After 6 months of offering stem cell therapy in combination with the venous angioplasty liberation procedure, patients of CCSVI Clinic have reported excellent health outcomes. Ms. Kasma Gianopoulos of Athens Greece, who was diagnosed with the Relapsing/Remitting form of MS in 1997 called the combination of treatments a “cure”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
“I feel I am completely cured” says Ms. Gianopoulos, “my symptoms have disappeared and I have a recovery of many functions, notably my balance and my muscle strength is all coming (back). Even after six months, I feel like there are good changes happening almost every day. Before, my biggest fear was that the changes wouldn’t (hold). I don’t even worry about having a relapse anymore”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
A group of Canadian patients just back from Noble have reported similar results. “I can actually see what I thought were long-dead muscles forming in my feet” said Larry Vermeersch of Kenora, Ontario. “My balance is back and I’m walking without a cane. I’m a pretty hard guy to convince, but getting these two procedures together has made me a believer. I’m looking forward to the physio ahead because I can feel everything coming back.” Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
A universal benefit reported by every patient has been the recovery of bladder control. Most MS patients have various bladder control symptoms that include urinary urgency, incontinence, nocturia, or urinary hesitancy as a result of the disruption of electrical impulses from the brain to the nerves and muscles that are involved in emptying the bladder (pudenal nerve, urethral sphincter, detrusor muscle). Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Other recent MS patients who have had Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT), or stem cell therapy have posted videos and comments on YouTube v=jFQr2eqm3Cg. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Dr.Avneesh Gupte, the Neurosurgeon at Noble Hospital performing the procedure has been encouraged by results in Cerebral Palsy patients as well. “We are fortunate to be able to offer the treatment because not every hospital is able to perform these types of transplants.You must have the specialized medical equipment and specially trained doctors and nurses”. Log on to ccsviclinic.ca for more information.
With regard to MS patients, “We are cautious, but nevertheless excited by what patients are telling us. Suffice to say that the few patients who have had the therapy through us are noticing recovery of neuro deficits beyond what the venous angioplasty alone should account for”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Dr. Hemangi of Noble continues: “These are early days and certainly all evidence that the combination of liberation and stem cell therapies working together at this point is anecdotal. However I am not aware of other medical facilities in the world that offer the synthesis of both to MS patients on an approved basis and it is indeed a rare opportunity for MS patients to take advantage of a treatment that is quite possibly unique in the world”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Autologous stem cell transplantation is a procedure by which blood-forming stem cells are removed, and later injected back into the patient. All stem cells are taken from the patient themselves and cultured for later injection. In the case of a bone marrow transplant, the HSC are typically removed from the Pelvis through a large needle that can reach into the bone. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
The technique is referred to as a bone marrow harvest and is performed under a general anesthesia. The incidence of patients experiencing rejection is rare due to the donor and recipient being the same individual. This remains the only approved method of the SCT therapy. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
You do NOT have to be religious to think it is wrong. Im not religious and i dont care for it. You try to show how enlightened you are when it is YOU who is the ignorant one.
An embryo is, without question, a living being. It is, without question, a human organism. Any embryology textbook will tell you that, and honestly, a high school biology class should give you enough information to deduce that for yourself.
The philosophical question about whether an embryo has rights, and if so, which rights, remains a question for discussion, but there's really not much of a scientific question here.
Let's see.... killing the unborn because we sleep with total strangers and then get pregnant,and don't want that living being inside to screw up our future so we kill it. And then the dead fetus gets to be used for stem cell research. Two great ideas,compliments of our lunatic Left.
@mcap52 'Lunatic left' must have published this too (using 'lunatic left' mathematics no doubt):
"Legal restrictions on safe abortion do not reduce the incidence of abortion. A woman's likelihood to have an abortion is about the same whether she lives in a region where abortion is available on request or where it is highly restricted."
Unsafe abortion: global and regional incidence, trends, consequences, and challenges.
I do NOT think they should get any funding from government. Keep in mind that the research is not illegal, it is just unfunded. If it was really that promising, why don't the multi-billion dollar drug companies pay for it? The FACT is that there is no proof that this research will lead to anything that can't also be gotten from other types of stem cells. Nobody knows when life really begins, so we must assume that it starts as early as possible or we are murdering innocent lives.
@meofcourse77 Thanks for your opinion on the matter. Researchers argue that they must explore all options, including embryonic stem cell research, in the name of science. They can only rule it out once its been proven to not have any other advantage over other types of stem cells. Please visit the Qwanz poll to place your vote and continue the conversations. Thanks!
@meofcourse77 Your argument about drug companies taking over is so greatly misguided. Case in point: drug companies would rather make new erectile dysfunction medications than spend money mass producing current next generation antibiotics WHICH ARE PROVEN TO SAVE LIVES.
It might be worth noting that ESC's current power lies in their ability to model ANY disease with genetic component in HUMAN tissue. This is not the type of research that pharmaceutical companies do.
@videorprologic granted that this may not be drug companies cup of tea, so let insurance industry pay for it. If it is going to "cure" people, then the insurance companies would have an interest in it's development. Why saddle the taxpayer with this?
Keep in mind that I said "fund" it. I didn't really expect drug companies to do the actual research. I agree that the all mighty dollar is what fuels drug companies. You really don't think drug companies will benefit from this research?
@meofcourse77 The bottom line for drug companies and insurance agencies alike is that they have the attention span of a 4 year-old; the immediate payout avenues get the investment. ESC research WILL lead to the ability to differentiate tissue in vitro, the current problem is that we need to learn how to do this (likely the most complex research project of the current century).
Seemingly, the only investor willing to pay in and wait 15-20 years for the payout is the government.
@meofcourse77 You should consider how ignorant you look when you say "we shouldn't research something because it's not proven."
If you are willing to go a little deeper, you might find interesting to know that science never "proves" things (you've confused the idea of "evidence which VALIDATES a hypothesis'). Actually, we can only ever disprove things (evidence never proves a hypothesis, but it sure can disprove one).
Admittedly this is a very "Karl Popper" heavy view.
@videorprologic Well, you should read my post a little closer. The discussion is about funding with taxpayer money, even though I am morally opposed to it as well. I said we shouldn't research it because others that have studied it, said that it is no more promising than other types of stem cells that do NOT involve an embryo.
Drug co. should fund it, but most drug co. are not interested in cures anyway. No money in it. Remember when taking drug for the rest of your life was Odd?
@meofcourse77 Are you really pushing your "ignorance of how science works" as an argument? Really, do you know what the word "research" means? Any scientist who says that "ESCs are no more promising than ASCs" is either a) lying outright, or b) painfully ignorant. There IS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO SAY THAT - and modern developmental biology predicts the EXACT opposite.
This is honestly why I hate politics - it has turned this unmistakably promising frontier of science into a freaking rodeo.
@videorprologic Ok, it is not so much a political issue for most, but a moral one. I know how science works. I am not arguing that this would be worse, but WHO FUNDS IT. I am a tax payer. I have a moral problem with this procedure and I don't want my tax $ paying for something that I feel is morally wrong. Where does it stop? Is cloning to harvest spare parts ok with you? You don't have to agree with my point, but I hope you at least try to understand it.
@meofcourse77 My major issue with your stance that is you never earned the right to make such a "moral judgment." I will spend more than 2 decades aggressively LEARNING this modern biology before I will be ALLOWED to BEG people for money to fund my research.
All you do is say "this is what I think." No background, no contextual appreciation, no understanding of the cell. You validate your thinking by saying, "my lack of perspective on what the research is doesn't matter."
@meofcourse77 Then to those who devote their lives to the cause of lessening the biological burdens on society, you say "you know nothing of morality." You really epitomize hubris.
What my perspective gives me is outrage when someone like you says that humans carry the moral weight of an undifferentiated cell. You might be curious to know that in development such cells are killed of to make the final human.
@meofcourse77 Cloning real live people to harvest their parts is not comparable because stem cell research doesn't use a real live person to experiment on. When was the last time a stem cell or embryo started crying because of there mistreatment?
@jjason55740 So, crying is the test to see if it's is alive? My point was that Cloning or something else could be the next step. I wasn't really comparing them other than to say that you take something that some consider "alive" and kill it to benefit others. Morally, can you tell me that the embryo does not have a soul? My point is that nobody can, and considering that NOBODY can say one way or another, we must err on the side of life. If you have no faith, it is not a moral issue.
@meofcourse77 Yes you could also make the same case for eating meat. If we allow people to eat meat then people might want to eat other people. This is just paranoia. Chances are some mad scientist will clone a human and perform grotesque experiments on the poor child but this isn't a reason to stop medical research since we can still derive medical knowledge that will one day save millions of lives and in the long run of human history billions of lives.
@meofcourse77As far a stem cell and an embryo go these are not living beings with feelings or egos. The human ego and ability to percieve self happen at different times after birt and not prior. Embyos do not have feelings because they lack basic brain actvity required to be self concouse. An embyo is no more of a person than a male sperm cell or a brain cell. As far as religion go it's irelevent because if the bible was met to be a medical book it would have surgical procedures and cures
@meofcourse77 Yes well with your mode of reasoning i could suppose we should stop technology from advancing because with all this technology now you won't be able to have privacy because there are voice recorders on almost all cell phones and the internet is used by pedophile predators , and text messaging causes auto accidents and computers and video games increase child hood obesity. See what i mean? People might abuse science and technology but thats no reason to not promote technology.
@jjason55740 This is what your NOT understanding. I believe the embryos are LIFE. Nobody has the "right" to take that life in the name of science. You can't prove it is NOT life, just that it can't survive outside the host. I don't care how many lives you THINK this will save, if you kill one life, it is NOT moral.
Look, supporters say it is promising with no proof.
non-supporters thinks it is similar to Hitler's exploits.
You will not change my mind and I am unlikely to change yours.
@meofcourse77 I'm sure you believe that embyos are living beings but you fail to realize that your belief that embyos are real live people doesn't mean they are in fact real live people. I could make the same arguement also that i believe the sun revolves around the earth like the religious people like yourself did back in the dark ages but my beliefs aren't proof of anything. Religious conviction is not an excuse to not be reasonable. Science trancends beliefs with evidence.
@jjason55740 So your saying that it is "reasonable" means I should allow my tax $ to kill what I feel is a being, because you say so. Yet you have not said anything to sway my belief that they are more than "goo".
You also are assuming much on my view of science. If something can be proved, fine. Prove that the embryo is not life and I will stand with you. You can't because you don't believe there is a soul.
As with videlprologic, I am stepping out of this debate as we are stalemated.
