When did so many people become experts on stem cell research?

Question

seems to me, everyone here is an 'expert' on the subject. Let me clear something up. Abortions are not used. Abortions could not be used, as the blastocyte is about 4-5 days old. A woman has to be at least 5 weeks pregnant to get an abortion. Embryonic stem cells have regenerative properties unique to them, no adult stem cells have the same properties. Specifically, brain cells, and spinal cells, hence the permanancy of paralysis and brain damage. A study was conducted in 1996 where embryonic stem cells were attached to the severed spines of mice, they regenerated, bridging the gap, restoring function to the legs of the mice. That same year, the right to life movement fought to ban all stem cell research, so the data we have available starts in 1998, after the ban was lifted. From 1981 when research began, to 1998 when it was re'allowed, no data was recorded, effectively wiping out the available research.

I remember this research because my brother became a qudriplegic in 1997, and we read EVERYTHING we could on the matter. Looking for hope. The year before, Christopher Reeves (RIP) sustained a very similar injury, and in 1997 came out in Time magazine (ironically the week my brother was injured) shedding light on stem cell research.

my question is how many of you have your opinions based on fact? Do you know the facts? Anyone know somebody that would benefit from this research, and still against it? Why?

sigh...ROX, of course I know somebody who would benefit from it. IT WAS LISTED IN MY DETAILS! And as I have said to you EVERY time you attempt to answer my questions, you have to pay attention to details. And, you are wrong on several points, but my days of holding your hand through correcting your misinformation are over. Why do you even bother? Please, cite your sources of 'information'. A good example, people, of an 'expert'. Obviously knows no one who would benefit from this research. Hopefully you never will.

Answer 1

Thank goodness someone said it! All this false propaganda that people were spreading was driving me nuts!!! Thank you for setting the record straight.

Answer 2

Do you know anyone whom will benefit from Embryonic Stem Cell research?
If so where do you get your facts from? One study? There are many instances where adult stem cells and CORD BLOOD stem cells have far surpassed that of Embryonic stem cells.
There are thousands of successful treatments now being tested on HUMANS that involve ADULT stem cells and almost none that involve Embryo's.
As for the Idiots out there that think this veto involves ALL stem cells... well its hopeless, you hear something and it sticks like stains in a toilet.
As for the research you sited, presumably by the Germans,
They have not taken it any further!!! However, there have been many cases where the donors themselves gave the cells and it has regenerated spinal tissue.
Adult stem cells have worked for decades and will continue. The media has been talking about the ban on stem cell research as though it means all stem cell research which isn't true. Proof the Media is spinning half truths and getting people all stirred up.
(I know that wasn't in your question but I wanted to let the retards that think it is true all research was banned, know they are misinformed)
The truth is there have been so much more advancements in adult stem cells than embryonic stem cells. And for those that think there was no research being done because of the ban that was in place. That isn't true either. The ban that is in place simply states that you can not create NEW embryos to study, but, you can continue to use the ones already in existence. The media doesn't let you know that either.
Go figure.
The reason why it is not a good idea to set this precedent.
Is where would it end??
Look at abortion. A precedent was set when the supreme court said it was a woman's right to have an abortion, when they did so it was put forth that it would only be under the premise that a STATE would not prevent a woman from having an abortion in the FIRST trimester, since then, how many thousands of abortions have taken place in the second and in some cases third trimester. This was never the intention but, this is what happens when you go down the road and step just a little bit further. There is proof that it has happened with abortion and other issues. the president doesn't think it would be a good idea to do that and has stood by his promise.
As I have said before I am more of a libertarian with my views, I do not think the government should decide what a woman should do with her baby ( my previous argument was to point out a disparity in the law) However I do not think the government should Fund THIS exercise either. Another thing that bothers me is the lack of info concerning the actual law that is in place now. It does not stop scientists from studying Embryos. It simply keeps the federal government from paying people to do it.
Private grants will still be available and it is prov en the private sector has created much more advancements than any government institution....................................................................
........................................................................................................
The whole point of my Question to you was answered by the information I pointed out.
THERE ARE NO MORE BENEFITS TO EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH THAN ADULT STEM CELL RESEARCH.
Which means that you do not know anyone who is more likely to benefit from it than the research that has already been proven to work. Therefor your whole argument for EMBRYONIC STEM CELL research is pointless. I was simply pointing out to you that the benefits of (ASC r) far out weigh the benefits of (ESC r) and the fact that you do not need to do the research that has been proven to not work on humans any more than a placebo. If you cared about your brothers problem I'd think you would be more interested in going down a road that has had significant steps taken towards a cure, rather than put your hopes into a pseudo science that hasn't yet made any advancements on humans.
But what do I know............. I guess these fake causes always need a mouthpiece, too emotional to see the facts.
P.S. don't use your grief as a pulpit, although it lends some bit of credibility to those less fortunate (libs) it makes the rest of us tune you out.

Answer 3

The way I know so much is that I did some research on the subject for a class. I also became more interested when I found out what it could do. Most stem cells are aquired from cord blood, as it proves to be most effective, and it's these that could be the end to several illnesses. But the Right won't allow it, 'cause it's un-Godly. So call me Godless, as Ann Coulter has called most non-sheep, because I believe that stem cells may be the living panacea that scientists (or before them, alchemists) have been looking for the ages.

Answer 4

Q. Do stem cells come from aborted fetuses?
One potential source of stem cells comes from early fetal tissue recovered during a narrow window of development. In development, an embryo is called a fetus at about 7-8 weeks following fertilization. At about 4-5 weeks of development, embryonic germ cells, the precursors to the egg and sperm cells, are found in the developing ovary or testis, structures only about 2 mm long.

In 1998, the isolation, culture and partial characterization of embryonic germ cells were reported. The cells were derived from human aborted tissue. When isolated and cultured, these germ cells were shown to have properties similar to stem cells isolated from the inner cell mass of blastocysts.

However, some evidence has suggested that embryonic germ cells may be more limited in their ability to become many different cell types because they are isolated from tissue that is further along in development (several weeks as opposed to only 4-5 days). More research will be required to understand the properties and behavior of these cells to determine their usefulness for future cell therapies. Because of various discrepancies in federal regulations, stem cells taken from fetuses are subject to different rules that stem cells derived from embryos.

Answer 5

My guess is that there is a one-page, anti-federal funding of stem cell research handout that says "when you finish reading this, you are now an expert among all experts. Congrats, please hang this certificate on your wall."
You can tell a lot of people have this same handout because they all keep describing a 5-day old clump of cells, created for infertilization treatements in vitro, as a fetus, despite the fact that you cannot get embryonic stem cells from a fetus (~7 weeks later).

Answer 6

You have your facts right. Embryonic stem cell is the single most promising entity which currently holds the promise of bringing pioneering medicines that can target the cause of a wide variety of diseases. Isn't it ridiculous for people who have already decided that it is moral to kill babies in the name of war to show some squeamishness about destroying human embryos in a petri dish?

Answer 7

Thank you for interjecting irrefutable facts in response to shrill, brainwashed emotional hysterics. The consequence of all this is, the US will be light years behind the rest of the world in this important area of science. But then, Bush is rolling back science to the Dark Ages.

Oh yes, and global warming is just a figment of some librul scientists imagination

Answer 8

I think this issue in reality is not about "life" this is what politicians use to support their agenda. This is more about $$. When this technology/nature takes hold drug companies will suffer. Drug companies make drugs, market drugs, sell drugs, make political contributions and pay taxes.

Mother nature would do allot of the work with stem cells and as far as I know she doesn't make political contributions or pay taxes.

PS Bush just made his first veto, no stem cell $$

Answer 9

did you know embryonic stem cells are abundant in the umbilical cord blood of a new born.

this is the answer to the debate, research continues, and no one can complain about it.

the scientists like the embryonic system better because they cant use artificial insemination to create them. as many as they want too.

Answer 10

I'm depressed because we haven't yet figured out that the 'super powers' of this century won't be the guys with the biggest muscles. It'll be the economic super-powers (probably China), scientific super-powers (have you seen how lousy our kids are doing in that area?), and of course medical (France, Germany, Switzerland, et. al.).
We're on he verge of being left behind in all these areas. And we have a president in charge of these decisions who probably just barely passed high school biology.