Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I wonder what reason the nut jobs will find for not using stem cells now?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I wonder what reason the nut jobs will find for not using stem cells now?

---

Quote:

---

I wonder what reason the nut jobs will find for not using stem cells now?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Actually, I haven't heard of ANY one, nut jobs or otherwise, who are against using stem cells. The point of contention for the religious right is the use of 'embryonic' stem cells. Other than that one caviot, there's no problem.

---

Quote:

---

And FYI, George Bush is the 1st President in US history to spend ANY $$ on stem cell research. Carter didn't, Clinton didn't. Neither spent one damn cent of Fed $$ for such research.

---

Quote:

---

Well this is an interesting bit of spin. Clinton's administration said they would fund embryonic stem cell research; the resulting legislation was halted by the Bush administration and later cut down to limit funding.

And FYI Bush is the only President to veto congress' decision to loosen restrictions of funding.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Citizen, you'd better sit down, son. It's you who is spinnin'. Clinton SAID they'd fund ? WOW! What leadership! What vision! What a load of crap! As our beautiful warrior woman once said.. " sayin' ain't doin'! " I stated a simple fact. That Bush was the 1st President to FUND any sort of stem cell research. Bush used his 1st ( and so far only ) veto to NOT spend MORE money on a project he already said he was against! What a relief!

Here's something for you to consider, huckleberry - * Regarding President Bush's veto: 1) expansion of funding was vetoed, not continuation of funding; 2) federal funding, not private funding, was vetoed; 3) only embryonic stem-cell research was affected, not non-embryonic stem-cell research; 4) the toll of human suffering due to dread diseases may be lessened through stem-cell research that does not require destroying one life to treat another.

You've got nothing to debate with, pal. let me do the math here -- nothing into nothing, carry the -- Yep. You got nothin'.

* http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060820/OPINI
ON02/608200303/1009/OPINION

---

Quote:

---

It would seem so [to be a good thing]. But I'd hate to BE that embryo from whom they plucked 10% of my cells (1 cell out of the 8-10 cell stage). I mean, do we REALLY know what that would do to the person--ya know if he ever gets to grow up? It is experimenting on a human being without his consent, assuming that the embryo won't be discarded. And if the embryo is never going to get to become a full grown human, why go through all that trouble?

All this stem cell controversy makes me sick. In the 50's through the 70's, a guy named Robert Becker MD was doing some extremely promising research on dedifferentiation of normal cells. Yep...taking a full grown differentiated cell and converting it into a "pluripotent" embryonic-like undifferentiated cell. His lab got shut down in 1981, for who knows why. If he had been able to continue with that line of research, or if anyone else had joined in that line of research, we'd probably be able to create stem cells by now, without involving embryos at all. The technology is there. No one wants to touch it. Instead, they hem and haw about how they can't progress with curing diseases because of the ethical controversies of stem cell research.

Bullshit. Sorry, this topic really, really pisses me off. I have a very good friend paralyzed in a wheelchair. When I think she might be that much closer to walking today if Becker's lab hadn't been shut down, or if someone else had picked up his work, it gets my goat that they use the stem cell controversy as an excuse to not make any progress.

---

Quote:

---

MISSTRESSAHARA:

Hope for stem cell research.
"You gonna make biscuits? You gonna make biscuits? You gonna make biscuits?" "No Gir, I'm never making biscuits again" O__O
Scientists Harvest Stem Cells Without Destroying Embryo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Breakthrough technique might get around moral issues, experts say
By Amanda Gardner, HealthDay Reporter


WEDNESDAY, Aug. 23 (HealthDay News) -- In what could prove to be a medical milestone, researchers have succeeded in generating new lines of human embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo.

The breakthrough may enable scientists to circumvent the ban on federal funding of stem cell research, paving the way for gains in treating or curing diseases such as diabetes, spinal injury and Alzheimer's disease.

"The whole goal of this is to increase the number of stem cell lines available for federal funding and give the field a badly needed jump-start," said Dr. Robert Lanza, senior author of a paper appearing in the Aug. 24 issue of Nature and medical director of Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass.

Lanza was cautiously optimistic, although he said the final say on whether this strategy could widen U.S. embryonic stem cell research depends on politicians, not scientists.

