Debate Over by dreamtrove

Quote:
Herbal side effects are never anywhere near as bad, the ingrediants are in much more natural proportions and they aren't concentrated.

all generalizations are bad

actually it's that they're less 'side' rather than 'less'
as I said, Kava blocks adrenalin. up to 100% That's a wholy moly of an effect, but it can also kill you.

Rue,

No I didn't get the messages. Where to PMs land when you send them?

Acetosalicylic acid is a natural complace salt. Vioxx is an artifically synthesized analog. True, human ignorance doesn't make something more dangerous. Anything can harm humans, if taken incorrectly, or without moderation. But I suspect the harmfulness of aspirin has been exaggerated by companies that want to sell you something else.

On the surface it's not that dissimilar from vioxx, which is in the same category, but the key IMHO is the naturalness.

Natural compounds are ones which we evolved in the company of, and interact with our system in a more natural way. Can one synthesize a better drug? sure, it's possible, it's just not likely. There are so many unknowns in the system, and the interaction of natural compounds are more likely to have some sort of stablizing effect in the body which prevents them from causing sudden death. With a synthesized compound, there are unpredictable effects that your body has not evolved to handle.

You're descended from mice who may, and probably did, gnaw on willow bark and similar forest debris. But nothing in your evolutionary past popped vioxx.

A host of unknowns occur like "maybe cox1 and cox2 have to exists in the system in a balance." It's entirely possible. There's no way of knowing, except an exceedingly long case study. Aspirin has been through that exceedingly long time of use, and it's known to be an anticoagulant, and an acid. These cause the effects we see, and so we need to bear that in mind, and take it in moderation. We're descended from mice who gnawed on willow bark, not mice who ate whole willow trees.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 25, 2006 3:59 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

DT

DANG! I used the site's msg'ing. I don't know where they went, then. And I trashed my text files so I can't get them back. Anyway, I DID appreciate your message to me. I may not always agree with you, but I do sincerely want to hear what you think.

Rue

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 25, 2006 4:00 PM

Auraptor,

This debate is not about what this debate pretends to be about. It's about Merck getting control of the stem cell industry.

Bush had little to do with Stem Cell legislation, it was foisted on him by his own party. A sitting president cannot veto his own parties legislation.

The only time I know of this happening was when John Tyler was president. He vetoed the national bank bill, and the Whigs kicked him out of the party.

Then Bush Vetoed the all-Republican Stem Cell bill, just now. I think that kicking Bush out of the GOP would be a terrific move. It would prove that sanity was still in charge.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 25, 2006 4:25 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

HEY DICK-WHACK

Stem cells only go back to 1998.

GET IT ? Should I repeat that for you?
Stem cells only go back to 1998.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec98/cells_11-6.html
Nov. 6, 1998
"After more than a decade of work, researchers said today they have isolated and grown basic human stem cells."

By 1999 there was a REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL ban on embryonic research to prevent stem cell work
Section 511 of the Labor/HHS appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1999, enacted as part of Public Law 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999.

However Varmus, head of the NIH appointed by CLINTON APPROVED federal funding for embryonic as well as other stem cell research.
Statement of Harold Varmus, M.D., Director of the National Institutes of Health Before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, January 26, 1999. APPROVING federal funding for embryonic stem cell research

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUSH's ROLE - obstruct, oppose, and try to take credit.

YOUR ROLE - being an ignorant sh-t-spewing a--hole
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Bush DID fund research for Stem Cell research. Not Clinton. Get it ?

Be a man, for once, and admit this was ALL Bush.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 25, 2006 4:27 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Then Bush Vetoed the all-Republican Stem Cell bill, just now. I think that kicking Bush out of the GOP would be a terrific move. It would prove that sanity was still in charge.

Ok. Fair enough. Bush won't run on any GOP ticket in '08. Good for the GOP.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 25, 2006 4:34 PM

America loves a winner!

rue, your selective reading of your own post makes you a moron. Sorry.

Quote:
Stem cells only go back to 1998.
Should I repeat that since for you?
Stem cells only go back to 1998.

No, brain donor, stem cells go back to before the origins of life. That's BILLIONS of your Earth years. OUR STUDYING of stem cells is some what more recent.

Quote:

By 1999 there REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL ban on embryonic research

That's FEDERAL funding, not private funding. Pin head. Bush went on to FUND stem cell research. Clinton never did.

