@MisterHeizenberg Do you mean retarded like my son Billy, with Down Syndrome? THAT retarded? Nope...my chromosome count is normal. And...I'm not a fundamentalist...and it's hard to compete with the great science and medicine-rooted response like this. Get some help with those anger issues dude.
@Ishagol Cure what? Who? Where? When? Please share. And without destroying the human embryo to boot? This will be FASCINATING news that must be shared with the world. Inquiring minds want to know.
Hi ya'll check out my Channel it includes a patient who was treated by adult stem cell therapy 7months ago!!! It is totally awesome what he can do right now!!! Subscribe and leave a comment!!!!!!!!!!
You keep saying that your argument is based on the "willful use and destruction of human life at its earliest stage," or words to that effect. However, these embryos will never get the chance to develop beyond simple zygotes because they are leftovers from the IVF programs. Is destroying them, or letting them die, a more dignified fate for them? Wouldn't "human life" be better served if we can help humans who were actually born by utilizing stem cells from embryos that will never, ever, be anyt
@domdexart "Never" get a chance to "develop?" "Leftovers" from IVF programs can be adopted...see snowflake babies. So...answer to your first question is based on misinformation. A more dignified "fate" is a Christian/Jewish/Islamic or religious burial...same for "leftover" elderly people who will not "develop" any more wouldn't want their bodies being used without their permission for unproven experiments. Answer to last question: no.
@mediaray I have to thank you for having this discussion. I've got to admit that I didn't know much about this issue - despite hearing about it regularly - until I came across a few YouTube videos. So thanks for the conversation. That said, I don't think I'll ever agree with most of your positions and I hope the discourse will continue. Unfortunately, it's hard to make a cogent argument in under 500 characters. So I'll address 1 of the arguments in the next reply and see what develops.
@mediaray I've read in earlier posts your assertion that this issue is not about "religion," or "spirituality." But your response that a dignified fate for the unwanted zygotes would be a "Christian/Jewish/Islamic or religious burial" indicates otherwise. My personal feeling is that it's entirely a "religious" issue for opponents of ESC research. The "elderly people" reference is a red herring that really doesn't forward the discussion in any helpful way. SEE POST 2
@mediaray POST 2 - If your position is based on religion - as it appears - then it's simple dogma. Your religion believes that the "starting point" of a "human being" is at conception. That's great, but it's arbitrary and it doesn't mean everybody has to agree. Some think that point is when the heartbeat commences, some think when brain activity begins, some believe it's birth. Why are you the only right one? Why not before conception? It's simple religious doctrine and not reasonable.
@domdexart Wait a minute...who said anything about religion? Not me! You asked about what I'd do vs. destroyiong an embryo...not what my position is based upon. My "posityion," as you say, is based upon basic human rights as determined by science and biology. I don't believe that we should be using human life--most certaionly without the informed consent of that life--in destructive, unproven experiments. YOU brought in religion...thanks for watching.
@mediaray Actually, "human rights" are never determined by "science and biology." The concept is philosophical/moral and the most science can do is help point the way. Supporters of ESCR believe in human rights, too. But where do human rights start? You say at conception, the Supreme Court says it's fetal "viability." This is not a scientific debate. But MS suffers and quadriplegics "do" have human rights and deserve hope for a cure more than a blastocyst deserves a Christian burial.
@domdexart Look, try as they might to deny it...and many ESCR advocates don't even try any longer...an embryo is human life at the embryonic stage of develop,ment. YOU were once an embryo. Scientific and biological fact. Indisputable. The question becomes...do we wish to use this life for our own uses? Does this life...as small as it is...have any rights?
@mediaray A human egg is also the earliest stages of human life, only slightly less so than an embryo. "YOU were once an embryo." Well: "YOU were once an egg," is just as valid, and irrelevant a fact. Billions of human eggs are flushed down the toilet every month without ceremony. You've drawn an arbitrary line at conception, even though the embryo has no more "human-ness" than the egg. Ask the family of an Parkinson's victim about the suffering that occurs when "human-ness" is lost.
@domdexart Religion...the great red herring in this debate used most often by ESCR advocates. Look, I also seek to feed the hungry, house the homeless and clothe the naked--help those in need, not because of "religion," but basic human rights. There are connections to religion...(for some)...but if you think that...racism (or hunger, unjust war, etc.) is a "dogma" that is not a universal truth for all people, then yes, we have a basic, fundamental disagreement.
@mediaray I wish I could ignore the religious aspect. But I have to wonder why the "line" is draw at conception. We all agree with the idea of human rights, charity, and basic goodness of the human "spirit." We disagree at where "human" starts. I can't help but feel that opposition is based in the pro-life movement. It shouldn't be. Abortion is a completely different issue. However, the arguments draw too many parallels to ignore the religious influence. Meanwhile "real" humans suffer.
@domdexart Dude...you are ignoring the science and biology that are even arguable. Scroll down and see all the secular (non-religious/political) scientific embryology textbook verification that human life starts at the instant of fertilization. So...you can "disagree" but you are basically making up your own scientific and biological description of the start of human life. Impossible to have intelligent conversation if you make up stuff. I never brought up abortion...you did!
@mediaray Again...you are factually incorrect. I was NEVER an egg! Never! A NEW ORGANISM is created by the combining of EGG AND SPERM. Youy are trying to change biology to fit your argument.
@mediaray I only used the argument that you were also an "egg" as a means to show that your argument - that I was once an "embryo" - is irrelevant. I have reviewed the science and I agree that "human life" begins at conception. The real question is when "human rights" should begin. You and I were not "conscious" beings until well after the embryonic stage. Some of us think that may be the place to start considering human rights. When actual "human-ness" has begun to develop.
@domdexart "You and I were not "conscious" beings until well after the embryonic stage. Some of us think that may be the place to start considering human rights. When actual "human-ness" has begun to develop."
We have a legal definition for death based on brain waves, why not apply the same standard for human life?
No self sustaining brain waves? Not a human being!!
@mediaray The debate is when, and for what reasons, do we have an obligation to respect and protect embryonic human life. It’s an ethical debate. I earlier used the term “human-ness” to express the factors to consider. With no “consciousness,” or ability to “feel,” the zygote lacks “human-ness.” Considering they will never get the chance at developing anyway, and that they have no consciousness and thus do not suffer, why not utilize them to help fully developed, suffering humans?
@domdexart "Considering they will never get the chance at developing anyway, and that they have no consciousness and thus do not suffer, why not utilize them to help fully developed, suffering humans?"
EXACTLY! 70% of all human embryos never make it through gestation anyhow. Until one generates brain waves an embryo is not human, it is just made of human cells. Like my cheek cells.
Mediaray has a biased Catholic agenda. That is his right.
@mediaray Total "straw man" argument. We ESCR supporters are not racist, or un-compassionate. In fact, I could argue that our compassion for the thousands, maybe millions, of afflicted - fully conscious - human beings whose suffering can potentially be alleviated by ESCR, is sincere and admirable. To not use embryos, that are destined for the incinerator, to help these people, is un-compassionate. Compassion for cells that will never see "life," is causing suffering for the living.
@domdexart Hmmm...checking my posts to see if I called you or anyone else a raciost. Hmm. Nope, not there. Look, if you REALLY want to save human lives, why destroy them in ESCR? Isn't embryo adoption a better way than experiments or even a proper burial? Billions already spent on ESCR and the "potential" you speak about gets further away. Also, there is the question of money. Why not focus on the most cost-effective and ethical (non-human life destroying) options?
Use people's adult stem cells to heal themselves if they need it
Use embryonic stem cells from people who do not want a child (like people in high school that got themselves or someone else pregnant and then the person who is pregnant doesnt want a child, use the embryonic stem cells from her blastocyst. Ta-da!
@keeganatormclean1602 So tell us Einstein, how do you get access to an embryo, and then harvest the embryonic stem cells from an embryo that is already growing inside a woman? Or am I just "stupid?"
@mediaray You didn't call anyone a racist, but connecting ESCR support to "racism, hunger, lack of housing, orphans" is a fallacy that I was just pointing out. If every embryo gets adopted, that's great. Why not use your resources positively by supporting that initiative, rather than attacking ESCR? The cost and "potential" are not relevant. The people spending the "billions" think the potential is great, and scientists will tell you embryonic cells provide more opportunity than adult cells.
@mediaray This is///sadly holarious. I just produced a short film about a man who was successfully treated for MS by adult stem cells. Good gle Barry Goudy. Oh, and Parkinson's, google,Dennis Turner///REAL.
@mediaray I'm not saying that adult stem cells shouldn't be used. There have been positive results and we should continue down that road. However, embryonic stem cells offer additional hope beyond what adult cells have been able to achieve. Will the potential ever be realized? Who knows. But there's lots of good reasons to believe it will. That's why we need to continue research that is both scientifically appropriate and ethical. There's simply no "just" argument not to do so.
"This company would not walk away from this trial in the absence of an unexpected complication or safety concern, if there was any evidence that it was working," said Dr. Daniel Salomon, assoc. prof. in the department of molecular and experimental medicine at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego. "The assumption has to be that they designed a study with a purposeful plan to complete it to a certain benchmark of efficacy and that they had the funds for that effort in hand." ABC News
@mediaray "This company would not walk away from this trial in the absence of an unexpected complication or safety concern, if there was any evidence that it was working,"
Do you know any of the folks at the Shepard Center who were participating in this study? I do.
Dr. Salomon's and your speculations as to why the study was halted are flat out wrong.
But the spreading misinformation seems to be a particular talent of mediaray.
This is another example of the ideological-driven agenda of the pro-ESCR crowd. TWO people? Really? That's not a misprint, is it? Like 02, right? 8-6=2? That two? Do my eyes deceive me? Even Nature Magazine admits that it is highly unusual to publish such "data," if you can call it that.
@mediaray "TWO people? Really? That's not a misprint, is it? Like 02, right? 8-6=2? That two? "
So if you, or a family member, were one of those two would you still consider it insignificant. When the first person was vaccinated for polio the number of successful vaccinations was one.
"The news is based on a small but important clinical trial that tested the safety of using human embryonic stem cells. The trial treated two people with progressive eye conditions affecting the macula, the part of the eye responsible for central vision. One patient had age-related macular degeneration, a common cause of visual loss in older adults. The other patient had Stargardt’s macular dystrophy... Both patients had end-stage disease with severe central vision loss."
...And this is why the West is destined fall - Religious IDIOTS with NO RIGHT TO ENFORCE THEIR BELIEFS UPON OTHERS are bringing stem cell research to it's knees stopping any real progress, whilst China are going full steam ahead - They will be the pioneers of this, and all future controversial technologies - the only comfort I take from this is that such technologies WILL see the light of day, just that we will all be disadvantaged for not being in the position to control it.
@tallyhoman911 Yes, on the surface, the Media and the Establishment Medical Professiona have done a wonderful job of promoting embryo-destructive research. But the facts are stubborn. The "promise" and "hope" of ESCR continues to dissipate...just Google "Geron trial halted" to learn why a government-financed ESCR trial was halted (clue: It WON'T HELP PEOPLE!). Also adult stem cells actually help people with dozens of conditions RIGHT NOW. Hard to believe ESCR is still an option.
@mediaray "Google "Geron trial halted" to learn why a government-financed ESCR trial was halted (clue: It WON'T HELP PEOPLE!). "
Wrong! Stop your distortions. It was because Geron's venture capital group decided the experiment was too expensive to continue. I have followed the Geron test quite closely and there have been NO reports of negaitve side effects.
Only a lack of money to keep it going. The investors were pulling out, and the government won't step in.
@ThunderofBabylon A living, growing human blastocyst, human life at the embryonic stage of development is "not a human yet," based on...what? If it's not human life, what is it? A goat? Grass? Scientifically and medically speaking, it IS human life. The question becomes if society wants to recognize it and protect it.
@ThunderofBabylon Thunder...sperm or human ovum are NOT human life. They will always be "just" sperm or ova. Once they are united and fertilization takes place, a unique, living organism--human life at the earliest stages--begins, and develops constantly and without stopping until birth...and of course as we live and walk and talk as children, teens, adults.
Stem cells are just the basis of life, the very begining of anything, therefor not human yet. I dont like when people get aborshins but i completly support stem cell research, also i think humans are to iffy about if an undevoliped egg dies of not it will not and can not affect anyone or anything becides its self. This video is completly rong in its findings people have been cured of things useing ESC. It is not morally rong, if someone were to be murerd then lots of people wouldent care
actually, mediaray and tra1215, u r both right.messing with a being, or just a cell(which is life) is wrong. but technically its not a human. but it IS life. if any of u are religious, just remember, lets not let beliefs get in the way of facts. u can believ what u want to believe, but facts can also prove the beliefs to be wrong. im not much of a speaker so srry if u dont really understand what im saying.
how could anyone say it's unbiased when there's no one defending research on embryos? Stem cells are extracted from an embryo before it's even considered human. Once an egg is fertilized, some Catholic groups consider it a human being, while Judaism and Islam don't consider it a human being before 40 days of fertilization. One last thing, why would they care, when the eggs are donated, unless they're promoting their anti-abortion propaganda?
@monshi91 Research on living, growing human life at the embryonic stage of development in indefensible on many levels. Human embryos ARE human. What else could they be? Goats? Snakes? Flowers? Your "40 days" statement is a myth. Regarding egg donation, please google Eggsploitation, a documentary whose message is supported across the political and religious spectrum--even radical feminists--who see that egg donation harms women. Thanks for watching. Any factual errors? Inconvenient truths!
@mediaray no one is saying that embryonic stem cells aren't technically human cells. The point is not if the cells are human or not, the point is when does the embryo gain rights. "embryonic stem cell research" is actually done on blastocysts that consists of about 150 cells. (keep in mind that a brain of a fly has 100,000 cells). The question is this: is it wrong to kill 150 human cells. I say no. There is no way that 150 cells could be sentient. Where is the harm? I don't understand.
This video is misleading. At 1:02 you show a pic of an embryo in the first stages of development. You lead people to believe that developed embryos are used in research, but that's not true. A blastocyst is not a person. It's a grouping of about 150 cells. You make it sound like developed embryos are being ripped apart for the good of science.
@mediaray In the middle of the video a blastocyst is shown and talked about. I'm not disputing that part. I'm talking about the image of the partially developed embryo in the beginning of the vid. An embryo at that stage has no part of stem cell research. But the image leads people to believe that it does. People will remember that image easier than they will remember the image of the blastocyst because they're familiar with it. Misleading. And it was done on purpose.
@tra1215 Yes, "developed" embryos ARE being used for research. A blastocyst is human loife at the embryonic stage of development--YOU were once an embryo (and an infant, adolescent, adult, etc.). Yes, embryos ARE being "ripped apart" for the "good" of science. And your point is????
@mediaray A blastocyst IS NOT a PERSON. If you're so concerned for human life, let's weigh the suffering of a blastocyst (about 150 cells) against the suffering of a child with a spinal chord injury. Or the suffering of a man who's Parkinson's disease limits his ability to do anything! If a building were on fire, would you save a little girl, or save a grouping of 150 cells? People could be saved with ESCR! Why are you against that?!
@tra1215 Actually, your uninformed opinion aside, a human embryo is human life at the embryonics stage of development. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? (love the caps) Please, do tell me which people could be saved with ESCR...I do know many who have been treated successfully with Adult Stem Cells--nine with ESCR. Including spinal cord injury and Parkinsons. stem cell researchfacts do o r g has short films about these success stories. Please direct me to succes stories with ESCR. There are none.
@mediaray I get what you're saying about human life. A cell =life, so a human cell must=human life, right? But 150 cells is not a person. (Are you on a crusade for religious purposes?) Science is not trying to create new people just to harvest and destroy them. They're using what we know about the building blocks of life to sustain life. The stem cells end up getting tossed anyway, why not use them to help people? Are you ok with throwing human life away?
@tra1215 Please scroll down for answer to your ridiculous hypothetical "house fire" scenario...you might be surprised to find out you are far from the first to ask this old and tired and irrelevant question.
@mediaray I'm actually very interested in this topic and have taken measures to learn about it. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but please don't assume I'm uninformed. The "house fire" scenario is not old and tired. It's an accurate comparison in this case (that's why it's used so much). Only 9 people have been helped by ESCR? That's 9 lives saved or helped. ESCR is the most promising. Who knows what can be done if scientists' hands weren't tied.
@mafarmerga You are kidding, right? Like a bad joke...sarcasm? "Transformed?" Really? Seriously? This is a unique and certainly creative argument--one that you may attempt to make all day long, but one that is not rooted in biological or scientific reality; an argument that even the most vociferous ESCR advocates dare not make lest they be embarassed by all sides of the debate. BTW, an embryo is not a "cell," it is an organism. The stem cells are taken FROM the organism, which is destroyed.
I am not kidding. The human cells of a blastocyst are not destroyed in the creation of hESCs. They are destroyed when an IVF couple decides to have them autoclaved instead of donated for research and therapeutic uses.
Also, go check your definition of an organism. A blastocyst does not meet this standard:
"In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homoeostasis as a stable whole."
If by "extreme ideology" you mean to imply that I prefer the transformation of abandoned IVF embryos into something that can help mankind (as oppossed to just tossing them in the dumpster) then I say guilty as charged.
You object to my accurate use of "transformation" yet you have no problem with throwing around inflamatory terms like "hurt" "kill" and "destroy"
I know that you would like to prevent infertile couples from using IVF but here again, you and I differ in opinion.
@mafarmerga Extreme ideology is a blind focus on the destruction of the embryo and not cures and treatments. Attempt to redefine embryo destruction as "transformation" is a perfect example of pulling something out of thin air--again, that even the most ardent ESCR advocates do not attempt to argue--and call it an informed opinion. Regarding IVF, this is an unethical and emotionally predatory treatment, and like ESC vs. ASC has a medically and ethically superior alternative: NaPro Technology.
As I said, I already knew your opinion of IVF and I must at least credit you with consistency in opposing both hESCR and IVF. I assume you also object to PGD, even if done to save the life of a sibling.
I also took the time to look into NaPro Technology which appears to complement, but not replace other means of treating infertility.
I hope your moral compass will allow you to reject ESCR therapies should you or family need them in the future.
@edelynm89 Dear peanut gallery, Thank you for watching. But what, pray tell is so "bias(ed)" about this video? Yes, it presents a point of view you probably haven't heard before, but all the information is biologically and scientifically accurate.
@emptycl0ud9 Empty...this is information you won't see anywhere else. ESCR advocates would NEVER give ANY airtime to ASC people--Chrsitopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox are on screen here, as well as statements that ESCR people say supports their claim. The purpose of this film is to reveal what you don't know--that ESCR does not work, and is unethical because it always destroys human life, and perhaps most importantly, people are being helped TODAY with adult stem cells. Thank u for watching1
why not use the woman who want to abort there pregnancy? would that be a some what moral? at least baby's wouldn't be massed produced just to be terminated. i don't know just some thoughts. i myself do not believe or approve of abortions either.
@MrFlyersrule1234 Babbling brook...babble, babble, nonsense. What does religion have to do with this? Weird. This is a human rights issue. #2, why not use elderly people in a wheelchair for unproven experiments that kill them IF it can cure diseases and paralysis--you know, like Nazi Germany and Jews and Down Syndrome people? Hmm? (We'll eventually "throw them away" too). #3--indecipherable babbling. #4, you will get a lot of arguments from IVF parents about this...if it's not human, what is it?
Are u happy cos the progress of science got delayed? I told you, that is normal.Religion always do it! But soon or later THOUSANDS of ESC will start to be used to help people. It is possible to delay, but not to avoid.
“While stem cells are proving invaluable for research, translating the promising science into new therapies is a slow, painstaking process with many setbacks the field is fraught with political, moral and ethical controversies." Keep believing ur soul theory. u r open-mind.LOL
@Asenetic "Happy?" "Science delayed?" You again fail to see the big picture--the patients. The Geron study was financed by taxpayers in California, highly unusual to stop such a trial. Were they discovering that...ESC WON'T work? That they are in fact harmful to patients? This is progress! Human pride finally bumped up against a reality. What I am "happy" about are ASC treatments actually helping spinal cord victims and thousdands of others. If we can help people that is science progress!
@mediaray It doesnt mean anything! to run a car, nowadays gasoline is more efficient than electricity.Should we shut down electric car research?what u saying makes no sense.The soul theory is cos U fail to explain me,why would u possibly think ESC should be considered as a person.they cant feel,think,or be aware.U must be obsessed with some assumption!and I guess it must be the soul thing.If not give some argument.Except for the ESC being a person theory,give another reason to shut down research
@Asenetic I wave my magic wand and walla! I've stopped an entire clinical trial of ESC's! Now, for my next trick... I've been giving you the biological and scientific "argument" for the humanity of the embryo since we started this conversationl; citing secular medical embryology textbooks, which prove,beyond any reasonable (or in your case unreasonable) doubt that the human embryo, from the instant of fertilization, continues to develop by a gradual, but uninterrupted process into adulthood.
@Asenetic And another reference: “Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.” (O’Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, page eight.). Really, your argument that the human embryo is not human (sorry, I laugh every time I write that) isn't even part of intellegent debate/discussion.
@mediaray you keep saying the same thing!! Cos some books wrote that kind of mistaken definition, it doesnt mean it is the correct one!! Once it was written the earth is a square!! Tell me, WHY you think, except for the ESC being a person theory (or have the potential to become a human) they cant be destroyed? you cant cut off an old tree at some protective areas, however of course eventually u can destroy their seeds, they cant be considered a tree,so u wouldnt go to jail.U fail to argument.
@Asenetic "some books?" human embryology medical school textbooks. It's a "theory?" Wow. Okay. This is news to researchers everywhere on all sides. Wadda mean "other than they are a person?" like..."Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" How about--if Geron, the most aggresive ESCR company can't continue a trial with tax money...well dude, you got problems. Plus, I am for progress and science that WORKS in an ethical way--like adult stem cells? BTW your tree theory is, um, creative.
@mediaray Pls,keep the argumentation,dont use pseudo-arguments.So, again, where the definition is written is irrelevant for its correctness,the important thing is the facts and arguments to support the definition.So,give me real arguments or facts.Again,stop to talk about the effectiveness of some scientific field.Its maturity state as a field isnt ground to prohibit the field to exist!The seed/tree FACT,is a creative example,only possible for open-mind people that dont relays on dogmas/believes
@Asenetic Your mind is made up, simple biological facts not withstanding. It is not even in dispute among the most vociferous of intelligent ESCR advocates that human life begins in the zygotic stage, the instant of egg and sperm uniting. There is no interruption of development, no "blackout period" where life somehow magically emerges later on. You subjectively assign attributes, characteristics or personal dogma--"thinking" or "soul" or whatever, it doesn't change the biological reality.
@Asenetic BTW, what "soul theory" are you talking about? Surely not mine. I don't have one. Your obsession, obsession, obsession with religion in a scientific and bio-ethical issue is an indication of a radical ideological mindset gone even more wild.
@lolzlol1991 Yes. It is a biological and scientifically accurate fact that you and far too many others find difficult to accept. In fact, it already happens with IVF. There are more than 500,000 embryos in cryofrozen storage, with at least that many "down the drain." If that's not massive...what is it?
This video is so misleading and biased. I thought they were going to give the topic serious thought. The video must have been done in the Bush era. The era of deception and patriot act.
@Skilbeard What, pray tell, is "misleading" about this film? Specifics please. Everything presented is biologically and scientifically correct, vetted (reviewed/approved) by PhD-level scientists. Thank you for watching.
@mediaray It's take one side of the debate leading people to think that embryonic stem cells have been equally tested. adult stem cells started being tested since the 1950's maybe longer.
@Skilbeard That's all you've got? That the number of years of "testing" are not equal? THAT, in your mind, constitutes "misleading and biased?" Okay...pretty low threshold. Never mind the FACTS. ASC's work, without destroying human life, ESC's do not work. There is no mention anywhere about this, just the facts. Speaking of which, please read Washington Post article by Rob Stein about a company "abruptly" halting the first ever human ESC trial. BTW, ESC's have been "tested" for 20 years.
@mediaray U can argue sweet nothings all u want. If China or Russia make the discoveries first you better learn to speak Cninese or Russian. I remember when the Pope et al thought that the Earth was flat and the center of the Universe. You would be destroyed for thinking otherwise. Continue with your happy thoughts until reality sets in.
The worry for ESC that are not able to born,is a misleading of ethics.ESC are just cells and not a person.(no brain to be considered a person). So in this case we should also be sorry for ALL people who NEVER was even created.Germ cells only meet ONE germ cell, and MOST OF THE CASE ANY.We should feel sorry for ALL the possibilities of humans that will never be created. 15 x 10 (33 times) at one generation.Sorry for ESC that dont born is no sense, just make sense if u believe in the soul theory.
@Asenetic Repeating. Cells are cells--not organisms. ESC cells come from living, growing human life at the embryonic stage of development. These human embryos that are always manipulated and destroyed in the process of harvesting the ESC's. The "xx% of embryos never develop into adulthood" has nothing to do with the willful use and destruction of using living human life at the embryonic stage of development in unproven experiments. Why keep bringing the religion/soul element into this? Obsession
@Asenetic Geron ESC trial, from the Washington Post: "The announcement Monday was a particular blow to advocates of research into spinal cord injuries and patients suffering from paralysis. The study was testing the treatment on partially paralyzed patients. “I’m disgusted. It makes me sick,” said Daniel Heumann, who is on the board of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. “To get people’s hopes up and then do this for financial reasons is despicable. They’re treating us like lab rats.”
Sure, I was aware about it. So I wrote it in the paper, but I needed a reference. I will check it out. Nice sentences! So I will start to make movies to explain these things for non-scientific people. They see this kind of video and cant realize the brain wash it is.
Since upwards of 70% of all naturally (and IVF) conceived embryos contain genetic defects that prevent them from EVER giving rise to a viable human being I certainly see no moral issue with using these genetically compromised embryos.
If God is omnipotent the logical conclusion from this would be that God wants 70% of all human beings to die before they are born.
You and I are in the lucky 30% that made it through gestation. That makes us lucky, not divinely created.
@mafarmerga Good point!! But I thought it was more than 70%.... btw, do you have the reference for this data? Im writting a scientific paper about aging and I talked a little bit about it, but no reference yet. Thanks!
As a starting point you can look up information about miscarriages on ww w(do t)babycenter(do t)com
The data I have seen suggests that about 50% of blastocysts fail to implant and that about 30% of implanted embryos (i.e. another 15% of total) spontaneously abort in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Another 5% miscarry after 12 weeks.
50% + 15% + 5% is how I came up with the 70% of total pregnancy failures figure.
I know that, you also know that I am NOT talking about non-fatal genetic defects.
Chromosome 21 trisomy (Down syndrome) along with trisomy of the sex chromosomes (Klinefelter's syndrome) are the only two trisomies that can give rise to a self-aware human being. Trisomy 16 occurs in 1% of all pregnancies and always results in a first trimester miscarriage. All other trisomies have similar fatal outcomes, yet we CAN make viable ESC lines from them.
People, what Im saying is: the only barrier to prohibit Embryonic Stem Cell Research is cos some people consider them to have soul. However, ESC is not a person, they cant be self-aware, think or feel (no Brain).Cockroach feel and is MUCH more self-aware than these cells.Therefore,the true decision here is: Do you believe these cells are a person or not? If you consider them to have soul.Ok delay the progress of science as always have been done by unfounded believes.If not, please, support ESCR.
@Asenetic People, all I am saying is that many in this discussion simply cannot bring themselves to be intellectually honest--Asenetic is one such example. This person is in fact one of the best arguments regarding the radical, unyielding ideology typical of the far Left in regards to this debate. If you follow the discussion, you will see that Asenetic continually and obsessively misquotes, assumes, imposes and attributes to me any number of points that I have not or ever made.
@mediaray LOL!First at all,now I just point out the best way to take a decision in this subject.Independently of ours previous discussion.2)Maybe I was confused because you NEVER answer my simple questions properly.Lets be fair?You answer my questions and I answer any of your questions.Do you believe ESCs have soul?Do you believe a group of ESCs is a person even without a brain?If so, where is his/her mind/soul,in which of the cells?If your answers are"no"for both questions:Where is the problem?
@Asenetic LOL (just like using caps...you know, you listen better). Do ESC's have a soul? Can I answer honestly, again, I do not know. And again, it is not germain to the question of protection of human embryos as it is a question of religion and not science. Do I believe a group of ESC's is a person, even without a brain? Um, again NO. ESC's are CELLS harvested from living, growing human life ALWAYS destroyed in the process. The cells r unethically harvested--hence, the problem. HEAR ME NOW?
@mediaray Ok,So you dont know if embryo have or havent soul.I assume that means u believe it COULD have a soul, right?So,assuming u realize there is no space for souls.And u also said u dont believe ESCs are a person.Therefore,they arent self-aware or think or feel.They are cells like any other cells.Actually less than any other cell.Any differentiated cells can be recognize(eg lymphocyte,neuron)ESC cant.So,they are just cells,Why is it unethical to separate them for research and treatments?
stem cell research cures paralyzed, diseased, and dying people by taking cells from a in-vitro fertilized zygote, in a petri dish, or as the conservatives call it: a baby, they are wrong because these cells are stored in the freezer, you cant store a baby in the freezer!
@cityofchamps2008 Step back from your PC and stop commenting with mindless blather...or at least get informed before you attempt a comment. BTW, embryonic stem cell research has STILL not cured anyone of anything. ADULT stem cells are helping treat thousands of people with dozens of diseases and conditions.
@mediaray What cityofchamps2008 said is true!! (for animal models tough) But so what? we must improve our knowledge to be able to apply ESC to humans! still, adult SC and iPS cells arent able to perform as good and as easy as ESC, besides nuclear transfer technique is the most potential good, but without research it will be difficult to use them! It will take much more time (but will be done anyway). Non-scientific argument had never prevail in a long run... and it never will. lost battle.
@Asenetic Here's an idea, let's start experiments (like the Nazis) on those who cannot defend themselves--the very young (embryos) or the very weak (your grandma and grandpa). Oh wait, this is a "non-scientific" argument...never mind!
@mediaray The experiments already started!!! Trials analyzing ESC in humans have been shown to be great in the preliminary results. AND YES! yours arguments arent scientific arguments because ES CELLS!! are cells!!! They dont have brain, they arent human! Stop to think about they have soul!!!! IT ISNT SCIENTIFIC!!! It is your culture!! stop to delay science like 400 years ago.... PLEASE!!!!!
@Asenetic Dude...LOVE THE CAPS>>>NOW I HEAR YOU! (-:
My culture? IDK what you're talking about. All of my arguemnts are from a biological and human rights viewpoint...as you struggle to make your arguments, you scream and yell. Yes, the experiments have already started. "Great" results? Really? Oh, I know, it's "preliminary." Okay. I am trying to advance science by directing public sentiment, knowledge and money to research that is ethical and effective. Did you check out Dr. Burt?
@mediaray LOL! sorry about CAPS! The point here is about the "ethics" of ESCR,and not about if others therapies are better. For a scientific point of view (without the preconceptions of culture and religion), there is NO reason to dismiss ESCR. Some cultures worship cows, others worship thunders. Some prohibit blood transfusion,others prohibit eat pig.But any culture should have the rights to include their believes under the law.Why not?Cos there isnt scientific evidence to support them! Simple!
@Asenetic You are correct, without ethics, and from strictly a scientific viewpoint, there is no reason to "dismiss" ESCR. Without ethics, from a strictly scientific viewpoint, there is no reason to "dismiss" strip mining, unjust wars, oppression, exploitation of human labor, and much more. Stop lights for me? The science of physics say if I drive 90 mph I will get to my destination faster...this is scientifically proven! A world without boundaries--ethics--is chaotic and abusive to the weak.
@mediaray Driving faster makes you arrive faster! In several highways in Germany it wouldnt be a problem by law!Besides,the accidents rate are very low. It isnt the speed that causes accidents,but the poor educational system! The preconception of "speed causes accidents" only comfort people! They blame others for the accident! So there is nothing to be done, just pray and wait for everybody follows the law (useless). Correct ethics, only can be done without preconceptions, believes or culture.
@mediaray 1. I'm on a Mac 2. I bet I am more mindful or informed than you as a biology major at Northwestern University 3. My best friend's little brother was diagnosed with Spinal Muscular Atrophy at the age of 8 months, they have been told by numerous educated doctors at Boston Children's Hospital that with the cells from human embryos, he could be able to walk some day, but i guess those embryos are better off being thrown away after they are not used (which is what they currently do).
@cityofchamps2008 Dr. Richard Burt of Northwestern is a world-reknown expert in ADULT stem cell therapies. BTW, MANY so-called "educated doctors" have been, for many years now, hyping ESC therapies. If you read their comments, you will see a steady backtrack from promises of "cures" to "we can learn more..." and most say outright that the complexity of the human embryo makes the problem of rouge tumors too much to ovecome. The barbaric practice of "excess" embryo production must stop.
@mediaray All I'm saying is that it is perfectly ethical for doctors to experiment with excess embryos if there is even the slightest potential that they can cure paralysis, there is nothing wrong with putting embryos to use that are going to be thrown away otherwise.
@mediaray IT isnt TRUE!!! maybe some of them are concerned about the tumor thing... But OF COURSE no scientist would say it would be impossible to be over-come... If more research can be done... them of course we would over-come any problem... as always we did. IT is just about time and more research. Besides at the same time, more researchers start to propose more research for ESC.
