Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
No. It's cruel, really. It's been presented as something that could help people with problems right now, but it's a 10-15-20 year course of study, given where it is right now.

Is it cruel, though? Does Fox think it will actually help him? Or does he simply care so much about the issue he's willing to fight for it? I've really seen only the latter.

Reeve seemed slightly delusional, although I suspect that's partly because docs and wives always try to keep spirits up because otherwise they'd stop fighting to live.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
is there any real evidence that stem cell research could actually immediately help anybody with Parkinson's or physical damge (Chris Reeves) or it more wishful thinking for some hope? or is it more about possible advancements 20 years from now.

i remember reeves saying that he knows with stem cell research he could walk again. that seemed far fetched.

I'm going to this conference in two weeks. There are a lot institutions in the Medical Center getting a lot of (private, non federal) money from a lot of different sources to find out the answer to your question, and I'm supposed to figure out how to put together the oversight for our program. I assume that there's private money all over the country dedicated to looking into it, though a lot of that money is flowing overseas. (Talk about outsourcing that shouldn't be happening...)

Tell your partners you have some life science patent thing to go to in DC and we can sit together. It's the National Academies. It's free!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is it cruel, though? Does Fox think it will actually help him? Or does he simply care so much about the issue he's willing to fight for it? I've really seen only the latter.

Reeve seemed slightly delusional, although I suspect that's partly because docs and wives always try to keep spirits up because otherwise they'd stop fighting to live.

hmmm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo

"gives us hope"

"matters to millions of Americans, Americans like me..."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Acquiescing"? Did you really say that?

Standing back and listening to someone say something without actively complaining about the method of delivery might be "acquiescing."

Making a journalistic choice to print crap like ""some" have said that Bush screws sheep nightly in the East Room" without source isn't "acquiescing." That's called "remember those rules we learned in journalism trade school, about sources, and shit? Those only apply when we quote people we like."

C'mon. Surely you know that the Administration likes to dish to the majors on background, and that the majors have to choose between printing stuff and attributing it to "an administration official" (e.g.) or getting scooped by the competition. If the Washington Post had a monopoly, they wouldn't do that shit nearly as much. I don't like it, and -- as I said -- I won't pay for it. But if you think that the White House gets screwed by anonymous sources more than it uses them, you're not paying attention.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is it cruel, though? Does Fox think it will actually help him? Or does he simply care so much about the issue he's willing to fight for it? I've really seen only the latter.

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I don't doubt MJ Fox's sincerity here at all. I see little self-interest in what he's done - he is, as you say, fighting for what he sees as a possible boon for future sufferers.

The cruelty lies in what I've seen in the approach of the "vote for this, and we can save you now in spite of what those horrid religious fanatics want!" campaign. (Yes, hyperbole.) It's NOT going to result in any immediate, or even relatively quick, usable results. I'd say, not for my generation, or maybe even the next.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
is there any real evidence that stem cell research could actually immediately help anybody with Parkinson's or physical damge (Chris Reeves) or it more wishful thinking for some hope? or is it more about possible advancements 20 years from now.

i remember reeves saying that he knows with stem cell research he could walk again. that seemed far fetched.

"No other potential therapy—including adult stem cells—is nearly as promising for my ailment and others. Evaluate that as you wish."

-- Michael Kinsley

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
hmmm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo

"gives us hope"

"matters to millions of Americans, Americans like me..."

That's a far cry from "do this to save me . . . so you can enjoy Family Ties: The Reunion and Teen Wolf: The Hall-of-Fame Ceremony"

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the Washington Post had a monopoly, they wouldn't do that shit nearly as much. I don't like it, and -- as I said -- I won't pay for it.

Are you saying you don't like competition?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
The cruelty lies in what I've seen in the approach of the "vote for this, and we can save you now in spite of what those horrid religious fanatics want!" campaign.

That would be quite cruel.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
is there any real evidence that stem cell research could actually immediately help anybody with Parkinson's or physical damge (Chris Reeves) or it more wishful thinking for some hope? or is it more about possible advancements 20 years from now.

i remember reeves saying that he knows with stem cell research he could walk again. that seemed far fetched.

If you are not a brain surgeon, you are not qualified to discuss this topic.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are you saying you don't like competition?

If they had a monopoly, they would surely do other shit I wouldn't like. But I suspect that one advantage of a monopoly is that would be happy to do things the right way, journalistically speaking, and pass the costs of doing so on to the consumers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's a far cry from "do this to save me . . . so you can enjoy Family Ties: The Reunion and Teen Wolf: The Hall-of-Fame Ceremony"

Those would be very, very cruel.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
"No other potential therapy—including adult stem cells—is nearly as promising for my ailment and others. Evaluate that as you wish."

-- Michael Kinsley

I really have no truck either way in the stem cell argument. If, ultimately, treatments are derived therefrom, then great.

Kinsley is too smart to miss - so he is willfully ignoring - the related argument that once you go down the road of willfully destroying embryos, what is stop anyone to go further down the road - cloning, organ harvesting, etc.

Where will the science stop?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I don't doubt MJ Fox's sincerity here at all. I see little self-interest in what he's done - he is, as you say, fighting for what he sees as a possible boon for future sufferers.

The cruelty lies in what I've seen in the approach of the "vote for this, and we can save you now in spite of what those horrid religious fanatics want!" campaign. (Yes, hyperbole.) It's NOT going to result in any immediate, or even relatively quick, usable results. I'd say, not for my generation, or maybe even the next.

My objection to the veto (or voting against the bill) isn't primarily that it's stopping stem cell research, embryonic or otherwise, though there's plenty of evidence that we're losing promising scientists and, more importantly, money to other countries (primarily South Korea) because of the federal ban on research on post 2001 lines.

My objection is that without NIH funding, those of us that are going it alone are sort of stumbling around in the dark on how to do it properly. Most institutions like mine will go ahead and follow the guidelines put out by the National Academies, but there's no requirement to do so, and I can see a lot of mom and pop outfits doing some rather unethical things. This is an area that I think most people would prefer were regulated, whatever they may think of regulation in general.

And it'd make my life easier. And ultimately, it's all about me.

BTW, Hank, this chapter probably better answers your initial question than anything any of us would have to say about the matter. Again, a publication of the National Academies. (Er, I've had to bone up on my understanding of embryonic stem cell research in the last few weeks. I've done a lot of reading that I don't really understand.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I don't doubt MJ Fox's sincerity here at all. I see little self-interest in what he's done - he is, as you say, fighting for what he sees as a possible boon for future sufferers.

The cruelty lies in what I've seen in the approach of the "vote for this, and we can save you now in spite of what those horrid religious fanatics want!" campaign. (Yes, hyperbole.) It's NOT going to result in any immediate, or even relatively quick, usable results. I'd say, not for my generation, or maybe even the next.

I deal with people researching and investing in the area all the time. Venture investors with a timeframe for exit that is absolutely limited to 10-12 years, and prefers 5-8 years, are eager to invest, but are nervious about the time frame and reviewing and staging potential investments accordingly. Like all biotech investments, there is a possibility of exit in 5-8 years based on having a late-stage product not yet approved for marketing for human treatment (in other words, as much as 2-3 years from market), but, that gives you a reasonable timeline tested in the marketplace for there being real treatments from this research within a decade.