T1B

...look, regardless of where you stand on the issue, for the love of God, KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!

I am so frigging tired of hearing idjits on TV, radio, or in public being 100% completely wrong on where the stem cells in question are coming from..

For example:

The LabRat family is out having lunch at Friendly's (one of the few eateries in which people don't flip out at the sight of young kids) and in the booth behind us, two women are talking loudly about the Bush veto. One of them says something to the effect of "using aborted babies" and how women might be talked into "getting paid to get pregnant to have abortions for stem cell supplies."

I couldn't frigging take it. I apologized for butting in, mentioned I overheard them, gave my background and set the women (who looked to be in their 30's, middle class, educated) straight - told them that the embryos are leftovers from IN VITRO FERTILIZATION ATTEMPTS, NOT FREAKING ABORTIONS!! I briefly ran through IVF and said that, yes, if you believe that life begins at conception, then the embryos are people, yadda-yadda, but please, for the sake of their own intellectual reputations, to not make the idiotic mistake of screwing up by claiming that the cells come from abortions. They politely thanked me, but I have no idea if any of what I said sank in. I hope that they at least decided to read up more on the issue to see if I was accurate...

I have heard so many frigging people make this mistake that I want to smack the next person in the head who says it within my earshot...

dude

they have been running the commercials non stop on saturdays and sunday mornings, till the sports shit comes on. yesterday, the commercial was on 3 channels at the same time. it's worse than political commercials before november elections.

very good call, mike. my cousin's parapelegic wife is going to russia at the end of the month to partake in a procedure where her own adult stem cells are injected into her spinal fluid in an attempt to reconnect her damaged nerves. in the fall of 2001, she was paralyzed in a car accident in iowa that also claimed the life of her brother in law. she will be traveling back to russia every three months for the next two years for repeat injections in her spine (fun).

the cost of all this? $150k. i can imagine that if a similar prodecure was legal in america, while it would still be expensive , it wouldn't cost as much.

i really don't know much about stem cell "research" or whatever, other than it can help repair lives, and there is no good reason not to allow it.

Adelpiero wrote:dude

they have been running the commercials non stop on saturdays and sunday mornings, till the sports shit comes on. yesterday, the commercial was on 3 channels at the same time. it's worse than political commercials before november elections.

I haven't even seen a stem cell commercial. NY is not a "battleground state", so we are spared the worst of the political activist commercials around here.

Question - as blood cells originate in the bone marrow cavities, does hematopoiesis convert the different type -blasts of blood cells to where the originalstem cell is no longer around because of of proteins in the bloodstream?

I might be confusing myself with the concept like a DNA molecule.

Screw_Michigan wrote: i really don't know much about stem cell "research" or whatever, other than it can help repair lives, and there is no good reason not to allow it.

Bush's veto didn't ban stem cell research. He vetoed federal funding for stem cell research.

The private sector is "allowed" to do all the research they want. On their own dime.

88 wrote:Inasmuch as many of the embryos are presently disposed of as medical waste, I thought Bush's veto made very little sense.

Same here. Purely a political veto.

War Wagon wrote:Bush's veto didn't ban stem cell research. He vetoed federal funding for stem cell research.

That's the part that is my peeve (what MtLR stated about misconceptions) when I hear talking heads "argue" about this particular measure -- they "debate" it as if he vetoed the research, not federal funding.

The private sector is "allowed" to do all the research they want. On their own dime.

True. The private sector does little on their own, however. Unless of course you believe the drug companies' horseshit party line of needing to keep pharmaceutical prices high because of "research." Yeah, right. Research into marketing campaigns, maybe.

Federal funding via public universities is where a lot of the real research is done.

We're putting ourselves behind other parts of the world in research in this area, imo, by not allowing federal funding. Europe and Asia aren't going to be sitting around wringing their hands over the "morality" issues that Bush cited (purely to throw a bone to the religious right), especially when our clinics are throwing embryos away.

Atomic Punk wrote:Question - as blood cells originate in the bone marrow cavities, does hematopoiesis convert the different type -blasts of blood cells to where the originalstem cell is no longer around because of of proteins in the bloodstream?

I might be confusing myself with the concept like a DNA molecule.

Rack the Fuck outta AP

That's two in a row bud......

Don't get used to it...........

Medical Waste?......DNA?..........
How can something so "dead" with a classification of "Medical Waste" contain so much "life?"

Ponderous indeed...........

It comes down to what the people want vs what Bush wants, and given that so many states are allowing stem cell research, he's not representing anyone but himself and all of the other bible beaters who are ignorant of the reality of the situation.

Bush himself is ignorant of the facts, or misrepresenting them. Here is his quote:

This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. Bush said, "If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos, and I'm not going to allow it."

umm helllooo dumbass. We already ARE funding the deliberate destruction of human embryos when we destroy them as medical waste. This merely puts them to a use for the greater good.

And there's this:

Once a stem cell line is established from a cell in the body, it is essentially immortal, no matter how it was derived. That is, the researcher using the line will not have to go through the rigorous procedure necessary to isolate stem cells again. Once established, a cell line can be grown in the laboratory indefinitely and cells may be frozen for storage or distribution to other researchers.

All bush is really doing is wasting our tax money on adult stem cell research while other countries are investing in embryonic stem cell research and in the future they will leave the US far behind.

Thank ya kindly...

Anyway, this "stem cell" debate is silly. I think this is a federal funding issue and the idea that only embryos can provide this shit is beyond me. I'll get U&L'ed later fo shure.

Atomic Punk wrote:Thank ya kindly...

Anyway, this "stem cell" debate is silly. I think this is a federal funding issue and the idea that only embryos can provide this shit is beyond me. I'll get U&L'ed later fo shure.

No you are $ on this one.
The Human "Embryo" Stem Cell is the one in demand.
"Of all the different DNA placed in all the places in this World"...

One has the most "value."

Like I said...

Ponderous....

Atomic Punk wrote:Thank ya kindly...

Anyway, this "stem cell" debate is silly. I think this is a federal funding issue and the idea that only embryos can provide this shit is beyond me. I'll get U&L'ed later fo shure.

Except of course for the fact that they were able to regenerate a spinal column in a mouse using embryonic stem cell tissue. It didn't work with adult stem cell tissue.

Thus the reason they want to do the research on human embryo stem cells.

Bushice, I remember sending you software a few years ago like I did to your fellow ingrate, The Artist. I paid out of my own pocket and you "no-loads" never even said "thanks."

Fuck you, BITCH!

RF is right - Bush's veto is only about banning the use of federal funds to do research with the embryos. Researchers can get funding at the state level and use private funds to do the research. HOWEVER the fact is that research goes a whole lot faster and further if the feds kick in cash. We can argue whether or not doing so is the proper role of federal government, but in my opinion, using federal money for medical research (vaccines, drug therapies, etc.) is a legitimate role of government. Bush's stand had precisely ZERO to do with the "proper role of government" and everything to do with a religious stand.

I have a great photo from a National Geographic article from last summer. It shows what the embryos used look like - an ultratiny ball that is dwarfed by the eye of a needle it is sitting in. Both my students and their parents get something to think about when they realize how incredibly small and unformed the embryo is. Up until that point they had pictured something that at least looked like a crescent-shaped fish embryo.

Adult stem cells don't, can't, and won't be as effective as embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells have already had genetic "switches" flipped to dedicate/limit themselves, while embryonic stem cells are TOTIpotent...they can become anything.

Now, as to whether using these embryos is murder - that depends ENTIRELY on your RELIGIOUS view of when human life begins. There isn't a single scientist or even scientific experiment that can determine when "human life" or "ensoulment" can be delineated. Anyone who says there is...is flat-out LYING.

If you believe that the microsecond that sperm fertilizes egg and creates a zygote is precisely when a fully right-entitled human is created, then stem cell research is immoral (and so is IVF, which is why the Roman Catholic Church prohibits its members from using it). However, as I pointed out before, your OPINION is wholly a religious one, with no science to back it up.

Atomic Punk wrote:Bushice, I remember sending you software a few years ago like I did to your fellow ingrate, The Artist. I paid out of my own pocket and you "no-loads" never even said "thanks."

Fuck you, BITCH!

Wow, all that hostility because I disagree with you?
I can see you'll make a perfect nurse. :rolleyes:

BTW that "software" you sent me (specifically fix it utilities 4.0) was sent via email, and I did thank you for it, alzhi. On top of that, you might recall in return I helped design that marketing pamphlet you were going to use for your computer consulting business.

How quickly they forget.....

Mister Bushice wrote:
Wow, all that hostility because I disagree with you?
I can see you'll make a perfect nurse. :rolleyes:

BTW that "software" you sent me (specifically fix it utilities 4.0) was sent via email, and I did thank you for it, alzhi. On top of that, you might recall in return I helped design that marketing pamphlet you were going to use for your computer consulting business.

How quickly they forget.....

The stereotype losers equate with "nursing" keeps me thinking a bunch of you live in the 50's or even more ancient times. I give you some shit and you start crying? I have no hostility towards you. It has to be Artist now. HE is the ingrate.

Damnit...

l-r: Mister Bushice, Atomic Nurse

I picture Mike as more along the lines of these nurturing Soviet nurses.


It's amazing the pics you find when you Google "russian nurse"

Better yet . . .



l-r: Atomic Punk, Bushice

Now, on a more serious note . . .

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:RF is right - Bush's veto is only about banning the use of federal funds to do research with the embryos. Researchers can get funding at the state level and use private funds to do the research. HOWEVER the fact is that research goes a whole lot faster and further if the feds kick in cash. We can argue whether or not doing so is the proper role of federal government, but in my opinion, using federal money for medical research (vaccines, drug therapies, etc.) is a legitimate role of government. Bush's stand had precisely ZERO to do with the "proper role of government" and everything to do with a religious stand.

Exactly. And to me, it is more than a little ponderous (to use Dins' favorite word) that Tony Snow, in announcing, essentially, that Bush had vetoed the bill on moral grounds, would in the same breath, with a wink and a nod, suggest that the reporters might benefit themselves by investing in private stem cell research. I realize it's difficult, if not impossible, for the federal government to prevent private funding of stem cell research, but why affirmatively suggest it if you find it so morally appalling?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Better yet . . .

It might be better if you could find a picture we could actually see, instead if the FortuneCity logo. I mean, it took me three tries, but I did make the effort.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Better yet . . .

It might be better if you could find a picture we could actually see, instead if the FortuneCity logo. I mean, it took me three tries, but I did make the effort.

It shows up fine on my monitor. But since you really did make the effort . . .

Same picture, different site.

Goober McTuber wrote:

I always wondered what pippi longstocking did when she grew up.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Better yet . . .

It might be better if you could find a picture we could actually see, instead if the FortuneCity logo. I mean, it took me three tries, but I did make the effort.

It shows up fine on my monitor. But since you really did make the effort . . .

Same picture, different site.

Great, you’ve now progressed to a red X. It’s probably showing up for you because it’s in your cache. Try harder.

wonder why those "soviet" nurses
are in US gear ??

http://www.kaluta.com/pages/misc/[b]nur ... merica.jpg[/b]

The picture properties out back should have told you.

Mister Bushice wrote:http://www.kaluta.com/pages/misc/[b]nur ... merica.jpg[/b]

The picture properties out back should have told you.

He's a Mac user. You have to cut him a little slack.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Now, as to whether using these embryos is murder - that depends ENTIRELY on your RELIGIOUS view of when human life begins. There isn't a single scientist or even scientific experiment that can determine when "human life" or "ensoulment" can be delineated. Anyone who says there is...is flat-out LYING.

If you believe that the microsecond that sperm fertilizes egg and creates a zygote is precisely when a fully right-entitled human is created, then stem cell research is immoral (and so is IVF, which is why the Roman Catholic Church prohibits its members from using it). However, as I pointed out before, your OPINION is wholly a religious one, with no science to back it up.

1. Wrong, the nature of life does not depend on religion. One's perception of it might, but life is what life is. And as for the science part, not yet. In time, we might be able to explain these things but that is on God's time and when He chooses to reveal these "secrets" to us.

2. Again, not yet anyway.

Goober McTuber wrote:It’s probably showing up for you because it’s in your cache.

