Stems cell injections reverse paralysis.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've had excellent teachers here rah, excellent teachers.

[Dinner]

I'm unsure how you view this post as dispositive of mine. I already said that they disallowed the use of public funds to experiment with fetal cells. Perhaps you can explain how this constitutes the GOP blocking cures.

Since virtually all basic research gets funded by government funds these days (in one way or another) cutting off government research funds pretty much kills research. Thankfully several states and other countries stepped up to the plate to counter act the Republican religious nonsense but we'd all still be better off if the religious nutjobs were kept in the cage where they belong.

[Provost Harrison]

http://www.prolife.com/HarvestingAbortedBabies.html

Nope, not a myth. It's a huge industry. Not just for stem cells either.

You can't be serious Ben, that's some hack article based on the testimony of one woman, and with no other cited sources. It is pure conjecture. Hell, it doesn't even mention the thing you are talking about (as MikeH stated, yet you accuse him of not reading your article - one has to wonder if you read it in the first place before posting it).

You've still got it Ben! I dread to think what the hell it is, but you've definitely still got it!

[Provost Harrison]

I was curious to see if anybody would bother reading the article before challenging the source. I'm happy to cite additional evidence, but I'm not going to bother unless people are going to read what I do cite.

So, you on board with that MikeH, or am I just wasting my time?

Cite. I'll call you on your bullsh*t...

[Provost Harrison]

Is MikeH going to bother reading it or is he just going to say, "I don't like the source. It's prolife. It's icky."

He neither said nor implied that in his post at all. He merely countered you with another article and stated what is abundantly true...your article is not pertinent to this discussion.

I was curious if MikeH would read it because I believe him to be intellectually dishonest.

That's a good one Ben, really good

[Provost Harrison]

My post shows that abortion doctors are getting upwards of 1 grand for selling an intact brain from aborted children. You're ok with this?

Is Ben still viable to use for stem cell research?

Well I think if we are going on a cost per weight basis, Ben's brain might be worth anywhere up to a dollar in value

[Provost Harrison]

Oooh, another one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19570024

I, for one, will be taking my daily dose of minced baby brains from now on...they're good for you!

[Ben Kenobi]

You can't be serious Ben, that's some hack article based on the testimony of one woman, and with no other cited sources. It is pure conjecture. Hell, it doesn't even mention the thing you are talking about (as MikeH stated, yet you accuse him of not reading your article - one has to wonder if you read it in the first place before posting it).

MikeH didn't state that. Lorizael did. Lori read the article and MikeH did not. MikeH did take the time to say the source was prolife and icky.

Like I said earlier, I don't usually post prolife sources haven't for quite some time. I agree - it's one woman's testimony and unsubstantiated by other sources. I did read through it and realized it didn't have anything on stem cells, but what the hey. Some interesting food for thought there anyways.

[Ben Kenobi]

Cite. I'll call you on your bullsh*t...

Finally.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/2001report/chapter3.asp

In 1998, James Thomson and his colleagues reported methods for deriving and maintaining human embryonic stem (ES) cells from the inner cell mass of human blastocysts that were produced through in vitro fertilization (IVF) and donated for research purposes [46]. At the same time, another group, led by John Gearhart, reported the derivation of cells that they identified as embryonic germ (EG) cells. The cells were cultured from primordial germ cells obtained from the gonadal ridge and mesenchyma of 5- to 9-week fetal tissue that resulted from elective abortions [41].

I rest my case.

[snoopy369]

If people are having abortions anyway, why not use the proceeds for science? How's that any different from using murder victim's organs, if that's your argument? I thought the objection to embryonic stem cells was that people made embryos for the express purpose of using their stem cells, which is not what you're talking about at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

If people are having abortions anyway, why not use the proceeds for science? How's that any different from using murder victim's organs, if that's your argument? I thought the objection to embryonic stem cells was that people made embryos for the express purpose of using their stem cells, which is not what you're talking about at all.

These embryos are still alive, and still viable. This is why they use them. If you were to take these exact same embryos and implant them, they would grow and develop and the mother would have her child.

There is nothing different between having a spare child that you aren't using, killing him, and then selling his body parts off for money, than what is happening with these embryos. That's the problem I have with this. The intent doesn't matter.

Look at Mengele's experiments. Is it ok that he did all these to the unwanted Jews who were otherwise going to be executed anyways?

