|
Home > Archive > Diabetes > August 2006 > Cell Research
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
|
Subject: Stem Cell research
Write our president immediately and advise him that you, your church,
your friends, your students and anyone else you know who think as we do
that these small babies should not be killed for research.
Our president understand our hearts and our love for life. We must
preserve all forms of early life even if it is seconds old. He has
made provision that research can be done on those cells that were
available prior to his becomming president but NONE can be done during
his reign using new cells.
We don't need to continue this murder of the preborn so we must stand
up and agree 100% with Senator Santorum and The president.
Here are two great men who have called for an all out war on the
murderers of the pre-born and the unborn.
Please remember Sen. Santorum when it comes time to vote for a new
president who is wholly Christian and totally moral. We are so
fortunate to have President George W. Bush during these dangerous
times. Support him. Write to the newspapers, call radio stations and
anyother media you can think of.
Write, call do whatever you can to impress others to send this message
to President Bush to VETO this bill that would allow more babies to be
killed.
Thanks and God bless you.
| |
| Nico Kadel-Garcia 2006-07-20, 2:19 am |
| baron wrote:
> Subject: Stem Cell research
>
>
> Write our president immediately and advise him that you, your church,
> your friends, your students and anyone else you know who think as we
> do that these small babies should not be killed for research.
"Every sperm.... is sacred..... Every sperm..... is good......"
These are not babies: we're talking a few cells that were never viable
fetuses, never had a brain stem, never even had a nervous system. You may as
well declare blood samples at the Red Cross human beings with rights.
Our president is more concerned about anything that smacks of interfering in
human fertility, including medical research that can actually save lives,
than he is about contributing to the death of over 300,00 innocent people in
Iraq, including US and especially Iraqi civilian casualties. Let's see him
show more concern about those deaths before we worry about the death of
tissue samples.
| |
| Roberts 2006-07-20, 2:19 am |
|
"Nico Kadel-Garcia" <nkadel@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9badnZXvj5CmdiPZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> baron wrote:
>
> "Every sperm.... is sacred..... Every sperm..... is good......"
>
> These are not babies: we're talking a few cells that were never viable
> fetuses, never had a brain stem, never even had a nervous system. You may
> as well declare blood samples at the Red Cross human beings with rights.
>
> Our president is more concerned about anything that smacks of interfering
> in human fertility, including medical research that can actually save
> lives, than he is about contributing to the death of over 300,00 innocent
> people in Iraq, including US and especially Iraqi civilian casualties.
> Let's see him show more concern about those deaths before we worry about
> the death of tissue samples.
>Not just Iraq what about Lebanon, the evil Bush is holding off doing any
>thing to enable more damage and death to be done to largely innocent
>people. Worry about this rather than cells that may or may not become
>babies
| |
| service@bitcoelectronics.com 2006-07-20, 8:20 am |
|
baron wrote:
> done during his reign...
Inadvertent but ironically apropos choice of words.
| |
| Wizzzer 2006-07-22, 9:19 pm |
| I hope by the time that you read this that you are shaking
uncontrollably, unable to feed yourself or even unable to pee
by yourself. Perhaps it will be you, or maybe your parents,
or possibly your children that are afflicted. You have asked
for a hell of a lot of bad karma from a hell of a lot of good
people who could benefit from this research. If it happens to
you, or yours.... remember your post to this BB. We'll be
thinking about you, REALLY hard.
Cheers, Wizzzer
| |
| cadcoke3@yahoo.com 2006-07-26, 9:19 pm |
|
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> These are not babies: we're talking a few cells that were never viable
> fetuses, never had a brain stem, never even had a nervous system.
We normally call the union of sperm and egg conception... the
beginning. A fertalized egg, if simply placed in the proper nurturing
enviroment will grow to an adult human. That is very different from an
individual sperm or blood cell.
Another noteworth item I've read about regards the number of
permutations between the DNA of sperm and egg upon their union; it
exceeds the number of atoms estimated to exist in our universe. This
unions is about as special an event as you can imagine.
Our generation is not the first one to find "non human" sources of
tissue to cure diseases. But, we look back at that prior generation of
healers with horror.
