, turn into another human being if you take it out of the embryo and implant it in a womb. It lacks the potential. The cells can still become any kind of cell line within certain limits, but never a whole embryo. So, take one cell from this stage of an embryo, and implant it into a culture to grow and multiply and differentiate, and you do not kill the embryo. In fact, fertility doctors often take one cell from an embryo before this stage to do genetic screening on the child the parents are trying to have. In fact, this testing has been used for more than 10 years. These kids are still getting born to their parents.
[/quote]

Totally! I mean if you take the organ out of a quadriplegic and place it inside inside a womb, it has no potentiality of turning into another human being. Why these “conservatives” and Christian “Democrats” (we all know democrats aren’t Christian, they just say that to get the middle voting Christians) say we shouldn’t just harvest these people’s organs? I don’t know.

Don’t they know these corpses are just laying limp in some care facility, I mean obvious they did put them in the care facility because they are useless to the family members. So obviously they have no potentiality of having life. And, it would be obvious to any rational person that we should just start harvesting their organs since they produce not value to anyone else.

Same thing with these corpses, I mean if you take out a Kidney or something or a piece of their liver, what’s it really going to do. I mean most of them can’t even communicate anymore, I’m sure they’d be consenting to have their organs just taken out without verbal consent.

Don’t even have to worry about undifferentiated cells. When was the last time you saw a liver or kidney grow into a person. Never right, and it won’t kill these quadies.

[quote]
Now, if you disassemble the embryo to use most or all of the cells, then yes you kill the embryo. But there shouldn’t be a need to do that since you can multiply the single cell you remove into however many cultures you want, and none of those cultured cells are able to form human beings–you are not generating a culture of mini-humans-in-waiting. [/quote]

Yeah, well I mean really who are we kidding, these quadi’s have a life expectancy of only a 40-45 years with medical advancements, but really they are just wasting money and no value to the society, except that Dawkins guy. He’s pretty awesome, he talks about those hypothetical space theories that he can’t prove (and I have a hard time understanding them with all that circular logic), but states as laws and stuff. So, its gotta be true! But otherwise, mostly just dumb jocks who got in car accidents or something. Just take all their organs, how many people would those organs help. I am sure at least three people or so.