Man appears free of HIV after stem cell transplant

Originally posted by miriam0566
reply to post by Quazze

 

so essentially if bush was following a christian agenda, there was no need to ban stem cell research altogether, he could have just regulated how it was harvested right?

so why ban it entirely?

Fear, it was a great way to create another system of fear in people. Which then equates to more control of people.

Though I would guess their were other reasons. Maybe, curing diseases then means that pharmaceutical companies do not make as much money with all the medicines that they can put people on without cures.

Disease = prescriptions = money for pharmaceutical companies

Originally posted by amazed
Fear, it was a great way to create another system of fear in people. Which then equates to more control of people.

what does cutting funding for stem cell research make people scared?

reply to post by BorgHoffen


Right!!! it's just like a chicken egg. I bet they eat eggs. I get so upset when people say they are taking them from aborted babies.

Thought I'd throw this out there.

www.frc.org...

I have thought from the very beginning that stem cells were going to be one of the most important breakthroughs in medical science. I am so happy and excited!!!!!

reply to post by sickofitall2012


The Family Research Council?!?!?!

Adult stem cells.....how are they harvested????

reply to post by weedwhacker


Check this out if you want, it explains a lot.
stemcells.nih.gov...

well it was ovious that the germans knew the cure to aids. after all they were the ones that created it, during WWII. how many aids/hiv cases were there before WWII none.

I LOVE it, all the innocent people affected, I am especially sad when I see babies come in with it, such a heavy karmic cleanse. Also the elderly with blood transfusions, oh hell everyone that gt it.
I had a best friend cousin yes he was a gay guy, a tough gay marine actually, not gay while he was in service though, but you know what I mean, and if he were alive today, my world would be off the top with laughter and travel two things we did best together. Well that and eat drink and be merry. Think of freddy Mercury, we have lost so many preciuos lights to this disease which is conspiracy riddled, lets hope this works!

Originally posted by miriam0566
reply to post by Quazze

 

so essentially if bush was following a christian agenda, there was no need to ban stem cell research altogether, he could have just regulated how it was harvested right?

so why ban it entirely?

It's not banned. It's just not subsidized (funded) by the government.

Very very interesting!

I remember hearing a case like this several months ago with similar results. It is rather fascinating to know how in just the past 100 years science has exponentially grown with startling developments each day.

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by americandingbat
I think that the Bush administration actually only banned federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, so researchers were still free to use cord blood and adult stem cells in research. But even that limitation set stem cell research in the states back severely, not so much because of the limitation itself as because of the political ramifications.

ok that i can see, the impression i was given was that he banned stem cell research all together, not cut funding to a particular part.

Unfortunately the scientific illiteracy in this country is so bad that these things get simplified in the way they're presented to us. So the result of his demonizing research using embryonic stem cells was that the public became wary of all stem cell research, not understanding that there are many types of stem cells.

You raised the possibility of using stem cells from miscarriages earlier in this thread, which would be the ideal way to avoid using stem cells from aborted fetuses. I've been thinking about it; I haven't read anything on the topic, but my suspicion is that this is impractical for two reasons:

1) miscarriages may not occur in a hospital setting, especially if it's early in the pregnancy (ideal time for stem cell harvest).

2) even if they do happen in a controlled setting, it is probably ethically and humanely very difficult to raise the issue of allowing the fetus to be "harvested"

[edit on 2/13/09 by americandingbat]

Originally posted by miriam0566
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

thats what im saying, if christians are so against it, why not just regulate the way its harvested?

Although I agree with what you are saying in spirit... look at what you stated... basically that we *should* listen to organized religion when writing our laws and regulations.

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by amazed
Fear, it was a great way to create another system of fear in people. Which then equates to more control of people.

what does cutting funding for stem cell research make people scared?

Sorry, I did not say that right I guess, it is not cutting the funding that causes the fear. It is claiming that stem cell
research = "murder/abortion/etc" that causes fear, when in reality stem cells can and do come from more that just aborted fetuses.

Equate stem cell research with negative emotions, and then people fear the research. When people are in fear of something, no matter what it is, it then becomes very easy for the government to step in and start controlling and adding regulations to whatever happens to be the "fear" of the moment. Not only does fear make it easier for the government to regulate something, but people become "up in arms" crying for regulation.

Peace

Its great and all that we can start seeing what can be done with these cells.

I think this could be classified as maybe a little bit too fast of a leap into the unknown though.
What if the HIV would mutate somhow? then wtf do we do? Maybe they should regulate somehow so that we can get good benefits and knowledge, but these gung ho doctors or scientists trying to get famous dont destroy the world.

