Paralyzed woman walks again

[Lohrno]

Notice how he never answered my question about whether one group has the right to enforce ethics values over another group.

-=Lohrno

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Notice how he never answered my question about whether one group has the right to enforce ethics values over another group.

-=Lohrno

It's kind of a stupid question. In life many people force things upon you that you don't wish, but that is life. I don't feel handicap people should have so many parking spaces in front of every entrance at the mall, but I live with it. I don't feel abortion is right, but it is legal so I live with it. What the fuck are you asking? Is it right? Well in a perfect world (that doesn't exist) no I guess not. But, there is no such fucking thing retard! WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lohrno]

I don't feel abortion is right, but it is legal so I live with it. What the fuck are you asking? Is it right? Well in a perfect world (that doesn't exist) no I guess not.

Thank you. So basically it is not okay to ban funding of embryonic stem cell cloning on your own personal values because that would be imposing of one groups ethics on another.

Well, the short bus is about to come get me so I'll be quick. =P

Thank you for reminding me this is not a perfect world. Are you now suggesting that it is not our duty to try to make this world as close to a perfect world as possible? Or is it not worth it to try? Should we give up now and accept our position in life, or should we try to make things better? Since it's not right, then arguing for embryonic stem cell funding is therefore wrong. Thank you. =D

-=Lohrno

[Aslanna]

GENEVA, Nov. 28 - In the first national referendum on an issue that has divided both the European Union and the United States, Swiss voters have backed proposals to allow stem-cell research.

More than 66 percent of 1.15 million Swiss who voted Saturday supported a law on stem-cell research passed by parliament in 2003 permitting research on surplus human embryos, while 585,000 voters or 33.6 percent were opposed to it.

After the law was passed, politicians from across the spectrum called for a referendum and urged Switzerland's 4.7 million voters to repeal it under Switzerland's system of direct democracy.

Turnout in the referendum was low, at 35.7 percent, and well short of the average 40 percent participation in Swiss national ballots. Political scientists said voters probably stayed at home because the issue was too complex and had no clear political dimension.

Swiss authorities granted a group of scientists at the University of Geneva permission in 2001 to import and use human embryonic stem cells from the United States. The referendum result means scientists here will be allowed to use surplus human embryos produced by fertility treatment for research purposes.

Formed during the first few days of the development of the human embryo, embryonic stem cells give rise to the specialized cells of various body tissues, including heart, kidney and brain cells. They are a valuable research tool for studying the development of human tissues and may hold the key to developing medicines and therapies to treat a variety of diseases and conditions, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and spinal cord injuries.

Research in the field is still in its infancy and is controversial because extraction of stem cells involves the destruction of human embryos. In the United States, President Bush, in one of his first official acts in 2001, limited federal financing for embryonic stem cell studies to a handful of existing colonies, or lines. Many scientists and advocates for disease research contend that the restrictions are stifling a promising avenue of science that could bring treatment or cures to millions.

In Switzerland, the four governing coalition parties and the powerful business community backed the law, which is similar to legislation in France and falls between relatively liberal laws in Britain and Belgium and more restrictive laws in Austria and Ireland.

Opponents argued that stem-cell research was tantamount to killing human life. They were joined by anti-gene research Greens and left-wing groups that argued that the law opened the door to human cloning.

In the run-up to the vote, surveys showed a sharp divide between voters who cited medical progress as the main reason for favoring stem-cell research and voters who objected to the use of surplus human embryos for research purposes.

Under the 2003 law, stem-cell research can only be conducted using fertilized eggs not older than seven days that are left over from fertility treatment. The written consent of the couple who produced the embryos is required before their stem cells can be used and each research project must be approved by an ethics committee.

Researchers are not allowed to create embryos for research, unlike in Britain.

Therapeutic cloning and the trade in human embryos are also banned.

Will be nice when other nations become world leaders in medicines. Then we can impose price controls on their drugs.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I don't feel abortion is right, but it is legal so I live with it. What the fuck are you asking? Is it right? Well in a perfect world (that doesn't exist) no I guess not.

Thank you. So basically it is not okay to ban funding of embryonic stem cell cloning on your own personal values because that would be imposing of one groups ethics on another.

Well, the short bus is about to come get me so I'll be quick. =P

Thank you for reminding me this is not a perfect world. Are you now suggesting that it is not our duty to try to make this world as close to a perfect world as possible? Or is it not worth it to try? Should we give up now and accept our position in life, or should we try to make things better? Since it's not right, then arguing for embryonic stem cell funding is therefore wrong. Thank you. =D

-=Lohrno

Your idea of perfect may not be mine kiddo. Just because you so passionately think you are right, doesn't make it so. Now hop on on your short bus and mumble away to the other passengers.

