Adult Stem-Cell Success Stories Hailed: Meanwhile, a Son of Reagan Assails Use of Embryos [Michael]

Zenit.org ^ | 06-25-04 | Zenit.org

[Salvation]

thanks, Coleus!

[Salvation]

**Michael Reagan ROCKS**

Indeed!

[Salvation]

Thanks for the links, too!

[Salvation]

Wow! All 95 pages!!

[Mudboy Slim]

Mike's been on Hannity-Colmes a lot since his father's passing...I'd seriously like to see him become a fixture on FoxNewsChannel, I think he brings a lot to the table.

FReegards...MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

I was proud of Ron and Patti at their father's service(s), but they tarnish Reagan's good name with some of the nonsense they come up with!! Michael's always been even-keeled and sensible, not unlike Ronaldus Magnus. But anybody who says they look alike is smokin' something!!

FReegards...MUD

[gentlestrength]

The cannibalism of an even more vulnerable human than the one wanting new cells, should be stressed.

If I could get in on a phone call when Nancy does appear sometime, I'd ask something like, "Do you support the use of the embryonic stem cells were another Ronald Reagan and he would no longer be allowed to grow into his full stature affecting not only you, but the entire world for good?"

[supercat]

I think it's important to spread the word that "adult" stem cells are showing more practical application than embryonic/fetal ones, because that fact really helps expose the real goals behind the research.

To borrow an analogy I posted on another thread, suppose a vehicle gets a flat tire on a little-used road near an unoccupied shed. The vehicle does not have a usable lug-wrench. One occupant suggests breaking into the shed to see if there's a usable lug wrench inside.

Which of the following would be a better argument against such a course of action:

1. It is wrong to break into other people's buildings.
2. There is a lug wrench sitting outside with a sign granting permission for people to use it.

Which would be a better argument against breaking into the shed? Suppose that even after one pointed out argument #2 to the aforementioned vehicle occupant, he still wanted to break into the shed. How would one judge his motives?

Presently, those who advocate "research" with embryonic/fetal stem cells are claiming they only want to use embryos that would be discarded anyway. But is there any plausible way that any treatment developed using embryonic/fetal stem cells could be put to practical use without creating large numbers of embryos specifically for the purpose of cell harvesting? I would really like a stem-cell-research proponent to answer that question.

I'd also like someone to explain either where my understanding of research protocols is flawed, or why stem cell research shouldn't follow them. In particular, my understanding would be that before experimental biological treatments which could cause harm are attempted on humans, they are first tested and refined on animals. Although a procedure's success on animals will not always imply success on humans, animal testing can often give researchers some pretty good idea of the things that can go wrong and what to watch out for.

Following this principle, it would seem appropriate and logical to perform experiments with stem cells extracted from embryonic rats, mice, or other lab animals; only after therapies were developed that worked well in rodents should any tests be done on humans. To the best of my knowledge, though, there has been a desire to push ahead with human testing for protocols that have not yet been validated with animal testing. I'd like someone to explain to me either where I'm mistaken in thinking this is unusual, or else why--despite being unusual--it is appropriate.

[Robert Drobot]

Your Post #15 is a keeper!!!

[djf]

Here is the problem:
We need to find out what can be done with stem cells.

It is much easier to do tests with a strain that is known and studied.

When they find an application that can benefit from stem cells, there is no doubt that the stem cells from the person being treated would, in most cases, be a much better fit.

They have shown great promise for spinal injuries, some certain kinds of brain problems, cardiac function, and most likely, in the future, multiple sclerosis.

NO RESPONSIBLE RESEARCHER would propose a woman have an abortion to provide stem cells.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[NYer]

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[tob2]

From my experience in the past as a medical secretary, the profession sometimes suppresses information. They suppress information about alternative treatments which work and supress information about experiments which go horribly wrong. It's done for prestige, power and the money that goes with it.

[The Raven]

This is adult stem cells in action

[airborne]

Thanks for the ping. Nothing starts the day off better than some good news. BTW (time to brag) I took a gold, silver and 2 bronze at the National Veterans Wheelchair Games in St Louis. Being confined to a wheelchair isn't the end, just a different path to explore.

[VeritatisSplendor]

The Catholic church has medical schools and teaching hospitals - and a lot of money as these things go - I hope, but I have not heard, that the Church is funding research into morally acceptable alternatives to embryonic stem cells.

Mrs VS

[Romish_Papist]

Bump for Michael Reagan!

[Lancey Howard]

The Stem Cell Cover-Up By Michael Fumento
Insight Magazine | May 24, 2004