It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Stem Cell Research - your opinions

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 03:20 PM

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by Mahree
[\ Soficrow has raised some questions that need to be looked at also.

I find this very encouraging news. This type of stem cell study is encouraged and funded by private and public funds. More than $200 million of federal money was used for adult stem cell research in 2003.

President Bush has not banned all stem cell research.

Mahree - you are mistaken; I did not make that statement.

FYI - Bush has not banned ANY stem cell research - he simply guaranteed that none of the technology will get into the public domain by prohibiting public funding for it. ...Oh yeah, he did allow public funding for research using already stockpiled contaminated stem cells, which are of course, useless.

Also, Bush blocked an international initiative to ban human cloning - and prevented any resolution from passing.

My mistake in presentation soficrow. I did say that it was a quote of my summary, but then put that remark in about wanting to look at some of the points you had made. Sorry, mixing things up like that, my bad.

The following quote does come from the last article I quoted in my piece about the heart and adult stem cells.

"In 2001, Bush limited federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, citing ethical grounds. Privately funded scientists, however, continue embryonic stem cell research."

Anthony Salas, who was part of the study, seems to have been helped by the procedure used. It did sound new to me for the heart. I was aware of bone marrow transplants, but don't understand why you do not seem to think the study accomplished anything.


posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 03:26 PM
I am personally against it, because I don't think that you should make life just in order to destroy it.

posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Kosmo Yagkoto
I am personally against it, because I don't think that you should make life just in order to destroy it.

I am 100% with you! That is why I posted the story of the successful use of adult stem cells. Also I believe that it is OK to use the umbilical cord and blood for stem cell research.

Please read the story I posted above with the title,

"Stem cells give heart patient new lease on life"

It was an experimental study group and they collected special stem cells from his own blood and then injected them into his heart. This man's doctors had told him there wasn't anything else they could do. He was on oxygen and in a wheelchair. The study picked him because he was the "sickest of the sick".

7 months later he and his wife are celebrating Valentines Day in Las Vegas and having a wonderful time.

This seems to open so many doors for research without embryonic stem cells.

posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Aether
I have no problem with the benefits of stem cell research (and I clearly see them)

The only thing that bothers me is how someone elses DNA inside YOUR body reacts and interacts with the DNA already there? I haven't found any scientific articles on it and do not plan to try to seek the info again, as i feel I will come to a dead end. If anyone is deep into the research and knows how other DNA reacts please lay it down.

It won't be someone elses DNA. Ultiately this tech will take your own stem cells and generate whatever tissue is desired.

posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 04:51 PM
As long as they dont get the stem cells from murdered unborn babies then I say sure go for it.

posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 05:11 PM
Interesting. Last fall, the USA killed an international ban on human cloning that would have allowed stem cell cloning. FYI - stem cell therapy can cure cancer, but the stem cells need to outnumber the cancer cells - so cloning is the best way to get stem cell quantity.

Now, the US has engineered a new UN vote to ban therapeutic cloning - which will protect insurance companies, and fix it so that stem cell therapy doesn't have to be covered.

Check this out:

Stem Cell Clone Ban Coming?


posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 12:41 PM
I did read your source item "Stem Cell Clone Ban Coming? "

It seems to me that the ban covers everything because there is no separation between therapeutic cloning and reproductive human cloning. Also from what I read in your source our Legislators are not willing to separate the two forms either. So, if you want therapeutic cloning you must have reproductive human cloning. (cloned humans) I don't
think the majority of people want to see things go that far down the slippery slope

I am sure you will correct me if I have misrepresented your source.

The term "therapeutic cloning" or somatic cell nuclear transfer would produce a human, but would not lead to birth. The researchers would take the cells from a "cloned baby" several days old. This would of course kill the baby. Excuse me, my bad, we do not use the term baby but embryo.

In my estimation it is right to ban these procedures.

On another note, adult stem cell therapy and umbilical cord blood.

This procedure uses the stem cells from the patient's own body. These cells are the exact match and will not be rejected by the body as foreign tissue. Another plus of using the bodies own cells is that there are fewer regulatory barriers. They are not placing a foreign substance into the patients body.

Most of us are familiar with "bone marrow transplants." Stem cells from the bone marrow. Using the adult stem cell therapy there has been help for people with Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury, sickle-cell anemia, heart damage, and corneal damage.

Most men are not bothered by the following condition, but just ask a woman how uncomfortable it can be. And here it has been helped by adult stem cell therapy.

Urinary Incontinence in Women

This condition becomes more likely as a woman ages. I tiny tinkle when laughing, or when "you gotta to go, you gotta go now". This loss of control is caused by shrinking muscles in the bladder, sphincter, and urethra wall.

There are many drugs, surgeries, incontinence pads and surgical treatments, but they are not permanent and sometimes make it difficult to urinate.

So, yes they did. A study of 20 women. Ages 36-84. A cube of muscle tissue was removed from the bicep, 4 millimeters to a side. Stem cells from this tissue were extracted and grown in a culture for 6 weeks.

Link to article
Stem cells rebuild bladder control
16:30 29 November 2004 news service
Anna Gosline
Frauscher's team injected the myoblasts into the urethra wall and bladder sphincter of each woman, using real-time ultrasound to make sure the cells made contact with their target. This contact is crucial as myoblasts need to be "told" in which direction they should grow by existing muscle fibres. The muscle-tissue extraction and stem-cell injection procedures each took about 15 minutes under local anaesthetic.

Within 24 hours, 90% of the women had no urinary leakage. After two weeks, both doctor and patient could a see a marked increase in muscle tissue and contraction power under the ultrasound.

Now, more than a later year, 18 of the 20 women have maintained full control over their bladders, says Frauscher, who presented the results at the Radiological Society of North America meeting in Chicago on Monday. The team is currently treating eight to 10 women per week and long waiting lists are building up.

I believe there are many exciting ways to go with the adult stem cell therapy and umbilical cord blood. We should stop whining about the ban against cloning human embryos and start doing the research with what we have.

In 2003 Congress approved funds to help create a nationwide umbilical cord blood stem cell bank. The umbilical cord is generally discarded after a live birth. So why not use them for this research that is so needed?

Do you have something against adult stem cell therapy? You didn't mention the study where the heart patient was helped so much. Do you not think this is a good thing?

posted on May, 19 2007 @ 01:19 AM
Since mainly the scientific community has a history of being bought out and protects the interests of the big corporations and has a history of hiding and suppressing cures for disease then why are they allowing this one? What kind of research are they really doing and what advantages is it giving them over us in the grand scheme of things in the larger pictures.. Is this a huge double edged sward? Where do you draw the line on ethics? is it a slippery slope? What hidden agendas might stem cell research serve?

I am wary of it.. For now those are just some questions I had on my mind. I don’t' know how valid they are but I have a feeling its' something to look into!

posted on May, 19 2007 @ 01:26 AM
Im very for it because if something happen to one of my family members or me I would be wishing for then. Just thinking ahead is all.
And ask someone who is against after something tragic happens to them in which the research would have helped. I bet they would have different oppinion.

posted on May, 19 2007 @ 03:47 AM
I am for stem cell research, because I consider a full grown human to be more important than a bunch of cells. Those who oppose it for religious reasons are condemning thousands of people to unnecessary death.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by DarkSide]

posted on May, 19 2007 @ 03:53 AM
well im all for stem cell research as long as it is adult stem cell research and not embryonic. embryonic stem cells are obtained immorally through the destruction of a human embryo.

posted on May, 22 2007 @ 03:55 PM
America is banning stem cell until they have patented its' drugs, methods, equipments.
When they are in control they will allow stem cell and start selling their products to the world. And before that, it is BANned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But who cares about American, stem cell technology is everywhere now in the world.

American can spend 20 billions from their taxes on patenting everything they like just to find out it is too late, they can't sell no more.

ACTUALLY IT NEEDS NO RESEARCH to approve or disapprove, THE TECHNOLOGY IS THERE, everybody is doing it, it should be simple! It just need further research and improvement.
American government is just trying to spend people taxes and corrupt the money. And try to patent the technology which is already status-quo and been around everywhere for decades.

Everything is about money to American minds.

[edit on 22-5-2007 by kontol]

posted on May, 22 2007 @ 04:03 PM
Stem cell research is legal in Canada and we are not sitting on the fence with false religious premisis
by the way how can a war monguer like Georgie Proogie be so religious that he is against stem cell research?
hell he cherry picked Iraq and Global Warming to suit his needs
he is a Molach loving, Skull and Bone worshiping Bilderburger stantist, who would not know Yeshua if he fell over him in a drunken coc aine stupor

posted on May, 22 2007 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by the village idiot
well im all for stem cell research as long as it is adult stem cell research and not embryonic. embryonic stem cells are obtained immorally through the destruction of a human embryo.

No, I don't think so.

When the baby is born, the umbilical cord is cut. And the stem cell is extracted from the cord. It has nothing with the embryo and the baby.
In the pass, this umbilical cord ( which contains blood and stem cell, embryo food ) is thrown into rubbish bin and burnt into ashes. It is a waste!

posted on May, 23 2007 @ 07:25 PM
Soficrow, thanks for the info and expertise!

Junglelord, you rule dude!

I'm for the research, imagine cloning your own organs or bone marrow. No doners, no rejection drugs.

The potential loss of revenue is enough to suspect a conspiracy from multiple sources.

As for religions getting involved, people need to pursue a more spiritual existence because you are missing the point.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in