Slashdot Mirror
Paralyzed Woman Walks Again
mgv writes "It's been promised for years, but it's just become a reality. Stem cells taken from cord blood have enabled a paralysed woman in South Korea to walk again for the first time in 20 years. The details are on the Sydney Morning Herald Site which requires registration, but can also be seen on the World Peace Herald. Too late for Christopher Reeve, but not for the thousands of new injuries worldwide each year or the millions of paralysed people from other diseases in the world."
Cord blood stem cells are considered to be adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. Just wanted to get that out before all the Bush bashing starts.
Ok George Bush didn't outlaw Steam Cell Research; He ceased giving federal funding for new steam cell lines. And remember he was the first president to start giving money to this kind of research. At least read his statment first and then search google to get the facts
Even after that before you start bashing, ask who should be in charge of developing medicine - the government or industry?
No subscription required for the story here, either.
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
You're wrong.
This was done by using umbilical cord stem cells. This has far fewer ethical problems and George Bush said on many occassions he fully supports the use of umbilical cord stem cells.
This is a huge advance, getting results without the ethical issues that many people struggle with.
Brandon Petersen
Get Firefox!
It's in Cambridge. Trim the suffix. (And perhaps get a better dictionary.)
and show the Bushies that they are dumb (at least as far as science goes).
At least we know how to RTFA. The stem cells used were umbilical stem cells. You know, the type Bush wants to encourage people to use? As opposed to fetal stem cells, which are just covered in ethical and moral dilemmas.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Agreed.
From the Korea Times: http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200411/kt200411261 7575710440.htm
Let's forget about the moral/ethical reasons for not pursuing embryonic stem cell research - let's look at it from a scientific (*gasp* - a conservative Christian talking about science!) point of view. Less capacity to cause cancer = a good thing, no?
- Another Brandon (my last name is Danner)
One ring to rule them all, and in the darkness named them...
Why is it that when some people hear the term "stem cells" the same sort of knee jerk reaction happens just like when some people hear the term "nuclear power"?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Cords are provided at birth
Get a free ipod.
From here:
So-called "multipotent" stem cells -- those found in cord blood -- are capable of forming a limited number of specialised cell types, unlike the more versatile "undifferentiated" cells that are derived from embroyos.
There is a huge difference between the two.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Try looking in a non U.S. centric dictionary.
www.brownsauce.org
Korean Times
This is a reproducable advance. Many diseases have been cured in this method. In one experiment now, bone marrow stem cells are being grafted onto hearts. The patient's heart is stopped for 2 minutes to allow the cells to graft. After that, it's restarted. Any scar tissue from heart attacks is healed and becomes healthy, strong heart muscle tissue.
Talk of curing diabetese with this has also floated around; and over a hundred diseases have already been treated successfully.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
with some additional details here
In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
May be worth all these words if/when the claim is supported by detail in a peer-reviewed journal, as opposed to a News Corp (read: "tabloid publication, regardless of the actual paper size) and/or Agence France Press, which, like AP, UPI, and others, frequently distributes stories printed by others without factchecking.
[this sig has been trunca
The fact is, California alone gave $3 billion for research into this. Bush claims to have donated $25 million -- translated, California gave 120 times the amount that the Bush talkingpointists trumpet.
Then Bush said that there were something like 75 stem cell lines, and it turned out that something like 60 were garbage and entirely unusuable, and the last 15 might be useful, or might be contaminated.
As for "Bush was the first one... etc." -- considering that stem cells started to show real promise in 1999 and 2000, it's not too surprising that the previous research funding wasn't broken out separately. It IS offensive to me that the were so many restrictions on research to put us behind the South Koreans and to bury Christopher Reeves.
And to those who claim that "well these were not embryonic stem cells!" No one here can get to stage 2 before starting at stage one, which is embryonic.
Clearly we must give these IVF embryos the respect they deserve -- by throwing them in the garbage rather than saving lives.
You can see that that the "Bush was first" stuff is false here:
In August 2000, HHS, under President Clinton's leadership, published new guidelines for research using human embryos. These guidelines create a loophole that essentially claims if privately funded scientists destroy the embryos and extract their stem cells, government-funded scientists can conduct experiments with those stem cells without violating the federal ban. 9
On August 9, 2001, President Bush announced he would reject the Clinton Administration's guidelines and only allow federal dollars for research on approximately 60 existing embryonic stem cell lines already created in privately funded laboratories.10 The president outlined four conditions for the use of existing cell lines:
* The embryos were destroyed and the cell lines were created before the August 9 speech
* The embryos were among the "excess" frozen embryos stored in fertility clinics created through in vitro fertilization for reproductive purposes
* The parents gave their consent for the embryo to be destroyed
* The parents were not offered any financial incentive in return for donating the embryo 11
The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.
There's something wrong with a bunch of blood thirsty, power hungry mongrals who are willing to draw attention to something that has so far been proven in 100% of laboratory tests to be totally useless
Do you really feel that your argument is so weak that it is necessary to lie? If you go to PubMed and type in "embryonic stem cells," you will see a long list of laboratory studies supporting their value.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Actually, the calculus was invented more than a millenia earlier by Archimedes. Google for plimpsest. Who employed Archimedes? Oh, and what about Leibniz?
There's no time to stop for gas, we're already late.
I can't speak for all of the Christian world, but I have to take issue with a couple of your points above:
1. If God made things a certain way, then that must be holy.
In fact, the Hebrew scriptures (read Old Testament) and the New testament affirm that the world in which we live is flawed as a result of the sin of Adam. Humans - as they are naturally - are not holy. In fact, humans are not naturally able to relate to God. It is only through the combination of God's reaching out to man and man's response to that call that give people any hope of relating to God. (There are many internal discussions about the nature of that call, and man's ability to respond, but the core belief is that man as he is born, is unholy.)
People are born with a prediliction to reject God in a myriad of ways. Some alcoholism has been shown to have physiological roots, but that does not prevent the church from condemnation of abuse of alcohol. Even if homosexuality is demonstrated to have a physiological cause, it will not mean that the church needs to change its stance.
Homosexual behavior is condemed by the church, as is idolatry, lying, theft, greed, slander, swindling, gluttony, and much else.
Why are these behaviors condemned? Because God made us, and He knows how we work. You can drive nails with a Rolex, but it wasn't made for that. There are many things you can do with and to your body - but it wasn't made for those things.
The maker - designer - knows what is good for you, and what is not. He can set whatever standards He wants. God gives us the free will to follow His direction or reject it. I'm sure that the Rolex folks won't recommend driving nails with your watch. If you do it anyway, there are consequences. It's the same with God.
As it stands, the revealed word of God says that sexual acts outside of marriage, and also with two people of the same gender are not acceptable. In fact, Jesus Himself said that when a man looks at a woman lustfully he has already sinned - and that sin carries the same penalty as homosexual acts do!
2. with embryonic stem cells there is no sper involved
I believe that you misunderstand the definition of embryonic stem cells. An embryo is the joining of sperm and egg. Evangelicals typically believe that life begins at conception, not at a later point. When life begins, it must be protected.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
First, on a technical level, after conception, the egg has to go through implantation. Due to semantic juggling, that's why "contraceptives" like the Pill don't do anything to conception. Rather, they prevent implantation.
Secondly, there's a variety of things that can happen after conception that prevent birth from spontaneous abortions (the body absorbs everything back) to miscarriages and other in-womb deaths. Although, arguably, the baby is still "born" in the latter two cases, just not alive.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
By the way, Sagan, while brilliant, has been wrong before. Look at his black hole theor which her changed to the opposite of the original last year.
You really mean Sagan, and not Hawking?
Note: This is completely aside from whatever your post was about (I didn't really read it) so this probably has no bearing whatsoever on the overall correctness of your post.
Impeding and not funding are different things. An imposition is banning or blocking or imposing harsh regulations.
If they just declined to fund research proposals involving ES cells, you would be right. However, the ban on federal funding of ES cell research is more restrictive than that. Most labs have several sources of funding and multiple projects going on simultaneously, and almost all basic science biology labs get funding from the government. If I were in a lab doing ES cell research, even work that was privately funded, I would essentially have to work in a separate facility from everyone else. I couldn't use the lab centrifuge, geiger counter, refrigerator, incubator, etc., because those were bought with federal dollars. On a practical level, it's extremely difficult, if not possible, to work under those conditions. So in practical terms, it is a ban.
The bottom line is that the issue here is the future development of "factories" of human bits and pieces. It frightens people. Embryonic stem cells are thrown away, but we both know that in short order they would be harvested efficently and clinically with absolutely no regard to their nature: much like antibodies or animal specimens are harvested today.
That's a silly, alarmist view. Or maybe it's true. Maybe ES cells will lead to both matrix-style baby factories AND the cures to terrible diseases. Couldn't we just ban baby factories?
It is hardly disturbing that the government would elect not to fund a practice which is very fairly consider contraversial for a pay-off that is available through other means or highly hypotethical. Bush has said repeatedly that if other avenues are exhausted or the circumstances warrant it a revisitation of the issue can be made.
What you're saying here is partially misguided and partially factually incorrect. I would argue that the only reason it is controversial at all is because politicians decided to make an issue out of it. We've been throwing the cells in the trash for years, and nobody cared! Bush wants to appear somewhat flexible on the ES cell issue because he KNOWS that the ban will be lifted in the future, because it will very quickly become politically unpopular once the Swiss (or whoever) cure diabetes (or whatever). This, really, is what bothers me most. Bush is not an idiot, and he understands the promise of ES cell research. He even knows that his opposition to funding the work is bad for the US (but maybe only a little), but he's willing to do it because he knows it will win him votes among people who don't understand the issue. Unfortunately, only about 2% of the general public understands the issue.
As far as the promise being "available through other means or highly hypothetical," the evidence right now is against that. We can cure some diseases in mice using ES cells, and there are things we can only do with ES cells, etc. I would say that if you can cure a disease in a mouse, it's not "highly hypothetical" to think that you could use the same strategy to treat a human.
The old testament, and new testament affirm nothing.
Have you read the Bible yourself? All of it?
While you may believe that it is merely a collection of nice stories that are used to prove a point, I would suggest to you that your belief may not be completely accurate.
The Bible is quite remarkable in terms of ancient literature. There are many many 'holy books' that are revered by religious peoples around the world. None of them have had the impact on Western culture and society that the Bible has.
We know that what is written there has been preserved since its original versions because of the vast number of copies that we have. There are more accurate copies of the Bible than ANY other ancient work. (The alleged discrepancies that many of you want to point out as you read this are completely irrelevant to all major doctrines of the Christian faith.)
To suggest that it's merely a collection of stories on a par with mother goose is a bit...unreasonable.
In terms of disease, the Christian faith teaches that we all are diseased, and are in need of an ultimate physician to heal us. The disease is sin, evidenced by our selfishness and pride. This is what separates us from a Holy God.
God does give us free will. Doing what He says is wrong is, as I mentioned in my last post to you, akin to smashing your gold Rolex on a galvanized nail.
If you do what God says is wrong, you can expect that there will be consequences. That's the way it is. You don't have to like it, but you can't change it, either. The only way to avoid the consequences is to believe that you are imperfect, recognize that perfection is required to have relationship with a holy God, and ask Him to accept you in your imperfection, beacuse of Christ's sacrifice on your behalf.
This is completely unrelated to procreation. Procreation is not at issue if you look lustfully at a woman, and Christ called that sin, too.
WRT your embryonic stem cell point, I believe that you are mistaken. This site states that embryonic stem cells require a fertilized egg.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I get the feeling there must be more to the story than meets the eye here. If this woman had been paralyzed for 20 years, wouldn't her muscles be atrophied? Even if you repaired the nerve damage, it seems to me she wouldn't have just been able to get up and walk, at least without a lot of restorative therapy.
Is there something I'm missing here?
Yes, if you read the article she is walking with a frame. Still, she is improving alot faster than the medical staff expected.
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.