@meofcourse77 There would be no point in saying anything to convince you because you said so yourself that you wouldn't care about scientfic input because you just believe embyos are live beings because of your religion. Some people's religion says killing animals for food is wrong or that wearing a certian color but those beliefs aren't scientfic or based on any logic. Better yet can your deity provide scientfic evidence the emryo is a living being? NOPE.
@meofcourse77 The embyo is life but it is not a self concious being. The embryo has been proven to lack the brain actvity required for a self concous ego.But the people who made up your religion didn't know anything about that because there wasn't any nuraology or science for that matter.These guys use to believe demons caused disease but do you know of any doctor that cures illness with excorcism? NOPE Religion is a sorry excuse for people to be intectually lazy and smug at the same time.
@videorprologic Also, you said that this is a "unmistakably promising frontier" in one post and said that we will have to "wait 15-20 years for the payout". Please, tell me how you know it is "unmistakably promising" if we won't know the payout for 15-20 years. Is it your subconscious zeal to side any science that conflicts with the moral judgment of the conscientious? Are you absolutely sure that life does not exist in the "blobs" you would be sacrificing for this "prediction"?
"Please, tell me how you know it is "unmistakably promising" if we won't know the payout for 15-20 years."
Because we've been doing this EXACT work with mouse ESC (in mice) for almost 30 years. Unfortunately, human developmental circuitry has diverged significantly from mice. I estimated the translation to human systems to take about 15-20 years (IF FUNDED AGGRESSIVELY).
"...subconscious zeal..." are you trying to insult my integrity? It ONLY cheapens your other arguments.
@videorprologic ok, we have cloned sheep, should we start on humans next? Even if it shows promise for some, at what cost would we do it? How can you say that the "undifferentiated cell" does not have a soul? Are you God? Keep in mind that I also have a problem with how these embryos were created in the first place, so any embryos that were killed in the process would be just as tragic. Having the knowledge to do something does not necessarily mean you should do it.
@meofcourse77 I'm not saying having the knowledge gives someone moral authority to apply it. What I am saying is that having the knowledge makes the morality question much more complex than you ASSUME. This knowledge clearly shows that ONLY technological limitations keep us from engineering artificial biological life (just recently done). Were this to happen and the life was in ALL other respects a person, would morals not apply to it?
@videorprologic This is simple. Most Christians, as well as other beliefs, believe that life begins at conception. I am not sure if your "biological life" would have a soul. But, if the biological lives that you are killing to do your research do have a soul, you are murdering innocent lives. You don't believe that, I understand.
All I am saying is that I do believe it and I don't want my tax money spent on murder. We will have to stand before God on this. How will you be judged?
@meofcourse77 Of course you don't realize that you have just admitted that there is no objective truth in saying people have "souls."
The concept of the 'soul' is of course something which emerged from ancient western cultures (note, Buddhists deny the existence of a soul) to explain 'the characteristic' of man. Similar explanations coming from these times include "disease as demons" and "lightning as enraged gods."
@meofcourse77 NONE of these ancient characterizations have any relevance to the real world. Today, microbiology and climatology have easily digestible explanations for disease and lightning. Unfortunately, neuropsychology (perhaps the single most complex science I have every been exposed to) is not so easily digestible. My point is that the 'soul' is an obsolete and horribly simplistic form of what we now understand through neuropsychology.
@meofcourse77 It will be easy for you to not believe the above because belief is not a matter of objectivity for you (as you have explained to me). Thus, your position is the empirical equivalent of those who protest vaccines (they don't want their tax money spent on research either).
I will acknowledge my wrong if you watch Dr. Ehrman's (a Bible scholar) videos of the "Misquoting Jesus, Stanford Lecture, How Bible Got Tainted" lecture, and then critique my logic from above.
@meofcourse77 I don't have the capacity to believe without evidence. For this, and this alone (I study HIV - NOT embryonic stem cells), your god will judge me as deserving eternal torture. It doesn't matter if I am unwaveringly selfless with my life or pathetically narcissistic and misanthropic; the same judgment awaits.
Reflecting back to my childhood, this observation opened my eyes to the xenophobically slanted morals of the beliefs I was raised to hold.
@meofcourse77 Again, you seem to have changed the argument and distracted me from my original critique. You CAN NOT with integrity say this "Even if it shows promise for some..." Stand on your argument's merits and argue the morality. Whether it is efficacious or not does not change the morality.
I am sick of having to listen to such willfully ignorant displays of authority. And even if you don't realize it, such is the rhetoric of deceit.
@videorprologic Again, it is a matter of faith, which you lack. The one question that neither of you have answered is, "How do you know the embryo isn't 'life'?"
From your post, I am gathering that your position is that you are ok with killing what could be a life to POSSIBLY save or improve another life, and you think that is ok.
We are going around in circles, so this will be my last word, respond if you wish. I won't be reading it.
@meofcourse77 You go out on a strawman, as I never said or even implied "an embryo is not life." I simply said it's moral value is not as clear as you make it. In in the face this complexity, which you must by now know surely realize, you still arrogantly display hubris. Clearly without objective claims to make, you are at best an ignorant demagogue.
@meofcourse77 I frequently opened the door (explicitly) to counterargument, even saying where my basic logic came from and yet you still attacked ME (not my arguments) saying "It's a matter of faith (or, substitute 'morality') which you clearly lack." These are the type of claims that can't be justified and appeal to people who are comfortable with unsubstantiated claims. Every time in history people stop caring about checking their leaders logic, tyrants seize and entrench power.
