Embryonic Stem Cells and Investors

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I just heard recently that there is a process to produce “embryonic stem cells” without the creation (and thus destrucion) of an embryo.

I didn’t understand the concept, but evidently it’s possible.

Has anyone heard of this?

God Bless,
Snert
 
Snerticus said:
I just heard recently that there is a process to produce “embryonic stem cells” without the creation (and thus destrucion) of an embryo.

I didn’t understand the concept, but evidently it’s possible.

Has anyone heard of this?

God Bless,
Snert
Click to expand...
Yes, there are three different types of stem-cell research, and the type you are referring to is called Induced Pluripotent Stem-Cell research, or “iPSC.” There were two successful studies done in 2007, one in Wisconsin and the other in Japan, where the researcher was able to manipulate an adult skin cell into behaving like a human stem cell. This area of study could yield many exciting discoveries. I think the last number I saw was that there were something like 72 diseases that could be treated by this type of stem cell therapy.

Unfortunately, with Obama rescinding Bush’s ban on ESC (Embyronic Stem Cell Research), the funding for this promising type of research will dry up.

The funny thing is, most people think that Bush signed the executive order banning ESC because of his faith-based objections to it. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case. In 2001, in Germany, an Israeli boy was given a therapy of Embryonic Stem Cells for a condition he had (I forgot what it was.) This was the first time a human was given an ESC therapy. Well, long story short, the boy developed tumors on his brain stem and spinal column. The clinical studies at the time indicated that 100% of the rats and mice who were tested with the ESC therapy died. The 100% mortality rate was tough for Bush to swallow, so he denied funding for ESC by signing the executive order.

Now, Obama has rescinded that order, opening up ESC to taxpayer funding without any evidence that ESC could be successful. Obama rescinding the executive order without any evidence that ESC will work is a political payoff to the A**Holes at Planned Parenthood and the pro-choice community. His decision is not based on science; it’s based on politics. I think that is a tremendous mistake. There was really great progress happening with iPSC. And I don’t think Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell therapy would as morally disgusting as ESC. I think iPSC was something I, as a Catholic, could accept morally. But, now, the funding will disappear and we, the American taxpayer, with be paying for another pricey boondoggle that yields no positive results. More $$$ down the toilet.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell

Slainte,
 
The funding for induced cells will disappear? How do you know that?

Looking at it from a strictly practical point of view, (A) If cells from my body can be induced to act like undifferentiated stem cells, my body won’t reject them. (B) I will be doing the correct and humane thing by not using human embryonic stem cells.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The funding for induced cells will disappear? How do you know that?

Looking at it from a strictly practical point of view, (A) If cells from my body can be induced to act like undifferentiated stem cells, my body won’t reject them. (B) I will be doing the correct and humane thing by not using human embryonic stem cells.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Hi Ed,

I guess that was supposition on my part. If the logic follows, the Obama Administration rescinded the ban on ESCR, allowing taxpayer money to flow to the research of ESC therapy. With the research grant dollars going for ESCR, then there would not be grant money flowing into iPSC. I could be wrong.

Bonus - if you live in California, like I do, you would be doubly taxed for stem cell research. Some state taxes in California go towards stem cell research.

And I completely agree with your assessment. I believe that the use of iPSC is more promising and more morally acceptable than ESC. This is a type of stem cell research that Christians could get behind.

Sláinte,
 
irishmac said:
Hi Ed,

I guess that was supposition on my part. If the logic follows, the Obama Administration rescinded the ban on ESCR, allowing taxpayer money to flow to the research of ESC therapy. With the research grant dollars going for ESCR, then there would not be grant money flowing into iPSC. I could be wrong.

Bonus - if you live in California, like I do, you would be doubly taxed for stem cell research. Some state taxes in California go towards stem cell research.

And I completely agree with your assessment. I believe that the use of iPSC is more promising and more morally acceptable than ESC. This is a type of stem cell research that Christians could get behind.

Sláinte,
Click to expand...
It was pretty well known to all that read above a third grade level that the corporations who would benefit from ESC research were bankrolling the proposition. Medical research corporations were funding ASC research because it appeared much more promising. If a company believes in a product, it will invest R&D funds, if not, they’ll get a bunch of hicks to chase after the shiniest object, and let the taxpayers foot the 2 billion dollar boondoggle. In the last election T Boone Pickens bankrolled a proposition for wind turbines…his companies…thank heavens it failed. California already is bleeding from shiny object spending.
 
irishmac said:
Unfortunately, with Obama rescinding Bush’s ban on ESC (Embyronic Stem Cell Research), the funding for this promising type of research will dry up.
…
The funny thing is, most people think that Bush signed the executive order banning ESC because of his faith-based objections to it.
Click to expand...
There was never a ban on ESC. There was never a ban on funding such research. In fact, President Bush was the first president to authorize federal funds for such research.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top