Stem cell transplant

[zyxt9]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/health/toddler-stem-cells-windpipe/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

Now here is a feel good story.

As for why this is in the Political area, well, let's review...

I for one have always been in favor of Stem Cell research, even embryonic. However, while I disagreed with GW in some of his points about limiting embryonic research, I did understand the importance in how it forced researchers to look elsewhere instead of relying solely on embryonic, which had displayed some quirky behavior and was far from perfect in those early stages.

While this little girl might have been able to receive a new trachea via the embryonic variety, the fact is these stem cells came from those in her own bone marrow. That is where I think GW's decision proved valuable. Yes, there are still some advantages to embryonic therapy, yet there are proving to be so many other available resources that are viable, it makes the hatred toward GW on this topic appear to have been unwarranted. Maybe not. In the end, good things came from those early restrictions.

Politics aside, Stem Cell Therapy has obviously made great progress and continues to offer hope in a better future, especially for children. This little girl knows nothing about all the political BS adults banter around. All she knows is her life is somehow different now. Better. Less Painful. Imagine what the near future holds for her when she is completely free of the machines and can be "normal".

 

[Mitchrapp]

Not for stem cell myself. But I'm glad it helped the little girl.

 

[zyxt9]

Mitch, I can understand being against embryonic stem cell, but are you against it regardless of the source? Just curious, not criticizing. I can see various reasons to be against it in general, just wondering about your reasoning. Is it because it is too new and we don't have a solid grasp of it, even today?

When the doctors take the stem cells from bone marrow, they are simply extracting what already exists and allowing them to multiply in a lab. This is a common practice with a wide range of cells and doesn't involve anything related to embryonic stem cells where they first need an embryo and then change out the DNA of it with the patients DNA, then force it into multiplying and then trick it at just the right time to remain as stem cells. This doctor has figured out an effective way of not only getting the cells to reproduce, but the organ shaping materials and triggering the stem cells to create the organ, which is something bone marrow stem cells do naturally in repairing the body. All of those things are individually impressive and I'm glad they are figuring them out.

However, I do understand some potential negative ramifications. People might no longer feel the need to take good care of themselves, knowing doctors will simply regrow whatever organ they damage, such as lungs for smokers, livers for drinkers, etc. This will also allow people to live longer than their natural life expectancy, which can have an impact on the average age of the population and result in the working class having to provide even more money for the retired class.

As always, there are positives and negatives to technological advances. Much depends on how the technology is abused. But maybe one day doctors will be capable of regrowing limbs for amputees, spinal cords, and more. I believe these accomplishments will over-shadow the negatives.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm not a big fan of science and all that mumbo-jumbo.

 

[KAWDUP]

I'm not a big fan of science and all that mumbo-jumbo.

:*)

 

[KAWDUP]

It isn't going to happen - you can't argue effectively as a conservative religious freak - everyone knows you too well.

 

[Michchamp]

science doesn't have all the answers. mankind needs an archaic, self-contradictory, and often inane story book to help answer those tough questions, like "Why are we here?"
and "What is the meaning of life?"

 

[Michchamp]

It isn't going to happen - you can't argue effectively as a conservative religious freak - everyone knows you too well.

what's so freakish about believing in an Invisible being in the sky who sees everything we do (and presumably knows our thoughts and motives), judges us based on our actions, and either rewards us with a fate so wonderful we can't possibly comprehend it, or punishes us with a fate so terrible it's incomprehensible, despite telling some of our distant human ancestors that he had given us "free will" and then at various times punished other ancestors with unspeakably horrible deaths from plagues, pestilences, or avenging angels for exercising their "free will" in a manner that he did not approve of?

Seems like something any sensible person would agree with.

 

[byco42]

The notion of harvesting embryos for the sole purpose of stem-cell generation diminishes the value even of the life of the person who benefits because they themselves could have been that embryo without any distinction. There is no time that a life conceived graduates from in viable to viable, else we are never viable.

 

[byco42]

what's so freakish about believing in an Invisible being in the sky who sees everything we do (and presumably knows our thoughts and motives), judges us based on our actions, and either rewards us with a fate so wonderful we can't possibly comprehend it, or punishes us with a fate so terrible it's incomprehensible, despite telling some of our distant human ancestors that he had given us "free will" and then at various times punished other ancestors with unspeakably horrible deaths from plagues, pestilences, or avenging angels for exercising their "free will" in a manner that he did not approve of?

Seems like something any sensible person would agree with.

That's your own manufactured, contrived, off-the-rack notion of God, conveniently shaped to project your disbelief. This is the argument of a 12-year-old and, quite frankly, it's mildly disappointing that a mind as lively as yours can do no better than that. Open your mind to the possibility that God exists and you might actually arrive at a better, more mature and credible rationale as to why you think he doesn't.

 

[Michchamp]

The notion of harvesting embryos for the sole purpose of stem-cell generation diminishes the value even of the life of the person who benefits because they themselves could have been that embryo without any distinction. There is no time that a life conceived graduates from in viable to viable, else we are never viable.

Oh, boy imagining these "scientists" harvesting embryos from women for the purpose of stem-cell generation really gets me steamed!

Just point me to the nearest guy doing it, and I'll fix him real good. I'll show them violating the Word of God has some painful consequences.

That'll learn 'em.

 

[Michchamp]

That's your own manufactured, contrived, off-the-rack notion of God, conveniently shaped to project your disbelief. This is the argument of a 12-year-old and, quite frankly, it's mildly disappointing that a mind as lively as yours can do no better than that. Open your mind to the possibility that God exists and you might actually arrive at a better, more mature and credible rationale as to why you think he doesn't.

this hurts my Christian brain.

 

[Thumb]

The notion of harvesting embryos for the sole purpose of stem-cell generation diminishes the value even of the life of the person who benefits because they themselves could have been that embryo without any distinction. There is no time that a life conceived graduates from in viable to viable, else we are never viable.

Well I for one, am glad we have good Christian people with morals, who can help us decide what we should or should not do, based on some of the teachings in a year old book thousands of years old, while knowing which ones we should ignore.

I'm also sure some future person who may have a life saved from embryonic stem cells will right away declare their life diminished.

 

[byco42]

Well I for one, am glad we have good Christian people with morals, who can help us decide what we should or should not do, based on some of the teachings in a year old book thousands of years old, while knowing which ones we should ignore.

I'm also sure some future person who may have a life saved from embryonic stem cells will right away declare their life diminished.

I never made a connection between Christianity and my own personal opinion on the topic. One does not flow from the other, or it might in the other direction.

 

[zyxt9]

Byco, you did see that these stem cells were NOT harvested from embryos, right? Just making sure you realized they came from the girls own bone marrow. While it is my understanding retrieval of bone marrow is extremely painful, it has to be better than living without a trachea.

 

[byco42]

Byco, you did see that these stem cells were NOT harvested from embryos, right? Just making sure you realized they came from the girls own bone marrow. While it is my understanding retrieval of bone marrow is extremely painful, it has to be better than living without a trachea.

Yes ... I know that. I'm talking about the movement to actually use embryos for stem-cell research. People want that and I oppose it.

 

[zyxt9]

Yes ... I know that. I'm talking about the movement to actually use embryos for stem-cell research. People want that and I oppose it.

Ah, ok...just making sure.

It seems thee are enough alternative stem cell sources these days that one hardly hears of any embryonic stem cell treatments. Part of this I believe is due to the challenges they came across in using the embryonic type. I think the most revealing experiment was with the kittens who all shared the same DNA but looked vastly different. I think that one opened many eyes to the actuality of the problems the embryonic variety presented. Using the skin or bone marrow variety appear to have had less abnormalities and better lasting effects.

Still, the initial discovery of creating and using stem cells was based on embryonic. Would we have eventually figured out the skin or bone marrow stem cells and their usage? Difficult to say. Nonetheless, we cannot change that historical finding, but it is great to know there will be incredibly good things that came from it.

Will some always view it as tainted? Perhaps. But those who have a chance at a better life will likely always be thankful.

 

[redandguilty]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/health/toddler-stem-cells-windpipe/index.html?hpt=hp_t4Yes, there are still some advantages to embryonic therapy

Even if that is true today (and I don't know that it is), what do you mean by "still"? For most of stem cell research history, embryonic stem cells held more theoretical potential, but that hasn't translated into therapeutic applications. I think the 1st embryonic therapy trial was around 2010 and I don't even know if it's been successful.

 

[zyxt9]

Even if that is true today (and I don't know that it is), what do you mean by "still"? For most of stem cell research history, embryonic stem cells held more theoretical potential, but that hasn't translated into therapeutic applications. I think the 1st embryonic therapy trial was around 2010 and I don't even know if it's been successful.

I agree with what you are saying, but I believe embryonic stem cell treatment has some viability for the future in certain conditional situations. For starters there is the limit to how many times cells are able to reproduce. Theoretically this gives embryonic stem cells an advantage by resetting this number to some extent. However, it is my understanding it does not reset back to 1 as embryonic cells have not proven to outlast other stem cells to point it could be considered a Fountain of Youth.

Many of the hypothetical advantages for embryonic stem cells have not proven to be confirmed in reality, but that could be due to just not finding yet the right method or key to unlocking some of those potentials. I just find it interesting that the people who criticized GW for enforcing restrictions are unwilling to come forth and say his doing so actually benefitted stem cell therapy. So much blind hatred and unwillingness to give him any credit even when he got something right.

 

[Thumb]

I agree with what you are saying, but I believe embryonic stem cell treatment has some viability for the future in certain conditional situations. For starters there is the limit to how many times cells are able to reproduce. Theoretically this gives embryonic stem cells an advantage by resetting this number to some extent. However, it is my understanding it does not reset back to 1 as embryonic cells have not proven to outlast other stem cells to point it could be considered a Fountain of Youth.

Many of the hypothetical advantages for embryonic stem cells have not proven to be confirmed in reality, but that could be due to just not finding yet the right method or key to unlocking some of those potentials. I just find it interesting that the people who criticized GW for enforcing restrictions are unwilling to come forth and say his doing so actually benefitted stem cell therapy. So much blind hatred and unwillingness to give him any credit even when he got something right.

Advances were made in spite of him, not because of him.