@Asenetic My primary objection to ESC's is that it is barbaric and unethical to use living, growing human lives in unproven experiments just because some scientists think they might, maybe, someday help in some way understand, learn more or possibly, like 6 degrees removed, help with treatment or cure, especially when researchers like Richard Burt of Northwestern has consistently and remarkably shown that ASC's offer much more potential now and for the future.
@mediaray I know him. (Im a SC researcher). And what you are saying is confused. ASC, yes are great. However they cant cure several diseases even in animal models. Their potential as well as iPSC are limited. The argument here should be about other therapies and ONLY about if we should study or not ESC. The point is, there is NO scientific argument against the use of ESC, therefore, based in what, people are trying to delay it? Culture? Religion? Base on what? that is the question here. Why not?
@mediarayOf course ESC didnt cure anybody, cos the research is getting slow (cos unfounded ethics)Adult SC is good, but as in animal models and humans, they have limitations, basically they improve just a little bit or delay the disease. As seem in animals model, ESC promises to enhance the therapy and cure diseases not only delay them. Fight against it is deliberately try to delay science, as it was always done by church. Remember delay isnt stop it, the 1st human trial already started at 2009.
@Asenetic I am opossed to, and fight each day against racism, poverty, hunger, war and other injustices against the human person as a result of my "culture" that is founded in my Catholic faith. You are obsessed with religion, although it has not been injected into this argument (except by you). Please read: "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization," NY Times best-seller, on scientific, legal, architectural and other MAJOR contributions were the result of the Catholic Church.
@mediaray it forgets to mention that catholic priests are the leading molesters of little boys, and covering it up. The catholic church was devoted to suppressing the discoveries in architecture, law, and science that shaped western civilization, they brought Galileo to trail for having the nerve to say the planets revolve around the sun. Such discoveries were a result of the enlightenment, and the renaissance, an era inspired by questioning the catholic faith. Your bias book is misinformed.
@cityofchamps2008 WOW, I didnt have the energy to reply that stupid argument about "shaped western civilization" THANKS! to add information here: Every single big war was created by western civilization blessed by church. Long-term (2000 years) slaves were also blessed by church. Homicides of every single person that dared to confront the church. Darwin took more than 30 years to write his book cos fear of church. Yes, church shaped civilization DELAYING IT! Now people keep doing the same!
@Asenetic You forgot about the evil establishment and promotion of a number of other "stupid" things we have in Western Civilization today thanks to the Catholic Church--universities, schools, medical schools, hospitals, hospices, laws, soup kitchens, AIDS healthcare, feeding the poor in 3rd world countries, astronomy, international law and much more. I'll tell you what. Go to amazon online, look up this book and read the first few pages and see what you think...
@mediaray I dont need to read the book, I fight against religions and dogmas since I was 14yo. How cant you see they delay science? Church created universities? schools? hospitals? laws? etc...? Cant you see they did all of this to manipulate and control people. They did it to make MORE money. They use it for show goodness... give soup? LOL!! They receive thousand of dollars very day, them INVEST the money to build business. What is difficult to understand? How about the soul thing? yes or no?
@Asenetic I now understand your thinking much better, it goes like this: "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with new facts." Your obsession with religion is...silly. I am happy to answer your question about "soul," but please, how do you define "soul?" And what, pray tell does that have to do with the price of beans in China or the biological reality that an embryo is human life at the embryonic stage of development? I keep trying to debate this on a human rights, biology and science.
@mediaray Yes,keep delaying science! thanks for that! Im not obsessed with religion. YOU that didnt give me any scientific argument to support the claim that ESC are in fact human life.My only theory is that you are an extremely religious guy and therefore try to protect embryos to avoid their souls going to purgatory.Soul-what ever is the "energy" that is immortal and exist from the time of conception-YesOr No?Besides that I cant see why you think ESC are human life.Strange if u cant answer it.
@Asenetic OMG. And you are a biology student? From Oxford Journal: A human embryo is a discrete entity that has arisen from either: i.the first mitotic division when fertilization of a human oocyte by a human sperm is complete or...
@mediaray Im a researcher already (SCR). AND I know that!! A human embryo is a human embryo. It doesnt mean it is a human! The sentence didnt say: "A HUMAN is formed from either: i.the first mitotic division when fertilization .... is complete or..." BTW: or... what? Anyway it just describes what is a human embryo and not a human! CAN YOU ANSWER ME IF YOU BELIEVE EMBRYOS HAVE SOUL?!?! That is the central point here! If you say yes, we need to discuss in a different level. Simple: YES OR NO?!?!?!
@Asenetic More secular sources: "The development of a human begins with conception" (LangmansMedicalEmbryology); "the time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual" Pattens Foundation of Embryology); "the [zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg cell] and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being" (TheDeveloping Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology). Oh, your religious soul question...
@Asenetic Soul question...answer #1: YES (loves those caps dude!). And it doesn't matter, it is a question of those obsessed with religion and has nothing to do with science and biology or human rights.
@mediaray Why you say Im obsessed with religion? The only reason to prohibit the use of cells for research is if these cells are human embryonic or embryonic-like cells. Let me clarify the main point. Ok, they are human derived, but they ARENT A PERSON. These cells CANT be a person, cos a person must have a brain to think and/or be self-aware and/or feel. Prohibit ESC use, but allow animals experiments are FAR more cruel. A cockroach, feel and is much more self-aware than ESCs. Is it wrong?
@Asenetic Soul question...answer #2: No!!!! (FOUR EXCLAMATION POINTS AND CAPS!!!). And it doesn't matter, as this is a question of religion and is not germain to the ethical considerations of ESCR.
@Asenetic "A human embryo is a human embryo. It doesn't mean it is human!" Wow. OMG (like the caps?) Get your tuition momey back dude...if human embryos are not human (sorry, I gotta laugh just writing that), then what are they? Butterflys? Worms? Goats? If they aren't human, then why do ESCR people want them, to treat rats? If they aren't human. what good does the research do? Please, at least be intellectually honest...if you won't acknowledge basic biology, what is the point of discusssion?
@Asenetic or ii.any other process that initiates organized development of a biological entity with a human nuclear genome or altered human nuclear genome that has the potential to develop up to, or beyond, the stage at which the primitive streak appears, and has not yet reached 8 weeks of development since the first mitotic division.
@Asenetic Yes. In layman's terms (that's me), "miotic division" is the continuing process of cell division that allows an organism--the human embryo--to grow and develop.
@Asenetic BTW, I NEVER said ESC's were human life. ESC's are harvested from living, growing human life at the embryonic stage of development. It is an organism, which, by biological definition, is alive and growing. If it's not human life (as you apparently maintain), what is it? (Yikes! Bio 101). For your "soul" question, I don't know--and more importantly, it is a religious question that doesn't matter in regards to using living, growing, unique human life in unproven ESCR experiments.
@Asenetic Herein lies the problem with this debate. Through your stubborm, willful ignorance, you will not acknowledge the biological reality of the human embryo. You seek to inject anti-Catholic bigotry, the question of ensoulment, and anything OTHER than the scientific reality. I would respect and understand your position if you said: "Yes, I can see it is human life, obviously nothing but that, it's just that I do not wish to assign the status of dignity or legal protection because..."
@Asenetic You keep saying ESC's are human life, as if I say that. I do not, and have not ever said that. What I say is that ESC's are derived from human life at the embryonic stage of development as described by dozens upon dozens of secular-based embryology medical school textbooks. That you argue this point is silly, as all ESCR scientists recognize this and don't even argue the point. YOU are the one who obsessivley and continulally brings up "soul," which is not a point that I make at all.
@mediaray um actually the "church" did not have much influence that can be considered good like those you said. it was actually them who for years did the opposite of those things you listed. they (mostly during the dark ages and before) who were against surgery (any ( they basically said it was the dark arts, and they actually said it was heresy)) only now support anything good. they said believe in god, leave it to god.
@MisterHeizenberg Do you mean retarded like my son Billy, with Down Syndrome? THAT retarded? Nope...my chromosome count is normal. And...I'm not a fundamentalist...and it's hard to compete with the great science and medicine-rooted response like this. Get some help with those anger issues dude.
mediaray 1 day ago
This video is a little outdated. Advanced Cell Technology is able to use embryotic stem cells to cure without destroying the embryo. :)
Ishagol 1 week ago
@Ishagol Cure what? Who? Where? When? Please share. And without destroying the human embryo to boot? This will be FASCINATING news that must be shared with the world. Inquiring minds want to know.
mediaray 6 days ago
Hi ya'll check out my Channel it includes a patient who was treated by adult stem cell therapy 7months ago!!! It is totally awesome what he can do right now!!! Subscribe and leave a comment!!!!!!!!!!
Changealife2012 1 week ago
Stem cell scientists are Nazi monsters
Mistakes in nature are there for a reason
G666leSh666le 2 weeks ago
@G666leSh666le its people like you that hold human kind back from achieving its full potential...what a closed mind you have.
Logicmaster91 2 weeks ago
You keep saying that your argument is based on the "willful use and destruction of human life at its earliest stage," or words to that effect. However, these embryos will never get the chance to develop beyond simple zygotes because they are leftovers from the IVF programs. Is destroying them, or letting them die, a more dignified fate for them? Wouldn't "human life" be better served if we can help humans who were actually born by utilizing stem cells from embryos that will never, ever, be anyt
domdexart 3 weeks ago
@domdexart "Never" get a chance to "develop?" "Leftovers" from IVF programs can be adopted...see snowflake babies. So...answer to your first question is based on misinformation. A more dignified "fate" is a Christian/Jewish/Islamic or religious burial...same for "leftover" elderly people who will not "develop" any more wouldn't want their bodies being used without their permission for unproven experiments. Answer to last question: no.
mediaray 3 weeks ago
@mediaray I have to thank you for having this discussion. I've got to admit that I didn't know much about this issue - despite hearing about it regularly - until I came across a few YouTube videos. So thanks for the conversation. That said, I don't think I'll ever agree with most of your positions and I hope the discourse will continue. Unfortunately, it's hard to make a cogent argument in under 500 characters. So I'll address 1 of the arguments in the next reply and see what develops.
domdexart 3 weeks ago
@mediaray I've read in earlier posts your assertion that this issue is not about "religion," or "spirituality." But your response that a dignified fate for the unwanted zygotes would be a "Christian/Jewish/Islamic or religious burial" indicates otherwise. My personal feeling is that it's entirely a "religious" issue for opponents of ESC research. The "elderly people" reference is a red herring that really doesn't forward the discussion in any helpful way. SEE POST 2
domdexart 3 weeks ago
@mediaray POST 2 - If your position is based on religion - as it appears - then it's simple dogma. Your religion believes that the "starting point" of a "human being" is at conception. That's great, but it's arbitrary and it doesn't mean everybody has to agree. Some think that point is when the heartbeat commences, some think when brain activity begins, some believe it's birth. Why are you the only right one? Why not before conception? It's simple religious doctrine and not reasonable.