Joe Dunfee
Type I Diabetic
| |
| Nico Kadel-Garcia 2006-07-27, 2:19 am |
|
<cadcoke3@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153958511.931567.64720@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
> We normally call the union of sperm and egg conception... the
> beginning. A fertalized egg, if simply placed in the proper nurturing
> enviroment will grow to an adult human. That is very different from an
> individual sperm or blood cell.
No, most of them will *die*. Only a few survive long enough to start
interesting things like brainstems.
And a gleam in my eye looking upon my wife, placed in the appropriate
nurturing environment, will lead to a family of hundreds of descendants.
Shall the gleam in my eye have the same rights and protections as the
hundreds of living descendants? I think not!
> Another noteworth item I've read about regards the number of
> permutations between the DNA of sperm and egg upon their union; it
> exceeds the number of atoms estimated to exist in our universe. This
> unions is about as special an event as you can imagine.
So are the first several hundred digits of pi, or the exact genetic
structure of an amoeba. Uniqueness is hardly unique.
> Our generation is not the first one to find "non human" sources of
> tissue to cure diseases. But, we look back at that prior generation of
> healers with horror.
OK, now you're just being silly. Willow tree bark for headache, bandages for
bleeding, curare for tetanus, oranges for scurvy, etc. all have "non-human"
sources of material for curing diseases. Or do you mean specifially for
transplants? The whole concept of transplants was viewed with horror when
first developed, but it's turned into a lively business (with a recent
reporter by a former secretary of state of Canada, reporting Chinese Falun
Gong members being harvested for a trade in transplantable organs, eek!)
The stem cells are harvested and cultured. A sufficient supply for culturing
(according to the report I read 10 years ago) a're easily havested from
natural abortions, dead and failed babies who otherwise are burned as
medical waste, or in a few cases buried. I can't think of a better use for
that tissue.
There is a potential slippery slope: actual living, moving, talking people
have previously been classified as "non-human" for trivial reasons and
denied rights for trivial reasons, but in this case, we're not talking about
people. We're talking about medical waste.
| |
| mike gray 2006-07-27, 4:19 pm |
| Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
> There is a potential slippery slope: actual living, moving, talking people
> have previously been classified as "non-human" for trivial reasons and
> denied rights for trivial reasons, but in this case, we're not talking about
> people. We're talking about medical waste.
As of the end of last year, there were 3,373 prisoners on death
row in the US. That's 3,373 pancreases condemned to becoming
medical waste.
Rather than piss away the taxpayers' money on disincentivized
federal grantees duplicating research already done in the
private sector with investor funding, let's harvest the good
stuff that's already there for the taking.
| |
|
| Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@comcast.net> wrote:
|| <cadcoke3@yahoo.com> wrote in message
|| news:1153958511.931567.64720@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|||
||| Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
|||| These are not babies: we're talking a few cells that were
|||| never viable fetuses, never had a brain stem, never even
|||| had a nervous system.
|||
||| We normally call the union of sperm and egg conception...
||| the
||| beginning. A fertalized egg, if simply placed in the proper
||| nurturing enviroment will grow to an adult human. That is
||| very different from an individual sperm or blood cell.
||
|| No, most of them will *die*. Only a few survive long enough
|| to start interesting things like brainstems.
||
|| And a gleam in my eye looking upon my wife, placed in the
|| appropriate nurturing environment, will lead to a family of
|| hundreds of descendants. Shall the gleam in my eye have the
|| same rights and protections as the hundreds of living
|| descendants? I think not!
||
||| Another noteworth item I've read about regards the number
of
||| permutations between the DNA of sperm and egg upon their
||| union; it
||| exceeds the number of atoms estimated to exist in our
||| universe. This unions is about as special an event as you
||| can imagine.
||
|| So are the first several hundred digits of pi, or the exact
|| genetic structure of an amoeba. Uniqueness is hardly unique.
||
||| Our generation is not the first one to find "non human"
||| sources of
||| tissue to cure diseases. But, we look back at that prior
||| generation of healers with horror.
||
|| OK, now you're just being silly. Willow tree bark for
|| headache, bandages for bleeding, curare for tetanus, oranges
|| for scurvy, etc. all have "non-human" sources of material for
|| curing diseases. Or do you mean specifially for transplants?
|| The whole concept of transplants was viewed with horror when
|| first developed, but it's turned into a lively business (with
|| a recent reporter by a former secretary of state of Canada,
|| reporting Chinese Falun Gong members being harvested for a
|| trade in transplantable organs, eek!)
||
|| The stem cells are harvested and cultured. A sufficient
|| supply for culturing (according to the report I read 10 years
|| ago) a're easily havested from natural abortions, dead and
|| failed babies who otherwise are burned as medical waste, or
|| in a few cases buried. I can't think of a better use for that
|| tissue.
||
|| There is a potential slippery slope: actual living, moving,
|| talking people have previously been classified as "non-human"
|| for trivial reasons and denied rights for trivial reasons,
|| but in this case, we're not talking about people. We're
|| talking about medical waste.
There are also the 1.3 million plus abortions per year performed
in the U.S. These fetuses are disposed of, in most cases these
are not viable humans. Why can't these fetuses also be used for
research?
--
It's a place to listen and read for a while, called lurking. Get
an idea of the tone of the community. Learn who the trolls and
troublemakers are and ignore them.
| |
| Nico Kadel-Garcia 2006-07-27, 4:19 pm |
| Cuz wrote:
> There are also the 1.3 million plus abortions per year performed
> in the U.S. These fetuses are disposed of, in most cases these
> are not viable humans. Why can't these fetuses also be used for
> research?
A: They're really not needed. Harvesting the natural abortions and
miscarriages can provide plenty of cultrable tissue.
B: That's where the slippery slope starts getting nasty: the potential for
harvesting fetal tissues for organ transplantation is so linked to voluntary
abortion in some folks minds, especially conservative "pro-life" activists,
that to even start thinking that is anathema to them and death to political
campaigns. It's also slippery in that pregnant woman might take a chunk of
cash, or a free abortion, in return for surrendering their fetuses. Anything
that makes abortion easier or less destructive is anathema to these
activists: and in theory, if you don't know much about stem cell culturing,
you could get mothers selling off their fetuses right up until labor begins.
If such tissues turned out to be wildly more useful than they currently are,
you could even get poor women selling fetuses the way winos try to sell
their own blood.
That's where you need to make sensible laws about such havesting, to prevent
serious craziness from occurring.
| |
|
| Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@comcast.net> wrote:
|| Cuz wrote:
||
||| There are also the 1.3 million plus abortions per year
||| performed
||| in the U.S. These fetuses are disposed of, in most cases
||| these
||| are not viable humans. Why can't these fetuses also be used
||| for
||| research?
||
|| A: They're really not needed. Harvesting the natural
|| abortions and miscarriages can provide plenty of cultrable
|| tissue.
||
|| B: That's where the slippery slope starts getting nasty: the
|| potential for harvesting fetal tissues for organ
|| transplantation is so linked to voluntary abortion in some
|| folks minds, especially conservative "pro-life" activists,
|| that to even start thinking that is anathema to them and
|| death to political campaigns. It's also slippery in that
|| pregnant woman might take a chunk of cash, or a free
|| abortion, in return for surrendering their fetuses. Anything
|| that makes abortion easier or less destructive is anathema to
|| these activists: and in theory, if you don't know much about
|| stem cell culturing, you could get mothers selling off their
|| fetuses right up until labor begins. If such tissues turned
|| out to be wildly more useful than they currently are, you
|| could even get poor women selling fetuses the way winos try
|| to sell their own blood.
||
|| That's where you need to make sensible laws about such
|| havesting, to prevent serious craziness from occurring.
Sure a waste of material that could be useful. Besides what
is the problem with a woman getting paid for her fetus.
Her body, her choice.
--
It's a place to listen and read for a while, called lurking. Get
an idea of the tone of the community. Learn who the trolls and
troublemakers are and ignore them.
| |
| Nico Kadel-Garcia 2006-07-27, 9:19 pm |
| Cuz wrote:
> Sure a waste of material that could be useful. Besides what
> is the problem with a woman getting paid for her fetus.
> Her body, her choice.
It's unnecessary, since there are plenty of miscarriages to provide the
tissue samples, and any trade in human tissues can become a source of
infected tissue entering the transplant pool (such as the time when winos
and drug addicts sold blood, before HIV was identified and became testable).
It's also risky to the woman, and wiould inevitably lead to cases where the
window for abortion before the fetus is considered viable has in fact passed
but the abortion occurs anyway without a fiscal need. That gets into
legally, and ethically, different territory.
| |
| mike gray 2006-07-28, 2:19 am |
| Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> Cuz wrote:
>
>
>
>
> A: They're really not needed. Harvesting the natural abortions and
> miscarriages can provide plenty of cultrable tissue.
