But I thought only fetal stem cells ...

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
were the answer to medical breakthroughs. Of course, there has never been a medical breakthrough using fetal stem cells; but why should that stop the rhetoric?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454525,00.html

Breakthrough Windpipe Transplant Uses Stem Cells
Wednesday, November 19, 2008

LONDON — Doctors have given a woman a new windpipe with tissue grown from her own stem cells, eliminating the need for anti-rejection drugs.

"This technique has great promise," said Dr. Eric Genden, who did a similar transplant in 2005 at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. That operation used both donor and recipient tissue. Only a handful of windpipe, or trachea, transplants have ever been done.

If successful, the procedure could become a new standard of treatment, said Genden, who was not involved in the research.

The results were published online Wednesday in the medical journal, The Lancet.

The transplant was given to Claudia Castillo, a 30-year-old Colombian mother of two living in Barcelona, suffered from tuberculosis for years. After a severe collapse of her left lung in March, Castillo needed regular hospital visits to clear her airways and was unable to take care of her children.

Doctors initially thought the only solution was to remove the entire left lung. But Dr. Paolo Macchiarini, head of thoracic surgery at Barcelona's Hospital Clinic, proposed a windpipe transplant instead.

Once doctors had a donor windpipe, scientists at Italy's University of Padua stripped off all its cells, leaving only a tube of connective tissue.

Meanwhile, doctors at the University of Bristol took a sample of Castillo's bone marrow from her hip. They used the bone marrow's stem cells to create millions of cartilage and tissue cells to cover and line the windpipe.

Experts at the University of Milan then used a device to put the new cartilage and tissue onto the windpipe. The new windpipe was transplanted into Castillo in June.

"They have created a functional, biological structure that can't be rejected," said Dr. Allan Kirk of the American Society of Transplantation. "It's an important advance, but constructing an entire organ is still a long way off."

So far, Castillo has shown no signs of rejection and is not taking any immune-suppressing drugs, which can cause side effects like high blood pressure, kidney failure and cancer.

"I was scared at the beginning," Castillo said in a press statement. "I am now enjoying life and am very happy that my illness has been cured."

Her doctors say she is now able to take care of her children, and can walk reasonable distances without becoming out of breath. Castillo even reported dancing all night at a club in Barcelona recently.

Genden said that Castillo's progress needed to be closely monitored. "Time will tell if this lasts," he said. Genden added that it can take up to three years to know if the windpipe's cartilage structure is solid and won't fall apart.

People who might benefit include children born with defective airways, people with scars or tumours in their windpipes, and those with collapsed windpipes.

Martin Birchall, who grew Castillo's cells at the University of Bristol, said that the technique might even be adapted to other organs.

"Patients engineering their own tissues is the key way forward," said Dr. Patrick Warnke, a surgeon at the University of Kiel in Germany. Warnke is also growing patients' tissues from stem cells for transplants.

Warnke predicted that doctors might one day be able to produce organs in the laboratory from patients' own stem cells. "That is still years away, but we need pioneering approaches like this to solve the problem," he said.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Okay...here we go again.

Stem cells have been used medically for nearly 3 decades now. Bone marrow transplants post-chemo is the most well-known use of this treatment.

Stem cells come in different grades - graded on how many uses you can gain from them...their potency (potential).

Adult stem-cells can be used for a few things. The one mentioned above, not to mention bones, cartilage and skin. The skill-set to grow large sections of skin for burn-victims (for instance) is getting better. This last study is a good example of how far you can go with a limited stem-cell type IF stem-cell research is allowed to flourish.

The 'younger' the stem-cells are..the more pluri-potent they are. You can't use adult stem-cells to recreate muscle, nor bind nerves, nor grow organs, nor fix the brain, nor recreate insulin cells. etc etc..

Certain scientists are working on trying to revert adult stem-cells into an earlier form in order to increase their potency. Others are trying to harvest more pluri-potent stem-cells from other sources (Menstrual blood, cord-cells etc..)

Most of this research is hampered by the church and the self-righteous and wholly uninformed people (sheep) that follow the pap that's fed to them by the church.

These are the same people that think that abortionists are in cahoots with stem-cell researchers. Baaa

Abortuses are TOO OLD to use in stem-cell research.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
Most of this research is hampered by the church and the self-righteous and wholly uninformed people (sheep) that follow the pap that's fed to them by the church.

These are the same people that think that abortionists are in cahoots with stem-cell researchers. Baaa

Abortuses are TOO OLD to use in stem-cell research.

As opposed to those sheep who swallow whole the pap fed to them by the media. Sheep are sheep, regardless of their side of the fence.

Abortionists don't need to be in cahoots with anyone other than idiots with no respect for anything other than their own greed.

And frankly, any research that begins with killing the donor is one short step from the Sci-fi nightmare of the rich harvesting the poor for parts. Adult stem cells might be harder to work with, but unless you think Monty Python had the right idea, it's a better solution long term. Likewise, you can claim that the embryos used aren't alive yet ..... but I've argued that point before.



What never ceases to amaze me is how many people have no qualms tearing apart a potential human, but go squirrelly over harvesting a mink.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
So..where do these stem-cells come from? IVF unused and fertilized/frozen ova.
Many ova are taken and fertilized for the procedure. All are frozen save 3 which are used to try and impregnate the woman. If the woman gets pregnant..stock in cigars go up locally. If it doesn't..they try again. If the coup,le wants another child..they thaw another one/two and do it again.
Eventually the couple in question reaches the number of kids that they want...Great!

So...what happens to the left-over/frozen embryos?

1) The couple can donate them to family/friends (Snow-flake babies)
2) The couple can openly donate them to other infertile couples (Snow-flake babies)
3) The couple can change their mind and have another baby providing they pay for storage past the 4-year mark
4) The couple can have the ova destroyed
5) The couple can donate the ova to research.

#4 is the option most chosen.

Stem-cell researchers don't want ova that would normally have gone towards 1,2, or 3 at all. They would like people considering #4 to consider #5 as well. The ova is destroyed in either case - so where's the issue? :shrug:
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
So..where do these stem-cells come from? IVF unused and fertilized/frozen ova.
Many ova are taken and fertilized for the procedure. All are frozen save 3 which are used to try and impregnate the woman. If the woman gets pregnant..stock in cigars go up locally. If it doesn't..they try again. If the coup,le wants another child..they thaw another one/two and do it again.
Eventually the couple in question reaches the number of kids that they want...Great!

So...what happens to the left-over/frozen embryos?

1) The couple can donate them to family/friends (Snow-flake babies) (adoption ..Yay)
2) The couple can openly donate them to other infertile couples (Snow-flake babies)(adoption .. Yay)
3) The couple can change their mind and have another baby providing they pay for storage past the 4-year mark (take responsability for what they created .. yay)
4) The couple can have the ova destroyed ¸(If you call them ova instead of infant, it's science instead of murder)
5) The couple can donate the ova to research. See above

#4 is the option most chosen.

Stem-cell researchers don't want ova that would normally have gone towards 1,2, or 3 at all. They would like people considering #4 to consider #5 as well. The ova is destroyed in either case - so where's the issue? :shrug:


just a reminder ... if my opinion on keeping breeding to those capable of it without involving a test tube, this whole thing would be a non issue. When scientists refer the moral issues of their work to politicians (who's morals have ever been suspect) .... well, Oppenheimer was of that opinion too. Really odd how the people who decried his work on the bomb support this use of the same moral sidestep.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
By your definition, 1 infant gets killed every lunar month by every female starting roughly at age 13 until age 50 and 100million get killed by males daily/weekly every time they use a condom, engage in oral sex or jerk-off (anything that doesn't get an ova impregnated).

Not to mention the natural miscarriages.

Potential doesn't equal actual...never has, never will.
**
So..anyone who can't have kids using the ol' missionary position should be allowed to try and have kids otherwise? Regardless of the reason why they can't have kids?

When scientists refer the moral issues of their work to the church (who's morals have ever been suspect) .... well, Galileo Galilei was of that opinion too. Really odd how the people who decried his study of the earth going around the sun support this use of the same moral sidestep.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Oh..almost forgot. 2-4 cells clumped together loosely is no more an infant than the 30-60 cells clumped together that constitute your average piece of dandruff.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
By your definition, 1 infant gets killed every lunar month by every female starting roughly at age 13 until age 50 and 100million get killed by males daily/weekly every time they use a condom, engage in oral sex or jerk-off (anything that doesn't get an ova impregnated).

Not to mention the natural miscarriages.