@meofcourse77 I truly believe that if you with an honest and open mind read my posts you would see what I am saying, even if you don't accept it. I put a lot of effort into making a logically coherent argument, but I am not perfect and there are definitely areas of weakness (I am actually here to work those out).
Your only fall back has been that of "faith," and so I ask, with only faith how will you ever know you are being deceived? Of course the answer is reasoning. Please, meditate on this.
@videorprologic I mean, consider what the world would be like without nuclear weaponry. I grew up in the 60's, our school had a bomb shelter. I understand that science does not recognize the existence of a soul, so this is where there will always be a conflict. I am not questioning the science so much as the morality.
Also, considering that you first questioned my integrity, by your standard, how cheap is YOUR argument?
@meofcourse77 Show some integrity and quit dodging my critique.
To be unquestionably clear, your original point was: "If it was really that promising, why don't the multi-billion dollar drug companies pay for it?" I showed you why this is flawed reasoning. You had also said that there is "there is no proof" for the validity of ESC research and I explained this is simply a poor understanding of how science works. You have yet to present an single objective leg to stand on.
@videorprologic the problem is, you have not answered anything. Just more drivel about how promising it is, yet not explaining why someone with a lot of money would not jump at the chance to get in on the ground floor. My legs are built on faith, a concept you can't understand, obviously. I guess you will have to wait on the government to fund your "legs to stand on"
@meofcourse77 "My legs are built on faith, a concept you can't understand, obviously."
Yeah, I have a hard time understanding your pride in this. I make my living by showing, then communicating why I believe things. You say "my ideas are too good to need explaining" (explanation = communication). That's faith; the belief in something that can NOT be objectively validated.
That's not something to be proud of, unless you consciously want to justify an addiction (the opiate mentality).
@meofcourse77 Good point I never thought of it that way. Drug companies probably do pay for research but they have a conflict of interest because cancer treatment is probably just as profitable if not more profitable than an actual cure or preventative treatment and in the world of capitalism profits go ahead of anything thats more costly even when an actual cure is what cost more.
@jjason55740 Well, that is what is wrong with drug companies now. Drugs everywhere that you take for the rest of your life...insuring that drug companies get money from you for the rest of your life. It is more lucrative for you to be "like cured" as long as you stay on the drug, rather than to work on an actual cure. 30 years ago, it was unusual for a person to be on a drug for the rest of their life.
@jjason55740 Ask a doctor what causes your bp to be high. They will say stress, weight, etc., but in most cases...they don't know. Why do you think they have to keep trying different doses or changing your BP medicine? Why don't they treat the cause and not the symptom. Follow the money.
They change different doses to see what works best. Do you think 200 years ago that a doctor would have any medicine to treat bp?
I'm on blood pressure medicine and it's working fine. Research is the only way to learn new forms of treatment and prevention. Stem cells do not have rights of any kind and they are living breathing beings.
"The researchers fused adult skin cells with embryonic stem cells in such a way that the genes of the embryonic cells reset the genetic clock of the adult cells, turning them back to their embryonic form.
Such adult-cum-embryo cells, taken from people with juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and other genetic diseases, could reveal how such diseases develop and provide novel treatment for them."
This can only be done with the use of embryonic stem cells.
i think if some reaserch has the potencial to save reallives that are here right now strugling the government has an obligation to fund it. this is just anothere way religion is getting into polotics and its doing nothing but slowing down progress
Clever researchers, and clever lawyers will figure a way around this. There's too much at stake in terms of cures for whole classes of diseases to be thwarted by the misplaced morality of protecting "the sanctity of human life"... as embodied by genetic materials otherwise fated to be discarded.
@voyeurdug Thanks for your thoughts! How do you feel about the Dickey-Wicker amendment though? The law that states that Federal Funding for any destruction of embryos is prohibited.
@mcap52 You seriously should think about the moral implications of equating a cell with a human being. I tend to think that humans have value beyond the simple the 'sum of their cells' - but hey, I sit around and ponder cell biology all day. Also, consider the difference between what something is and what it will become. For instance, it may be a carrot now, but after I eat it it will form the molecular basis for my sight. Does that mean carrots can see?
@CmdrSloanne How do you feel about the moral issue surrounding the topic? Also, please don't forget to check out the Qwanz poll to find out what our users think. Cheers!
@Qwanzonline Moral issues are for hypocrites.when your sick & specially when your one of this Self righteous Politicians or preachers,etc... the first thing they do is go or take their sick relatives to be cure no matter what. have a good week love your web series.
