Scientists in the UK are using a patient’s own stem cells to treat hip problems. From the story:
British scientists have developed a stem cell technique which is being used by patients to avoid hip replacements, in a major medical breakthrough. Doctors in Southampton are using the pioneering technique, where a patient’s damaged bones are repaired using their own stem cells. Patients hailed the treatment, after many found they could walk normally again without any pain and without the need for hip replacement surgery. So far six patients have had the treatment with only one failure, doctors said.
Five of six patients does not mean this is a done deal. But can you imagine if this were done with embryonic stem cells? There would be no room for the story, the New York Times headline would be so large. Yes, of course, the paper of record has ignored this adult stem cell success as it does almost every one that comes down the pike.
September 1st, 2009 | 2:08 pm
Wow, talk about cheap shots. You get to bash embryonic stem cell research AND The New York Times in a single sentence. Really, Wesley, I’m surprised at you. Fact is, thanks to our former President ESCR was effectively stymied for eight years, so it’s amusing — in a black humor sort of way — to listen to flat-earthers and assorted fundamentalists bawling from the rooftops that ESC research should no longer be funded, and that adult stem cells will cure your halitosis, or whatever other inane claims they’re making this week. It’s the equivalent of putting someone’s eyes out and then castigating him for not becoming an art critic. But I guess you have your agenda, don’t you?
September 1st, 2009 | 2:18 pm
“Flat-earthers”? “Assorted fundamentalists”? Do you see why no one could ever take you seriously, HistoryWriter? You present the issue 100% backwards in order to satisfy your agenda.
September 1st, 2009 | 4:19 pm
this anti stem cell whining reminds me of a child who doesnt really have anything wrong but just feigns a cry for some attention to see if any one is listening or cares…
September 1st, 2009 | 5:25 pm
Would the “whining” by the left that ESCR has been “stymied” (see above” be included in that, Andrew?
September 1st, 2009 | 6:26 pm
I seem to remember having almost this exact conversation around the time the Bush order was enacted, or perhaps even before while it was still in the planning stage. Adult stem cells were already pulling ahead. Besides, if ESCs were so miraculous, they couldn’t drum up enough private investors to make up the shortfall? The economy may be in the toilet now, but it wasn’t then.
September 1st, 2009 | 7:53 pm
Yes, bmmg39, flat-earthers and assorted fundamentalists, the very same scientific illiterates who believe that the earth was created by some guy with a long white beard in six twenty-four hour days, eleven thousand years ago. You think they have something substantive to contribute to the debate? And you say no one can take ME seriously? Amazing. Absolutely amazing. But then a number of the same people also see the future of politics in Sarah Palin, so go figure.
September 1st, 2009 | 9:19 pm
Could somebody explain what the heck History Writer is talking about? The story in the main post is what it is. The adult stem cells are working in an important area. What’s to complain about?
September 2nd, 2009 | 10:04 am
[...] ECM sent me a Telegraph article on adult stem cell research. (Source: Secondhand Smoke) [...]
September 2nd, 2009 | 11:11 am
[...] “Adult Stem Cells May Help Avoid Hip Replacements,” Wesley J. Smith, Secondhand Smoke [...]
September 2nd, 2009 | 3:06 pm
HistoryWriter: “Yes, bmmg39, flat-earthers and assorted fundamentalists, the very same scientific illiterates who believe that the earth was created by some guy with a long white beard in six twenty-four hour days, eleven thousand years ago.”
Well, I personally am in neither camp. I’m simply scientifically LITERATE to understand the fact that a human embryo is a human being, something you cannot seem to grasp, and so those of us who believe that ethics and science can walk hand-in-hand are happy to see that ethical solutions are progressing more successfully than unethical ones.
September 2nd, 2009 | 10:25 pm
bmmg39: if you believe an 8-cell blastocyst is a “human being” — well, that’s your business. Some people believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. On the other hand, if you bother to read the Constitution you’ll see that fetuses are not legal persons (Amendment XIV).
Lydia: since you seem understand the point I’m making thinking I shall try explaining it to you more simply. ESCR was hamstrung by Bush and Co. for the last 8 years; now the same right-wing crazies are proclaiming the superiority of adult stem cell research by pointing to the fact that ESCR hasn’t produced any cures. Does this not seem just a bit unfair? Of course it’s possible that you’re an anti-science flat-earther yourself, in which case you won’t find it the least bit odd.
