Tag Archives: Germany

Repost: Adult Stem Cells FTW

A colony of embryonic stem cells, from the H9 ...
Image via Wikipedia

This is a repost in light of the recent news that the news media finally picked up on the fact that adult stem cells are cutting the butter and embryonic stem cells are still only a load of hype… er, tripe.

Anyway, here’s what we knew 3 years ago:

In case you didn’t know: adult stem cells have been used for years to successfully treat a wide range of conditions successfully. Private companies have seen the success and have poured large amounts of money into programs exploring the benefits of stem cells derived from adult adipose (fat) tissue, marrow, and other sources.

So what’s all the hubbub over skin cells? And why are embryonic stem cells such a hot topic?

In a chokingly self-important article which seems to further support Dennis Prager‘s assertion that liberals can go their whole lives without meeting a conservative, Time Magazine claims the recent discoveries about the ability of skin-derived stem cells to differentiate (grow into different organs, technically called pluripotency) will not benefit the GOP. Come again? What does good science have to do with politics? And do you even know the history of the issue? I thought not, the MSM conveniently does not read any medical journals unless their tipped off by some juicy tidbit they may use to further their own radical agenda.

The article’s author, Michael Kinsley, says he has Parkinsons, a disease for which stem cells hold great potential in curing. Current Parkinsons treatments using embryonic stem cells turns the patients into shaking, slobbering babes incapable of the most basic self-care. Embryonic stem cells have a more direct and immediate potential for pluripotency as that is what they do: they turn into cells for each organ and tissue in the body. Unfortunately their growth is uncontrollable right now and they end up turning effectively into tumors in the brains of those who are injected with them.

On top of this, the ethical and moral issues involving the harvesting of human embryos are staggering and I fall in with those myriad souls who fight to stop the harvesting and destruction of human life with the goal of bettering human life. How far removed are we from Nazi Germany, when diabolical doctors of death practiced upon innocents by the millions to further the happiness of the rest of humanity? Is that a worthwhile trade?

In fact, to date there has not been a single successful treatment of any condition or disease using stem cells harvested from embryos.

Private sector investment has shunned embryonic stem cell lines, which means the only group which can be coerced into paying for these death-dealers research projects is… us. The government largess is available to any who crow loud and long enough, and it comes from yours and my pocket books and paychecks.

Private sector research has all gone towards adult stem cell research which offers very potent benefits over embryonic stem cells.

  • Adult stem cells suffer no chance of rejection from their host. Adult stem cells are collected from the person they will be used on, meaning the organs grown from them carry the exact biological and genetic “fingerprint” of the rest of the body, there is zero chance of rejection of these treatments.
  • Adult stem cells are given voluntarily as part of treatment. There is no moral or ethical morass involved in the collection of the these cells.
  • Adult stem cells can differentiate under controlled conditions. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which differentiate wildly and which we are currently unable to control, adult stem cells pluripotency can be controlled in application with greater reliability.

So we have an issue where the successful treatment and therefore all the private money has gone in one direction, but a few stubborn souls insist on using disinformation and outright lies to promote a morally reprehensible treatment system which would have been likely looked upon with distaste by most of the Nazi death doctors in hopes of getting us to pay for a treatment process with no current success and little promise.

“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.” ~James A. Thomson

UPDATE:

Hugh Hewitt references Charles Krauthammer’s article on the issue. Bush was right, technology vindicates morality:

Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush’s stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president — so vilified for a moral stance — been so thoroughly vindicated.

Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance. Precisely because, as Thomson puts it, Bush was made “a little bit uncomfortable” by the implications of embryonic experimentation. Precisely because he therefore decided that some moral line had to be drawn.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

Adult Stem Cells: Thousands, Embryonic Stem Cells: 0

MADISON, WI -  MARCH 10:  Irina Elcheva a empl...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

In case you didn’t know: adult stem cells have been used for years to successfully treat a wide range of conditions successfully. Private companies have seen the success and have poured large amounts of money into programs exploring the benefits of stem cells derived from adult adipose (fat) tissue, marrow, and other sources.

So what’s all the hubbub over skin cells? And why are embryonic stem cells such a hot topic?

In a chokingly self-important article which seems to further support Dennis Prager‘s assertion that liberals can go their whole lives without meeting a conservative, Time Magazine claims the recent discoveries about the ability of skin-derived stem cells to differentiate (grow into different organs, technically called pluripotency) will not benefit the GOP. Come again? What does good science have to do with politics? And do you even know the history of the issue? I thought not, the MSM conveniently does not read any medical journals unless their tipped off by some juicy tidbit they may use to further their own radical agenda.

