Bungee Jumper Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 I've been extremely busy. I read recently that someone tried the embryonic stem cell route in rats for a disease very similar to Parkinsons. Most of the rats got brain tumors. 818040[/snapback] I think researchers are starting to discover that quite a few cancers might be caused by stem cells. It's an interesting hypothesis, certainly, and one that has significant implications for cancer therapies (imagine being able to stop an otherwise untreatable tumor in its tracks by targeting not the tumor itself but the handful of stem cells causing it). So naturally, the research isn't the least bit worthwhile...because, hey, stem cells are dangerous. They might cause cancer. We can't research that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 I think, every Hollywood actor or actress that has any kind of ailment should have every opportunity to tell congress of their plight. After all, they are the only ones that have any disease, as far as they know, to Congress. like kleptomania? Or Starbucks withdraw, or cant find a new series to star in, or I have the clap and its not my fault syndrome. They make ME SICK.!!!!!! Outside of Micheal Fox, the hypocrisy of the liberal left in Hollywood is sickening. I think there should be stem cell research. And I think the government should partially fund this research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 I think there should be stem cell research. 818081[/snapback] i agree And I think the government should partially fund this research. 818081[/snapback] i disagree *Edit, lemme rephrase my "i disagree" statement. i disagree that government should subsidize stem cell research not on moral grounds. i disagree because the government shouldn't be subsidizing research unless it helps blow up commies and terrorists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 i disagree 818083[/snapback] If you disagree on budgetary considerations, I'm with you. But realistically, the grant money's available, there's just an arbitrary rule in place saying "Thou shalt not provide grants for fetal stem cell research involving new cell lines." So it's not like not doing the research is saving money; the money's just going to other people... ...probably the Institute for Scientific Creationism and Intelligent Design in Topeka, Kansas, the was this administration does things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 i agreei disagree 818083[/snapback] I said partially. Funding on why fly's !@#$ on Thursdays can get put on the back burner. Whatever........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Funding on why fly's !@#$ on Thursdays can get put on the back burner. 818090[/snapback] Not if you write up a really kick-ass grant proposal for it. You don't actually think the government funds research based on relative merit, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 i agreei disagree 818083[/snapback] I agree to a point on your first one, problem is I am anti-abortion, so I struggle with the second. I don't have a problem with embryotic research in the case where they could be "harvested" from a miscarriage, but do not like the concept of trying to justify something so evil by saying well look it came to "some good". And I agree on the second one with you again to a point. If using adult stem cells or "harvested" stem cells sure why not let the government chip in some, but again not for anylines from aborted embryo's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 I think there should be stem cell research. And I think the government should partially fund this research. 818081[/snapback] I would agree. I would also explicitly throw in the that the research grants *can* include research based on fetal stem cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Im pretty much against the goverment funding anything. The government cannot be trusted with money. Period. There is so much waste and abuse out there its sick. For every dollar of productive work, there are about 10 wasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Not if you write up a really kick-ass grant proposal for it. You don't actually think the government funds research based on relative merit, do you? 818092[/snapback] Since some of you nerds had been talking about numbers. My thought goes to all the PORK, our government spends on the Bull sh-- so described. BTW, DR. K has a kick ass proposal on Bradshaw cloning, have you seen the thread? We're Super Bowl bound, baby!! All kidding aside. I truly believe that within the next generation, a cure for most cancers will be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_House Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Im pretty much against the goverment funding anything. The government cannot be trusted with money. Period. There is so much waste and abuse out there its sick. For every dollar of productive work, there are about 10 wasted. 818099[/snapback] I can attest to you that at least one thing that the government is better than average at is in its funding of the medical sciences, specifically throught the NIH. I am a graduate student nearing completion of my Ph.D. in the biosciences, and so have some familiarity with the grant process. It's not politicians dictating what projects get funding, it is actual scientists that form the peer review groups and determine the relative merit of proposed work. I don't know if many of you are aware, but in 2006, American scientists swept the science Nobel Awards for Medicine, Chemistry, and Physics. Both awardees for the prize in medicine and the awardee for chemistry relied heavily on NIH funding for their groundbreaking work. Here is a link where one of the winners of the award in medicine and the award winner in chemistry speak about the role of the NIH in their work: http://mednews.stanford.edu/fire/fire-funding.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 I was surprised not to see this in here yet. Basically it comes down to Fox using his illlness to advocate stem cell research, and the canidates who support it while Limbaugh, who in many minds, went way too far with his gyrations and mimicking of Fox, bashing him for using his "agenda" of Parkinson's for a political ad. 817692[/snapback] I was surprised too given the legs of the story...considered starting a thread after listening to Limbaugh's weak response to the controversy on his afternoon program then thought better of it. Why dignify a thrice married, deaf pill popping moron with a response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 And I agree on the second one with you again to a point. If using adult stem cells or "harvested" stem cells sure why not let the government chip in some, but again not for anylines from aborted embryo's. 818093[/snapback] That's just the point - these aren't from "aborted embyos". We are talking about blastocysts (call them embryos if that's what you view them as) that were created at fertility clinics and are going unused and would otherwise be discarded. Let me re-emphasize that point - these are stem cells that are due to be discarded. These are NOT blastocysts/embryos that would otherwise be used in the fertility clinics to be implanted and possibly become babies. Likewise, these are not the products of abortion - you can't harvest a blastocyst of 16 cells from the abortion process. The Christian conservatives have completely middied the waters on this issue by getting