Pig brain cells injected into brain to treat Parkinson's...

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by Rodinus

 

Thanks for the links Rodinus! I am sending them to Mom as my step-dad suffers from Parkinson's Disease and she tries to keep up with the newest studies and trials in hopes of there being a cure found in the near future!

My pleasure my dear, my mother in-law also suffers from a form of Parkinsons too so i can relate to you.

Kindest respects

Rodinus

Originally posted by abeverage
reply to post by Rodinus

 

Rodinus why do I sense this is yet another thread trying to get me to stop eating Bacon?

Bacon tastes good!

S&F because this is interesting however...

edit on 18-7-2013 by abeverage because: (no reason given)

Hell no Abeverage...

Me too i am a bacon lover *makes note to ask Cody to bring some decent bacon over from the UK*

Just don't inject the bacon directly into your head

Kindest respects

Rodinus

People were not meant to live longer then what they were meant to live it is in their genes that dictates this, nature always fights back do not be surprised when bad things come of good intentions dealing with genetics because then nature adapts and we will be utterly effed. I heard once the body fuels the earth and the soul fuels the stars. I dont like this type of manipulation but that is my opinion if it saves 4 lives ok but its implications to billions of others I cannot say

Originally posted by Brotherman
People were not meant to live longer then what they were meant to live it is in their genes that dictates this, nature always fights back do not be surprised when bad things come of good intentions dealing with genetics because then nature adapts and we will be utterly effed. I heard once the body fuels the earth and the soul fuels the stars. I dont like this type of manipulation but that is my opinion if it saves 4 lives ok but its implications to billions of others I cannot say

I do not know if you are a father/mother, but take for example that you are?

One of your children... lets say he/she is 6 years old and full of bubbles and you find out that he/she has a life threatening sickness and you know that there is a possible cure due to genetic breakthrough (not talking about Alzeimer or Parkinsons here)... would you just let nature take its course and let your child die and not have the chances in life that you and your loved ones have had?

Kindest respects

Rodinus

reply to post by Rodinus


I don't have children and my values involving life and death are certainly different then most people I know outside the internet. I cannot say that I am a fanatic of this but as I stated before this is only my opinion, I did snf you because interesting however I cannot agree this is ok.

Originally posted by Brotherman
reply to post by Rodinus

 

I don't have children and my values involving life and death are certainly different then most people I know outside the internet. I cannot say that I am a fanatic of this but as I stated before this is only my opinion, I did snf you because interesting however I cannot agree this is ok.

Thanks Brotherman for your reply, much appreciated and respected opinion

However... and i apologise for pushing the debate a little further, (if you do not wish to answer i can understand)

What IF you DID had children and why do you not agree... it would be really interesting to have your thoughts on this topic?

Kindest respects

Rodinus

reply to post by Rodinus


I do not think I could allow this if I did but this only hypothetical because I do not have children, if it were one of my little brothers I could say I wouldn't allow this for them. I don't think this is the way this is the way nature works, I do believe in a future utilizing technological responsibility, they may be working on conditional remedies for issues I find it stranger they do not spend more time advocating for the causes of such. Even if they did, I do not feel the ends justify the means, again it is just my opinion and I am a no one.

Originally posted by Brotherman
reply to post by Rodinus

 

I do not think I could allow this if I did but this only hypothetical because I do not have children, if it were one of my little brothers I could say I wouldn't allow this for them. I don't think this is the way this is the way nature works, I do believe in a future utilizing technological responsibility, they may be working on conditional remedies for issues I find it stranger they do not spend more time advocating for the causes of such. Even if they did, I do not feel the ends justify the means, again it is just my opinion and I am a no one.

YES YOU ARE SOMEONE!!!... NEVER forget that... If i can of course not sound so impertinent and suggest to you?

Come on..*prod prod* allow it for just one time please?... your reply will be more than respected i believe and will contribute deeply to this thread?

Open up and let us know why you would not allow this for your little brother... you would prefer to let your little brother (or another deeply loved person in your family) just die without helping him?... knowing that he has trusted you and your parents all of his life and also knowing that there is a possible cure and that you and your brother will live to share each others life experiences...?

