• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man appears free of HIV after stem cell transplant

Alex said:
Immune system stem cells are harvested from cord blood and they are the same as adult stem cells from bone marrow or peripheral blood.
Click to expand...

Qualifier - I am not a scientists, so bear with me.

I thought that immune system stem cells were only available from bone marrow.

Nonetheless, are adult stem cells commonly harvested from cord blood? I thought that the answer was no.
 
Last edited:
JMak said:
Qualifier - I am not a scientists, so bear with me.

I thought that immune system stem cells were only available from bone marrow.

Nonetheless, are adult stem cells commonly harvested from cord blood? I thought that the answer was no.
Click to expand...

Stem cells harvested from umbilical cord blood are multipotent. Embryonic stem cells are totipotent. Totipotent cells have the capacity, I believe, to be turned into most any type of cell while adult stem cells and cord stem cells are more limited.
 
American said:
Looks like several people failed to read everything. What potential, what everyone cheering about?
Click to expand...

Yes, because people with AIDS aren't already at risk for dying or even poor health.

:roll:
 
American said:
I'm not against stem cell research, but I am against the rabid insistance by liberals that embryonic stem cell research is the best and only way to achieve cures. It's just another cover for abortion. Don't tell me it's not true, because the left extremists don't pump up the success of adult stem cell research. Nevertheless, the man plainly stated that this is extremely risky with little proven benefit. One patient doesn't prove the success of a process.
Click to expand...

Risky? Riskier than HIV?
 
I'm extremely excited about stem cell research and I don't give a rats ass whether it's embryonic or otherwise. I'll let the special interest/pro-life/pro-choice whoevers argue their religion and morality to their hearts content. It doesn't effect me one way or the other except when it blocks potentially life saving/quality of life improving medical science.

I have a degenerative retinopathy that has no cure or even a treatment to slow the progression of the disease. I'll probably be blind within the next ten to fifteen years. Right now stem cell research has shown great promise in potentially curing so many diseases, mine included.

This is extremely good to hear.
 
JMak said:
Qualifier - I am not a scientists, so bear with me.

I thought that immune system stem cells were only available from bone marrow.

Nonetheless, are adult stem cells commonly harvested from cord blood? I thought that the answer was no.
Click to expand...

Nope, umbilical cord or "cord cells" are purely adult SC. In a nutshell its the mother's body producing these cells along with the other nutrient rich cells located within the umbilical cord. The research which discovered this, led to easier adult SC collection where as bone marrow extraction was much more difficult.

Embryonic stem cells are from, well....embryos. And currently they're still trying to get over those little cancer-like issues associated with them.

Lerxst: So are you of the opinion that morality and medical research ethics do not overlap at some point?
 
Keorythe said:
Lerxst: So are you of the opinion that morality and medical research ethics do not overlap at some point?
Click to expand...

I think they do, but I don't really care about the "embryo is a living person" argument. I'm speaking specifically to the pro-life/pro-choice argument that infects stem cell research.
 
Arch Enemy said:
You're missing the point.

Apparently, transplanting stem cells is risky business. However even there is promising results from the transplanting of stem cells, then there is only the matter of tweaking it around.
I remember reading a few years ago an article that talked how a certain type of treatment dramatically reduced the growth rate of Cancers in HUMAN patients; the hype was really high, however nothing really came out of the treatment why? Because people expect good results to automatically transform into in-practice treatment methods that work all the time. That just is not possible. Projects even with the best of results, or the worst of results, are always built upon and built upon and built upon and built upon.
Click to expand...

That is right. I remember the first heart transplant by doctor Barnard and the patient died in a few days, but it was promising and hope was raised up.
The first patient died after 18 days, the second patient died after 19 months and actually new patients live years and years thanks to heart transplants around the world.

Such stem cell transplant has already gave very good news for humanity. :coffeepap
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
Before we perfected the techniques involved, anything nuclear was dangerous before they became much safer. The same could be said for automobiles or glow-in-the-dark paint.
"Let's remain ignorant because bad things could happen even though we haven't perfected the techniques."
Click to expand...

There is a difference between that and being cautious. When one is ignorant of so much in an area it does one could to be cautious generally. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread as the saying goes.
 
Wessexman said:
There is a difference between that and being cautious. When one is ignorant of so much in an area it does one could to be cautious generally. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread as the saying goes.
Click to expand...

Right, because we've rushed so fast into stem cell science.
 
Lerxst said:
Right, because we've rushed so fast into stem cell science.
Click to expand...
Right because the poster referred only to that, I was talking generally. I don't think we have been too hesitant certainly but I'm not a liberal. We have rushed into far too much in recent centuries from where I stand.
 
American said:
Proving my point once again. :lol: You labeled yourself Independent. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

And you labeled yourself as conservative instead of rabid. Your point?
 
Wessexman said:
Right because the poster referred only to that, I was talking generally.
Click to expand...
Okay.

I don't think we have been too hesitant certainly but I'm not a liberal.
Click to expand...
What exactly would this have to do with anything?

We have rushed into far too much in recent centuries from where I stand.
Click to expand...
And where would you be standing exactly? This is simply too broad to explain your position on stem cell research.
 
"About a third of the people die [during such transplants], so it's just too much of a risk," Levy said. To perform a stem cell transplant, doctors intentionally destroy a patient's immune system, leaving the patient vulnerable to infection, and then reintroduce a donor's stem cells (which are from either bone marrow or blood) in an effort to establish a new, healthy immune system.
Click to expand...
Don't we already do that to an extent with Chemo Therapy? It's just as risky yet, it seems to really common among cancer patients.
 
Lerxst said:
And where would you be standing exactly? This is simply too broad to explain your position on stem cell research.
Click to expand...
Dunno haven't thought about it much. I was just responding to some poster who made a vague statement about us being too hesitant on such things in general. If there is one thing Western civilisation hasn't been in recent centuries, it is hesitant.
 
Wessexman said:
Dunno haven't thought about it much. I was just responding to some poster who made a vague statement about us being too hesitant on such things in general. If there is one thing Western civilisation hasn't been in recent centuries, it is hesitant.
Click to expand...

Okay, I suppose I can understand what you are saying at this point. I think I disagree when it comes to medical science though.

Cheers.

:2wave:
 
Wessexman said:
Right because the poster referred only to that, I was talking generally. I don't think we have been too hesitant certainly but I'm not a liberal. We have rushed into far too much in recent centuries from where I stand.
Click to expand...

If I were some kind of being watching humanity from the outside, I would say that the advancements we are seeing are a necessary part of human development, but that our social development hasn't yet caught up with technology and science. We need a lot of time to consider whether or not something is "good" before we accept it on an individual level, and then a societal level, and now, due to the modern era, a global level.

It has never been the responsibility of science to slow its discoveries or repress them because the world might not be ready, so research will continue. For instance, the atom bomb was an inevitability that could not be delayed. Someone was bound to discover it... but it's a matter of how it's used.
 
Orius said:
If I were some kind of being watching humanity from the outside, I would say that the advancements we are seeing are a necessary part of human development, but that our social development hasn't yet caught up with technology and science. We need a lot of time to consider whether or not something is "good" before we accept it on an individual level, and then a societal level, and now, due to the modern era, a global level.

It has never been the responsibility of science to slow its discoveries or repress them because the world might not be ready, so research will continue. For instance, the atom bomb was an inevitability that could not be delayed. Someone was bound to discover it... but it's a matter of how it's used.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about implementation vs invention rates?
 
Orius said:
If I were some kind of being watching humanity from the outside, I would say that the advancements we are seeing are a necessary part of human development, but that our social development hasn't yet caught up with technology and science. We need a lot of time to consider whether or not something is "good" before we accept it on an individual level, and then a societal level, and now, due to the modern era, a global level.

It has never been the responsibility of science to slow its discoveries or repress them because the world might not be ready, so research will continue. For instance, the atom bomb was an inevitability that could not be delayed. Someone was bound to discover it... but it's a matter of how it's used.
Click to expand...

Personally I believe science and technology should serve society. They are not some sort of Gods who march outside of us, that is a dangerous way of looking at it. If they aren't made to serve society then they will likely end up making society serve them or sections of them and rule by technicians and bureaucrats is not my idea of utopia almost the opposite actually.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
How do you feel about implementation vs invention rates?
Click to expand...

I forget the term, but technology is advancing at an exponential rate, racing towards a singularity point. I think new innovation is happening faster than ever and the social aspect of humanity cannot keep up with it, especially given that there are so many nations in the world where people are still living at a subsistence level.

I also believe that humanity as a whole must know and understand these innovations in order for it to be a collective advancement. It does us no good if only a handful of countries are benefitting.
 
Wessexman said:
Personally I believe science and technology should serve society. They are not some sort of Gods who march outside of us, that is a dangerous way of looking at it. If they aren't made to serve society then they will likely end up making society serve them or sections of them and rule by technicians and bureaucrats is not my idea of utopia almost the opposite actually.
Click to expand...

A couple of things...

Science has never made an effort to separate itself from society. Its goals are to engage in scientifically curious and empirical projects in order to advance the knowledge of human kind. I don't think it has ever bowed to social pressures due to its history with the church and the reformation/counter-reformation eras.

It would be like asking those in the scientific community to stop researching something because it offends our sensibilities, or provokes our fears. Really, the people you should be lobbying are the politicians who implement the innovations in negative ways. The discovery of atomic power not only gave us the bomb but also nuclear power plants.
 
Orius said:
A couple of things...

Science has never made an effort to separate itself from society. Its goals are to engage in scientifically curious and empirical projects in order to advance the knowledge of human kind. I don't think it has ever bowed to social pressures due to its history with the church and the reformation/counter-reformation eras.

It would be like asking those in the scientific community to stop researching something because it offends our sensibilities, or provokes our fears. Really, the people you should be lobbying are the politicians who implement the innovations in negative ways. The discovery of atomic power not only gave us the bomb but also nuclear power plants.
Click to expand...
You talk of science as if it does things on its own. Only scientists are acting in this way and they should act for society and not be treated as some kind of Gods who can work outside society. Science and technology must be made to serve society not society the interests of their practicioners and certainly they should not serve one section above all as they have for so long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom