First Embryonic Stem Cell Trial Gets FDA Approval

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
AHEM

Lets stick to the topic at hand shall we. If you wish to debate the morality or pros and cons of Abortion, please either start a new thread or post in an old one on this topic.

Better yet, why not settle it in the debate forum?




posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by paperplanes
 


Trust me is a like talking to a death wall, this subject was exhausted in this board when bush made illegal, so many of this member know exactly what goes on with this embryo tissues, unfortunately many in this boards agendas is not to discuss the issue but to twisted in order to satisfy their religious stance.

I appreciate your effort and you are right to the point occurs.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
In a world first, stem cells from a 12-week-old foetus will be injected into patients' brains.


Wow, didn't know that was going on Ashley. Thanks for bringing it up. It only makes sense though, if you kill a blastocyst, may as well kill a fetus, may as well kill a baby, etc. They all have the ability to become the same thing. Sacrifice the young to save the old for a little while longer. Hadn't thought of that.



She added:: 'This is about one life being sacrificed for hypothetical benefits.'


[edit on 23-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


If you can find me where in the bill that Obama sign in said that they will used aborted fetuses cell for research I will gladly give you credit for your stance, because even I do not agree with that.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by paperplanes
 


Embryo, Fetus, Infant, Toddler, Adolescent, Teenager, Adult, Senior Citizen= Human Being.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Why on earth do I have to relate this to Obama?


From the original article in the OP:


President Barack Obama has promised to relax the Bush administration's restrictions on federal financing for such research. But Obama's ascent to the White House had nothing to do with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's granting permission for the new study, Okarma said in a telephone interview Thursday.


If you want to dismiss the facts I am bringing to the table as just the 'agenda' of some 'religious' person, that's fine. But my morals were my morals before I accepted Christ. So try again.


Also, I linked to a British study- not American. Nothing to do with Obama. It was dealing with where stem cell research is taking us. From '5 day old cells' to 12 week old 'fetuses.' It's what trends are pointing to.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Wow, didn't know that was going on Ashley.


Yes, sorry. I should have been more clear with Paper Planes that is where I was coming from. I know what he was referring to but should have expanded. I just read a similar article about the more advanced stages a few days ago but the one I linked to is what came up in the search when I tried to find the other article today. Should have clarified earlier with what I was referring to. My fault, I'm sure.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


So I see, like Fred said this now turning into a moral issue vs the facts been put in here about what Obama is doing.

I guess either I am in the wrong thread or you are.

But this in alternative news so I guess if is a moral issue it should be in conspiracies in religion.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Yes, sorry. I should have been more clear with Paper Planes that is where I was coming from. I know what he was referring to but should have expanded. I just read a similar article about the more advanced stages a few days ago but the one I linked to is what came up in the search when I tried to find the other article today. Should have clarified earlier with what I was referring to. My fault, I'm sure.


I admit, I was a bit confused until the link to the English abortion for stem cells and think that forecasting possibilities is certainly smart in any profession whether that be science, business, firefighting, etc. I don't think Obama would have objection to doing the same personally if for him both abortion and embryonic stem cell research were okay. Joe (Biden) from my state waved both banners around proudly and was concerned about him going to Washington for this very reason. Obama seemed more moderate, but once he got lovin' from both sides of the aisles to get into office, his agenda is more clear. Sell bipartisanship, perform partisanship.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


One shouldn't have to rely on religious views to feel that it's wrong to kill unborn children for ANY reason other than to protect the life of the mother.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
But this in alternative news so I guess if is a moral issue it should be in conspiracies in religion.


I have no objections to moving it there if a moderator would like to do so.


Originally posted by BlueRaja
One shouldn't have to rely on religious views to feel that it's wrong to kill unborn children for ANY reason other than to protect the life of the mother.


Ah. Good point though. Toss-up for me.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
But this in alternative news so I guess if is a moral issue it should be in conspiracies in religion.


Marg: This has little, if anything, to do with religion.

You seem to always try to get threads moved when they deal with religion. But read the article in the OP.

1). Nothing to do with religion. The article is science-based.

2). Very little to do with Obama. The article states he has little involvement in it.

Why is this becoming political/religious?

You seem to be the only one bringing religion and the Obama angle into this.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Well done, Marg.

Thread moved anyways.

Ok, Now I'm bringing in the religious angle since apparently it is NOW appropriate.


Just teasing. No way. This is a scientific breaking news issue. Not religious but it will be now due to the new forum. Nice.


I'm trying to get away from religious discussion but here we are again.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Can somebody (or the mod who moved it) explain to me where the religious conspiracy is? Where are the fundies trying to get this stopped? Where does the article mention the churches boycotting outside the labs? Where is the speech from the pope? This sounds like it's a perfect fit for the science forum if it gets kicked out of the news forum. I want to discuss this from the science angle- not the religious angle.


No one in this thread brought up the religious angle except for the person who then said it has to be moved now that it is religious. What am I missing? I'm not griping- I'm just burnt out on religious discussions but that is exactly where it will go now.

The article in its entirety. Nothing to do with religion. How is this a religious conspiracy?




NEW YORK — A U.S. biotech company says it plans to start this summer the world's first study of a treatment based on human embryonic stem cells — a long-awaited project aimed at spinal cord injury.

The company gained federal permission this week to inject eight to 10 patients with cells derived from embryonic cells, said Dr. Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of Geron Corp. of Menlo Park, Calif.

The patients will be paraplegics, who can use their arms but can't walk. They will receive a single injection within two weeks of their injury.

The study is aimed at testing the safety of the procedure, but doctors will also look for signs of improvement like return of sensation or movement in the legs, Okarma said.

