SSShhhhh dont tell anyone I'm groing several in my backyard

What's your address?

The thing I dont understand is we are allready doing stem cell research with adult stem cells. What he did today was reverse what bush did to not fund embrionic stem cells, which to date have never helped in finding a cure for anything. And if they could dont you think private donors would step up and give more funding for it.

Ok so if we really believe that our fate is so dang hopeless instead of hopeful why bother to live healthy at all, why not take up drinking our selves to death, it's going to be hell anyway. Geesh, I mean everything is just hopeless to you Nogames, just when I think you have actually a spark of hope your back to doomsday. NO?

Do I trust that if a cure is found that those who need it but can't afford it will get it. No actually I don't. I expect right now that if I get sick I am pretty much screwed because I can't afford health insurance and frankly what care I would get for free will just kill me faster. So I won't be seeking the pathetic care the indigent get.

I see people here dying of cancer, here today gone tomorrow, meaning very very fast, why? because they don't have the money for the kind of care the wealthy might have access to, who will always have enough money to buy.

Despite all that I plan to keep my sense of humor and make the best of what few days I might have left to irritate as many obnoxious self righteous religious people as I can..... ok ok I couldn't help that part!!! If life is about making the best of it, that's what I am actually pretty good at, or at least so far...

Dear boo2u,

I did not mean to say that there is no need for a research. I said there is no point to do it from public funds.

It should be done by a private funding.

as always

The thing I dont understand is we are allready doing stem cell research with adult stem cells. What he did today was reverse what bush did to not fund embrionic stem cells, which to date have never helped in finding a cure for anything. And if they could dont you think private donors would step up and give more funding for it.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bush's policy was that research could continue on stem-cell "lines" that existed in 2001, but that otherwise, embryo research was banned.

Surplus embryos already in the freezer at fertility clinics—where embryos are routinely created and destroyed by the thousands every year—could not be used for medical research and would have to be thrown out instead.

He had so many loopholes in the policy that the policy actually made no sense.

President Obama today lifted an eight-year-old ban on embryonic stem-cell research, signing an executive order that he called "an important step in advancing the cause of science in America."

"We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research," Obama said at a signing ceremony in the White House. "And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield."

Obama's order ends former President George W. Bush's limit on federally funded embryonic stem-cell research to cell lines created before Aug. 9, 2001. Congress tried twice to reverse that ban, and his National Institutes of Health (NIH) director, Elias Zerhouni, urged an end to the restrictions, but Bush vetoed the legislation both times.

Proponents of the research believe the cells could one day be used to treat debilitating diseases including diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and to reverse spinal-cord injuries. (The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) green-lighted the first trial of embryonic stem cells for spinal cord injuries days after Obama took office.) Opponents of such research say it's morally wrong to study cells derived from embryos that are destroyed in the process.

"In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama said during the signing ceremony. "In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."

Ihor Lemischka, director of the Black Family Stem Cell Institute at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, said today's action is "extremely significant. It opens up the prospect of funding for a much broader swath of research."

Bush's ban limited federally funded research to embryonic stem-cell lines that scientists said had been compromised or contaminated. As states and private foundations moved ahead with the research using other sources of funding, thousands of cell lines were developed that reflect the country's genetic diversity and may reveal previously unknown insights into human cell development, Lemischka said. "When you have that large number of lines available, it makes no sense to limit research to those few lines available before 2001," Lemischka told ScientificAmerican.com.

"In the short term, a lot of people that were previously not planning to submit grant proposals [to NIH for federal funds] will probably be doing so," he said, adding that the new research opportunities complement the $7.4 billion in the stimulus package for NIH grants. "Clearly, having science policy be dictated in large part by the best scientific evidence and rationale is a very healthy thing. It's fair to say the barriers are largely removed into developing insights into how diseases occur using embryonic stem cell research and that [could lead] to better diagnostics, better pharmaceutical drugs and how humans develop."

Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) secretary-designee Kathleen Sebelius, working with NIH acting director Lawrence Tabak, will have four months to set ethical and reporting guidelines governing the research. In addition, Congress could draft legislation to codify Obama's order, making it tough for a future president to reverse.

In an afternoon teleconference, Tabak said that some of the $787 billion stimulus package could be applied to grant awards and that NIH would review where the stem cells would come from. The legislation Bush vetoed would have allowed unused embryos from IVF clinics to be used for research with donors' permission. "The executive order takes no position on specific scientific matters, so NIH will undertake a very careful and deliberative look," Tabak said. "The end goal is to ensure responsible and scientifically worthy stem cell research."

Story Landis, director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, said during the press briefing that it was too early to speculate when the first grants would be awarded, though she said the agency may start considering applications before the guidelines are finalized.

"We're very appreciative of the president's decision today," Tabak said. "The most immediate benefit is it signals to the scientific community that this field is now going to be expanded. For young scientists, it sends a very powerful message that this is an area of research that has enormous potential and is one they may want to be involved in in a very real way."

Obama today also ordered the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to "restor[e] scientific integrity to government decision making." He wasn’t specific about how that might happen, but said science advisers should be appointed based on their credentials, "not their politics or ideology," and that officials should "be open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions." The Bush administration was criticized for politicizing science on issues such as approval of over-the-counter emergency contraception and regulation of industrial emissions that scientists say cause global warming.

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=obama-ends-embryonic-stem-cell-rese-2009-03-09

Oh yeah,
Another campaign promise kept!

What exactly is the potential of this?
Here's one possibility.


Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy Shows Steady Benefits In Rebuilding Infarcted Heart
Mayo Clinic research published in American Journal of Physiology-Heart

BETHESDA, MD (August 18, 2004) � Despite improvements in earlier diagnosis and treatment, cardiovascular disease is far and away the leading cause of death in the U.S. and the world. According to the latest posted statistics, heart disease causes 700,000 deaths in the U.S. each year, with the number of adults diagnosed with heart disease exceeding 23 million, or 11.5% of the adult population.

Previously thought of as concentrated in rich countries, ischemic heart and related cerebrovascular diseases alone caused an estimated 17 million or 23.2% of deaths globally in 2000, WHO reported.

A contributing cause of what some have called a pandemic is that in contrast to many other organs in the body, the heart has only a minimal capability for self-renewal, leaving most current therapies to address symptoms with little hope of rehabilitating the injured heart itself after a heart attack (myocardial infarction).

The regenerative potential of stem cells in relation to the muscle layer of the heart wall (or myocardium) has been recently recognized, but how this might translate into therapeutic uses to repair the heart has been limited.

Mayo Clinic team demonstrates potential for �rebuilding� damaged heart

Using embryonic stem cells, Mayo Clinic researchers transformed these master cell types into fully functional cardiac cells and transplanted them into damaged regions of the myocardium, where the cells integrated into the infarct and showed rapid and robust improvements, which were stable over an extended period post-therapy.

The study, entitled �Stable benefit of embryonic stem cell therapy in myocardial infarction,� appears in the August 2004 edition of the American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, one of 14 peer-reviewed journals published by the American Physiological Society.

The investigative team under the direction of Andre Terzic included Denice M. Hodgson, Atta Behfar, Leonid V. Zingman, Garvan C. Kane, Carmen Perez-Terzic, Alexey E. Alekseev, and Michel Puceat, all of the Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Departments of Medicine, Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota. In addition, Perez-Terzic is at Mayo�s Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Puceat is also at Centre de Recherches de Biochimie Macromoleculaire, CNRS, Montpellier, France.

Findings and discussion

Researchers took a murine embryonic stem cell line and engineered a cell clone to express fluorescent proteins so they could easily identify the location of the �newly� generated cardiac cells. They tested the cardiogenic capacity of the line and collected cells with high potential for becoming cardiomyocytes. Randomly assigned rats that had been induced with myocardial infarction were injected directly into the damaged heart area either with the embryonic stem cells or were subject to a control or �sham� protocol.

Three weeks after therapy, the cardiac contractile function of both groups was tested by echocardiography. Not only was the stem cell-treated group�s left ventricular pumping significantly stronger than the sham-treated group, but the heart beat of the stem-cell group reacted favorably to �stress test,� whereas the sham group showed no significant response at all.

Like all the other parameters, these improvements were maintained over the three-month length of the study.

On pathology, further investigation showed the extent of the positive influence of the stem-cell therapy. First, cardiac cells stayed in the heart, and didn�t spread to the brain, kidney or liver. Microscopy showed that the stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes took on the distinctive striations indicating proper development of contractile apparatus. Stem cell-treated hearts also showed normal cardiac ultrastructure, in contrast to acellular infarct areas of sham-treated hearts.

Finally, the stem cell-treated hearts showed that the wall or muscle had been �rebuilt� compared with the sham-treated hearts which remained �eaten-up�, with a decayed thin look, including formation of aneurysms, associated with a post-heart-attack liability to rupture. Conversely, the stem cell-treated hearts showed no evidence of graft rejection, electrical and/or structural abnormality, sudden cardiac death or tumor formation.

Conclusion and next steps

The researchers conclude that �embryonic stem cells, through differentiation within the host myocardium, can contribute to a stable beneficial outcome on contractile function and ventricular remodeling in the infarcted heart.�

Going a step further, they add that �the stable benefit of embryonic stem cell therapy on myocardial structure and function in this experimental model supports the potential for stem cell-based reparative treatment of myocardial infarction. By regenerating diseased myocardium and promoting cardiac repair, embryonic stem cells provide a unique therapeutic modality that has the potential to reduce the morbidity and mortality of this prevalent heart disease.�

Looking ahead, they noted that issues to be resolved include mechanisms of action, finding the optimum window for therapy, and determining what the long-term effect of such therapy will be.



Source and funding: The article, �Stable benefit of embryonic stem cell therapy in myocardial infarction,� appears in the August 2004 edition of the American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, one of 14 peer-reviewed journals published by the American Physiological Society.

This study was supported by National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, Marriott Foundation, Miami Heart Research Institute, Mayo-Dubai Healthcare City Research Project, Mayo Clinic CR20 Program, and Association Francaise Contre les Myopathies and Fondation de France.

Editors� note: A copy of this research paper is available to the media. Members of the media are encouraged to obtain an electronic version and to interview members of the research team. To do so, please contact Donna Krupa at APS (301) 634-7209, cell (703) 967-2751 or dkrupa@the-aps.org.

http://www.the-aps.org/press/journal/04/23.htm

Not sure I trust private funding either, but that wasn't what I was referring to, I was referring to all the other stuff you said in that post.

are you saying our dollar means something to you??

ya we need those pills, then surgery, then omg. another surgery and more pills. and then what can we do?? pills. surgery..pills.surgery....your freaking 90..livin on pills and surgery.

and WHOOO is making the money?????

Nogames..HOW is medicare different than you would expect socialized medicine to be???

im guessing if its socialized we ALL have access to the same medical treatment??

hopw its stands....we got that hypocratical oath..idc how sick you are...we try... we try and we spend millions LEARNING!!!!!!!!!!

prive funded state hospitals...the majority of hosdpitals that offer the BEST and most UP TO DATE treatments...are.

private funded.

meaning these institutions themselves pay ZERO taxes to the gov.

and y'all keep your cut and paste outta my threads...i can get that crap on the news.


dance your bannanas elsewhere.
what you celebrating???

No dancing bananas? Pout.

Let's never get sick.

winxie...you can dance those nanners...when you tell me WHERE these bananas are coming from??


and when you tell me...remember Im a RN and I work for a cancer research hospital and already DO stem cell transplants..

and then ask me..does my EMPLOYER need government money to do what research they chose to do