Faith and all of that aside... thats why we are here on ATS... to deny ignorance no?

Kindest respects

Rodinus

reply to post by Rodinus


I have no reason to explain my beliefs here as some would claim eugenics or some kind of nazi or strange religious group or something that I am not. I have no reason to debate a belief as I have no substance only then insight this is not good grounds for defense on ATS as this is a place for great learning and more times greater ignorance if you are not careful what you want to follow based on emotion before intellect

Originally posted by Brotherman
reply to post by Rodinus

 

I have no reason to explain my beliefs here as some would claim eugenics or some kind of nazi or strange religious group or something that I am not. I have no reason to debate a belief as I have no substance only then insight this is not good grounds for defense on ATS as this is a place for great learning and more times greater ignorance if you are not careful what you want to follow based on emotion before intellect

Let them claim, let them claim... as long as you have a clear conscience no?

Kindest respects

Rodinus

reply to post by Rodinus


perhaps I do not and am bent on destruction and purification by fire? does this make me a mad man and an opinion less valid or just better fodder for flash mobs with torches and pitchforks to assemble mob rule? I just do not agree with this altering of the weak as such. I surely do not think that they should be thrown to wolves but rather instead of trying to fix them perhaps they should try and fix the cause of such, my attitude leans towards why fix pollution if people dont care it effects their kids instead they get all butt hurt when they have a kid that is genetically malformed do they advocate to destroy the cause? People rather would like to destroy their own life finacially fixing a symptom am as I guilty as the next? Sure I am, do I feel empathy, well sometimes. this is a time where I feel instead of trying to put a crutch on why can we not work to a symptom of the cause, I understand pollution is not the cause to all but I also believe that historically those genetically or less fit did not survive long enough to continue. I am not in any way shape or form an advocate for evolution in a conventional means either but I do know a thing or two about getting laid, would I A: take the woman with (name obvious genetic diseases) or would I B: take woman that is appealing? Fixing a person with a genetic disease is not a science it is for profit only sure it is beneficial to test but in my humble opinion it is a waste of time I understand others do not hold my outlook on this topic and I wish to not elaborate more on my thoughts upon such an emotional issue for some as it may be quite insensitive.

reply to post by Brotherman


An understandable and meaningful opinon Brotherman.

Thank you for contributing to this discussion

Kindest respects

Rodinus

Originally posted by Rodinus




Open up and let us know why you would not allow this for your little brother... you would prefer to let your little brother (or another deeply loved person in your family) just die without helping him?:

Faith and all of that aside... thats why we are here on ATS... to deny ignorance no?

Kindest respects

Rodinus

Was the thread suppose to engender a debate on the idea we can fight death and torturing and killing animals is ethical?

I misunderstood and thought it was on injecting pig cells into a human brain for the treatment of a dis ease they do not yet know the causes of.
The thousands of animals harmed & killed for nothing but a patented pig cell that they want to sell and are already marketing . No ethical consideration on the study was done.
No human lives have been saved, death for all of our physical bodies is certain.

reply to post by Rodinus


When it comes to human ways to improve our well being and our lives I believe that anything is possible.

We are the only species in the animal kingdom that can accomplish many things for the good of humanity and the wrold, when I read the OP tittle something kind of hit me, the only thing that I find weird about using pig brain cells for human treatment of Parkinson's or other brain related issues is the fact that human brain cells are no as simple as those of animals like pigs, we are more evolved and more complicated as humans

So how can this work? will the pig cells will be replacing human cells? or how can pig cell make human cells regenerate, I am sure that I read somewhere that humans brain cells once they die they do not regenerate.

I am not brain surgeon but I don't see how can this work, occurs I could be wrong also on my assumptions.

Was the thread suppose to engender a debate on the idea we can fight death and torturing and killing animals is ethical?

I misunderstood and thought it was on injecting pig cells into a human brain for the treatment of a dis ease they do not yet know the causes of.
The thousands of animals harmed & killed for nothing but a patented pig cell that they want to sell and are already marketing . No ethical consideration on the study was done.
No human lives have been saved, death for all of our physical bodies is certain.

The thread was indeed created in order to have an intelligent discussion on what people think to this topic and i thank you for your views on this issue.

Can i ask you why you think that no ethical consideration on the study was considered?

Are you aware that for every in-vivo study conducted, internal and national ethics comittees are consulted and extremely strict protocols are submitted before carrying out any type of scientific procedure in order to provide the best possible conditions for whatever animal is used?

The public should really stop listening to the many untruths that so called associations such as PETA aggressively ram down the throats of people who know nothing about what in-vivo research actually means for animal and human health.

Maybe people should also take into consideration associations such as this one :

www.rspca.org.uk...

Here is another link in order to have a more clearer overview :

www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...

Animal research has played a vital role in "virtually" every major medical advance of the last century -- for both human and animal health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ-transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with animals.

Link here : www.mofed.org...

Much work over the past 30 years has been carried out to ensure correct ethical conditions for providing the best possible animal welfare for subjects used in scientific in-vivo research.

Kindest respects

Rodinus

Q)Can i ask you why you think that no ethical consideration on the study was considered?

A)Conflict of interest in the NZ govt that keeps funding millions to LCT.
And the NZ Govt ethics committee (HDEC) approves all the LCT ‘s research in NZ.
Things like ‘no separation’ comes to mind (LCT Chief medical officer Dr Paul Tan moonlights between LCT and the NZ govt).

2) IN NZ The AWHC found MAJOR FLAWS IN SOPs for ETHICS COMMITTEES
At the end of December 2011 the AWHC received a copy of the draft Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for ethics committees.
followed by the “Draft standard operating procedures (SOPs) for health and disability ethics committees (HDECs).” The changes which are due to be implemented by the middle of the year will effectively spell the end of the purpose, role and function of ethics committees.

Its For Growing the clinical trial industry.
The Health Committee was clearly alarmed that New Zealand was missing out on the l$ucrative market for clinical trials. Chapter 3 of their report described the steps that need to be taken for New Zealand to create an effective clinical trials environment. The report stated “New Zealand needs to be attractive to overseas sponsors of multinational research projects. An environment conducive to pharmaceutical companies funding these trials in New Zealand is required if the clinical trial industry is to grow.”

The Committee was told that one of the important factors for a productive clinical trial environment for pharmaceuticals was “the efficiency with which the New Zealand health system can interface with the pharmaceutical companies$ to deliver an efficient clinical trial outcome.” (1)

One of the things obviously standing in the way is New Zealand’s ethics committees.”
3)This has been dealt with now the NZ govt’s online ethics committee the HDEC.

Its so corrupt its unbelievable to research it. The NZ govt wants big pharma’s money and LCT want to market patented pig cells the NZ govt have invested so much in LCT.
Yes I hear you say IN THE USA for every in-vivo study conducted, internal and national ethics comittees are consulted and extremely strict protocols are submitted before carrying out any type of scientific procedure .
But its not being done like that in NZ and this is an entirely new procedure.No ethical consideration.


I don’t listen to PETA.This is not about PETA its about new studies being done exempt from ethics and extremely strict protocols.
Torture and death inflicting on animals in the name of saving lives tell me what good has come of it ? Don’t tell me about the DRUG cures( as there are not any) as there is just BIG PHARMA growing from this cruelty and inhumanity. All the tests had to work on humans testing on humans was what showed something worked on humans.
Everyr "medical advance" of the last century was from an idea of a human being and was only fruitful when it worked on human beings, from the experimentation on people,even some people do not respond the same to the same treatment sometimes drugs and radiation do not work in individuals.
Just look at and the growing health problems it shows exactly how all the torture and animal killing has improved our health.We are sicker than even physically and mentally. Why even try to toot the medical industrial complex's horn?

There is no ethical conditions for animals used in scientific in-vivo research.That is an oxymoron.
Like a “humanitarian bombing”. Its torture harm and death.

Kind Regards