The article’s author, Michael Kinsley, says he has Parkinsons, a disease for which stem cells hold great potential in curing. Current Parkinsons treatments using embryonic stem cells turns the patients into shaking, slobbering babes incapable of the most basic self-care. Embryonic stem cells have a more direct and immediate potential for pluripotency as that is what they do: they turn into cells for each organ and tissue in the body. Unfortunately their growth is uncontrollable right now and they end up turning effectively into tumors in the brains of those who are injected with them.

On top of this, the ethical and moral issues involving the harvesting of human embryos are staggering and I fall in with those myriad souls who fight to stop the harvesting and destruction of human life with the goal of bettering human life. How far removed are we from Nazi Germany, when diabolical doctors of death practiced upon innocents by the millions to further the happiness of the rest of humanity? Is that a worthwhile trade?

In fact, to date there has not been a single successful treatment of any condition or disease using stem cells harvested from embryos.

Private sector investment has shunned embryonic stem cell lines, which means the only group which can be coerced into paying for these death-dealers research projects is… us. The government largess is available to any who crow loud and long enough, and it comes from yours and my pocket books and paychecks.

Private sector research has all gone towards adult stem cell research which offers very potent benefits over embryonic stem cells.

  • Adult stem cells suffer no chance of rejection from their host. Adult stem cells are collected from the person they will be used on, meaning the organs grown from them carry the exact biological and genetic “fingerprint” of the rest of the body, there is zero chance of rejection of these treatments.
  • Adult stem cells are given voluntarily as part of treatment. There is no moral or ethical morass involved in the collection of the these cells.
  • Adult stem cells can differentiate under controlled conditions. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which differentiate wildly and which we are currently unable to control, adult stem cells pluripotency can be controlled in application with greater reliability.

So we have an issue where the successful treatment and therefore all the private money has gone in one direction, but a few stubborn souls insist on using disinformation and outright lies to promote a morally reprehensible treatment system which would have been likely looked upon with distaste by most of the Nazi death doctors in hopes of getting us to pay for a treatment process with no current success and little promise.

“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.” ~James A. Thomson

UPDATE:

Hugh Hewitt references Charles Krauthammer’s article on the issue. Bush was right, technology vindicates morality:

Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush’s stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president — so vilified for a moral stance — been so thoroughly vindicated.

Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance. Precisely because, as Thomson puts it, Bush was made “a little bit uncomfortable” by the implications of embryonic experimentation. Precisely because he therefore decided that some moral line had to be drawn.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Around The World In 80 Seconds

Germany

American feminists tend to be firmly in the anti-war camp these days, and firmly against any attempt to stop radicalized Islam taking over countries and cultures in it’s quest for world domination. A female world leader who has actually accomplished something beside marry ‘Slick’ Willy, Andrea Merkel, has begun championing a cause modern American feminists would likely faint over.

Japan

A popular praise of Japan is it’s extremely low murder rate. Now, I’m not one to naturally jump to splitting hairs and such, but apparently we should be speaking of Japan’s extremely low reported murder rate.

America

United Kingdom

Note: I am posting this article in whole because the blog it belongs to apparently is completely off-line or dead, neither of which cases make me happy. The original article was here, written by Dave of Out of Ergyng, but the link, when I checked, was dead.

**Update: Apparently the blog was just down for a bit. It’s now up, and I’m glad for that.**

The concern of the emergency services for health and safety rules has cost a boy his life. James Poynton collapsed on a beach near Liverpool. First his parents were told an ambulance wouldn’t be sent until they could be sure of the spelling of the nearest road. When the ambulance arrived, the paramedic didn’t run to his rescue. She walked. She didn’t want to be out of breath. According to the Daily Mail:

A spokesman for North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust confirmed that its staff generally would not run on uneven ground as they were carrying heavy equipment and might not be able to carry out resuscitation if they were out of breath.

But for those Americans looking forward to Hillary Clinton’s vision of socialise medicine (okay, you probably aren’t reading this blog if you do), there’s more to this story. His mother had been told the day before he died that his heart condition was non-urgent, so he wouldn’t be seen. The letter offering him an MRI scan at a future date arrived the day after he died.

 

Everywhere But Malibu Beach

Apparently beautiful women are smarter. But I already knew that. After all, the most beautiful woman in the world likes me, and she’s brilliant too.

Comment Spam Makes You Think

First they went after the Communists, and I did not stand up, because I was not a Communist. Then they went after the homosexuals and infirm, and I did not stand up, because I was neither. Then they went after the Jews, and I did not stand up, because I was not a Jew. Then they went after the Catholics, and I did not stand up, because I was Protestant. Finally, they went after me, and there was no one left to stand up for me.

Funny thing about spam, some of it makes you think. This is the content of a splog (Spam Blog) spam comment Akismet caught for me this morning. It really is spam, unlike the comments by our friend Random who I initially labeled as spam due to their off-topic nature. The blog the links pointed to exists to make money, not to serve content. But the content of this comment is intriguing.

Many of you may find this quote vaguely familiar. It is, in fact, a misquoting of Pastor Martin Niemueller, a Lutheran Minister during the Nazi rule of Germany. Initially, observing the evil taking over his country, he kept his head down, protecting himself, but then he realized his responsibility before God and began speaking out. He was arrested and tried and sent to prison. His actual quote, while he was in prison, is a haunting reminder of out responsibility before God to stand up for the oppressed:

They came for the Jews and I said nothing, because I was not a Jew. They came for the Catholics and I said nothing, because I was not a catholic. When they came for the workers, I said nothing because I was not a worker. When they came for me there was no one left to stand up for me.

This contrasts sharply with the quote in the spam comment above. A person today with an education derived exclusively from today’s American culture would say that the two quotes are substantively the same: they all reference groups that have been or are currently abused at the hands of the culture in general. But there are significant differences between the two. Deeper than the obvious additions of Communists, Homosexuals, and the infirm, is the idea that all choices are equally valid and that there is no compelling moral argument against certain choices.

This argument, on it’s face, is false. It is simple a retelling of the common and equally false supposition: universal relativism:

“There is no objective truth!” the claim rings across the hills and valleys.

“Oh? Is that true?” the echo returns.

“Yes, it is!” is the reply, ignorant of it’s own disproving irony.

Communism is a demonstrable evil, those who say otherwise are willfully ignorant or evil themselves. There is no comparison between communism and the workers or a religious perspective as similarly misunderstood ideologies or lifestyles. This is not the place and there is not the time to get into a full discussion of the evils of communism.

Homosexuality is a different beast altogether, and there are very emotional arguments and very reasoned arguments on all sides of this beast, (read my previous thoughts on the matter). But at the root is the inherent destructiveness of the lifestyle defined by homosexuality. It is not a matter of two equally valid choices: hetero or homo. It is a choice between life and death.

The infirm are a group that must be stood up for, as the nature of their infirmity may make it difficult for them to protect themselves if not prevent it altogether. It is no surprise that as we devalue the human, turning ourselves into little more than ascended monkeys, capital to be used, abused, and neglected, that the silent members of our species, the unborn and the sick, are being discarded like so much baggage at the whim of our fancy.

The Terri Schiavo incident revealed the culture of death in our society, where people argued that it was in the best interest of humanity to take this humans’ life. With the wonders of modern medicine we see a number of cases where people in what is popularly called “Persistent Vegetative State” are actually quite lucid, and simply unable to respond. In as many as 43% of cases diagnosed as PVS, the patient later recovers and in some cases tells of being able to perceive everything that went on around them and that was done to them.

I rather like reading my comment spam now and again. It is mostly trash filled with links, but every once in a while, a gem comes along, such as this, and thoughts ensue.

A Second Bill Of Rights?

In his Annual Message to Congress, delivered on January 11, 1944, FDR proposed a second bill of rights. He acknowledged the roll the first Bill of Rights played in the founding of the nation and bringing it successfully to that day:

“This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.”

But he also believed “these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.” Therefore, in his mind, a second bill of rights was necessary.

Why did FDR believe the first Bill of Rights were inadequate? Simply because it permitted people to fail.

FDR, and the rest of the world witnessed how failure in Germany through the 20’s and 30’s, a byproduct of European leaders desire to make Germany pay for WWI (reparations), gave rise to Hitler and his fascism.

To FDR, “People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.” Therefore, to avoid WWIII, he believed that the U.S. should fight against poverty, and nothing could fight it better than create a second Bill of Rights guaranteeing jobs, food, a home, medical care, education. In FDR’s words, “All of these rights spell security.”

But can a nation’s constitution guarantee a “right to success” in the same breath as it guarantees a “right to free speech”? Should a nation guarantee a “right to security” in the same line as it guarantees a “right to equal protection”?

No. To do so is impractical (there are as many definitions of “success” and “security” as there are people because we are all unique individuals) and strikes at the heart of the sovereignty of God and the inherent choice God has given man to determine his own destiny.