domdexart 3 weeks ago
@domdexart Wait a minute...who said anything about religion? Not me! You asked about what I'd do vs. destroyiong an embryo...not what my position is based upon. My "posityion," as you say, is based upon basic human rights as determined by science and biology. I don't believe that we should be using human life--most certaionly without the informed consent of that life--in destructive, unproven experiments. YOU brought in religion...thanks for watching.
mediaray 2 weeks ago
@mediaray Actually, "human rights" are never determined by "science and biology." The concept is philosophical/moral and the most science can do is help point the way. Supporters of ESCR believe in human rights, too. But where do human rights start? You say at conception, the Supreme Court says it's fetal "viability." This is not a scientific debate. But MS suffers and quadriplegics "do" have human rights and deserve hope for a cure more than a blastocyst deserves a Christian burial.
domdexart 2 weeks ago
@domdexart Look, try as they might to deny it...and many ESCR advocates don't even try any longer...an embryo is human life at the embryonic stage of develop,ment. YOU were once an embryo. Scientific and biological fact. Indisputable. The question becomes...do we wish to use this life for our own uses? Does this life...as small as it is...have any rights?
mediaray 2 weeks ago
@mediaray A human egg is also the earliest stages of human life, only slightly less so than an embryo. "YOU were once an embryo." Well: "YOU were once an egg," is just as valid, and irrelevant a fact. Billions of human eggs are flushed down the toilet every month without ceremony. You've drawn an arbitrary line at conception, even though the embryo has no more "human-ness" than the egg. Ask the family of an Parkinson's victim about the suffering that occurs when "human-ness" is lost.
domdexart 2 weeks ago
@domdexart Religion...the great red herring in this debate used most often by ESCR advocates. Look, I also seek to feed the hungry, house the homeless and clothe the naked--help those in need, not because of "religion," but basic human rights. There are connections to religion...(for some)...but if you think that...racism (or hunger, unjust war, etc.) is a "dogma" that is not a universal truth for all people, then yes, we have a basic, fundamental disagreement.
mediaray 2 weeks ago
@mediaray I wish I could ignore the religious aspect. But I have to wonder why the "line" is draw at conception. We all agree with the idea of human rights, charity, and basic goodness of the human "spirit." We disagree at where "human" starts. I can't help but feel that opposition is based in the pro-life movement. It shouldn't be. Abortion is a completely different issue. However, the arguments draw too many parallels to ignore the religious influence. Meanwhile "real" humans suffer.
domdexart 2 weeks ago
@domdexart Dude...you are ignoring the science and biology that are even arguable. Scroll down and see all the secular (non-religious/political) scientific embryology textbook verification that human life starts at the instant of fertilization. So...you can "disagree" but you are basically making up your own scientific and biological description of the start of human life. Impossible to have intelligent conversation if you make up stuff. I never brought up abortion...you did!
mediaray 2 weeks ago
@mediaray science and biology facts that are NOT arguable...
mediaray 2 weeks ago
@mediaray Again...you are factually incorrect. I was NEVER an egg! Never! A NEW ORGANISM is created by the combining of EGG AND SPERM. Youy are trying to change biology to fit your argument.
mediaray 2 weeks ago
@mediaray I only used the argument that you were also an "egg" as a means to show that your argument - that I was once an "embryo" - is irrelevant. I have reviewed the science and I agree that "human life" begins at conception. The real question is when "human rights" should begin. You and I were not "conscious" beings until well after the embryonic stage. Some of us think that may be the place to start considering human rights. When actual "human-ness" has begun to develop.
domdexart 2 weeks ago
@domdexart "You and I were not "conscious" beings until well after the embryonic stage. Some of us think that may be the place to start considering human rights. When actual "human-ness" has begun to develop."
We have a legal definition for death based on brain waves, why not apply the same standard for human life?
No self sustaining brain waves? Not a human being!!
Just stands to reason.
mafarmerga 4 days ago
@mediaray The debate is when, and for what reasons, do we have an obligation to respect and protect embryonic human life. It’s an ethical debate. I earlier used the term “human-ness” to express the factors to consider. With no “consciousness,” or ability to “feel,” the zygote lacks “human-ness.” Considering they will never get the chance at developing anyway, and that they have no consciousness and thus do not suffer, why not utilize them to help fully developed, suffering humans?
domdexart 2 weeks ago
@domdexart "Considering they will never get the chance at developing anyway, and that they have no consciousness and thus do not suffer, why not utilize them to help fully developed, suffering humans?"
EXACTLY! 70% of all human embryos never make it through gestation anyhow. Until one generates brain waves an embryo is not human, it is just made of human cells. Like my cheek cells.
Mediaray has a biased Catholic agenda. That is his right.
But thinking people disagree with him.
mafarmerga 4 days ago
@domdexart Yes, the same arguments can be connected to racism, hunger, lack of housing, orphans...it's called HUMAN RIGHTS.
mediaray 2 weeks ago
@mediaray Total "straw man" argument. We ESCR supporters are not racist, or un-compassionate. In fact, I could argue that our compassion for the thousands, maybe millions, of afflicted - fully conscious - human beings whose suffering can potentially be alleviated by ESCR, is sincere and admirable. To not use embryos, that are destined for the incinerator, to help these people, is un-compassionate. Compassion for cells that will never see "life," is causing suffering for the living.
domdexart 2 weeks ago
@domdexart Hmmm...checking my posts to see if I called you or anyone else a raciost. Hmm. Nope, not there. Look, if you REALLY want to save human lives, why destroy them in ESCR? Isn't embryo adoption a better way than experiments or even a proper burial? Billions already spent on ESCR and the "potential" you speak about gets further away. Also, there is the question of money. Why not focus on the most cost-effective and ethical (non-human life destroying) options?
mediaray 1 week ago
Wow!! People are stupid!! It's as simple as this:
Use people's adult stem cells to heal themselves if they need it
Use embryonic stem cells from people who do not want a child (like people in high school that got themselves or someone else pregnant and then the person who is pregnant doesnt want a child, use the embryonic stem cells from her blastocyst. Ta-da!
keeganatormclean1602 1 week ago
@keeganatormclean1602 So tell us Einstein, how do you get access to an embryo, and then harvest the embryonic stem cells from an embryo that is already growing inside a woman? Or am I just "stupid?"
mediaray 1 week ago
@mediaray "Or am I just "stupid?"
Not stupid, just ideologically misinformed.
mafarmerga 4 days ago
@keeganatormclean1602 no
thunderdrumandbass 1 week ago
@mediaray You didn't call anyone a racist, but connecting ESCR support to "racism, hunger, lack of housing, orphans" is a fallacy that I was just pointing out. If every embryo gets adopted, that's great. Why not use your resources positively by supporting that initiative, rather than attacking ESCR? The cost and "potential" are not relevant. The people spending the "billions" think the potential is great, and scientists will tell you embryonic cells provide more opportunity than adult cells.
domdexart 1 week ago
@mediaray This is///sadly holarious. I just produced a short film about a man who was successfully treated for MS by adult stem cells. Good gle Barry Goudy. Oh, and Parkinson's, google,Dennis Turner///REAL.
mediaray 2 weeks ago
@mediaray I'm not saying that adult stem cells shouldn't be used. There have been positive results and we should continue down that road. However, embryonic stem cells offer additional hope beyond what adult cells have been able to achieve. Will the potential ever be realized? Who knows. But there's lots of good reasons to believe it will. That's why we need to continue research that is both scientifically appropriate and ethical. There's simply no "just" argument not to do so.
domdexart 2 weeks ago
"This company would not walk away from this trial in the absence of an unexpected complication or safety concern, if there was any evidence that it was working," said Dr. Daniel Salomon, assoc. prof. in the department of molecular and experimental medicine at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego. "The assumption has to be that they designed a study with a purposeful plan to complete it to a certain benchmark of efficacy and that they had the funds for that effort in hand." ABC News
mediaray 3 weeks ago
@mediaray "This company would not walk away from this trial in the absence of an unexpected complication or safety concern, if there was any evidence that it was working,"
Do you know any of the folks at the Shepard Center who were participating in this study? I do.
Dr. Salomon's and your speculations as to why the study was halted are flat out wrong.
But the spreading misinformation seems to be a particular talent of mediaray.
mafarmerga 4 days ago
This is another example of the ideological-driven agenda of the pro-ESCR crowd. TWO people? Really? That's not a misprint, is it? Like 02, right? 8-6=2? That two? Do my eyes deceive me? Even Nature Magazine admits that it is highly unusual to publish such "data," if you can call it that.
mediaray 3 weeks ago
@mediaray "TWO people? Really? That's not a misprint, is it? Like 02, right? 8-6=2? That two? "
So if you, or a family member, were one of those two would you still consider it insignificant. When the first person was vaccinated for polio the number of successful vaccinations was one.
Is one person saved too few for you?
mafarmerga 4 days ago
The "eyes" have it!
"The news is based on a small but important clinical trial that tested the safety of using human embryonic stem cells. The trial treated two people with progressive eye conditions affecting the macula, the part of the eye responsible for central vision. One patient had age-related macular degeneration, a common cause of visual loss in older adults. The other patient had Stargardt’s macular dystrophy... Both patients had end-stage disease with severe central vision loss."
mafarmerga 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...And this is why the West is destined fall - Religious IDIOTS with NO RIGHT TO ENFORCE THEIR BELIEFS UPON OTHERS are bringing stem cell research to it's knees stopping any real progress, whilst China are going full steam ahead - They will be the pioneers of this, and all future controversial technologies - the only comfort I take from this is that such technologies WILL see the light of day, just that we will all be disadvantaged for not being in the position to control it.
houlohan 4 weeks ago
@houlohan Your mind is made up...why confuse you with the facts?
mediaray 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
houlohan 4 weeks ago
its hard to believe people are actually against this
tallyhoman911 1 month ago
@tallyhoman911 Yes, on the surface, the Media and the Establishment Medical Professiona have done a wonderful job of promoting embryo-destructive research. But the facts are stubborn. The "promise" and "hope" of ESCR continues to dissipate...just Google "Geron trial halted" to learn why a government-financed ESCR trial was halted (clue: It WON'T HELP PEOPLE!). Also adult stem cells actually help people with dozens of conditions RIGHT NOW. Hard to believe ESCR is still an option.
mediaray 1 month ago
@mediaray "Google "Geron trial halted" to learn why a government-financed ESCR trial was halted (clue: It WON'T HELP PEOPLE!). "
Wrong! Stop your distortions. It was because Geron's venture capital group decided the experiment was too expensive to continue. I have followed the Geron test quite closely and there have been NO reports of negaitve side effects.
Only a lack of money to keep it going. The investors were pulling out, and the government won't step in.
mafarmerga 3 weeks ago
I agree that A blastocyst is not a human yet
ThunderofBabylon 1 month ago
@ThunderofBabylon A living, growing human blastocyst, human life at the embryonic stage of development is "not a human yet," based on...what? If it's not human life, what is it? A goat? Grass? Scientifically and medically speaking, it IS human life. The question becomes if society wants to recognize it and protect it.
mediaray 1 month ago
@mediaray I wont argue with you because I agree with u in some points
But tell me do you consider a sperm or human ovum alone as a human being or only in the point of fertilization or when ?
ThunderofBabylon 1 month ago
@ThunderofBabylon Thunder...sperm or human ovum are NOT human life. They will always be "just" sperm or ova. Once they are united and fertilization takes place, a unique, living organism--human life at the earliest stages--begins, and develops constantly and without stopping until birth...and of course as we live and walk and talk as children, teens, adults.
mediaray 1 month ago
@DuppyBruh Your mind is made up...why confuse you with the facts?
mediaray 1 month ago
@MrAtephobia Interesting take. Wrong. Misguided angry. Uninformed. But interesting nonetheless. Kinda wondering what God has to do with all this.
mediaray 1 month ago
so why would it be any diffrent if and egg dies?
coolaids100 1 month ago
Stem cells are just the basis of life, the very begining of anything, therefor not human yet. I dont like when people get aborshins but i completly support stem cell research, also i think humans are to iffy about if an undevoliped egg dies of not it will not and can not affect anyone or anything becides its self. This video is completly rong in its findings people have been cured of things useing ESC. It is not morally rong, if someone were to be murerd then lots of people wouldent care
coolaids100 1 month ago
Morally wrong? Thats just an opinion.
TheRedLuigi 1 month ago 2
actually, mediaray and tra1215, u r both right.messing with a being, or just a cell(which is life) is wrong. but technically its not a human. but it IS life. if any of u are religious, just remember, lets not let beliefs get in the way of facts. u can believ what u want to believe, but facts can also prove the beliefs to be wrong. im not much of a speaker so srry if u dont really understand what im saying.
TheDuskeon 2 months ago
Is iPS cells still as bad as embryonic stem cells?
masterflamewing234 2 months ago
We need stem cells to help people with strokes and paralysis.
EthansEntertainment 2 months ago
how could anyone say it's unbiased when there's no one defending research on embryos? Stem cells are extracted from an embryo before it's even considered human. Once an egg is fertilized, some Catholic groups consider it a human being, while Judaism and Islam don't consider it a human being before 40 days of fertilization. One last thing, why would they care, when the eggs are donated, unless they're promoting their anti-abortion propaganda?
monshi91 2 months ago
@monshi91 Research on living, growing human life at the embryonic stage of development in indefensible on many levels. Human embryos ARE human. What else could they be? Goats? Snakes? Flowers? Your "40 days" statement is a myth. Regarding egg donation, please google Eggsploitation, a documentary whose message is supported across the political and religious spectrum--even radical feminists--who see that egg donation harms women. Thanks for watching. Any factual errors? Inconvenient truths!
mediaray 2 months ago
@mediaray no one is saying that embryonic stem cells aren't technically human cells. The point is not if the cells are human or not, the point is when does the embryo gain rights. "embryonic stem cell research" is actually done on blastocysts that consists of about 150 cells. (keep in mind that a brain of a fly has 100,000 cells). The question is this: is it wrong to kill 150 human cells. I say no. There is no way that 150 cells could be sentient. Where is the harm? I don't understand.
red666111 2 months ago
this shits hella biased. "as natural as a marital act by husband and wife"
kingcamilo 2 months ago
This video is misleading. At 1:02 you show a pic of an embryo in the first stages of development. You lead people to believe that developed embryos are used in research, but that's not true. A blastocyst is not a person. It's a grouping of about 150 cells. You make it sound like developed embryos are being ripped apart for the good of science.
tra1215 2 months ago
@tra1215 It's not misleading...text/narration is accurate...supports the image.
mediaray 2 months ago
@mediaray In the middle of the video a blastocyst is shown and talked about. I'm not disputing that part. I'm talking about the image of the partially developed embryo in the beginning of the vid. An embryo at that stage has no part of stem cell research. But the image leads people to believe that it does. People will remember that image easier than they will remember the image of the blastocyst because they're familiar with it. Misleading. And it was done on purpose.
tra1215 2 months ago
@tra1215 Yes, "developed" embryos ARE being used for research. A blastocyst is human loife at the embryonic stage of development--YOU were once an embryo (and an infant, adolescent, adult, etc.). Yes, embryos ARE being "ripped apart" for the "good" of science. And your point is????
mediaray 2 months ago
@mediaray A blastocyst IS NOT a PERSON. If you're so concerned for human life, let's weigh the suffering of a blastocyst (about 150 cells) against the suffering of a child with a spinal chord injury. Or the suffering of a man who's Parkinson's disease limits his ability to do anything! If a building were on fire, would you save a little girl, or save a grouping of 150 cells? People could be saved with ESCR! Why are you against that?!
tra1215 2 months ago
@tra1215 Actually, your uninformed opinion aside, a human embryo is human life at the embryonics stage of development. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? (love the caps) Please, do tell me which people could be saved with ESCR...I do know many who have been treated successfully with Adult Stem Cells--nine with ESCR. Including spinal cord injury and Parkinsons. stem cell researchfacts do o r g has short films about these success stories. Please direct me to succes stories with ESCR. There are none.
mediaray 2 months ago
@mediaray I get what you're saying about human life. A cell =life, so a human cell must=human life, right? But 150 cells is not a person. (Are you on a crusade for religious purposes?) Science is not trying to create new people just to harvest and destroy them. They're using what we know about the building blocks of life to sustain life. The stem cells end up getting tossed anyway, why not use them to help people? Are you ok with throwing human life away?
tra1215 2 months ago
@tra1215 Please scroll down for answer to your ridiculous hypothetical "house fire" scenario...you might be surprised to find out you are far from the first to ask this old and tired and irrelevant question.
mediaray 2 months ago
@mediaray I'm actually very interested in this topic and have taken measures to learn about it. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but please don't assume I'm uninformed. The "house fire" scenario is not old and tired. It's an accurate comparison in this case (that's why it's used so much). Only 9 people have been helped by ESCR? That's 9 lives saved or helped. ESCR is the most promising. Who knows what can be done if scientists' hands weren't tied.
tra1215 2 months ago
The argument is often made that the creation of Hesc involves the "destruction" of an embryo.
I disagree. It involves the "transformation" of an embryo, and in that transformed state those human cells live on for the betterment of mankind.
What DOES destroy an embryo is a couple's decision to have extra IVF embryos thrown away or autoclaved.
Is it not better to transform these valuable cells than it is to destroy them?
mafarmerga 2 months ago
@mafarmerga You are kidding, right? Like a bad joke...sarcasm? "Transformed?" Really? Seriously? This is a unique and certainly creative argument--one that you may attempt to make all day long, but one that is not rooted in biological or scientific reality; an argument that even the most vociferous ESCR advocates dare not make lest they be embarassed by all sides of the debate. BTW, an embryo is not a "cell," it is an organism. The stem cells are taken FROM the organism, which is destroyed.
mediaray 2 months ago
@mediaray
I am not kidding. The human cells of a blastocyst are not destroyed in the creation of hESCs. They are destroyed when an IVF couple decides to have them autoclaved instead of donated for research and therapeutic uses.
Also, go check your definition of an organism. A blastocyst does not meet this standard:
"In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homoeostasis as a stable whole."
mafarmerga 2 months ago
@mafarmerga Continuous willful ignorance combined with extreme ideology.
mediaray 2 months ago
@mediaray
If by "extreme ideology" you mean to imply that I prefer the transformation of abandoned IVF embryos into something that can help mankind (as oppossed to just tossing them in the dumpster) then I say guilty as charged.
You object to my accurate use of "transformation" yet you have no problem with throwing around inflamatory terms like "hurt" "kill" and "destroy"
I know that you would like to prevent infertile couples from using IVF but here again, you and I differ in opinion.
mafarmerga 2 months ago
@mafarmerga Extreme ideology is a blind focus on the destruction of the embryo and not cures and treatments. Attempt to redefine embryo destruction as "transformation" is a perfect example of pulling something out of thin air--again, that even the most ardent ESCR advocates do not attempt to argue--and call it an informed opinion. Regarding IVF, this is an unethical and emotionally predatory treatment, and like ESC vs. ASC has a medically and ethically superior alternative: NaPro Technology.
mediaray 2 months ago
@mediaray
As I said, I already knew your opinion of IVF and I must at least credit you with consistency in opposing both hESCR and IVF. I assume you also object to PGD, even if done to save the life of a sibling.
I also took the time to look into NaPro Technology which appears to complement, but not replace other means of treating infertility.
I hope your moral compass will allow you to reject ESCR therapies should you or family need them in the future.
mafarmerga 2 months ago
Completely bias.
edelynm89 3 months ago
@edelynm89 Dear peanut gallery, Thank you for watching. But what, pray tell is so "bias(ed)" about this video? Yes, it presents a point of view you probably haven't heard before, but all the information is biologically and scientifically accurate.
mediaray 3 months ago 2
@mediaray the video only showed the cons of embryonic stem cell research...soo subjective video
emptycl0ud9 3 months ago
@emptycl0ud9 Empty...this is information you won't see anywhere else. ESCR advocates would NEVER give ANY airtime to ASC people--Chrsitopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox are on screen here, as well as statements that ESCR people say supports their claim. The purpose of this film is to reveal what you don't know--that ESCR does not work, and is unethical because it always destroys human life, and perhaps most importantly, people are being helped TODAY with adult stem cells. Thank u for watching1
mediaray 3 months ago 2
@mediaray They can grow stem-cells from skin cells.
SixFootTallMidget 3 months ago
@mediaray check out a website called quackwatch, this shit is just another scam.
Hertsman50 3 months ago
why not use the woman who want to abort there pregnancy? would that be a some what moral? at least baby's wouldn't be massed produced just to be terminated. i don't know just some thoughts. i myself do not believe or approve of abortions either.
r1g8p7 3 months ago
Comment removed
MrFlyersrule1234 3 months ago
@MrFlyersrule1234 Babbling brook...babble, babble, nonsense. What does religion have to do with this? Weird. This is a human rights issue. #2, why not use elderly people in a wheelchair for unproven experiments that kill them IF it can cure diseases and paralysis--you know, like Nazi Germany and Jews and Down Syndrome people? Hmm? (We'll eventually "throw them away" too). #3--indecipherable babbling. #4, you will get a lot of arguments from IVF parents about this...if it's not human, what is it?
mediaray 3 months ago
Are u happy cos the progress of science got delayed? I told you, that is normal.Religion always do it! But soon or later THOUSANDS of ESC will start to be used to help people. It is possible to delay, but not to avoid.
“While stem cells are proving invaluable for research, translating the promising science into new therapies is a slow, painstaking process with many setbacks the field is fraught with political, moral and ethical controversies." Keep believing ur soul theory. u r open-mind.LOL
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic "Happy?" "Science delayed?" You again fail to see the big picture--the patients. The Geron study was financed by taxpayers in California, highly unusual to stop such a trial. Were they discovering that...ESC WON'T work? That they are in fact harmful to patients? This is progress! Human pride finally bumped up against a reality. What I am "happy" about are ASC treatments actually helping spinal cord victims and thousdands of others. If we can help people that is science progress!
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray It doesnt mean anything! to run a car, nowadays gasoline is more efficient than electricity.Should we shut down electric car research?what u saying makes no sense.The soul theory is cos U fail to explain me,why would u possibly think ESC should be considered as a person.they cant feel,think,or be aware.U must be obsessed with some assumption!and I guess it must be the soul thing.If not give some argument.Except for the ESC being a person theory,give another reason to shut down research
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic I wave my magic wand and walla! I've stopped an entire clinical trial of ESC's! Now, for my next trick... I've been giving you the biological and scientific "argument" for the humanity of the embryo since we started this conversationl; citing secular medical embryology textbooks, which prove,beyond any reasonable (or in your case unreasonable) doubt that the human embryo, from the instant of fertilization, continues to develop by a gradual, but uninterrupted process into adulthood.
mediaray 3 months ago
@Asenetic And another reference: “Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.” (O’Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, page eight.). Really, your argument that the human embryo is not human (sorry, I laugh every time I write that) isn't even part of intellegent debate/discussion.
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray you keep saying the same thing!! Cos some books wrote that kind of mistaken definition, it doesnt mean it is the correct one!! Once it was written the earth is a square!! Tell me, WHY you think, except for the ESC being a person theory (or have the potential to become a human) they cant be destroyed? you cant cut off an old tree at some protective areas, however of course eventually u can destroy their seeds, they cant be considered a tree,so u wouldnt go to jail.U fail to argument.
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic "some books?" human embryology medical school textbooks. It's a "theory?" Wow. Okay. This is news to researchers everywhere on all sides. Wadda mean "other than they are a person?" like..."Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" How about--if Geron, the most aggresive ESCR company can't continue a trial with tax money...well dude, you got problems. Plus, I am for progress and science that WORKS in an ethical way--like adult stem cells? BTW your tree theory is, um, creative.
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray Pls,keep the argumentation,dont use pseudo-arguments.So, again, where the definition is written is irrelevant for its correctness,the important thing is the facts and arguments to support the definition.So,give me real arguments or facts.Again,stop to talk about the effectiveness of some scientific field.Its maturity state as a field isnt ground to prohibit the field to exist!The seed/tree FACT,is a creative example,only possible for open-mind people that dont relays on dogmas/believes
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic Your mind is made up, simple biological facts not withstanding. It is not even in dispute among the most vociferous of intelligent ESCR advocates that human life begins in the zygotic stage, the instant of egg and sperm uniting. There is no interruption of development, no "blackout period" where life somehow magically emerges later on. You subjectively assign attributes, characteristics or personal dogma--"thinking" or "soul" or whatever, it doesn't change the biological reality.
mediaray 3 months ago
@Asenetic BTW, what "soul theory" are you talking about? Surely not mine. I don't have one. Your obsession, obsession, obsession with religion in a scientific and bio-ethical issue is an indication of a radical ideological mindset gone even more wild.
mediaray 3 months ago
The destruction of human life will be repeated on a massive scale? I had to stop watching there and go for a more sane point of view.
lolzlol1991 3 months ago
@lolzlol1991 Yes. It is a biological and scientifically accurate fact that you and far too many others find difficult to accept. In fact, it already happens with IVF. There are more than 500,000 embryos in cryofrozen storage, with at least that many "down the drain." If that's not massive...what is it?
mediaray 3 months ago
This video is so misleading and biased. I thought they were going to give the topic serious thought. The video must have been done in the Bush era. The era of deception and patriot act.
Skilbeard 3 months ago 2
@Skilbeard What, pray tell, is "misleading" about this film? Specifics please. Everything presented is biologically and scientifically correct, vetted (reviewed/approved) by PhD-level scientists. Thank you for watching.
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray It's take one side of the debate leading people to think that embryonic stem cells have been equally tested. adult stem cells started being tested since the 1950's maybe longer.
Skilbeard 3 months ago
@Skilbeard That's all you've got? That the number of years of "testing" are not equal? THAT, in your mind, constitutes "misleading and biased?" Okay...pretty low threshold. Never mind the FACTS. ASC's work, without destroying human life, ESC's do not work. There is no mention anywhere about this, just the facts. Speaking of which, please read Washington Post article by Rob Stein about a company "abruptly" halting the first ever human ESC trial. BTW, ESC's have been "tested" for 20 years.
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray U can argue sweet nothings all u want. If China or Russia make the discoveries first you better learn to speak Cninese or Russian. I remember when the Pope et al thought that the Earth was flat and the center of the Universe. You would be destroyed for thinking otherwise. Continue with your happy thoughts until reality sets in.
Skilbeard 3 months ago
@Skilbeard Ваш комментарий глупо и от стены. Russian for: "your comment is silly and off the wall."
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray Sound silly but true. Well at least you started practicing a second language. It coiuld be China that makes the new esc discoveries though.
Skilbeard 3 months ago
The worry for ESC that are not able to born,is a misleading of ethics.ESC are just cells and not a person.(no brain to be considered a person). So in this case we should also be sorry for ALL people who NEVER was even created.Germ cells only meet ONE germ cell, and MOST OF THE CASE ANY.We should feel sorry for ALL the possibilities of humans that will never be created. 15 x 10 (33 times) at one generation.Sorry for ESC that dont born is no sense, just make sense if u believe in the soul theory.
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic Repeating. Cells are cells--not organisms. ESC cells come from living, growing human life at the embryonic stage of development. These human embryos that are always manipulated and destroyed in the process of harvesting the ESC's. The "xx% of embryos never develop into adulthood" has nothing to do with the willful use and destruction of using living human life at the embryonic stage of development in unproven experiments. Why keep bringing the religion/soul element into this? Obsession
mediaray 3 months ago
@Asenetic Geron ESC trial, from the Washington Post: "The announcement Monday was a particular blow to advocates of research into spinal cord injuries and patients suffering from paralysis. The study was testing the treatment on partially paralyzed patients. “I’m disgusted. It makes me sick,” said Daniel Heumann, who is on the board of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. “To get people’s hopes up and then do this for financial reasons is despicable. They’re treating us like lab rats.”
mediaray 3 months ago
Sure, I was aware about it. So I wrote it in the paper, but I needed a reference. I will check it out. Nice sentences! So I will start to make movies to explain these things for non-scientific people. They see this kind of video and cant realize the brain wash it is.
Asenetic 3 months ago
Since upwards of 70% of all naturally (and IVF) conceived embryos contain genetic defects that prevent them from EVER giving rise to a viable human being I certainly see no moral issue with using these genetically compromised embryos.
If God is omnipotent the logical conclusion from this would be that God wants 70% of all human beings to die before they are born.
You and I are in the lucky 30% that made it through gestation. That makes us lucky, not divinely created.
mafarmerga 3 months ago
@mafarmerga Good point!! But I thought it was more than 70%.... btw, do you have the reference for this data? Im writting a scientific paper about aging and I talked a little bit about it, but no reference yet. Thanks!
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic
As a starting point you can look up information about miscarriages on ww w(do t)babycenter(do t)com
The data I have seen suggests that about 50% of blastocysts fail to implant and that about 30% of implanted embryos (i.e. another 15% of total) spontaneously abort in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Another 5% miscarry after 12 weeks.
50% + 15% + 5% is how I came up with the 70% of total pregnancy failures figure.
mafarmerga 3 months ago
@Asenetic
I tell students that it is true that:
"Life begins at conception. But conception only rarely leads to life."
Feel free to use the quote or write to me directly.
mafarmerga 3 months ago
@mafarmerga WOW!! great!! thanks!
Asenetic 3 months ago
@mafarmerga My son Billy, Down Syndrome and autism, was once a "genetically compromised" embryo. He's now 15 years old.
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray
I know that, you also know that I am NOT talking about non-fatal genetic defects.
Chromosome 21 trisomy (Down syndrome) along with trisomy of the sex chromosomes (Klinefelter's syndrome) are the only two trisomies that can give rise to a self-aware human being. Trisomy 16 occurs in 1% of all pregnancies and always results in a first trimester miscarriage. All other trisomies have similar fatal outcomes, yet we CAN make viable ESC lines from them.
No humans are ever harmed.
mafarmerga 3 months ago
People, what Im saying is: the only barrier to prohibit Embryonic Stem Cell Research is cos some people consider them to have soul. However, ESC is not a person, they cant be self-aware, think or feel (no Brain).Cockroach feel and is MUCH more self-aware than these cells.Therefore,the true decision here is: Do you believe these cells are a person or not? If you consider them to have soul.Ok delay the progress of science as always have been done by unfounded believes.If not, please, support ESCR.
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic People, all I am saying is that many in this discussion simply cannot bring themselves to be intellectually honest--Asenetic is one such example. This person is in fact one of the best arguments regarding the radical, unyielding ideology typical of the far Left in regards to this debate. If you follow the discussion, you will see that Asenetic continually and obsessively misquotes, assumes, imposes and attributes to me any number of points that I have not or ever made.
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray LOL!First at all,now I just point out the best way to take a decision in this subject.Independently of ours previous discussion.2)Maybe I was confused because you NEVER answer my simple questions properly.Lets be fair?You answer my questions and I answer any of your questions.Do you believe ESCs have soul?Do you believe a group of ESCs is a person even without a brain?If so, where is his/her mind/soul,in which of the cells?If your answers are"no"for both questions:Where is the problem?
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic LOL (just like using caps...you know, you listen better). Do ESC's have a soul? Can I answer honestly, again, I do not know. And again, it is not germain to the question of protection of human embryos as it is a question of religion and not science. Do I believe a group of ESC's is a person, even without a brain? Um, again NO. ESC's are CELLS harvested from living, growing human life ALWAYS destroyed in the process. The cells r unethically harvested--hence, the problem. HEAR ME NOW?
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray Ok,So you dont know if embryo have or havent soul.I assume that means u believe it COULD have a soul, right?So,assuming u realize there is no space for souls.And u also said u dont believe ESCs are a person.Therefore,they arent self-aware or think or feel.They are cells like any other cells.Actually less than any other cell.Any differentiated cells can be recognize(eg lymphocyte,neuron)ESC cant.So,they are just cells,Why is it unethical to separate them for research and treatments?
Asenetic 3 months ago
@hellvilla Thank you for watching...and your wonderfully insightful comments! (-:
mediaray 3 months ago
stem cell research cures paralyzed, diseased, and dying people by taking cells from a in-vitro fertilized zygote, in a petri dish, or as the conservatives call it: a baby, they are wrong because these cells are stored in the freezer, you cant store a baby in the freezer!
cityofchamps2008 3 months ago
@cityofchamps2008 Step back from your PC and stop commenting with mindless blather...or at least get informed before you attempt a comment. BTW, embryonic stem cell research has STILL not cured anyone of anything. ADULT stem cells are helping treat thousands of people with dozens of diseases and conditions.
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray What cityofchamps2008 said is true!! (for animal models tough) But so what? we must improve our knowledge to be able to apply ESC to humans! still, adult SC and iPS cells arent able to perform as good and as easy as ESC, besides nuclear transfer technique is the most potential good, but without research it will be difficult to use them! It will take much more time (but will be done anyway). Non-scientific argument had never prevail in a long run... and it never will. lost battle.
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic Here's an idea, let's start experiments (like the Nazis) on those who cannot defend themselves--the very young (embryos) or the very weak (your grandma and grandpa). Oh wait, this is a "non-scientific" argument...never mind!
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray The experiments already started!!! Trials analyzing ESC in humans have been shown to be great in the preliminary results. AND YES! yours arguments arent scientific arguments because ES CELLS!! are cells!!! They dont have brain, they arent human! Stop to think about they have soul!!!! IT ISNT SCIENTIFIC!!! It is your culture!! stop to delay science like 400 years ago.... PLEASE!!!!!
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic Dude...LOVE THE CAPS>>>NOW I HEAR YOU! (-:
My culture? IDK what you're talking about. All of my arguemnts are from a biological and human rights viewpoint...as you struggle to make your arguments, you scream and yell. Yes, the experiments have already started. "Great" results? Really? Oh, I know, it's "preliminary." Okay. I am trying to advance science by directing public sentiment, knowledge and money to research that is ethical and effective. Did you check out Dr. Burt?
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray LOL! sorry about CAPS! The point here is about the "ethics" of ESCR,and not about if others therapies are better. For a scientific point of view (without the preconceptions of culture and religion), there is NO reason to dismiss ESCR. Some cultures worship cows, others worship thunders. Some prohibit blood transfusion,others prohibit eat pig.But any culture should have the rights to include their believes under the law.Why not?Cos there isnt scientific evidence to support them! Simple!
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic You are correct, without ethics, and from strictly a scientific viewpoint, there is no reason to "dismiss" ESCR. Without ethics, from a strictly scientific viewpoint, there is no reason to "dismiss" strip mining, unjust wars, oppression, exploitation of human labor, and much more. Stop lights for me? The science of physics say if I drive 90 mph I will get to my destination faster...this is scientifically proven! A world without boundaries--ethics--is chaotic and abusive to the weak.
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray Driving faster makes you arrive faster! In several highways in Germany it wouldnt be a problem by law!Besides,the accidents rate are very low. It isnt the speed that causes accidents,but the poor educational system! The preconception of "speed causes accidents" only comfort people! They blame others for the accident! So there is nothing to be done, just pray and wait for everybody follows the law (useless). Correct ethics, only can be done without preconceptions, believes or culture.
Asenetic 3 months ago
@mediaray 1. I'm on a Mac 2. I bet I am more mindful or informed than you as a biology major at Northwestern University 3. My best friend's little brother was diagnosed with Spinal Muscular Atrophy at the age of 8 months, they have been told by numerous educated doctors at Boston Children's Hospital that with the cells from human embryos, he could be able to walk some day, but i guess those embryos are better off being thrown away after they are not used (which is what they currently do).
cityofchamps2008 3 months ago
@cityofchamps2008 Dr. Richard Burt of Northwestern is a world-reknown expert in ADULT stem cell therapies. BTW, MANY so-called "educated doctors" have been, for many years now, hyping ESC therapies. If you read their comments, you will see a steady backtrack from promises of "cures" to "we can learn more..." and most say outright that the complexity of the human embryo makes the problem of rouge tumors too much to ovecome. The barbaric practice of "excess" embryo production must stop.
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray All I'm saying is that it is perfectly ethical for doctors to experiment with excess embryos if there is even the slightest potential that they can cure paralysis, there is nothing wrong with putting embryos to use that are going to be thrown away otherwise.
cityofchamps2008 3 months ago 5
@mediaray IT isnt TRUE!!! maybe some of them are concerned about the tumor thing... But OF COURSE no scientist would say it would be impossible to be over-come... If more research can be done... them of course we would over-come any problem... as always we did. IT is just about time and more research. Besides at the same time, more researchers start to propose more research for ESC.
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic My primary objection to ESC's is that it is barbaric and unethical to use living, growing human lives in unproven experiments just because some scientists think they might, maybe, someday help in some way understand, learn more or possibly, like 6 degrees removed, help with treatment or cure, especially when researchers like Richard Burt of Northwestern has consistently and remarkably shown that ASC's offer much more potential now and for the future.
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray I know him. (Im a SC researcher). And what you are saying is confused. ASC, yes are great. However they cant cure several diseases even in animal models. Their potential as well as iPSC are limited. The argument here should be about other therapies and ONLY about if we should study or not ESC. The point is, there is NO scientific argument against the use of ESC, therefore, based in what, people are trying to delay it? Culture? Religion? Base on what? that is the question here. Why not?
Asenetic 3 months ago
@mediarayOf course ESC didnt cure anybody, cos the research is getting slow (cos unfounded ethics)Adult SC is good, but as in animal models and humans, they have limitations, basically they improve just a little bit or delay the disease. As seem in animals model, ESC promises to enhance the therapy and cure diseases not only delay them. Fight against it is deliberately try to delay science, as it was always done by church. Remember delay isnt stop it, the 1st human trial already started at 2009.
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic I am opossed to, and fight each day against racism, poverty, hunger, war and other injustices against the human person as a result of my "culture" that is founded in my Catholic faith. You are obsessed with religion, although it has not been injected into this argument (except by you). Please read: "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization," NY Times best-seller, on scientific, legal, architectural and other MAJOR contributions were the result of the Catholic Church.
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray it forgets to mention that catholic priests are the leading molesters of little boys, and covering it up. The catholic church was devoted to suppressing the discoveries in architecture, law, and science that shaped western civilization, they brought Galileo to trail for having the nerve to say the planets revolve around the sun. Such discoveries were a result of the enlightenment, and the renaissance, an era inspired by questioning the catholic faith. Your bias book is misinformed.
cityofchamps2008 3 months ago
@cityofchamps2008 WOW, I didnt have the energy to reply that stupid argument about "shaped western civilization" THANKS! to add information here: Every single big war was created by western civilization blessed by church. Long-term (2000 years) slaves were also blessed by church. Homicides of every single person that dared to confront the church. Darwin took more than 30 years to write his book cos fear of church. Yes, church shaped civilization DELAYING IT! Now people keep doing the same!
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic You forgot about the evil establishment and promotion of a number of other "stupid" things we have in Western Civilization today thanks to the Catholic Church--universities, schools, medical schools, hospitals, hospices, laws, soup kitchens, AIDS healthcare, feeding the poor in 3rd world countries, astronomy, international law and much more. I'll tell you what. Go to amazon online, look up this book and read the first few pages and see what you think...
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray I dont need to read the book, I fight against religions and dogmas since I was 14yo. How cant you see they delay science? Church created universities? schools? hospitals? laws? etc...? Cant you see they did all of this to manipulate and control people. They did it to make MORE money. They use it for show goodness... give soup? LOL!! They receive thousand of dollars very day, them INVEST the money to build business. What is difficult to understand? How about the soul thing? yes or no?
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic I now understand your thinking much better, it goes like this: "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with new facts." Your obsession with religion is...silly. I am happy to answer your question about "soul," but please, how do you define "soul?" And what, pray tell does that have to do with the price of beans in China or the biological reality that an embryo is human life at the embryonic stage of development? I keep trying to debate this on a human rights, biology and science.
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray Yes,keep delaying science! thanks for that! Im not obsessed with religion. YOU that didnt give me any scientific argument to support the claim that ESC are in fact human life.My only theory is that you are an extremely religious guy and therefore try to protect embryos to avoid their souls going to purgatory.Soul-what ever is the "energy" that is immortal and exist from the time of conception-YesOr No?Besides that I cant see why you think ESC are human life.Strange if u cant answer it.
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic OMG. And you are a biology student? From Oxford Journal: A human embryo is a discrete entity that has arisen from either: i.the first mitotic division when fertilization of a human oocyte by a human sperm is complete or...
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray Im a researcher already (SCR). AND I know that!! A human embryo is a human embryo. It doesnt mean it is a human! The sentence didnt say: "A HUMAN is formed from either: i.the first mitotic division when fertilization .... is complete or..." BTW: or... what? Anyway it just describes what is a human embryo and not a human! CAN YOU ANSWER ME IF YOU BELIEVE EMBRYOS HAVE SOUL?!?! That is the central point here! If you say yes, we need to discuss in a different level. Simple: YES OR NO?!?!?!
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic More secular sources: "The development of a human begins with conception" (LangmansMedicalEmbryology); "the time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual" Pattens Foundation of Embryology); "the [zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg cell] and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being" (TheDeveloping Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology). Oh, your religious soul question...
mediaray 3 months ago
@Asenetic Soul question...answer #1: YES (loves those caps dude!). And it doesn't matter, it is a question of those obsessed with religion and has nothing to do with science and biology or human rights.
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray Why you say Im obsessed with religion? The only reason to prohibit the use of cells for research is if these cells are human embryonic or embryonic-like cells. Let me clarify the main point. Ok, they are human derived, but they ARENT A PERSON. These cells CANT be a person, cos a person must have a brain to think and/or be self-aware and/or feel. Prohibit ESC use, but allow animals experiments are FAR more cruel. A cockroach, feel and is much more self-aware than ESCs. Is it wrong?
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic Soul question...answer #2: No!!!! (FOUR EXCLAMATION POINTS AND CAPS!!!). And it doesn't matter, as this is a question of religion and is not germain to the ethical considerations of ESCR.
mediaray 3 months ago
@Asenetic "A human embryo is a human embryo. It doesn't mean it is human!" Wow. OMG (like the caps?) Get your tuition momey back dude...if human embryos are not human (sorry, I gotta laugh just writing that), then what are they? Butterflys? Worms? Goats? If they aren't human, then why do ESCR people want them, to treat rats? If they aren't human. what good does the research do? Please, at least be intellectually honest...if you won't acknowledge basic biology, what is the point of discusssion?
mediaray 3 months ago
@Asenetic or ii.any other process that initiates organized development of a biological entity with a human nuclear genome or altered human nuclear genome that has the potential to develop up to, or beyond, the stage at which the primitive streak appears, and has not yet reached 8 weeks of development since the first mitotic division.
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray " has not yet reached 8 weeks of development since the first mitotic division." Did you understand it?
Asenetic 3 months ago
@Asenetic Yes. In layman's terms (that's me), "miotic division" is the continuing process of cell division that allows an organism--the human embryo--to grow and develop.
mediaray 3 months ago
@Asenetic BTW, I NEVER said ESC's were human life. ESC's are harvested from living, growing human life at the embryonic stage of development. It is an organism, which, by biological definition, is alive and growing. If it's not human life (as you apparently maintain), what is it? (Yikes! Bio 101). For your "soul" question, I don't know--and more importantly, it is a religious question that doesn't matter in regards to using living, growing, unique human life in unproven ESCR experiments.
mediaray 3 months ago
@Asenetic Herein lies the problem with this debate. Through your stubborm, willful ignorance, you will not acknowledge the biological reality of the human embryo. You seek to inject anti-Catholic bigotry, the question of ensoulment, and anything OTHER than the scientific reality. I would respect and understand your position if you said: "Yes, I can see it is human life, obviously nothing but that, it's just that I do not wish to assign the status of dignity or legal protection because..."
mediaray 3 months ago
@Asenetic You keep saying ESC's are human life, as if I say that. I do not, and have not ever said that. What I say is that ESC's are derived from human life at the embryonic stage of development as described by dozens upon dozens of secular-based embryology medical school textbooks. That you argue this point is silly, as all ESCR scientists recognize this and don't even argue the point. YOU are the one who obsessivley and continulally brings up "soul," which is not a point that I make at all.
mediaray 3 months ago
@mediaray um actually the "church" did not have much influence that can be considered good like those you said. it was actually them who for years did the opposite of those things you listed. they (mostly during the dark ages and before) who were against surgery (any ( they basically said it was the dark arts, and they actually said it was heresy)) only now support anything good. they said believe in god, leave it to god.
calvinvanle 3 months ago