Grow the fuck up, punk.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 25, 2006 5:27 PM

Rue,

Dick Wack is not a diplomatic term.
I had a conversation with a physician about stem cell research, by that name, in 1978.

Auraptor,

I'm quite serious. The independent president Bush. It would be a healthy move. And not meaningly. It would mean that GOP senators would not have to support Bush unquestioningly because Bush would no longer hold the purse strings.

My mom still thinks Bush is going to run in '08

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 25, 2006 5:28 PM

Double Post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 25, 2006 5:36 PM

Triple post. For the record, there's nine minutes there, so the server is kicking around.

BTW,

Grow the f^&k up, pin head, and moron also lack diplomatic appeal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 25, 2006 10:24 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

DT,

It's not that no one knew about stem cells back then. But there were issues. The first was that they didn't know much about differentitation - when it happened, how it happened (all at once or little by little), how much potential there was for going backwards. (There is STILL a lot they don't know. They used to think all of six months ago that skin stem cells could be used to repair heart tissue for example, but just recently found that the cells fused rather than differentiated into fxt'l tissue.) So pre 1998 unless you got cells very early you always had a mix of committed cells and stem cells and couldn't do meaningful research. And then they couldn't be kept alive and pluripotent in culture. Up till 1998 the only cells that could be successively cultured ad infinitum were cancer cells.

That's what made the 1998 breakthrough so meaningful. UNTIL 1998 NO STEM CELL RESEARCH WAS POSSIBLE.

PLEASE don't try to teach me about stem cells. I know a lot more about them than you do.

And the reason I called Unwrapped Dick-Whack is b/c he's an arrogant rabid ignorant ass. Like his master, Herr Bush.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 25, 2006 10:30 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Dick-Whack

And your point is in looking even more ignorant and childish than before? Did you not read the part where a CLINTON appointee during CLINTON'S administration said NIH funding could be used for embryonic stem cell reserach. BUSH'S brilliant contribution was to limit federal funding ALREADY IN PLACE.

A--HOLE.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 26, 2006 12:13 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Dick-Whack

And your point is in looking even more ignorant and childish than before? Did you not read the part where a CLINTON appointee during CLINTON'S administration said NIH funding could be used for embryonic stem cell reserach. BUSH'S brilliant contribution was to limit federal funding ALREADY IN PLACE. A--HOLE.

Besides your infantile tirade of ad hominems, you're really not saying anything new here. Bush 1st spent $$ on ANY stem cell research of any kind, what so ever, by the Fed Gov't. That's a fact you just can't seem to wrap your brain around.

Callin' others names won't change the facts. Or haven't you figured that out yet ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 26, 2006 1:00 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Then you'd be wrong.( shocker there, eh? ) Bush WAS responsible for this, and there's no denying it. Stem Cell research has NOTHING to do w/ being 'pro-life'. Only EMBRYONIC , and all Bush did was limit what the Fed could do in regards to funding He STILL didn't ban any research. That's the small nail which has you hung up on the issue. Bush DID fund research for Stem Cell research. Not Clinton. Get it ?

Be a man, for once, and admit this was ALL Bush.

WE'RE talking about embryonic stem cell research, hello. There's no small nail, but since you evaluate all events on "How good can I make Bush look with this" I'm sure you think so.

I don't like Clinton anymore than Bush; I certainly, unlike you with Bush, have no interest in singing Clinton's praises. Bush enacted a crippled version of Clinton’s legislation. Get it? No I didn't think so. The funny thing is if positions had been reversed you'd be throwing your toys out of the pram about how no one recognises this was all Bush's doing.

Okay there’s no intelligent debate with you, you aren't interested or capable of it. It seemed like you were going to be a man for once and enter into an actual open dialog, which lasted for one whole post, just go back to your hero worship and leave me in peace, I want to talk to people, not sycophants.

Quote:
Callin' others names won't change the facts. Or haven't you figured that out yet ?

This is simply priceless.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 26, 2006 6:49 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Okay there’s no intelligent debate with you, you aren't interested or capable of it. It seemed like you were going to be a man for once and enter into an actual open dialog, which lasted for one whole post, just go back to your hero worship and leave me in peace, I want to talk to people, not sycophants.

How is it 'hero worship' when I state a FACT that Bush is the 1st President to authorize Fed funding for stem cell research?

You're hatin' on the wrong person, citizen.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 26, 2006 7:14 AM

CITIZEN

No one mentioned Bush, you took this as an opportunity to sing Bush's praises, like most threads you post on.

You repeated the spin that turns Bush's action from merely signing off a crippled version of someone else’s legislation as proof that he's such a great guy and supporter of science.

I pointed out the simple fact that it was Clinton's legislation, from Clinton's administration, and that Bush just happened to be the guy in the seat when it made it through, that the Clinton administration was prepared to fund this research in early 1999 and you say it's irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, if Clinton’s administration hadn’t put together the legislation Bush wouldn't have cut it down to virtually nothing and signed it. He wouldn't have become the first president to start funding embryonic stem cell research if the Clinton legislation hadn't been put down in front of him.

Your spin is in suggesting it's all down to Bush when it is not, that is a FACT. It's called spin, it's called lie by omission you don't have to tell an untruth in order to lie, just select which truths you put out.

And don't give me this hating nonsense; you're spitting accusations of me not ‘ever being a man’ all over the place. I merely told you I want a debate with someone, not trade insults with a sycophant that goes into insult overdrive if anyone dares to mention that maybe Bush isn't god, which is so far about all you've done. I realise you don't realise its hero worship, but that's because he's your hero and you think it's all true and justified.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 26, 2006 7:23 AM

Quote:
PLEASE don't try to teach me about stem cells. I know a lot more about them than you do.

Rue,

See it's this sort of arrogant attitude. If you have credentials, post them. Are you a stem cell researcher? I find it unlikely that the rank and file of doctors knows more about them than I do. You don't know how much I know, there's sort of an assumption built in there. I'm not an expert in the issue, but so far you haven't posted anything I didn' know.

Quote:
And the reason I called Unwrapped Dick-Whack is b/c he's an arrogant rabid ignorant ass. Like his master, Herr Bush.

No offense, but he may not be alone.

BTW, I don't support his absurd position "Bush, hero of the stem cell world." That's like "Bush, peacemaker of the middle east."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 26, 2006 1:00 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey DT,

I'm not comfortable posting too much identifying information out here.

I'm not a doctor but my educational and professional background is biology and medicine, with enough chemistry thrown in that that's what I now do for a living.

Embryonic tissue culture used to be a job in a university /research setting, now it's a a topic of interest I keep up with.

OOC, what's your background?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:41 PM

Rue,

I actually don't think this forum calls for paranoia. A whole lot of us have posted enough for bin laden to track us down and blow us up, and yet nothing has happened.

As for me, I farm tomatoes. My degree is in history. I went to college for about 20 years, and took everything. My school didn't have much in bioengineering, we did some PCR on dna strands, worked with some cultures, but no create-an-organism type stuff, it's just a peripheral NY state school which is nothing like a peripheral CA state school. As for what I do for a living, currently I sell children's books, but careerwise I'm a programmer/database designer, though I've also done a fair amount of teaching.

You just can't know too much. When I was taking very ill with a debilitating condition that also made me insane (I suspect it's similar to what pirate news has) I saw 18 doctors, and talked to a dozen more, including a lot of experts, and eventually concluded that psychiatry is as 12 monkeys says, a religion. I had to go study neurochemistry and cure myself, which took me a couple of years. I figure there's not a lot out there that I can't handle, informationwise.

My interest in stem cells comes from the fact of that conversation nearly 30 years ago, and my sister who can't walk, and stem cells being really the only possible treatment that might work.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:51 PM

LISSA37

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

Actually I kind of thought this would happen. I never understood why they couldn't harvest from unbilical cords either.

So here is my pro life, anti-science response to this latest development on this important issue:

Fine with me...if it don't hurt nobody (or any potential little nobody's out there) then go research all you can. Just no clones (except Jessica Alba, lets face it we all could use one of those).

H

I like how you said this and I think most people of the same pro-life sort (of which I am also a member) would agree, since the main complaint with stem cell research before was that it would hurt "potential little nobody's". So, I don't think too many people will be able to come up with a reason for opposition now. Who would oppose a harmless method of helping people? With any luck... that means all will be shiny with this issue now.

Credit for screencaps belongs to: http://still-flying.net/ and http://www.leavemethewhite.com/caps/index.php

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi DT,

Sorry to get back to you so late. I tend to be off the i-net for days at a time, and by the time I get back the topics have dropped a long ways down.

I was born and raised outside of Buffalo by immigrant /firstgen Polish parents and went to school at SUNYAB, so we come from the same end of the continent.

The ppl I hung out with back in my other incarnation were all Canada-philes, a great shaggy herd leaning on the wire strands looking for a way north to those blue skies with high white clouds and open fields and forests. I spent a fair amount of time in Canada, and I knew, and know, a fair number of Canadians / Canadiens. So I feel that my formative years were influenced by being brought up in one culture, living in another, and heavily influenced by a third.

My experience with 'up-staters' (for non-NYS people, that means anything outside of NYC's direct influence

) is that those from larger cities tend to be politically liberal (though personally conservative), while rural and small-town up-staters are extra-ordinarily conservative. That's probably the reason for our political divide - we are both the results of our environments.

But we agree on this - I personally feel no learning is ever wasted.

We could probably have an interesting correspondence on biochem, neurochem etc., along with SignyM who's been an avid researcher by necessity and apt student by nature.

When shall we get together to rule the world with our superior knowledge ??

JUST kidding !!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:54 AM

Rue,

It took me many years among the conservative rural folk here to realize that they were right. I was emersed in the whitewash of liberal intellectual thought too, but in time, i've dried out.

The way I see it now is that liberal academia and the intellectual elite are high on their own ideas, and never seriously consider any dissenting opinion. As a community, they are trapped inside their own heads and egos, and they become a monotony of their own ideas reiterated through generations. If an idea was wrong or misguided, it was never tested, never questioned, and so it got passed from generation to generation through the education system, as each new class was indoctrinated into the same old ideas.

It's been pretty much true for a while, liberalism increases with education, conservatism increases with life experience. The most fringe liberals tend to be young intellectuals, like citizen, and the most conservative tend to be old people, I assume say geezer. I've come to see this education thing as more of an indoctrination now. A lot of liberal conditioning is embedded into our education system, by teachers who are a product of that system. The basic fallacy arguement we're given is: There are two kinds of people in the world, those who want to give away money, help people and puppies (liberals,) and those who want to steal all the money and kill people and puppies (conservatives.)

All of this doesn't really define partisan. I think political parties are basically inherited. About 90% of people vote for the party their parents voted for, which is odd considering only 10% or listen to the same music, or in general try to follow the same life path.

So, when you get down to politics, you have all these people who were taught to be liberals, supporting the democrats, who never do a damn thing for poor people, puppies, etc. The educated intellectual left fall back on their education, which has taught them that the ultimate ideal is the far left, and the only reason it can't be enacted is that people who disagree are stupid and evil. The new liberals will now reject the democrats as being "not left enough" because that's the way their education has taught them. They'll go on to dream about ideologies such as socialism, that, in spite of many years of disasterous failure in practice (need I enumerate?) remains as the intellectual ideal, untempered by reality. The only acceptable excuse for past social experiments is that "They just didn't do it right."

Which is not to say that conservatives are perfect, there's a fair amount of ignorance involved sometimes, you can get to 90 without knowing a damn thing, and people do it. And so those people are led to support these people (Bush and co) in spite of them having like nothing in common.

But Bush and co themselves are products of the intellectual community. They were the arrogant pricks who thought they knew better. They were the most avid students of socialism, and they sat up in their brain trust clubs and dreamt up ways to improve on the idea. No one had ever done it right, because no one was as smart as them, and they could take markers to marx, and write their own new great social plan.

So, not to nitpick, no learning is wasted, but some is misguided programming disguised as learning.

Logically, I think we can deduce that the villagers in africa are far more conservative than the many liberals who strive to help them. Just a thought.

As for this area. Particular places are centers of liberalism. It's radiated by universities. Ithaca is probably the most extreme, and not coincidentally, one of the most advanced, because education is a good idea, even if it is laced with indoctination rhetoric.

Me and barb, the now absence limi, discussed this in an earlier thread, and came to the conclusion that conservatives dropped the ball, and basically sat around while liberal took over education, and that led to this result.

BTW the most conservative folk here don't have towns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:54 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"BTW the most conservative folk here don't have towns."

From my observation near Lake St George and Candor, there are two very conservative types of ppl. One set lives in, literally, tar paper-shacks, does construction and tourism-related jobs during the summer, and hunts and traps during the winter. The other set is the nouveau, high-tech well-educated off-the-grid types. No offense.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:10 PM

Nah, I think there's just one type. Those of us who build spiders on the internet in our free time are actually the same ones who farm tomatoes. There's something else out there that's stolen the name conservative, but it's a doppleganger, and I like to call it commie. Commieservative? Hmm. How about christo-fascist. Judeo-fascist. That has a better ring to it. No offense to any of the above.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:38 PM