Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Yep - using dead babies to help rats see better.
1 posted on 09/21/2006 8:33:40 AM PDT by xjcsa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: xjcsa

Tell that to my dad, macular degeneration has robbed him of his sight.

And yes, he has volunteered to be and been a guinea pig on an experimental procedure (Not stem cell related)


2 posted on 09/21/2006 8:37:24 AM PDT by null and void (There's no nothing. End of report. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: xjcsa

they can find the traps now I betcha


3 posted on 09/21/2006 8:38:26 AM PDT by sure_fine (*not one to over kill the thought process*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: xjcsa
I challenge the validity of this test if it was using embryonic stem cells. My wife has been doing research on different stem cells and their benefits, if any, and this would be the first example where embryonic stem cells have shown ANY benefit of any kind in testing, and have never been tried on humans yet. Whereas adult stem cells and umbillical cord stem cells, which are more plentiful and more rich in stem cells, are actually being used in humans, in trials, who show benefits. Embryonic stem cells are still only being used in animals because they tend to do funny little things like CAUSE CANCEROUS TUMORS ON THE HEARTS OF MICE!!! Adult stem cells and umbillical stem cells do not do this, and have been documented to help HUMANS sight improve, and help restore muscular control in those suffering paralysis. Embryonic stem cells have not progressed to near this level because they keep demonstrating down sides that the other stem cell types never demonstrate.

And the bottom line of the argument is that embryonic stem cells are the shadow effort of the pro-abortion lobby groups. That is the only reason to push to hot and heavy for embryonic stem cell research when two other totally uncontroversial MUCH more plentiful sources of the same kinds of stem cells which have been proven to benefit HUMANS, but those are deliberately ignored by the media, whoare lap dog $2 w****s for the pro-abortion lobby. This is the bottom line.

I challenge anyone to post evidence of embryonic stem cells that have shown ANY benefits in humans, because my wife has found several times more material on how adult and umbillical stem cells actually help humans, and since no one opposes their use, there is no other explaination as to why there is still a push to use embryonic stem cells, when the other is so plentiful and uncontroversial and actually shows great benefits. I liken it to natural resources like oil. If there is oil bubbling up on the grounds surface, and just under the surface, and then there is some oil miles under the water, or in harsh terrain that is very hard and expensive to get to, who in their right mind will demand that the hard to obtain oil be drilled on first, ignoring the oil sitting on or just below the surface? That's just foolish. The stem cell debate isn't about stem cells, it's about abortion. The pro-death protesters desperately want embryonic stem cells so they can further try and show that human embryos are just tissue and not any kind of human life. That's the reality of this whole thing.

If there were no embryonic stem cells and it was another hard to obtain kind of tissue that was the third wheel, it would have been dumped years ago and the debate would have never happenen and the other two kinds would have been further along by now. So really, people that could have been helped at this point HAVEN'T been because the pro-abortion activists so demand that embryonic stem cells be the only kind used. THAT is sick. Creating embryos just to kill them, not coming up with cures for anything, and at the same time, delaying the help that people need and could have received for years, becqause of an agenda to protect abortion by dehumanizing the human embryo. The pro-abortion crowd are really sick people.

8 posted on 09/21/2006 8:59:12 AM PDT by TexasPatriot8 (Liberty must be defended, so the children of those who fell, can understand its value. Never forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: xjcsa

"Yep - using dead babies to help rats see better."

Well, at least it might help rats to open their eyes and see the real threat?.. And stop blaming Bush for everything in this world.


11 posted on 09/21/2006 9:41:19 AM PDT by tubasonum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: xjcsa; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ..
why did they kill human babies to experiment on rats in the hope of using it on humans one day?  Shouldn't they experiment with rat embryos on rats first?  Oh, by the way, ESCR on animals started in 1981 and to date there have been NO human clinical trials or proven therapies using embryonic cells.
 
Embryonic Stem Cell Research on Animals Has FAILED to Produce Any Cures or Treatments in 25 Years
 
Stem cells, ADULT,  promise cure for vision loss
Bone marrow, ADULT stem cells, may restore cells lost in vision diseases

Scientists Link a Bacterium to Age-Related Blindness (Chlamydia pneumoniae)
Drug approved to combat elderly blindness
Obesity can lead to blindness
DRUG HELPS RESTORE SIGHT: Relief for wet macular degeneration (miracle alert!)
Drug approved to combat elderly blindness
Smoking Boosts Risk of Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Antioxidant-Rich Foods Preserve Vision (prevent macular degeneration)
3 Studies Link Variant Gene to Risk of Severe Vision Loss (age-related macular degeneration)
FDA Clears Drug to Fight Age-Related Eye Disease
Method to Turn Off Bad Genes Is Set for Tests on Human Eyes
Elderly Blindness Drug Impresses FDA Panel (
Drug to Help Avert Blindness Moves Closer to Approval
Fruit Helps Eyes Stay Healthy (prevents macular degeneration)

15 posted on 09/22/2006 10:57:16 AM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, geese, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: xjcsa
From the article: "A bank of about 100 human embryonic stem cell lines could match half of the U.S. population," the researchers wrote.

What exactly does this mean?

Why wasn't this "fact" written as, "A bank of 200 human embryonic stem cell lines could match the entire U.S. population"?

Is some important detail being left out?

16 posted on 09/22/2006 10:57:28 AM PDT by syriacus (If the Pope meant to insult Muslims he would have discussed mustaches.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson