Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
Mindy, by that logic, a baby who needed life support at birth would not be entitled to it. I've known many families of children born prematurely who needed a great deal of help at first, but who grew and thrived with help, including ventilators. Barbara H. _http://barbarah.wordpress.com/_ (http://barbarah.wordpress.com/) In a message dated 3/25/2009 8:27:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, we4king...@verizon.net writes: My experience also led me to the conclusion that a life that cannot survive outside the mother is not entitled to citizenship rights equal to that of the mother until it is mature enough to survive once the umbilical cord is cut (or has turned 18, which ever comes first). Mindy the Artist **Free Credit Report and Score Tracking! Get it Now for $0 at CreditReport.com. (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220474599x1201401934/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.creditreport.com%3Fsrc%3Daolemail%26kwd%3Dmlftrtextlin k)
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
I'm not implying that at all. I just didn't go into that definition for the sake of brevity. The light hearted comment about turning 18 meant that every child takes a tremendous amount of life support to raise. but if you insist on a definition: I believe that any infant who is alive at the time of onset of labor (whether natural or surgical) is entitled to what ever life support we have to offer. In some cases like ancephaly there are hard choices for parents to make. But I am sharing my views and not writing a policy that will be used to make life and death decisions beyond my own family. Mindy the Artist On Mar 27, 2009, at 9:03 AM, jharpe...@aol.com wrote: Mindy, by that logic, a baby who needed life support at birth would not be entitled to it. I've known many families of children born prematurely who needed a great deal of help at first, but who grew and thrived with help, including ventilators. Barbara H. http://barbarah.wordpress.com/ In a message dated 3/25/2009 8:27:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, we4king...@verizon.net writes: My experience also led me to the conclusion that a life that cannot survive outside the mother is not entitled to citizenship rights equal to that of the mother until it is mature enough to survive once the umbilical cord is cut (or has turned 18, which ever comes first). Mindy the Artist Free Credit Report and Score Tracking! Get it Now for $0 at CreditReport.com.
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
Thanks for the clarification. Just taking the statement at face value it sounded different. Barbara H. _http://barbarah.wordpress.com/_ (http://barbarah.wordpress.com/) In a message dated 3/27/2009 12:58:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, we4king...@verizon.net writes: I'm not implying that at all. I just didn't go into that definition for the sake of brevity. The light hearted comment about turning 18 meant that every child takes a tremendous amount of life support to raise. but if you insist on a definition: I believe that any infant who is alive at the time of onset of labor (whether natural or surgical) is entitled to what ever life support we have to offer. In some cases like ancephaly there are hard choices for parents to make. But I am sharing my views and not writing a policy that will be used to make life and death decisions beyond my own family. Mindy the Artist On Mar 27, 2009, at 9:03 AM, _jharpe...@aol.com_ (mailto:jharpe...@aol.com) wrote: Mindy, by that logic, a baby who needed life support at birth would not be entitled to it. I've known many families of children born prematurely who needed a great deal of help at first, but who grew and thrived with help, including ventilators. Barbara H. _http://barbarah.wordpress.com/_ (http://barbarah.wordpress.com/) In a message dated 3/25/2009 8:27:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, _we4king...@verizon.net_ (mailto:we4king...@verizon.net) writes: My experience also led me to the conclusion that a life that cannot survive outside the mother is not entitled to citizenship rights equal to that of the mother until it is mature enough to survive once the umbilical cord is cut (or has turned 18, which ever comes first). Mindy the Artist Free Credit Report and Score Tracking! Get it Now for $0 at _CreditReport.com_ (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220474599x1201401934/aol?redir=http://www.creditreport.com?src=aolemailkwd=mlftrtextlink) . = **Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try the new Email Toolbar now! (http://toolbar.aol.com/mail/download.html?ncid=txtlnkusdown0027)
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
Ah Barbara, the problem with email is that it's not a 3 dimensional form of communication. face value is very different when you are actually face to face! now I see what you're referring to... In the 6 years between the birth of my daughter and the birth of my son ideas on healthy pregnancy did a 180 and everyone felt entitled to tell you what you needed to do even if you weren't doing anything bad in the first place I was an older mom and read every book I could before methodically trying to conceive and then methodically solving my miscarriage issues. When I was pregnant with my son I went to the clinic on the 18th day after conception and said to the doctor skip the pregnancy test cause I am, just test my progesterone levels and see if it's okay (I needed to supplement) So as you can Imagine I got testy when people seemed to care more for the unborn infant than me, I was better informed that most of the advice givers and it was still my body. Mindy the Artist On Mar 27, 2009, at 3:56 PM, jharpe...@aol.com wrote: Thanks for the clarification. Just taking the statement at face value it sounded different. Barbara H. http://barbarah.wordpress.com/ In a message dated 3/27/2009 12:58:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, we4king...@verizon.net writes: I'm not implying that at all. I just didn't go into that definition for the sake of brevity. The light hearted comment about turning 18 meant that every child takes a tremendous amount of life support to raise. but if you insist on a definition: I believe that any infant who is alive at the time of onset of labor (whether natural or surgical) is entitled to what ever life support we have to offer. In some cases like ancephaly there are hard choices for parents to make. But I am sharing my views and not writing a policy that will be used to make life and death decisions beyond my own family. Mindy the Artist On Mar 27, 2009, at 9:03 AM, jharpe...@aol.com wrote: Mindy, by that logic, a baby who needed life support at birth would not be entitled to it. I've known many families of children born prematurely who needed a great deal of help at first, but who grew and thrived with help, including ventilators. Barbara H. http://barbarah.wordpress.com/ In a message dated 3/25/2009 8:27:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, we4king...@verizon.net writes: My experience also led me to the conclusion that a life that cannot survive outside the mother is not entitled to citizenship rights equal to that of the mother until it is mature enough to survive once the umbilical cord is cut (or has turned 18, which ever comes first). Mindy the Artist Free Credit Report and Score Tracking! Get it Now for $0 at CreditReport.com. = Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try the new Email Toolbar now!