folks to believe that new stem cell lines are coming from embryos that would otherwise be used to create children and/or aborted fetuses from abortion procedures - neither is true at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 So here is a retort to the Patricia Heaton ad from Don Murphy, producter of Natural Born Killers and other flicks. I got this off a right-wing blog (in the interest of disclosure) and it shows how the left these days "tolerates" the opposing point of view and looks to forward to "fostering open debate." Wimps or Pussies- You decide Not only do these retards run an ad that is morally and logically unsound, and MOCK Michael J Fox for having a disease, they have set it so that comments must be approved by them. Anything they don't like, doesn't get approved. Pure lameness. Are they wimps or pussies? This is a good opportunity to state that Patricia Heaton is a worthless whore. When Bryan Singer and I were doing APT PUPIL, we made the mistake of offering her the role of the mother. It was a small role, and her career was nothing at the time. She didn't want to do it. People pass all the time, so fine. She was offended by the role. Okay, fine, !@#$ you be offended B word. But no- the worthless whore wrote a letter to Sherry Lansing the head of the studio complaining that the film was evil and would destroy children's minds. She was ignored and mocked, of course, but can you believe this worthless human sh-- would have liked to STOP a movie because it offended her lame kitty sensibilities? I'd vote yes for experimenting on Patricia Heaton cells. As for Cavaziel, have you seen him in anything lately? Thought so. 818576[/snapback] No matter what your point of view might be on stem cells the ad is certainly one of the lamest retorts I've seen since last week's Tom Reynold's "apology". It's almost as lame as that ad against Harold Ford that has drawn a lot of controversy lately. Can't anyone do good political ads anymore? Probably the best one I've seen this season is in Ohio by Democrat candidate Wulsin against the loathsome incumbant Jean Schmidt, who bears a striking resemblence to Nurse Diesel in High Anxiety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted October 27, 2006 Author Share Posted October 27, 2006 As for Cavaziel, have you seen him in anything lately? Thought so.[/i] 818576[/snapback] Ah yes, my favorite anti-Hollywood smack. The "what is that actor doing now, because his political views ruined his career" card. Far be it for me to stick up for any movie making schlub, but this take makes me want to peel my skin off. Apparently, the only thing that makes actors relevant, is if they are in popular movies that said complainer cares about. Even thought these same people argue that these people's opinions shouldn't matter, and they don't, but are quick to point out when they are percieved having success or failure at the box office. Isn't the person pointing out an actor's failure, then giving crediblity to said actor for making that person care about them in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Ah yes, my favorite anti-Hollywood smack. The "what is that actor doing now, because his political views ruined his career" card. Far be it for me to stick up for any movie making schlub, but this take makes me want to peel my skin off. Apparently, the only thing that makes actors relevant, is if they are in popular movies that said complainer cares about. Even thought these same people argue that these people's opinions shouldn't matter, and they don't, but are quick to point out when they are percieved having success or failure at the box office. Isn't the person pointing out an actor's failure, then giving crediblity to said actor for making that person care about them in the first place. 818709[/snapback] The funniest part is that the producer, Don Murphy, has a career that can best be described as "embarassing." Natural Born Killers and the crappy Transformers movie where they painted flames on Optimus Prime and gave Megatron a spikey body for some reason. He's talking smack about Patricia Heaton's career being "nothing at the time" but his career is still basically nothing. Jim Caveziel is actually a really good actor who isn't in that much stuff. Does anyone really think the best actors are the ones who are in the most movies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 That's just the point - these aren't from "aborted embyos". We are talking about blastocysts (call them embryos if that's what you view them as) that were created at fertility clinics and are going unused and would otherwise be discarded. 818573[/snapback] A blastocyst comes from a fertilized egg, so if you believe that life begins at conception it's consistent to be opposed to using them. The argument that "they're just going to be discarded anyway" doesn't hold any water because people opposed to such research should also be opposed to fertility clinics that necessarily create fertilized embryos that will need to be discarded at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted October 27, 2006 Author Share Posted October 27, 2006 Does anyone really think the best actors are the ones who are in the most movies? 818756[/snapback] Dumb people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 A blastocyst comes from a fertilized egg, so if you believe that life begins at conception it's consistent to be opposed to using them. The argument that "they're just going to be discarded anyway" doesn't hold any water because people opposed to such research should also be opposed to fertility clinics that necessarily create fertilized embryos that will need to be discarded at some point. 818761[/snapback] SHOULD be opposed to fertility clinics, but aren't. 2 Points: 1. Like it or not, the fertility clinics discard blastocysts because there is no way to keep them indefinitely - they do have a "shelf life" if you will - after a certain point they will never be able to develop, hence the need to discard. 2. Why do the right to lifers offer no outrage to the discarding of embryos at fertility clinics? It happens every day, and I don't see anyone up in arms about it. Give them an false argument that those blastocysts would grow to be children or that stem cells come from abortions and they rally in the streets, sing hymns, display graphic pictures, sit in traffic, get arrested, etc. - seems a bit duplicitous, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 SHOULD be opposed to fertility clinics, but aren't. 2 Points: 1. Like it or not, the fertility clinics discard blastocysts because there is no way to keep them indefinitely - they do have a "shelf life" if you will - after a certain point they will never be able to develop, hence the need to discard. 2. Why do the right to lifers offer no outrage to the discarding of embryos at fertility clinics? It happens every day, and I don't see anyone up in arms about it. Give them an false argument that those blastocysts would grow to be children or that stem cells come from abortions and they rally in the streets, sing hymns, display graphic pictures, sit in traffic, get arrested, etc. - seems a bit duplicitous, don't you think? 818797[/snapback] 1. granted. 2. Right to lifers do have issues with IVF and fertility clinics and do protest against them. Not sure what world you live in but those have been part of the overall RTL discussion along with abortion, etc..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts