Michael Reagan: A Little Truth in Stem Cell Debate, Please

NewsMax ^ | 10/27/06 | Michael Reagan

[SevenofNine]

I don't know if you know this but back in da day when Ronnie was still alive Nancy I think because of seeing her husband with alzheirmer fall with Stem cells from infants crowd

Michael believe in adult stem cells that hold more promise I wonder Nancy believe it but I think she egg on by Ron Prescott Reagan her son

[Christian4Bush]

bttt

[supremedoctrine]

That article proves nothing except the usual self-congratulation at being involved is ESC research....... Was anything discovered-any researchers "closing in" on ANYTHING? What particular point are you trying to make?

[OldFriend]

Embryonic stem cell research is also a cash cow for charlatans. With the left using this topic as a way to extort taxpayer dollars away from it's citizens and donating them to their friends in the so called medical field.

[8mmMauser]

Pinged from Terri OCTOBER Dailies

8mm

[T'wit]

>> when the cells are injected into lab animals many grow brain tumors – some malignant and fatal.

I'd say there is room for compromise here. Any politician who wants to fund ESC research should lead the way for us and get a shot of ES cells.

People who suspect I am slyly setting pols up for brain tumors are not thinking. I said POLITICIANS. They are perfectly safe. It's people with brains who are at risk.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

One damning result of the ESC research that has been done is the fact that when the cells are injected into lab animals many grow brain tumors – some malignant and fatal. Thus far, that is the sole fruit of ESC research – fatal brain tumors. Drug companies aren't interested in funding that kind of outcome. There's no money in producing brain tumors.

Bump

[.30Carbine]

Thank you bump!

[RS]

LOL - sure - the drug companies want LESS potential customers on the planet -

[SoldierDad]

300,000,000 Americans now in this country with 400,000,000 estimated by 2050 - I don't think the drug companies are worried about the effects of 1.37 million abortions a year with that kind of U.S. population growth, do you? And, 1.37 million abortions per year sounds like a fertile and lucrative area of revenue producing business, wouldn't you say so?

[RS]

"What particular point are you trying to make?"

Our friend wagglebee appears to be presenting themselves as a voice of authority on this type of research, posting "...they know it will NEVER PAY OFF".

There are obvious major flaws in that thinking -


As far as your interest on them "closing in on anything" ... would that change your idea on it's acceptability ?




Here's a hypothetical quandry for you to ponder ...

A young researcher in ESC learns their craft, working in the field for 10 years - based on that knowledge, then goes on to find a miraculous cure that uses adult cells. Is the use of that cure "acceptable" since its dicovery was based on ESC research ?

[RS]

"And, 1.37 million abortions per year sounds like a fertile and lucrative area of revenue producing business, wouldn't you say so?"

If you were a big drug company, would you rather supply to those as 1.37 million that were NOT terminated ?

I'm sure that each live birth uses up many times more in the way of drugs and supplies then an abortion - and when some of them will grow up and get AIDS, they hit the jackpot.

By your own arguement, the companies would be better off against abortions, but if people are going to do it - hey, lets take what we can get -

[SoldierDad]

Big drug companies look at the fact that 1.37 million babies will be aborted on average each year regardless of what they want to happen, and they want to be the ones making money off of that fact. When the drug companies add up the numbers of population increases in the U.S. and the rest of the world, 1.37 million abortions is insignificant in their calculations for doing business - IN OTHER WORDS THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THOSE 1.37 MILLION AMERICAN LIVES SNUFFED OUT EACH YEAR. They know they will make tons of money despite those deaths, and in supplying the means of terminating those pregnancies they further fatten their wallets on those deaths. Their bottom line is hurt not in the least with those deaths (given that those deaths are going to happen anyway).

By the way, how many people in this country die each year from other means? Death is a money making feature of life for drug companies. What with all the medications they pump out for people who are destined to die despite all those meds, the drug companies are making a "killing" so to speak.

[RS]

"...1.37 million abortions is insignificant in their calculations for doing business..."


That was my point back in post #7- UH ... Don't think there is a lot of money for the drug companies in "protecting the right to abortion" either ...


But I'm curious ... just how do they "fatten their wallet" with something that is "insignificant in their calculations" ?

[SoldierDad]

Since you can't seem to get the meaning of what I've already clearly posted regarding this issue, our discussion is at and end. The drug companies are making money off of abortion and anyone whose paying attention knows that.

[supremedoctrine]

See my #19 to wagglebee: knowing that this is the Left strategy ( and I DO know it, whether you do or not), it is entirely logical to dismiss ESC out of hand, but not of course without attempting to start a dialog about it, which inevitably THEY will dismiss out of hand, by demagoguing it the way have global warming and other junk science. ANd as to your rhetorical question about ESC researchers discovering inadvertently or through a back or side door of research, that indeed ADULT stem cells are the answer---how or why could that ever happen? Is that a joke/rhetorical question. And isn't it pretty much the same thing as saying that we shouldn't shoot down a suicide bomber TODAY because in 10 years he might see the error of his ways and "reform" and have a revelation and join us?---as a number of them in fact have done) (Not trying to compare ESC researchers with Jihadists, mind you, just trying to make a point using your rather hypothetical terms.)I for one don't know on whose behalf you are conjuring your argument, or if you're just a contrarian. But I would like to know.

[RS]

"The drug companies are making money off of abortion and anyone whose paying attention knows that."

Well duh ... but we have both proven that the amount is insignificant to their profits, and the money they would make from these pregnancies continuing would far exceed what they are getting from them.

Isn't what you are saying comparable to saying that cops make their money from crime ?

Pro-life people make money from abortion also.

[RS]

"ANd as to your rhetorical question about ESC researchers discovering inadvertently or through a back or side door of research, that indeed ADULT stem cells are the answer---how or why could that ever happen?"

Do you really think that embyonic and adult or cord stem cells are COMPLETELY different ? That research on and techniques learned on one could NEVER apply to the other ?

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics2.asp

"Scientists are trying to understand two fundamental properties of stem cells that relate to their long-term self-renewal:

Why can embryonic stem cells proliferate for a year or more in the laboratory without differentiating, but most adult stem cells cannot; and
What are the factors in living organisms that normally regulate stem cell proliferation and self-renewal?"

[supremedoctrine]

Perhaps if ESC proponents could point to ANYTHING substantive even on a theoretical level, instead of asking questions, on the one hand, and exploiting people like Michael J. Fox on the other, people might take them seriously, or more seriously. By the same token as the initial question you asked---why indeed could not ASC research to tell us something about ESC research. And what specifically is the advantage or significance of E Stemcells proliferating for a year or more in a lab without differentiating? That is a GOOD thing? WHY??