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
Jim, I have to say that I agree with you totally!! I feel that if anyone is going to do IVF that they should only create the ones that they are going to use. I also feel that if the only way for me to be healed is through embryonic stem cells then I never will be here on earth! I don't think that I could live with the thoughts of that. Thanks for all that you do for us on the list! - Original Message - From: Jim Lubin To: Lawrence King ; tmic-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:27 PM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) I know I am in the minority in my believes, but I do not believe in IVF that creates embryos to begin with. If these embryos were not being created to then there would be no so called leftover embryos. Are you aware that President Obama signed H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, on March 11th (2 days after signing the executive order to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cells) that contained the following: The text of Section 509 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, reads as follows: SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)). (b) For purposes of this section, the term ''human embryo or embryos'' includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells. Guess he should have READ the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 before signing it into law... I followed the link on http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FY2009OmnibusAppropriationsActPu blicReview/ to see if it was true, sure enough, it's in there http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/2009_Con_Bill_DivF.pdf If you want to read it yourself, pg 128, lines 9 - 24. there are 2 pages inserted so it is page 130 of the pdf. At 05:25 PM 3/25/2009, Lawrence King wrote: whether you consider them blastocysts or babies, the couples who conceived them have already made the decision that they will never be born and have a meaningful purpose outside the petri dish. I truly believe the parents should have the right to decide the fate regarding the use of their unused fertilized egg's stem cells as well. Jim Lubin jlu...@eskimo.com http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
Sure I would consider treatment from non hESC sources. As for the funding act that was signed into law. No funds in this act (which funds everything in the government between now through Sept 30, 2009) may be used for embryos for research purposes or research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death (which is what happens when stem cells are removed from an embryo) It then defines the term human embryo as any organism that is derived by fertilization or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells. (the egg and sperm are human gametes). That would exclude the so called leftover embryos from federal funded research. So just 2 days after having a big ceremonial signing of his executive order to allow federal funding he signs a bill that restricts the funding once again, at least through the end of the fiscal year. At 08:18 PM 3/25/2009, Lawrence King wrote: Jim, I do respect your beliefs and your extensive knowledge regarding stem cell research. I'm guessing you would consider treatment derived from adult lines but might decline so called embryonic lines. I'm sure we'd all be relieved if adult stem cells turned out to be the best solution after all. As for the Omnibus Appropriations act I admit my BFA degree doesn't help me understand the legal language used in such bills. Could you interpret it in common language? Mindy the Artist On Mar 25, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Jim Lubin wrote: I know I am in the minority in my believes, but I do not believe in IVF that creates embryos to begin with. If these embryos were not being created to then there would be no so called leftover embryos. Are you aware that President Obama signed H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, on March 11th (2 days after signing the executive order to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cells) that contained the following: The text of Section 509 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, reads as follows: SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)). (b) For purposes of this section, the term ''human embryo or embryos'' includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells. Guess he should have READ the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 before signing it into law... I followed the link on http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FY2009OmnibusAppropriationsActPublicReview/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FY2009OmnibusAppropriationsActPu blicReview/ to see if it was true, sure enough, it's in there http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/2009_Con_Bill_DivF.pdfhttp://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/2009_Con_Bill_DivF.pdf If you want to read it yourself, pg 128, lines 9 - 24. there are 2 pages inserted so it is page 130 of the pdf. At 05:25 PM 3/25/2009, Lawrence King wrote: whether you consider them blastocysts or babies, the couples who conceived them have already made the decision that they will never be born and have a meaningful purpose outside the petri dish. I truly believe the parents should have the right to decide the fate regarding the use of their unused fertilized egg's stem cells as well. Jim Lubin mailto:jlu...@eskimo.comjlu...@eskimo.com http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org Jim Lubin jlu...@makoa.org Home Page: http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
Sure I would consider treatment from non hESC sources. As for the funding act that was signed into law. No funds in this act (which funds everything in the government between now through Sept 30, 2009) may be used for embryos for research purposes or research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death (which is what happens when stem cells are removed from an embryo) It then defines the term human embryo as any organism that is derived by fertilization or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells. (the egg and sperm are human gametes). That would exclude the so called leftover embryos from federal funded research. So just 2 days after having a big ceremonial signing of his executive order to allow federal funding he signs a bill that restricts the funding once again, at least through the end of the fiscal year. At 08:18 PM 3/25/2009, Lawrence King wrote: Jim, I do respect your beliefs and your extensive knowledge regarding stem cell research. I'm guessing you would consider treatment derived from adult lines but might decline so called embryonic lines. I'm sure we'd all be relieved if adult stem cells turned out to be the best solution after all. As for the Omnibus Appropriations act I admit my BFA degree doesn't help me understand the legal language used in such bills. Could you interpret it in common language? Mindy the Artist On Mar 25, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Jim Lubin wrote: I know I am in the minority in my believes, but I do not believe in IVF that creates embryos to begin with. If these embryos were not being created to then there would be no so called leftover embryos. Are you aware that President Obama signed H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, on March 11th (2 days after signing the executive order to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cells) that contained the following: The text of Section 509 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, reads as follows: SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)). (b) For purposes of this section, the term ''human embryo or embryos'' includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells. Guess he should have READ the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 before signing it into law... I followed the link on http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FY2009OmnibusAppropriationsActPublicReview/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FY2009OmnibusAppropriationsActPu blicReview/ to see if it was true, sure enough, it's in there http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/2009_Con_Bill_DivF.pdfhttp://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/2009_Con_Bill_DivF.pdf If you want to read it yourself, pg 128, lines 9 - 24. there are 2 pages inserted so it is page 130 of the pdf. At 05:25 PM 3/25/2009, Lawrence King wrote: whether you consider them blastocysts or babies, the couples who conceived them have already made the decision that they will never be born and have a meaningful purpose outside the petri dish. I truly believe the parents should have the right to decide the fate regarding the use of their unused fertilized egg's stem cells as well. Jim Lubin mailto:jlu...@eskimo.comjlu...@eskimo.com http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org Jim Lubin jlu...@eskimo.com http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
Here it is. Worth watching. Stem Cells and Neuroregeneration The Future Douglas A. Kerr, MD, PhD Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-25453169972889015 http://www.myelitis.org/rnds2008/stem_cels_MN_and_GRP_2008.pdf At 09:27 AM 3/25/2009, jrushton wrote: Thanks, Debbie!! If you don't watch/listen to anything else from that Symposium, you should truly look for that part! It is SO important because we have ALL been led astray and he makes it so easy to understand and he is the expert along with his staff!!! He is also one of the main ones trying so hard to get this passed in order to save those like you and I from living with our disabilities. Had it been available at our onset, we may have had a chance to be one of the 'lucky' ones and had this simple procedure done. I wish there was a way to show just that one section of the Symp... Is there, Debbie? It is so misunderstood that there will be those that could be helped but will refuse only because of the misunderstanding. Jeanne in Dayton ---Original Message--- From: mailto:dca...@earthlink.netDeborah Nord Capen Date: 3/25/2009 11:10:57 AM To: mailto:gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.netgbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net; mailto:westg...@interlog.comWestgold; mailto:adis...@yahoo.comAmanda Diskey; mailto:tmic-list@eskimo.comtmic-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) I will make just a short statement regarding this, as I do not wish to become involved in a debate. Dr. Kerr has stated in all of his talks that the BIGGEST mistake in the very beginning was to even give it the name embryonic stem cells. They are NOT embryos. They are NOT aborted fetuses. They are blastocysts - only two cells that could not ever survive outside of a petri dish on their own. Because the scientists made this mistake in the beginning of giving it the name embryonic stem cell, all of the right-to-life people came out and attacked this research from the git-go. If you view the talks from all of our symposia at http://www.myelitis.org/events.htmhttp://www.myelitis.org/events.htm and listen carefully to Dr. Kerr's talks on stem cell research, you will have better knowledge of this. Regarding the idea of going out of the country to receive treatments, Dr. Kerr has also discussed this. The research is there, but the follow-up on the patients is lacking, so they have no record of how the patients did AFTER they left the country to go back home. Take care, Debbie Jim Lubin jlu...@eskimo.com http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
Thank you, Jim..Jeanne ---Original Message--- From: Jim Lubin Date: 3/26/2009 12:21:40 PM To: jrushton; Deborah Nord Capen; tmic Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) Here it is. Worth watching. Stem Cells and Neuroregeneration The Future Douglas A. Kerr, MD, PhD Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-25453169972889015 http://www.myelitis.org/rnds2008/stem_cels_MN_and_GRP_2008.pdf At 09:27 AM 3/25/2009, jrushton wrote: Thanks, Debbie!! If you don't watch/listen to anything else from that Symposium, you should truly look for that part! It is SO important because we have ALL been led astray and he makes it so easy to understand and he is the expert along with his staff!!! He is also one of the main ones trying so hard to get this passed in order to save those like you and I from living with our disabilities. Had it been available at our onset, we may have had a chance to be one of the 'lucky' ones and had this simple procedure done. I wish there was a way to show just that one section of the Symp... Is there, Debbie? It is so misunderstood that there will be those that could be helped but will refuse only because of the misunderstanding. Jeanne in Dayton ---Original Message--- From: Deborah Nord Capen Date: 3/25/2009 11:10:57 AM To: gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net ; Westgold; Amanda Diskey; tmic-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) I will make just a short statement regarding this, as I do not wish to become involved in a debate. Dr. Kerr has stated in all of his talks that the BIGGEST mistake in the very beginning was to even give it the name embryonic stem cells. They are NOT embryos. They are NOT aborted fetuses. They are blastocysts - only two cells that could not ever survive outside of a petri dish on their own. Because the scientists made this mistake in the beginning of giving it the name embryonic stem cell, all of the right-to-life people came out and attacked this research from the git-go. If you view the talks from all of our symposia at http://www.myelitis org/events.htm and listen carefully to Dr. Kerr's talks on stem cell research, you will have better knowledge of this. Regarding the idea of going out of the country to receive treatments, Dr. Kerr has also discussed this. The research is there, but the follow-up on the patients is lacking, so they have no record of how the patients did AFTER they left the country to go back home. Take care, Debbie Jim Lubin jlu...@eskimo.com http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org newimage.jpg
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
I agree with Gary! I was under the impression that research was still being done, just not embryonic. Wouldn't it be tremendous if in a few years we could all throw away our canes, walkers, wheelchairs, meds - anything associated with TM! Janice - Original Message - From: gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net To: Westgold ; Amanda Diskey ; tmic-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) Our former president, George W. Bush, so direspectfully referred to on this list as dumdum, was simply against the use of our tax money for embryonic stem cell research in consideration for those opposed, on moral grounds, to the use of aborted fetuses. Stem cell research was not stopped. It has widely been proclaimed (even on this list) that adult stem cell research has actually been more successful than embryonic cell research. http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/ What should be of concern is the attitude, manifest in the new presidential administration, of disregard for sanctity of life. Surely such thinking in our governmental leadership would tend to provoke questioning as to compassion for TM'ers, especially those in adult years. Rather an irony-- a claim to compassion to help the suffering yet being quick to reinstate tax money for research which gives a boost to the abortion industry! I am not, by far, as learned as I would like to be on this subject, but just wish to include the opposite side to those who seem to hear that fetal embryonic research is the only answer to finding relief for those suffering from conditions such as ours (and, of course, worse). Gary in Michigan - Original Message - From: Westgold To: Amanda Diskey ; tmic-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 2:25 PM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell Hi -- there have been many success stories all over the world with stem cells, I am so glad our new president decided to let the researchers get back to it in a big way. You can google stem calls + various diseases, or stem cells + success, etc, and you'll get a lot of stuff. There were twin girls who went to China for stem cells a couple years ago, and they were helped tremendously. You used to be able to find their stories by googling stem cells + twins + Toronto -- try that. I personally believe that now that the research is back under way full steam, we will be seeing amazing things happening in just a year or two. Too bad those 8 years of research were lost because of dumdum. - Original Message - From: Amanda Diskey To: tmic-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 2:12 PM Subject: [TMIC] stem cell I found a hospital in Panama City, Panama affiliated with Johns Hopkins, and they say they can treat me with stem cells. The lady I spoke with says they have treated one person with TM and got good results. The cost is $30,000. What do you all think? -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.283 / Virus Database: 270.11.26/2020 - Release Date: 03/24/09 09:19:00
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?), and signing