This has been flagged as spam show
After 6 months of offering stem cell therapy in combination with the venous angioplasty liberation procedure, patients of CCSVI Clinic have reported excellent health outcomes. Ms. Kasma Gianopoulos of Athens Greece, who was diagnosed with the Relapsing/Remitting form of MS in 1997 called the combination of treatments a “cure”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“I feel I am completely cured” says Ms. Gianopoulos, “my symptoms have disappeared and I have a recovery of many functions, notably my balance and my muscle strength is all coming (back). Even after six months, I feel like there are good changes happening almost every day. Before, my biggest fear was that the changes wouldn’t (hold). I don’t even worry about having a relapse anymore”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
A group of Canadian patients just back from Noble have reported similar results. “I can actually see what I thought were long-dead muscles forming in my feet” said Larry Vermeersch of Kenora, Ontario. “My balance is back and I’m walking without a cane. I’m a pretty hard guy to convince, but getting these two procedures together has made me a believer. I’m looking forward to the physio ahead because I can feel everything coming back.” Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A universal benefit reported by every patient has been the recovery of bladder control. Most MS patients have various bladder control symptoms that include urinary urgency, incontinence, nocturia, or urinary hesitancy as a result of the disruption of electrical impulses from the brain to the nerves and muscles that are involved in emptying the bladder (pudenal nerve, urethral sphincter, detrusor muscle). Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Other recent MS patients who have had Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT), or stem cell therapy have posted videos and comments on YouTube v=jFQr2eqm3Cg. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr.Avneesh Gupte, the Neurosurgeon at Noble Hospital performing the procedure has been encouraged by results in Cerebral Palsy patients as well. “We are fortunate to be able to offer the treatment because not every hospital is able to perform these types of transplants.You must have the specialized medical equipment and specially trained doctors and nurses”. Log on to ccsviclinic.ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
With regard to MS patients, “We are cautious, but nevertheless excited by what patients are telling us. Suffice to say that the few patients who have had the therapy through us are noticing recovery of neuro deficits beyond what the venous angioplasty alone should account for”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
Dr. Hemangi of Noble continues: “These are early days and certainly all evidence that the combination of liberation and stem cell therapies working together at this point is anecdotal. However I am not aware of other medical facilities in the world that offer the synthesis of both to MS patients on an approved basis and it is indeed a rare opportunity for MS patients to take advantage of a treatment that is quite possibly unique in the world”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Autologous stem cell transplantation is a procedure by which blood-forming stem cells are removed, and later injected back into the patient. All stem cells are taken from the patient themselves and cultured for later injection. In the case of a bone marrow transplant, the HSC are typically removed from the Pelvis through a large needle that can reach into the bone. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The technique is referred to as a bone marrow harvest and is performed under a general anesthesia. The incidence of patients experiencing rejection is rare due to the donor and recipient being the same individual. This remains the only approved method of the SCT therapy. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
jjason55740
1 month ago
@meofcourse77
You do NOT have to be religious to think it is wrong. Im not religious and i dont care for it. You try to show how enlightened you are when it is YOU who is the ignorant one.
ThisisEDM 1 year ago
An embryo is, without question, a living being. It is, without question, a human organism. Any embryology textbook will tell you that, and honestly, a high school biology class should give you enough information to deduce that for yourself.
The philosophical question about whether an embryo has rights, and if so, which rights, remains a question for discussion, but there's really not much of a scientific question here.
NMikeM 1 year ago
legalize it
billygundum 1 year ago
@billygundum How do you feel about the moral issue surrounding the research?
Qwanzonline 1 year ago
Hey guys! Don't forget to visit the Qwanz poll by clicking on the link! cheers!
Qwanzonline 1 year ago
Let's see.... killing the unborn because we sleep with total strangers and then get pregnant,and don't want that living being inside to screw up our future so we kill it. And then the dead fetus gets to be used for stem cell research. Two great ideas,compliments of our lunatic Left.
mcap52 1 year ago
@mcap52 'Lunatic left' must have published this too (using 'lunatic left' mathematics no doubt):
"Legal restrictions on safe abortion do not reduce the incidence of abortion. A woman's likelihood to have an abortion is about the same whether she lives in a region where abortion is available on request or where it is highly restricted."
Unsafe abortion: global and regional incidence, trends, consequences, and challenges.
Shah I, Ahman E.
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009 Dec;31(12):1149-58.
videorprologic 1 year ago
hope that judges children become paralyzed
capnhands 1 year ago
I do NOT think they should get any funding from government. Keep in mind that the research is not illegal, it is just unfunded. If it was really that promising, why don't the multi-billion dollar drug companies pay for it? The FACT is that there is no proof that this research will lead to anything that can't also be gotten from other types of stem cells. Nobody knows when life really begins, so we must assume that it starts as early as possible or we are murdering innocent lives.
meofcourse77 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 Thanks for your opinion on the matter. Researchers argue that they must explore all options, including embryonic stem cell research, in the name of science. They can only rule it out once its been proven to not have any other advantage over other types of stem cells. Please visit the Qwanz poll to place your vote and continue the conversations. Thanks!
Qwanzonline 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 Your argument about drug companies taking over is so greatly misguided. Case in point: drug companies would rather make new erectile dysfunction medications than spend money mass producing current next generation antibiotics WHICH ARE PROVEN TO SAVE LIVES.
It might be worth noting that ESC's current power lies in their ability to model ANY disease with genetic component in HUMAN tissue. This is not the type of research that pharmaceutical companies do.
videorprologic 1 year ago
@videorprologic granted that this may not be drug companies cup of tea, so let insurance industry pay for it. If it is going to "cure" people, then the insurance companies would have an interest in it's development. Why saddle the taxpayer with this?
Keep in mind that I said "fund" it. I didn't really expect drug companies to do the actual research. I agree that the all mighty dollar is what fuels drug companies. You really don't think drug companies will benefit from this research?
meofcourse77 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 The bottom line for drug companies and insurance agencies alike is that they have the attention span of a 4 year-old; the immediate payout avenues get the investment. ESC research WILL lead to the ability to differentiate tissue in vitro, the current problem is that we need to learn how to do this (likely the most complex research project of the current century).
Seemingly, the only investor willing to pay in and wait 15-20 years for the payout is the government.
videorprologic 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 You should consider how ignorant you look when you say "we shouldn't research something because it's not proven."
If you are willing to go a little deeper, you might find interesting to know that science never "proves" things (you've confused the idea of "evidence which VALIDATES a hypothesis'). Actually, we can only ever disprove things (evidence never proves a hypothesis, but it sure can disprove one).
Admittedly this is a very "Karl Popper" heavy view.
videorprologic 1 year ago
@videorprologic Well, you should read my post a little closer. The discussion is about funding with taxpayer money, even though I am morally opposed to it as well. I said we shouldn't research it because others that have studied it, said that it is no more promising than other types of stem cells that do NOT involve an embryo.
Drug co. should fund it, but most drug co. are not interested in cures anyway. No money in it. Remember when taking drug for the rest of your life was Odd?
meofcourse77 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 Are you really pushing your "ignorance of how science works" as an argument? Really, do you know what the word "research" means? Any scientist who says that "ESCs are no more promising than ASCs" is either a) lying outright, or b) painfully ignorant. There IS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO SAY THAT - and modern developmental biology predicts the EXACT opposite.
This is honestly why I hate politics - it has turned this unmistakably promising frontier of science into a freaking rodeo.
videorprologic 1 year ago
@videorprologic Ok, it is not so much a political issue for most, but a moral one. I know how science works. I am not arguing that this would be worse, but WHO FUNDS IT. I am a tax payer. I have a moral problem with this procedure and I don't want my tax $ paying for something that I feel is morally wrong. Where does it stop? Is cloning to harvest spare parts ok with you? You don't have to agree with my point, but I hope you at least try to understand it.
meofcourse77 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 My major issue with your stance that is you never earned the right to make such a "moral judgment." I will spend more than 2 decades aggressively LEARNING this modern biology before I will be ALLOWED to BEG people for money to fund my research.
All you do is say "this is what I think." No background, no contextual appreciation, no understanding of the cell. You validate your thinking by saying, "my lack of perspective on what the research is doesn't matter."
(continued)
videorprologic 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 Then to those who devote their lives to the cause of lessening the biological burdens on society, you say "you know nothing of morality." You really epitomize hubris.
What my perspective gives me is outrage when someone like you says that humans carry the moral weight of an undifferentiated cell. You might be curious to know that in development such cells are killed of to make the final human.
videorprologic 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 Cloning real live people to harvest their parts is not comparable because stem cell research doesn't use a real live person to experiment on. When was the last time a stem cell or embryo started crying because of there mistreatment?
jjason55740 1 year ago
@jjason55740 So, crying is the test to see if it's is alive? My point was that Cloning or something else could be the next step. I wasn't really comparing them other than to say that you take something that some consider "alive" and kill it to benefit others. Morally, can you tell me that the embryo does not have a soul? My point is that nobody can, and considering that NOBODY can say one way or another, we must err on the side of life. If you have no faith, it is not a moral issue.
meofcourse77 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 Yes you could also make the same case for eating meat. If we allow people to eat meat then people might want to eat other people. This is just paranoia. Chances are some mad scientist will clone a human and perform grotesque experiments on the poor child but this isn't a reason to stop medical research since we can still derive medical knowledge that will one day save millions of lives and in the long run of human history billions of lives.
jjason55740 1 year ago
@meofcourse77As far a stem cell and an embryo go these are not living beings with feelings or egos. The human ego and ability to percieve self happen at different times after birt and not prior. Embyos do not have feelings because they lack basic brain actvity required to be self concouse. An embyo is no more of a person than a male sperm cell or a brain cell. As far as religion go it's irelevent because if the bible was met to be a medical book it would have surgical procedures and cures
jjason55740 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 Yes well with your mode of reasoning i could suppose we should stop technology from advancing because with all this technology now you won't be able to have privacy because there are voice recorders on almost all cell phones and the internet is used by pedophile predators , and text messaging causes auto accidents and computers and video games increase child hood obesity. See what i mean? People might abuse science and technology but thats no reason to not promote technology.
jjason55740 1 year ago
@jjason55740 This is what your NOT understanding. I believe the embryos are LIFE. Nobody has the "right" to take that life in the name of science. You can't prove it is NOT life, just that it can't survive outside the host. I don't care how many lives you THINK this will save, if you kill one life, it is NOT moral.
Look, supporters say it is promising with no proof.
non-supporters thinks it is similar to Hitler's exploits.
You will not change my mind and I am unlikely to change yours.
meofcourse77 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 I'm sure you believe that embyos are living beings but you fail to realize that your belief that embyos are real live people doesn't mean they are in fact real live people. I could make the same arguement also that i believe the sun revolves around the earth like the religious people like yourself did back in the dark ages but my beliefs aren't proof of anything. Religious conviction is not an excuse to not be reasonable. Science trancends beliefs with evidence.
jjason55740 1 year ago
@jjason55740 So your saying that it is "reasonable" means I should allow my tax $ to kill what I feel is a being, because you say so. Yet you have not said anything to sway my belief that they are more than "goo".
You also are assuming much on my view of science. If something can be proved, fine. Prove that the embryo is not life and I will stand with you. You can't because you don't believe there is a soul.