I don't see how, considering that I've never visited either site before today.

Try harder.

If you insist, a different pic but showing the same principals . . .

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:It’s probably showing up for you because it’s in your cache.

I don't see how, considering that I've never visited either site before today.

Terry,

1. Clear your browser cashe.

2. Visit this thread.

3. You'll see the same thing we saw.

BSmack wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:It’s probably showing up for you because it’s in your cache.

I don't see how, considering that I've never visited either site before today.

Terry,

1. Clear your browser cashe.

2. Visit this thread.

3. You'll see the same thing we saw.

Done, and the pics still show up.

Btw, someone PM'd me a wytched pic of the first one I posted, so I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who could see it.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Terry,

1. Clear your browser cashe.

2. Visit this thread.

3. You'll see the same thing we saw.

Cracks me up that in 2006, there's people who still have no clue how a computer works, even though they use it every day.

TiC wrote:Btw, someone PM'd me a wytched pic of the first one I posted, so I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who could see it.

And you're a lawyer?

Dear God, I feel for your clients. If this is "slam dunk" evidence, I'd hate to see what happens when you have shakey evidence.


Yeah dude -- the webmaster there has it set so that pic can't be hotlinked...except by you. That's what webmasters do all day, don'tcha know?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Done, and the pics still show up.

Btw, someone PM'd me a wytched pic of the first one I posted, so I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who could see it.

Then I am absolutely certain that you did not clear your cashe. Like Dins said, the webmaster for the site inserted a redirect on that picture. A redirect diverts traffic from an image that someone might want to link with to an image that nobody would want to link with. This is what happened here. The only way to get around the redirect is to view the image on the page the webmaster intended you to view it on. In this case, that would be http://www.littlereview.com/goddessloui ... cuckoo.htm

If you view THAT page, and then link to the image on that page, then the image will already be in your browser cashe. Therefore, when your browser reads the image address, it will find said image in the browser cashe and display the image without making a call to the website in question. That is why you can see the image and I (and the rest of this board) cannot.

PS: Now that I have viewed the page in question. I can now see your image.

Please to be explaining teh HTML code next.

mvscal wrote:

RadioFan wrote:Europe and Asia aren't going to be sitting around wringing their hands over the "morality" issues

So fucking what?

Um, because applied scientific research is competitive?

Damn dude, you seem to be stuck on stupid today.

mvscal wrote:If they want to pay for it let them. It means nothing to us.

Unless you or a loved one happens to have some sort of condition that might possibly benefit from stem cell research. Screw Michigan's post early on in this thread provided a good example of that.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Unless you or a loved one happens to have some sort of condition that might possibly benefit from stem cell research. Screw Michigan's post early on in this thread provided a good example of that.

Yes, an example of us being able to take advantage of the research done elsewhere.

At considerably greater cost than would be the case if it were done here, in all likelihood.

Companies that successfully develop techniques and products tend to make lots of money on licensing fees.
If those companies are foreign a lot of that money usually ends up in foreign countries.

Sin,
MA, Senior economics analyst

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote: Yes, an example of us being able to take advantage of the research done elsewhere.

At considerably greater cost than would be the case if it were done here, in all likelihood.

WRONG

In that case, you missed this:

Screw_Michigan wrote:my cousin's parapelegic wife is going to russia at the end of the month to partake in a procedure where her own adult stem cells are injected into her spinal fluid in an attempt to reconnect her damaged nerves. in the fall of 2001, she was paralyzed in a car accident in iowa that also claimed the life of her brother in law. she will be traveling back to russia every three months for the next two years for repeat injections in her spine (fun).

the cost of all this? $150k. i can imagine that if a similar prodecure was legal in america, while it would still be expensive , it wouldn't cost as much.

It will be far cheaper to build on someone else's research and, right now, ESC research has produced a whole lot of nothing.

In the event that the Euros or Asians ever come up with anything useful, we will be able to run with it.

Won't happen in any event until either Bush changes his mind or leaves office, or the midterm elections produce a veto-proof majority on this subject.

Since I now have permission to post the wytched pic . . .



I'd rack the person who sent it to me, but he wants to remain anonymous.