Stem cells cure blind man

[Spirultima]

How long before the republicans or humanitarians attack this? Involving pictures they got of the internet of dead babies.

 

[DigitalSushi]

I'm glad to see you like it. I guess we're at a disagreement on the whole 'Eye for an Eye' thing, then?

If you think of "eye for an eye" in a literal sense then I agree with you, I see what you mean in that the victor goes away with everything intact and a victory belt for bragging rights.

But in philosophical terms it makes sense, while one man/woman is blind the winner had to make sacrifices to win. While history will remember him/her in good light there was a dark cloud above them when it happened, but we wouldn't know that because history is written by the victor of a battle.

Also paying it forward, being nasty to someone will make them nasty to someone else, bad karma. Take a mans eye, and he will take someone else's eye.

 

[Macgyvercas]

I can't help but wonder why Stem Cell Research is so controversial again?. Oh that's right..it makes the baby Jesus cry!

Stem cells taken from a fetus is what is controversial.
In this case, stem cells were taken from his own eye, so there is no controversy here.

So try to avoid the flame-bait, please and thank you.

More on topic: That's pretty awesome. I'm sure the guy is just elated, for good reason.
Let's hope it holds up (No unforeseen consequences or anything).

You can also take blood core stem cells from the umbilical (sp?) cord, which actually requires the baby to survive. So no controversy there either.

Oh, and Baby Tea...CHRISTMAS HIGH FIVE!

 

[Jaranja]

I'm glad to see you like it. I guess we're at a disagreement on the whole 'Eye for an Eye' thing, then?

If you think of "eye for an eye" in a literal sense then I agree with you, I see what you mean in that the victor goes away with everything intact and a victory belt for bragging rights.

But in philosophical terms it makes sense, while one man/woman is blind the winner had to make sacrifices to win. While history will remember him/her in good light there was a dark cloud above them when it happened, but we wouldn't know that because history is written by the victor of a battle.

Also paying it forward, being nasty to someone will make them nasty to someone else, bad karma. Take a mans eye, and he will take someone else's eye.

I never really thought about it like that. You're completely right in your second paragraph but when you talk about karma it starts to meander a bit. I'm not really a believer of karma and such; karma should be equivalent exchange (yes, I watch Full Metal Alchemist). Karma doesn't happen on it's own, people make their own karma and that's why 'Eye for an Eye', in the literal sense, exists.

 

[sephiroth1991]

Wooo 1 to stem cells

 

[Internet Kraken]

Amazing! I wasn't aware that you could fix someones eyes by regrowing their cornea cells. I thought the cells would have to come from an outside source. It's great that science has come so far that we can now do things like this.

Jesus cured a blind man, or so people say. But even so, you KNOW they are goign to flip shit and still call it an abomination, or whatever it is they are doing.

I'm sure people (like myself) would only dislike this if the cells had come from a fetus. Jesus cured a blind man, but he didn't use an unborn baby to do so.

 

[archvile93]

I understand if this was restricted to just Stem Cells taken from a fetus, but it isn't. Stem Cell research as a field is universally frowned upon and capped to only specific areas of study. As far as I know stem cell research using epidermal tissue from adults and bone marrow from growing adults (which are both fetus free) is still marginalized. It's a guilty by proxy treatment that is going around here and as a result not many people want to tread into this field of work.

It just annoys me that some people object to something that is not violating their prime belief but are against is merely by it's nomenclature.

As a Christian, everyone I know who is against stem cell research is against stem cells taken from a fetus (Like myself). If stem cells can be taken from a consenting adult's bone, eye, nose, cheek, or rear end, then I don't care, and neither does any other Christian I know. If stem cell research is indeed being marginalized in general because of that (I confess I don't follow the news of such research), then I agree that that's not right.

Also this isn't a flame bait thread. It never was and it never will be my intention to flame or troll anyone. Some people should just not look for an excuse to yell fire when there is none.

Don't play dumb, Skarin. Not once did I call this a flame-bait thread, but that statement is absolutely flame-bait, and you know good and well it is. You used a sarcastic turn-of-phrase to specifically target a religious group (Since referring to 'Baby Jesus' obviously isn't talking about Hindus). You could have made your point without it, but you did it anyways.

I'm watching the thread, and if I see too many more 'Yeah! This is great and religion is stupid' posts, then it'll be locked.

I don't care where the get the stem cells. The fetus is already dead (if it could ever be considered alive at all). Why not do something useful with it rather than throw it in the garbage?

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

There is a stigma against stem cell research in general because it usually involves fetuses. The Christian faith never really says "abortion is bad" because abortion didn't exist, but there are certain passages interpreted to mean that a fetus is a human life. One is something like 'God knew you when you were concieved' (paraphrase).

So, it goes sort of like this:

Spoiler: This clip is from Family Guy. As such, if you are offended by jokes at the expense of Christianity you should not watch it as you may (will) be offended.

 

[Sennz0r]

So...you're saying that atheists are more likely to be bad people? And what about all the horrible things that have been performed in the name of religion?

Laws are based on human morals and conscience. It just so happens that the majority of the western world slapped the threat of God smiting them on it if they didn't obey the law.
So some people refrain from doing bad things because they are unholy, and others don't do bad things because they're not right. It makes no difference.

As for the horrible things done in the name of religion: During those times religion was the law so they could do whatever the hell they wanted.


And to stay On Topic: That is fantastic news, I hope this science gets to develop a lot more and fast

 

[ma55ter_fett]

I have great hopes for this science.

 

[The_ModeRazor]

Nice one, although I'd just stick with one eye and an eye-patch.
I could actually be a proper pirate captain.

 

[ribonuge]

-snip-

Englishman Russell Thurnbull got attacked with ammonia 15 years ago during a street fight. As a result, he got an extremely painful condition called Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency, which resulted in blindness in one eye. After much medication, he became a lab rat for all kinds of treatments until a team from Newcastle's North East England Stem Cell Institute got the miraculous cure he was waiting for.

First, the team took a minuscule sample of stem cells from his healthy eye's cornea. This millimeter square of cells was placed on a amniotic membrane, which was placed inside a liquid made from his blood, glucose, insulin, and hydrocortisone. The cells will grow in that solution until taking all over the membrane, which then is used to replace the damaged cornea.

The result: He completely gained eyesight after only eight weeks of the operation. It is not Christopher Reeve walking, but if this is not the future ringing the doorbell, right here, right now, I don't know what it is. [Channel 4]

Source [http://gizmodo.com/5433391/stem-cells-cure-blind-man?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gizmodo%2Ffull+%28Gizmodo%29]

This is quite remarkable and while I wonder how far this technology will take us, I can't help but wonder why Stem Cell Research is so controversial again?. Oh that's right..it *edited to keep volatile pants fire free*

Honestly I don't get why most people are against stem cell research. No babies/fetuses were harmed during the making of the patient's eye sight so surely this is a win-win situation right?.​

I completely agree. As long as they don't actually use fetuses, I agree. Thankfully as you said there are different methods for obtaining stem cells. That does sound like quite a leap in medicine.

Although my personal favourite was ear-rat.

The things they can do with tissue culture are incredible.​

 

[funguy2121]

snip.

Now maybe if we can keep the fundamentalists at bay, we can cure cancer!

 

[seventy7l]

Yay now cure my horrible eyes.

 

[USSR]

Um..old news?

We've cured a blind person long ago with stem cells.

 

[Dragonearl]

I understand if this was restricted to just Stem Cells taken from a fetus, but it isn't. Stem Cell research as a field is universally frowned upon and capped to only specific areas of study. As far as I know stem cell research using epidermal tissue from adults and bone marrow from growing adults (which are both fetus free) is still marginalized. It's a guilty by proxy treatment that is going around here and as a result not many people want to tread into this field of work.

It just annoys me that some people object to something that is not violating their prime belief but are against is merely by it's nomenclature.

As a Christian, everyone I know who is against stem cell research is against stem cells taken from a fetus (Like myself). If stem cells can be taken from a consenting adult's bone, eye, nose, cheek, or rear end, then I don't care, and neither does any other Christian I know. If stem cell research is indeed being marginalized in general because of that (I confess I don't follow the news of such research), then I agree that that's not right.

It is the majority no doubt. However in situations where a spinal repair has to be done and when tissue could have been taken from the a neighboring region for repair the research for it is usually blocked. I am not sure in the states because state laws or federal laws could be different. This is why research into Christopher Reeve's spinal injury dragged on for so long despite in his case not needing fetal tissue

Also this isn't a flame bait thread. It never was and it never will be my intention to flame or troll anyone. Some people should just not look for an excuse to yell fire when there is none.

Don't play dumb, Skarin. Not once did I call this a flame-bait thread, but that statement is absolutely flame-bait, and you know good and well it is. You used a sarcastic turn-of-phrase to specifically target a religious group (Since referring to 'Baby Jesus' obviously isn't talking about Hindus). You could have made your point without it, but you did it anyways.

I'm watching the thread, and if I see too many more 'Yeah! This is great and religion is stupid' posts, then it'll be locked.

So try to avoid the flame-bait, please and thank you.

Again, this was what I was replying to. I took it to mean that you were saying that this was a flame-bait thread. Therefore I am not playing dumb or playing at all. So look again and tell me I misinterpreted your words.

Thus far no one has made a flame post knowing what the original message was. In fact we are the only ones discussing about the conjecture here.

And Of course I was targeting a religious group, because the church is the most vocal in this matter, but I wasn't targeting them in a derogatory manner I was pointing out that they were the main opposition. It was my way of saying "the main voice against Stem Cell research comes from the church". So no matter which way I wanted to put that point across, people would still get upset. In a case where I am "damned if I do and damned if I don't", I'd rather say something than nothing. Hence I worded it as a "sarcastic turn-of-phrase" to ease my point across. To say I baited the thread however is wrong. If there was any baiting it was to promote a discussion of how Stem Cell Research has progressed from the sidelines and government budget cuts and religious scorn.

If people have an argument about Christians and science then it won't be from my enticing. The topic is such that my aid is not needed for someone to bring up a flame point. I am merely saying (albeit sarcastically) that the church has a lot do in opposing mainstream development in this research field. Be that as it may, that I am the bad guy for bringing it up, I may as well dampen the blow with satire than blurt it out in plain English.

Anyway since no one is throwing stones in this thread (so far) and that we have established that the whole point I wanted to make was a loaded point, let's just leave it as it lies. If people disagree with my view they are free to do so. If it turns into a flame thread, rest assured you'll be the first person I'll PM to have it locked.

Hat's off to you Skarin, I share your conviction!.

Religion and science is like oil and water, in different concentrations and in a different medium they are very compatible - like as a lubricant. BUT alone, they'll never mix. Each will get in the others way; Science will say evolution is the truth, religion will say science is persevered.

In a utopian world those two should be kept a part or joined via a senate but should never meet directly. It's gunpowder and matches. Has science and religion ever agreed on anything?.
I used to believe that genetics proved that all humans shared a common male and female ancestor which scientists called 'Adam' and 'Eve' then genetics said that 'Eve' existed 60,000 years before Adam. I don't know how the church reacted to that but not even on this simple matter can the two agree. Best we all agree to disagree.

I can't help but wonder why Stem Cell Research is so controversial again?. Oh that's right..it makes the baby Jesus cry!

Stem cells taken from a fetus is what is controversial.
In this case, stem cells were taken from his own eye, so there is no controversy here.

So try to avoid the flame-bait, please and thank you.

More on topic: That's pretty awesome. I'm sure the guy is just elated, for good reason.
Let's hope it holds up (No unforeseen consequences or anything).

Oh please, as if you didn't know?. Both the words stem cells and Genetically Modified conjure up images of the apocalypse no matter what the source is. The public image of stem cell research was doomed with 'Dolly' and cloning. The fetal angle was just the last nail in the coffin to scar the public with the evils of mad science. There is no coming back from that image. Everyone had a had in it; paranoid people, religious authorities, even a few scientists. They all heralded it as either the great cure or the great curse. Unchecked and unregulated it would be a plague on humanity, like the splicers of bioshock.

The negative media from fetal stem cells has carried on to the non-fetal stem cells so no one can mention stem cell research without sharing that association and having someone go "that's taboo" in a class room. Anyone who has studied Science Communication or keeps up with science and technology knows that GM foods and Stem Cell research are the black sheep of the scientific world; desired by a few, scorned by many. A prayer to a select few that suffer in waste. And it's not like the scientists themselves are any good with explaining their "product" in laymen's terms are they?. And no one would side with them to pitch in?. Who in their right minds would play devil's advocate for the scientists back in the day when they were trying so hard to cure Christopher Reeve; the man who played Superman.

He said: ?Is it more unethical for a woman to donate unused embryos that will never become human beings, or to let them be tossed away as so much garbage when they could help save thousands of lives.?

So did help come?. Did governments let funding though?. No one did. He dies and still no one does anything.

You are right in saying that the controversy of Stem Cell research is based on the fetal-aspect of it. You're very very very wrong in saying that there is no controversy here. Well, not among us with the intellectual capacity greater than a 7yr old and not in the case of the blind man BUT non-fetal stem cell(Adult Stem Cells) research is just as controversial as fetal stem cell research (Embryonic Stem Cells). The last few years has brought provocative evidence that some adult stem cells may have "plasticity" and may be able to transform into different cell types, a process known as transdifferentiation. Honestly, I don't know what it all means but it's a major issue that some religious groups have brought up. (I believe in a simplistic fashion they are claiming that even these adult stem cells "pluripotent," or capable of differentiating into any cell type, including an embryonic germ layers - arising in an embryo. Not saying you can have a baby from a skin cell but the cell could be derived to form life). Some religious groups have pointed out that your stem cells will have the same genetic defect so in essence ?you are getting in the way of God?s work.?. Scientifically there is the issue. Scientists themselves at times question the efficiency if adult stem cells research because if someone needs a stem cell transplant right away, growing adult cells in a lab will take too long and another source will need to be used. Thus, the question remains ?From where should we get these stem cells??

So yes, there may be no controversy with a blind man getting his eye sight back in this example. But the technology is as riddled as ever with problems of ethics and mechanics.

As for the flaming, the discussion itself is a flaming topic. It can't be helped, the question is about stem cells and so religion will find a way. Where these two meet a spark will strike and honestly do you not give some of us credit?. We are not slaves to the wording of the OP, we can make our own goddamn minds about how we should handle ourselves.

People will flame if they want to or not. Even if the OP hadn't edited the statement you think it'll be any less flame worhty than it is now?. Look at it!!. Baby Jesus or not, it's not stopping anyone from openly criticizing religion or science.

Give us some credit, some of us are intelligent enough to make up our own minds about avoiding a baited thread or better yet not falling for the bait. We are not mindless sheep.

As for this topic in particular: I wish the man all the best and avoid getting into a street fight with ammonia wielding thugs. He got the rare gift of sight, he should cherish it.

 

[Dragonearl]

Um..old news?

We've cured a blind person long ago with stem cells.

Did we?. Links or your making it up.

 

[USSR]

Um..old news?

We've cured a blind person long ago with stem cells.

Did we?. Links or your making it up.

Sorry, no links. I just remember hearing dozens of reports on the radio for like a weekend.

Except, for him, it was in one eye.

 

[RatRace123]

I see why regular stem cell research are controversial (I don't get it, but I can possibly understand it.) But this type of research carries nothing that should be considered controversial. I approve of this testing, and wonder if perhaps other techniques could be developed from it.

 

[Baby Tea]

Give us some credit, some of us are intelligent enough to make up our own minds about avoiding a baited thread or better yet not falling for the bait. We are not mindless sheep.

As a man who surfs the internet regularly and who moderates an internet forum, pardon me if I'm on the skeptical side.
Especially after seeing a few comments in this thread.
But I certainly don't have to justify myself, or my request to try to keep things flame-free, to you or anyone.

And as for the rest of your long post: What are you railing against here?
I never said I was against stem cell research. In fact I'm for it, though I am against using fetal stem cells. As I stated to Skarin: I am a part of a Christian community and no-one I know is against stem cell research, only the use of fetal stem cells. I also confessed that I didn't really follow the news of this research, so from my perspective, there isn't any controversy with the procedure mentioned in the OP.

So you've shown me that there is indeed controversy with certain groups.
Well then, I stand quasi-corrected.
There might be controversy, but there is none with me.