Oh wow. Well I remember reading something about an obesity breakthrough that simulates exercise in the body. Now a possible AIDS cure. Cancer can't be long behind, right? Just in time for health care reform. Gotta love big medicine and everything associated with it. God help me, if cures for these types of things was sitting idle in favor of fleecing the masses, I wish nothing but the worst on whomever held them back. That's my suspicion.

Originally posted by Zenic
reply to post by miriam0566

 

Right wing christians don't like the idea of humans playing god. They also don't like the pharma companies going out of business.

Why hasn't this comment gotten anymore attention? Probably two of the most relevent reasons as to why SCR is unfunded in the USA.

The big pharma lobby is huge in Washington. This is probably the most relevent issue here. SCR has some definate potential to heal. That is exactly the problem for big pharma. If everybody is healthy, then no one needs their drugs, and their profit goes bunk, along with the country club memberships, weekend yacht racing, and gourmet caviar.

Ethically speaking, over humanity's history has man proven himself responsible enough to tinker with millions of years of natural evolution? And if you're a creationist, then everything is created in God's image, therefore it is perfect, and this tinkering isn't necessary, right?

To draw a parallel, compare this to genetically modified food crops--splicing fish genes with tomato genes so the fruit can survive frost. But fish genes and tomato genes do not mix in nature. So what gives man the right to tinker with the natural/intelligently designed (whichever you prefer) cycle of life? You don't see fish and tomatoes teaming up to steal human DNA for their own benefit, do you? (I know this seems like kind of a childish argument, but I think it makes a good point about man's ever-increasing disconnect with nature)

Falling futher down the rabbit hole, do some searches on GMO food crops and their possible relationship to an increase in autism and cancer rates in the USA. This is probably my one and biggest concern with stem cell treatments. When man manipulates a natural system it seems that the natural system may recognize this outside influence and perhaps adapt or evolve in ways that we are yet unable to predict. Essentially, all that tinkering changes the fundamental building blocks of what makes a tomato a tomato and a fish a fish. This opens up a pandora's box of unknowns as to how those manipulated specimens will react when reintroduced in a natural environment or our bodies. Honestly, on a theoretical level, by tinkering with genetic information, man may run the risk of unleashing a type of genetic pandemic, if you will, because once you start to introduce genetically altered species into the biosphere you relenquish your control over their interaction with other species. Say, for instance, a man wants to cure his sterility by growing a new set with stem cells. Say the transplant goes well, and the man decides he wants a family. How can a scientist predict the effect a father's stem cell treatment will have on the fundamental biology of his child for the child's entire life? How can you test or examine the ramifications of something like this without turning your subject's life into an experiment? That kind of action would be unethical.

OK, thats enough. ha

For the record, I'm not against SCR or treatment, I just think that people need to fully understand the implications they may hold for all of life on earth, not just humans. I am against GMO food crops--you are what you eat, and I ain't no science experiment.

Edit to add quote

[edit on 14-2-2009 by PH43DRUS]

Originally posted by amazed
It is claiming that stem cell
research = "murder/abortion/etc" that causes fear, when in reality stem cells can and do come from more that just aborted fetuses.

Equate stem cell research with negative emotions, and then people fear the research. When people are in fear of something, no matter what it is, it then becomes very easy for the government to step in and start controlling and adding regulations to whatever happens to be the "fear" of the moment. Not only does fear make it easier for the government to regulate something, but people become "up in arms" crying for regulation.

why?

why would the government need to instill fear in order to regulate something? makes no sense.

That's brilliant. I'm glad that after all these years, stem cell is finally able to cure diseases. Even though Christopher Reeve passed away, his courage still lives in his organization and it's inspirational to know that scientists still carry on his legacy by curing people.

Originally posted by Bertha
Oh wow. Well I remember reading something about an obesity breakthrough that simulates exercise in the body.

Yeah, here's something better I've just thought of - going for a walk to the pie shop.

Originally posted by miriam0566
reply to post by Quazze

 

so essentially if bush was following a christian agenda, there was no need to ban stem cell research altogether, he could have just regulated how it was harvested right?

so why ban it entirely?

IT's not a Christian agenda it's the morally right thing to do. Killing an innocent life to further your own is evil no matter how you look at it. Nazi medical research on innocent concentration camp victims was no different.

First, Bush didn't outlaw SCR. He stopped any federal money from supporting new stem cell lines. Private investors could research all they wanted. The damn government doesn't have to fund everything!

Second I believe there were provisions to prevent what Obama wants to do now that he is in the oval office. Now an industry can be created for aborted fetuses. Making a profit off of the killing of innocent lives is going to bite us in the ass. As our morality continues to spiral out of control, so will our society. History repeats itself over and over.

I'm glad a cure for HIV may have been found. But there is already a cure for the vast majority of cases. It's called self restraint and personal responsibility.