Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time for stem cell research

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Originally posted by cali
    thanks steven! others should practice this.
    You're very welcome, cali.
    ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

    Comment


      #47
      Originally posted by angel7
      Well I wrote a rebuttal to Ms. Welch's article and sent it to the editor. It basically let her know we have no time left! If it gets printed I'll let you all know.

      Deb
      Deb, Thank You!!

      Since opponents can't STOP the Research, they have resorted to DELAYING the Research:

      But the opposition’s greatest fear, and the reason they want so desperately to slow California down, would be if we had a major stem cell research breakthrough-- like the Australians apparently just did.

      I have not had time to verify the following: but apparently an Australian team of researchers has just succeeded in using embryonic stem cells to make a functioning prostate gland.

      Think how many men have prostate cancer, or will have in their lives—80%?

      The opposition does not want American males thinking about the cure they could lose, if embryonic stem cell research was stopped.

      They also know they will never have a better chance to kill the research altogether.

      Republicans pretty much control the government. They dominate the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court, (7-2 Republican majority). Whatever happens on their watch, is to their credit—or their blame.

      Republican voters support embryonic stem cell research overwhelmingly, as does the membership of most religions. Polls show that a strong majority of Catholics support the research, although their leadership does not; Judaic faiths support, as do Buddhists and Muslims; even Evangelical Protestants (probably the most anti-research religion in America) support embryonic stem cell research by a slight majority, roughly 50-46%, something like that. Everybody else ranges from 60-40, 70-30, in favor.

      Oh, and remember Sam Brownback, the Presidential candidate who got his reputation attacking Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, backing a bill to criminalize the research?

      His own state, Kansas, was recently polled by Republican pollsters. Turns out Kansas supports the research he hates, Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer—by a two to one margin.
      From:
      #96 Monday, February 27, 2006 -RAPIDS AHEAD: LAWSUITS AND POISON PILLS


      By Don C. Reed, www.stemcellbattles.com


      We need to move fast!!!
      NEVER let an opportunity pass to EDUCATE LEGISLATORS ON ESCR and SCNT!!

      Comment


        #48
        Originally posted by cali
        thanks steven! others should practice this.
        Well Cali, you might want to read this:
        "Unfortunately," McCaskill says of Talent, "like too many
        politicians, he’s trying to hide his opposition by dancing around
        science for politics. In a 30-minute long speech chock full of
        scientific jargon, he attempted to obfuscate his position and
        distract Missourians from the real issue: why does he think we
        should criminalize research instead of providing hope and cures for
        our people?"
        http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=64228

        Sound familiar?

        Comment


          #49
          Faye,

          Would you mind clarifying something for me? Earlier you wrote:

          (through often quasi alternatives to ESCR)
          What "quasi alternatives to ESCR" are legislators promoting to give the appearance of supporting ESC research?

          Now, I'm going to do you a favor here and save you the effort of going down the wrong path -- S.1557/H.R.3144 promote alternatives to SCNT, not ESC research.

          So, now, what are these "quasi alternatives" you speak of?
          ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by Steven Edwards
            Faye,

            Would you mind clarifying something for me? Earlier you wrote:

            What "quasi alternatives to ESCR" are legislators promoting to give the appearance of supporting ESC research?

            Now, I'm going to do you a favor here and save you the effort of going down the wrong path -- S.1557/H.R.3144 promote alternatives to SCNT, not ESC research.

            So, now, what are these "quasi alternatives" you speak of?
            Uhum, I will clarify for the CC readers that SCNT is a method used to derive patient-matched ESC's.

            So alternatives to SCNT indeed are quasi alternatives for ESCR.

            Comment


              #51
              Originally posted by Faye
              Well Cali, you might want to read this:

              http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=64228

              Sound familiar?
              *sigh*as usual, that reference has nothing but support what i just said. maybe it just looks different from where i'm sitting
              Never take life seriously, nobody gets out alive anyway

              Frank's blog:
              http://www.franktalk-scurry.blogspot.com
              My regular blog:
              http://www.ithinkithinktoomuchblog.blogspot.com

              Comment


                #52
                Originally posted by Faye
                Uhum, I will clarify for the CC readers that SCNT is a method used to derive patient-matched ESC's.
                It would be a method, assuming it is ever proven in human cells.

                Dedifferentiation would be another, better option of creating patient-specific ESCs, assuming it is ever proven. First: no eggs would be necessary to create dedifferentiated ESCs. Second: the mitochondrial DNA would be the same in dedifferentiated ESCs.

                So alternatives to SCNT indeed are quasi alternatives for ESCR.
                SCNT has yet to be accomplished in humans. If dedifferentiation were proven first, wouldn't SCNT be the "alternative"?

                Also, isn't SCNT an alternative derivation method (compared to extracting them from unused IVF embryos)? By your logic, wouldn't that make SCNT a "quasi alternative" to ESCR?

                So, you have now been outed as a pusher of "quasi alternatives". I hope the revolt against you -- for deceiving people for so long -- is not a violent one.

                For shame, Fabiola Armitage! For shame.
                ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

                Comment


                  #53
                  Originally posted by Steven Edwards
                  So, you have now been outed as a pusher of "quasi alternatives". I hope the revolt against you -- for deceiving people for so long -- is not a violent one.

                  For shame, Fabiola Armitage! For shame.
                  Dr. Young could you address this kind of crap by one of your mods?

                  If this is supposed to be for SCI related information exchange board, why does Steven as your mod feel the need to post people's entire off screen names? And insinuate violence?

                  BTW could you please educate Steven that human SCNT has been successfully done in the UK ( a cloned Embryo ) and that dedifferentiation to ESC functionality as occurs naturally in some lower animals has NEVER been accomplished in a petrie dish whether it be with animal cells OR human cells.

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Originally posted by Steven Edwards
                    One other drawback of 810, albeit minimal: It does not allow federal funds to be used to derive new ESC lines with current derivation methods.

                    Hmmm. Well, we need new ESC lines since the old ones that Bush approved are tainted. And the bill should be funded.

                    Are there any bills that appropriate federal research funding for both existing and new ESC lines?

                    Comment


                      #55
                      The only bill that appropriates additional funding for ESCs is S.1557.

                      The tainted Bush lines can be cleansed by the recent WiCell culture media.
                      ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Originally posted by Steven Edwards
                        The only bill that appropriates additional funding for ESCs is S.1557.

                        The tainted Bush lines can be cleansed by the recent WiCell culture media.
                        "Authorizes $15 million for the National Institutes of Health to develop ethical techniques to create and study pluripotent stem cells"

                        That is not funding ESC research, in fact it limits ESC research

                        "Prohibits any research that would harm or destroy a human embryo."

                        Information in red print from S1557 obtained here

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Bob, the last line references only what the bill will fund.
                          `(c) Prohibitions Regarding Harm to Human Embryos- Research under subsection (b) may not include any research that--
                          `(1) involves the use of human embryos;

                          `(2) involves the use of stem cells not otherwise eligible for funding by the National Institutes of Health;

                          `(3) involves the use of any stem cell to create or to attempt to create a human embryo; or

                          `(4) poses a significant risk of creating a human embryo by any means.
                          The prohibition only applies to subsection (b). Read the bill.
                          ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

                          Comment


                            #58
                            `(2) involves the use of stem cells not otherwise eligible for funding by the National Institutes of Health;
                            What does that mean? Only Bush's originally offered lines are legal? Thats no good.

                            And where does it fund ESC research? ESC research is not looking for an alternative.

                            Comment


                              #59
                              If research into SCNT (a method of deriving ESCs) is ESC research, then so is this. Explain how SCNT is different?
                              ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

                              Comment


                                #60
                                Thanks Steve.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X