• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Stem Cell Reseach to please everyone?

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Embryonic Stem Cell research is a big issue with Christians because it requires the use of aborted fetal tissue, something that the majority of Christians see as immoral. Many in the health community see the research as a way to find treatments to many horrible diseases from M.S. to various cancers.

Apparently there is a breakthrough in ADULT Stem Cell research that does NOT require the use of aborted fetal tissue. Did I miss this or was it simply not well reported? You'd think that this would have been heralded by both the Health Community and Christians.

If this is a breakthrough, and if it will please the harshest critics of stem cell research, then
why isn't the mainstream media shouting this from the rooftops? Is there some logic to not plastering this news everywhere?

Here is part of a story from the Catholic News Agency:
Moral Stem Cell Research
Scientific breakthrough expected to advance ethical stem cell research

Washington DC, Jun 8, 2007 / 10:33 am (CNA).- Pro-life and church groups are optimistic about a new scientific breakthrough that provides yet another ethical alternative to embryonic stem cell research, reports Time Magazine.Nature and Cell Stem Cell, researchers have succeeded in reprogramming ordinary cells from the tips of mouse tails so they are virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells.

Three research groups said they accomplished their feat in mature cells by turning on four genes that are always active in days-old embryos. Some of the rejuvenated cells were able to mature into new mice, demonstrating the cells' ability to create every type of tissue in the body.

Researchers are optimistic that the discovery can be applied to human cells, which would offer an ethical way to create a limitless supply of cell lines tailor-made for patients.

"This would be a win for science, ethics and society," said Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. "It may offer a way for people of all faiths and all ethical backgrounds to study, use, subsidize and enjoy any therapeutic benefits of … stem cell research."
But here is another version & link, this time from CNN. I have edited out some stock specific information from the story.
Stem cell breakthrough a bust on Wall Street

Biotechs mixed after reports of major development in stem cell research; potential treatments far, far away.


By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writer
June 7 2007: 4:31 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A breakthrough in stem cell research involving mice has stirred up excitement in the scientific community but not on Wall Street, where some stocks in the sector slumped Thursday.

Investors seem to realize that the study results, while promising, are still years away from potential treatments.

"This is all necessary to move the stem cell space forward, but this is still extremely early in development," said Ren Benjamin, analyst for Rodman & Renshaw. "The results that were published yesterday may take years to adequately develop so that one day the technology could be used to develop a therapeutic."
Here is a press release:
Press ReleaseSource: The Institute for Cellular MedicineStem Cell Clinic Applauds Breakthrough

Friday June 8, 8:34 pm ET


"Possibility of augmenting efficacy of existing adult stem cell therapies"


SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Institute for Cellular Medicine (www.cellmedicine.com), an international organization offering adult stem cell therapy for degenerative conditions, applauds the recent publications in Nature and Cell Stem Cell describing the identification of molecular switches for inducing "dedifferentiation" of adult cells into pluripotent stem cells.
The DNA blueprint is the same in all tissues in the adult body; however, specific parts are silenced in specific tissues. For example, in the skin, the DNA encoding liver enzymes is silenced. Originally, it was thought that silencing of DNA is permanent and that a skin cell can only generate a skin cell.

This concept was shattered by experiments in the 1990s demonstrating DNA from an adult cell can be "desilenced" and induced to become any cell in the body by introduction of the adult DNA into an oocyte. The recently published experiments have now identified distinct molecular mechanisms by which this process can be reproduced without the need for an oocyte.


"The Institute for Cellular Medicine treats patients with adult stem cells that have already been published by numerous groups to be useful with minimal side effects. Adult stem cells are a clinical reality. However, in order to take this discipline to the next level, it is critical to understand what molecules are involved in allowing a stem cell to perform its regenerative functions, as well as taking a non-stem cell and converting it into a stem cell," said Dr. Eduardo Glenn, Laboratory Director of the Institute for Cellular Medicine.

Seriously, did I just have my head in the sand and completely miss the story :smileywac on the news or was this not well reported?

Personally, this totally removes possible objections to stem cell research that I had previously harbored. :thumb: Thoughts?
 

DaveNay

Klaatu barada nikto
SUPER Site Supporter
First off, it is a huge misconception that stem cell research requires tissue from an aborted fetus. The preferred source of stem cells is from donated in-vitro fertilized embryos. During the assisted reproductive procedure, the doctors will cultivate several embryos from the collected eggs and sperm. These embryos are then evaluated for the best ones to be implanted in the woman. The remainder are either destroyed, frozen or donated for stem cell research. At least they would be donated if our fundamentalist president hadn't outlawed the development of additional stem cell cultures.

The reason there has been no market or media hype is because at the moment, the way the law is written does not allow for any new human stem cell lines, regardless of the source.
 

ImInnocent

New member
duh.
privatisation. televised propaganda.
republicans. tsk tsk

how do you think Bush Jr (stole) won a second term?
Convincing the bible-belt, that's how.


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Democratic-controlled Congress passed legislation Thursday to loosen restraints on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, but the bill's supporters lacked the votes needed to override President Bush's threatened veto...
Friday June 8, 2007 8:16 AM
By DAVID ESPO
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Dave . . . what you say is not an abortion, many in the religious community say is an abortion. They argue it is irrelevant where the embryo was initially formed, the fact that it is formed, and then "harvested" or "cultivated" or "destroyed" or anything else that does not lead to the growth of a baby is abortion. That debate is not what I was hoping to focus on, the lack of news coverage is what I questioned.

I'm just very unclear on why this "news" of another "scientific breakthrough" is not more widely covered and wonder if there is some reason for its lack of coverage.

ImInnocent . . .
Huh? You wrote 'privatisation' and I wonder what you mean when most of the research done is privately funded in either private labs or univerity labs that are largely supported by private corporations. What is your point? You wrote 'republicans' but I still don't get what that has to do with this particular story being suppressed. Logic would dictate that the Republicans who are opposed to embyronic stem cell research would be very supportive of this new development.

Regarding the President's veto, that was very well covered by the press. In fact he stated it would be vetoed long before the bill passed. It has been reported weekly during the progress of the bill. Timing of the news stories I posted might be related to the Veto, but nothing more.

As for how Bush won his second term. One word: K-E-R-R-Y Enough said!
 

ImInnocent

New member
PRIVATE VS PUBLIC SECTOR

1) In a free society, beliefs about reality, including guesswork, conjecture, speculation, and Medieval religious fairytales are not the basis for passing secular laws which force one group's religious beliefs onto everyone else. Attempting to do so clearly violates our God-granted and Constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom!

2) Public ownership allows for a greater chance of serving the public interest. The argument here, to oversimplify, is that being freed of the pressures of quarterly profit reports, focus on one's stock price, and meeting industry based measures of profitability and efficiency, would allow companies to better focus on the long-term and on quality.

the difference between PRIVATELY owned laboratories and privately owned TV stations/newspapers/web articles.... SCIENCE.
:pat: WE ARE ABLE TOTEST THE THEORIES AND SEE THE EVIDENCE/PROOF !
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
ImInnocent . . . what do either of your 2 new points have to do with the topic I asked about? That being why was the story not more widely reported? Is it simply a non-story? Or is it a real breakthrough this being stifled? Please read again my prior reply to you, asking specifically what your posts have to do with the lack of coverage by the media.

On a side note: Interesting paradox you make in #1 above, you state there are God-granted rights and Constitutional guarantees for religious freedom; does not religious freedom allow for religious people to try to impose some level of morality into the laws of the land? In essence is it freedom to follow religion or freedom from religion?
 

ImInnocent

New member
How the Christian Right undermines Liberties

One of the most important issues for the Christian Right (B U S H) is criminalizing abortion. There is disagreement on the penalties for abortion (few want to treat it as murder, despite the rhetoric) and whether there should be exemptions (like for rape, incest, or the health of the mother). There is no prospect of a total ban any time soon, so in the mean time they work on undermining it and hindering women's ability to actually obtain an abortion.

The consistent theme of all Christian Right polices (REPUBLICANS) on abortion is to undermine or eliminate the ability of women to exercise their right to obtain an abortion.

Imagine if voting booths were only open for one hour a day and located far away from population centers. This wouldn't violate anything in the Constitution, so technically people would still have the right to vote, but what good is a right that you cannot exercise?

When religious positions on abortion are discussed, we usually hear how abortion is condemned and regarded as murder. Religious traditions are more pluralistic and varied than that, however, and even within those religions most publicly opposed to abortion, we find that there are traditions which would permit abortion, even if only in limited circumstances.

Roman Catholicism is popularly associated with a strict anti-abortion position, but this strictness only dates to Pope Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii. Before this, there was more debate on abortion. The Bible doesn’t condemn abortion and Church tradition rarely addresses it. Early church theologians generally allow abortion in the first 3 months and prior to quickening, when the soul supposedly entered the fetus. For a long time, the Vatican refused to issue a binding position.

Abortion is a serious ethical issue (NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE) and it’s only natural that most major religions would have something to say on the issue, even if only indirectly. Opponents of abortion will be quick to point out those aspects of religious traditions which somehow condemn or prohibit abortion, but we must keep in mind the very obvious fact that abortion has been practiced in every society and for as far back as we have historical records. No matter how strong the condemnations of abortion have been, they haven’t stopped women from seeking them. (THAT IS HOW REPBULICANS/BUSH 'WON-OVER' CONVINCED VOTERS/THE BIBLE BELT. THAT IS HOW HE WON THE SECOND ELECTION: BRAINWASHING IGNORANT PEOPLE)

Most religions don’t appear to regard abortion as murder because they don’t ascribe the exact same moral status to the fetus as they do to the mother — or even to a newborn infant. However much abortion might be treated as a sin and immoral, it still doesn’t generally rise the same level of immorality as killing person. This indicates that anti-choice activists today who argue so vociferously that abortion is murder and impermissible have adopted a position which is ahistorical and contrary to most religious traditions.
 

ImInnocent

New member
Mass Media and Society. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!

Lies come in many forms. Partial truths, selective facts, out of context quotes and information, partial historical perspective and out right misrepresentation of facts. It is easy to manipulate the public. If you become aware of the methods of deception you are better prepared to sift through the propaganda for the few facts that are actually made available by our broadcast our news media.

During the early 1970s the American Press emerged as the global leader in integrity. Press corps from around the world stood in awe of the fact that the American Press held its Government and President accountable for their actions. Between CBS News’ airing of what is now referred to as “The Pentagon Papers”, and the investigative reporting by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post, exposing the Watergate Scandal, the world became aware of the power of “Freedom of the Press”. It was the press corps that held the government accountable, at least to an extent.

The International Community watched with amazement, respect and jealously as the American Press exposed corruption at highest levels in the American Government. Responsible honest reporting of events, without spin, resulted in a change of leadership in the greatest most powerful nation on the Planet.

There is an underlying dedication to the implied responsibility of informing the public of the events of the world.

Today the American Press has become the laughing stock of the world. No longer are they looked at with the respect their predecessors worked so hard to earn. The American Press is all but a complete failure today.

Unfortunately today a mask has been placed over the face of the American journalists, and a filter has been applied to their voice.The face of the news has changed. Today’s TV News “Entertainment” personalities are just that, personalities. They are faces, mostly attractive faces, or faces that seem trustworthy, hired only to draw your attention. A new trend is taking place that proves how important the “Face” factor is. The new trend is the hiring of women broadcasters who have exceptionally expressive faces. The purpose of this is to impress upon the viewer an inappropriately heightened sense of horror or concern as the broadcaster reports a story. (i.e. ABORTION, ABORTED FETUSES... sound familiar???)

The key problem today is that the bulk of Americans get their news from the television, not to mention the many who get their news from the right wing owned and controlled AM radio stations. As we know television news has now become what I like to call “News Entertainment”. They are the Professional Wrestling of the World of Journalism.

Ever since CNN made this discovery the other TV news organizations focused on ratings. Now ask yourself what gets the best ratings? Remember to take into account that we live in a country that has made the Jerry Springer Show its highest rated program, which also explains how the Republicans mustered up enough votes among the American populous to “Select” George W. Bush as its leader (well, enough votes to take it to court). This basically proves that the intellectual capacity of the average American TV viewer should be of concern to anyone who cares about our future as a nation. Now let’s continue; what gets ratings in a Jerry Springer/George W. Bush loving nation? Science, philosophy? Not quite. Scandal and sensation get ratings. That is very obvious.

A President getting a little extra sex is more fascinating than a President a hiring convicted felon to be in charge of the private information of American citizens. Perhaps the most disturbing and worrisome trend is the surge of ignorant viewers who now rely on the most prolific purveyors of propaganda; the Fox News Network and the Internet. Their Jerry Springer approach to the Iraq invasion has helped to boost their viewer ship and their bias PR work for the Bush administration has made them the darling of the White House. Is it any wonder that the reading levels of our students drop every year? Is in any wonder that the average college graduate of today has the same level of education as the average high school graduate of the 1950s?

Is there anything else going on in the world? Is it simply cheaper to cover one story, or are they hiding the other stories? CNN has shaped this nation into a “One Topic” nation. Gulf War 1, OJ Simpson, Monica Lewinski, Impeachment, 2000 Elections, Gary Condit, 9/11, Afghanistan, Anthrax, the Sniper and now Iraq. One topic at a time, rarely overlapping, completely dominating the news while all other stories go unreported (success with adult stem cell research... sound familiar???). Is this just due to the fact the News Entertainment World is not financially able to cover more than one story, or are they deliberately keeping other stories away from the public?

TV News is now nothing more than an infomercial for the Bush administration. If the sponsors and the administration do not approve of a story it will not be reported. Numerous memos have been released that prove this allegation. Even the few good reporters are afraid to ask their questions. TV News is now the professional wrestling of the journalism world.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Re: Mass Media and Society. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!

TV News is now nothing more than an infomercial for the Bush administration. If the sponsors and the administration do not approve of a story it will not be reported. Numerous memos have been released that prove this allegation. Even the few good reporters are afraid to ask their questions. TV News is now the professional wrestling of the journalism world.

You sure do not watch American news much or you wouldn't have made such a silly statement. :yum:
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Re: Mass Media and Society. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!

You sure do not watch American news much or you wouldn't have made such a silly statement. :yum:

Doc, you got that right. As stated here countless times, I don't even like Bush and I agree the statement that the American media is an infomercial FOR HIM is ludicrous. Heck he is attacked EVERY DAY by the mainstream media. Not only is he attacked, but generally the entire Christian faith is attacked on a regular basis.

Further, if there was ANY truth to the statement, then the mainstream media would have plastered the new story that I asked about ALL OVER the place. They did NOT do that, and because it was NOT reported is why I asked about it!
 

ImInnocent

New member
Ignorance is bliss

As stated here countless times, I don't even like Bush and I agree the statement that the American media is an infomercial FOR HIM is ludicrous.
Make any grand claims you wish, supported by no facts at all.

had you gone to university and studied Mass Media and Society, you'd understand the impact of biased reporting and how it influences ignorant people.

The facts, once again, are right in front of you. I spelled it out to you, yet you mods STILL attack and insult.

shame.

You asked how it happened, and I explained it to you. You want to live with blinders on, then go ahead. There are LOADS of websites that prove what I wrote and what I learned at uni.

It was excruciating to be silenced while myth and misinformation went unchallenged. Military analysts typically appeared unopposed; they were presented as experts, not advocates. But their closeness to the Pentagon often obstructed independent, skeptical analysis... story continues
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/67/24702
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Re: Ignorance is bliss

Melensdad said:
As stated here countless times, I don't even like Bush and I agree the statement that the American media is an infomercial FOR HIM is ludicrous.
Make any grand claims you wish, supported by no facts at all.
I don't think you will find anyone here who thinks I am a supporter of George Bush . . . other than you? Does that make me a Kerry supporter? No. Clearly not. But its been stated time and time again that I didn't like the first George Bush and I don't like this one. Call me a liar if you want, but it you just make you look silly.

You asked how it happened, and I explained it to you.
No, you explained what did NOT happen. Not what happened. You made up an answer for something that was the opposite of the facts. Start at the beginning, carefully read the question asked. Take a deep breath, and read it again.

Based on your answers, it is clear that you did NOT understand the question.
 
Top