Metro Jacksonville

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/spinal-cord-injury-victim-undergo-embryonic-stem-cell/story?id=13742532

Yay, there is some long-awaited hope for my son Jason, who became paralyzed from a soccer injury at age 7 (he is now 21)!!!!!
Oh, to be able to walk again!!!

Please check out the video!!!

QuoteBy STEVE OSUNSAMI (@SteveOsunsami) and BEN FORER
June 2, 2011
Dr. Donald Leslie, medical director at the Shepherd Center in Atlanta, has high hopes.

"We want to cure paralysis," he said. "We want to stop spinal cord injury. How incredible would that be?"

Leslie's mission has begun with T.J. Atchinson, the first step in research that he believes could lead to many steps for those who were told they would never walk again. Atchinson, 21, was the first human with a spinal cord injury to undergo embryonic stem cell therapy.

The athletic college student's life took a hard turn in September when he was home from the University of Alabama visiting his family in Chatom and lost control of his car. Even before he was cut loose from the vehicle, he knew something was wrong.

"I realized I couldn't feel from about here down," nursing student Atchinson said, pointing to his waist. "When I got to the hospital, they said I would never walk again."

The accident took place on the birthday of Christopher Reeves, the actor who had fought hard for embryonic stem-cell therapy but never lived to receive it. Atchinson was still accepting the news about his situation when doctors told him he'd be a great candidate for the therapy.

Gene Blythe/AP Photo
Dr. Donald Leslie, medical director of the... View Full Size

Gene Blythe/AP Photo
Dr. Donald Leslie, medical director of the Shepherd Center in Atlanta, describes a patient's injuries during a news conference Sept. 13, 2006. Stem cells are building blocks of life, and they've been used in the laboratory to repair the broken spinal cords of small animals, who walked again. Atchinson agreed to become test case No. 1.

Doctors opened his wound, while researchers used a remote control to guide the needle. They injected his spinal cord with a small dose of 2 million cells that, they hope, will transform into new nerve cells, attach to muscles and refire Atchinson's central nervous system.

Although Atchinson's role was only to prove the procedure is safe, he believes it's already working. "I can feel that," Atchinson said, pulling the hair on his legs.

After six months of the therapy, he said, he's able to sense weight when he places heavy items on his lap. It's barely there, Atchinson said, but he can sense something.

Rubbing his leg, Atchinson said, "I can feel that, there's something there."

His doctors are cautiously optimistic.

"It's very hard to measure sensation," Dr. Leslie said. "But if he tells me he couldn't feel something before, and he can now, I got to believe him. And I want this for him more than you know."

His mother, Anita McDonald, wants this, too, saying that people who oppose the therapy on religious grounds are unreasonable.

"It doesn't matter how long they've been in a chair, they all want to walk again," McDonald said. "I just know a lot of people are against it, but until they've been put in the position, I don't think they should judge anybody."

Doctors will continue to measure Atchinson's strength and test his nerves and muscles. He returns to school in the fall, moving on with his life but still holding out hope that his injury is healing.

ABC News' Harvey Goldberg contributed to this report.

He is in our prayers. Let's pray for that miracle Faye.

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 04, 2011, 09:16:27 AM
He is in our prayers. Let's pray for that miracle Faye.

OCKLAWAHA

Thank you Ock! I hope it all happens in our lifetime. There are so many competing interests, especially with the world still reeling from a deep recession, that things that could have been expected in the past have been put on the backburner............not to mention the religious distraction from good old-fashioned science.

QuoteDr. Donald Leslie, medical director at the Shepherd Center in Atlanta, has high hopes.

"We want to cure paralysis," he said. "We want to stop spinal cord injury. How incredible would that be?"

Amen. 

I have worked with neurosurgeons for thirty years and there is no group that is hoping for this cure to work more than they are.  I have seen experienced neurosurgeons come out of an examination room with tears in their eyes having seen a young person's life altered forever from a spinal injury.

The nations neurosurgeons came together in the late '80's and started the Think First Foundation, a foundation to use education to prevent head and spinal cord injuries.  "Use your mind to protect your body" is the Foundation's tag line.  They put educational programs and materials into elementary, middle and high schools with messages tailored to each age group about behaviors that puts them at risk.

http://www.thinkfirst.org/

Really good web site too with materials for all ages on it.   http://www.thinkfirst.org/ (http://www.thinkfirst.org/)

Quote from: Dog Walker on June 04, 2011, 11:40:33 AM
I have worked with neurosurgeons for thirty years and there is no group that is hoping for this cure to work more than they are.  I have seen experienced neurosurgeons come out of an examination room with tears in their eyes having seen a young person's life altered forever from a spinal injury.

The nations neurosurgeons came together in the late '80's and started the Think First Foundation, a foundation to use education to prevent head and spinal cord injuries.  "Use your mind to protect your body" is the Foundation's tag line.  They put educational programs and materials into elementary, middle and high schools with messages tailored to each age group about behaviors that puts them at risk.

http://www.thinkfirst.org/

Really good web site too with materials for all ages on it.   http://www.thinkfirst.org/ (http://www.thinkfirst.org/)

Thanks Dog Walker!

Of all the doctors out there, I admire neurosurgeons and interventional neuro-radiologists most. The impact they make on people's lives is tremendous. And the pain they feel for people when there isn't anything they can do is equally enormous as they know that our neuro system determines "who we are and what we can do."

Unfortunately, prevention has until now been the only effective measure for many neurological conditions, especially injuries from car crashes and sports.

Many people don't want to admit to the dangers of sports though, and one player in particular comes to mind who gave his life to the quest for more awareness:

QuoteIn a series of articles, The New York Times has been telling the story of Dave Duerson, a 50-year-old former Chicago Bear and father of four who killed himself earlier this month. Duerson’s final wish, expressed in his suicide note and in a voicemail message to his ex-wife, was that his brain would be given to the National Football League’s (NFL) brain bank.

Duerson’s death, and his final gift, will likely expand the national conversation about the effects of repeated concussion on football players’ brains…and what should be done to protect athletes of all ages.

The “brain bank” is the nickname of the Boston University Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy (CSTE). The CSTE was created in 2008 as a collaborative venture between Boston University School of Medicine and Sports Legacy Institute (SLI). Its is to conduct state-of-the-art research on chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE)â€"a form of progressive dementiaâ€"through the study of neuropathology, pathogenesis, clinical presentation, disease course, genetic and environmental risk factors and prevention. It’s research is done on donated brain and spinal cord tissue, with the hope that scientists can develop tests for diagnosing CTE in living people, and treatments for people who show signs of disease.

When Duerson took his own life, he shot himself in the chest, not the head, so that his brain could be donated intact.

According to The New York Times:

Players who began their careers knowing the likely costs to their knees and shoulders are only now learning about the cognitive risks, too. After years of denying or discrediting evidence of football’s impact on the brain â€" from C.T.E. in deceased players to an increasing number of retirees found to have dementia or other memory-related disease â€" the N.F.L. has spent the last year addressing the issue, mostly through changes in concussion management and playing rules.

Duerson was active in helping ex-footballers with disability. He served on a panel that helped administer the NFL’s disability plan and the 88 Plan, a care fund for families of players with dementia. There is no doubt that Duerson knew of the link between repeated head injury and dementia and neurologic disability…and it is likely that he believed he suffered from CTE. Friends say he had memory problems, and sometimes had a difficult time thinking of or writing the correct words.

Again, from The New York Times:

Duerson sent text messages to his family before he shot himself specifically requesting that his brain be examined for damage, two people aware of the messages said. Another person close to Duerson, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that Duerson had commented to him in recent months that he might have C.T.E., an incurable disease linked to depression, impaired impulse control and cognitive decline.

It will be awhile before we know whether Duerson suffered from CTE, or if he was suffering from depression without brain damage. Regardless of the outcome of the autopsy, Duerson’s death puts new focus on the effects of football on brain health and brain function. Pro athletes play under great risk, but some say the greatest risk is reserved for youth athletes, whose still-developing brains may suffer bigger consequences from smaller hits.

The conversation about how to prevent brain damage in athletes of all ages will be difficult. Fans love the raw aggression of the game, and those with money at stake may balk at taking the danger out of the game for fear of losing viewers and revenue. Will we see new safety equipment? New helmet designs? A change in the rules? This should be an interesting year for parents, coaches, football players, and the N.F.L.

Our hope is that Dave Duerson’s tragic death has meaning, that safety becomes the paramount concern, and that this is the last time a football player dies as the resultâ€"directly or indirectlyâ€" of what really is just a game.

http://www.lawmed.com/brain-injury/tbi-lawyer/football-player-donates-brain/

Stem cells hold the answer to stopping cancer ( which is always caused by stem cells going haywire), as well as repair of neurological damage!!

Until we have an effective treatment for neurological injuries, all we can do is be responsible and aware: Make safety come first!!

OK, so now we also have ACT using embryonic stem cell treatment to stop progressive blindness, in human clinical trial.

http://technology.inquirer.net/1612/first-patients-enroll-in-us-stem-cell-trials-on-blindness/

QuoteWASHINGTON â€" The first clinical trials that examine the use of stem cells to treat two forms of blindness are ready to begin now that patients have been enrolled, a US company announced on Tuesday.

A total of 24 patients have entered two separate trials at an eye institute in California, said representatives from the Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology.

ACT was cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration several months ago to begin clinical trials of human embryonic stem cells to treat a form of juvenile blindness known as Stargardt’s disease and dry age-related macular degeneration.

Now that patients have been enrolled, the trials will begin “in the very near future,” a company spokeswoman said.

For those who claim this is pre-mature, let me remind them that both Geron and ACT had made their discoveries way before 2004, when they discussed their cell therapies before the First Stem Cell Action Conference in Palo Alto, which I attended with my mother and my five children.

That also reminds me of an advocacy manifesto that followed this conference and was the basis of an organization, Cure Paralysis Now, that I founded:

QuoteCURE Activism: Unlock The Prison Of Paralysis

Why Cure Advocacy?

Without activism:

1. The United States would still be under British rule;

2. African Americans would still live in slavery.

3. Women would not have the right to vote. (Women's Sufferage Movement)

4. People with Disabilities would still be institutionalized. (ADAPT)

Rights and Freedoms are won through activism.

The time is NOW to fight for:

The SCI (spinal cord injury) Bill of Rights

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

1. All humans are created equal and are entitled to certain unalienable Rights, including Life, Liberty, Independence and the pursuit of Happiness;

2. Governments are instituted among humankind to secure these rights, and if they fail, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish such Governments in order to effect Safety and Happiness;

3. Spinal Cord Injury robs its victims of Liberty and Independence; the Search for a Cure is their Pursuit of Happiness.

Let Your Voice Be Heard

WE MUST:

1. Deliver the message that SCI can happen to you or a loved one in a heartbeat;

2. Educate the public and our legislators about the desperate need for a cure;

3. Spread the news about the many promising cure therapies that need funding;

4. Work with other organizations to separate fact from fiction in the debate over stem cell therapies

In 2005, we headed to Washington for the first Cure Paralysis Now rally at which we had Hillary Clinton and Dana Reeve speak.

In Florida, and until 2009, I used any opportunity I could get to have the media run stories on stem cell research and what they would mean for my son Jason, who became paralyzed from a soccer injury.

Two of those stories stand out to me most:

A front page Orlando Sentinel story of March 5th, 2007, and though not exclusive to Florida, my work also received mention in the Wall Street Journal in 2004.

I am now mostly retired from advocacy, realizing that powerful lobbying interests always trump any citizen action.

At this point all I do is keep my fingers crossed for small start-up Bio-med companies to plow along in a slow and arduous path towards the cures we so desperately need.

That is also why it is so offensive that we wage all these trillion dollar wars of choice, which are crippling domestic issues far and wide. Each and every soldier sent off to war costs our nation $1 million!!

Quote from: FayeforCure on June 21, 2011, 09:18:20 AM
That is also why it is so offensive that we wage all these trillion dollar wars of choice, which are crippling domestic issues far and wide. Each and every soldier sent off to war costs our nation $1 million!!

I couldn't agree with you more, Faye.  I hope that we, as a country, are able to devote more of our resources to this type of research and that medical science is able to help your son and all who are affected by SCI. 

Quote from: FayeforCure on June 21, 2011, 09:18:20 AM
OK, so now we also have ACT using embryonic stem cell treatment to stop progressive blindness, in human clinical trial.

http://technology.inquirer.net/1612/first-patients-enroll-in-us-stem-cell-trials-on-blindness/

QuoteWASHINGTON â€" The first clinical trials that examine the use of stem cells to treat two forms of blindness are ready to begin now that patients have been enrolled, a US company announced on Tuesday.

A total of 24 patients have entered two separate trials at an eye institute in California, said representatives from the Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology.

ACT was cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration several months ago to begin clinical trials of human embryonic stem cells to treat a form of juvenile blindness known as Stargardt’s disease and dry age-related macular degeneration.

Now that patients have been enrolled, the trials will begin “in the very near future,” a company spokeswoman said.

For those who claim this is pre-mature, let me remind them that both Geron and ACT had made their discoveries way before 2004, when they discussed their cell therapies before the First Stem Cell Action Conference in Palo Alto, which I attended with my mother and my five children.

That also reminds me of an advocacy manifesto that followed this conference and was the basis of an organization, Cure Paralysis Now, that I founded:

QuoteCURE Activism: Unlock The Prison Of Paralysis

Why Cure Advocacy?

Without activism:

1. The United States would still be under British rule;

2. African Americans would still live in slavery.

3. Women would not have the right to vote. (Women's Sufferage Movement)

4. People with Disabilities would still be institutionalized. (ADAPT)

Rights and Freedoms are won through activism.

The time is NOW to fight for:

The SCI (spinal cord injury) Bill of Rights

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

1. All humans are created equal and are entitled to certain unalienable Rights, including Life, Liberty, Independence and the pursuit of Happiness;

2. Governments are instituted among humankind to secure these rights, and if they fail, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish such Governments in order to effect Safety and Happiness;

3. Spinal Cord Injury robs its victims of Liberty and Independence; the Search for a Cure is their Pursuit of Happiness.

Let Your Voice Be Heard

WE MUST:

1. Deliver the message that SCI can happen to you or a loved one in a heartbeat;

2. Educate the public and our legislators about the desperate need for a cure;

3. Spread the news about the many promising cure therapies that need funding;

4. Work with other organizations to separate fact from fiction in the debate over stem cell therapies

In 2005, we headed to Washington for the first Cure Paralysis Now rally at which we had Hillary Clinton and Dana Reeve speak.

In Florida, and until 2009, I used any opportunity I could get to have the media run stories on stem cell research and what they would mean for my son Jason, who became paralyzed from a soccer injury.

Two of those stories stand out to me most:

A front page Orlando Sentinel story of March 5th, 2007, and though not exclusive to Florida, my work also received mention in the Wall Street Journal in 2004.

I am now mostly retired from advocacy, realizing that powerful lobbying interests always trump any citizen action.

At this point all I do is keep my fingers crossed for small start-up Bio-med companies to plow along in a slow and arduous path towards the cures we so desperately need.

That is also why it is so offensive that we wage all these trillion dollar wars of choice, which are crippling domestic issues far and wide. Each and every soldier sent off to war costs our nation $1 million!!

Thank you so much for sharing that. I have a progressive blindness known as RP (Retinitis Pigmentosa). I have raised over $630 alone in funding cure for blindness for my local walk, the VisionWalk of Jacksonville. There are over 7 different treatments with incredible and promising outlook in retinitis diseases. Some of the researching in those treatments are already past into 2nd stage of clinical trials. I can tell you that there will be a cure for my blindness within 5 years, no doubt about it.

I honestly do feel the same with your son, since I am only 24 years old. We both have nerve issues in different areas. Huge praise to YOU and your son for not giving up and keep it going! I wish the best in your endeavor and please DON'T hesitate in contacting me for my help, advice, and/or company.

-Josh

I know your positions are based out of love for your son, but there are some serious moral dilemmas associated with embryonic stem cell research that could be avoided by focusing on adult stem cell research. So far adult stem cell research has been much more effective as well, and several adult stem cell treatments are already in use including some trial treatments for spinal cord injuries. Here's some articles describing some of the treatments being developed. I hope the best for you and your son.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050920074831.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050920074831.htm)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1747686/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1747686/posts)

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/stemcells/sctoday/ (http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/stemcells/sctoday/)

http://healthworldnet.com/HeadsOrTails/Adult-Stem-Cell-Therapy/?C=7863 (http://healthworldnet.com/HeadsOrTails/Adult-Stem-Cell-Therapy/?C=7863)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/449djpmz.asp (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/449djpmz.asp)

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on June 21, 2011, 12:40:56 PM
I know your positions are based out of love for your son, but there are some serious moral dilemmas associated with embryonic stem cell research that could be avoided by focusing on adult stem cell research. So far adult stem cell research has been much more effective as well, and several adult stem cell treatments are already in use including some trial treatments for spinal cord injuries. Here's some articles describing some of the treatments being developed. I hope the best for you and your son.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050920074831.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050920074831.htm)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1747686/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1747686/posts)

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/stemcells/sctoday/ (http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/stemcells/sctoday/)

http://healthworldnet.com/HeadsOrTails/Adult-Stem-Cell-Therapy/?C=7863 (http://healthworldnet.com/HeadsOrTails/Adult-Stem-Cell-Therapy/?C=7863)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/449djpmz.asp (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/449djpmz.asp)

Embryonic stem cell - only effective when it is reached at the blastocyst stage (4-5 days AFTER fertilization, not 2 weeks or 2 months).

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Stem_cells_diagram.png/656px-Stem_cells_diagram.png)

We are not killing life by extracting from the fetus. The fetus is useless for the stem cell extraction, so as might just let it proceed. Basically, it is not a life form until it beats a heart.

-Josh

I really don't want to sully up this thread with a debate on when life begins (which I believe is at the moment of conception) and actually my problems with the process go beyond whether you're extracting from a fetus or blastocyst. All I'm trying to say is that there is a reasonable, practical alternative to embryonic stem cell research that:

• avoids moral gray area such as our particular disagreement on when life begins
• has already led to viable treatments
• has less risk of rejection

I was just bringing this up because some people think that the entire stem cell debate is either we use embryonic stem cells or there no cures at all. I believe this is a compromise everyone can live with.

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on June 21, 2011, 02:19:53 PM
I really don't want to sully up this thread with a debate on when life begins (which I believe is at the moment of conception) and actually my problems with the process go beyond whether you're extracting from a fetus or blastocyst. All I'm trying to say is that there is a reasonable, practical alternative to embryonic stem cell research that:

• avoids moral gray area such as our particular disagreement on when life begins
• has already led to viable treatments
• has less risk of rejection

I was just bringing this up because some people think that the entire stem cell debate is either we use embryonic stem cells or there no cures at all. I believe this is a compromise everyone can live with.

I was fully aware of your point being made. I just wanted to add the clarification of what is exactly embryonic stem cells.

-Josh

Quote from: Ajax on June 21, 2011, 11:15:32 AM

Quote from: FayeforCure on June 21, 2011, 09:18:20 AM
That is also why it is so offensive that we wage all these trillion dollar wars of choice, which are crippling domestic issues far and wide. Each and every soldier sent off to war costs our nation $1 million!!

I couldn't agree with you more, Faye.  I hope that we, as a country, are able to devote more of our resources to this type of research and that medical science is able to help your son and all who are affected by SCI.

Thank you Ajax!

It is so cruel and inhumane to be trapped in your own body............being a spectator of other people's lives, while your own life is on hold!

And all because of damage to the spinal tracts, the size of a pencil eraser on top of a #2 pencil.

Quote from: wsansewjs on June 21, 2011, 11:37:35 AM
Thank you so much for sharing that. I have a progressive blindness known as RP (Retinitis Pigmentosa). I have raised over $630 alone in funding cure for blindness for my local walk, the VisionWalk of Jacksonville. There are over 7 different treatments with incredible and promising outlook in retinitis diseases. Some of the researching in those treatments are already past into 2nd stage of clinical trials. I can tell you that there will be a cure for my blindness within 5 years, no doubt about it.

I honestly do feel the same with your son, since I am only 24 years old. We both have nerve issues in different areas. Huge praise to YOU and your son for not giving up and keep it going! I wish the best in your endeavor and please DON'T hesitate in contacting me for my help, advice, and/or company.

-Josh

Josh, thank you for sharing that too. One thing for everyone to remember is that any and all of us will eventually be hit by an incurable chronic condition, but it is especially hard to take when it happens while we are young.

We all have a stake in this, and I am happy you are involved in visionwalk. Thank you also for your offer of support. At age 21,  my son is very isolated and lonely. Getting together with other young people would be very welcome!

All of this keeps reminding me of the bible story where Jesus helped the lame to walk and the blind to see.

That is probably also why most religions in the world support all kinds of stem cell research, both adult stem cell research as well as embryonic stem cell research.

The Episcopal Church
The Presbyterian Church
The Methodist Church
The Mormon Church
Islam

Even evangelical Lutherans support embyonic stem cell research:

Here is a statement from Genetics Task Force of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, titled:
Stem Cell Research Is Not 'Baby Killing'

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-scholar-stem-cell-research-is-not-baby-killing-51407/

Unfortunately the hysteria on abortions has spilled over into stem cell research, when the two are completely unrelated as your picture clearly shows.

Fortunately most people now know that we are talking about a stem cell clump the size of the tip of a needle:

(http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2011/1106/wstemcell_0627.jpg)

600,000 of these clumps are frozen in our nation's freezers (left over from fertility treatments), and destined for the trash. Is it not life-affirming to recycle these cells to save lives, rather than trash them?

I bet you are glad that the cells being harvested for stem cell research weren't taken from you when you were just a blastocyst. We might not be having this conversation otherwise.  ;)

I also must say that I can see that your position is based out of compassion for your son and others in similar situations, and I commend you for your love for other people. However, the ends do not justify the means. This idea of embryonic stem cell therapies unjustly takes from one (a developing embryo) to give to another. Think of it like this. Let's say that a family needs $100,000 in order to complete a life saving surgery for a child. That family does not have the right to rob a bank to get the money for the surgery despite the fact that it would be for a demonstrably good cause. It would be unjust. The money does not belong to them, and in taking that money they could be taking money that in the future could have been used for an equally good cause. In embryonic stem cell research that "blastocyst" has the innate potential to become a human being and holds an inherent dignity because of that fact. That blastocyst being used for stem cell research could have one day become president or someone else's son or even the researcher who develops an alternative treatment to spinal cord injuries. The fact that so many of these "clumps" are left over and generally disregarded as having value is an equal if not greater tragedy which is why I'm also opposed to IVF and so on. (But that's a conversation for another day. :))

And about Jesus as healer, you have to understand that the physical healing was secondary to the spiritual miracles happening. He did these things that people might come to believe. After all, physical healing was temporary. Even Lazarus who was raised from the dead eventually died again, but only belief can lead to eternal salvation. Also, don't forget that Jesus also that everyone must take up their crosses and walk with him, and although some crosses seem toe heavy to bear He will be with you.

And finally I want to reiterate that this is not an all or none proposition. Adult stem cell research offers a viable, arguably superior, alternative to embryonic stem cell research minus the moral questions. I don't mean to condemn anyone on here as immoral, but I felt obliged to offer a different point of view on the subject. I hope the best for you and your son. God bless.

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on June 22, 2011, 10:56:27 AM
I bet you are glad that the cells being harvested for stem cell research weren't taken from you when you were just a blastocyst. We might not be having this conversation otherwise.  ;)

You must be mourning a million times over..............about all the blastocysts that didn't make it for whatever reason:

QuotePrint|Email
Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos?
Harvesting stem cells without tears
Ronald Bailey | December 22, 2004

What are we to think about the fact that Nature (and for believers, Nature's God) profligately creates and destroys human embryos? John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the President's Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal menstrual flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we're talking about. The women and their husbands or partners never even know that conception has taken place; the embryos disappear from their wombs in their menstrual flows. In fact, according to Opitz, embryologists estimate that the rate of natural loss for embryos that have developed for seven days or more is 60 percent.

The total rate of natural loss of human embryos increases to at least 80 percent if one counts from the moment of conception. About half of the embryos lost are abnormal, but half are not, and had they implanted they would probably have developed into healthy babies.

http://reason.com/archives/2004/12/22/is-heaven-populated-chiefly-by

If adult stem cell treatment works so great, why is my son still using a wheelchair?

I have no doubt that adult stem cells work great for some conditions (bonemarrow transplants have worked great for some forms of leukemia and blood related conditions), but for spinal cord injury I do not know of a single adult stem cell treatment that has helped spinal cord injured people to get out of their wheelchair en masse.

QuoteShould we halt current human embryonic stem-cell research while these possible new avenues of research are being explored? Absolutely not. That would be surrendering to the moral bullying of a minority that wants to halt promising medical research that could cure millions on theological grounds that many of their fellow citizens do not share.

Quote from: FayeforCure on June 22, 2011, 11:23:24 AM

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on June 22, 2011, 10:56:27 AM
I bet you are glad that the cells being harvested for stem cell research weren't taken from you when you were just a blastocyst. We might not be having this conversation otherwise.  ;)

You must be mourning a million times over..............about all the blastocysts that didn't make it for whatever reason:

QuotePrint|Email
Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos?
Harvesting stem cells without tears
Ronald Bailey | December 22, 2004

What are we to think about the fact that Nature (and for believers, Nature's God) profligately creates and destroys human embryos? John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the President's Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal menstrual flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we're talking about. The women and their husbands or partners never even know that conception has taken place; the embryos disappear from their wombs in their menstrual flows. In fact, according to Opitz, embryologists estimate that the rate of natural loss for embryos that have developed for seven days or more is 60 percent.

The total rate of natural loss of human embryos increases to at least 80 percent if one counts from the moment of conception. About half of the embryos lost are abnormal, but half are not, and had they implanted they would probably have developed into healthy babies.

It's worth noting, by using this position as an argument, Faye finally recognized the difference between dying peacefully in your bed and dying by having a bullet put through your skull.

Now THAT'S progress.

Quote from: Clem1029 on June 22, 2011, 11:31:22 AM
[It's worth noting, by using this position as an argument, Faye finally recognized the difference between dying peacefully in your bed and dying by having a bullet put through your skull.

Now THAT'S progress.

????What???

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
â€" Galileo Galilei


Clem, here is a little thought experiment for you:

QuoteOf course, culturally we do not mourn the deaths of these millions of embryos as we would the death of a childâ€"and reasonably so, because we do in fact know that these embryos are not people.

Try this thought experiment. A fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you have a choice: You can save a three-year-old child or a Petri dish containing 10 seven-day old embryos. Which do you choose to rescue?

http://reason.com/archives/2004/12/22/is-heaven-populated-chiefly-by

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on June 22, 2011, 10:56:27 AM
Adult stem cell research offers a viable, arguably superior, alternative to embryonic stem cell research minus the moral questions.

How in the world is adult stem cell more superior than embryonic stem cell? Adult stem cell is only limited by its own growth and point of origin. Embryonic stem cells starts from VERY VERY beginning of the process. It can truly grow into ANYTHING while adult stem cells are already programmed. Adult stem cells can be grow into anything, but such a complicated process like hundreds yards of nerves embedded in your body. That is got to be hard to surgerically insert them, when embryonic stem cells can be inserted at the source and naturally grow from the surroundings.

Let me put in a metaphor for you...

Your car engine's air intake A (adult stem cell) is only this 5" wide and square edges for the air to suck in to allow the car to go fast as the air can be mustered into that hole. When you upgrade or use the option E (Embryonic stem cell) which is actually 7" wide and has rounded edges, your car will most likely to go faster than before at much efficient.

The metaphor speaks the same for these stem cells options. We need to try every resource out there is in the nature and under the God's eyes. The adult stem cell is not even cutting enough for this intense research like spinal cord injury for thousands including Faye's son.

Money, argument, research, and much more are all we can afford to mend to, but time is ticking.

We cannot afford that. Faye's son is 21 years old, and time is robbing him the opportunities to go out do things physically and be free.

I got something else you should think about. There are over 6.5 billions people on this planet. How can you justify every blastocysts as killing when this planet is heavily populated. Pardon me the pun, but we don't need to save every cells that are going to be TRASHED, then pushed to be processed into birth to add to our global population. when we could use those to save the lives of those who already are existing. There are tons of natural disasters killing millions of the human race under God's will.

-Josh

QuoteIf adult stem cell treatment works so great, why is my son still using a wheelchair?

The same argument can be made for embryonic stem cell progress. It's not like all embryonic research was abandoned over the last decade... I understand that funding was cut short but even that was lifted in 2009 which also granted access to all those cells locked in government freezers.

IMO both embryonic & adult stem cell treatments are still in the infant stages (pun intended) and it will take years and years to cultivate either into successful treatment options.

QuoteHow in the world is adult stem cell more superior than embryonic stem cell? Adult stem cell is only limited by its own growth and point of origin. Embryonic stem cells starts from VERY VERY beginning of the process. It can truly grow into ANYTHING while adult stem cells are already programmed. Adult stem cells can be grow into anything, but such a complicated process like hundreds yards of nerves embedded in your body. That is got to be hard to surgerically insert them, when embryonic stem cells can be inserted at the source and naturally grow from the surroundings.

Adult stem cells are also capable of becoming 'anything' with the help of re-programming or pluripotency:

QuoteLike hackers one-upping each others’ code, stem cell scientists keep finding better ways to turn flakes of skin into stem cells. And the latest technique could avoid the cancer-causing side effects of previous methods.

By reprogramming skin cell DNA with a virus that literally removed itself afterwards, researchers have made a versatile, near-embryonic stem cell nearly free from glitches left by other manufacturing methods.

"The virus steadily integrates into the cell’s genome. It does the miracle of reprogramming," said Rudolf Jaenisch, a Whitehead Institute cell biologist. Activating a gene in the virus "takes the virus back out, leaving a minimal trace in the human genome."

The miracle of reprogamming, also known as induced pluripotency, was universally recognized as a research milestone when demonstrated in human cells less than 18 months ago. Adding four development-regulating genes turned adult cells into the near-equivalent of pluripotent embryonic stem cells, capable of becoming almost any other type of cell in the body.

Though the medical promise of embryonic stem cells has yet to be fulfilled, scientists say they’ll eventually be used to replace damaged or failing organs. Their production, however, is both ethically contentious and procedurally difficult: producing personalized versions is possible only through cloning, which is expensive, time-consuming and scientifically tricky.

Reprogrammed cells were hailed as an answer to all these problems â€" but there was a catch. The new genes were carried into the cells with viruses, and sometimes caused them to replicate uncontrollably, a phenomenon better known as cancer.

Researchers have subsequently looked for better reprogramming methods: using fewer genes, different genes, fewer viruses, different viruses. Many of the methods appear promising, but none have been efficient, functional and provisionally safe in human rather than animal cells.

"The goal for everybody for the moment is to generate iPS cells which don’t have the genes in them any more," said Frank Soldner, another Whitehead Institute cell biologist. "We showed in our approach that the system not only works in mouse cells, but in human cells. The other systems are proofs of principle."


In a paper published Thursday in Cell, Jaenisch and Soldner’s team used what is known as a Cre-recombinase excisable virus to add the reprogramming genes. The viruses fused with cellular DNA; the cells turned pluripotent; and then the researchers added Cre-recombinase, an enzyme which automatically made the viral genes disengage, snipping themselves out and sealing the chain behind.

When the gene expression patterns of their reprogrammed cells were compared to those of embryonic stem cells, the researchers found only trace differences. The method wasn’t perfect, but was far cleaner than leaving the viruses inside, which left cellular DNA in relative disarray.

"It doesn’t take away all the changes," Jaenisch said. "There is a minimal trace."

The cells used in the study were taken from people with unexplained, or idiopathic, Parkinson’s disease and coaxed into becoming neurons.

These don’t yet have therapeutic power, Jaenisch and Soldner said, but are still useful for studying disease in a person-specific way.

"You can take cells from patients, then differentiate the cells into types that are affected by their disease â€" in our case, dopaminergic neurons for Parkinson’s disease," said Jaenisch. "For the first time, we can generate these cells in a culture dish, and study the mechanisms that led to their disease in the first place."

In the future, he said, it will be possible to supply reprogramming factors "not as genes, but as a proteins, a substance that’s there only for a moment."

Citation: Parkinson’s Disease Patient-Derived Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Free of Viral Reprogramming Factors Frank Soldner, Dirk Hockemeyer, Caroline Beard, Qing Gao, George W. Bell, Elizabeth G. Cook, Gunnar Hargus, Alexandra Blak, Oliver Cooper, Maisam Mitalipova, Ole Isacson, and Rudolf Jaenisch. Cell, Vol. 136, No. 5, March 5, 2009.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/virusfreeips/#more-3830 (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/virusfreeips/#more-3830)

QuoteOf course, culturally we do not mourn the deaths of these millions of embryos as we would the death of a childâ€"and reasonably so, because we do in fact know that these embryos are not people.

Try this thought experiment. A fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you have a choice: You can save a three-year-old child or a Petri dish containing 10 seven-day old embryos. Which do you choose to rescue?

You're over simplifying a moral dilemma. What if a fire breaks out in a school and you have to choose between a 2 year old and a boy in a wheel chair?

Quote from: Shwaz on June 22, 2011, 12:10:03 PM

QuoteOf course, culturally we do not mourn the deaths of these millions of embryos as we would the death of a childâ€"and reasonably so, because we do in fact know that these embryos are not people.

Try this thought experiment. A fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you have a choice: You can save a three-year-old child or a Petri dish containing 10 seven-day old embryos. Which do you choose to rescue?

You're over simplifying a moral dilemma. What if a fire breaks out in a school and you have to choose between a 2 year old and a boy in a wheel chair?

That is very simple..........they are two equal lives.

Giving preference to saving the 10 "lives" in a petri dish vs the three year old child would be something only the religious dogmatists would find morally acceptable.

Quote from: FayeforCure on June 22, 2011, 12:49:46 PM

Quote from: Shwaz on June 22, 2011, 12:10:03 PM

QuoteOf course, culturally we do not mourn the deaths of these millions of embryos as we would the death of a childâ€"and reasonably so, because we do in fact know that these embryos are not people.

Try this thought experiment. A fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you have a choice: You can save a three-year-old child or a Petri dish containing 10 seven-day old embryos. Which do you choose to rescue?

You're over simplifying a moral dilemma. What if a fire breaks out in a school and you have to choose between a 2 year old and a boy in a wheel chair?

That is very simple..........they are two equal lives.

Giving preference to saving the 10 "lives" in a petri dish vs the three year old child would be something only the religious dogmatists would find morally acceptable.

Isn't it awesome how Faye is able to determine what counts as an "equal life" and what doesn't?

I pray she never finds a way to write one of my friends or family members off as "unequal."

Guys,

The moderators would have deleted your posts already by now, but they are currently occupied at the moment.

Let us not bash each other. Thanks :)

-Josh

Quote from: Shwaz on June 22, 2011, 11:59:20 AM

QuoteHow in the world is adult stem cell more superior than embryonic stem cell? Adult stem cell is only limited by its own growth and point of origin. Embryonic stem cells starts from VERY VERY beginning of the process. It can truly grow into ANYTHING while adult stem cells are already programmed. Adult stem cells can be grow into anything, but such a complicated process like hundreds yards of nerves embedded in your body. That is got to be hard to surgerically insert them, when embryonic stem cells can be inserted at the source and naturally grow from the surroundings.

Adult stem cells are also capable of becoming 'anything' with the help of re-programming or pluripotency:

Shwaz your info is from 2009 and thus outdated. Here is the latest:

QuoteNovel Stem Cell Therapy Faces Major Setback

Christopher Wanjek, LiveScience's Bad Medicine Columnist

Date: 31 May 2011 Time: 08:20 AM ET

A promising method for creating therapeutic stem cells without destroying human embryos has encountered a major setback, as reported this month in the journal Nature.

The research involves induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS cells. Like embryonic stem cells, iPS cells have the ability to develop into any adult cell in the body, from bone to brain.

Their discovery by Japanese researchers in 2007 was met with great fanfare, because iPS cells can be created easily from adult cells such as skin. This method circumvents the controversy inherent in harvesting stem cells from human embryos, which many consider to be protected human life.


Alas, the iPS method might be too simplistic. University of California, San Diego researchers found that mice injected with iPS cells genetically similar to their own adult cells violently rejected the transfusion, as if it were foreign matter. Meanwhile, others accepted a similar injection of embryonic stem cells with ease.

The study doesn't spell the end of iPS cells. Rather, this work demonstrates the importance of human embryonic stem cell research, now limited by law. Without continued, complementary research on the "real thing," work on otherwise promising alternatives is futile â€" a concept that the U.S. government remains hesitant to accept.

Great promise

Stem cell therapy holds great promise because it offers the ability to grow new tissue to replace older, diseased tissue. The body itself employs this technique at a basic level: Adult blood stem cells, for example, churn out the various types of new red and white blood cells. Other adult stem cells create new bone or skin in response to damage.

Once a cell reaches its end point â€" skin, bone, blood, etc. â€" there's no turning back. A blood cell can't turn into a skin cell. Not even a blood stem cell can make skin.

Embryonic stem cells, however, have the ability to differentiate into all the body's cells. That, of course, is how a fetus grows. Thus, embryonic stem cells harvested from discarded, frozen embryos from fertility clinics offer the best hope for patients suffering from paralysis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, cancer and many other afflictions.

Oh, right, the law

Human embryonic stem cell research has been severely limited for over three decades, on moral grounds. In 1980 President Ronald Reagan instituted a moratorium on public funding, which remained in place into the George W. Bush administration. Bush allowed limited funding for embryonic cells already derived from discarded embryos but not for any new cells. This left only 20 viable cell lines, not enough to perform substantial research. [Embryonic Stem Cells: 5 Misconceptions]

President Obama lifted the funding ban when he came into office. But this action could be reversed once again in the coming months as the courts continue to debate the relevance of the 1995 Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which bans federal funding on any research that destroys human embryos. Much of the field remains as frozen as the embryos themselves, and few younger scientists are pursuing a career in stem cells.

While work on iPS cells is exciting, it is nearly useless without embryonic stem cells as a control. The iPS technique â€" involving a four-gene tweak of adult cells to coax them into acting like embryonic cells â€" was possible only through direct research on embryonic cells. And as seen in the UCSD study, conducted in part with non-federal dollars, researchers need to understand how "real" embryonic stem cells work to understand what iPS cells lack.

Pluripotent wording

The future of embryonic stem cell research and thus stem cell research in general unfortunately remains hinged upon an interpretation of legal language, not science.

The Dickey-Wicker Amendment concerns "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed [or] discarded." Obama's argument that federal funding could be used on cell lines derived from embryos destroyed with non-federal dollars is just semantics. Everyone knows the intent of this conservative Christian-based law was to stop all research on human embryos â€" or more precisely, on a blastocyst, a collection of a few dozen undifferentiated cells â€" because a considerable percentage of Americans consider this human life with a soul.

Science, however, tells a different story, one in which humans evolved over the course millions of years, with no clear distinction between the last ape ancestor and the first human with a soul.

From a scientific perspective, embryos bring the potential of life â€" whether that life is among the approximately 150 million babies born each year, or among the approximately 25 percent of all fertilized eggs lost in a natural miscarriage, or among the countless blastocysts thrown away daily at fertility clinics, or among the millions of patients who someday could be cured through stem cell research.

Christopher Wanjek is the author of the books "Bad Medicine" and "Food At Work." His column, Bad Medicine, appears regularly on LiveScience.

http://www.livescience.com/14371-stem-cell-therapy-ips.html

Quote from: Clem1029 on June 22, 2011, 12:53:30 PM

Quote from: FayeforCure on June 22, 2011, 12:49:46 PM

Quote from: Shwaz on June 22, 2011, 12:10:03 PM

QuoteOf course, culturally we do not mourn the deaths of these millions of embryos as we would the death of a childâ€"and reasonably so, because we do in fact know that these embryos are not people.

Try this thought experiment. A fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you have a choice: You can save a three-year-old child or a Petri dish containing 10 seven-day old embryos. Which do you choose to rescue?

You're over simplifying a moral dilemma. What if a fire breaks out in a school and you have to choose between a 2 year old and a boy in a wheel chair?

That is very simple..........they are two equal lives.

Giving preference to saving the 10 "lives" in a petri dish vs the three year old child would be something only the religious dogmatists would find morally acceptable.

Isn't it awesome how Faye is able to determine what counts as an "equal life" and what doesn't?

I pray she never finds a way to write one of my friends or family members off as "unequal."

I don't think any of your friends or family members look like a clump of cells the size of the tip of a needle. So don't worry  ;D

To add some levity to the conversation, I will answer both your riddles

1.)  I think I could carry both a small child and a petri dish - so I leave no one.

2.)  I throw the 2yr old in the lap of the kid in the wheelchair and push them both out - I'm a hero

The only question that should be asked is, "What is in my pocket?"

QuoteShwaz your info is from 2009 and thus outdated. Here is the latest:

You say that like the idea & work has been discarded which is incorrect... and only furthers my original point: The research, technologies and progress are a long ways off from solid medical treatments. To discard adult stem cells in favor of embryonic is short sighted. The article you posted lists set backs to an infinitely difficult science.

Also, embryonic stem cells have their fare share of obstacles to overcome too

QuoteBLOOD

FETUS â€" the blood cell produces proteins with an estimated 70 per cent higher ability to bind to oxygen because it must be drawn from the mother’s blood through the placenta and umbilical cord

ADULT â€" the cell produces proteins with less affinity to bind to oxygen because it can be breathed directly into the lungs

THE HEART

FETUS â€" cardiac cells run a rate of roughly 150 beats per minute during pregnancy, to pump enough oxygenated blood through the tiny body without functioning lungs taking in air to breathe on their own

ADULT â€" cardiac cells have a resting heart rate about twice as slow as those of a fetus as the circulatory and respiratory systems rely on oxygen drawn directly from the air

THE LIVER

FETUS â€" liver cells are immature since the fetus relies on mother’s nutrients for support and the organ does not work as a digestive filter. Nor does it produce all the enzymes necessary for digestion or drug metabolism.

ADULT â€" liver cells play a major role in metabolism and other biological systems, including detoxification, the making of hormones and the production of enzymes needed for digestion and to process drugs

I hope for the sake of your son and the entire human race that I'm wrong... maybe a miracle treatment is just around the corner... in the meantime I think exploring both options are equally important.

Faye, best of luck for Jason!  He has had to live with this for too long, but he's still young enough to be a good candidate for this new technology.  Here's hoping he gets his chance and has many years of walking ahead of him.

I don't intend to insult anyone but I realize that some will take offense to what I'm about to say.  So be it. 

Even the most adamant pro-lifers out there don't insist on having funerals whenever there's an early-term miscarriage.  So if people really believed that all life has 'dignity' from the moment of conception, they wouldn’t be flushing these little embryos down the toilet - they would be peeing into a strainer every time they went to the bathroom for fear that they might not be able to give the remains a proper burial.   (Sorry for the crude imagery).  Otherwise, that is a very undignified way to dispose of a precious form of life.  The thought of tossing a 2-year old child's body into a dumpster is abhorrent, but I’m not aware of anyone that considers flushing the remains of a miscarriage after four weeks of pregnancy inappropriate. 

Embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, who knows which is the most promising?  Maybe to some scientists the adult stem cells look better today, but why should we limit ourselves? 

Quote from: Shwaz on June 22, 2011, 02:13:24 PM
The research, technologies and progress are a long ways off from solid medical treatments. To discard adult stem cells in favor of embryonic is short sighted. The article you posted lists set backs to an infinitely difficult science.

Also, embryonic stem cells have their fare share of obstacles to overcome too

I hope for the sake of your son and the entire human race that I'm wrong... maybe a miracle treatment is just around the corner... in the meantime I think exploring both options are equally important.

I completely agree with you Shwaz.

Nobody is trying to stop adult stem cell research, but unfortunately some religious scientists have filed a lawsuit against Obama's executive order in order to stop all federal embryonic stem cell research funding. They are claiming that federal funding of embryonic stem cell research takes away from adult stem cell funding even though the federal government funds ten times as much adult stem cell research as it does emvbryonic stem cell research.

So if anything............embryonic stem cell research doesn't get its fair share.

Hence the comment in the article that "Much of the ( embryonic stem cell research) field remains as frozen as the embryos themselves"

Quote from: hooplady on June 22, 2011, 04:39:11 PM
Faye, best of luck for Jason!  He has had to live with this for too long, but he's still young enough to be a good candidate for this new technology.  Here's hoping he gets his chance and has many years of walking ahead of him.

Sweet, sweet, sweet!!!!

Thank you sooooo much hooplady. I hope Jason will be able to re-live his lost childhood through his future children once he gets back on his feet.

Ajax, thank you so much too!! 8)

You must explain your love for Amsterdam soccer team Ajax to me some time too  ;)

As a matter of fact, I do mourn the innocent lives of children lost to abortion, miscarriage, IVF, embryonic stem cell research, and abuse every December 28 on the feast of the Holy Innocents. I know many, many people who pray daily for these children as well as for mercy on the people take the lives of these innocent human lives. I pray that you all will have a change of heart on the matter as well.

Now regarding the funding, if we focus our money and provide the means to research this less controversial treatment option more thoroughly we can likely see results faster for a wider variety of ailments with the full support of the general public which is what we're after isn't it?

Quote from: Ajax on June 22, 2011, 06:06:32 PM

Quote from: Clem1029 on June 22, 2011, 02:20:18 PMThis is incredible...for Faye, life depends on what someone "looks" like. That's frightening on a level that defies description.

Keep digging that hole Faye.

Do you really think that's what she meant?  Come on, that's weak.  Maybe you forgot to put a winking smiley face at the end of your post?   ;)

Actually, no missing wink...it's EXACTLY what she meant. Faye (and other ESCR proponents (not to mention abortion, etc), not just singling her out) advocate exactly that - "human" and "life" is completely arbitrary and re-definable to whatever standards they choose. It's defined by how something "appears" (in this discussion, "looks") rather than what something "is." And the problem with that mindset is that once you start defining humanity down, there's no objective reason to stop and life can be redefined to whatever is convenient - it's the starting point for most of the heinous crimes seen in history.

More importantly, and probably as scary, nobody is asking whether those lives "in a petri dish" should even be there/exist in the first place.

Quote from: Ajax on June 22, 2011, 06:09:44 PM

Embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, who knows which is the most promising?  Maybe to some scientists the adult stem cells look better today, but why should we limit ourselves?

The scientific literature is clear on this. Embryonic stem cells are more useful (they can form any type of cell) than adult stem cells (much more limited). When embryo stem cells were first used, harvesting them killed the embryo, which is the reason George Bush gave for cutting off federal funding.  However, new techniques (available for about the last 4 years) allow scientists to harvest stem cells without killing the embryo from which they are taken. Many stem cell opponents are unaware of this.

Also, here's a great website that debunks the overpopulation myth:

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/ (http://overpopulationisamyth.com/)

(Don't mean to sidetrack, but someone brought it up.)

Being able to harvest cells without taking the life of the embryo is a definite step forward. However, as Clem pointed out there is the question of where these embryos come from. As I said earlier I have a problem with IVF and similar treatments mainly because it takes procreation out of its natural context of the loving union of a man and wife, multiple eggs are usually fertilized to increase likelyhood of success and then selectively thinned out later, and the method which sperm is harvested is immoral. So if these embryos are coming from fertility treatment centers then there are still fundamental moral problems with the process. And the fact that these embryos might be trashed or sit on ice indefinitely otherwise fails to justify the use of embryonic stem cells because it reinforces another morally problematic practice.

I realize it's easy for me to sit and say all this while people suffer from various ailments, but I have seen this type of suffering take place in front of my eyes with a few different immediate family members. I know what's it's like to be desperate for treatment options and even to slowly die. But in bearing our suffering we cannot afford to step on the weak and the vulnerable. God bless.

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on June 22, 2011, 07:27:15 PM
Also, here's a great website that debunks the overpopulation myth:

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/ (http://overpopulationisamyth.com/)

(Don't mean to sidetrack, but someone brought it up.)

I surely did brought it up. We are overpopulating by the economic capacity.

-Josh

Clem and Buckeye, the solution is simple: Given your religious convictions I would suggest you don't partake of the cures that are being developed, just as the Jehova Witnesses refuse blood transfusions.

At least the Jehova Witnesses are not trying to ban blood transfusions for the rest of us  ;)

BTW are you aware that you probably overstepped your own moral reasoning already?

QuoteVaccines Grown on Aborted Fetal Tissue
The following vaccines are grown on aborted fetal tissue - rabies, some mumps, rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis a, smallpox (some), ipv. One of the single measles vaccines is further attenuated in diploid cells

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/abortedtissue.htm

Quote from: Kiva on June 22, 2011, 07:26:21 PM

Quote from: Ajax on June 22, 2011, 06:09:44 PM

Embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, who knows which is the most promising?  Maybe to some scientists the adult stem cells look better today, but why should we limit ourselves?

The scientific literature is clear on this. Embryonic stem cells are more useful (they can form any type of cell) than adult stem cells (much more limited). When embryo stem cells were first used, harvesting them killed the embryo, which is the reason George Bush gave for cutting off federal funding.  However, new techniques (available for about the last 4 years) allow scientists to harvest stem cells without killing the embryo from which they are taken. Many stem cell opponents are unaware of this.

You are so right Kiva, scientists can pluck just one cell from the blastocyst and return the blastocyst to the freezer. Voila, no "killing."

Besides since embryonic stem cells are immortal, very few stem cell lines are needed to provide all the stem cell treatments we need............that also should alleviate some of the concerns out there in the religious community:

QuoteAmazingly, all the billions of cells that Geron has grown for its spinal-cord programâ€"including those injected into Atchison's spineâ€"are direct descendants of the very first supply of stem cells that Thomson created from an embryo, a cell line known as H1. "There is no further destruction of human embryos required to keep this work going, and there hasn't been since 1998," Ed Wirth, Geron's medical director, told a Phoenix audience last year. "[It's] very, very powerful how you can multiply these cells."

http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/37787/?mod=chthumb

Quote from: FayeforCure on June 23, 2011, 09:15:16 AM
You are so right Kiva, scientists can pluck just one cell from the blastocyst and return the blastocyst to the freezer. Voila, no "killing."

That is like receiving God's blessing.

-Josh

Quote from: wsansewjs on June 23, 2011, 09:18:33 AM

Quote from: FayeforCure on June 23, 2011, 09:15:16 AM
You are so right Kiva, scientists can pluck just one cell from the blastocyst and return the blastocyst to the freezer. Voila, no "killing."

That is like receiving God's blessing.

-Josh

And what a giant blessing it would be to find a cure for cancer, the #3 killer of all of us:

QuoteStem Cell Research Offers Hope for Colon Cancer Vaccine

WEDNESDAY, Oct. 7 -- Human stem cells may provide a means of creating a vaccine against colon cancer and other types of cancers, say American and Chinese scientists.

"Cancer and stem cells share many molecular and biological features. By immunizing the host with stem cells, we are able to 'fool' the immune system to believe that cancer cells are present and thus to initiate a tumor-combating immune program," Dr. Zihai Li, of the University of Connecticut Stem Cell Institute, said in a news release.

The research by Li and colleagues is the first to make the connection between human stem cells and colon cancer vaccination.


It has long been believed that immunizing people with embryonic materials may trigger an anti-tumor response by the immune system, but this theory has never advanced beyond animal research. The finding that human stem cells may help immunize against colon cancer is new and unexpected, the study authors pointed out.

In this study, the researchers vaccinated mice with human embryonic stem cells and found that the mice developed a consistent immune response against colon cancer cells. The vaccinated mice showed a dramatic decline in tumor growth, compared with non-vaccinated mice.

While human embryonic stem cells triggered an immune response, artificially induced pluripotent stem cells did not, a finding that challenges the theory that induced pluripotent stem cells are the same as human embryonic stem cells and may replace them at the forefront of stem cell research, Li and colleagues said.

The study was published online Oct. 7 in the journal Stem Cells.

So what about other cancer types?

Quote"Although we have only tested the protection against colon cancer, we believe that stem cells might be useful for generating an immune response against a broad spectrum of cancers, thus serving as a universal cancer vaccine," co-author Dr. Bei Liu said in the news release.

http://www.drugs.com/news/stem-cell-research-offers-hope-colon-cancer-vaccine-20256.html

Still have not addressed the problem with how these embryos come to be in the first place which is just as problematic as the killing of embryos. As I said earlier, not killing the embryo is a step forward but does not completely address the moral issues at play in this debate. And is spending an eternity in the freezer really much better than killing them either?

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on June 23, 2011, 04:41:59 PM
Still have not addressed the problem with how these embryos come to be in the first place which is just as problematic as the killing of embryos. As I said earlier, not killing the embryo is a step forward but does not completely address the moral issues at play in this debate. And is spending an eternity in the freezer really much better than killing them either?

Now we are going back to the full circle again... What happens to those eggs that were naturally discharged by active women during their periods?

Is that too early to call it 'killing?' Personally, I do believe that we ALL do agree that killing is not an option.

-Josh

Goes back to the question of whether it is an act of will. A woman is not willfully killing someone in your scenario, and I think common sense tells you that miscarriage is fundamentally different than abortion, contraception, harvesting embryos, or morning after pills.

Take a look at this video. You can see for yourself that adult stem cells lead to viable treatment options while respecting the sanctity of human life. Win-win.

http://youtu.be/lAI5rLnnCBE (http://youtu.be/lAI5rLnnCBE)

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on June 23, 2011, 05:07:42 PM
...adult stem cells lead to viable treatment options while respecting the sanctity of human life. Win-win.

Once again, the adult stem cells leading to viable treatment options is still NOT enough for certain diseases, cancers, and conditions.

-Josh

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on June 23, 2011, 05:07:42 PM
Goes back to the question of whether it is an act of will. A woman is not willfully killing someone in your scenario, and I think common sense tells you that miscarriage is fundamentally different than abortion, contraception, harvesting embryos, or morning after pills.

Once more:

Quote
Clem and Buckeye, the solution is simple: Given your religious convictions I would suggest you don't partake of the cures that are being developed, just as the Jehova Witnesses refuse blood transfusions.

At least the Jehova Witnesses are not trying to ban blood transfusions for the rest of us 

BTW are you aware that you probably overstepped your own moral reasoning already?



Quote

Vaccines Grown on Aborted Fetal Tissue
The following vaccines are grown on aborted fetal tissue - rabies, some mumps, rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis a, smallpox (some), ipv. One of the single measles vaccines is further attenuated in diploid cells



http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/abortedtissue.htm

Just like Jehova Witnesses are respectful of others' wishes, so do I request you are too.

I am adamantly opposed to war spending, but my tax monies go there anyway.

You're really seeing what you want to see here. Here is a sampling of treatments produced or showing promise:

QuoteAdult stem cell transplants are also widely used to treat such diseases as anemias, leukemias, lymphomas, and other cancers. Additional treatable diseases are Fanconi anemia, pure red cell aplasia, juvenile chronic myelogenous leukemia, juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia, immune deficiencies, and some genetic diseases. [35]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1747686/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1747686/posts)

QuoteAdvances in the use of 'adult stem cells' to treat other diseases have been impressive and reports of possible success using adult stem cells to treat disorders are emerging every day.
•A major study has shown that treating heart muscle that has been damaged by a heart attack with stem cells can repair the injured heart tissue.  Patients who were studied showed a measurable improvement in heart and lung function. 1
•UCLA researchers reported the first successful adult neural stem cell transplantation to reverse the effects of Parkinson's disease and demonstrate the long term safety and therapeutic effects of this approach in spring 2009.2
• Research has shown a variety of promising approaches to the treatment of Alzheimer’s with adult stem cells. Adult stem cell therapy may offer a safe and effective treatment for a disease which was previously considered to be irreversible.3
•In a breakthrough trial, 15 young patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were given drugs to suppress their immune systems followed by transfusions of stem cells drawn from their own blood. The results published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) show that insulin-dependent diabetics can be freed from reliance on needles by an injection of their own stem cells. The therapy could signal a revolution in the treatment of the condition.4
•Twenty-three patients regained their eyesight following limbal (adult) stem cell transplants. This treatment has helped many suffering from blindness for years, including victims of Iraqi mustard gas attacks.5
•Ninety percent of 19 patients with various autoimmune disorders, such as systemic lupus, are in remission or have improved after treatment with their own blood stem cells.6

http://healthworldnet.com/HeadsOrTails/Adult-Stem-Cell-Therapy/?C=7863 (http://healthworldnet.com/HeadsOrTails/Adult-Stem-Cell-Therapy/?C=7863)

You can use the links to look up their references if you'd like. Not to mention the fact that you could see for yourself someone successfully treated for the effects of TB. So you can see for yourself the wide utility of adult stem cells. Treats ailments ranging from cancer to blindness to TB to heart problems. Simply put, your argument does not hold water.

Also, though you would be interested to see some unintended side effects of using embryonic stem cells:

QuoteEMBRYONIC STEM CELLS are another potential source for regenerative treatments. But, we pointed out, unlike adult stem cell treatments, ES cells cannot be used in human studies because of two fundamental safety issues. First, they cause tumors in animal studies. For example, in one recent experiment, ES cells were injected into a mouse in the hope they would rebuild the animal's damaged knee. Instead, the cells obliterated the knee by stimulating tumor growth. (More recently, an adult stem cell animal study successfully rebuilt joints without causing tumors.)

Thank you and good night.

You are proving once again that adult stem cell treatments are an excellent option for blood related conditions. Unfortunately central nervous tissue damage is NOT a blood related disorder.

SCI is like nothing else, and it will take a treatment like nothing else to fix it.  Doesn't sound like adult stem cells are the answer to this one.  So if Faye & I wear mooncups and harvest our own damn blastocysts, is that ethically OK with everybody?  I promise not to kill 'em, but I dunno how I will take their little pulses...

Quote from: stephendare on June 23, 2011, 06:27:35 PM
Its this kind of rank hypocrisy that I find so nauseating when it comes to these discussions.

To whom?  8)

-Josh

Quote from: stephendare on June 23, 2011, 06:27:35 PM
Faye, apparently  'life' is only valuable if it is only still a potential life.  The second that it emerges from the womb, it seems to lose all meaning or value according to the other posters in this thread.

Its this kind of rank hypocrisy that I find so nauseating when it comes to these discussions.

That's an unfair characterization. And frankly that's a bold statement for someone who does not know the details of my personal life, and I'd wager that you know little about how most like-minded posters spend their time as well. I could provide several examples to refute this claim, but I will offer only one for the time being. (This is a little off-topic for stem cell research, but in the same respect life umbrella.) If pro-lifers really do not value life after birth, then why is it that Emergency Pregnancy Services - a program largely devoted to preventing abortion - also provides material support such as clothing, diaper, cribs, etc. to new mothers. Also, if they have no concern for life after birth why would they bother to offer counselling to  mothers who've had abortions and who may have other issues. In fact, I know that many of these pro-lifers who rally against embryonic stem cell research and abortion are just as active in helping the poor, the disabled, and those at the margins of society. Here's the links in case you want to verify that these services exist.
http://www.epsjax.org/ourprograms.html (http://www.epsjax.org/ourprograms.html)
http://www.fcws.org/ (http://www.fcws.org/)
http://www.pregnancyjacksonville.com/our_services.htm (http://www.pregnancyjacksonville.com/our_services.htm)

Now I really try to assume that even those who disagree with me have good intentions, and I try to treat them with the respect they are due as a human being. So if I have ever said anything that could be construed as disrespectful, I apologize. I really am trying to present a respectful argument based on facts and logic and morality. Although I feel disrespected by your statement, I'm going to assume you genuinely misunderstand my motivation and worldview and call it even. In the meantime, I will continue to pray that you all may come to see the true sanctity of a human life from conception to natural death. God bless.

P.S.-Faye, I am admittedly no expert, but I believe Alzheimers and Parkinsons are nervous system conditions which were mentioned as probably treatable through adult neural stem cells. And also I'm not saying necessarily that it's impossible to treat with embryonic stem cells. Even so, the question really should be not is it possible, but is it just to exploit a person by taking what we need from them and then putting them into a freezer forever or to being using treatments that inadvertently uphold another process that destroys lives (IVF)? These people do not have the ability to speak for themselves which I why I feel the obligation to protect them not because of disdain for you or a lack of compassion for people who suffer from terrible burdens such as your son.

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on June 25, 2011, 01:14:24 AM

P.S.-Faye, I am admittedly no expert, but I believe Alzheimers and Parkinsons are nervous system conditions which were mentioned as probably treatable through adult neural stem cells. And also I'm not saying necessarily that it's impossible to treat with embryonic stem cells. Even so, the question really should be not is it possible, but is it just to exploit a person by taking what we need from them and then putting them into a freezer forever or to being using treatments that inadvertently uphold another process that destroys lives (IVF)? These people do not have the ability to speak for themselves which I why I feel the obligation to protect them not because of disdain for you or a lack of compassion for people who suffer from terrible burdens such as your son.

You are right about Alzheimers and Parkinsons being nervous system disorders, and it would be wonderful if we saw people with Alzheimers and Parkinsons be cured en masse by adult stem cell treatments...........which is however not true. Why are people still dying of Alzheimers and Parkinsons if effective adult stem cell treatments were available?

I hope we can both agree that taking one single cell from a blastocyst and returning it to the freezer where more than 600,000 blastocysts are already stored so that we may heal hundreds of thousands of people of horrendous conditions, is acceptable.

BTW, help for disabled people or young single mothers is "feel good" stuff. I have a disabled child and I am a single mother........and I never found there to be any substantial on-going help. All they ever do is collect names to show how good they are and give sporadic help. Compared to the passion of saving the unborn lives, it's quite pathetic.

I have also not seen the 60 yrs old and up women who are so passionate about saving the blastocysts, ever offering their uterusses to bring any of these blastcysts to life The numbers that are currently frozen are about 600,000 and continues to increase. Why aren't these pro-life women helping to bring the blastocysts to life?

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on June 25, 2011, 01:14:24 AM

Quote from: stephendare on June 23, 2011, 06:27:35 PM
Faye, apparently  'life' is only valuable if it is only still a potential life.  The second that it emerges from the womb, it seems to lose all meaning or value according to the other posters in this thread.

Its this kind of rank hypocrisy that I find so nauseating when it comes to these discussions.

That's an unfair characterization. And frankly that's a bold statement for someone who does not know the details of my personal life, and I'd wager that you know little about how most like-minded posters spend their time as well.

Be careful FB... you may soon be accused of racism too...

Quote from: stephendare on June 23, 2011, 06:27:35 PM
Faye, apparently  'life' is only valuable if it is only still a potential life.  The second that it emerges from the womb, it seems to lose all meaning or value according to the other posters in this thread.

Its this kind of rank hypocrisy that I find so nauseating when it comes to these discussions.

So true! Fortunately two-thirds of Americans are VERY supportive of embryonic stem cell research on cells donated by patients at IVF clinics, regardless of what their religion tells them.

QuoteMany Americans approve of stem cell research for curing serious diseases

Most Americans trust their own judgment on the subject more than their churches or other authorities


Share

June 28, 2011
By Claudene Wharton


University of Nevada, Reno sociologist Mariah Evans, lead author of the study published this month, “U.S. attitudes toward human embryonic stem cell research.”

While research using human embryonic stem cells has roused political controversy for almost two decades, little has been done to scientifically assess American attitudes on the subject.

New research from the University of Nevada, Reno provides decision-makers with a much clearer picture of how their constituents truly feel about the subject.

The study, “U.S. attitudes toward human embryonic stem cell research,” published this month in the journal, Nature Biotechnology, was conducted by University of Nevada, Reno faculty members Mariah Evans (lead author) and Jonathan Kelley, who surveyed a large, representative national sample of 2,295 respondents in 2009. Their most significant findings include:

- More than two-thirds of respondents approved of using therapeutic cloning (nuclear transfer of the patient’s own genes) and stem cells from in vitro fertilized embryos to cure cancer or treat heart attacks, while only about one in six respondents did not approve. Therapeutic cloning remains banned in the United States today. About one in six respondents had mixed feelings or was undecided.

- Over two-thirds of respondents also approved of a newer, less-researched method â€" using modified adult cells as an alternative to using cells from in vitro fertilized embryos â€" if the use could cure cancer or treat heart attacks. Less than 15 percent did not approve. About one in five had mixed feelings or was undecided.

- Almost half (43 to 47 percent) of respondents also approve of use of therapeutic cloning, stem cells from in vitro fertilized embryos and stem cells from an adult to treat allergies, but slightly over one in four do not. And, 28 to 29 percent have mixed feelings or undecided in this regard. These findings indicate that while more respondents approve of the use of these methods for treatment of less-serious conditions than disapprove of it, the approval is not as strong as it is for using these methods to treat more serious conditions and diseases, such as cancer or heart attacks.

- Respondents were not as approving of use of these methods for cosmetic purposes, such as creating new skin to restore someone’s youthful appearance. Almost one-half (45 to 50 percent) disapproved of this use, while only slightly more than one-quarter (25 to 29 percent) approved of this use. About one-quarter had mixed feelings or were undecided.

- Respondents did not support human reproductive cloning, neither of themselves nor of a child who died, with almost three-quarters (71 to 73 percent) disapproving and only about one in 10 approving. About one in five had mixed feelings or was undecided.

- Respondents were quite evenly divided in their thoughts on animal cloning with slightly over a third approving, slightly over a third disapproving, and about one-quarter having mixed feelings or being undecided.

Evans, a sociologist, also found it interesting that the majority of respondents trusted their own judgment most when deciding on their approval or disapproval on stem cell research issues, rather than looking to their church or other authorities, such as governmental ethics committees.

“The vast majority, over two-thirds, said that in deciding whether it is right to allow these treatments, they would follow their own judgment,” she said. “Only 4 percent gave greater moral weight to the Catholic Church than to themselves, and even among committed church-going Catholics, only about one in five defer to the church on these matters.”

The study also revealed that despite the Catholic Church’s firm opposition, support for the use of stem cell research for the cure or treatment of serious diseases was almost as strong among Catholic laity as among Protestants. Even those in the most disapproving demographic group, churchgoing fundamentalist women, were still more in favor than opposed.

To view the entire study as published in Nature Biotechnology, go to http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v29/n6/full/nbt.1891.html.

Fallen Buckeye is in the very, very tiny minority and I would suggest that FB apply his/her moral direction to his/her own life rather than force it on others.

"Someone has said that it requires less mental effort to condemn than to think."
-Emma Goldman

I don't look to the majority to decide what is right and wrong. A majority of people also used to smoke like chimneys. Didn't work out so well. Also, if you read the part where Catholic and Protestants feelings toward stem cell research are compared you will see that which type of stem cell is not specified which really means either the article is poorly written or the survey questions are. The Catholic Church is not opposed to all stem cell research, so the Church's position is mischaracterized. (BTW I also have never condemned stem cell research as a whole only embryonic stem cell research.)

I have no desire to and indeed cannot force my beliefs on others. However, I hope in presenting the facts that I can help people begin asking questions of themselves that will lead them to the truth. For those who are interested, this link contains a document outlining some of the reasoning behind why I so adamantly defend the sanctity of life which is of course intimately and naturally related to marriage and family.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html) Good night and God bless.

Finally, I would like to say I am disappointed that this conversation has degraded to the point that my integrity and intelligence are being attacked. If advocating for justice means sacrificing my pride, then so be it. If anything, I hope I have been gracious in my opposition. I disagree with your positions, but I wish you no ill will. God bless you and good night.

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on June 29, 2011, 01:35:45 AM
Also, if you read the part where Catholic and Protestants feelings toward stem cell research are compared you will see that which type of stem cell is not specified which really means either the article is poorly written or the survey questions are. The Catholic Church is not opposed to all stem cell research, so the Church's position is mischaracterized. (BTW I also have never condemned stem cell research as a whole only embryonic stem cell research.)

The entire article is about American attitudes towards embryonic stem cell research...........so you are even in the minority among your religious peers..........which I assume is catholics.

The article is unambiguous about its assertions:

QuoteThe study also revealed that despite the Catholic Church’s firm opposition (to ESCR), support for the use of stem cell research (the type the church opposes ie ESCR) for the cure or treatment of serious diseases was almost as strong among Catholic laity as among Protestants.

The words "stem cell research" usually gets equated with ESCR among catholics, and people like you try to convince us that adult stem cell research is both sufficient and better and is supported by the Catholic Church. I don't know why you even bother as most people who support ECSR are well-aware of the Catholic Church's position.

When I was a poll greeter at San Juan Del Rio Catholic church in 2004, and I had a simple sign saying:
Support Stem Cell Research
The priest immediately asked me kindly to remove it because he said it was offensive to the catholics. I said: "Why? It doesn't say "embryonic" stem cell research. Catholics shouldn't be offended by the sign because they do support adult stem cell research." So catholics immediately assume we are talking about ESCR when the words stem cell research are uttered.

The article clearly states that despite their church's opposition, the majority of Catholics support ESCR, just like they do for the PILL and other birth control methods besides the condom that their church is against.

BTW I always thought it was wrong for counties to pay churches for use as election locations. They should be using schools and other public places instead.

(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/files/2011/06/stemcellshirt-300x300.jpg)