[Lohrno]

Your idea of perfect may not be mine kiddo. Just because you so passionately think you are right, doesn't make it so. Now hop on on your short bus and mumble away to the other passengers.

The true perfect society is one that seeks to grant the most freedoms to people yet causes the least harm as well.

Dispute this? No, didn't think so, it's pretty basic.

Now my idea of a PERFECT society might be different from yours in some little ways but compromises must be made in an effort to keep society like the first thing I said. I might want government funding of abortions ( I actually don't, but let's just say this for argument's sake.). You might want to ban them. The obvious compromise would be to let those who want them to do it, and those who object to not do it. Simple enough? I don't have problems with people who are against abortion, I have problems when said people try to legislate this. Anything that takes away freedom is bad. Or do you disagree with that?

-=Lohrno

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Your idea of perfect may not be mine kiddo. Just because you so passionately think you are right, doesn't make it so. Now hop on on your short bus and mumble away to the other passengers.

The true perfect society is one that seeks to grant the most freedoms to people yet causes the least harm as well.

Dispute this? No, didn't think so, it's pretty basic.

Now my idea of a PERFECT society might be different from yours in some little ways but compromises must be made in an effort to keep society like the first thing I said. I might want government funding of abortions ( I actually don't, but let's just say this for argument's sake.). You might want to ban them. The obvious compromise would be to let those who want them to do it, and those who object to not do it. Simple enough? I don't have problems with people who are against abortion, I have problems when said people try to legislate this. Anything that takes away freedom is bad. Or do you disagree with that?

-=Lohrno

No. I will agree with what they are doing now. Talking, researching, and talking and researching to see if it is something they should, would, could do.

There is no overwhelming evidence saying if they throw a fuckton of money at embryonic stem cell research they will get any result. How much money has been thrown at AIDS over the past 20 years? OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS! How many cures? NONE. You continue to fight and research but you save the rash decision making and overreactionary idealism to the fruitcakes on the left.

[Aaeamdar]

How many cures? NONE.

Technically true. But only technically. HIV infection is largely no longer life threatening. AIDS is nothing more than a set of symptoms associated with HIV infection, so yeah, it is not "cured" and cannot be. By definition AIDS can only be prevented or remitted. HIV infection is in theory curable (a cure would be the lack of HIV infection in a body previously infected) and that has not happened. This is true of most viral infections - you don't cure them - you vacciante against them for prevention or treat the symptoms and live with the virus. The latter has happened. A person infected with HIV today is no longer likely to die of HIV related illnesses. They will be on a life long treatment program, but those programs are generally successful in maintaining low viral counts and keeping people asymptomatic for life. So, yes, there is still technically no cure, but your argument about the lack of a cure is meaningless, as all that research money has resulted in a set of highly effective treatments.

[Lohrno]

No. I will agree with what they are doing now. Talking, researching, and talking and researching to see if it is something they should, would, could do.

Because of the way it's being funded now, only half of the possible research is available. There's also the time spent cloning these current stem cell lines.

There is no overwhelming evidence saying if they throw a fuckton of money at embryonic stem cell research they will get any result. How much money has been thrown at AIDS over the past 20 years? OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS! How many cures? NONE.

Apples and Oranges. Embryonic cell research is a promising new science that may result in even some unexpected benefits. AIDS research deals with trying to find tons of ways to cure it. This woman in South Korea, as well as others are proof there is promise in this field.

You continue to fight and research but you save the rash decision making and overreactionary idealism to the fruitcakes on the left.

Please show me an example of 'overreactionary idealism.' Or do you just not like being proven wrong?

-=Lohrno

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Worry about proving yourself right sport. What have you said that would make me believe that ebryonic stem cell research has been proven to be the future over the other types of stem cells? What have you said that shows me you aren't rushing to judgement based off of what you hear and see on the box with pretty colors, that somehow we are behind the times? What have you said that shows me we don't live in a world of ethics and morals and that these factors should be looked into when a government decides to fund a certain project filled with ethical concerns?

Chalk it up to the fact that I am patient. I have faith that if it is found that embryonic stem cells are the way to go, then they will get behind it once they are certain it won't affect the ethical makeup of the people in America.

Oh and by the way...in case you didn't know....ethics doesn't equal religion.

[*~*stragi*~*]

this thread needs drugs

farming human embryo's for their stemcells is fucking creepy

[Lohrno]

Worry about proving yourself right sport. What have you said that would make me believe that ebryonic stem cell research has been proven to be the future over the other types of stem cells?

Fair enough, but you haven't demonstrated any reason that they should be specifically banned or not funded.

What have you said that shows me you aren't rushing to judgement based off of what you hear and see on the box with pretty colors, that somehow we are behind the times? What have you said that shows me we don't live in a world of ethics and morals and that these factors should be looked into when a government decides to fund a certain project filled with ethical concerns?

You already told me that it isn't right for the ethics and values of one group should not be imposed on the rest. This is not right, and you said so yourself.

Chalk it up to the fact that I am patient. I have faith that if it is found that embryonic stem cells are the way to go, then they will get behind it once they are certain it won't affect the ethical makeup of the people in America.

Fair enough. I have an easier time with the 'let's wait and see before we fund this' argument than the ethical one. Still since we're funding non embryonic stem cell research I don't see why we don't fund embryonic as well. Why are we not exploring all avenues of science that we could?

Oh and by the way...in case you didn't know....ethics doesn't equal religion.

Who brought religion into this? I certainly did not. I only alluded to groups of people who share ethical values. I'm sure there are conservative Muslims and Jews who have problems with this as well as Christians who don't. I use the word groups of people who have these ethical values to make this clear. I guess I failed. =P

-=Lohrno

[Lohrno]

this thread needs drugs

http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... hp?t=12461

-=Lohrno

[*~*stragi*~*]

this thread needs drugs

http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... hp?t=12461

-=Lohrno

yes, my sarcastic comment was derived from that thread.
now i have to poop
afk on a messageboard

[Lohrno]

yes, my sarcastic comment was derived from that thread.
now i have to poop
afk on a messageboard

Okay, I'll wait. =D

-=Lohrno

[*~*stragi*~*]

back

[Xatrei]

Technically true. But only technically. HIV infection is largely no longer life threatening. AIDS is nothing more than a set of symptoms associated with HIV infection, so yeah, it is not "cured" and cannot be. By definition AIDS can only be prevented or remitted. HIV infection is in theory curable (a cure would be the lack of HIV infection in a body previously infected) and that has not happened. This is true of most viral infections - you don't cure them - you vacciante against them for prevention or treat the symptoms and live with the virus. The latter has happened. A person infected with HIV today is no longer likely to die of HIV related illnesses. They will be on a life long treatment program, but those programs are generally successful in maintaining low viral counts and keeping people asymptomatic for life. So, yes, there is still technically no cure, but your argument about the lack of a cure is meaningless, as all that research money has resulted in a set of highly effective treatments.

Perhaps this is true for those that are lucky / wealthy enough to be able to afford the cocktail of drugs required to stay alive. Even with the benefit of treatment, life for most positive folks is not exactly a picnic (except for maybe a few deranged bug chasers, at least until the reality of their situations hits them). The reality is radically different for the overwhelming majority of people who are dealing with HIV infection and AIDS. The world's poor (including many infected people in our own country) have yet to benefit from treatments because the 20ish pills a day needed to stay alive are far too expensive. For them, the best hope lies in a yet to be a working (and yet to be discovered) vaccine. All the protease inhibitors in the world aren't doing sub-Saharan Africa much good atm.

[Aaeamdar]

Ummm, yes. Clearly HIV and AIDS are still problems and, like most diseases, are more serious problems in poor nations. How is that in any way related to the fact that the research money poured into AIDS research over the past couple decades has been significant, rather than insiginifacnt as the "No Cure" label Midnyte wants to put on it?

[Fash]

... AIDS research ... has been significant, rather than insiginifacnt as the "No Cure" label Midnyte wants to put on it?

I don't see how else you can label it. A three drug cocktail which in a way keeps you alive only so you can continue buying the three drug cocktail.

It's a racket, not a cure.

In a world where the next most recent excitement about AIDS (before the french announcement within 2 days about a possible breakthrough) was a graduate student creating an anti-AIDS designer virus with $200,000 and his campus lab.... you have to question the intention of the big-pharmaceuticals.

[Aaeamdar]

I see. Well its certainly an interesting perspective. I suspect, however, that HIV positive people are pretty thankful for that "racket." I suspect the same can be said of diabettics taking insulin for life, asthmatics that carry inhalers for life, people with renal failure on weekly dialisys for life, nearsighted people wearing contact lenses for life, paralysized people using wheelchairs and breathers for life, etc. etc. etc.

I suppose those are all meaningless medical advancement as well?

A three drug cocktail which in a way keeps you alive only so you can continue buying the three drug cocktail

This may be shocking to learn, but - you might want to sit down now - the people taking the "three drug coctail" are actually able to do more with their life than spend 100% of it only buying additional three drug cocktails. Strange, I know, but true.

[Lohrno]

In a world where the next most recent excitement about AIDS (before the french announcement within 2 days about a possible breakthrough) was a graduate student creating an anti-AIDS designer virus with $200,000 and his campus lab.... you have to question the intention of the big-pharmaceuticals.

HIV is a complicated virus. While I'm all for questioning the intention of big pharmaceutical companies, you should realize what HIV does. It's a problem to make a vaccine for it because of the way it works. The HIV virus infects the white blood cells which battle off virii. The way most vaccines work is by giving a dead sample of the virus so that it can be easily consumed, and antibodies made which latch onto the virus so the white blood cells can come and destroy it. HIV infects those white blood cells that come to destroy it, and use them as a breeding ground to create more HIV virus. For this reason, a vaccine is really difficult because HIV uses the cells that come to attack it as a breeding ground. Even there, there have been some breakthroughs in retrovirii, but none that have resulted in a cure.

AIDS (or Auto-Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is the end result of the HIV virus. Since HIV has destroyed all the body's abilities to fight virii, any other virus can come in and have it's way with your body.

Nanotech might also prove promising in fighting this...

-=Lohrno

[Aslanna]

... AIDS research ... has been significant, rather than insiginifacnt as the "No Cure" label Midnyte wants to put on it?

I don't see how else you can label it. A three drug cocktail which in a way keeps you alive only so you can continue buying the three drug cocktail.

It's a racket, not a cure.

I think racket is too stong of a word to use. Unless you are contending that drug companies don't want to find a cure becuase they make more money on the current medications.

In a world where the next most recent excitement about AIDS (before the french announcement within 2 days about a possible breakthrough) was a graduate student creating an anti-AIDS designer virus with $200,000 and his campus lab.... you have to question the intention of the big-pharmaceuticals.

If it works, great. I don't think anyone is against finding a cure. And that includes big bad pharma.

[Lohrno]

If it works, great. I don't think anyone is against finding a cure. And that includes big bad pharma.

Yeah, the clout alone they would get would be free advertising. If there was a cure it would be leaked. And don't think we're the only ones researching this, I'm sure there are foreign pharms doing this too.

-=Lohrno

[Xatrei]

Ummm, yes. Clearly HIV and AIDS are still problems and, like most diseases, are more serious problems in poor nations. How is that in any way related to the fact that the research money poured into AIDS research over the past couple decades has been significant, rather than insiginifacnt as the "No Cure" label Midnyte wants to put on it?

It's not. It's just an aside to clarify the rosy picture you painted. I was merely taking exception with the implication that HIV and AIDS is not a big deal anymore. It is a very big deal, and I'm sure you agree with that. I'm guessing that you merely overstated things in your zeal to smack down Mid's retarded position. It is dangerous, IMO, to describe HIV as non life threatening, or to say that a person with HIV is no longer likely to die from related illnesses. There is an emerging mentality held by many that HIV/AIDS isn't such a serious issue anymore, which is scary to me. Things have come a long way since 1981, largely due to the (still insufficient) amount of government money worldwide that has been poured into research, but we are a long, long way from a world in which HIV and AIDS is not a very big deal.

[Lohrno]

It's not. It's just an aside to clarify the rosy picture you painted. I was merely taking exception with the implication that HIV and AIDS is not a big deal anymore. It is a very big deal, and I'm sure you agree with that. I'm guessing that you merely overstated things in your zeal to smack down Mid's retarded position. It is dangerous, IMO, to describe HIV as non life threatening, or to say that a person with HIV is no longer likely to die from related illnesses. There is an emerging mentality held by many that HIV/AIDS isn't such a serious issue anymore, which is scary to me. Things have come a long way since 1981, largely due to the (still insufficient) amount of government money worldwide that has been poured into research, but we are a long, long way from a world in which HIV and AIDS is not a very big deal.

Aren't there some african countries where infection is like at 80%?

-=Lohrno

[Xatrei]

Aren't there some african countries where infection is like at 80%?

I'm sure that there could be some microregional areas where infection rates could be that high, but I'm not aware of any national infection rates being so extreme. The numbers I've seen, and I haven't really looked recently, ranged from under 10% to over 20% nationally for various sub-Saharan countries. I read recently that there were estimates of nearly 25 million cases of HIV infection on the African continent. The next highest was Asia with less than a third of Africa's total. In the same study, the total number of HIV/AIDS cases in North America was just over 1 million.

[Canelek]

I am just really surprised and pleased that neocon was not once written on this thread until now.