Stem cells have cured an HIV+ patient

[PhiMed]

I'm not opposed to stem cell research. In fact, I think that we should be funding it... heavily. But you do realize that you're basically suggesting that people shouldn't be sad when a woman miscarries, right? Go tell a woman who miscarried that her grief is over the death of a "god damn embryo" that she shouldn't feel compassion for. Let me know how that turns out. I'll foot the hospital bill.

As much as I dislike my first post being part of a flame war...

From what I can recall, bearing in mind I did this last year so my memory is a little fuzzy, the cell removed from embryoes used to generate ESCs is removed during the 8-cell stage of embryo growth. Removing 1 cell from 8 does pretty much kill the foetus and I'm not here to argue "does it or does it not have a soul", by the by. However, an embryo of this size is pretty much unnoticable. You can be 8 cells pregnant and miscarry and not notice, in fact a rather high number of fertilisation events are spontaneously aborted. I have numbers in my notes somewhere; if you'd like me to get them, I will.

My point is comparing it to a miscarriage where the woman has had a chance to feel her baby grow and is aware that it's alive and could have been born doesn't really work in this case.

OT: Wasn't actually aware of this when it was published, which is odd. Need to get back with the literature, I think! Guy seems pretty lucky. Obviously it's not feasible to roll this out as a large-scale treatment, nor will it work for a large number of HIV cases. And, of course, it being a retrovirus a mutation will almost certainly eventually turn up that means it binds to another coreceptor.
Pretty nice for the guy though, I'm sure!

I'm not trying to call you out here, but I'm relatively sure that it's been established that the intracellular adhesion molecules of the 8-cell stage are not sufficiently differentiated to function as a stem cell for adult use. That says a lot, because stem cells' utility is in their lack of differentiated ICMs. This is particularly problematic due to the fact that this is the stage at which embryos produced for the purpose of in vitro fertilization are frozen. Current research unfreezes them and allows replication to resume before isolation of cells. If the study in which you participated used 8-cells last year, then they were either trying to reproduce someone else's results (which is a normal part of the review process, I suppose) or they were ignoring preexisting research.

Also, the removal of one cell at the 8-cell stage shouldn't kill the embryo unless you were using some pretty crude techniques. Embryos break apart spontaneously at this stage all the time and both pieces survive to adulthood, a phenomenon known as monozygotic (identical) twins. Monozygotic twin zygotes have been produced in vitro, so I'm not sure what sort of machete you guys were taking to those embryos.

I don't mean to offend here, but for someone who did study in ESC, you either don't know a lot about human embryonic development, or you assume that I know almost nothing. The 8-cell stage is pre-implantation by several days. That's not "pretty much unnoticable". It's almost completely undetectable by any technique we have. A spontaneous abortion at this stage is usually referred to as a "normal menstrual period".

I know I sound argumentative here, but you seem to be under the impression that I don't support ESC research. I clearly stated that I do. I'm probably much more familiar with embryological development and current research than the average person on the street, so I don't need to be informed by random guy #3 in an internet forum about the prevalence of first trimester spontaneous abortion.

I was just calling someone out for making what I perceived to be a callous, over-the-top statement. Belittling and ridiculing the viewpoint that embryos are potential humans, as the person to whom I was responding did, weakens the arguments for ESC. It makes a lot of listeners shut down because, in many of their minds, the speaker has stated that he does not feel that human life has intrinsic value.

It would be much more productive if proponents discussed it as a worthwhile trade-off, rather than talking about embryos as if they were disposable refuse. While it's true that estimates place the spontaneous abortion rate in the first trimester above 50%, a significant portion of those that remain eventually become people. Ignoring that fact, pretending that the strongest argument against someone's viewpoint doesn't exist at all, as the person to whom I was responding did, makes that person seem oblivious and out-of-touch.

 

[oooooooooooooooooooooooooo]

You're nitpicking a legitimate distinction while pointing out the smallest minority group this country could ever possibly have as if they somehow make the picture more complicated. Yes, there are 45 people out 360 million who don't believe in God OR stem cell research. What's your point?

Not at all, I know a fair few atheists who are against stem cell research and a fair few theists who are for it. I'm going to go ahead and assume you made up those figures, until you can give me evidence to the contrary, and say that most people who actually understand what stem cell research is have actually given it some genuine thought. You certainly don't need to be religious to be uncomfortable with the idea of artificial manipulation of stem cells.

 

[PhiMed]

Assuming your version of events that occurred before you were born is accurate (not a safe assumption, due to you being unable to "process data" at the time), your parents' experience is atypical. The vast majority of people who have miscarriages give at least two shits. All emotions are "in the mind". That doesn't make them inherently invalid.

Honestly, I've met a good number of people over the course of my life in multiple countries and from what I can tell, the trauma involved in any sort of miscarriage or still-birth is based on both the amount of time the baby has had to develop, and the environment in which the parents live. If the parents are from a suburban town and don't really have anything else to worry about, it might hit them hard. People like my parents went through a lot in their life, and the premature death of an unborn child just didn't phase them.

And I appreciate you trying to demean me through sarcasm, but I've had a lot of time to talk to both parents about this, so I think I have a pretty firm grasp of what their opinion of the situation is.

You are arguing a school of thought (the name of which escapes me) that suggests that someone who has completed their maturation is more valuable than someone who has not. Under this school of thought, if a car is about to strike two people, one of whom is a 25 year-old man with a graduate degree and one of whom is a 2 year-old, assuming you only have time to save one, it is more ethical to save the 25 year-old. The reasoning is that the 25 year-old is "complete", and therefore more valuable to society.

Also, by this reasoning, infanticide is a much less serious crime than homicide, because infants are incapable of reason. Taken to extremes, advocates of this school of thought would say that euthanasia by request of a conscious Nobel laureate is a worse crime than drowning a newborn.

Most people don't feel this way. I don't care to argue ethics right now, but I will say that I am thankful that most people do not ascribe to this school of thought. Most parents (at least the good ones) would find any economic hardship difficult to resolve with this mindset.

Oh goody, ethics. You're talking to the wrong person here if you want an ethical debate.

As far as I know, there are no ethical "schools of thought" that outright declare "that someone who has completed their maturation is more valuable than someone who has not", but it falls under utilitarianism. Basically utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of actions, and not the motives, and I personally think this is a great way to look at this scenario.

Sure a baby is cute, but consider saving the baby vs saving the 25 year old.

Kill the baby:
Rid the world of yet another sap on humanity contributing to over-population.

Kill the 25 year old:
Rid the world of someone who has (in most cases) just started contributing to society.

No matter what other factors might be involved, felicific calculus produces a much lower utility for killing a baby than killing an already established, potentially well-learned human being.

It's unfortunate that you aren't comfortable with my big words. I'm not sorry, but it's unfortunate. Semen still isn't a fetus, and your analogy is still weird.

No, you just use big words for the sake of using big words while actually clarifying nothing what-so-ever in an attempt to confuse the reader and seem smarter than you actually are... and that... slightly perturbs me. I wouldn't say it makes me uncomfortable.

And I dare you to quote me saying semen is a fetus. All I insinuated through that analogy is that their survival co-exists on the same ethical plane for me.

I believe I stated earlier that I do not want an ethical debate. I didn't take much ethics or philosophy. I took mostly science and mathematics with some history interspersed. I wanted to get a real job. Pardon me if I don't accept that I imagined it because you're "pretty sure" there's never been a philosopher who put forth a particular notion.

Saying that a 2 year-old is a "sap on humanity contributing to overpopulation" demonstrates that you think exactly the way I said you do. Since you seem to fancy yourself knowledgeable on the topic of utilitarianism, please do the world a service and never reproduce. We have enough sociopathic misanthropes without you making more.

Stating that an embryo is morally equivalent to the contents of your jerkin sock puts you at odds with the vast majority of the population and the entire medical community, religious or not. Read any paper, well, ever on tissue disposal protocol if you want to know the medical community's stance on the difference between the two.

And finally, dare me? Is that a double dog dare?

 

[spidermounky]

People who argue against stem cell research really boil my blood.

It's one of a few things that could set me off on command. I just don't understand the moral issue at all. It doesn't register with me.
Fuck I'm of the persuasion that they should grow an exact clone of use from birth. Lobotomise it and keep it in a farm somewhere so if and when anything goes wrong with us. We can just take what we need from it and keep on trucking. Then inject the thing with ton's of stem cells and see if it grows back. If so..... Profit.

Ok maybe that's a bit farfeched... but I can dream can't I.

i doset mater who the stem cells came drom as long as there human because they are like a blank slat its sort of why they work

What?


When did I suggest otherwise? Were you replying to someone else and quoted me by mistake?

ok sorry c what you mean know although your idear has one problem steam cells are almost copleaty apset from adulet but are found highly in fetuses and thats were most of the contresy comes from

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

tissue disposal protocol

WTF are you talking about?

And finally, dare me? Is that a double dog dare?

Yes... yes it is.

Look we obviously have different ethical views so there's no reason to argue... it'll go nowhere.

 

[Naheal]

And what did God do today?

Approved stem cell research

 

[Ethylene Glycol]

This is just another reason why I can't understand why people get all pissy over stem cell research.

I'd like to see those anti stem cell research groups refute this now.

Dude, they only have one argument against stem cell research anyway--"DIS IZ ABORSHUN!!!11!1!!eleventyone!!1"

Which it isn't, but try explaining that to the fanatical uber-moos who vote SOLELY based on that issue.

If I remember right they got around that by getting stem cells from the Placenta.

Re-read my post, please. Nobody opposed to science cares about facts.

 

[Gahars]

I read about it.

It's good news, and offers hope that a cure may be found, but it isn't entirely conclusive. They're going to have to do a lot of testing to make sure it actually works and wasn't just a freak occurrence. It'll be many years before they'll be anywhere close to mass producing a cure for the disease.

But hey, here's hoping.

 

[Chris^^]

thats absolutely imcredible. all i can say.

 

[Krythe]

As a Virology major, I'd like to say that said guy was incredibly lucky.

I wondered why this exact treatment wasn't used when I was first learning about HIV and the answer is pretty simple: An immunocompromised patient would practically never survive the radiation necessary to do a bone marrow transplant. And if an AIDS patient got graft-versus-host it would pretty much be game over.

Most doctors would never even consider doing it.

 

[Tsaba]

This is just another reason why I can't understand why people get all pissy over stem cell research.

I'd like to see those anti stem cell research groups refute this now.

Dude, they only have one argument against stem cell research anyway--"DIS IZ ABORSHUN!!!11!1!!eleventyone!!1"

Which it isn't, but try explaining that to the fanatical uber-moos who vote SOLELY based on that issue.

If I remember right they got around that by getting stem cells from the Placenta.

Re-read my post, please. Nobody opposed to science cares about facts.

Re-read my post, I'm pointing out the science community got past the opposed community using the placenta from LIVE child birth instead of the child from an abortion, don't be so defensive.

EDIT: and since when did the people for science not care about the facts? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[Ethylene Glycol]

This is just another reason why I can't understand why people get all pissy over stem cell research.

I'd like to see those anti stem cell research groups refute this now.

Dude, they only have one argument against stem cell research anyway--"DIS IZ ABORSHUN!!!11!1!!eleventyone!!1"

Which it isn't, but try explaining that to the fanatical uber-moos who vote SOLELY based on that issue.

If I remember right they got around that by getting stem cells from the Placenta.

Re-read my post, please. Nobody opposed to science cares about facts.

Re-read my post, I'm pointing out the science community got past the opposed community using the placenta from LIVE child birth instead of the child from an abortion, don't be so defensive.

I'm not defensive, I'm offensive. At least, I must be, since you're defending the anti-science brigade against a throwaway sentence I penned and posted in under five seconds. The problem here is that, in doing so, you're also defending a false premiss.

Stem cell research has never required abortion. Placenta or no placenta, it is not abortion. Let me repeat that, in case you're the type who needs to have things said twice: IT. IS. NOT. ABORTION.

Here's why: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal of the fetus from a woman's womb. It is not the injection a stem cell into a glob of cytoplasm for the purpose of making new cells, tissues, and/or organs. The opposition, however, either could not understand or refused to understand the difference--much like you're doing now--and immediately started screaming about abortion, even though the two are about as similar to one another as a shar pei to a speedboat. The entire concept of getting stem cells from placenta (which, by the way, is completely useless to everybody reading this) is something the scientists had to come up with just to silence those grass-chewing wool-factories--because, once again, people who oppose science don't care about facts.

I'm not sure whether you're one of those people, or just defending them--but if the former, I hope you can take some consolation in the fact that somebody's actually taken a few precious minutes out of her busy day to explain exactly why she estimates your understanding of science, medicine, and sociology to be on approximately the same level as Sarah Palin's (which is in turn on par with that of buttered toast); and, if the latter, don't, because with every action that crowd takes, its members earn every last iota of contempt directed at them--and then some.

 

[Tsaba]

This is just another reason why I can't understand why people get all pissy over stem cell research.

I'd like to see those anti stem cell research groups refute this now.

Dude, they only have one argument against stem cell research anyway--"DIS IZ ABORSHUN!!!11!1!!eleventyone!!1"

Which it isn't, but try explaining that to the fanatical uber-moos who vote SOLELY based on that issue.

If I remember right they got around that by getting stem cells from the Placenta.

Re-read my post, please. Nobody opposed to science cares about facts.

Re-read my post, I'm pointing out the science community got past the opposed community using the placenta from LIVE child birth instead of the child from an abortion, don't be so defensive.

snip

First off, I'm defending stem cell research, you'd know this if you read my post, but, since I just got up I'll make the silly assumption you did the same and that we are "both tired."

Second off, just in case you don't know I'll just inform you:

Spoiler

The placenta is that mass of cells that allows for nutrient intake for the child and just in case your that dense, it's on the opposite side of the umbilical cord from the fetus.

Finally, since when did: Nobody opposed to science cares about facts. that makes absolutely no sense, can you please elaborate and not accuse others of being the intelligence level of Miss Congeniality. Thank you and Merry Christmas.

EDIT: I'm really tired I haven't had my caffeine today.

 

[Fraught]

I read somewhere an article about how, with stem cells, they managed to cure diabetes from an amount of people (a group of about 10, if I remember correctly), though it only lasted a year.

So yeah, I'm really hopeful towards this whole stem cell thing, and if I could, in any way, I'd support it with more than just being for it, and not against it. Also, I hope they'll reach cure for the aforementioned condition a lot earlier than my inevitable death. Then I could live my golden years happy as a bunny.

And yeah, it's a pretty joyous occasion for me when I see some new advances with stem cell research, though sometimes I wish they could somehow do it faster.

Also, I hate people who are against it. Hate is a strong word, but I seriously do.

 

[Ethylene Glycol]

This is just another reason why I can't understand why people get all pissy over stem cell research.

I'd like to see those anti stem cell research groups refute this now.

Dude, they only have one argument against stem cell research anyway--"DIS IZ ABORSHUN!!!11!1!!eleventyone!!1"

Which it isn't, but try explaining that to the fanatical uber-moos who vote SOLELY based on that issue.

If I remember right they got around that by getting stem cells from the Placenta.

Re-read my post, please. Nobody opposed to science cares about facts.

Re-read my post, I'm pointing out the science community got past the opposed community using the placenta from LIVE child birth instead of the child from an abortion, don't be so defensive.

snip

First off, I'm defending stem cell research, you'd know this if you read my post,

No, I wouldn't, because (1) your post relies on the same false premiss the opposition employs, (2) you completely failed to state your actual position at any point, and (3) your initial reply was wholly irrelevant to the actual point I'd been making--the anti-science crowd believes whatever its members want to, facts be damned--but seemed to implicitly defend the notion that stem cells = abortion.

but, since I just got up I'll make the silly assumption you did the same and that we are "both tired."

Maybe you should make the more-logical assumption that you're just a poor communicator. Or, at the very least, maybe you shouldn't argue on the Internet if you're not conscious enough for the task.

Second off, just in case you don't know I'll just inform you:

Spoiler

The placenta is that mass of cells that allows for nutrient intake for the child and just in case your that dense, it's on the opposite side of the umbilical cord from the fetus.

Gee, no shit! Did you know that it comes out after the baby's born--hence the name "afterbirth"? Or that the doctors traditionally threw the placenta away afterwards? Meaning that, unless your parents were the type to save foreskins and tonsils and appendices, it's incredibly unlikely that you'll be getting any use out of your old placental stem cells.

Finally, since when did: Nobody opposed to science cares about facts. that makes absolutely no sense, can you please elaborate and not accuse others of being the intelligence level of Miss Congeniality.

Well, I can see English isn't your forte. Do you need me to diagram that sentence for you? Is that it?

Here goes:
"Nobody opposed to science" is the full subject. "Cares about facts" is the predicate.
The simple subject is "nobody" and the simple predicate is "cares".
Meaning that if you took all the people who oppose scientific research and put them in a room, not a single solitary one of them would care about whether or not their "reasons" for opposing scientific research were bunk.

The logical conclusion to draw from this assertion is that talking to people like that is a waste of time, because you can't change their minds--just as you can't get blood from a stone.

Do you understand now?

EDIT: I'm really tired I haven't had my caffeine today.

I haven't had any cigarettes since yesterday, coffee since Wednesday, or alcohol in the past two weeks. I average five hours of sleep per night, and suffer a constant headache from chronic dehydration. And yet I'm being both civil and coherent, so--unless you mean to declare yourself to be made of weaker stuff than I am--that's really no excuse.

Now, look--I'm trying very hard to be nice here, but with every post you make, you're coming across more and more as the kind of insufferable know-it-all who pollutes both the Internet and meatspace, and whom everybody hates. Would you kindly stop replying now, or will I have to get nasty?

 

[Tsaba]

snip

Well, aren't you the Grinch that stole Christmas, I tried to be curtious and reach out halfway and I guess this is what I get.
First off,

snip

snip

If you click my name it does this cool thing and goes to my posts, I was pointing out from your initial post where I commented on you, which my initial post is right above yours, it's kind of cool if you read the threads instead of skim them, a lot to be had there. That I had heard, via CNN when stem cell research had hit that road block and they where pressing legislation to block it a few years ago, that Science in all it's glory had found a way past the anti stem cell crowd. Why, we are discussing this 4 days after the initial posts is beyond me, and insulting others instead of pointing out shit would be your forte I'd imagine. I'll make this short and quick for you, fuck off. This is my last post, I need to finish packing go to an airport, get sexually assaulted by the TSA agents, get on an airplane and go fucking home, Merry Christmas Escapist.

 

[spartan1077]

I remember I did a project on stem cells and had a debate at the end on whether or not they should be allowed. And the anti-stem cells side won. That's what I get for having them bring religion into the argument. Wonder if they'll be legal now or just stay in their secretive state.