As with videlprologic, I am stepping out of this debate as we are stalemated.
meofcourse77 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 There would be no point in saying anything to convince you because you said so yourself that you wouldn't care about scientfic input because you just believe embyos are live beings because of your religion. Some people's religion says killing animals for food is wrong or that wearing a certian color but those beliefs aren't scientfic or based on any logic. Better yet can your deity provide scientfic evidence the emryo is a living being? NOPE.
jjason55740 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 The embyo is life but it is not a self concious being. The embryo has been proven to lack the brain actvity required for a self concous ego.But the people who made up your religion didn't know anything about that because there wasn't any nuraology or science for that matter.These guys use to believe demons caused disease but do you know of any doctor that cures illness with excorcism? NOPE Religion is a sorry excuse for people to be intectually lazy and smug at the same time.
jjason55740 1 year ago
@videorprologic Also, you said that this is a "unmistakably promising frontier" in one post and said that we will have to "wait 15-20 years for the payout". Please, tell me how you know it is "unmistakably promising" if we won't know the payout for 15-20 years. Is it your subconscious zeal to side any science that conflicts with the moral judgment of the conscientious? Are you absolutely sure that life does not exist in the "blobs" you would be sacrificing for this "prediction"?
meofcourse77 1 year ago
@meofcourse77
"Please, tell me how you know it is "unmistakably promising" if we won't know the payout for 15-20 years."
Because we've been doing this EXACT work with mouse ESC (in mice) for almost 30 years. Unfortunately, human developmental circuitry has diverged significantly from mice. I estimated the translation to human systems to take about 15-20 years (IF FUNDED AGGRESSIVELY).
"...subconscious zeal..." are you trying to insult my integrity? It ONLY cheapens your other arguments.
videorprologic 1 year ago
@videorprologic ok, we have cloned sheep, should we start on humans next? Even if it shows promise for some, at what cost would we do it? How can you say that the "undifferentiated cell" does not have a soul? Are you God? Keep in mind that I also have a problem with how these embryos were created in the first place, so any embryos that were killed in the process would be just as tragic. Having the knowledge to do something does not necessarily mean you should do it.
Cont.
meofcourse77 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 I'm not saying having the knowledge gives someone moral authority to apply it. What I am saying is that having the knowledge makes the morality question much more complex than you ASSUME. This knowledge clearly shows that ONLY technological limitations keep us from engineering artificial biological life (just recently done). Were this to happen and the life was in ALL other respects a person, would morals not apply to it?
videorprologic 1 year ago
@videorprologic This is simple. Most Christians, as well as other beliefs, believe that life begins at conception. I am not sure if your "biological life" would have a soul. But, if the biological lives that you are killing to do your research do have a soul, you are murdering innocent lives. You don't believe that, I understand.
All I am saying is that I do believe it and I don't want my tax money spent on murder. We will have to stand before God on this. How will you be judged?
meofcourse77 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 Of course you don't realize that you have just admitted that there is no objective truth in saying people have "souls."
The concept of the 'soul' is of course something which emerged from ancient western cultures (note, Buddhists deny the existence of a soul) to explain 'the characteristic' of man. Similar explanations coming from these times include "disease as demons" and "lightning as enraged gods."
(continued)
videorprologic 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 NONE of these ancient characterizations have any relevance to the real world. Today, microbiology and climatology have easily digestible explanations for disease and lightning. Unfortunately, neuropsychology (perhaps the single most complex science I have every been exposed to) is not so easily digestible. My point is that the 'soul' is an obsolete and horribly simplistic form of what we now understand through neuropsychology.
(continued)
videorprologic 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 It will be easy for you to not believe the above because belief is not a matter of objectivity for you (as you have explained to me). Thus, your position is the empirical equivalent of those who protest vaccines (they don't want their tax money spent on research either).
I will acknowledge my wrong if you watch Dr. Ehrman's (a Bible scholar) videos of the "Misquoting Jesus, Stanford Lecture, How Bible Got Tainted" lecture, and then critique my logic from above.
(continued)
videorprologic 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 I don't have the capacity to believe without evidence. For this, and this alone (I study HIV - NOT embryonic stem cells), your god will judge me as deserving eternal torture. It doesn't matter if I am unwaveringly selfless with my life or pathetically narcissistic and misanthropic; the same judgment awaits.
Reflecting back to my childhood, this observation opened my eyes to the xenophobically slanted morals of the beliefs I was raised to hold.
videorprologic 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 Again, you seem to have changed the argument and distracted me from my original critique. You CAN NOT with integrity say this "Even if it shows promise for some..." Stand on your argument's merits and argue the morality. Whether it is efficacious or not does not change the morality.
I am sick of having to listen to such willfully ignorant displays of authority. And even if you don't realize it, such is the rhetoric of deceit.
videorprologic 1 year ago
@videorprologic Again, it is a matter of faith, which you lack. The one question that neither of you have answered is, "How do you know the embryo isn't 'life'?"
From your post, I am gathering that your position is that you are ok with killing what could be a life to POSSIBLY save or improve another life, and you think that is ok.
We are going around in circles, so this will be my last word, respond if you wish. I won't be reading it.
meofcourse77 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 You go out on a strawman, as I never said or even implied "an embryo is not life." I simply said it's moral value is not as clear as you make it. In in the face this complexity, which you must by now know surely realize, you still arrogantly display hubris. Clearly without objective claims to make, you are at best an ignorant demagogue.
videorprologic 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 I frequently opened the door (explicitly) to counterargument, even saying where my basic logic came from and yet you still attacked ME (not my arguments) saying "It's a matter of faith (or, substitute 'morality') which you clearly lack." These are the type of claims that can't be justified and appeal to people who are comfortable with unsubstantiated claims. Every time in history people stop caring about checking their leaders logic, tyrants seize and entrench power.
videorprologic 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 I truly believe that if you with an honest and open mind read my posts you would see what I am saying, even if you don't accept it. I put a lot of effort into making a logically coherent argument, but I am not perfect and there are definitely areas of weakness (I am actually here to work those out).
Your only fall back has been that of "faith," and so I ask, with only faith how will you ever know you are being deceived? Of course the answer is reasoning. Please, meditate on this.
videorprologic 1 year ago
@videorprologic I mean, consider what the world would be like without nuclear weaponry. I grew up in the 60's, our school had a bomb shelter. I understand that science does not recognize the existence of a soul, so this is where there will always be a conflict. I am not questioning the science so much as the morality.
Also, considering that you first questioned my integrity, by your standard, how cheap is YOUR argument?
meofcourse77 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 Show some integrity and quit dodging my critique.
To be unquestionably clear, your original point was: "If it was really that promising, why don't the multi-billion dollar drug companies pay for it?" I showed you why this is flawed reasoning. You had also said that there is "there is no proof" for the validity of ESC research and I explained this is simply a poor understanding of how science works. You have yet to present an single objective leg to stand on.
videorprologic 1 year ago
@videorprologic the problem is, you have not answered anything. Just more drivel about how promising it is, yet not explaining why someone with a lot of money would not jump at the chance to get in on the ground floor. My legs are built on faith, a concept you can't understand, obviously. I guess you will have to wait on the government to fund your "legs to stand on"
meofcourse77 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 "My legs are built on faith, a concept you can't understand, obviously."
Yeah, I have a hard time understanding your pride in this. I make my living by showing, then communicating why I believe things. You say "my ideas are too good to need explaining" (explanation = communication). That's faith; the belief in something that can NOT be objectively validated.
That's not something to be proud of, unless you consciously want to justify an addiction (the opiate mentality).
videorprologic 1 year ago
@meofcourse77 Good point I never thought of it that way. Drug companies probably do pay for research but they have a conflict of interest because cancer treatment is probably just as profitable if not more profitable than an actual cure or preventative treatment and in the world of capitalism profits go ahead of anything thats more costly even when an actual cure is what cost more.
jjason55740 1 year ago
@jjason55740 Well, that is what is wrong with drug companies now. Drugs everywhere that you take for the rest of your life...insuring that drug companies get money from you for the rest of your life. It is more lucrative for you to be "like cured" as long as you stay on the drug, rather than to work on an actual cure. 30 years ago, it was unusual for a person to be on a drug for the rest of their life.
meofcourse77 1 year ago
@jjason55740 Ask a doctor what causes your bp to be high. They will say stress, weight, etc., but in most cases...they don't know. Why do you think they have to keep trying different doses or changing your BP medicine? Why don't they treat the cause and not the symptom. Follow the money.
meofcourse77 1 year ago
@meofcourse77
They change different doses to see what works best. Do you think 200 years ago that a doctor would have any medicine to treat bp?
I'm on blood pressure medicine and it's working fine. Research is the only way to learn new forms of treatment and prevention. Stem cells do not have rights of any kind and they are living breathing beings.
jjason55740 1 year ago
@meofcourse77
"The researchers fused adult skin cells with embryonic stem cells in such a way that the genes of the embryonic cells reset the genetic clock of the adult cells, turning them back to their embryonic form.
Such adult-cum-embryo cells, taken from people with juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and other genetic diseases, could reveal how such diseases develop and provide novel treatment for them."
This can only be done with the use of embryonic stem cells.
Arriss3 1 year ago
i think if some reaserch has the potencial to save reallives that are here right now strugling the government has an obligation to fund it. this is just anothere way religion is getting into polotics and its doing nothing but slowing down progress
shitydrumer 1 year ago
@shitydrumer TY for your opinion. Don't forget to visit the Qwanz poll to vote and be able to share your thoughts with decision-makers.
Qwanzonline 1 year ago
Clever researchers, and clever lawyers will figure a way around this. There's too much at stake in terms of cures for whole classes of diseases to be thwarted by the misplaced morality of protecting "the sanctity of human life"... as embodied by genetic materials otherwise fated to be discarded.
voyeurdug 1 year ago
@voyeurdug Thanks for your thoughts! How do you feel about the Dickey-Wicker amendment though? The law that states that Federal Funding for any destruction of embryos is prohibited.
Qwanzonline 1 year ago
@voyeurdug Who would have thought that killing innocent unborn children would have so many fringe benefits???
mcap52 1 year ago
@mcap52 You seriously should think about the moral implications of equating a cell with a human being. I tend to think that humans have value beyond the simple the 'sum of their cells' - but hey, I sit around and ponder cell biology all day. Also, consider the difference between what something is and what it will become. For instance, it may be a carrot now, but after I eat it it will form the molecular basis for my sight. Does that mean carrots can see?
videorprologic 1 year ago
of course Embryonic stem cell should be federal funded..
CmdrSloanne 1 year ago
@CmdrSloanne How do you feel about the moral issue surrounding the topic? Also, please don't forget to check out the Qwanz poll to find out what our users think. Cheers!
Qwanzonline 1 year ago
@Qwanzonline Moral issues are for hypocrites.when your sick & specially when your one of this Self righteous Politicians or preachers,etc... the first thing they do is go or take their sick relatives to be cure no matter what. have a good week love your web series.
CmdrSloanne 1 year ago