[snoopy369]

I don't know that I agree with you on the viability part, but they're being aborted anyway. Option 1: Abort and throw stuff away. Option 2: Abort and get scientific advantage out of it. Organ donation isn't really any different - the organs are still viable, meaning something is still going on. The difference between that and having a spare child and killing him is that you were already planning on killing the child anyway for reasons unrelated to the science.

Mengele experimented on people who were still alive and not immediately dying. Definitely a different thing, and if you can't see that you're not trying.

[DaShi]

Delightful!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19570024?print=true

12 September 2012 Last updated at 13:00 ET
Deaf gerbils 'hear again' after stem cell cure
By James Gallagher
Health and science reporter, BBC News
UK researchers say they have taken a huge step forward in treating deafness after stem cells were used to restore hearing in animals for the first time.
Hearing partially improved when nerves in the ear, which pass sounds into the brain, were rebuilt in gerbils - a UK study in the journal Nature reports.
Getting the same improvement in people would be a shift from being unable to hear traffic to hearing a conversation.
However, treating humans is still a distant prospect.
If you want to listen to the radio or have a chat with a friend your ear has to convert sound waves in the air into electrical signals which the brain will understand.
This happens deep inside the inner ear where vibrations move tiny hairs and this movement creates an electrical signal.
However, in about one in 10 people with profound hearing loss, nerve cells which should pick up the signal are damaged. It is like dropping the baton after the first leg of a relay race.
The aim of researchers at the University of Sheffield was to replace those baton-dropping nerve cells, called spiral ganglion neurons, with new ones.
They used stem cells from a human embryo, which are capable of becoming any other type of cell in the human body from nerve to skin, muscle to kidney.
A chemical soup was added to the stem cells that converted them into cells similar to the spiral ganglion neurons. These were then delicately injected into the inner ears of 18 deaf gerbils.
Over 10 weeks the gerbils' hearing improved. On average 45% of their hearing range was restored by the end of the study.
Dr Marcelo Rivolta said: "It would mean going from being so deaf that you wouldn't be able to hear a lorry or truck in the street to the point where you would be able to hear a conversation.
"It is not a complete cure, they will not be able to hear a whisper, but they would certainly be able to maintain a conversation in a room."
About a third of the gerbils responded really well to treatment with some regaining up to 90% of their hearing, while just under a third barely responded at all.
Gerbils were used as they are able to hear a similar range of sounds to people, unlike mice which hear higher-pitched sounds.
The researchers detected the improvement in hearing by measuring brainwaves. The gerbils were also tested for only 10 weeks. If this became a treatment in humans then the effect would need to be shown over a much longer term.
There are also questions around the safety and ethics of stem cell treatments which would need to be addressed.
'Tremendously encouraging'
Prof Dave Moore, the director of the Medical Research Council's Institute of Hearing Research in Nottingham, told the BBC: "It is a big moment, it really is a major development."
However, he cautioned that there will still be difficulties repeating the feat in people.
"The biggest issue is actually getting into the part of the inner ear where they'll do some good. It's extremely tiny and very difficult to get to and that will be a really formidable undertaking," he said.
Dr Ralph Holme, head of biomedical research for the charity Action on Hearing Loss, said: "The research is tremendously encouraging and gives us real hope that it will be possible to fix the actual cause of some types of hearing loss in the future.
"For the millions of people for whom hearing loss is eroding their quality of life, this can't come soon enough."

[giblets]

Well I think if we are going on a cost per weight basis, Ben's brain might be worth anywhere up to a dollar in value

Why would anyone want to buy a brain anyway? Are they doing brain transplants now? Maybe Ben should get one.

[MikeH]

MikeH didn't state that. Lorizael did. Lori read the article and MikeH did not. MikeH did take the time to say the source was prolife and icky.

Like I said earlier, I don't usually post prolife sources haven't for quite some time. I agree - it's one woman's testimony and unsubstantiated by other sources. I did read through it and realized it didn't have anything on stem cells, but what the hey. Some interesting food for thought there anyways.

Fact 1: I read the article, well I skim read it which was enough - PH summed it up extremely well it's hearsay from a single source. It doesn't take a great deal of in depth reading to notice that is not a proper scientific or analytical report. (as a historian analysis of evidence like this should be part of your skillset)
Fact 2: The source is NOT a credible source of reliable scientific, societal or analytical information.
Fact 3: I never said or implied it was the fact the source was prolife that made it unreliable. You inferred that.
Fact 4: Being called intellectually dishonest by you made me laugh, thanks.