• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Stem Cell Bill passes 63-37

faithful_servant said:
Sorry, but that's not true. The only reported success in thias area turned out to be a fraud.
That's not true, the fraudulant research in Korea is not the only reported success. I've already linked the results with paralyzed mice, and if you look around you'll see things like this coming from scientists:

" There is no doubt among biologists that embryonic stem cells have vast potential. There are no other cells that can perform the same biological feats as embryonic stem cells."

"It is not too unrealistic to say that this research has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine and improve the quality and length of life"

"There is almost no realm of medicine that might not be touched by this innovation."

http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/retro.html


faithful_servant said:
The biggest reason this is ven an issue is that there is a bunch of federal money to be sucked up by the researchers. If this line of research had any real potential, investors would be lining up to invest in it. But strangely enough they aren't. I wonder why......
I think investors are being driven off by things like putting a hold on Federal funding in 2001 while the NIH reviews the matter. It's not a smart investment when the government is questioning the legal and ethical implications of the thing you want to invest in.

Goobieman said:
Doesnt matter.
Fact is, that the government doesnt fund it doesnt mean it won't be funded.

Your position presupposes that government -should- fund this, but that's just a presupposition on your part.
Of course it's just my opinion that they should fund it. For the same reason I think they should fund the military - the public good. You might (I hope) never have a spinal chord injury, but what about prostate cancer or diabetes? People who know more than me about this stuff are pretty much in agreement when they say it has the potential to cure these things and more, so why not fund it?

DeeJayH said:
interesting but not impressive
seeems adult stem cells is seeing better results
Your turn, got a link for that? I'm not sure about the word "better."

The problem with adult stem cells is that they can only differentiate into cell types of their tissue of origin. That essentially means doctors can't grow a body part for someone who was born without it. The only known advantage of adult stem cells over embryonic cells is a "potential" advantage, they haven't confirmed it yet.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp
 
tecoyah said:
My Grandfather suffers from Parkinsons, I am not upset at this Veto. At least not for the reasons most are. Truth be told, science has all but abandoned Embryonic Stem Cells for many reasons, not the least of which is the recent findings in Adult stem cell research:
That is really cool, I didn't know that. I hope they're able to confirm it. Wierd thing though, that "Ultimate Stem Cell Found" article was written in 2002, but my NIH link was last updated in 2005, and NIH still says that adult cells can't differentiate into all other types like embryonic cells can. I wonder, were they not able to confirm the Ultimate Stem Cell or is the NIH web administrator out to lunch?
 
Binary_Digit said:
That is really cool, I didn't know that. I hope they're able to confirm it. Wierd thing though, that "Ultimate Stem Cell Found" article was written in 2002, but my NIH link was last updated in 2005, and NIH still says that adult cells can't differentiate into all other types like embryonic cells can. I wonder, were they not able to confirm the Ultimate Stem Cell or is the NIH web administrator out to lunch?


Sorry...old Data....searching my archives now for current....heres a snippet:

"Adult Stem Cells: It's Not Pie-in-the-Sky
February 3, 2005


by Carrie Gordon Earll

Embryonic stem cells have not cured or successfully treated a single patient. Contrast that with the more than 70 conditions that are treatable using non-embryonic stem cell therapies.

One of the hottest debates in bioethics today surrounds research using stem cells taken from either in vitro fertilization or cloned human embryos. From state legislatures and the halls of Congress to the United Nation, the controversy over whether to ban (or fund) such research rages.

Human cloning for embryonic stem cell research creates human embryos virtually identical to a patient’s genetic composition. The embryo’s stem cells are then harvested — a process that always destroys the embryo. The same fatal process to collect human embryonic stem cells is also used to destroy embryos formed by in vitro fertilization.

Speculation regarding the scientific promise of human embryonic stem cells leads some to dismiss the ethical questions raised by the embryo's destruction. However, embryonic stem cells (human or animal) have not “cured” or treated a single human patient.

Fortunately, there are alternative sources of stem cells for research that do not require the destruction of human life.

Non-embryonic (or adult) stem cells are readily available in sources such as bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, the pancreas and brain, and no lives are lost in the collection process. Currently, more than 70 identified diseases and disabilities that are treatable using non-embryonic stem cells, including breast cancer, leukemia and sickle cell anemia. Researchers also have successfully treated patients with Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, heart damage and spinal cord injuries using non-embryonic stem cell sources.

Adult stem cells provide tangible results to patients today. Consider these examples:

Tangible Therapies for Today


Acute Myloid Leukemia – Sixteen-year-old Nathan Salley is alive today, thanks to stem cells from umbilical cord blood. Nathan told a congressional subcommittee, "I am living proof that there are promising and useful alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. . . . Embryonic stem cell research did not save me – cord blood research did."

Diabetes
– Eleven out of 15 Type 1 diabetes patients are "completely off insulin" after receiving adult pancreatic cell transplants.

Diabetes – Researchers at Harvard Medical School used animal adult stem cells to grow new islet cells to combat diabetes. Researcher Denise Faustman recalled, "It was astonishing! We had reversed the disease without the need for transplants." Plans for human trials are underway.

Heart Disease – German heart specialist Bodo Eckehard Strauer successfully treated a heart patient using stem cells from the man's bone marrow: "Even patients with the most seriously damaged hearts can be treated with their own stem cells instead of waiting and hoping on a transplant," Dr. Strauer explained.

Heart Disease - "Four out of five seriously sick Brazilian heart-failure patients no longer needed a heart transplant after being treated with their own stem cells."

Heart Disease - “Patients with heart failure experienced a marked improvement after being given injections of their own stem cells,” thanks to research at the University of Pittsburgh.

Heart Disease - Dr. Eduardo Marban, chief of cardiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, called the use of adult stem cells to treat failing hearts, “[t]he single most exciting development in cardiology in the last decade.”

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) – Thirty-six-year old Susan Stross is one of more than 20 MS patients whose conditions have remained steady or improved after receiving an adult stem cell transplant. The same results are reported with several hundred patients worldwide.

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) - Research conducted by Dr. Mark Freedman at the University of Ottawa suggests that most of the 32 MS patients in the trial “experienced clinical stabilization or improvement of symptoms.”

Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma – Forty-year-old Mark Fulford was not a match for a conventional bone marrow transplant, so doctors turned to stem cells found in umbilical cord blood. "There are people alive now who wouldn't have been without this, and I'm living proof."

Paralysis/Spinal Cord Injury - There are nearly 60 documentable cases of quadripelgic and parapelgic patients who have regained some mobility, bladder control, and sensation in their limbs after recieving adult stem cell transplants from cord blood, bone marrow, and nasal tissue. Here are 5 of those success stories:

After sustaining paralyzing spinal cord injuries, Susan Fajt, Laura Dominguez and Erica Nader of the U.S. are each regaining muscle control and walking with the aid of braces due to stem-cell transplants from their own nasal cavities conducted in Portugal. Six paralyzed Russian patients are also walking thanks to a similar therapy.

Maria da Graca Pomeceno of Brazil regained her ability to walk and talk after a bone marrow stem-cell transplant from her pelvis.

Treatment using stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood allow Hwang Mi-Soon of South Korean to walk again with the aid of a walker. “This is already a miracle for me,” says Mi-Soon.

Parkinson’s Disease - A California man with Parkinson's disease experienced more than an 80 percent reduction in his symptoms after he received an injection of his own neuronal (brain) stem cells. Dennis Turner says before the treatment, “I couldn’t put my contact lenses in without a big problem. Now it’s not problem.”

Note-We have studied this case for Gramps

Sickle Cell Anemia – In his struggle against sickle cell anemia, seventeen-year old Keone Penn experienced suicidal thoughts before an umbilical cord blood transplant cured him of the disease. Today, Penn says, “Sickle cell is now part of my past…Cord blood saved my life.”

Stroke - Catholic University of Korea researchers report “great improvement in the paralysis symptoms and speech disorders” in three of five stroke patients who received transplants with their own bone marrow stem cells.

Stroke - Brazilian doctors will test a similar treatment on 15 patients after encouraging results with one stroke patient."


I will look in a few journals....I am totally unorganized ....but pretty sure there is a better folder on one of these drives....heh.
 
tecoyah said:
Sorry...old Data....searching my archives now for current....heres a snippet:

"Adult Stem Cells: It's Not Pie-in-the-Sky
February 3, 2005

I guess that settles it, the NIH dude has been smoking since August 2005 and he's not sharing.
 
Binary_Digit said:
I guess that settles it, the NIH dude has been smoking since August 2005 and he's not sharing.

I take it by your statement....any further information I share is rather....pointless. No biggy, Science really does not require your understanding.
 
knicksin2010 said:
s
It's a sad day for millions of Americans who are affected in some way by loved ones being inflicted by diseases to be told that frozen Petri dishes should be thrown away without researching potential gains we could get from them that could one day save their loved ones

This only has to do with some federal funding not whether such research can occour. So contribute to, invest in and raise money for it if you support it. It's a highly controversial area of research and taxpayer money should not go towards it, tax money can support adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research which has shown much more promise anyway.
 
tecoyah said:
I take it by your statement....any further information I share is rather....pointless. No biggy, Science really does not require your understanding.
What do you mean by that? You posted information I didn't know about, and seems to contradict the National Institute of Health when they say, "Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become." If what you posted is true, then that constitutes more than just "some evidence" to me, and I concluded that the NIH website must be out of date. Did we misunderstand each other?
 
Alex said:
I agree with this. It is not the government's responsibility to fund medical research.

Here's a short sample of some of the new drugs made available form MIT with a Government partnership just in the biotech industry.


The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has traced the effects of government-funded research at MIT in the 20-year- old biotechnology industry, and found that the university-government- biotech partnership has been very fruitful indeed.

Nine of the top ten best-selling biotech drugs in 1994 were developed by three companies that were founded or co-founded by MIT alumni or faculty. These drugs treat heart attacks; cancer; leukemia; viruses; infections from chemotherapy, infectious diseases, and AZT treatment of AIDS; anemia; diabetes; hepatitis; growth hormone deficiency; Kaposi's sarcoma, and other diseases.

Forty-five biotechnology companies in the United States are MIT- related--they were founded or co-founded by MIT alumni or faculty, or they have licensed technology patented by MIT. These companies employ nearly 10,000 people and produce aggregate annual revenues of $3 billion, almost a quarter of the total annual revenues ($12.7 billion) of all U. S. biotechnology companies.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1996/biotechmitgov.html
 
tecoyah said:
Sorry...old Data....searching my archives now for current....heres a snippet:

"Adult Stem Cells: It's Not Pie-in-the-Sky
February 3, 2005


by Carrie Gordon Earll



Ah, Carrie Gordon Earll, James Dobson's Scientist from Focus on The Family. :rofl

CARRIEEARLL_new.jpg

http://www.family.org/welcome/bios/a0032221.cfm

Dobson and Science?? I think not.
 
Stinger said:
This only has to do with some federal funding not whether such research can occour. So contribute to, invest in and raise money for it if you support it. It's a highly controversial area of research and taxpayer money should not go towards it, tax money can support adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell research which has shown much more promise anyway.
Great point! It's much better to spend tax money on rebuilding Iraq or a Bridge to Nowhere, or more than a billion dollars for mobil homes intended for Katrina victims that are rotting in giant parking lots at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars a month just to sit there.

What a crock! The bill that our ignorant anti-science anti-medicine President vetoed was going to allow research using embryonic stem cells that would otherwise be thrown away so the bullshit from the anti-life anti-doctor right wing zealots is equal to believing the world is flat or that the Earth is only 9000 years old....

I am disgusted that Bush allowed all that spending to pass without a veto but would choose his only veto to block medical advancement. Does it get any more evil than that!

Let's "pray" that Bush doesn't get Alzheimer's because I would hate for him to be cured with research derived from embryonic stem cells.
 
Interesting. I bet many of the left leaners in this argument are in other threads, somewhere, talking about how the Bush administration is spending too much money.

:doh
 
ProudAmerican said:
Interesting. I bet many of the left leaners in this argument are in other threads, somewhere, talking about how the Bush administration is spending too much money.

:doh
Interesting? Really? As far as I can see the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS is 100% responsible for our crazy spending and it is BUSH the DEBTOR who has signed every single spending bill...so why don't you, just for once do something very un-Republican and accept responsibility for your parties total screw-ups? If you truly were a "proud American" you wouldn't allow purely partisan politics to color who is responsible for the horrible state of our country.

Spending money on stem cells versus agriculture subsidies - you think the American Farm industry is suffering so much that it requires that we spend 40% on subsidies than before Bush took office? Do you?

How about this little gem from everyone's favorite Republican Tom Delay:
September 14, 2005
DeLay Says No Fat Left in Budget
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R) said that "Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an 'ongoing victory,' and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget," the Washington Times reports.
Source: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/09/14/delay_says_no_fat_left_in_budget.html

How many Republican lawmakers have disagreed with that statement? HMMM?

So please stop the lame posts attacking Democrats about spending and especially attacking anyone for supporting government spending on medical research! :shock:
 
26 X World Champs said:
You the man Hipster! Great point, great rebuttal, great truth!

BTW - Did you know that my dog is named KRAMER?

Hipster knows all my friend. ;)

It's just like "Big Oil" Scientists arguing against global warming. What's the old saying by Upton Sinclair? "It is hard to get a man to understand something, if his living depends on him not understanding it."

BTW- Although I don't think the Dems will win back the Senate in Nov, (they'll get the House though) we should pick up enough Senators to override Bush's veto . 4 seats is easily achievable.
 
ProudAmerican said:
Interesting. I bet many of the left leaners in this argument are in other threads, somewhere, talking about how the Bush administration is spending too much money.

:doh
Here lets break it down real simple like, tax dollar funding for:

Bridge to nowhere? Bad
Stem Cell research? Good

World Toilet Summit? Bad
Education? Good

Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative? Probably Bad
Health Care for infants? Good

Sparta Teapot Museum? You guessed it! Bad
Securing our ports? Good

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006

How's that?
 
Cute.

but obviously, each one of those points is debatable in itself.

and the fact remains that many who do nothing but complain about the governments overspending.....and call for a raise in taxes to pay for it, are condoning yet again enlarging the governments roll in our lives, and spending yet again more money.
 
hipsterdufus said:
Hipster knows all my friend. ;)

It's just like "Big Oil" Scientists arguing against global warming. What's the old saying by Upton Sinclair? "It is hard to get a man to understand something, if his living depends on him not understanding it."
Well said, again! It reminds me of the "scientists" who were hired by the tobacco companies to say there wasn't a link between smoking and cancer!

I also bet you that the same people in this community who are against science, medicine and human life (the anti-embryonic stem cellers) would argue that 2nd hand smoke is a myth, or that global warming doesn't exist or that the world is flat!

Isn't it interesting how the same crowd is always against science especially if it benefits society. To not fund stem cell research together with private funding is insane.
 
Back
Top Bottom