Whatever its outcome, the study will mark a new chapter in the contentious history of embryonic stem cell research in the United States — a field where debate spilled out of the laboratory long ago and into national politics.

While some overseas doctors claim to use human embryonic stem cells in their clinics, stem cell experts said they knew of no previous human studies that use such cells.

"It's a milestone and it's a breakthrough for the field" because Geron passed the safety hurdles for getting federal clearance to launch the study, said Ed Baetge, chief scientific officer of Novocell Inc. His company hopes to begin a similar human study for treating diabetes in a few years.

In addition, said spinal cord injury researcher Dr. Wise Young of Rutgers University, "a lot of hope of the spinal cord injury community is riding on this trial."

Embryonic stem cells can develop into any cell of the body, and scientists have long hoped to harness them for creating replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases. But research has been controversial because embryos must be destroyed to obtain them.

President Barack Obama has promised to relax the Bush administration's restrictions on federal financing for such research. But Obama's ascent to the White House had nothing to do with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's granting permission for the new study, Okarma said in a telephone interview Thursday.

In fact, the company says, the project involves stem cells that were eligible for federal funding under Bush, although no federal money was used to develop the experimental treatment or to pay for the human study.

Other human cells, called adult stem cells, have been tested before in people to treat heart problems, for example.

In the Geron study, the injections will be made in the spine at the site of damage. The work will be done in four to seven medical centers around the country, Okarma said.

Animal studies suggest that once injected, the cells will mature and repair what is essentially a lack of insulation around damaged nerves, and also pump out substances that nerves need to function and grow.

Apart from assessing safety, investigators will hope to see some signs of improvement in the patient, Okarma said. The idea is "not to make somebody ... get up and dance the next day," he said, but rather to provide some level of ability that can be improved by physical therapy.

Each patient will receive a low dose of anti-rejection drugs for about two months, because after that time the medications shouldn't be needed, Okarma said. The study will follow each patient for at least a year.

Okarma said he can't estimate how much such a therapy would cost if it proves effective, but that "this is not going to be a $500,000 price tag. It will be remarkably affordable ... in the context of the value it provides."

Evan Snyder, a stem cell researcher at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research in La Jolla, Calif., said scientists in the field will focus chiefly on the study's results about safety.

"The one hope that everybody has is that nothing bad happens," he said.

Geron Corp. has spent at least $100 million on human embryonic stem cell research. Founded in 1992, it does not have any therapies on the market.

However, the company is considered the world's leading embryonic stem cell developer thanks to its claims on several key stem cell technologies. Geron helped finance researchers at the University of Wisconsin who first isolated human embryonic stem cells in 1998. The company has retained exclusive rights on several of those cell types.


[edit on 1/23/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
This doesnt cost human lives.

Why would one interpret it this way?

There are many embryos sitting in refrigerators all over the states and they just keep coming in. Such is a fact when abortion is legal in some states.

And guess what they do to the embryos, that would have once been humans???????

They discard them when they need room for more.

Now that is smart isnt it?

It's so horrible that now they might use these to actually help people.

OH NOES!

Another thing to think about: this has nothing to do with Obama, this could have happened already under Bush as it was authorized and funded. Yet, it happens as soon as Obama is in office. If there is in fact a conspiracy, it's right there, as previous posters already attributed this to Obama. Nice timing, FDA.

Edit to add last paragraph.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by jmilla]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Well done, Marg.

Thread moved anyways.

Ok, Now I'm bringing in the religious angle since apparently it is NOW appropriate.


Just teasing. No way. This is a scientific breaking news issue. Not religious but it will be now due to the new forum. Nice.


I'm trying to get away from religious discussion but here we are again.


It's all good Ashley, the 'breaking news' section is no longer 'breaking news' after two days, so I think the thread will have a longer viability here. Additionally, marg seems to class anything that has to do with morals and ethics as 'religious'...to which I say huzzah.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
This sounds like it's a perfect fit for the science forum if it gets kicked out of the news forum. I want to discuss this from the science angle- not the religious angle.



I'm down with that too. It does seem to have more to do with science than religion. Either or, toss-up yet again. This issue affects so many different aspects of life.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Did anyone bother to read the article Ashley linked? The moral sentiments expressed following this revelation seem to suggest that the scientists in question specially ordered a fetus (or several) to be aborted for use in the stroke treatment. This is not the case. These were babies that had already been aborted and were being utilized after the fact by scientists for the betterment of ill individuals. What is unethical about using something that would have been otherwise discarded? What moral stance is taken by denying these scientists the use of something that is already dead and is set to be disposed of?

If science were requesting that women volunteer to abort their children so that stem cells could be culled, I'm sure most of us would be up in arms over the situation. This isn't the case. The scientists had no part in the decision to abort the fetuses; nor are these embryos or embryonic stem cells, which were ostensibly the topic of this thread. Keep that in mind. Using this as an argument against embryonic stem cell research is illogical.

The standard is to take stem cells from the embryos discarded by the in vitro fertilization industry (these clinics are full of unused embryos that are typically thrown away after a couple completes treatment). This is just another, albeit aberrant (



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperplanes
What is unethical about using something that would have been otherwise discarded? What moral stance is taken by denying these scientists the use of something that is already dead and is set to be disposed of?


As mentioned before, the creation of demand. See previous post about economics. A dead fetus is now a commodity.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by paperplanes
What is unethical about using something that would have been otherwise discarded? What moral stance is taken by denying these scientists the use of something that is already dead and is set to be disposed of?


As mentioned before, the creation of demand. See previous post about economics. A dead fetus is now a commodity.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by saint4God]


Perhaps I have more faith in humanity than you do. I do not forsee the mainstream scientific community embracing the abortion of children for use in stem cell research.

[edit on 23/1/09 by paperplanes]





top topics
 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join