"The approach described here does not involve the destruction of an embryo, nor does the biopsied cell ever develop into an embryo at any point. Therefore, we hope this method can be used to increase the number of stem cell lines available for federal funding - and thus give the field a badly needed jump-start," Lanza said. "But I guess we'll have to see what the President and Congress have to say about it all."

The promise of embryonic stem cells lies in their ability to be "pluripotent," and develop into any cell type in the body. Experts envision a future where stem cells might help replace diseased or injured tissue, thereby treating a host of ailments.

However, many object to the destruction of embryos inherent in this research. For that reason, embryonic stem cell research in the United States has been severely restricted since Aug. 9, 2001, when President Bush placed limits on federal funding of the field. As of that date, federal funds could only be used to study stem cell lines derived from embryos that had been already been destroyed before the limit was set.

This has turned out to be fewer lines than originally thought, and even fewer high-quality lines.

And while some state and private money has emerged to fill the gap in research funding, experts say it's not been nearly enough. Most scientists agree that federal resources are needed if any credible research gains are to take place.

So far, scientists have obtained embryonic stem cells by taking groups of cells from early embryos before they implant in the uterus. However, this process involves the destruction of the embryo.

Lanza's new paper improves on research his team did last year. In that study, the Massachusetts group succeeded in cultivating mouse embryonic stem cell lines by removing just one cell from the mouse embryo. The procedure is similar to that used for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, used to check for genetic disorders during in vitro fertilization (IVF). In this case, the mouse embryos survived.

But then, a roadblock. "We tried to apply that to a human system and found that it does not work," Lanza said. "We had to work out a different technique and initially we weren't sure that it was going to work. It was pretty tough. Eventually it worked like a charm."

Here's how. According to Lanza, the new research involved 16 human embryos left over from IVF.

"We used a single-cell biopsy technique to pluck out one cell when the embryo was at the 8-to-10-cell stage," Lanza explained. This is the same stage used for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Excising a cell at this point doesn't interfere with the embryo's development, the scientist explained.

However, the cells apparently do not like being co-cultured alone, so they were put into a dish with other cells. This technique worked to keep them alive.

Using this method, Lanza and his team managed to get two stable human embryonic stem cell lines that behaved like conventional embryonic stem cell lines.

"They've now been growing for over eight months, are entirely normal genetically and they were able to generate all of the cell types of the body," Lanza said.

"The real importance of this is the potential that you could have embryonic stem cell lines that are pluripotent from embryos that aren't destroyed," said Paul Sanberg, director of the Center for Aging and Brain Repair at the University of South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa. "If these cell lines were allowed, it could help enhance embryonic stem cell research."

Lanza's company will be working with the scientific community to make the stem cell lines widely available.

"With the right resources, we could recreate as many lines as the scientific community needs without harming the embryos and help other researchers develop the technique," Lanza said. "We could move very quickly."

Next year, he said, Advanced Cell Technology will be filing an investigational new drug application aimed at the eye condition known as macular degeneration.

______________________________________________________________

This is a good thing, dontcha think?



If I'm a bitch, then life just got interesting

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS- It's NOT THAT EASY to make pluripotent cells from differentiated cells.

---

Quote:

---

And as far as Becker is concerned, I looked him up: he believes colloidal silver can cure everything.

---

Quote:

---

It seems to me that, as Rue said, you believe anything that's out of the mainstream and disbelieve anything that's in the mainstream.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Congratulations, you've just invented the incredibly weak argument that the Merck elite can use to help deprive the world of cures for fatal illnesses in exchange for power and profit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Okay,

First, can some tell me how to make the forum not be 2000 pixels wide?

---

Quote:

---

I plead ignorance on much of the stem cell issue. Embryonic or otherwise. Me not a bio chemist. But what little I've gleaned from listening to folks who ARE bio chemist and the like, is that 'adult' stem cells are proving to be far more beneficial than those from embryos. To date, the hooplah over e.s.c.'s are primarily theoretical. And that's not me scoffing at the idea. Maybe down the road, much greater benefit can come from e.s.c's, but just not now.

---

Quote:

---

evidence that adult stem cells may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells. Finally, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in DNA replication the course of a lifetime.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS- Okay, ALMOST anything.

---

Quote:

---

As far as Becker's original work, the only thing I can seem to pull up is stuff about silver. Are we talking about the same guy? Because if you have links to his original work, that would be better than just doing a hand-waving reference.

---

Quote:

---

NeuroRehabilitation 2002;17(1):23-31

Induced dedifferentiation: a possible alternative to embryonic stem cell transplants.
Becker RO.

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Upstate Medical Center, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA.

Induction of local tissue regeneration in the human would best be accomplished if the patient's own cells at the desired site could be caused to dedifferentiate into the required embryonic stem cells. A system involving the electrical iontophoretic introduction of free silver ions into human wounds for their antibiotic effect has been in clinical use since 1975. In addition to a major antibiotic effect, the technique was found to produce the regeneration of all local tissues, apparently by stimulating dedifferentiation of mature human cells. More recently the use of a newly developed silvered nylon fabric has been found to have similar results without the need for electrical parameters. The results of a preliminary laboratory and clinical study of this material are presented.

PMID: 12016344 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

---

Quote:

---

If you do a search in Pub Med, you'll that a number of mainstream journals (such as Nature) have published Becker's work.

---

Quote:

---

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v235/n5333/abs/235109a0.html
Stimulation of Partial Limb Regeneration in Rats

ROBERT O. BECKER

Veterans Administration Hospital, and Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse, New York

INJURY1,2, nerves3 and hormones4 have been identified as essential for limb regeneration in amphibia. There seem to be differences in the "current of injury" between regenerating and non-regenerating types of amphibians5; partial limb regeneration can be induced in the latter type by simulating the "current of injury" of the regenerating form6. The cellular process of fracture healing in the amphibian is directly related to the electrical phenomena produced by the fractured bone7 and maximally effective ranges for current density can be determined at the cellular level. This led to the concept of a control system the key element of which was the induction of blastema formation in response to appropriate electrical factors8. The absence of regeneration in the mammal may therefore be due to the absence of adequate electrical factors. We report here the consequences of restoring factors which seem to be of practical as well as theoretical interest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I didn't know we were taking this colloidal silver seriously.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I did search PubMed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS- I didnt' claim that Neurorehabilitation was out of the mainstream.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DreamTrove:
First, can some tell me how to make the forum not be 2000 pixels wide?

---

Quote:

---

Next, Citizen. Chill. Clinton sucks, Bush sucks, neither one of them are worth a minute of your time defending.

---

Quote:

---

Allopaths can almost never tell you why a particular pharmaceutical works

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

So ChrisIsAll - I may have your gottcha. That single cell COULD be the nucleus (so to speak) of a whole 'nother individual ! And then they go and perversely keep it alive but KILL its person-hood, damn them ! Turning it into just another mass of tissue. :croccodiletears:

---

Quote:

---

Your stating of a simple fact, as you put, without properly quantifying it is the spin. Lie by omission and clouding of the full facts as it were.

It takes time to get things through, Clinton set the ball rolling, then the processes take over, it just so happened that Bush was president when it happened, he didn't want to I'm sure, but had very little choice.

If you'll notice the National Institutes of Health announced it would fund embryonic stem cell research in 2000, still under Clinton’s term, it took time to put together the legislation, until 2001 when Bush was president in fact. Ergo it was Clinton’s administration that enacted the funding, it was an accident of temporality that had Bush in power when it was ready to go through, very much a different situation as to how you'd paint it, yet still the same facts are in evidence, just one of us is excluding some from consideration, one of us is not.

Further proof that things take time to come through:
Congress wanted Bush to loosen restrictions way back in 2001/2, yet it took until 2006 before congress managed to put a vote together.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Ya gotta give Bush his due here. Be at least that much of a stand up guy and admit Bush was responsible for this.

---

Quote:

---

But still, it's a choice between a compound running on known biochemistry, and a toxin with interactions that are anybody's guess. Better safe than sorry.

---

Quote:

---

Herbals also have the plus side that people have usually been taking them for centuries, (and studying them for decades, which is why we know these details) and if there were serious side effects, we're know them already

---