Potential doesn't equal actual...never has, never will.
**
So..anyone who can't have kids using the ol' missionary position should be allowed to try and have kids otherwise? Regardless of the reason why they can't have kids?

When scientists refer the moral issues of their work to the church (who's morals have ever been suspect) .... well, Galileo Galilei was of that opinion too. Really odd how the people who decried his study of the earth going around the sun support this use of the same moral sidestep.

For the first part, if you insist on acting the idiot, please do it somewhere else. Neither an unfertilized egg, nor a sperm have the potential to become a living person. What you call an Ova does. As for jerkoffs ......


As for that middle part .. if you translate it to english, I`ll address it.
Potential doesn't equal actual? Then a whole lot of judges need to hear from you, because they award damages for lost potential all the time. But then, you already know this, because I told you the exact same thing last time we had this discussion.

When I discuss morals, I don't reach for the Bible. I point towards the Int`l declaration of human rights and freedoms. Although a discussion of morals with a guy who took a paycheque from the Church while backtalking about it does seem pointless.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
For the first part, if you insist on acting the idiot, please do it somewhere else. Neither an unfertilized egg, nor a sperm have the potential to become a living person. What you call an Ova does. As for jerkoffs ......

Ova is Latin for egg. I did say fertilized ova, didn't I? As for the rest..than you can ask the RC Church why it's such a crime to use birth control of any type...get back to me. In the meanwhile, I'll just humm "Every sperm is sacred". If you're going to go sliding down the slippery slope, why not go all the way down?

Oh..and :finger:

As for that middle part .. if you translate it to english, I`ll address it.
Potential doesn't equal actual? Then a whole lot of judges need to hear from you, because they award damages for lost potential all the time. But then, you already know this, because I told you the exact same thing last time we had this discussion.

Which part? Natural miscarriages? Surely you don't think that every time a woman gets pregnant that she actually gives birth? 25% of all pregnancies miscarry in the first 6 weeks. another 8% thereafter.

Don't mix math and science with law and their ilk...apples and orangutans
When I discuss morals, I don't reach for the Bible. I point towards the Int`l declaration of human rights and freedoms. Although a discussion of morals with a guy who took a paycheque from the Church while backtalking about it does seem pointless.
:rofl: You're quoting the IDHRF?

Nice attempt at a smear...weak. But I didn't expect any more from you.
 

slayer

New Member
Hello, everyone!

There is no point in the reproductive process when a non-living thing suddenly becomes alive. A sperm unites with an ovum to form a zygote. A sperm, an ovum, and a zygote are all alive at the time of conception. However, a zygote is substantially different than a sperm or an ovum but only accidentally different from a newborn baby. You come into being once you are a zygote, which occurs at the moment of your conception. There are no substantial differences that occur after you become a zygote. All differences that occur after you are a zygote are all accidental ones. You have your own DNA, and your genetic makeup is complete at the moment of your conception.

That is why embryonic stem cell research and abortion is murder, regardless of the end one is trying to pursue.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Hello, everyone!

Welcome to OTC. I hope you remembered to bring your flameproof suit.

The only thing I would take exception to with your contention is that a sperm and an ovum are living organisms. Both are one celled organisms and by virtue of that are not living organisms until the symbiotic relationship of fertilization takes place.
 

slayer

New Member
Welcome to OTC. I hope you remembered to bring your flameproof suit.

The only thing I would take exception to with your contention is that a sperm and an ovum are living organisms. Both are one celled organisms and by virtue of that are not living organisms until the symbiotic relationship of fertilization takes place.

Thank you.

Perhaps I worded it wrong. It should be correct now.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
Ova is Latin for egg. I did say fertilized ova, didn't I? As for the rest..than you can ask the RC Church why it's such a crime to use birth control of any type...get back to me. In the meanwhile, I'll just humm "Every sperm is sacred". If you're going to go sliding down the slippery slope, why not go all the way down?

Oh..and :finger:



Which part? Natural miscarriages? Surely you don't think that every time a woman gets pregnant that she actually gives birth? 25% of all pregnancies miscarry in the first 6 weeks. another 8% thereafter.

Don't mix math and science with law and their ilk...apples and orangutans
:rofl: You're quoting the IDHRF?

Nice attempt at a smear...weak. But I didn't expect any more from you.


I stopped expecting anything from you quite a while back. And for the finger ... back to the ignore list.

Ospeav, Welcome to the site.
 
Top