>
> B: That's where the slippery slope starts getting nasty: the potential for
> harvesting fetal tissues for organ transplantation is so linked to voluntary
> abortion in some folks minds, especially conservative "pro-life" activists,
> that to even start thinking that is anathema to them and death to political
> campaigns. It's also slippery in that pregnant woman might take a chunk of
> cash, or a free abortion, in return for surrendering their fetuses. Anything
> that makes abortion easier or less destructive is anathema to these
> activists: and in theory, if you don't know much about stem cell culturing,
> you could get mothers selling off their fetuses right up until labor begins.
> If such tissues turned out to be wildly more useful than they currently are,
> you could even get poor women selling fetuses the way winos try to sell
> their own blood.
>
> That's where you need to make sensible laws about such havesting, to prevent
> serious craziness from occurring.
>
>
>
Yer a bit confused. The only question is whether we should be
spending taxpayer money on this scam.
Of course, changing the subject does put a lot more bucks in the
pockets of researchers that do not have enough credibility to
raise funds from investors.
| |
| Nico Kadel-Garcia 2006-07-28, 8:19 am |
| mike gray wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> Yer a bit confused. The only question is whether we should be
> spending taxpayer money on this scam.
>
> Of course, changing the subject does put a lot more bucks in the
> pockets of researchers that do not have enough credibility to
> raise funds from investors.
What scam? Stem cell transplants have had very promising animal results and
are well worth pursuing in either medical or scientific terms. We can learn
quite a lot about the immune system and about how tissue forms from studying
them, and we can potentially treat diseases like Type 1 diabetes and
Parkinson's disease or even neural grafts for spinal tissue. It's very
interesting research.
The "scam" part is where political idiots go "ohhhhh, stem cells, fetuses,
abortions, I can get votes by interfering with stuff many voters won't
understand while not actually getting in a public fight about abortnon".
| |
|
| Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@comcast.net> wrote:
|| Cuz wrote:
||
||| Sure a waste of material that could be useful. Besides what
||| is the problem with a woman getting paid for her fetus.
||| Her body, her choice.
||
|| It's unnecessary, since there are plenty of miscarriages to
|| provide the tissue samples, and any trade in human tissues
|| can become a source of infected tissue entering the
|| transplant pool (such as the time when winos and drug addicts
|| sold blood, before HIV was identified and became testable).
|| It's also risky to the woman, and wiould inevitably lead to
|| cases where the window for abortion before the fetus is
|| considered viable has in fact passed but the abortion occurs
|| anyway without a fiscal need. That gets into legally, and
|| ethically, different territory.
An abortion is basically the same as a miscarriage, just doctor
aided. One is wanted and the other is unwanted. Seems to me
the miscarriage would be a bigger horror to use for scientific
experimentation.
--
It's a place to listen and read for a while, called lurking. Get
an idea of the tone of the community. Learn who the trolls and
troublemakers are and ignore them.
| |
|
| Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@comcast.net> wrote:
|| mike gray wrote:
||| Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
||
|||| That's where you need to make sensible laws about such
|||| havesting, to prevent serious craziness from occurring.
||||
||||
||||
||| Yer a bit confused. The only question is whether we should
be
||| spending taxpayer money on this scam.
|||
||| Of course, changing the subject does put a lot more bucks in
||| the pockets of researchers that do not have enough
||| credibility to
||| raise funds from investors.
||
|| What scam? Stem cell transplants have had very promising
|| animal results and are well worth pursuing in either medical
|| or scientific terms. We can learn quite a lot about the
|| immune system and about how tissue forms from studying them,
|| and we can potentially treat diseases like Type 1 diabetes
|| and Parkinson's disease or even neural grafts for spinal
|| tissue. It's very interesting research.
||
|| The "scam" part is where political idiots go "ohhhhh, stem
|| cells, fetuses, abortions, I can get votes by interfering
|| with stuff many voters won't understand while not actually
|| getting in a public fight about abortnon".
Oh those wonderous stem cells.
http://www.sciam.com/print_version....C0A83414B7F0000
--
It's a place to listen and read for a while, called lurking. Get
an idea of the tone of the community. Learn who the trolls and
troublemakers are and ignore them.
| |
|
| Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@comcast.net> wrote:
|| Cuz wrote:
||
||| Sure a waste of material that could be useful. Besides what
||| is the problem with a woman getting paid for her fetus.
||| Her body, her choice.
||
|| It's unnecessary, since there are plenty of miscarriages to
|| provide the tissue samples, and any trade in human tissues
|| can become a source of infected tissue entering the
|| transplant pool (such as the time when winos and drug addicts
|| sold blood, before HIV was identified and became testable).
Wouldn't it just be safer because of the threat of contamination
to just harvest, fertalize, and raise embryos for research
instead
of using embryos harvested for other purposes. You could
probably raise them by the thousands with the added benefit
of knowing they are not contaminated.
|| It's also risky to the woman, and wiould inevitably lead to
|| cases where the window for abortion before the fetus is
|| considered viable has in fact passed but the abortion occurs
|| anyway without a fiscal need. That gets into legally, and
|| ethically, different territory.
Such cases already exist, why not use them. I am not sure
whiether you meant fiscal or physical in the next to the last
sentence. Sure there would be a fiscal need, she might need
the money. There would also be a physical need, birth control
is the primary reason for most pregancy terminations.
Cuz
--
It's a place to listen and read for a while, called lurking. Get
an idea of the tone of the community. Learn who the trolls and
troublemakers are and ignore them.
| |
| mike gray 2006-07-28, 4:19 pm |
| Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> mike gray wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> What scam? Stem cell transplants have had very promising animal results and
> are well worth pursuing in either medical or scientific terms. We can learn
> quite a lot about the immune system and about how tissue forms from studying
> them, and we can potentially treat diseases like Type 1 diabetes and
> Parkinson's disease or even neural grafts for spinal tissue. It's very
> interesting research.
>
> The "scam" part is where political idiots go "ohhhhh, stem cells, fetuses,
> abortions, I can get votes by interfering with stuff many voters won't
> understand while not actually getting in a public fight about abortnon".
>
>
>
If promising animal results turn into human treatments, there is
billions of dollars to be made. A lot of private investment has
been bet on that outcome.
The scam is researchers without the science and credibility to
attract investors demanding that taxpayers support their federal
teat lifestyle, and branding those that object as moral or
religious zealots.
| |
| Pan Ohco 2006-07-28, 4:19 pm |
| On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 05:20:50 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>What scam? Stem cell transplants have had very promising animal results and
>are well worth pursuing in either medical or scientific terms. We can learn
>quite a lot about the immune system and about how tissue forms from studying
>them, and we can potentially treat diseases like Type 1 diabetes and
>Parkinson's disease or even neural grafts for spinal tissue. It's very
>interesting research.
>
>The "scam" part is where political idiots go "ohhhhh, stem cells, fetuses,
>abortions, I can get votes by interfering with stuff many voters won't
>understand while not actually getting in a public fight about abortnon".
>
The scam part is that they want the U.S. to pay for the research, and
they keep the patents for any discovery. The U.S. is me the taxpayer.
If they worked for a private company, the company would own the
patents.
And private companies are in stem cell research.
So the whole question is Who pays and Who profits?
--
Pan Ohco
I would like to see the bottom of my monitor, but I have cats.
| |
| BJ in Texas 2006-07-28, 4:19 pm |
| Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@comcast.net> wrote:
|| mike gray wrote:
||| Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
||
|||| That's where you need to make sensible laws about such
|||| havesting, to prevent serious craziness from occurring.
||||
||||
||||
||| Yer a bit confused. The only question is whether we should
be
||| spending taxpayer money on this scam.
|||
||| Of course, changing the subject does put a lot more bucks in
||| the pockets of researchers that do not have enough
||| credibility to
||| raise funds from investors.
||
|| What scam? Stem cell transplants have had very promising
|| animal results and are well worth pursuing in either medical
|| or scientific terms. We can learn quite a lot about the
|| immune system and about how tissue forms from studying them,
|| and we can potentially treat diseases like Type 1 diabetes
|| and Parkinson's disease or even neural grafts for spinal
|| tissue. It's very interesting research.
||
|| The "scam" part is where political idiots go "ohhhhh, stem
|| cells, fetuses, abortions, I can get votes by interfering
|| with stuff many voters won't understand while not actually
|| getting in a public fight about abortnon".
I don't think anyone denies that it is interesting research. It
may
hold hope for understanding some diseases, it may not. The
issue is not to stop research but to prevent federal tax money
from being used to fund the research. Some people, right or
wrong, because of their beliefs and convictions do not feel that
they should be part of experimentation involving what they see
as humans. Besides if there is enough money/prfits involved in
possible cures for the diseases you indicate that private
funding
should not be an issue. Some think it better to spend tax money
on research and then hand the technology and profits over to
the drug companies.
BJ
--
"It's too crowded. Nobody goes there anymore." -- Yogi Berra
http://www.obsessionthemovie.com
http://home.swbell.net/bjtexas/SS/
| |
| Sherry 2006-07-28, 4:19 pm |
| mike gray <omgray@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:E1gyg.183443$mF2.132672@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
<snip>
> Yer a bit confused. The only question is whether we should be
> spending taxpayer money on this scam.
>
I think yer'all a bit confused. This has no place on alt.food.diabetic,
unless someone plans on eating stem cells.....
Sherry
| |
|
| Sherry <sherdh@excite.com> wrote:
|| mike gray <omgray@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
||
news:E1gyg.183443$mF2.132672@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
||
|| <snip>
||
||| Yer a bit confused. The only question is whether we should
be
||| spending taxpayer money on this scam.
|||
||
||
|| I think yer'all a bit confused. This has no place on
|| alt.food.diabetic, unless someone plans on eating stem
|| cells.....
||
||
|| Sherry
And your comment has no more place in misc.health.diabetes
or alt.health.diabetes. Practice what you preach.
This is an issue that should be of interest to all diabetics
based
on the information and misinformation that has been written.
Cuz
--
It's a place to listen and read for a while, called lurking. Get
an idea of the tone of the community. Learn who the trolls and
troublemakers are and ignore them.
| |
| Nico Kadel-Garcia 2006-07-28, 9:19 pm |
|
"Cuz" <Cuz@family.orgy> wrote in message
news:91oyg.138682$H71.36787@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@comcast.net> wrote:
> || Cuz wrote:
> ||
> ||| Sure a waste of material that could be useful. Besides what
> ||| is the problem with a woman getting paid for her fetus.
> ||| Her body, her choice.
> ||
> || It's unnecessary, since there are plenty of miscarriages to
> || provide the tissue samples, and any trade in human tissues
> || can become a source of infected tissue entering the
> || transplant pool (such as the time when winos and drug addicts
> || sold blood, before HIV was identified and became testable).
>
> Wouldn't it just be safer because of the threat of contamination
> to just harvest, fertalize, and raise embryos for research instead
> of using embryos harvested for other purposes. You could
> probably raise them by the thousands with the added benefit
> of knowing they are not contaminated.
It's very expensive and difficult to do in vitro fertilization, and
certainly difficult and expensive to raise them long enough to have stem
cells: I've never even heard of it being done for animals, much less humans.
(Doesn't mean it hasn't happened: I can't read everything!)
> || It's also risky to the woman, and wiould inevitably lead to
> || cases where the window for abortion before the fetus is
> || considered viable has in fact passed but the abortion occurs
> || anyway without a fiscal need. That gets into legally, and
> || ethically, different territory.
>
> Such cases already exist, why not use them. I am not sure
> whiether you meant fiscal or physical in the next to the last
> sentence. Sure there would be a fiscal need, she might need
> the money. There would also be a physical need, birth control
> is the primary reason for most pregancy terminations.
I meant physical, thank you for the correction.
| |
| Nico Kadel-Garcia 2006-07-28, 9:19 pm |
|
"mike gray" <omgray@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Ybpyg.185308$mF2.6563@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> If promising animal results turn into human treatments, there is billions
> of dollars to be made. A lot of private investment has been bet on that
> outcome.
>
> The scam is researchers without the science and credibility to attract
> investors demanding that taxpayers support their federal teat lifestyle,
> and branding those that object as moral or religious zealots.
Name one. Seriously, the hoops they currently jump through to do *any* stem
cell research almost guarantees that they believe they have something
legitimate, or it would be easier to sell NONI JUICE.
| |
| Nico Kadel-Garcia 2006-07-28, 9:19 pm |
|
"Cuz" <Cuz@family.orgy> wrote in message
news:4Oryg.13025$2v.359@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> Sherry <sherdh@excite.com> wrote:
> || mike gray <omgray@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> || news:E1gyg.183443$mF2.132672@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> ||
> || <snip>
> ||
> ||| Yer a bit confused. The only question is whether we should be
> ||| spending taxpayer money on this scam.
> |||
> ||
> ||
> || I think yer'all a bit confused. This has no place on
> || alt.food.diabetic, unless someone plans on eating stem
> || cells.....
> ||
> ||
> || Sherry
>
> And your comment has no more place in misc.health.diabetes
> or alt.health.diabetes. Practice what you preach.
>
> This is an issue that should be of interest to all diabetics based
> on the information and misinformation that has been written.
>
> Cuz
He has a point. It's off-topic there, even if it's important to the readers
there. They can come over here if they want to follow the discussion.
I'm resetting Followup-To's appropriately to misc.health.diabetes and
alt.health.diabetes.
| |
| mike gray 2006-07-28, 9:19 pm |
| Sherry wrote:
> mike gray <omgray@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> news:E1gyg.183443$mF2.132672@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think yer'all a bit confused. This has no place on alt.food.diabetic,
> unless someone plans on eating stem cells.....
>
>
> Sherry
>
Sorry about that. The original post was cross-posted and I just
hit "reply".
On the other hand, in a white sauce, over toast....
| |
|
| On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:19:32 GMT, mike gray <omgray@worldnet.att.net>
Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet:
>Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>
>
>As of the end of last year, there were 3,373 prisoners on death
>row in the US. That's 3,373 pancreases condemned to becoming
>medical waste.
>
>Rather than piss away the taxpayers' money on disincentivized
>federal grantees duplicating research already done in the
>private sector with investor funding, let's harvest the good
>stuff that's already there for the taking.
lets not become ghouls.
--
Mâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.diabetic-talk.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
....Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô)
--ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."
....Bilbo Baggins
Jesus never hated anyone.
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...
..
| |
| Nico Kadel-Garcia 2006-08-02, 4:20 pm |
| Ma¢k wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:19:32 GMT, mike gray <omgray@worldnet.att.net>
> Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet:
>
>
>
> lets not become ghouls.
*I* didn't say that: you seem to have messed up the quoting. That was Mike
Gray.
| |
|
| On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 14:17:06 -0400, "Nico Kadel-Garcia"
<nkadel@comcast.net> Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness
of usenet:
>Ma¢k wrote:
>
>*I* didn't say that: you seem to have messed up the quoting. That was Mike
>Gray.
>
you seem not to be able to read posts. I didn't respond to you, I
responded to mike gray, as the quote clearly shows.
--
Mâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.diabetic-talk.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
....Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô)
--ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."
....Bilbo Baggins
Jesus never hated anyone.
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...
..
| |
| Nico Kadel-Garcia 2006-08-03, 4:20 pm |
|
"Ma¢k" <stopthespam@shootspammers.com> wrote in message
news:7pe3d2dssubjhjnr5vbi42ffr3b3tflb6c@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 14:17:06 -0400, "Nico Kadel-Garcia"
> <nkadel@comcast.net> Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness
> of usenet:
>
>
> you seem not to be able to read posts. I didn't respond to you, I
> responded to mike gray, as the quote clearly shows.
Umm. Not when *I'm* reading it, the number of indents vs. quoted material
looks confusing. I know different mail clients have different standards in
handling quoting. It wasn't meant personally.
| |
|
| On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:47:49 -0400, "Nico Kadel-Garcia"
<nkadel@comcast.net> Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness
of usenet:
>
>"Ma¢k" <stopthespam@shootspammers.com> wrote in message
>news:7pe3d2dssubjhjnr5vbi42ffr3b3tflb6c@4ax.com...
>
>Umm. Not when *I'm* reading it, the number of indents vs. quoted material
>looks confusing. I know different mail clients have different standards in
>handling quoting. It wasn't meant personally.
>
the first line of my reply quotes the name of the person I am replying
too. regardless of the indents.
--
Mâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.diabetic-talk.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
....Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô)
--ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."
....Bilbo Baggins
Jesus never hated anyone.
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...
..
|
| |
|
|