September 3rd, 2009 | 1:34 am
Again, HistoryWriter: let us know when you reach seventh-grade biology. Your world will be opened to secular science textbooks that accurately cite fertilization as the beginning of a new human being’s life — no religion required, HW!
And the Constitution does not trump scientific fact, believe it or not — unless you believe that an African-American was once, PHYSICALLY, 3/5 of a Caucasian. I’ve explained this to many people over the years, HW. Kinda surprised I have to explain it to you, though…
September 3rd, 2009 | 9:07 am
HW, SHS noted long ago that there had been nearly $2 billion in research through public and private sources by fall 2007 when iPSCs changed the game and pretty much silenced the crowd. GWB was the first president to give funding to ESCR. He took a lot of flak for it. Your argument that your opponents are flat earthers and fundamentalists shows you are out of arguments. AS SHS has also noted in the past, ASC results are becoming mundane because there are so many of them. Scoreboard buddy. After billions spent, you’ve got a goose egg. With billions more spent, you might get something, but right now you can’t even get your first human experiment off the ground.
September 4th, 2009 | 10:33 am
[...] ECM sent me a Telegraph article on adult stem cell research. (Source: Secondhand Smoke) [...]
September 4th, 2009 | 10:06 pm
GWB left researchers with a small number of not-too-diofferent stem cell lines and people are raving about how much support he gave to ESCR? Depressing!
September 4th, 2009 | 10:08 pm
bmmg39: The government of the United States is not run according to scientific textbooks or religious tenets. There’s this pesky thing called the Constitution, you see, and …. but, why waste time trying to explain how a government of laws functions to someone who has no appreciation whatsoever for the concept?
September 5th, 2009 | 1:18 am
In case you forgot, HistoryWriter, you earlier made the point that it was “flat-earthers” and “assorted fundamentalists” who have been opposing embryonic research, suggesting that it’s a Luddite opinion running contrary to scientific reasoning. Now that I’m demonstrating that scientific fact is on our side and not yours, you’re now — as people of your ilk are wont to do — abandoning science in favor of legal arguments. If one of those Human Life Amendment passes someday soon, will you then acknowledge that a human embryo is a human being, since the law will have then caught up with scientific fact? Furthermore, I’ll give you another chance to ignore this: do you believe that an African-American was once, scientifically, three-fifths of a Caucasian?
September 5th, 2009 | 1:19 am
Your argument, HW, reminds me of those from the people who argue, “Abortion should be legal because fetuses aren’t human beings, and we know fetuses aren’t human beings because abortion is legal.” Circular reasoning. (Have a grown-up explain it to you.)
September 5th, 2009 | 1:27 am
Finally, there is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment that states that the unborn are not human beings.
First off, the Amendment discusses only citizenship, not personhood. Someone visiting the United States from Mexico is not an American citizen, and therefore cannot vote, but (s)he IS protected by law from being harmed.
Secondly, you are making the faulty assumption that the inverse of a true statement is a true statement. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States…” MAKES NO MENTION of those not yet born.
Statement: “All Detroit residents are Michiganders.”
Inverse: “Those who are NOT Detroit residents are NOT Michiganders.”
And, of course, we see that the inverse is NOT true. Someone who has lived her whole life in Lansing or Battle Creek is still someone from Michigan. Likewise, one could later determine that someone still unborn in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen if conceived here. Or not. The point is: the unborn aren’t mentioned either way.
Game, set, match. Thanks for playing.
September 5th, 2009 | 1:19 pm
bmmg39:
I’m sorry that you seem to be having comprehension difficulties. Let me lay the “personhood” argument out for you in terms more readily understandable to a layman. The relevant text (Section 1) reads as follows: “All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” (emphasis added).
It continues: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Now here’s how that’s interpreted by the courts: the first section of the Amendment refers to citizenship, and asserts that “all persons born or naturalized …. are citizens…” I think you will appreciate that since a fetus is neither (a) born nor (b) naturalized, it is not considered to be a citizen of the United States.
Let’s continue: the Amendment further stipulates that the privileges and immunities of CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES are not to be abridged. Again, inapplicable to fetuses by virtue of the definition of citizen given above.
The Amendment further forbids any state to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Here the term “person” is used interchangeably with “citizen” — which is the original intent of the Amendment. If you have any doubt about this interpretation you will, I’m certain, recall that detention of suspected terrorists for prolonged periods without trial is claimed to violate neither the 6th nor the 14th Amendments because the persons involved are non-citizens.
Summing up then, the right to life guaranteed by the 14th Amendment applies only to citizens — which fetuses, by definition, are not. Were it otherwise there would have been a conflict between the 14th Amendment and Roe v. Wade when the latter was decided. There has never been a successful challenge to Roe on 14th Amendment grounds, which is why the opponents of abortion would like to see a constitutional amendment that defines legal personhood as existing from the moment of conception.
Don’t take my word for it. Ask Wesley.
Got it?
September 5th, 2009 | 1:28 pm
bmmg39: Sorry, I forgot. An African American has never “scientifically” been three-fifths of a Caucasian. On the other hand I can assure you that until they were recognized as “persons” following the Civil War each African American was indeed considered to be three-fifths of a Caucasian for purposes of enumeration. You will recall that I said we are governed by laws and not by science texts and religious tenets. Do you still have any doubt?
September 5th, 2009 | 4:18 pm
You obviously missed my post about true statements and false inverses. Go have a look-see and then we’ll talk.
At least you acknowledged that the Constitution’s consideration of an African-American as 3/5 of a Caucasian didn’t trump biological fact. So now you understand that no law can take away any human being’s personhood. (In other words, you have conceded my point. Thanks!)
Another question, though: while I’ve already demonstrated that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t state that embryos and fetuses cannot be U.S. citizens, I shall ask you if you think it should be legal to kill someone who is NOT a citizen if that person is on U.S. soil — a tourist, perhaps.
September 7th, 2009 | 5:20 am
I think there are many means to have fun. My favourite one is to spend time with escort girls. Actually, escort women are legal prostitutes. But those hot girls are much better than that. They are really nice looking. This escort service is greatly in demand in London. London Escort is my favorite escort agency. I’ve never met such sexy girls as ladies from that escort. Actually, I’m surprised how experienced these girls are.
September 7th, 2009 | 10:09 am
bmmg39: Go to law school. Then we’ll talk.
September 7th, 2009 | 2:09 pm
HistoryWriter: Go to the seventh grade. Then we’ll talk.
September 9th, 2009 | 8:20 am
bmmg39: Better yet, take London Escort’s advice and get rid of your frustration.
September 9th, 2009 | 11:34 am
Thanks for the testimonial, HW. I’m sure you’re a really big fan. Thank you also for failing to address anything anyone has said. I know how it must frustrate you when you make an unsubstantiated claim and people actually challenge it. It just ruins everything for you, doesn’t it?
September 9th, 2009 | 12:10 pm
bmmg39: Ruins everything? No, not really. I get my jollies jerking around people with very little education and even less imagination. Thanks for making my day.
September 9th, 2009 | 12:12 pm
bmmg39: What else can I say except that you shouldn’t come to a battle of wits half-armed.
September 9th, 2009 | 4:28 pm
You’re just adorable. You lose an argument, and then you refer to others as uneducated. Your argument was dismantled (I’d use a stronger word if not for my respect for Wesley’s site) logically, piece by piece, and, failing to rebut any of it, you make points already refuted numerous times. Your lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution belies your claim of having studied law.
September 16th, 2009 | 12:06 pm
MILEY CYRUS NUDE http://forum.moldova.org/index.php?showuser=4308 – MILEY CYRUS NUDEKim Kardashian nude http://forum.storagecraft.com/Community/members/kinawes.aspx – Kim Kardashian nudeMILEY CYRUS NUDE http://www.jetbrains.net/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=vbestrd – MILEY CYRUS NUDE
October 26th, 2009 | 3:19 am
Adult or repair stem cells can treat about 80% of diseases, many of them considered incurable. Spinal cord injury, sure! Diabetes, of course! Congestive heart failure, COPD, MS, CP, ONH, SOD…the list goes on and on! Don’t believe me? Feel free to contact me and I will show you study after study and probably multiple clinical trials. What do you have to lose…besides your symptoms and your misconceptions? For more information, check out The Stem Cell Bog [http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com] or contact me directly at dsgrano@gmail.com
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact