Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Cadaver stem cells offer new hope of life after death

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Although stem cell research and therapy is not new, this source and the advantages it offers are new.

SOURCE


Dead bodies can provide organs for transplants, now they might become a source of stem cells too. Huge numbers of stem cells can still be mined from bone marrow five days after death to be potentially used in a variety of life-saving treatments.



Stem cell therapies require a huge numbers of cells though, and it can be difficult to obtain a sufficient amount from a living donor. Could cadavers be the answer? After death, most cells in the body die within a couple of days. But since MSCs live in an environment that is very low in oxygen, Gianluca D'Ippolito and his colleagues at the University of Miami, Florida, wondered whether they might survive longer than the others.




posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The human race is grotesque in its pursuit of medical advances.

It's time to accept the fact that people get sick and die.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I say exploit the technology as far as we can! The benefits to Humanity far out way the arcanic religious dogma's surrounding stem cell research. Who cares if the religious nutter's get all bent out of shape. Stroke victims and paraplegics could become well again! And down this road could also lie the potential to become immortal or atleast allow humans to live for hundreds of years.

I say go for it IMHO!
edit on 23-12-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Oh this is good...

If stem cells can be activated after death I can definitely create zombies

Totally psyched!



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by PrplHrt
 


No it's not. It's time for people to stop being to creeped out by all things "icky."

It's that kind of attitude that has kept people sick, hungry, and ignorant.

They're making all kinds of discoveries and making wonderful breakthroughs since Obama cancelled Bush's ban on stem cell research.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Time - Phrase
00:41:15 And then I saw the fields with my own eyes...

00:41:18 ...watched them liquefy the dead...

00:41:20 ...so they could be fed intravenously to the living.

00:41:24 And standing there, facing the pure, horrifying precision...

00:41:28 ...I came to realize the obviousness of the truth.


www.subzin.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by happykat39
 


In my field, it requires at least 2.0x10^6/Kg stem cells to have successful engraftment for cancer patients who have undergone chemotherapy.

Kratos...



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Well as long as it can help someone in any good way and if maybe, MAYBE, it can save someone's life, wouldn't it be selfish not to do it? I mean come on, you have the right to give or not give your body to science when you are dead and It is up to you and only you , it's completly understandable but wouldn't it be selfish to keep it only for ourselves while we rest six feet bellow !



Cheers



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
If you are going to get mad about this, then you should get mad about organ donors as well. There is zero difference in using a dead person's heart to save a life and in using their stem cells to treat a child with cancer.

I do not agree with embryos being used for stem cell research. But if I die and my stem cells can cure a baby of cancer or allow a paraplegic to walk, go for it. No difference at all in that and organ transplants IMO.

Now, using stem cells to prolong normal life and keep rich people young, nah. I see a sci fi movie where billionaires offer people a life of ease and riches in exchange for their corpse. Would be a good movie, but in real life, scary repercussions.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kratos40
reply to post by happykat39
 


In my field, it requires at least 2.0x10^6/Kg stem cells to have successful engraftment for cancer patients who have undergone chemotherapy.

Kratos...


Have I got this right? Are you saying that for every Kg of patient body weight it takes 2.0x10^6 or 2,000,000 stem cells for a chemotherapy patient. If so then a 160 Lb (75.5 Kg) patient would need 151 million stem cells for effective treatment.

Considering this quote from the article...


While only limited amounts of bone marrow can be taken from a living donor, a cadaver represents a plentiful source of cells, says D'Ippolito. "From one donor, you could take the whole spine, for example. You are going to end up with billions of cells."


...you should be able to treat a very large number of patients from spine cells alone. Just imagine how many patients, at the rate you stated. could be treated with the stem cells from the entire cadaver.

This alone makes this a major breakthrough. The article also states that some patients need continuing treatment from the same stem cell line and cadaver cells, since they are no longer reproducing, would eventually run out. But if the stem cell from the entire cadaver were to be mined and the excess frozen for later use this may not be the problem it looks like at first glance.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I don't see this as any different than organ donation. If after I die, my body can help science. I say go for it.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

I'm old. I've seen a few things. What I'm seeing now is a lack of humility.

Man is so self-satisfied with himself that he doesn't stop to consider the morality of the things he does.

You've assumed my perspective is a religious one. It isn't.

My perspective is one of dignity for the dead. It's okay if someone signs up to be defiled after death. My concern is the violation of individuals who have not volunteered for such things. Look what happened to Alistair Cooke.

Medicine is the province of modern day Frankensteins. It's just that no one has the balls to challenge The Beast. Your faith in the monster behind the scalpel is touching.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by happykat39
 


Very cool, OP! Thanks for sharing! I hope that gets added to the list for people who are organ donors.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrplHrt
reply to post by windword
 

I'm old. I've seen a few things. What I'm seeing now is a lack of humility.


Congrats on your age. What have you seen that has to do with stem cell research and organ donors? I don't understand how working to find ways to ease suffering, offer healthier and happier lives and reverse the effects of debilitating disease equals a lack of humility?


Man is so self-satisfied with himself that he doesn't stop to consider the morality of the things he does.

You've assumed my perspective is a religious one. It isn't.


Do you think that it is immoral to harvest organs from the dead to help the living? Do you think the scientists, who work tirelessly to find ways to defeat virus's, cancer, diabetes, lupus, heart disease, etc., etc., follow a self satisfying, opposite of humble and an immoral goal?

The way you casually drop in the "morality" word betrays your narrow minded opinion that scientific and medical advancements are "MAN" being immoral. Sorry, but that sounds like a pretty "religious" bias.


My perspective is one of dignity for the dead. It's okay if someone signs up to be defiled after death. My concern is the violation of individuals who have not volunteered for such things. Look what happened to Alistair Cooke.


So, you're afraid of grave robbers? What happened to Alistair Cooke?


Medicine is the province of modern day Frankensteins. It's just that no one has the balls to challenge The Beast. Your faith in the monster behind the scalpel is touching.


So, you do think a heart or a kidney transplant, for example, is immoral?



edit on 23-12-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Hey, if they can bring me back from the dead fixed, from another dead guy...more power 2 em



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by PrplHrt
 


Remind those "monsters" not to give you a single speck of medication for any upcoming medical issues you are BOUND to have.
Immoral Shmimorral. (Yeah, I went there)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Pirateninjah
 

Countless animals were abused for that purpose.

I'm looking forward to nature's revenge.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by PrplHrt
 


So you let the suffer in vein? That's pretty selfish if you ask me. Anyways, this post is about WILLING organ donors. Can you actually say you have a problem with that?



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Pirateninjah
 

Not all the dead consent. Alistair Cooke didn't consent and they defiled the hell out of him despite the fact that he had cancer. You aren't supposed to use tissue from cancer patients for living patients.

There have also been funeral home cases where bodies have been hacked up for profit.

What do you think drives this market? Medical research.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by PrplHrt
 


By law, the dead HAVE to consent. Where have you been?

Obviously there are less than desirable cases, but hey, if you don't want life saving treatment, more for me and my family.
edit on 23-12-2012 by Pirateninjah because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-12-2012 by Pirateninjah because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join