Man appears free of HIV after stem cell transplant

[China]

Man appears free of HIV after stem cell transplant (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/11/health.hiv.stemcell/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular)

By Jacquelyne Froeber

A 42-year-old HIV patient with leukemia appears to have no detectable HIV in his blood and no symptoms after a stem cell transplant from a donor carrying a gene mutation that confers natural resistance to the virus that causes AIDS, according to a report published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

"The patient is fine," said Dr. Gero Hutter of Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin in Germany. "Today, two years after his transplantation, he is still without any signs of HIV disease and without antiretroviral medication."

The case was first reported in November, and the new report is the first official publication of the case in a medical journal. Hutter and a team of medical professionals performed the stem cell transplant on the patient, an American living in Germany, to treat the man's leukemia, not the HIV itself.

However, the team deliberately chose a compatible donor who has a naturally occurring gene mutation that confers resistance to HIV. The mutation cripples a receptor known as CCR5, which is normally found on the surface of T cells, the type of immune system cells attacked by HIV.

The mutation is known as CCR5 delta32 and is found in 1 percent to 3 percent of white populations of European descent.

HIV uses the CCR5 as a co-receptor (in addition to CD4 receptors) to latch on to and ultimately destroy immune system cells. Since the virus can't gain a foothold on cells that lack CCR5, people who have the mutation have natural protection. (There are other, less common HIV strains that use different co-receptors.)

People who inherit one copy of CCR5 delta32 take longer to get sick or develop AIDS if infected with HIV. People with two copies (one from each parent) may not become infected at all. The stem cell donor had two copies.

While promising, the treatment is unlikely to help the vast majority of people infected with HIV, said Dr. Jay Levy, a professor at the University of California San Francisco, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study. A stem cell transplant is too extreme and too dangerous to be used as a routine treatment, he said.

"About a third of the people die [during such transplants], so it's just too much of a risk," Levy said. To perform a stem cell transplant, doctors intentionally destroy a patient's immune system, leaving the patient vulnerable to infection, and then reintroduce a donor's stem cells (which are from either bone marrow or blood) in an effort to establish a new, healthy immune system.

Click on the link for the full article

[skinsfan_1215]

I saw on TV that all you have to do to get rid of AIDS is to take liquefied cash and inject it into your blood. That seems easier than this method.

[GibbsFactor]

So we have two things that work.

Stem Cell and Bone Marrow transplant using marrow that is immune from the syndrome.

Promising to say the least.

[G-Prime]

When is it going to be cost effective to completely irraticate this disease is what I want to know.

[zoony]

I think playing basketball for the Lakers works too, so that makes 3 things.

[PleaseBlitz]

"About a third of the people die [during such transplants], so it's just too much of a risk," Levy said. To perform a stem cell transplant, doctors intentionally destroy a patient's immune system, leaving the patient vulnerable to infection, and then reintroduce a donor's stem cells (which are from either bone marrow or blood) in an effort to establish a new, healthy immune system.


When you are faced with either A. dying from AIDS, or B. a 1/3 chance of dying from treatment, is it really too much of a risk?

[skinsfan_1215]

I think playing basketball for the Lakers works too, so that makes 3 things.

No no no no... that was the massive amount of cash involved in playing for the Lakers.

[Duckus]

When is it going to be cost effective to completely irraticate this disease is what I want to know.

A long long long time. People in Africa can't even afford the basic meds to treat it, let alone a surgery. Also, something like 1/3 of all HIV infected citizens in the US don't know they even have it.

But this is a great step in the right direction. Science is amazing.

[G-Prime]

A long long long time. People in Africa can't even afford the basic meds to treat it, let alone a surgery. Also, something like 1/3 of all HIV infected citizens in the US don't know they even have it.

But this is a great step in the right direction. Science is amazing.

It's not science.. It's Jesus

[Thiebear]

Adult stem cells > embyonic so far.. thats right, I said it.
Placenta stems are doing good .. i got 3 last week at a gov't auction.

[Burgundy Burner]

good thing bush banned stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cell research, not Adult Stem Cells (which was probably used in this experiment). And the embryonic ban was government owned cell lines, not private.

Just keeping it honest.

[Burgundy Burner]

honest like dick cheney?

Can you refute what I posted?

[Skinz4Life12]

they said 1/3 of people are killed by having this procedure though...

still proming though

[Califan007]

Embryonic stem cell research, not Adult Stem Cells (which was probably used in this experiment). And the embryonic ban was government owned cell lines, not private.

Just keeping it honest.
Since they said the stem cell was from a donor, I'm assuming it was an adult stem cell transplant as well.

[Skinz4Life12]

during obamas term do you think they will lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research?

[Califan007]

during obamas term do you think they will lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research?
There really isn't a ban on the research from what I understand, but rather that government funds wouldn't be used to fund the research (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Will government funding be made available under Obama? I'm thinking yeah, it will.

[Zguy28]

good thing bush banned stem cell research.I would hope you are kidding. Sadly, I know you are not.


Embryonic stem cell research, not Adult Stem Cells (which was probably used in this experiment). And the embryonic ban was government owned cell lines, not private.

Just keeping it honest.Thank you.


honest like dick cheney?Now, your just being trollish.


Can you refute what I posted?He can't. Nobody can.


Since they said the stem cell was from a donor, I'm assuming it was an adult stem cell transplant as well.That's right, it even said it was (from blood and bone marrow).

Of course the news makers just say "stem cells" in order to garner support for embryonic stem cell research because they know most people are ignorant of the difference like ChocolateCitySkin.

[Zguy28]

during obamas term do you think they will lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research?There is no ban on research.

The gov't just says it won't fund it. I mean, think about it, look how much conflict arises over the gov't funding abortion providers. Do you really want the gov't involved in another moral conflict the likes of abortion?

[Skinz4Life12]

i think if embryonic stem cells can save lives there shouldn't be a ban on it

[Califan007]

i think if embryonic stem cells can save lives there shouldn't be a ban on it
There isn't lol...

[Zguy28]

i think if embryonic stem cells can save lives there shouldn't be a ban on itBut that's just the point. Nobody knows if they will do anything.

Supporters use buzz words like "potential" or "promising", but in reality they have thus far largely proved useless or even dangerous (cancer).

Adult stem cell research OTOH should get tons of funding. In foreign countries like Brazil they have used them to regenerate damaged portions of hearts and other organs. On people too, not animals.

[Zguy28]

zguy keep your jesus to yourself.

ethics committees shouldn't be pandering to some loonies that think a guy walked on water.Watch out for the third billy coat Gruff. He's gonna gore you. :)

[Burgold]

Somewhat dishonest in this thread. By witholding funds for the research and restricting access to materials they effectively banned it in everything, but name. Most scientific research is incredibly dependent of grants.

[Skinz4Life12]

Somewhat dishonest in this thread. By witholding funds for the research and restricting access to materials they effectively banned it in everything, but name. Most scientific research is incredibly dependent of grants.

thank you

[Zguy28]

Somewhat dishonest in this thread. By witholding funds for the research and restricting access to materials they effectively banned it in everything, but name. Most scientific research is incredibly dependent of grants.Feel free to fund it out of your pocket. :)

But then again, its not really the topic of the thread is it?

[Burgold]

Nope, but it was a subtopic and you guys were beating him up over the "Bush banning" comment. :)

I actually would rather remove this from politics myself and talk about the medical potential which is pretty exciting.

[Skinz4Life12]

i agree with burgold. it has too much upside to be discarded for irrelevant reasons imo.

[Burgold]

You might try doing just a slight bit of research before you put forth an opinion. 1. Any ban did not apply in this case. 2. You think they just invented this in past 2 weeks since Obama has been president?

It also wasn't a U.S. discovery, but a German one. So, the U.S.' decisions on stem cells didn't impact the research one way or another. There are several who say that we are years behind other nations in this line of study primarily because of the restrictions placed by the Bush Administration.

[Skinz4Life12]

burgold, do you think those restrictions will be lifted during the obama administration?

[zoony]

good thing bush banned stem cell research.


honest like dick cheney?


zguy keep your jesus to yourself.

ethics committees shouldn't be pandering to some loonies that think a guy walked on water.



Not sure, maybe you're going thru a rough stretch or something, but we can do without these kinds of contributions from you.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

burgold, do you think those restrictions will be lifted during the obama administration?

http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22084/


Freeing Up Stem-Cell Research
Scientists get ready for the end of federal restrictions on embryonic-stem-cell research.

By Emily Singer
February 10, 2009

Three years ago, when Rene Rejo Pera was setting up a new lab at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), she had to make sure she had two of everything: one microscope for her federally funded lab, for example, and one for a privately funded replica next door. Because of funding restrictions on stem-cell research ordered by President George W. Bush in 2001, this was a redundant scenario played out in labs across the country. The edict specifically limited federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research to a small number of cell lines already in existence, leaving scientists who wanted to conduct cutting-edge research in this area scrambling for private money.

Scientists are now looking forward to an end of that edict. President Barack Obama promised during his campaign to overturn the order, and most expect the action to happen soon. "The imminent change in policy will quite literally allow us to take down these walls and integrate the laboratories in a way that will make the work move much more efficiently," says Arnold Kriegstein, director of the Broad Center of Regeneration Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UCSF.

The new policy is expected to mean that scientists will have unfettered access to newer, better embryonic stem cells, which will speed the pace of research. Even without funding restrictions, however, scientists receiving government grants could not use that money to generate new lines, which requires the destruction of an embryo. Kriegstein and others hope that the change will bring a new sense of legitimacy to an often embattled field, as well as return a leadership role to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the nation's premier biomedical funding agency, in one of the most promising areas of biomedical research. Much of the research has shifted to institutes funded by state initiatives, such as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, or by private donors. In addition to limiting funding, "the other reality of [the Bush] policy is all the negative publicity it has created," says Tim Kamp, codirector of the Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine Center at the University of Wisconsin. "Frankly, I think it did greater damage than funding restrictions, [in] that it scared many researchers away."

Despite the restrictions, U.S. scientists have employed embryonic stem cells for a broad range of research. Because the cells can develop into any tissue type, scientists are coming up with ways to prod them to differentiate into brain cells, heart cells, and other cell types, both to better understand the diseases that strike these tissues and to potentially create replacement tissue for therapies. But much of the most promising research has moved overseas.

Once the restriction is lifted, labs funded by federal dollars will be allowed to use most of the estimated 600 stem-cell lines that have been created around the globe. Researchers broadly agree that the newer lines, which were derived using more refined methods, are superior to the older ones. Using only the old lines is like "being required to use Microsoft Word 1998," says Jeanne Loring, director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at the Scripps Research Institute, in La Jolla, CA.

In addition, the earlier lines were derived using animal products, making them largely unfit for therapeutic use. "There are hundreds of embryonic stem-cell lines out there that have been made under the best conditions, and some of them are patient ready," says John Gearhart, director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia. "They have greater utility, performance, and safety than [the Bush-approved] lines."

Scientists will also be able to study cell lines that are genetically encoded for specific diseases--perhaps one of the most promising near-term uses of embryonic stem cells. (None of the Bush-approved lines have these qualities.) "One of the clear opportunities that has not been available are lines generated from embryos that carry mutations for Huntington's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and cystic fibrosis," says Story Landis, director of the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, in Bethesda, MD, and chair of the NIH's Stem Cell Task Force. These cells provide unprecedented access to the molecular processes underlying disease; they can be prodded to develop into the cell type affected in a specific disease, such as motor neurons in ALS, so that scientists can watch the disease unfold at a cellular level. These cells can also be used to screen new drugs.

Scientists and policy makers are still guessing as to when and how President Obama will reverse the restrictions--whether he will issue an executive order, or let Congress decide the matter. But according to White House press reports last week, the president promised the former. Prior to Obama's presidency, Congress twice passed a bill reversing the restrictions, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which Bush twice vetoed.

It's not yet clear how quickly the field will rebound from the funding limits. Many scientists were discouraged from studying embryonic stem cells during the past eight years because they couldn't secure private funds, or because they or their universities did not want to deal with the extensive accounting required. "The effect of the restrictions was to create a few centers going forward, like mine and like Harvard, Stanford, and UCSF, which had access to private and state money," says Loring. "Now there will be more room for people to get involved, but they'll be eight years behind."

The field has changed dramatically since President Bush's edict, especially in the past two years, which may make new funding freedom less significant. A newly developed technique to create stem cells--called induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell reprogramming--does not require the destruction of human embryos, and scientists hesitant to take on embryonic stem cells have been flocking to the new approach in droves.

Researchers have been able to do many of the same experiments with these iPS cells as they have with embryonic stem cells. However, they caution that these cells have not been shown to carry all the power of embryonic cells--for example, they cannot differentiate into as many cell types. "It's very important that labs be able to do experiments with both kinds of cells side by side," says Kriegstein. "Relaxing presidential policies will make this much easier to accomplish."

One area of research that won't change with removal of the restrictions is therapeutic cloning. In therapeutic cloning (also called somatic cell nuclear transfer), scientists transplant DNA from an adult skin cell into an egg that has had its DNA removed. Unknown factors in the egg reprogram the adult DNA to resemble embryonic DNA, and, in theory, the cell begins to develop like a normal embryo. Scientists would like to create stem cells from cloned human embryos, both for research and potentially for therapy: the cells would be genetically matched to their human donors and thus could be transplanted without fear of rejection. But no one has yet accomplished this with human cells and eggs. Research that involves destruction of human embryos, which includes both cloning and derivation of new stem-cell lines, is prohibited from federal funding under the Dickey Amendment, a rider to the appropriations bills that have been passed in Congress over the past several years.

[Burgold]

burgold, do you think those restrictions will be lifted during the obama administration?

Most likely, in fact, I believe there already has been some loosening. The FDA approved some stem cell procedures and tests only days after Obama was sworn in. Rumor was that they wanted to wait because the bureaucrats were afraid of political repurcussions.

[Skinz4Life12]

thats good news to hear.

seperation of church and state

[Zguy28]

Nope, but it was a subtopic and you guys were beating him up over the "Bush banning" comment. :)No, it was a distraction. Embryonic stem cells have nothing to do with this article at all other than the fact that news reporters intentionally confuse adult stem cells with them.


I actually would rather remove this from politics myself and talk about the medical potential which is pretty exciting.


i agree with burgold. it has too much upside to be discarded for irrelevant reasons imo.

Could you two elaborate on what evidence you think causes you to think they are "promising"? (there's that buzz word again ;) )

[Skinz4Life12]

could you elaborate why you don't think it is promising without referring to abortion or the bible?

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

This is what kills me. My great-grandmother had Alzheimers. My grandmother now has Alzheimers. My mother has a pretty good shot at getting Alzheimers. There is a chance there might be a cure found through stem cells. Adult and EMBRYONIC. But this...

http://student.biology.arizona.edu/honors2007/group01/embryonic-stem-cell.jpg

is considered more important than them. Give me an f'n break. You want evidence? Ok, because I'm sure not being able to do research on it has given us a great opportunity to produce evidence. Now I'm not saying it's a lock a cure is going to be found through it. But if there is a shot at it then you take it. Ugh. This topic makes me so mad.

[Skinz4Life12]

but it has a heart beat...?...

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

reading is fundamental

Their response:

"I'm sure we can find a way to do the same with adult stem cells."

There is no reasoning with them.

[Califan007]

This is what kills me. My great-grandmother had Alzheimers. My grandmother now has Alzheimers. My mother has a pretty good shot at getting Alzheimers. There is a chance there might be a cure found through stem cells. Adult and EMBRYONIC. But this...

(pic here)

is considered more important than them. Give me an f'n break. You want evidence? Ok, because I'm sure not being able to do research on it has given us a great opportunity to produce evidence. Now I'm not saying it's a lock a cure is going to be found through it. But if there is a shot at it then you take it. Ugh. This topic makes me so mad.
I understand what you're saying, but keep this in mind: the "this" that you showed in the picture could have BEEN your great-grandmother, or your grandmother, or your mother, or you. So there are two sides, here. It would be foolish for either side to completely write off the other as nonsense.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

but it has a heart beat...?...

Four days after fertilization? No. It's about 100 cells. That's it. No heart. No brain. No fingernails. Nothing. Just a clump of cells.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I understand what you're saying, but keep this in mind: the "this" that you showed in the picture could have BEEN your great-grandmother, or your grandmother, or your mother, or you. So there are two sides, here. It would be foolish for either side to completely write off the other as nonsense.

THEY ARE THROWING THEM AWAY!!!

So, yeah. Try again.

I mean wtf? You think they're running around ripping women open and stealing their clump of embryo cells?

[Skinz4Life12]

^yea i know. i was just writing what i thought i was about to read

[Califan007]

THEY ARE THROWING THEM AWAY!!!

So, yeah. Try again.
I'm not talking about what "they" are doing with them...I'm talking about the idea of saying the embryo is less important than your "grandmother or mother", etc.

And do they get embryonic stem cells from 4 day old embryos?

[panel]

good thing bush banned stem cell research.


Bush did not ban Stem cell research, he didn't publicly fund it, this research happened while Bush was in office.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I'm not talking about what "they" are doing with them...I'm talking about the idea of saying the embryo is less important than your "grandmother or mother", etc.

And do they get embryonic stem cells from 4 day old embryos?

Yeah well I'm talking about what "they" are doing.

[Califan007]

Yeah well I'm talking about what "they" are doing.
Then take your argument to someone who's actually discussing that topic lol...

And again, do they get embryonic stem cells from 4 day old embryos? Does anyone know?

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Then take your argument to someone who's actually discussing that topic lol..

What the **** does that mean? I am discussing the topic in the thread... about the topic. You quoted me.

Oh and it's called google. It's a magical thing.

[Califan007]

What the **** does that mean? I am discussing the topic in the thread... about the topic. You quoted me.

Oh and it's called google. It's a magical thing.
I quoted your comment about your mother/grandmother's worth as compared to an embryo. Nothing in your post talked about what "they" did with embryos. So that's what the hell that means. Try to follow your own posts, will ya? lol...

And I'm gonna assume that you don't know the answer to my question lol...sorry if asking a curious question on the actual topic of the thread seems irresponsible in your eyes. You'll have to deal with it somehow, though. :cool:

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I quoted your comment about your mother/grandmother's worth as compared to an embryo. Nothing in your post talked about what "they" did with embryos. So that's what the hell that means. Try to follow your own posts, will ya? lol...

And I'm gonna assume that you don't know the answer to my question lol...sorry if asking a curious question on the actual topic of the thread seems irresponsible in your eyes. You'll have to deal with it somehow, though. :cool:

Wow.

And no I don't know the answer to your question. I could look it up. In like seconds. But you can do the same. So knock yourself out and answer your own question.

[Califan007]

if we didn't write off foolish comments by some religious zealots it would still be the dark ages.
And of course the opposite stance is "If we didn't write off foolish comments by some unthinking secular scientist-types we'd be cloning human beings simply to harvest their organs and trying to create a "perfect" human race."

[Skinz4Life12]

mother. grandmother. great grandmother >>>> embryo

fact.

[Califan007]

Wow.
I guanantee you that you're the only one who is "wow'd" by my post. ;)

[Skinz4Life12]

And of course the opposite stance is "If we didn't write off foolish comments by some unthinking secular scientist-types we'd be cloning human beings simply to harvest their organs and trying to create a "perfect" human race."

come on man. you're reaching so hard and you know it

[Califan007]

mother. grandmother. great grandmother >>>> embryo

fact.
How is that "fact"?

[Califan007]

come on man. you're reaching so hard and you know it
No, I'm trying to point out that just because someone believes their stance is right doesn't mean their comments can't be over the top or way too generalized.

[Skinz4Life12]

How is that "fact"?

i guess thats just a fundamental difference in our views that i'm not even going to try and argue.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I guanantee you that you're the only one who is "wow'd" by my post. ;)

I'm pretty sure I am.

And check the edit

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

i guess thats just a fundamental difference in our views that i'm not even going to try and argue.

Exactly. He wants to act cute and like a douchebag, just let him. It's not worth it.

[Califan007]

i guess thats just a fundamental difference in our views that i'm not even going to try and argue.
That's exactly it: it's a "view", and opinion. Not a "fact".

A "fact" would be:

great-grandmother/Grandmother/Mother used to all be embryos.

That's fact. Not opinion.

Whether or not human life at it's very, VERY beginning stage is more "valuable" than human life at any other stage of development is opinion.

[Califan007]

Exactly. He wants to act cute and like a douchebag, just let him. It's not worth it.
Ah, and out trot the insults lol...."douchebag". That's a new one. :thumbsup:

Those who actually enjoy debate understand what I'm doing. Those who react in an over-emotional way and push thinking aside will...well, we're seeing what they do.

[PeterMP]

Most likely, in fact, I believe there already has been some loosening. The FDA approved some stem cell procedures and tests only days after Obama was sworn in. Rumor was that they wanted to wait because the bureaucrats were afraid of political repurcussions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/business/23stem.html

With Bush approved stem cell lines, which honestly really shocked me:

"The human embryonic stem cell lines currently eligible for research with federal funds are not suitable for use in future clinical trials"

http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-2/Panel-3A-Clinical-use-of-embryonic-stem-cells--jeopardized-by-Bushs-policy-on-federal-funding-5030-1/

"Conducting a federally funded clinical trial of human ES cells, under current federal policy, would require using cell lines that none of us feel should be used in people, since it is now feasible to create safer lines," says Ruth Faden, Ph.D., M.P.H., a leader of the panel and executive director of the Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute at Johns Hopkins. "So, all clinical trials -- and by extension the experiments leading to them -- should be conducted with newer cell lines not eligible for federal funding. The likelihood of getting to a clinical trial using only private funds, however, is very slim.
"Moreover," she adds, "the absence of federal funding would mean a reduced role for federal oversight of the ethics of human embryonic stem cell research."


I am honestly confused. I guess I at least can ask some people, but the big push was these lines would NEVER be approved for clinical trials so either the people saying that were wrong OR we've approved things for clinical trials that shouldn't have been.


I honestly don't, which and I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but it assumes either way you have one.

[Skinz4Life12]

ok, kindof confused whether or not they will start to use ES cells now

[Califan007]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/business/23stem.html


http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-2/Panel-3A-Clinical-use-of-embryonic-stem-cells--jeopardized-by-Bushs-policy-on-federal-funding-5030-1/


I honestly don't, which and I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but it assumes either way you have one.
That's quite a differing of opinion on ES cells...

[PeterMP]

Scientists will also be able to study cell lines that are genetically encoded for specific diseases--perhaps one of the most promising near-term uses of embryonic stem cells. (None of the Bush-approved lines have these qualities.) "One of the clear opportunities that has not been available are lines generated from embryos that carry mutations for Huntington's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and cystic fibrosis," says Story Landis, director of the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, in Bethesda, MD, and chair of the NIH's Stem Cell Task Force.

This makes no sense to me.

How does deriving stem cells for these diseases help you w/ the disease? These are diseases that affect specific tissue and even specific cells w/ IN specific tissues.

I'd be shocked if there is an embryonic stem cell phenotype for most of the diseases. The disease is tissue/cell specific. It almost certainly doesn't happen at a stem cell or more tissue/cell types would be affected.

[PleaseBlitz]

ok, kindof confused whether or not they will start to use ES cells now

Obama needs to sign something, and he's currently using all of his political capital on the $800 billion bill. Not the best time to piss of the religious crowd.

[Zguy28]

Scientists will also be able to study cell lines that are genetically encoded for specific diseases--perhaps one of the most promising near-term uses of embryonic stem cells. (None of the Bush-approved lines have these qualities.) "One of the clear opportunities that has not been available are lines generated from embryos that carry mutations for Huntington's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and cystic fibrosis," says Story Landis, director of the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, in Bethesda, MD, and chair of the NIH's Stem Cell Task Force.


reading is fundamentalYes it is.

This is what I was talking about. You just keep drinking the kool-aid that these folks are pouring down your throat.

Looks to me like its just "perhaps if we had these it might work".

[Zguy28]

before the wright brothers everyone said that man couldn't fly. using your logic they should have never tried to fly.Last I checked flying wasn't an ethical issue dividing 400 million people in half.

[Skinz4Life12]

so will they get funding for non-approved bush lines or not?

[PeterMP]

ok, kindof confused whether or not they will start to use ES cells now

All ES cells have always been availible for research. Just not federal funding.

You always could use some ES cells w/ federal funding. Just ones that had been approved by Bush back in the early 2000's.

It is likely that Obama will lift the ban more fully if he hasn't already.

I personally think it is a bit odd because in fact we now have the ability to take non-stem cells from any person (and therefore containing any mutation for any disease) and convert them into cells that appear by several measures to be IDENTICAL to ES cells.

This approach beyond the ethical concerns also has the bonus of tissue/cell rejection shouldn't be an issue because they will be identical to the patient.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082101180.html

It seems reasonable that it might make sense to have some further stem cell studies to compare these produced cells to real ES cells to make sure they are identical under a large number of conditions, but it doesn't seem at all worthwhile going forward w/ pure ES research if there is any moral concern (and I think essentially every bioethicist that has looked at the issue has said there is SOME concern), but I doubt politically that matters.

[Califan007]

where'd you pull 400 million out of?
I'm pretty sure he's referring to the country's population.

[Zguy28]

where'd you pull 400 million out of? I was generalizing based on the population of the USA.

[BigMike619]

In 1891, the german engineer Otto Lilienthal succeeded with the reproducible gliding flights, the first in history, with his own design. His methodical strategy "from jump to flight" was adopted by the Wright Brothers in their quest to develop a practical powered machine.

[Zguy28]

All ES cells have always been availible for research. Just not federal funding.

You always could use some ES cells w/ federal funding. Just ones that had been approved by Bush back in the early 2000's.

It is likely that Obama will lift the ban more fully if he hasn't already.

I personally think it is a bit odd because in fact we now have the ability to take non-stem cells from any person (and therefore containing any mutation for any disease) and convert them into cells that appear by several measures to be IDENTICAL to ES cells.

This approach beyond the ethical concerns also has the bonus of tissue/cell rejection shouldn't be an issue because they will be identical to the patient.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082101180.html

It seems reasonable that it might make sense to have some further stem cell studies to compare these produced cells to real ES cells to make sure they are identical under a large number of conditions, but it doesn't seem at all worthwhile going forward w/ pure ES research if there is any moral concern (and I think essentially every bioethicist that has looked at the issue has said there is SOME concern), but I doubt politically that matters.Thank you for a reasonable post on the subject.

[Califan007]

It seems reasonable that it might make sense to have some further stem cell studies to compare these produced cells to real ES cells to make sure they are identical under a large number of conditions, but it doesn't seem at all worthwhile going forward w/ pure ES research if there is any moral concern (and I think essentially every bioethicist that has looked at the issue has said there is SOME concern), but I doubt politically that matters.
This hits at what I was getting at earlier...the idea that there are no ethical concerns except in the mind of religious zealots is a bit naive. It's just as naive as saying that there is no benefit to pursuing ES cell research because all other stem cell research will eventually render ES cells unnecessary.

[Zguy28]

This hits at what I was getting at earlier...the idea that there are no ethical concerns except in the mind of religious zealots is a bit naive. It's just as naive as saying that there is no benefit to pursuing ES cell research because all other stem cell research will eventually render ES cells unnecessary.Exactly.

Personally, I am against ESC research primarily on moral and religious grounds. But I realize that others don't agree with me.

All I ask folks is to thoroughly do their homework and weigh the pros and cons of ESC's, compared to adult stem cells, when deciding whether to support them.

[BigMike619]

bioethics and religion are and should be two separate institutions. you can prattle on about your faith based destiny of a single cell's theoretical potential as a life form.

but that is not what bioethical concerns they are referring. so continue to backtrack and squeeze your round argument into a square hole.

you are asking for someone who is religious to not think of human life in a religious way. thats impossible...

[Califan007]

bioethics and religion are and should be two separate institutions. you can prattle on about your faith based destiny of a single cell's theoretical potential as a life form.

but that is not what bioethical concerns they are referring. so continue to backtrack and squeeze your round argument into a square hole.
In no way did I say the bioethical concerns are the same concerns as the religious ones. If you actually read the lines I write instead of constantly trying to read between them you would have realized that.

[PleaseBlitz]

There is no ban on research.

The gov't just says it won't fund it. I mean, think about it, look how much conflict arises over the gov't funding abortion providers. Do you really want the gov't involved in another moral conflict the likes of abortion?

One that can potentially cure AIDS and cancer? Yes, i would like that. Sooner rather than later, please.

[Califan007]

you are asking for someone who is religious to not think of human life in a religious way. thats impossible...
Not to mention that, if he was referring to me, I'm not religious lol :)...

[Califan007]

Exactly.

Personally, I am against ESC research primarily on moral and religious grounds. But I realize that others don't agree with me.

All I ask folks is to thoroughly do their homework and weigh the pros and cons of ESC's, compared to adult stem cells, when deciding whether to support them.
There are a whole range of issues to be considered when considering ES cell research...only the most shortsighted of us will assume there isn't. And yeah, people on both sides need to do FAR more homework on the subject. Hell, I asked a simple question in this thread and was ridiculed for doing so lol :)...that pretty much shows how little "homework" people tend to think is really needed on the subject.

[BigMike619]

Not to mention that, if he was referring to me, I'm not religious lol :)...

I just meant in general..you heathen...LOL

[Califan007]

I just meant in general..you heathen...LOL
http://www.tvland.com/photogallery/photos/Sanford129a2.jpg

[BigMike619]

bwaaaaaaaaaahahahaha!! she was a dancer!!

[Califan007]

bwaaaaaaaaaahahahaha!! she was a dancer!!
With a snake lol :cool:

[Califan007]

reading between the lines? your grandmother argument is purely faith based.
No it's not. There are a ton of philosophies out there that go into the value and realities of human life. That's not the arena of religions alone. Expand your thinking...

[Califan007]

that argument is a pure paradox. and only functions on one level. religion.

otherwise, you can make the argument that the destroyed cell gives life to the cell behind it. you're putting the rights of one cell over the rights of another to live.

its a stupid asinine argument.
It's not a paradox in the slightest.

It's a simple question (or group of questions) that ask:

- When does human life "begin"
- Does human life have an intrinic value or instrumental value, or both
- What role does physical appearance play in our developed value systems

And a ****load of other debatable aspects of human existence you apparently have zero interest in even slightly contemplating. Far easier to chalk it up to religious zealotry and be insultingly dismissive. Gotcha. :thumbsup:

[DiscoBob]

it's not a paradox in the slightest.

It's a simple question (or group of questions) that ask:

- when does human life "begin"
- does human life have an intrinic value or instrumental value, or both
- what role does physical appearance play in our developed value systems

and a ****load of other debatable aspects of human existence you apparently have zero interest in even slightly contemplating. Far easier to chalk it up to religious zealotry and be insultingly dismissive. Gotcha. :thumbsup:

shazam!

[Thiebear]

if we didn't write off foolish comments by some religious zealots it would still be the dark ages.


WHY does everything moral have to be Religious crazies.
How is Germany so far ahead of America when Adult stem cells were used. (we have stem cells).

We should probably try harder.