It seems to me that ALL bills should be read prior to signing, but that's just me. I was always told not to sign anything that I haven't read. I will admit to not signing all documents in total, but I have skimmed over them. Just my 2 cents worth. Barbara A In a message dated 3/25/2009 7:28:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jlu...@eskimo.com writes: I know I am in the minority in my believes, but I do not believe in IVF that creates embryos to begin with. If these embryos were not being created to then there would be no so called leftover embryos. Are you aware that President Obama signed H.R. 1105, the “Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009,” on March 11th (2 days after signing the executive order to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cells) that contained the following: The text of Section 509 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, reads as follows: SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used forshy;(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)). (b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘human embryo or embryos’’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells. Guess he should have READ the “Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 before signing it into law... I followed the link on _http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FY2009OmnibusAppropriationsActPu blicReview/_ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FY2009OmnibusAppropriationsActPublicReview/) to see if it was true, sure enough, it's in there _http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/2009_Con_Bill_DivF.pdf_ (http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/2009_Con_Bill_DivF.pdf) If you want to read it yourself, pg 128, lines 9 - 24. there are 2 pages inserted so it is page 130 of the pdf. At 05:25 PM 3/25/2009, Lawrence King wrote: whether you consider them blastocysts or babies, the couples who conceived them have already made the decision that they will never be born and have a meaningful purpose outside the petri dish. I truly believe the parents should have the right to decide the fate regarding the use of their unused fertilized egg's stem cells as well. Jim Lubin jlu...@eskimo.com _http://makoa.org/jim_ (http://makoa.org/jim) disAbility Resources: _http://www.makoa.org _ (http://www.makoa.org/) **Great Deals on Dell 15 Laptops - Starting at $479 (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219799606x1201361003/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doub leclick.net%2Fclk%3B213153745%3B34689725%3Bo)
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
This is a very personal decision and we all have to make it for ourselves when and if the time comes. It's good to have a discussion about this as different views are expressed and information is dispensed that others may not be aware of. I also know that there are many children in the foster care system and orphanages and are available for adoption if people would consider them if they really wanted a child, and not only a baby. Babies are harder to adopt, but so many children would love to have a stable home with loving parents. I'd love to be able to walk the way I did prior to TM. I know that if I could get back what I lost, I'd be a real happy camper. Hugs, Barbara A **Great Deals on Dell 15 Laptops - Starting at $479 (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219799606x1201361003/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doub leclick.net%2Fclk%3B213153745%3B34689725%3Bo)
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
Jim.I agree with you completely and I like your explanations for your position on using stem cells. My daughter saved the umbilical cord blood from my last grandson in hopes that it may be of some benefit from me or him if necessary. I do have feelings that haunt me regarding using these stem cells to help my situation. This is due to the fact that I am so tired of not standing or walking, dealing with constant bladder and bowel issues, and the 24/7 nerve pain that varies in intensity regardless of medication. I realize there are many who are worse than me with their TM. The reality for me is that if suddenly there was a myelin regeneration cocktail that was made from and could only be made from embryonic stem cells and I was hearing about success stories related to the treatment, I am not so sure I would be able to stick to my guns. The reality is that I might have to get in that line. I have three precious grandchildren and a whole neighborhood full of children that I have, for the most part, adopted as my own grandchildren. I have participated in numerous infant baptisms and I take my responsibnility toward all childen very seriously. I kind of relate it to the fox hole Christian logic. When the atheist has been pinned down from gun fire in his foxhole he just may be tempted to say a paryer or two. Just curious if you have had similar thoughts.Cody in Austin - Original Message - From: Jim Lubin To: jrushton ; Deborah Nord Capen ; tmic Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) Here it is. Worth watching. Stem Cells and Neuroregeneration - The Future Douglas A. Kerr, MD, PhD Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-25453169972889015 http://www.myelitis.org/rnds2008/stem_cels_MN_and_GRP_2008.pdf At 09:27 AM 3/25/2009, jrushton wrote: Thanks, Debbie!! If you don't watch/listen to anything else from that Symposium, you should truly look for that part! It is SO important because we have ALL been led astray and he makes it so easy to understand and he is the expert along with his staff!!! He is also one of the main ones trying so hard to get this passed in order to save those like you and I from living with our disabilities. Had it been available at our onset, we may have had a chance to be one of the 'lucky' ones and had this simple procedure done. I wish there was a way to show just that one section of the Symp... Is there, Debbie? It is so misunderstood that there will be those that could be helped but will refuse only because of the misunderstanding. Jeanne in Dayton ---Original Message--- From: Deborah Nord Capen Date: 3/25/2009 11:10:57 AM To: gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net ; Westgold; Amanda Diskey; tmic-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) I will make just a short statement regarding this, as I do not wish to become involved in a debate. Dr. Kerr has stated in all of his talks that the BIGGEST mistake in the very beginning was to even give it the name embryonic stem cells. They are NOT embryos. They are NOT aborted fetuses. They are blastocysts - only two cells that could not ever survive outside of a petri dish on their own. Because the scientists made this mistake in the beginning of giving it the name embryonic stem cell, all of the right-to-life people came out and attacked this research from the git-go. If you view the talks from all of our symposia at http://www.myelitis.org/events.htm and listen carefully to Dr. Kerr's talks on stem cell research, you will have better knowledge of this. Regarding the idea of going out of the country to receive treatments, Dr. Kerr has also discussed this. The research is there, but the follow-up on the patients is lacking, so they have no record of how the patients did AFTER they left the country to go back home. Take care, Debbie Jim Lubin jlu...@eskimo.com http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
I don't understand, with what all I have read from all of these explanations of embryonic stem cells NOT being actually embryonic, why hasn't this been on the national news and in the newspapers, etc., that it is NOT embryonic?Wouldn't that put a stop to such a huge debate and we could get very serious about treating those with diseases that could be cured with these cells with no hesitancy? Why hasn't Dr. Kerr's info been put in front of our congress - they are the only ones that can do something about this - right? I hope this makes sense - it is late and I have taken my meds! janice - Original Message - From: Cody and Judy Kidwell To: TMIC ; Jim Lubin Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:38 PM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) Jim.I agree with you completely and I like your explanations for your position on using stem cells. My daughter saved the umbilical cord blood from my last grandson in hopes that it may be of some benefit from me or him if necessary. I do have feelings that haunt me regarding using these stem cells to help my situation. This is due to the fact that I am so tired of not standing or walking, dealing with constant bladder and bowel issues, and the 24/7 nerve pain that varies in intensity regardless of medication. I realize there are many who are worse than me with their TM. The reality for me is that if suddenly there was a myelin regeneration cocktail that was made from and could only be made from embryonic stem cells and I was hearing about success stories related to the treatment, I am not so sure I would be able to stick to my guns. The reality is that I might have to get in that line. I have three precious grandchildren and a whole neighborhood full of children that I have, for the most part, adopted as my own grandchildren. I have participated in numerous infant baptisms and I take my responsibnility toward all childen very seriously. I kind of relate it to the fox hole Christian logic. When the atheist has been pinned down from gun fire in his foxhole he just may be tempted to say a paryer or two. Just curious if you have had similar thoughts.Cody in Austin - Original Message - From: Jim Lubin To: jrushton ; Deborah Nord Capen ; tmic Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) Here it is. Worth watching. Stem Cells and Neuroregeneration - The Future Douglas A. Kerr, MD, PhD Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-25453169972889015 http://www.myelitis.org/rnds2008/stem_cels_MN_and_GRP_2008.pdf At 09:27 AM 3/25/2009, jrushton wrote: Thanks, Debbie!! If you don't watch/listen to anything else from that Symposium, you should truly look for that part! It is SO important because we have ALL been led astray and he makes it so easy to understand and he is the expert along with his staff!!! He is also one of the main ones trying so hard to get this passed in order to save those like you and I from living with our disabilities. Had it been available at our onset, we may have had a chance to be one of the 'lucky' ones and had this simple procedure done. I wish there was a way to show just that one section of the Symp... Is there, Debbie? It is so misunderstood that there will be those that could be helped but will refuse only because of the misunderstanding. Jeanne in Dayton ---Original Message--- From: Deborah Nord Capen Date: 3/25/2009 11:10:57 AM To: gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net ; Westgold; Amanda Diskey; tmic-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) I will make just a short statement regarding this, as I do not wish to become involved in a debate. Dr. Kerr has stated in all of his talks that the BIGGEST mistake in the very beginning was to even give it the name embryonic stem cells. They are NOT embryos. They are NOT aborted fetuses. They are blastocysts - only two cells that could not ever survive outside of a petri dish on their own. Because the scientists made this mistake in the beginning of giving it the name embryonic stem cell, all of the right-to-life people came out and attacked this research from the git-go. If you view the talks from all of our symposia at http://www.myelitis.org/events.htm and listen carefully to Dr. Kerr's talks on stem cell research, you will have better knowledge of this. Regarding the idea of going out of the country to receive treatments, Dr. Kerr has also discussed this. The research is there, but the follow-up on the patients is lacking, so they have no record of how the patients did AFTER they left the country to go back home. Take care, Debbie Jim Lubin jlu...@eskimo.com http://makoa.org
Fw: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
- Original Message - From: gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net To: bgunny7...@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) Gunny and Debbie, Thanks for the information which I did not mean to ignore. Sorry to imply all research is with aborted fetuses. My point still is that, adult stem cell research should not be looked upon as inferior to fetal stem cell research when, in fact, to my knowledge, adult stem cell research has been successful. As is often the case, politics often becomes a major issue. My point also was to defend President Bush's decision to not support the embryonic research with tax dollars since, in my opinion, it was morally questionable and, secondly, not necessary for stem cell research. I'll end my comments at this embryonic stage of the discussion before I get in deeper than my limited knowledge and intellect can go but I wanted to express what bit of the subject I am aware of and believe in. Gary - Original Message - From: bgunny7...@aol.com To: gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) In a message dated 3/25/2009 11:06:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net writes: Our former president, George W. Bush, so direspectfully referred to on this list as dumdum, was simply against the use of our tax money for embryonic stem cell research in consideration for those opposed, on moral grounds, to the use of aborted fetuses. Stem cell research was not stopped. It has widely been proclaimed (even on this list) that adult stem cell research has actually been more successful than embryonic cell research Not necessarily aborted fetus's. Embryonic stem cells can be grown in a petri dish simply by marrying a male sperm with a female egg. It has nothing to do with an abortion at all. Adult stem cells have already been programmed, which are taken from an adult human, to make that persons body. When taken, they are cleaned by a process known as plasma pheresis, then reinjected into that same person. An embryonic stem cell has NOT been programmed to make anything yet. It can be coaxed to do so where an adult cannot. An embryo is considered just that because it does not become a fetus until it is infused with blood. That process doesn't happen until twenty eight days after conception, and, it has no brain. Taking that into consideration, it is not alive. It can become so if implanted into a female uterus, but not until. So, in all actuality, it just sits in that petri dish doing absolutely nothing. I hope this gives you better insight as to what an embryonic stem cell is. Gunny -- Great Deals on Dell 15 Laptops - Starting at $479
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
Gary, thanks so much for this. I cringed, too, when I saw the former president characterized this way. I don't mind civil discussions of differences of opinions, but name-calling of anyone should not be a part of the process. There are many things I disagree with the current president about, but I would never call him names out of respect for his position. I appreciated Deb's clarifications. Nevertheless, there has been great, promising research using adult stem cells. One article is here: _http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080606102603.htm_ (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080606102603.htm) And another article about the man who began stem cell research (and who did use an embryo then) is here: _http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/science/22stem.html?_r=1_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/science/22stem.html?_r=1) Even he says in the article, 'If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough,” he said, and he has found ways to do it now without embryos. Barbara H. _http://barbarah.wordpress.com/_ (http://barbarah.wordpress.com/) In a message dated 3/25/2009 12:12:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dca...@earthlink.net writes: I will make just a short statement regarding this, as I do not wish to become involved in a debate. Dr. Kerr has stated in all of his talks that the BIGGEST mistake in the very beginning was to even give it the name embryonic stem cells. They are NOT embryos. They are NOT aborted fetuses. They are blastocysts - only two cells that could not ever survive outside of a petri dish on their own. Because the scientists made this mistake in the beginning of giving it the name embryonic stem cell, all of the right-to-life people came out and attacked this research from the git-go. If you view the talks from all of our symposia at _http://www.myelitis.org/events.htm_ (http://www.myelitis.org/events.htm) and listen carefully to Dr. Kerr's talks on stem cell research, you will have better knowledge of this. Regarding the idea of going out of the country to receive treatments, Dr. Kerr has also discussed this. The research is there, but the follow-up on the patients is lacking, so they have no record of how the patients did AFTER they left the country to go back home. Take care, Debbie - Original Message - From: _gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net_ (mailto:gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net) To: _Westgold_ (mailto:westg...@interlog.com) ; _Amanda Diskey_ (mailto:adis...@yahoo.com) ; _tmic-l...@eskimo.com_ (mailto:tmic-list@eskimo.com) Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 8:05 AM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) Our former president, George W. Bush, so disrespectfully referred to on this list as dumdum, was simply against the use of our tax money for embryonic stem cell research in consideration for those opposed, on moral grounds, to the use of aborted fetuses. Stem cell research was not stopped. It has widely been proclaimed (even on this list) that adult stem cell research has actually been more successful than embryonic cell research. _http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/_ (http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/) What should be of concern is the attitude, manifest in the new presidential administration, of disregard for sanctity of life. Surely such thinking in our governmental leadership would tend to provoke questioning as to compassion for TM'ers, especially those in adult years. Rather an irony-- a claim to compassion to help the suffering yet being quick to reinstate tax money for research which gives a boost to the abortion industry! I am not, by far, as learned as I would like to be on this subject, but just wish to include the opposite side to those who seem to hear that fetal embryonic research is the only answer to finding relief for those suffering from conditions such as ours (and, of course, worse). Gary in Michigan - Original Message - From: _Westgold_ (mailto:westg...@interlog.com) To: _Amanda Diskey_ (mailto:adis...@yahoo.com) ; _tmic-l...@eskimo.com_ (mailto:tmic-list@eskimo.com) Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 2:25 PM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell Hi -- there have been many success stories all over the world with stem cells, I am so glad our new president decided to let the researchers get back to it in a big way. You can google stem calls + various diseases, or stem cells + success, etc, and you'll get a lot of stuff. There were twin girls who went to China for stem cells a couple years ago, and they were helped tremendously. You used to be able to find their stories by googling stem cells + twins + Toronto -- try that. I personally believe that now that the research is back under way full steam, we will be seeing amazing things happening in just a year or two. Too bad those 8 years
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
Several weeks ago I went to a Meet the Scientist meeting for the Reeve Irvine Research Center held at the University of CA, Irvine. Both Dr. Oz Steward and Dr. Hans Keirstead of RIRC agree with Dr Kerr. The stem cells are blastocysts not embros. They are not aborted embros. That would have required the embros to be attached to the mothers womb. Not maintained in a dish, frozen. As far as going out of the country for care, both of these doctors also agree with Dr. Kerr. They highly advise against doing it. There are some pretty ugly things that have happened to people that did go out the country. These occurances also have a negative impact on how people view the research that is being done. Original Message - From: Deborah Nord Capen To: gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net ; Westgold ; Amanda Diskey ; tmic-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) I will make just a short statement regarding this, as I do not wish to become involved in a debate. Dr. Kerr has stated in all of his talks that the BIGGEST mistake in the very beginning was to even give it the name embryonic stem cells. They are NOT embryos. They are NOT aborted fetuses. They are blastocysts - only two cells that could not ever survive outside of a petri dish on their own. Because the scientists made this mistake in the beginning of giving it the name embryonic stem cell, all of the right-to-life people came out and attacked this research from the git-go. If you view the talks from all of our symposia at http://www.myelitis.org/events.htm and listen carefully to Dr. Kerr's talks on stem cell research, you will have better knowledge of this. Regarding the idea of going out of the country to receive treatments, Dr. Kerr has also discussed this. The research is there, but the follow-up on the patients is lacking, so they have no record of how the patients did AFTER they left the country to go back home. Take care, Debbie - Original Message - From: gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net To: Westgold ; Amanda Diskey ; tmic-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 8:05 AM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) Our former president, George W. Bush, so direspectfully referred to on this list as dumdum, was simply against the use of our tax money for embryonic stem cell research in consideration for those opposed, on moral grounds, to the use of aborted fetuses. Stem cell research was not stopped. It has widely been proclaimed (even on this list) that adult stem cell research has actually been more successful than embryonic cell research. http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/ What should be of concern is the attitude, manifest in the new presidential administration, of disregard for sanctity of life. Surely such thinking in our governmental leadership would tend to provoke questioning as to compassion for TM'ers, especially those in adult years. Rather an irony-- a claim to compassion to help the suffering yet being quick to reinstate tax money for research which gives a boost to the abortion industry! I am not, by far, as learned as I would like to be on this subject, but just wish to include the opposite side to those who seem to hear that fetal embryonic research is the only answer to finding relief for those suffering from conditions such as ours (and, of course, worse). Gary in Michigan - Original Message - From: Westgold To: Amanda Diskey ; tmic-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 2:25 PM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell Hi -- there have been many success stories all over the world with stem cells, I am so glad our new president decided to let the researchers get back to it in a big way. You can google stem calls + various diseases, or stem cells + success, etc, and you'll get a lot of stuff. There were twin girls who went to China for stem cells a couple years ago, and they were helped tremendously. You used to be able to find their stories by googling stem cells + twins + Toronto -- try that. I personally believe that now that the research is back under way full steam, we will be seeing amazing things happening in just a year or two. Too bad those 8 years of research were lost because of dumdum. - Original Message - From: Amanda Diskey To: tmic-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 2:12 PM Subject: [TMIC] stem cell I found a hospital in Panama City, Panama affiliated with Johns Hopkins, and they say they can treat me with stem cells. The lady I spoke with says they have treated one person with TM and got good results. The cost is $30,000. What do you all think? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
Good info going back and forth! You all realize that this is what this site is all about...helping each other in this very way, educating and getting educated, plus caring enough for each other to take the time to share our feelings and thoughts. Thank you all...Jeanne in Dayton ---Original Message--- From: Cindy McLeroy Date: 3/25/2009 1:58:23 PM To: gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net; Westgold; Amanda Diskey; tmic-l...@eskimo com Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) Several weeks ago I went to a Meet the Scientist meeting for the Reeve Irvine Research Center held at the University of CA, Irvine. Both Dr. Oz Steward and Dr. Hans Keirstead of RIRC agree with Dr Kerr. The stem cells are blastocysts not embros. They are not aborted embros. That would have required the embros to be attached to the mothers womb. Not maintained in a dish, frozen. As far as going out of the country for care, both of these doctors also agree with Dr. Kerr. They highly advise against doing it. There are some pretty ugly things that have happened to people that did go out the country. These occurances also have a negative impact on how people view the research that is being done. Original Message - From: Deborah Nord Capen To: gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net ; Westgold ; Amanda Diskey ; tmic-l...@eskimo com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) I will make just a short statement regarding this, as I do not wish to become involved in a debate. Dr. Kerr has stated in all of his talks that the BIGGEST mistake in the very beginning was to even give it the name embryonic stem cells. They are NOT embryos. They are NOT aborted fetuses. They are blastocysts - only two cells that could not ever survive outside of a petri dish on their own. Because the scientists made this mistake in the beginning of giving it the name embryonic stem cell, all of the right-to-life people came out and attacked this research from the git-go. If you view the talks from all of our symposia at http://www.myelitis org/events.htm and listen carefully to Dr. Kerr's talks on stem cell research, you will have better knowledge of this. Regarding the idea of going out of the country to receive treatments, Dr. Kerr has also discussed this. The research is there, but the follow-up on the patients is lacking, so they have no record of how the patients did AFTER they left the country to go back home. Take care, Debbie - Original Message - From: gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net To: Westgold ; Amanda Diskey ; tmic-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 8:05 AM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) Our former president, George W. Bush, so direspectfully referred to on this list as dumdum, was simply against the use of our tax money for embryonic stem cell research in consideration for those opposed, on moral grounds, to the use of aborted fetuses. Stem cell research was not stopped. It has widely been proclaimed (even on this list) that adult stem cell research has actually been more successful than embryonic cell research. http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/ What should be of concern is the attitude, manifest in the new presidential administration, of disregard for sanctity of life. Surely such thinking in our governmental leadership would tend to provoke questioning as to compassion for TM'ers, especially those in adult years. Rather an irony-- a claim to compassion to help the suffering yet being quick to reinstate tax money for research which gives a boost to the abortion industry! I am not, by far, as learned as I would like to be on this subject, but just wish to include the opposite side to those who seem to hear that fetal embryonic research is the only answer to finding relief for those suffering from conditions such as ours (and, of course, worse). Gary in Michigan - Original Message - From: Westgold To: Amanda Diskey ; tmic-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 2:25 PM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell Hi -- there have been many success stories all over the world with stem cells, I am so glad our new president decided to let the researchers get back to it in a big way. You can google stem calls + various diseases, or stem cells + success, etc, and you'll get a lot of stuff. There were twin girls who went to China for stem cells a couple years ago, and they were helped tremendously. You used to be able to find their stories by googling stem cells + twins + Toronto -- try that. I personally believe that now that the research is back under way full steam, we will be seeing amazing things happening in just a year or two. Too bad those 8 years of research were lost because of dumdum. - Original Message - From: Amanda Diskey To: tmic-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 2:12 PM Subject: [TMIC] stem cell I found a hospital in Panama City, Panama affiliated with Johns Hopkins, and they say they can treat me
Re: Fw: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
The problem I have with defining life as Gunny has as not beginning until 28 days after conception (the joining of the male sperm and the female egg) is that once conception occurs the zygote contains all of the genetic information (DNA) necessary to become a child. Half of the genetic information comes from the mother's egg and half from the father's sperm. The zygot continues to divide, creating an inner group of cells with an outer shell. This stage is called a blastocyst. The inner group of cells will become the embryo, while the outer group of cells will become the membranes that nourish and protect it. To me it makes sense the life begins at conception, as a single cell zygote, since at that point it contains everything to make a unique, individual and continues to divide on it's own. It happens without brain. Embryonic stem cell come from the blastocyst stage 45 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50150 cells. Every biology reference I have found talks about the beginning of life being the union of the two gametes, the male and female reproductive cells of any species. Jim I suggest reading, Declaration On The Production And The Scientific And Therapeutic Use Of Human Embryonic Stem Cells http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_2824_cellule-staminali_en.html - Original Message - From: mailto:bgunny7...@aol.combgunny7...@aol.com To: mailto:gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.netgbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) In a message dated 3/25/2009 11:06:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mailto:gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.netgbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net writes: Our former president, George W. Bush, so direspectfully referred to on this list as dumdum, was simply against the use of our tax money for embryonic stem cell research in consideration for those opposed, on moral grounds, to the use of aborted fetuses. Stem cell research was not stopped. It has widely been proclaimed (even on this list) that adult stem cell research has actually been more successful than embryonic cell research Not necessarily aborted fetus's. Embryonic stem cells can be grown in a petri dish simply by marrying a male sperm with a female egg. It has nothing to do with an abortion at all. Adult stem cells have already been programmed, which are taken from an adult human, to make that persons body. When taken, they are cleaned by a process known as plasma pheresis, then reinjected into that same person. An embryonic stem cell has NOT been programmed to make anything yet. It can be coaxed to do so where an adult cannot. An embryo is considered just that because it does not become a fetus until it is infused with blood. That process doesn't happen until twenty eight days after conception, and, it has no brain. Taking that into consideration, it is not alive. It can become so if implanted into a female uterus, but not until. So, in all actuality, it just sits in that petri dish doing absolutely nothing. I hope this gives you better insight as to what an embryonic stem cell is. Gunny Jim Lubin jlu...@eskimo.com http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
tAs a mother who conceived (the natural way) 6 times but only gave birth to 2 live infants I feel qualified to remind the greater community that every successful conception does not equal a child born even in natural circumstances, much less conceptions that occur in a dish. I mourned each one of those miscarriages as a child lost even after my 2nd child was born and I knew in my heart that my family was complete and that I was done with the baby stage of my life. My experience also led me to the conclusion that a life that cannot survive outside the mother is not entitled to citizenship rights equal to that of the mother until it is mature enough to survive once the umbilical cord is cut (or has turned 18, which ever comes first). When I got my drivers license I asked for an organ donor sticker and informed my parents of my wishes in the event of my death. As a parent I could be called upon to make a similar decision should a child of mine suffer a life ending tragedy... that the purpose of his or her short life can take on new meaning by giving life to others. whether you consider them blastocysts or babies, the couples who conceived them have already made the decision that they will never be born and have a meaningful purpose outside the petri dish. I truly believe the parents should have the right to decide the fate regarding the use of their unused fertilized egg's stem cells as well. Just as Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions on the basis of their beliefs, each one of us has the right to refuse any treatment we are uncomfortable with. but as for me, I donate blood (4 gallons), gave a sample to the bone marrow registry and if Dr. Kerr can use my middle aged eggs to heal others then he is welcome to them. Mindy the Artist The problem I have with defining life as Gunny has as not beginning until 28 days after conception (the joining of the male sperm and the female egg) is that once conception occurs the zygote contains all of the genetic information (DNA) necessary to become a child. Half of the genetic information comes from the mother’s egg and half from the father’s sperm. The zygot continues to divide, creating an inner group of cells with an outer shell. This stage is called a blastocyst. The inner group of cells will become the embryo, while the outer group of cells will become the membranes that nourish and protect it. To me it makes sense the life begins at conception, as a single cell zygote, since at that point it contains everything to make a unique, individual and continues to divide on it's own. It happens without brain. Embryonic stem cell come from the blastocyst stage 4–5 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50–150 cells. Every biology reference I have found talks about the beginning of life being the union of the two gametes, the male and female reproductive cells of any species. Jim I suggest reading, Declaration On The Production And The Scientific And Therapeutic Use Of Human Embryonic Stem Cells http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/ documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_2824_cellule-staminali_en.html - Original Message - From: bgunny7...@aol.com To: gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) In a message dated 3/25/2009 11:06:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net writes: Our former president, George W. Bush, so direspectfully referred to on this list as dumdum, was simply against the use of our tax money for embryonic stem cell research in consideration for those opposed, on moral grounds, to the use of aborted fetuses. Stem cell research was not stopped. It has widely been proclaimed (even on this list) that adult stem cell research has actually been more successful than embryonic cell research Not necessarily aborted fetus's. Embryonic stem cells can be grown in a petri dish simply by marrying a male sperm with a female egg. It has nothing to do with an abortion at all. Adult stem cells have already been programmed, which are taken from an adult human, to make that persons body. When taken, they are cleaned by a process known as plasma pheresis, then reinjected into that same person. An embryonic stem cell has NOT been programmed to make anything yet. It can be coaxed to do so where an adult cannot. An embryo is considered just that because it does not become a fetus until it is infused with blood. That process doesn't happen until twenty eight days after conception, and, it has no brain. Taking that into consideration, it is not alive. It can become so if implanted into a female uterus, but not until. So, in all actuality, it just sits in that petri dish doing absolutely nothing. I hope this gives you better insight as to what an embryonic stem cell is. Gunny Jim Lubin jlu
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
I know I am in the minority in my believes, but I do not believe in IVF that creates embryos to begin with. If these embryos were not being created to then there would be no so called leftover embryos. Are you aware that President Obama signed H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, on March 11th (2 days after signing the executive order to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cells) that contained the following: The text of Section 509 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, reads as follows: SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)). (b) For purposes of this section, the term ''human embryo or embryos'' includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells. Guess he should have READ the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 before signing it into law... I followed the link on http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FY2009OmnibusAppropriationsActPublicReview/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FY2009OmnibusAppropriationsActPu blicReview/ to see if it was true, sure enough, it's in there http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/2009_Con_Bill_DivF.pdfhttp://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/2009_Con_Bill_DivF.pdf If you want to read it yourself, pg 128, lines 9 - 24. there are 2 pages inserted so it is page 130 of the pdf. At 05:25 PM 3/25/2009, Lawrence King wrote: whether you consider them blastocysts or babies, the couples who conceived them have already made the decision that they will never be born and have a meaningful purpose outside the petri dish. I truly believe the parents should have the right to decide the fate regarding the use of their unused fertilized egg's stem cells as well. Jim Lubin jlu...@eskimo.com http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
Jim, I do respect your beliefs and your extensive knowledge regarding stem cell research. I'm guessing you would consider treatment derived from adult lines but might decline so called embryonic lines. I'm sure we'd all be relieved if adult stem cells turned out to be the best solution after all. As for the Omnibus Appropriations act I admit my BFA degree doesn't help me understand the legal language used in such bills. Could you interpret it in common language? Mindy the Artist On Mar 25, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Jim Lubin wrote: I know I am in the minority in my believes, but I do not believe in IVF that creates embryos to begin with. If these embryos were not being created to then there would be no so called leftover embryos. Are you aware that President Obama signed H.R. 1105, the “Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009,” on March 11th (2 days after signing the executive order to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cells) that contained the following: The text of Section 509 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, reads as follows: SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for (1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)). (b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘human embryo or embryos’’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells. Guess he should have READ the “Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 before signing it into law... I followed the link on http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ FY2009OmnibusAppropriationsActPu blicReview/ to see if it was true, sure enough, it's in there http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/2009_Con_Bill_DivF.pdf If you want to read it yourself, pg 128, lines 9 - 24. there are 2 pages inserted so it is page 130 of the pdf. At 05:25 PM 3/25/2009, Lawrence King wrote: whether you consider them blastocysts or babies, the couples who conceived them have already made the decision that they will never be born and have a meaningful purpose outside the petri dish. I truly believe the parents should have the right to decide the fate regarding the use of their unused fertilized egg's stem cells as well. Jim Lubin jlu...@eskimo.com http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?)
What a very special note, Mindy...Thank you for sharing with us..Jeanne ---Original Message--- From: Lawrence King Date: 3/25/2009 7:27:14 PM To: tmic-list@eskimo.com Cc: Lawrence King Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) tAs a mother who conceived (the natural way) 6 times but only gave birth to 2 live infants I feel qualified to remind the greater community that every successful conception does not equal a child born even in natural circumstances, much less conceptions that occur in a dish. I mourned each one of those miscarriages as a child lost even after my 2nd child was born and I knew in my heart that my family was complete and that I was done with the baby stage of my life. My experience also led me to the conclusion that a life that cannot survive outside the mother is not entitled to citizenship rights equal to that of the mother until it is mature enough to survive once the umbilical cord is cut (or has turned 18, which ever comes first). When I got my drivers license I asked for an organ donor sticker and informed my parents of my wishes in the event of my death. As a parent I could be called upon to make a similar decision should a child of mine suffer a life ending tragedy... that the purpose of his or her short life can take on new meaning by giving life to others. whether you consider them blastocysts or babies, the couples who conceived them have already made the decision that they will never be born and have a meaningful purpose outside the petri dish. I truly believe the parents should have the right to decide the fate regarding the use of their unused fertilized egg's stem cells as well. Just as Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions on the basis of their beliefs, each one of us has the right to refuse any treatment we are uncomfortable with. but as for me, I donate blood (4 gallons), gave a sample to the bone marrow registry and if Dr. Kerr can use my middle aged eggs to heal others then he is welcome to them. Mindy the Artist The problem I have with defining life as Gunny has as not beginning until 28 days after conception (the joining of the male sperm and the female egg) is that once conception occurs the zygote contains all of the genetic information (DNA) necessary to become a child. Half of the genetic information comes from the mothers egg and half from the fathers sperm. The zygot continues to divide, creating an inner group of cells with an outer shell. This stage is called a blastocyst. The inner group of cells will become the embryo, while the outer group of cells will become the membranes that nourish and protect it. To me it makes sense the life begins at conception, as a single cell zygote, since at that point it contains everything to make a unique, individual and continues to divide on it's own. It happens without brain. Embryonic stem cell come from the blastocyst stage 45 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50150 cells. Every biology reference I have found talks about the beginning of life being the union of the two gametes, the male and female reproductive cells of any species. Jim I suggest reading, Declaration On The Production And The Scientific And Therapeutic Use Of Human Embryonic Stem Cells http://www.vatican va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_2 24_cellule-staminali_en.html - Original Message - From: bgunny7...@aol.com To: gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [TMIC] stem cell (OT?) In a message dated 3/25/2009 11:06:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gbthomas8...@sbcglobal.net writes: Our former president, George W. Bush, so direspectfully referred to on this list as dumdum, was simply against the use of our tax money for embryonic stem cell research in consideration for those opposed, on moral grounds, to the use of aborted fetuses. Stem cell research was not stopped. It has widely been proclaimed (even on this list) that adult stem cell research has actually been more successful than embryonic cell research Not necessarily aborted fetus's. Embryonic stem cells can be grown in a petri dish simply by marrying a male sperm with a female egg. It has nothing to do with an abortion at all. Adult stem cells have already been programmed which are taken from an adult human, to make that persons body. When taken, they are cleaned by a process known as plasma pheresis, then reinjected into that same person. An embryonic stem cell has NOT been programmed to make anything yet. It can be coaxed to do so where an adult cannot. An embryo is considered just that because it does not become a fetus until it is infused with blood. That process doesn't happen until twenty eight days after conception, and, it has no brain. Taking that into consideration, it is not alive. It can become so if implanted into a female uterus, but not until. So in all actuality, it just sits in that petri dish doing
