Stem Cell Injections Pioneering Step Forward?

sanspeak writes "Indian Doctors at All India Institute of Medical Sciences have performed a radical new operation of sorts by pioneering the method of stem cell injections. Ishika Gupta, a seven month old girl child who was suffering from cardiac myopathy, was treated by injecting stem cells into her heart from bone in her own leg. AIIMS has marked a global first in pioneering stem cell medicine by the "injection method''." From the article: "There will now be a national stem cell centre at AIIMS which will coordinate the research and its applications. The statistics speak for themselves. After six months, 56% of the affected (dead muscle) area injected with these cells had shown improvement." Additional details on this therapy available from the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel and Medical News Today.

Comments

Not a general solution.....

[BWJones]

The attractive thing about these results to many is that is identifies a built in population of stem cells in adult individuals that could be harvested for some applications which gets around certain issues related to the Bush administrations religiously imposed dogma on science and progress.

The problem with this approach is that often, they really do not know what cells they are injecting. Sure they are harvesting cells from the bone marrow which do contain some stem cell populations. But here is the deal: These cells are already partially differentiated. They are not totipotent. Certainly there will be some applications where you can take partially differentiated cells and inject them into some systems that will show positive results, such as the cardiac improvements observed in these studies. However, this will not be generalizeable to other disorders such as vision loss or other degenerative diseases.

Re:Not a general solution.....

[Hentai]

Okay. I have mod points today. I have a personal, stated policy: Never mod *DOWN*, only mod *UP*. And especially never mod down a potentially legitimate discussion, no matter how inciteful or off-topic it might be.

I have come very close to breaking this rule in this threat, and modding as many root posts as I can 'off-topic'. Instead, I am going to post the following little diatribe:

We're witnessing a medical miracle here, guys - and all you asshats can do is argue politics! Bush this, bush that, fetus this, abortion that - sort it out on Usenet, or on some YRO thread. Can we please talk about the technology, here? This is an amazing triumph of technology over the limitations of nature; something that can potentially save millions of lives - and just as importantly, restore millions more to full capacity from severely disabled states! We're talking longevity, health, disease eradication, all the quality-of-life improvements that have allowed further progress in the past two centuries. We're talking about influences over the next MILLENIUM of human prograss, and all we're doing is squabbling about politics that are potentially irrelevant in 4 years, and almost certainly irrelevant in 20. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?

This is future-of-humanity stuff, here. This political whining is about minor details in the grand scheme of things, and we'll work them out sooner or later. Get a grip and get a little perspective.

stem cell harvesting

[lecithin]

My wife is pregnant right now and we are going to have to make the choice if we want the 'stem cells' harvested from the cord after birth. I realize that there are costs involved, but is it worth it? Gut feeling says that if I don't I could regret it later. Any thoughts?

Re:stem cell harvesting

[Doctor Beavis]

I look at it like this - the odds are you'll never use it. But if something comes up (child has a sibling with leukemia and needs a transplant or scientists eventually figure out how to do amazing things with these cells), you'd be willing to pay any price to go back in time to get the cells. Go for it!

Re:stem cell harvesting

[Zphbeeblbrox]

Wrong. Stem Cells from your own genetic stock are much more valuable than from foreign stock. Growing a new heart that will be rejected by your body isn't much good. Growing a heart that will be accepted as your own is much better.

Re:stem cell harvesting

[beacher]

There's a post on fat wallet that goes into this topic a bit. Basically it's a waste if you're only going to have one child because the defect will be present in the cord blood as well. Cord blood storage is discussed as well as pricing and previous user's experiences with them. The American Red Cross donation program is also mentioned as well. Interesting read for those of you who are passing your slashdot genes along ;)
-B

Re:stem cell harvesting

[PortHaven]

Nothing wrong with having stem cells harvested from the cord. The only issue with stem cell harvesting is when it involves the loss of life.

Human life should not be saved at the cost of human life....(lest one day poor humans will be harvested to keep the powerful immortal)

Preemptive strike

[Anonymous Coward]

Directly on-topic? Well, no, but I guarantee there will be several positively moderated messages in this thread that don't get it right.

- This article isn't talking about embryonic stem cells, so any references to the Bush administration embryonic stem cell policy are utterly irrelevant

But for those who still don't get it:

- There isn't a "ban" on any kind of stem cell research in the US. There is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - entities are still free to perform embryonic stem cell research (see California's recent US$3 billion bond initiative to support such research in the state)

- The Bush administration is the first administration to allow any federal funding at all for embryonic stem cell research. Granted, this is partly due to timing, but it's still a point of information.

- When is an embryo "life"? At some arbitrary time? When it's in a woman's womb? When it's "wanted" by someone as the product of actions to create a child? When and how does it become life? What's the magic cutoff? When and why is it ok to destroy it? When it can exist on its own? What does "exist on its own" mean? I'm not saying any of these things necessarily should preclude embryonic stem cell research, and indeed, federal funding for it. But doesn't it seem that those ethical questions should be addressed or at least considered? It may well be that society collectively decides that the benefit outweighs ethical concerns. But bear in mind, too, that farming more developed human life for research would no doubt yield untold answers to questions that might hold great benefit. Does that mean we should do it? If not, why is that any different? Scientifically, it would seem clear that it's a life the second the embryo comes into being...

(Note: No, I am not anti-abortion, but do think we should acknowledge that abortion isn't just a "woman's choice" or a "medical decision" (unless it is a decision in relation to the safety of the mother). It is, essentially, the state sanctioned ability to end a life when it is not wanted by the mother. Let's at least acknowledge what we're doing instead of hiding it under the blinders of "choice" or "scientific progress".)

Re:Preemptive strike

[magefile]

There isn't a "ban" on any kind of stem cell research in the US. There is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - entities are still free to perform embryonic stem cell research (see California's recent US$3 billion bond initiative to support such research in the state)

But this kind of cutting edge research needs gov't funding for several reasons: it's very expensive; it's long term (too much so to attract enough private money); and the federal government can make a big difference in funding if it chooses to.

The Bush administration is the first administration to allow any federal funding at all for embryonic stem cell research. Granted, this is partly due to timing, but it's still a point of information.

Wrong. Here's citation #1 about Clinton's support of stem cell research, and here's citation #2 and #3. I think that Slate, CNN, and ABC are generally trustworthy.

And it would be nice if people stopped clouding the issue with abortion arguments. While there are some similarities, the analogy breaks down very quickly, and argument by analogy is generally suspect. Oh, and BTW, here's an ABC article with some interesting statistics on ESR, including about 60% support for both ESR and federal funding of it by US citizens.

Re:Preemptive strike

[uujjj]

The ban is just a bit broader than you imply: there is a ban on embryonic stem cell research using new stem cells at any institution that receives federal funding, e.g. universities or drug companies with NIH funding.

Were the ban merely on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, it would not be such a problem. The problem is that universities and many drug companies are prevented from doing such research even with independent funding.

Re:Preemptive strike

[daveschroeder]

You're completely wrong. Universities and other institutions can and do already work around this. For example, the University of Wisconsin, where I'm located, is launching the Wisconsin Institute for Discovery, a partly private research institute, which will allow it to get around this issue. This is well known and is being done at dozens of sites around the country.

Nothing against stem cells in general

[Ironsides]

And yet federal money can't go to stem cell research?

And yet again someone missinformed. Bush DID NOT BAN Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research. He banned Federal Funding going to Embryonic Stem Cell Research on new lines. This research used Adult Stem Cells. Something that Federal money can go to.

Not only adult stem cells -- RTFA...

[Corporate Drone]

Sure they are harvesting cells from the bone marrow which do contain some stem cell populations

Although the U.S. article identified the applicability of stem cells harvested from (adult) bone marrow and other sources, the Indian article discusses the successes achieved from utilizing umbilical cord stem cells...

What ban?

[Ironsides]

Bush banned Federal Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell research on new lines only. If you get private funding, you can do research on new embryoninc lines. Or, you can use Federal Funding on the old lines or Adult Stem Cells. This new technique used Adult Stem Cells. They can get federal funding for this.

There is no outright ban. It is a myth.

Injecting new powers

[null etc.]

This reminds me of Smallville, where one guy would get bitten by a bug who ate meteor rock, and the guy would develop bug powers. Another guy would fall on a hot meteor rock, and would develop heat powers. I can't wait for the stem cell meteor rock episode.

References to Bush are utterly irrelevant

[daveschroeder]

- This article isn't talking about embryonic stem cells, so any references to the Bush administration embryonic stem cell policy are utterly irrelevant

But for those who still don't get it:

- There isn't a "ban" on any kind of stem cell research in the US. There is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - entities are still free to perform embryonic stem cell research (see California's recent US$3 billion bond initiative to support such research in the state)

- The Bush administration is the first administration to allow any federal funding at all for embryonic stem cell research. Granted, this is partly due to timing, but it's still a point of information.

- When is an embryo "life"? At some arbitrary time? When it's in a woman's womb? When it's "wanted" by someone as the product of actions to create a child? When and how does it become life? What's the magic cutoff? When and why is it ok to destroy it? When it can exist on its own? What does "exist on its own" mean? I'm not saying any of these things necessarily should preclude embryonic stem cell research, and indeed, federal funding for it. But doesn't it seem that those ethical questions should be addressed or at least considered? It may well be that society collectively decides that the benefit outweighs ethical concerns. But bear in mind, too, that farming more developed human life for research would no doubt yield untold answers to questions that might hold great benefit. Does that mean we should do it? If not, why is that any different? Scientifically, it would seem clear that it's a life the second the embryo comes into being...

Re:References to Bush are utterly irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

before we just leap willy nilly into embryo harvesting.

People can't even be bothered to donate their organs for transplants. You think that people who would never have had an abortion otherwise are going to line up to give up their embryo?

It doesn't matter if its "music makes people kill people" "video games makes people kill people" or "stem cell research makes people kill people" it still shows a serious disconnect with reality, whether through ignorance or through pushing an agenda (religious or not). Hundreds of embryos are thrown away daily across the country for whatever reason.

It's interesting that people cite the fact that more research is done on adult stem cells and therefore more successes are had with adult stem cells than with embryonic stem cells. Its also interesting to see them call Bush's ban on funding new embryonic stem cell lines not a ban on research, though with only a few dozen lines remaining, theres not exactly a lot of research to be done.

Re:References to Bush are utterly irrelevant

[BWJones]

- This article isn't talking about embryonic stem cells, so any references to the Bush administration embryonic stem cell policy are utterly irrelevant

Actually, this is absolutely relevant given the Bush administrations limits on funding for stem cell research. Research laboratories are leaving the US to establish themselves in other countries so that they may continue and the science in this country is suffering because of it.

- There isn't a "ban" on any kind of stem cell research in the US. There is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - entities are still free to perform embryonic stem cell research (see California's recent US$3 billion bond initiative to support such research in the state)

I have news for you: Most biomedical research funding for basic science comes from the Federal government and is taxpayer supported. Thus, elimination of funding is a tacit ban.

- The Bush administration is the first administration to allow any federal funding at all for embryonic stem cell research. Granted, this is partly due to timing, but it's still a point of information.

Not true. The bush administration is the first administration that has said anything specific about it. Stem cell research has been going on for quite some time. It has just not been an emotional or religious issue until it became politicized.

But doesn't it seem that those ethical questions should be addressed or at least considered?

I absolutely agree with you here as will most scientists. But the solution is not to prevent progress by placing arbitrary, political and religiously motivated limits on scientific progress. People are dying today and living compromised lives because of diseases that may be helped by stem cell research. And no, embryonic stem cell research is not about killing babies or farming developed humans.

Re:References to Bush are utterly irrelevant

[shaitand]

"- There isn't a "ban" on any kind of stem cell research in the US. There is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - entities are still free to perform embryonic stem cell research (see California's recent US$3 billion bond initiative to support such research in the state)"

No, no institute which recieves federal funding FOR ANYTHING can conduct such research. There are not many research facilities that aren't recieving federal funding for at least ONE project. This is effectively a ban.

"- The Bush administration is the first administration to allow any federal funding at all for embryonic stem cell research. Granted, this is partly due to timing, but it's still a point of information."

It is called a Red Herring, it is a rhetorical device along similar lines to the subject at hand (that Bush has banned embryonic stem cell research in any facility that receives federal funding for ANY type of research) designed to distract you from the actual topic and lend pseudo-logical strength to an argument.

"- When is an embryo "life"? At some arbitrary time? When it's in a woman's womb? When it's "wanted" by someone as the product of actions to create a child? When and how does it become life? What's the magic cutoff? When and why is it ok to destroy it? When it can exist on its own? What does "exist on its own" mean? I'm not saying any of these things necessarily should preclude embryonic stem cell research, and indeed, federal funding for it. But doesn't it seem that those ethical questions should be addressed or at least considered? It may well be that society collectively decides that the benefit outweighs ethical concerns. But bear in mind, too, that farming more developed human life for research would no doubt yield untold answers to questions that might hold great benefit. Does that mean we should do it? If not, why is that any different? Scientifically, it would seem clear that it's a life the second the embryo comes into being..."

Scientifically the cells are alive before they ever join to become a fertilized egg. Scientifically each of the millions of skin cells each of us has die everyday are life. We kill living cells when we mow our lawns or take anti-biotics.

Scientifically moral and ethical issues do not exist, it is people who create these artifical constructs. Humans attribute a uniqueness or addional value to their own lifeform.

However, since this ignorance is not likely to change soon we can consider natures answer. Nature has created a reference point for us, it exists in all complex lifeforms. It is at this point that multiple simple lifeforms can be considered a complex lifeform. It is called birth. Of course if something is raised entirely artifically (which we can't do now with humans) we can roughly call it at a full development term (9months for humans).

Re:References to Bush are utterly irrelevant

[danheskett]

Iraq invading Kuwait had *nothing* to do with ancient ties, or ancient fueds, or any of that.

Those lines are simple sophistry and revisionism.

Fact #1. Pre-Invasion, Iraq was $13-14B in debt to Kuwait.

Fact #2. Pre-Invasion, Iraq was heavily in debt to other OPEC nations, including Saudia Arabia.

Fact #3. Iraq wanted to pay off its debt by raising oil prices through OPEC. Kuwait thwarted this attempt, and fought for increaed production and thus lower prices.

Fact #4. Most of Iraqs useful ports had been damaged or destroyed during the Iran-Iraq war. Much of Iraq's ability to ship oil was reduced. Kuwait held valuable undamaged ports away from hostile Iran along the valuable Persian Gulf coast.

Fact #5. Hussein publically called his move an attempt to re-assembly the Bablyonian empire. It was imperialism by his own definition.

Regardless of what you think about anything else, the Kuwait invasion was not justified in any sense whatsoever. It also appears likely now that Hussein was high on narcotics during the run up to the invasion of Kuwait.

Regarding your claim about the US killing more Iraqis than Hussein, it's virtually utter tripe.

For one thing, his pure neglect of his people in the fact of vast wealth is astounding. Beyond that though, his virtual single-handed instigation of the Iran-Iraq war cost no less than 1.5 million lives directly and perhaps millions more indirectly.

Re:References to Bush are utterly irrelevant

[abigor]

Well, it's really one of those issues that will never be settled in any definitive, "hard" way. Western society has dictated that abortion is okay, for the most part, and the same with things like embryonic stem cells used in research. Personally, I'm happy about this, and I anticipate even more forward-looking social policies.

It's like the death penalty. Both sides make their points, and it comes down to the values of society as a whole, and the price its members are willing to pay for the sort of society in which they wish to live.

The consensus of society is that it's okay to delete those "couple of cells", because the needs of the rest of us do indeed outweigh those of the embryo.

Re:References to Bush are utterly irrelevant

[danheskett]

No, no institute which recieves federal funding FOR ANYTHING can conduct such research. There are not many research facilities that aren't recieving federal funding for at least ONE project. This is effectively a ban.
That's and out and out lie.

Fact: Researchers at mixed funding facilities only have to properly account for federal funds according to normal guidelines. There is no extra baggage at all. Here is a link for you to read, from the NIH, who is responsible for this policy.

Fact: Virtually all embryonic stem research going on in the country currently operates in partically federally funded scenarios. There is no "effective ban".

Fact: The Bush administration is the only administration to fund any embryonic stem cell research. Period.

As far as the rest of your post, you are using classic red herrings which is not surprising.

Scientifically the cells are alive before they ever join to become a fertilized egg. Scientifically each of the millions of skin cells each of us has die everyday are life. We kill living cells when we mow our lawns or take anti-biotics.
Yes, however, none of those killed cells are capable of developing into a fully seperate heathly human life. They are *part* of our body, but they are not *our entire body*. Embryo's are entirely capable of developing into fully heathly living beings, while skin cells, liver cells, and blood cannot.

Scientifically moral and ethical issues do not exist, it is people who create these artifical constructs. Humans attribute a uniqueness or addional value to their own lifeform.
Yes, of course they. We are the only species who can question our own existenance. Provably, we are a unique lifeform within our realm of knowledge. It is at least reasonable to *think* and *question* what makes us unique, and whether that is worth protecting.

It is called birth. Of course if something is raised entirely artifically (which we can't do now with humans) we can roughly call it at a full development term (9months for humans).
Finally, this is extremely poor reasoning. A baby child can live without life support outside the womb well before 9 months. It depends on the baby, but some premature babies have survived as early as 30 weeks (7 1/2 months) and others with life support as early as 26 weeks (6 1/2 months). Scientifically, there is no difference between a baby that is two days from delivery from one that is two days past delivery. As a lifeform, each is equally developed. Science coldly is incapable of handling the emotional difference between the unborn and born.

I am not arguing one or another, but you are clearly distoring the facts and ignoring complex non-religious facts that science is incapable of addressing.

personal experience

[alw53]

I did a stem cell donation for my brother last week. It cost about $6000 and involved hooking up veins in both arms to a continuous centrifuge that pumped blood out of one arm, centrifuged it to remove the stem cells, and then injected the plasma and red cells back into the other arm. I had to get injections of Neupogen for four days prior to what the docs called the "harvest".
I didn't have to have long needles stuck into my bone marrow. The worst part was not being able to move my arms for 5 1/2 hours for any reason because of the needles in veins in my elbows.

They got 3 times as much material as they need and I am trying to arrange to have the rest stockpiled in case I need them at some later date. They needed 8 million cells per kilo of body weight for a cross donation, but only 4 million for self-donation.

The Idiocy of Preconception

[Orne]

I can't let this one go.

(1) The Bush Administration does not have a "religiously imposed dogma on science and progress". There is a significant segment of the American population that is concerned about scientists initiating the process of conception for the sole purpose of ripping apart the component stem cells while receiving federal funding to do so. Corporations and universities are welcome to continue studying embryonic stem cells, just not while using federal research grants.

(2) Unlike the aformentioned Embryonic Stem Cells, this process is another form of Adult Stem Cell research, which is using the patient's own stem cells to culture and augment existing organs. There has never been any political problems with this branch of stem cell research, and the Bush Administration has advanced this research alternative several times as the preferred path.

(3) Bone Marrow has long been known to be a source of red blood cells as well as muscle stem cells. If they are partially differentiated as marrow cells, they are still in the same family as cardiovascular muscles, and thus are a prime candidate for this type of injection research. It would be like taking neurons from the brain and injecting them into the spinal column, to see if the cells can merge and augment the spinal tissues.

Part of the problem of degenerative diseases is that there is a genetic problem with the adult, so transplanting cells with the same genetic makeup within the same adult will not magically create a missing protein... that is where we need to initiate aditional research with inter-adult stem cell research, and proceed from there.

Re:There is no ban!

[opposume]

The answers to these questions are all arbitrary. A million different people can come up with a million different answers. Which leaves us to a few making the distinction for us, which inevitably will alienate a vast majority who don't believe the same thing. You're right, it's more than a womans choice and a medical decision. However, it is not our place to judge or deside for people as to what they can and can not do in this regard. I think that put into any other terms other than "womans choice" or "medical decision" is imposing a belife onto somones person. I just think that people are entirely too quick to pick up the flame of moral superiority instead of just letting people live their lives. I guess I'm kind of an anarchist in that sense. And my opinion doesn't matter to anyone but myself. So I won't voice my opinions here. All told, I agree with you that there's more to it, however, I think people should be left to make their own decisions instead of having them imposed on them. Also, I sit corrected on the state of the stem cell research area in this country. The point I was trying to make wat that the Bush administration (not bush bashing here) won't fund new line stem cell research due to religious beliefs, rather than scientific reasoning. That is all...

some points

[circletimessquare]

if women laid eggs and then walked away from them, never to return, then the anti-abortion crowd would be 100% ethical and moral in their stance

however, mother nature has designed us mammals so that for a moment in time, 2 lives are interconnected biologically, and then, 2 lives are socially connected for years

what this means is that you can not consider either the rights of the fetus or the rights of the mother in a vacuum and consider yourself to be moral or ethical

therefore, to fall 100% on the side of fetal rights is to basically consider a woman to be nothing but a breeding pod chamber

and to fall 100% on the side of maternal rights is tantamount to considering infanticide reasonable

but, of course, exactly where you draw the line, exactly when you draw the line: 3 months old fetus... 3 day old fetus... whatever, that becomes the critical question

and the problem is that no outside panel of people, no matter how reasonable or passionate about the issue, can decide the issue to satisfaciton on each individual case

there is, however, one person who can make such a passionate, reasonable decision: the mother

it seems that the anti-abortion crowd thinks women are all out having one night stands at raves and then aborting a month later and going to another rave to have one night stands the same night

as if women don't have any feelings about the fetus?! why do anti-abortionists have such a dim view of women?

so let the mother decide, and the mother ALONE decide, and all of us hyperconcerned but UNINVOLVED third party members should learn to BUTT OUT

this is the ONLY moral and ethical stand you can take on abortion: the mom decides, no one else can possibly have a say

is it superior to force a woman to have a child she does not love with no father there to support it?

are we only in the business of punishing women for acts of sex outside of marriage? what about the man's responsibilty?

the more you examine the issue, the more you realize anti-abortion stances are simply anti-women

let the mother decide, it's her body, and you cannot assume she doesn't care about the fetus, unless you have some sort of psychological problem with women

Royal Oak, 2003

[wren337]

There was a case in Royal Oak MI where a 16 year old with severe heart damage was treated with stem cells from his bone marrow. This was almost 2 years ago and seems to have been a complete success, but you never read about it. It saved the kid from needing a heart transplant.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/06/tech/m ai n542962.shtml

or google for royal oak heart stem cell

You need to look at that argument more carefully.

[porkchop_d_clown]

If the only thing of value is that more lives were saved than lost, then the same argument can be applied to therapies derived from embryonic stem cells.

If more lives are saved than lost, what do you care if a few embryos were harvested for this treatment.

Re:It's about time

[mOdQuArK!]

embryonic stem cell research

Yeah, kind of funny (not ironic) that research which isn't being funded well can't produce a single cure, whereas the research that _is_ does. Duh.

Re:big problem

[dragons_flight]

This has actually been a far larger problem with totipotent embryonic stem cells than with adult stem cells of the type seen in the article.

It should also be noted that the effect is often different than the common conception of tumors. What is seen (mostly in animal trials, since that is were it has mostly been done) is that injected stem cells which, for example, are meant to help the heart instead decide to turn into bone tissue or nerve tissue or something else that shouldn't be there. This certainly qualifies as a tumor, since it is a detrimental and abnormal growth, but it usually rather different than the kind of malignancy most people think of as cancer.

Adult stem cells from bone marrow are already partially differentiated so they almost always only become cells related to blood or muscle tissues. Hence the risk of them turning into bone or nerve tissue after injection is considerably reduced.

Ultimately, if the use of embryonic stem cells is to be succesful, it may rely on finding ways to program the cells to evolve in a particular desired direction.

Can we just stop the FUD...

[hung_himself]

This is getting ridiculous with all the posts trying to use this to justify the effective ban on embryonic stem cell research. IF you belIeve that this research is immoral that's fine - I do understand your opinion and I have no problem with it though I disagree.

BUT stop claiming that the denial of federal funds doesn't make embryonic stem cell research in the US very difficult. Stop claiming that there is no merit to embryonic stem cell research - that is just patently untrue (yes I am a scientist and I have worked with EC but not ES cells). Look up Parkinson's and Diabetes and get a developmental biologist to explain to you why embryonic stem cell research provides hope for a cure to these diseases. Or read NIH's own summary on stem cell research

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics1.asp

Like I said if you have strong opinions that embryonic cell research is immoral - stand up for yourself and just say so. I respect that much more than trying to trick other people into accepting your agenda with naked FUD.