105 replies to this topic

[DJS]

Viable as in still alive and able to survive the transition to their new culture medium - sewage. (it was a joke)

Yeah, which is why I countered with a (very bad) joke of my own.

I must say that in my view ESCs are much harder to control than any other type of SC and more importantly they offer less therapeutic value (but they offer great pure research value). Unless there was a compelling reason to use ESCs for clinical purposes I would prefer to take the least challenging ethical road.

I basically agree with this statement, although I think that new US admin public policy has made it so that the reasons don't need to be quite so compelling. Of course, if abortion protesters decide on a change of venue to outside of research facilities this could change the calculus.

[DJS]

http://www.independe...od-1651715.html

Nice find. I remember reading about synthetic blood a while ago, but didn't realize how close it was to fruition.

This would be a major medical breakthrough, albeit one whose applicability to stem cell research needs to be qualified. After all, it completely bypasses the immunocompatibility issues which are present with other cell types.

[eternaltraveler]

http://www.independe...od-1651715.html

Nice find. I remember reading about synthetic blood a while ago, but didn't realize how close it was to fruition.

This would be a major medical breakthrough, albeit one whose applicability to stem cell research needs to be qualified. After all, it completely bypasses the immunocompatibility issues which are present with other cell types.

One among many uses that are very close to fruition for embryonic stem cells. Though iPS cells hold great promise as well, they need a lot more work. Some of these therapies based on embryonic stem cells will be available in the immediate future. The biggest hurdle for this synthetic blood for example isn't science, its bureaucrats.

Luv does this satisfy your criteria for usefulness or are you simply putting that forward as yet another straw man to distract from your real opposition to this research which is based on your religion?

p.s. you don’t need to answer this question as I know the answer already

[Prometheus]

Hmm.. why use ESCs when you can use HSCs? In order to make RBCs from ESCs they would have to drive the ESCs down a HSC differentiation pathway anyway.. Why do you think ET?

[Prometheus]

After all, it completely bypasses the immunocompatibility issues which are present with other cell types.

Thats the case with all blood transfusions so long as they are type matched (they dont need to be HLA matched).

NB ESCs have low immunogeneity but once they differentiate they will express host specific antigens..

[eternaltraveler]

Why do you think ET?

No idea, don't really follow this aspect of the field. But apparently all the groups I have found with success at manufacturing large amounts of RBCs have started with ESC. But I can tell you this. The reason is either a good scientific one, or because the first group happened to use ESCs and the rest copied them

At this point that is irrelevant, because groups are good at making rbcs with ESCs now. Delaying so we could switch over to adult stem cells or iPS cells for phony ethical reasons would cost lives.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 24 March 2009 - 02:38 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

At this point that is irrelevant, because groups are good at making rbcs with ESCs now. Delaying so we could switch over to adult stem cells or iPS cells for phony ethical reasons would cost lives.

At this point there of course will not be further delays for the above mentioned reasons. Those against ESCs have lost. The battle is over.

[luv2increase]

Luv does this satisfy your criteria for usefulness or are you simply putting that forward as yet another straw man to distract from your real opposition to this research which is based on your religion?

Religion? Where did that come from? I'm really beginning to think that you have some sort of mental disorder "eternaltraveler "

[eternaltraveler]

Religion? Where did that come from?

you yourself stated that religion was one of your reasons for being against ESCR in prior threads.

You do not start with a clean slate when you start a new thread.

[luv2increase]

Religion? Where did that come from?

you yourself stated that religion was one of your reasons for being against ESCR in prior threads.

You do not start with a clean slate when you start a new thread.

Ummm... I do not recall. Do you mind posting a link to it. I don't ever remember discussing embryonic stem-cell research on this forum before.


Let's see the proof

[luv2increase]

Religion? Where did that come from?

you yourself stated that religion was one of your reasons for being against ESCR in prior threads.

You do not start with a clean slate when you start a new thread.

I don't think so. I've never discussed embryonic stem-cell research on here before to the best of my knowledge.


Let's see the proof.

[luv2increase]

You are not telling the truth.


Lying is not a good character trait "eternaltraveler "

[eternaltraveler]

You want me to quote you from previous posts?

fine

from http://www.imminst.o...mp;#entry278550

You believe in the information taught in those courses and/or chapters of books as 100% truth, yet they are only theories. Now, you call me believing in the Bible as pitiful? I beg to differ smile.gif

Ah, the fossil record. Did I not say in a previous post that all was created in the beginning? Yes, I did. This would include, obviously, all those fossils which are and were discovered. There is no such thing as life evolving into other life. It just is not seen in nature. If all you have to theorize off of is some chapter in a textbook which is ever changing, then that just isn't right. You are grasping the ideas of man like if you were to question those unproven ideas, you would be questioning your own intelligence... You are forfeiting your wannabe scientific nature.


One thing beautiful about the Holy Word is that it never changes. Sure, you may have different translations, but the words never change. It was set in stone before the foundations of the world.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

How wonderful it is to believe in an absolute! If you believe in God, you have to believe in the Word as well.

from http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=25851

you spent many pages disparaging the killing of blastocysts.

You do realize the ESCR requires the destruction of embryos, right? I was perhaps assuming too much when I thought you knew this. Are you in favor of ESCR but not in favor of the killing the required embryos somehow?

Would you like to now go on the record as stating that you are not against ESCR and therefore are not opposed to the destruction of embryos? This wouldn't make me a liar, it would however make me confused.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 27 March 2009 - 01:55 AM.

[luv2increase]

Eternaltraveler, you quoted you yourself stated that religion was one of your reasons for being against ESCR in prior threads.


Where in what you quoted do I say that "religion is one of the reasons why I'm against ESCR"... You need to get over this and realize that I have yet to argue a religious viewpoint against ESCR "in my life"... I realized long ago that arguing with "anything" that can or can not have a religious aspect to it was just best to argue the said aspect without a religious viewpoint. That is what I have been doing here. It is wrong of you to fight against my non-religious arguments against ESCR with anti-religious rebuttals. It just doesn't make sense in a sane world.


I am, however, happy that you quoted what you did from me. Even though it is completely irrelevant to your point and this thread, it truly is relevant to our lives as human beings.


God Bless

[eternaltraveler]

I realized long ago that arguing with "anything" that can or can not have a religious aspect to it was just best to argue the said aspect without a religious viewpoint.

yes this is what the people who invented intelligent design thought when they were trying to use it as a "wedge" in order to shove creationism down our throats. Use your wedge strategy elsewhere. You have a fundamental belief that killing embryos is wrong, and you put together elaborate convoluted reasoning and philosophies to justify it. I refuse to engage your subterfuge when that is fruitless. The fundamental root of belief is the issue here. And that is religion.

and now our moment of Zen.

I can answer the question for you. Brains didn't evolve yet were created.

[luv2increase]

I realized long ago that arguing with "anything" that can or can not have a religious aspect to it was just best to argue the said aspect without a religious viewpoint.

yes this is what the people who invented intelligent design thought when they were trying to use it as a "wedge" in order to shove creationism down our throats. Use your wedge strategy elsewhere. You have a fundamental belief that killing embryos is wrong, and you put together elaborate convoluted reasoning and philosophies to justify it. I refuse to engage your subterfuge when that is fruitless. The fundamental root of belief is the issue here. And that is religion.

and now our moment of Zen.

I can answer the question for you. Brains didn't evolve yet were created.

This is what you come back with? I think you need to leave this thread to those of us who like to speak intelligently. If you hate religion so much, I think you should start up some kind of prejudice, intolerant organization against it or something.

Your mind is truly "out there".