Stemcells save an HIV positive man

Well, the (mostly) religious people who oppose stem cells just got their asses kicked. I'm feeling lazy today, so here's some copy pasta.

Doctors who carried out a stem cell transplant on an HIV-infected man with leukaemia in 2007 say they now believe the man to have been cured of HIV infection as a result of the treatment, which introduced stem cells which happened to be resistant to HIV infection.

The man received bone marrow from a donor who had natural resistance to HIV infection; this was due to a genetic profile which led to the CCR5 co-receptor being absent from his cells. The most common variety of HIV uses CCR5 as its 'docking station', attaching to it in order to enter and infect CD4 cells, and people with this mutation are almost completely protected against infection.

The case was first reported at the 2008 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston, and Berlin doctors subsequently published a detailed case history in the New England Journal of Medicine in February 2009.

They have now published a follow-up report in the journal Blood, arguing that based on the results of extensive tests.

http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1577949/

----

Well, it's at least a breakthrough in the search for an HIV cure. It's not something we can replicate en masse yet, but soon we will be, and the mass solution might be stem cells. But because some religious people along with a bunch of other people, mostly stupid people who are following the herd i bet, stem cell resarch isn't getting the funding it should get. Especially in the US, which seems to have so many idiots, religious people and combinations of both that you can't reintroduce state funding for this kind of resarch without having a crowd call you all sorts of mean things.

So, what's your opinion on stem cell resarch and this case in particular? Oh, and if we get a debate, keep it civilized or it'll get locked, and you'll get a warning.

Well i've always approved stem cell research weather there gatherd from bone marrow or embryos, personally i think the benifits outweigh the negatives in this type of medicine.

Y'know, I think I heard that they were trying to develop this a while back. I never did much in research towards this, so I dunno what everyone's problem with stem cell research is in the first place

I agree. I mean, we have this new field with incredible potential, so why not use it? Sure, the best stem cells are taken from fetuses, but i completely fail to see how that can matter. They're dead anyway, we could either just incinerate them, or we could use them to give a disabled person his normal life back.

Growing embryos is a little more controversial, but i think it should be legal. It's not like it's a ''human'' yet. Yes, it's biologicly human and so on, but it isn't really ''alive'' in the way a baby is.

That's a whole other can of worms there though. Even though in all technicality it isn't alive by our standards, do we have the right to grow them and then (I'm assuming they do this) destroy them. The moral line is very, very fine on that one. In fact it's so fine, you pretty much can't take a direction in either way. Like I can't say that it's right, but I can't say that it's wrong either. It's very very difficult to judge IMO

Yeah, people who are against stem cell resarch because ''WEREACTINGLIKEGOOOOOOD! OH NOOEEEES!'' are fucking idiots, but i can understand people who are against growing embryos. It just doesn't feel right, but logically, it's pretty much the same as killing an animal, if not worse since the animal is actually technically alive, whereas the embryo isn't in purely technical terms.

It's the looking down the road factor. The fact that this would eventually become a sentient and self aware human being. It's a very interesting one to think out sometimes, but I don't think there's an answer for it. Hell, even with killing animals one could argue that it's immoral to do that. Sure other animals kill other animals, but it's simply for food and we are omnivores, so unlike most animals who don't have a choice, we can choose to eat plants. Regardless of morals or not, I think we are over consuming animals at a fantastically gross rate. I men factory farming is just the starting point, we're consuming way too much, more than we need to

Well if you get a more layed back guy as the POTUS, who doesn't really care for lives, then they can have there funding. But Really, its stupid people who think there divine god can do any think, who is hampering the growth of our world. With out them, maybe we'd live in a world with peace.

You can thank America for that. Factory farming isn't really common here, we mostly have real farms where the cows can walk around at least a little instead of standing on a shelf for its entire life. But then again, we do import alot of our meat... So that might be why. If we had to get all our meat from our own farms, factory farming would probably be more common.

And i don't really think it's immoral to kill cows. They're pretty much biological robots, mindless.

While the embryo will become a human being if left to grow, it's not a human in any way other than biologically before it's born and starts developing basic human ''skills'' like empathy, morals and the like.

But the fact remains that in the future it would still become a human, or at least an "aware" human. So is it really right to kill it in the "pre" phase, even though it's not conscious, but it's still a human that would become conscious? I dunno, I'm just posing the question.
As for the animals, I have nothing against killing or eating them, but I think we're doing too much of it, because they still are living beings and though not sentient, apparently they (meaning most animals) experience basic emotions, fear, joy etc. So I guess the question is, is their sole purpose in life to be eaten?

If abortion is legal, then Stem cells from embryos should be legally fine.

Ah, and the immortal clash of legal vs ethical.

I have a problem with embryos being used. As DW says, there is no defining point between human and 'subhuman'. Could you not therefore say a toddler has not the full sentience of an adult, so is fair game to be harvested for something?

Well, difference is, the toddler has been born and is now fully ''alive''. The embryo however isn't. I mean, sure, it's alive as in some of the basic systems that have been completed might flare up everyone once in a while (a stray nerve signal or whatever), but it's not really alive. Hell, it's brain hasn't even been ''completed'' (a toddlers technically isn't complete, but an embryo brain isn't anywhere near being completed). Or, well, at least if said embryo is harvested before it develops properly...

You could say it's alredy got a ''soul'' in it, but i personally don't believe in the religious definition of a soul.

And soul is one of those undefinable terms really. Can range from essence to personality to individuality to a whole range of things. I do like Shem's point of a toddler which isn't fully developed. Basically, what this comes down to is deciding plain and simply, what counts as a human being in its entirety, no matter what stage of its existence its at. The only problem is, man isn't able to do that IMO, religion or not, man shouldn't and doesn't have the right or privilege to decide what's a human, at least I think so

What will happen, is when stem cell research , be comes more successful, the Elite will jump on the band wagon, and won't care if it's legal or not.

Darkwing wrote:man shouldn't and doesn't have the right or privilege to decide what's a human, at least I think so

Because the last major time we did that, we had a little something called the Holocaust that I'm pretty sure people know about that. Oh, and slavery too.

Honestly though, a fetus is just a clump of cells. I don't see much wrong with using unwanted fetuses to help save lives.

lets just build a fake universe and call it The Matrix. we can grow people and put them into this universe while giving them eternal happiness. then we can harvest humans and they won't even realize it!

sounds humane to me.

THE MATRIX DONE IT! how about people just see the benifits, there is no problem if the ends justify(suffeciently) the means.

Would you kill a hundred people to save a thousand?

It depends, do I want to save a thousand people who will then just take life for granted or do i make them Christian.

Hell yes, i'd kill the shit out of those hundred. Anyone who says otherwise is either being selfish as hell, or wouldn't really do it if it happened in real life.

Killing a hundred is is better than letting a thousand die.

Ok, interesting, how about this one, just heard it on SGA so the timing is quite appropriate.

There is a train coming. 3 people are on the tracks. You can avoid hitting the people by switching the tracks. However, on the other track, there is a baby. Do you kill the three to save the baby, or the baby to save the three?

Are the three super scientists or important at all, Unimportance drives this world.

Depends. If it's 3 very old people who are going to die in a couple of years anyway, save the baby. If it's adults, teenagers or the like, save them. It's the only logical thing to do. The life of one human (who hasn't even developed things like empathy and logic yet) for the life of 3 humans who have most of their lives ahead of them.

Saving the baby and letting 3 (not old) people die is incredibly stupid.

Or, well, maybe if you know the baby is going to make a massive contribution to humanity that outweighs any contributions the other three make, letting the three would be the best thing to do. Like if it's 3 chavs or ''gangstas'' as those call themselves and the baby is going to become an incredibly important scientist.

You can't save a baby, on the pretence it, it's life is greater, than three of the greatest scientists of the current time line.

wtf HAPPENED TO THE FORUM.

Let's say you don't know. They appear to be healthy adults, maybe some late teenagers, but that's all you know. The baby who could grow up, who hasn't even experienced anything yet, or the three who you have no idea could be the greatest scientists of all time, or could be criminals, or just plain folk, you have no idea

Let the three live. Anything else makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, what gives the baby more right to live than three people? It's not even completely ''human'' yet, since it hasn't developed the basics unlike the 3 guys.

But what if the three were people who were murderers and raped people? The baby could turn out to be the greatest person of all history, but you don't know.

I find it interesting that you have a very clear idea of what a human is Thingy, not that I'm saying its wrong, but be careful, because it can lead to a path of discrimination and in its extreme, worse *coughhitlercough*

*Facepalm*

No. Discrimination against babies is the only thing that could happen, and that doesn't count. Because they're too stupid to care.

You see, the baby could become a murderer and rapist too, but the chances of saving a decent person increases if you save three. Also, it's three lives, the baby is one life. It doesn't matter if it's very small. It's still only one life.

The reason hitler became what he is and nazis believe in a master race is genetics. They think the genetics of jews and africans developed differently, leaving the modern african/jew geneticly inferior to the modern european (and by extension north american since they're basically the same thing). What i believe is that you're not really completely ''human'' till you're at least conscious, and not a complete human till you have all the human basics like empathy and logic. Though that doesn't mean the life of a baby is worth less than the life of a 20 year old.

Yeah, as per usual, you only sort of understood what I was driving at. You at least get the gist by the end, by stating the worth of life being equal, which is closer to the point I'm trying to make.

And you obviously missed the point about Hitler completely

I must congratulate you guys though, I seriously expected a thread like this to go downhill fast

Now lets start flaming to destory what little hope DW had for us

Yeah yeah, he didn't value life and i could end up like that and so on and so forth. But i still don't think that's really possible, at least not according to how i view life at the moment. And other than having little value for life, there's really nothing else we'd have in common. Mao Zedong or Stalin would be a much better example than Hitler. They did what they did because they really didn't give a shit about human life. He cared about human life. Or at least German lives. Kind of... Or maybe not... Or never mind...

Oh, I never said there was hope, I was just congratulating you for not doing it yet

Thingy wrote:Yeah yeah, he didn't value life and i could end up like that and so on and so forth. But i still don't think that's really possible, at least not according to how i view life at the moment. And other than having little value for life, there's really nothing else we'd have in common. Mao Zedong or Stalin would be a much better example than Hitler. They did what they did because they really didn't give a shit about human life. He cared about human life. Or at least German lives. Kind of... Or maybe not... Or never mind...

Nope, this one's gone right past you!

leewatson1 wrote:Now lets start flaming to destory what little hope DW had for us

*fires up the old flamer*


Erhm. UR GAY FUR THINKUNG LAIF IS VALIABLE! U GONNA HAVE BOYSEX VIT LIFE NAO? U GAY IN LAIF? GAAAAAAAAAY FAAAAG HOOMOOO DW+LAIFE=TRUE.

And care to explain what you meant then?

I'm soon gonna have to start up a Thingian Dictionary/Translator

And sure, why not. Hopefully you'll see the relevance in the extreme sense. I by no mean intend to imply that you will become Hitler, though your global domination thing might change that

Basically it's this, Hitler defined what a human being was. He made clear distinctions to what was and wasn't human. Hopefully you see what I'm getting at, with the right chemical imbalances in your brain and the ability to lead people and get them to believe what you want. Like I said, this is the extreme case of what happens when one person sets a clear cut definition of what is human and what isn't.

Oh. That's probably why i didn't get it, didn't think it was that far between what i thought and what he thought. Or what i could start thinking given a couple of years or whatever.

Yeah, it's just the awareness thing. I find once you become aware of the path, you will avoid it (that's a good thing BTW). I was just stating as an example how something big and evil like that could start from something small and relatively innocent.

As you guys know I seem to be the token 'passionate' Christian of of the forum (not being arrogant or anything) however I have to say that on this subject I am extremely conflicted, stem cells on their own. love them, harvesting eggs from women, that's fine ( providing it is done in a non harmful way) harvesting bone marrow great idea (again within boundary's) harvesting embryos..... I have to say no. primarily because it kills me to think of what the embryo could have become. ( personal reasons for that, if you want to know more pm me about it) however as soon as the embryo develops the beginnings of human like form I must and will always have the opinion that killing it with intent is wrong. I know I may sound weird but it saddens me to think of kids that could have lived. that is a different issue though.

there that is my statement.

this debate will probably go on as long as the creation/evolution one does... they are very entwined. and it would help if we knew what exactly happens after death, but after 100,000 years without knowing, its still a debate.