The world's scientific community embraced a year of significant advancements. 2007 saw breakthroughs in the fight against cancer, obesity and diabetes, and a revolution in stem cell research that could eliminate the controversial culling of cells from human embryos.

1. Circumcision Can Prevent HIV
2. Test for Metastatic Breast Cancer
3. First Human Vaccine Against Bird Flu
4. Help for Dieters: Alli
5. New Diabetes Genes
6. No More Periods
7. Relief from Fibromyalgia: Lyrica
8. Early-Stage Test for Lung Cancer
9. New Source of Stem Cells
10. Benefits of Vitamin D

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/top10/article/0,30583,1686204_1686252,00.html

What a great year.:bravo:

Very good in terms of science, I am impressed. Economy, opposite feelings though.

I'm glad they finally proved what I've been saying about stem cells all along.

1. Like you know anything about it.
2. If stem-cell research got more federal funding, we may have discovered this sooner.

1. Like you know anything about it.
2. If stem-cell research got more federal funding, we may have discovered this sooner.

Stem cell research was being researched by many different countries around

the world. I really don't think it mattered at all about American government

funding to get quicker results. What is a few months either way?

The best research on Stem cell reasearch was in Germany. They actually developed a certain Stem cell treatment for AIDS/HIV.

The world's scientific community embraced a year of significant advancements. 2007 saw breakthroughs in the fight against cancer, obesity and diabetes, and a revolution in stem cell research that could eliminate the controversial culling of cells from human embryos.

1. Circumcision Can Prevent HIV
2. Test for Metastatic Breast Cancer
3. First Human Vaccine Against Bird Flu
4. Help for Dieters: Alli
5. New Diabetes Genes
6. No More Periods
7. Relief from Fibromyalgia: Lyrica
8. Early-Stage Test for Lung Cancer
9. New Source of Stem Cells
10. Benefits of Vitamin D

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/top10/article/0,30583,1686204_1686252,00.html

What a great year.:bravo:

All the stuff Jesus was too busy to do !

1. Like you know anything about it.
2. If stem-cell research got more federal funding, we may have discovered this sooner.

When I was in my first year of med school MANY years ago, the most brilliant scientists in the world were saying: embryonic no, adult yes. I believed them.

I'm glad they finally proved what I've been saying about stem cells all along.

Why didn't you write a paper and give the scientific community the benefit of you knowledge ?

Why didn't you write a paper and give the scientific community the benefit of you knowledge ?

I was more interested in neurosurgery than stem cells.

When I was in my first year of med school MANY years ago, the most brilliant scientists in the world were saying: embryonic no, adult yes. I believed them.

Now you're a doctor? What else do you want to be when you grow up?

I was more interested in neurosurgery than stem cells.


So what have you written about neurosurgery ?Do please tell !

Now you're a doctor? What else do you want to be when you grow up?

How do you know she didn't flunk the course ?

So what have you written about neurosurgery ?Do please tell !

Please, in the name of god, post some Sh** on the anatomy forum!!!

Please, in the name of god, post some Sh** on the anatomy forum!!!

Can I take it that you are aware that many doctors write peer reviewed articles. Here in the UK they publis in the Lancet or the BMJ.

I didn't finish. I abandoned my goal of being a neurosurgeon to serve Him. It is MUCH more rewarding.

...1. Circumcision Can Prevent HIV...

this is the one that caught me by surprise. I know the BBC had a reporter who was circumcised on TV.

This report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2006/12/061214_hivcircumcision.shtml)quoted a Dr. De Cock (funny as hell considering the topic)

Can I take it that you are aware that many doctors write peer reviewed articles. Here in the UK they publis in the Lancet or the BMJ.

Yes I have, and I have heard infamous stories about writing them.

I didn't finish. I abandoned my goal of being a neurosurgeon to serve Him. It is MUCH more rewarding.

*phew* I thought you were going to try and tell me that you are a brain surgeon!

*phew* I thought you were going to try and tell me that you are a brain surgeon!

I don't think you have anything to worry about. ;)

Hee Hee, SHE IS NOT SPONGEWORTHY!

I do have to wonder though, could it be that the men who get circumcised are more health conscious and don't expose themselves to things that might give them AIDS.

Just quietly, there are one or two advances on the fabrication and materials side that aren't just another step down in scale and [step up in] speed; also the prosthetics industry (visual and auditory, replacement limbs, and intelligent devices) has more to play with: biosensors and organic chips, DNA sensors. Last year they reliably "transported" an entangled state, and measured a "forbidden" one, someone's trying to build a BEC-adiabatic type processor with quantum dots and Josephsons, nanowires are looking promising; a lot of detail is still under wraps, of course.

We seem to be getting closer to a working quantum processor, and things like the internet and FPGAs are redefining IP (both translations) and authorship, or even what a program or algorithm is (in terms of a "static" copy, or a "process"), all heady stuff.

I see a convergence of biotech and eventually quantum devices, or some such, probably via prosthetics; actually, it's here already (nanotech).

I didn't finish. I abandoned my goal of being a neurosurgeon to serve Him. It is MUCH more rewarding.


Well that's one way of copping out.

Please, in the name of god, post some Sh** on the anatomy forum!!!

I've just posted sh*** all over the place. Anything to oblige !

Well that's one way of copping out.

No cop out. Choice. The best one I ever made in my life. :)

No cop out. Choice. The best one I ever made in my life. :)

So you rejected saving lives to serve god? Well, that sounds almost contradictory to me.;)

I've just posted sh*** all over the place. Anything to oblige !

I was talking to Sandy!!! I was going along with your statement! Geez:bugeye:

I was talking to Sandy!!! I was going along with your statement! Geez:bugeye:

Never mind. I enjoy posting shit. I am gregarious.

I want sandy to post stuff on the medical and health forums. 1 year of med school will be plently of experience!

So you rejected saving lives to serve god? Well, that sounds almost contradictory to me.;)

It's a personal choice, neither is more right than the other. It's about the individual's inclination and satisfaction. You're attempts to paint such a choice in a negative light is immature.

~String

I suppose you are right. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

It's a personal choice, neither is more right than the other. It's about the individual's inclination and satisfaction. You're attempts to paint such a choice in a negative light is immature.

~String

And if it's the result of indoctrination and not a personal choice?

And if it's the result of indoctrination and not a personal choice?

You can't possibly discern the difference through the vague media of an online forum. One person's indoctrination is another's enlightenment. We're all indoctrinated to something. The only difference between theirs and yours is that yours makes total sense to you.

Note: think what you want about Sandy, but she truly believes what she says, certainly as much as you believe what you do. Who, then, is indoctrinated? Her for having a passionate religious belief (like so many millions) or you for holding her in contempt (gosh! like so many millions).

Dare to be different: accept them both and rest in the comfort that you are equally corruptible and fallible as she is.

~String

I am soooo fallible. :mufc:

You can't possibly discern the difference through the vague media of an online forum. One person's indoctrination is another's enlightenment. We're all indoctrinated to something. The only difference between theirs and yours is that yours makes total sense to you.

Note: think what you want about Sandy, but she truly believes what she says, certainly as much as you believe what you do. Who, then, is indoctrinated? Her for having a passionate religious belief (like so many millions) or you for holding her in contempt (gosh! like so many millions).

Dare to be different: accept them both and rest in the comfort that you are equally corruptible and fallible as she is.

~String


But tolerance is the key that helps everyone hold onto humanity.

I didn't finish. I abandoned my goal of being a neurosurgeon to serve Him. It is MUCH more rewarding.

ewe Someone couldnt hack it as a doctor. ;)

ewe Someone couldnt hack it as a doctor. ;)

I am lead to believe that she probably never set foot in a medical school.

700th post!

