Dr. Oz to Oprah and Michael J Fox: “The stem cell debate is dead.”
April 18th, 2009 by admin
Science Matters #1: Dr. Oz explains to Oprah and Michael J. Fox why embryonic stem cell research is dangerous and won’t cure Parkinson’s, but Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell research will! Supporting documents: - Downloadable PDF of successful adult stem cell treatments of Parkinson’s patients, including a study where the patients reduced 83% of symptoms! tinyurl.com - More information on iPS research under #1 of article: “9 Things the Media Messed Up About the Obama Stem Cell Story” tinyurl …
Duration : 0:3:14
Posted in docbates
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Tattooed milf loves …
Tattooed milf loves getting fcked deep in her - SEX69TUBE[.]COM
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
x8963: you’ll need …
x8963: you’ll need to take it up with the science textbooks that explain that the embryo is a human organism while a gamete (such as a sperm cell) is merely a part of another organism.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
“Embryonic stem …
“Embryonic stem cells are not human lives” …true dat…but no one ever said otherwise. Human EMBRYOS are human beings, not embryonic stem cells. You’re criticizing the video and yet you cannot distinguish between the terms “embryo” and “embryonic stem cell.” Therein lies the problem.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
x8963,
Read the …
x8963,
Read the thread I was replying to.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Light switch? Then …
Light switch? Then how do we decide when the light is turned on and off? Why is embryo on, and sperm off? Why is fetus on, and brain-dead person off? It takes a human to make this call.
Worse, it takes an ABSOLUTIST.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Ostad and …
Ostad and LifeReport,
As I have always said: Those who are pro-life believe life is a light switch. Those who are pro-choice believe life is a dimmer switch.
When a human life can be defined as only partially human or partially alive we will find ourselves in a very dark place where eugenics is not only accepted, but a government policy.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Wow, thank you doc. …
Wow, thank you doc. This is a lot more important than that stupid Jamie Foxx and Hannah Montana story.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
That’s NOT what he …
That’s NOT what he said. He said, “…we can avoid the destruction of living human EMBRYOS…”
He never said stem cells were human lives. he said you have to destroy a human life to harvest the embryonic stem cells.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
he had me until his …
he had me until his last two sentences. Embryonic stem cells are not human lives
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Incredible fckstar …
Incredible fckstar tits and ass! - **PORNSTARSTUDIO[.]NET**
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Taylor gets a mesga …
Taylor gets a mesga anal tune up! - REALPORNONLINE(.)NET
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
comparison thread: …
comparison thread: That depends on what characteristic one focuses on. If you are focussing on complexity, then a child (in the developmental sense) is the odd one. If you are focussing on capacity for reproduction, then the white blood cell may be the odd one. From another point of view, “zygote” falls within the set of “child” (in the relational sense) since all zygotes are the offspring (children) of someone (normally produced by the gametes of coöperating adults).
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Assumption thread: …
Assumption thread: Of which assumptions do you speak? They are inevitable to some extent. I got involved by opining that your *assumption* that consciousness was the key factor in determining the status of a living thing was not prudent. The similarities between an adult and zygote are not at all trivial. They are key, which is why I and others bring them up. You are *assuming* that size and overall structure trump function and developmental path. I, and others don’t buy that.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Conception thread …
Conception thread cont’d: … individuals (twinning). I am told that the opposite can occur: early stage embryos can supposedly fuse and form one individual from two. The status of a totipotent cell depends on it’s relationship with other totipotent cells. Before differentiation, any number of things can happen.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Conception thread: …
Conception thread: I do not ASSUME life begins at “conception.” The “conception” of the individual is, by definition, the beginning of the individual’s life. I (and most others) understand conception to be just after fertilization, when the biologic life of the individual OBSERVABLY begins. A zygote in on an obvious path of devleopment. Isolated sperm and ova are not; they are static. The undifferentiated cells of an early embryo can and do occasionally split off and form additional …
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Zygote thread: No, …
Zygote thread: No, that is not correct. Even a bacterium, which is about as close to being just a bag of DNA (apart from viruses) as one can get, isn’t just that. A functioning nucleated cell of any sort is a *very* complicated machine. The machinery of a zygote handles DNA differently from that in a somatic cell. To make a somatic cell function like a zygote, or, as Jamie Thomson (here at UW) has done, as a pluripotent cell, you have to alter the machinery. …
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Consider a white …
Consider a white blood cell, a skin cell, a zygote, and a child. One of these things is not like the others.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
You argue by making …
You argue by making assumptions. And these assumptions are based on other assumptions. Meanwhile, you can’t explain why trivial similarities between a zygote and a man (like “they’re both not subunits of something larger” or “one is on the “natural” and “probable” path to one day become the other) which are applicable to other cells as well, trump the far more numerous and substantial similarities between a zygote and a skin cell.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
You can label a …
You can label a zygote a “human” all you want. But it is what it is, and that is a container of DNA. So in just about every respect, it is equivalent to any given cell. It differs from a skin cell in that different genes are activated… all the other fundamental differences that you mention are conceptual.
So why do you assume that the life begins at conception? Why aren’t sperm and egg life? Why aren’t EACH of the cells of an early embryo an individual life, since each can become an adult?
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
…-whelming …
…-whelming evidenct to the contrary. Clearly, once an individual has been vested with inherent rights — at WHATEVER stage of development — he or she cannot be killed nor have his or her bodily integrity breached, unless it is a medical intervention intended for the grave benefit of the individual.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
inherent rights …
inherent rights thread: It is a fundamental dogma of the American socio-political system that certain fundamental rights inhere in Man (see the Declaration of Independence). Fundamental rights are not “granted” by government or even by society. Part of our job is to figure out when these inherent rights are vested in an individual and act accordingly. I am arguing that we should assume that rights are vested in an individual when that individual’s biologic life begins, absent over- (…)
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
cellular …
cellular consciousness thread: my comments on this are meant only to point out that we don’t have a good understanding of the mechanisms of consciousness. For all we know, a cell (whether zygote, skin, liver, etc.) or an organ may possess some rudimentary form of consciousness (though I doubt it). This is simply a warning to be aware of our implicit assumptions. (…)
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Zygote thread: No a …
Zygote thread: No a zygote does NOT have the potential to develop into a human. It IS *A* human individual already. It has the potential to develop into an adult, which potential it is already in the process of actualizing following a program contained within itself. It is its own agent, and it “latches on” to a nutrition source. A skin cell is not a human individual on the way to becoming an adult. It is and always will be a specialized cell, unless an OUTSIDE agent modifies it. (…)
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Cellular …
Cellular consciousness? The “purpose” of a zygote? inherent rights? What do you mean by all these??
So what if a zygote has the potential to “naturally” develop into a human (only if there is an “outside agency” for it to latch onto). So what if it is or isn’t part of something? Why does any of that matter? Why do these characteristics dictate their use in research? In essence, it is still the same as a skin cell.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
On the contrary, …
On the contrary, didn’t Hitler believe that he could morally justify all of the scientific experiments because they would enhance those humans that were important, regardless of how many humans died that were without the ability to resist?
what about this? Does Obama believe that he could morally justify all of the scientific experiments because they would enhance those humans that areimportant, regardless of how many humans died that are without the ability to resist?