Limbaugh attacks Michael J. Fox

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well it isn't is it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point me to a peer review journal that debunks the promise highlighted in the journal I posted. If we can bypass the destruction of embryos in relatively short time I so no reason why we should not attempt to develop that technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Human non-destructive embryonic stem cells have not been gerneated. They have generated stem cells from single cells from human embryos, but the embryos were destroyed in the process. Also it is unclear if these stem cells are as pluripotent as stem cells derived from whole embryos. Go to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, and search Pubmed for "lanza and stem cell". Lanza is the primary author on these papers, and the two highest profile were published in Nature. Search on google for criticism of these papers.

In addition single cells cannot be grown alone, so they have to grown with "feeder" cells that could contaminate them and prevent them from use in humans (this is big issue with current stem cell lines, though it has been solved for destructive Emb stem cell genreation).

Also it is unclear if these even resolves the ethical problems. Mistakes will be made when generating these embryos and some will be destroyed, is it only ok if we use the stem cells derived from the non-destroyed ones? What if you take out a cell and it ends up harming the development of the embryo/human. I actuaally was reading that the final bill that Cardin voted against did not allow for these technologies because of this fear, but I need to look more into it. This fact actually determines if I think that this bill would have done anything substantive. If anything all it would have done was politicize the grant funding process as adios speculated above - forcing funding for non-destructive stem cell research (but not these embyronic single cell technology) even if the science was not good. In the meantime the passing of a "stem cell" bill would mislead people. I was reading at work if I have time later I will look up some links for you guys.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Well it isn't is it.

Let's say there's a 50% chance of being able to do embryonic researh without destroying embryos (which are all already slated to be destroyed btw). Let's say it will take 4 years of federal funding to make that discovery. I'm probably being generous here on both counts.

Looking at how, even with dominant majorities of Republicans in the House and Senate, we almost got a veto-proof majority to support funding of embryonic stem cell research, and it currently being a very good political issue for Dems (a research study recently showed that Republicans who viewed the Fox ad became 10% more likely to prefer a Democrat as their representative), and considering the overwhelming public support that it has, it it very likely that we will either get a veto-proof majority soon, or Bush will cave on the issue in order to get something else he wants. This is likely to happen in less than 4 years.

So, on the one hand Cardin had the option of possibly starting full research now, and almost assuredly starting it in the next few years.

or

Starting it years from now (maybe, if it becomes possible to do it without hurting embryos) and killing any chance of it being done immediately as the issue fades from the public eye.

He made the morally superior choice.

Now admit Limbaugh is a blatant liar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm pretty sure it is. (sorry for the 1 liner, holding the baby right now [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] )

[Grey]

Maybe in the future it will be. But currently it isn't.

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe in the future it will be. But currently it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW I'm pretty sure that under current law that the federal government is not going to allow research into non-destructive stem cell research (so far the papers published have been from companies, and as I said in the human studies the embryos died during the procedure). Think about it, in order to learn how to take cells out of embyros without destroying them you are going to have to practice to get it right, likely destroying a lot of embryos along the way. How could the federal goverment allow this under current law? Under current law they won't fund the use the cells created by the Lanza group (even if they are of high enough quality), b/c the embryos were destroyed.

btw don't know if you read the paper you cited above, they use a mouse model... as I've said this approach has not worked in humans yet (partly b/c of what I mention above I'm sure)

[Bobbo539]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just did, and my statement stands. The thread devolved into a discussion of Parkinsons, Stem Cell Research, and the intention of the add.

But Rush's original comment was purely speculation on his part that came out true. How on earth can anybody take offense to this? The statement he made was not malicious, rather just a statement of opinion. Im serious when I say this, it seems like the left can call any Republican any name and 1000 others come behind blindly chanting.

You don't have to like Rush, but to jump on him for this original statement is rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it did not come out true.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong, fox admitted that he purposely did not take medications prior to airing the add.

there is nothing wrong with that, likewise there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

whats the issue here?

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just did, and my statement stands. The thread devolved into a discussion of Parkinsons, Stem Cell Research, and the intention of the add.

But Rush's original comment was purely speculation on his part that came out true. How on earth can anybody take offense to this? The statement he made was not malicious, rather just a statement of opinion. Im serious when I say this, it seems like the left can call any Republican any name and 1000 others come behind blindly chanting.

You don't have to like Rush, but to jump on him for this original statement is rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it did not come out true.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong, fox admitted that he purposely did not take medications prior to airing the add.

there is nothing wrong with that, likewise there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

whats the issue here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please provide me with evidence that he said he went off his meds prior to the ad. I can link numerous articles to the contrary and an interview of him saying that he did not do this (with Katie Couric).

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They have a point, though, about the exploitation of underprivileged women, i.e. poor as crap women, who will start "donating" eggs, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

No actually this is another lie by the Right. From the current stem cell legislation the following criteria would be maintained for embryonic stem cells to be used:

These cell lines must be derived (1) with the informed consent of the donors, (2) from non-transferred embryos created solely for reproductive purposes, and (3) without any financial inducements to the donors.

[/ QUOTE ]I know all this. But I maintain that the free market will quite legitimately allow, if not force, the assignment of a market value on human eggs.

Mickey Brausch

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They have a point, though, about the exploitation of underprivileged women, i.e. poor as crap women, who will start "donating" eggs, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

No actually this is another lie by the Right. From the current stem cell legislation the following criteria would be maintained for embryonic stem cells to be used:

These cell lines must be derived (1) with the informed consent of the donors, (2) from non-transferred embryos created solely for reproductive purposes, and (3) without any financial inducements to the donors.

[/ QUOTE ]I know all this. But I maintain that the free market will quite legitimately allow, if not force, the assignment of a market value on human eggs.

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

There will not be a free market for human embryos. The process is already highly regulated. Just as there is no free market for human kidneys. You said "they have a point" that allowing research on newly derived embryonic stem cells will lead to "poor women donating eggs". The fact is they do not have a point, as this decision will have no impact on the market value of human eggs. They have been quite explicit on this that the only embryos that will used are ones that would have been generated and destroyed anyways.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

There will not be a free market for human embryos. The process is already highly regulated. Just as there is no free market for human kidneys. You said "they have a point" that allowing research on newly derived embryonic stem cells will lead to "poor women donating eggs". The fact is they do not have a point, as this decision will have no impact on the market value of human eggs. They have been quite explicit on this that the only embryos that will used are ones that would have been generated and destroyed anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still figuring out my stance on ESC's. But I think it's pretty foolish to assume there won't be some abuse of the system. Then again so many eggs are slated for destruction anyway that abuse would probably be really minor.

ugh.... I bet i could spend a month researching this before I form an opinion. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[CaptainFreedom]

Ok you take that month to decide on this issue. In that time the election will be over and Korea/China/Japan/EU will be making the stem cell discoveries and have a huge leg up on whenever the Moralistic States decide to get in the game. There is research going on right now in Asia and the longer it takes the US to start the more it will cost "American Science", which has of late been making "me too" cures to nonexistant and pointless afflictions. Restless leg syndrome anyone? How about "going often".