1. Circumcision Can Prevent HIVWhat I've read is that, more precisely, due to its structure the foreskin is the tissue on a man's body that is most susceptible to HIV infection, and removing it reduces the statistical lifetime likelihood of contracting it by somewhere between 80 and 95 percent. In terms of personal health this will not eliminate the possibility of infection, and everyone should continue to use condoms when there is the slightest doubt of safety or distrust. But in terms of public health, if a worldwide circumcision campaign can be launched that is as successful as, say, smallpox vaccinations, the geometric effect will eliminate HIV and AIDS as an epidemic.2. Test for Metastatic Breast CancerConquering breast cancer is the holy grail for women, at least in the First World.
6. No More PeriodsSeems like the second-greatest women's health issue after breast cancer, now that contraception and abortion are widely available. It says a lot about the spectacular success of modern science and medicine that we are now able to devote research resources to this major step in the struggle for gender equality.7. Relief from Fibromyalgia: LyricaDo you have any more info on Lyrica as a prescription for fibromyalgia as opposed to its other uses? Everything I Google is written for professionals or else too dumbed-down. I have THREE friends with fibromyalgia. (Yes, all female.) For one it turned out to be a symptom of a wheat allergy so avoiding wheat takes care of it. (Although that is surprisingly difficult. It's almost as ubiquitous as sugar and salt.) For one it is a symptom of lupus so she has bigger problems, but still relief from one symptom would be a blessing. The third--last time I checked in with her--was still struggling with it and living a very mediocre quality of life with an FMLA pass for unlimited sick days without pay in a job which fortunately honors that.When I was in my first year of med school MANY years ago, the most brilliant scientists in the world were saying: embryonic no, adult yes. I believed them.I don't think anyone doubted them, in the sense that they would eventually find a way to make adult stem cells do the job. It's just that there was no way to predict how quickly that would happen. In the meantime that research did not preclude continued research using embryonic cells and the controversy was over how many people would die if that research were discouraged by allowing one religious community to dictate public policy, and over the measure of the benefits that would be gained by incurring that cost in lives. Situational ethics (of which cost-benefit analysis is an example) is unavoidable: that's why we call it that. We're all relieved that this particular controversy is no longer relevant, but it illustrated the growing political power of the Religious Right in American politics, all out of proportion to their numbers.I do have to wonder though, could it be that the men who get circumcised are more health conscious and don't expose themselves to things that might give them AIDS.We'll find out soon enough. Obviously the place to start the campaign is in certain African countries where one-fourth of the population is infected and HIV-infected orphans of HIV-victim parents have become a second-order crisis. And that is indeed where it's starting. Circumcision by decree and social pressure will level out the variable of health-consciousness.

Does anyone have the HIV stats for a country like the USA, where circumcision is a ritual in some communities and not in others, and therefore does not correlate highly with health-consciousness?I see a convergence of biotech and eventually quantum devices, or some such, probably via prosthetics; actually, it's here already (nanotech).What I see a bit further down the road is the Star Trek technology of nanobots that ride along in our blood and do what white blood cells do, only a billion times more effectively: destroy hostile organisms and repair damaged tissue. They could physically remove blood clots, correct poorly healed injuries, even do things like flush away fat cells, poisons, the metabolites of drugs, perhaps even fatigue.I want sandy to post stuff on the medical and health forums. 1 year of med school will be plently of experience!I don't regard that as sarcasm. Most of us here would be dismissed as dilettantes (at best) by "real" scientists, but that doesn't stop us from using what we've learned in a sensible way and generating useful and informative discussions. My degree is in accounting but I can answer a lot of questions about physics, biology, history and linguistics.It's a personal choice, neither is more right than the other. It's about the individual's inclination and satisfaction. You're attempts to paint such a choice in a negative light is immature.But this is a science website and our discussions are guided by the scientific method. It is perfectly reasonable to debate whether an individual contributes more to civilization by becoming a physician than by perpetrating a belief system that bears much of the responsibility for America's currently fashionable ignorance of and hostility toward science and math.But tolerance is the key that helps everyone hold onto humanity.All things must be practiced in moderation, and tolerance is one of them. There are quite a few obvious exceptions that should be made to the politically correct mandate for universal tolerance of absolutely everything, which itself is a symptom of the aforementioned ignorance of science and math.I am led to believe that she probably never set foot in a medical school.There's no need for personal insults, which BTW are a violation of the forum's rules. Sandy may be many things but do we have a shred of evidence to suggest that she's a liar? That is an extraordinary assertion and I hereby challenge it as the informal but effective peer-review process that is implied in every SciForums discussion except on the Crackpottery and Religion boards.

Please provide the extraordinary substantiation for your statement IMMEDIATELY--or retract it with an apology. To call one of our regular contributors a liar is really serious--probably the worst possible kind of personal insult--and speaking as a Moderator I do not take it lightly.

You can't possibly discern the difference through the vague media of an online forum. One person's indoctrination is another's enlightenment. We're all indoctrinated to something. The only difference between theirs and yours is that yours makes total sense to you.

I don't recall being indoctrinated into anything, nor do I know anyone who has been indoctrinated, except theists, of course. Enlightenment is just another term for "latent indoctrination."

Note: think what you want about Sandy, but she truly believes what she says, certainly as much as you believe what you do. Who, then, is indoctrinated? Her for having a passionate religious belief (like so many millions) or you for holding her in contempt (gosh! like so many millions).

So, to recognize someone is indoctrinate somehow means the recognizer is also indoctrinated? Huh? :shrug:

Dare to be different: accept them both and rest in the comfort that you are equally corruptible and fallible as she is.

~String

Hardly. Gimme a break. :rolleyes:

A collection of American standard definitions of the word indoctrinate:To instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief To imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion or point of view To teach uncritically To fill with a certain set of opinions or beliefs And last: to teachThe nature of this discussion clearly obviates the last meaning, which in any case is practically obsolete.

Thus is religious indoctrination distinguished from scientific education. Scientists, science teachers, and science itself urge critical thinking. It directs against adopting biased, partisan and sectarian beliefs.

I suppose a science education could begin by asking us to believe in the fundamental principle of science: that the natural universe is a closed system that can be understood and predicted by logically deriving theories from empirical observations of its behavior--i.e., by practicing the scientific method. But it quickly applies that method to this belief itself, first by studying the empirical observations and logically derived theories that form the body of science, and then by demanding that we repeat some of those observations--which we're increasingly free to choose for ourselves--to see whether we agree with the logically derived theories. In other words we all start out as peer reviewers of those who came before us. We are not asked to accept anything as a matter of doctrine--we are not indoctrinated.

In other words, Superstring is wrong. Science stands in opposition to religion because it demands that we observe and reason, rather than believe what somebody else tells us.

and a revolution in stem cell research that could eliminate the controversial culling of cells from human embryos.

I added an emphasis to put your comment in perspective. :bugeye:

Until such time that we know for sure that the technique will remove the need to utilize embryos as a source of embryonic stem cells, research utilizing embryos must continue.


I'm glad they finally proved what I've been saying about stem cells all along.

“They” haven’t “proved” anything, you fool. http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/rolleyes.gif

And what you’ve been “saying about stem cells all along” has been a load of shit like everything else you spout. I very much doubt you know the first thing about the techniques to which you are referring. This is evident from your non-specific and vague reference to the generic term “stem cells”. That you don’t understand the difference between pluripotent stem cells (so-called “embryonic stem cells”) and lineage-restricted stem cells (so-called “adult stem cells”) speaks volumes for your level of understanding of the subject.

And, of course, this new technique of genetically engineering skin cells to become embryonic stem cell-like cells (the scientists in question have coined the term "induced pluripotent stem" (iPS) cells) could not have occurred if it wasn’t for all the embryonic stem cell research that has already occurred. And it will not be able to advance further without continuing parallel embryonic research as a comparison. But I’m sure your religious brainwashing and wilful ignorance will safely ignore this fact. :rolleyes:


When I was in my first year of med school MANY years ago, the most brilliant scientists in the world were saying: embryonic no, adult yes. I believed them.

More lying for Jesus? It’s certainly more evidence that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Unlike you who simply makes things up and draws what little knowledge you have from Fox News and other mass media, I have worked as a research scientist in an area of stem cell research. (Not directly in the field of ES cells and regenerative medicine, mind you, but more in the field of neural stem cell functioning during embryonic CNS development.) I can say from actual experience that there is absolutely no consensus opinion on whether embryonic stem cells or lineage-restricted stem cells will be more useful in the future. Research into both is necessary.

When it comes to repopulating the bone marrow with new hematopoietic stem cells during cancer treatment or therapy for hematopoietic-related genetic disease, adult stem cell therapy is a reality. But that’s it. Hematopoietic stem cells are the only ‘adult’ stem cell that can be routinely extracted and, thus, bone marrow applications are the only adult stem cell therapies that exist as routine procedures.

Some scientists like to speculate that hematopoietic stem cells can be manipulated such that they escape their lineage restriction and can be introduced into hearts and brains as cellular therapy (ie. they can be converted into heart and neural stem cells). Whilst there is some evidence in animal (and some human) experiments to support this, there are many problems associated with using hematopoietic stem cells in this way and it is a long way from becoming routine. That pluripotent embryonic stem cells can be directed into any lineage is a major advantage over ‘adult’ stem cells.

The fact of the matter is this: there are no clear indications as to whether embryonic stem cells or ‘adult’ stem cells will be more useful in the future for cellular therapies and regenerative medicine. Each type has their pros and cons, their advantages and disadvantages, and both types must be researched. Anyone who says that there is no need to research embryonic stem cells is a moron who knows nothing of what they are talking about.

“They” haven’t “proved” anything, you fool. And what you’ve been “saying about stem cells all along” has been a load of shit like everything else you spout. Anyone who says that there is no need to research embryonic stem cells is a moron who knows nothing of what they are talking about.Hey Herk, we all get angry occasionally and as an evangelist for the Forces of Darkness on a science website Sandy certainly knows how to push our anger buttons. You've proven her wrong and if she was deliberately lying that could qualify her for a warning. (We don't give infractions anymore, just warnings until we're exasperated enough and then we ban 'em.) But this is a pretty arcane subject and if she was merely ignorant, as so many people are, it's not the same thing as lying.

I'm on the side of science but, like Sandy, all I know about stem cell research is what I can find in the lay press. I didn't know any of what you just presented. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming she's the med school dropout she claims to be, that's no guarantee that she's qualified to obtain, read and understand the right journals to keep abreast of developments like these.

You've peer-reviewed her assertion and disproven it. That's the scientific method at work. It's not a lie unless she posts it a second time after having failed a peer review. In that case it's simply trolling and that is a violation of the rules.

There is no need to start violating the rules yourself and tossing around personal insults. I've done it, we've all done it, and we all cut each other some slack. That means we cut her some slack too. I've had posts of mine deleted for speaking the way you just did.

So settle down and behave like a scientist. Prove her wrong, publicize it, and let the membership see science at work. That's good enough.

I am not sure about where stand on stem cell issue and clearly there will be biased attacks in regards to motive. If we can discuss this like adults and not be saddled with this BS as in every single evolution debate then i would like to add this to the discussion:

http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/bradsarticle.html

To date, current research on embryonic stem cells has resulted in no promising results. Ironically, a leading pro-ESCR advocate is the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, but ESCR research has failed in fighting this disease.

In stark contrast to the failures of embryonic stem cell research, the future looks very promising for treatment with adult stem cells.

Is that correct or not? And since the scientist who posted here is not from U.S then why would he be so angry? Cant he do research with any stem cells he likes?

Instead of insulting Sandy, giver her a really sarcastic :thumbsup: after debunking her. ;)

Do you even read the posts^....ha ha just kidding.

Is that correct or not? And since the scientist who posted here is not from U.S then why would he be so angry? Cant he do research with any stem cells he likes?No it's not correct. Herc demolished that argument in great detail right here on this thread. He's got the credentials and the sources. Impressive results have been achieved with embryonic stem cells. Research is not a one-step process and to say this research is a failure, because somebody injected them into a human to cure a condition and they didn't work, is to not understand science even remotely. Or to deliberately misrepresent data, which is a far worse offense; we ban people from SciForums for doing that only once.

I don't see how this argument can be separated from abortion because one of the primary sources of ESCs is aborted fetuses. The other is surplus embryos from fertility clinics. Regardless of where the author of this article lives (I hesitate to call him a scientist because he is not practicing good science here), if he is opposed to abortion then we can guess his reason for opposing ESC research with about 99.9999% accuracy.

So settle down and behave like a scientist.

Okay, point taken. :D

Sandy really does push my buttons with her nonsense. I'll try to rise above her level and stay calm in the future.

Banned FOR what? Asking questions in a thread?

Show me where he demolished 'that argument'. It IS separate from abortion issue, either they are necessary or they are not. Do you think everyone has an agenda? Maybe the OP does, how should i know?

The fact of the matter is this: there are no clear indications as to whether embryonic stem cells or ‘adult’ stem cells will be more useful in the future for cellular therapies and regenerative medicine. Each type has their pros and cons, their advantages and disadvantages, and both types must be researched. Anyone who says that there is no need to research embryonic stem cells is a moron who knows nothing of what they are talking about.

There is still Europe, Asia and the rest of the world that can still do the research and so can the U.S.

Who thinks the US can maintain its leadership with technology, esp. semiconductors?
Dare I say the place appears to have been encumbered recently with a leadership who sees science as some kind of necessary evil, and has cut funding accordingly.

So you rejected saving lives to serve god? Well, that sounds almost contradictory to me.;)

I chose to get people saved for eternity. Not just for their time here on earth. BEST decision I EVER made. :)

Banned FOR what? Asking questions in a thread?I've kind of lost track of who's responding to what. The bans I referred to were for deliberately lying and for misrepresenting science. In one case a former member edited excerpts from a paper that he posted, so that it appeared to support a position that it did not. This is a far worse offense than ordinary trolling, such as the expression of a patently unscientific or antiscientific opinion.Show me where he demolished 'that argument'.Well it looked like a complete demolition to me. Perhaps others did not see it that way.It IS separate from abortion issue, either they are necessary or they are not. Do you think everyone has an agenda? Maybe the OP does, how should i know?ESC research will be nearly impossible if the anti-abortion movement were to gain political control over the world community.I chose to get people saved for eternity. Not just for their time here on earth. BEST decision I EVER made.Sandy, this is a place of SCIENCE. The essence of science is the thesis that the natural universe is a CLOSED SYSTEM whose behavior can be understood and predicted by deriving theories LOGICALLY from EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION of its past and present behavior. And lest that thesis be denounced as a "belief," it is recursive and is validated by continuous peer review in accordance with the scientific method.

To state that people have an "eternal" life outside the scope of "their time here on earth" is unsupported by any empirical observations of the natural universe and, therefore, becomes an EXTRAORDINARY ASSERTION. In accordance with the scientific method, it must be immediately accompanied by EXTRAORDINARY SUBSTANTIATION. Since at its core it is a theory postulating the existence of a supernatural universe which:cannot be empirically observed, and is derived from irrational faith rather than logical reasoning,this substantiation cannot be provided.

Therefore, to make this statement on one of the science boards is trolling, which is against the rules. You may make such statements on the boards specifically set aside for unscientific and antiscientific discussion: Religion and Crackpottery. In addition, if you wish to contest the validity of the scientific method you are urged to do so on the Philosophy board, but you'd better be prepared for more rigorous debate than you encounter over here.

To clarify the point that this is not just a rhetorical complaint: What you promote is a doctrine that causes people pain, misery, grief and even early death, in return for unobservable benefits promised by a theory of the universe leftover from the Stone Age. This theory has failed every peer review in the history of science, is bereft of logic, has absolutely no empirical support, and is used to justify a doctrine that is all cost and no benefit.

It does not belong in a place of science. To promote it here is trolling and you are hereby on notice to cease pursuing this argument without abiding by the scientific method and providing the required substantiation.

“They” haven’t “proved” anything, you fool...And what you’ve been “saying about stem cells all along” has been a load of shit like everything else you spout. I very much doubt you know the first thing about the techniques to which you are referring... But I’m sure your religious brainwashing and wilful ignorance will safely ignore this fact... More lying for Jesus? It’s certainly more evidence that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Unlike you who simply makes things up and draws what little knowledge you have from Fox News and other mass media, I have worked as a research scientist in an area of stem cell research.Anyone who says that there is no need to research embryonic stem cells is a moron who knows nothing of what they are talking about.

I missed this. Nice personal attack/character assassination. :mad: How do you get away with this sh!t? If I said anything close to this I would be banned. Dead babies stem cells are not going to fix/help anyone/anything. I know embryonic stem cell research is a pathetic joke with no good outcome. It is a useless waste of research money. :(

....Sandy, this is a place of SCIENCE. The essence of science is the thesis that the natural universe is a CLOSED SYSTEM whose behavior can be understood and predicted by deriving theories LOGICALLY from EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION of its past and present behavior. And lest that thesis be denounced as a "belief," it is recursive and is validated by continuous peer review in accordance with the scientific method.To state that people have an "eternal" life outside the scope of "their time here on earth" is unsupported by any empirical observations of the natural universe and, therefore, becomes an EXTRAORDINARY ASSERTION. In accordance with the scientific method, it must be immediately accompanied by EXTRAORDINARY SUBSTANTIATION. Since at its core it is a theory postulating the existence of a supernatural universe which:cannot be empirically observed, and is derived from irrational faith rather than logical reasoning,this substantiation cannot be provided. Therefore, to make this statement on one of the science boards is trolling, which is against the rules. You may make such statements on the boards specifically set aside for unscientific and antiscientific discussion: Religion and Crackpottery. In addition, if you wish to contest the validity of the scientific method you are urged to do so on the Philosophy board, but you'd better be prepared for more rigorous debate than you encounter over here. To clarify the point that this is not just a rhetorical complaint: What you promote is a doctrine that causes people pain, misery, grief and even early death, in return for unobservable benefits promised by a theory of the universe leftover from the Stone Age. This theory has failed every peer review in the history of science, is bereft of logic, has absolutely no empirical support, and is used to justify a doctrine that is all cost and no benefit. It does not belong in a place of science. To promote it here is trolling and you are hereby on notice to cease pursuing this argument without abiding by the scientific method and providing the required substantiation.

WTF? All that for my one-sentence response ("I chose to get people saved for eternity") to a question about why I chose this over neurosurgery??? :confused: WTF? :(

Dead babies stem cells are not going to fix/help anyone/anything.

Wrong again. http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/rolleyes.gif

For a start ES cells are not isolated from babies. That is a deliberately imprecise and emotive term that is typical of religiously brainwashed people pushing their own moral agenda.


I know embryonic stem cell research is a pathetic joke with no good outcome. It is a useless waste of research money.

Oh, I see. You know this do you? And this is your opinion is a scientist? As a doctor? As anyone who actually understands what they are talking about? :shrug:

Anyone with even half a brain can see through your wilfully ignorant rubbish. Contrary to the little fantasy world that you live in, there are many experiments in animal models that have demonstrated the ability of ES cells in regenerative therapies. There are still many technical hurdles to overcome, but this does not diminish their potential usefulness.

It took me all of a minute to find some specific peer-reviewed scientific publications that demonstrate the awesome usefulness of ES cells, and cells derived from ES cells, in regenerative therapeutic applications. There are hundreds more.

Here is hard science in contrast to your unsupported nonsense. Have a read and try educating yourself. Unfortunately, as is typical of the wilfully ignorant and religiously brainwashed, I’m sure you won’t. :(


Human Embryonic Stem Cell–Derived Cells Rescue Visual Function in Dystrophic RCS Rats
CLONING AND STEM CELLS Volume 8, Number 3, 2006

Differentiation in vivo of Cardiac Committed Human Embryonic Stem Cells in Post-myocardial Infarcted Rats
Tomescot et al.
Stem Cells doi:10.1634/stemcells.2007-0133 (2007)

Tissue Engineering with Chondrogenically-differentiated Human Embryonic Stem Cells
Koay et al.
Stem Cells doi:10.1634/stemcells.2007-0105 (2007)

Patient-Specific Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Parthenogenetic Blastocysts
Revazova et al.
Cloning and Stem Cells doi:10.1089/clo.2007.0033 (2007)

Tissue Engineering with Chondrogenically-differentiated Human Embryonic Stem Cells
Koay et al.
Stem Cells doi:10.1634/stemcells.2007-0105 (2007)

Life begins at conception.

Fetal stem cell research is bs. It's an abject failure. You know it and I know it. Nothing good is going to come from dead babies. Rodents are not humans. And darn those immune systems and tumors. They keep messing up the dead baby research. :rolleyes:

You can drop the personal attacks. They're weak. :rolleyes:

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=StemCell.Home

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/testimony/prentice3.htm

WTF? All that for my one-sentence response ("I chose to get people saved for eternity") to a question about why I chose this over neurosurgery???No. Just call that the last straw. You've been posting unscientific and antiscientific one-liners all over our boards and you need to stop. It's trolling.

And you've truncated your post in order to misquote yourself and make my own remark appear unfair. Your response in fact contained two sentences:I chose to get people saved for eternity. Not just for their time here on earth.This was not just a casual statement of religious faith that can be dismissed as a personal aside. This was an oxymoronic assertion that people continue to live after their lives end, made specifically to justify your previously stated judgment that it's okay to fail to alleviate their suffering or prolong their lives because there is a benefit that will justify that cost. This is an extraordinary assertion. If you make this assertion again on SciForums without hewing to the scientific method and providing the requested extraordinary substantiation, it will be an instance of trolling.Anyone with even half a brain can see through your wilfully ignorant rubbish.Herc, I am attempting to demonstrate the proper way to respond to unscientific and antiscientific postings. Please be a scientist. Inflammatory language accomplishes nothing and personal attacks are just as much a violation of our rules as trolling. If you can't stop yourself from taking Sandy's bait, please put her on your Ignore List. But I would much prefer to continue reading the rational, scientific parts of your posts. That is all that is needed to rebut her arguments. You cite medical research journals; she cites political propaganda. We can all tell the difference.