quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
I'm glad the ban was in effect on one hand because the need to work around it likely was the reason they found the new skin based Stem Cell where they can manufacture stem cells without the need for embrios at all. Which was found in 2007. Would this line of study have been followed as diligently without the controversy?

That research was not pushed because of any controversy or ban on ESC research, it was actually done in Canada.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Politicians can temporarily stand in the way of progress, but in the end scientific research will always win. This is a progress that should never have been halted: shame on those who stood in the path of potentially life-saving science for eight years, and who chose to throw all those frozen embryos on the trash heap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ryssa

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
I'm glad the ban was in effect on one hand because the need to work around it likely was the reason they found the new skin based Stem Cell where they can manufacture stem cells without the need for embrios at all. Which was found in 2007. Would this line of study have been followed as diligently without the controversy?

That research was not pushed because of any controversy or ban on ESC research, it was actually done in Canada.

Sorry for bringing back an older thread, but this was the first chance I got to catch up on it.

To give credit where credit is due…it actually was not first discovered in Canada. As I said in my post on page 1 of the thread…the reprogramming of adult skin cells into ES cell- like cells was first discovered by two different research teams, one headed by Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University in Japan, and the other headed by James Thompsom of the University of Wisconsin. They were both working on the same type of research and the Japanese team simply reported their findings a few days prior to the Thompson team. What the team in Toronto did was take the Yamanaka/Thompson teams discoveries and find a way to reprogram the skin cells without using a virus, which was safer and produced more promising results.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/11/071120-stem-cells.html

http://www.thestar.com/article/595058

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211172631.htm
 
That research may not have been pushed due to the controversy or the ban of ESC research (on the US side)..but it very well could have, who’s to say?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim
And how many hapless human beings were murdered to get those results?   

I'm guessing it's far fewer than the 18,000 to 20,000 hapless human beings who die in the US each year because they don't have health insurance. 

Many of the same folks who are opposed to stem cell research because it may result in the destruction of a potential human don't seem to be too concerned about the fate of a grown-up human being who may die because they can't afford the care they need.  I think that anyone who is opposed to stem cell research on moral grounds and is also opposed to universal health care is a flaming hypocrite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

I wish...and subfever is bang on that pharma companies love palliatives- hate cures.  Wanna save BIG money in health care?  Cure diabetes.  Or maybe people should change their diet...while diabetes is genetic, so much of the problem is just increased by people abusing themselves.

In terms of advances in cancer treatments- well, it ain't so great although there has been progress made in lung cancer.  We've got treatments- they just don't work all that often- with some notable exceptions.  We have been doing better with some childhood cancers. 

No question there is a lot to be done.  However, the treatment for cancer has made some notable gains, and it's not just the pharma companies.  As you rightly say, companies like GE developed many of the advanced X-ray, PetScan, CatScans, and other medical devices across the spectrum of patient diagnosis, therapy, along with medications. Surgical techniques have also made major advances..which, together with early detection can save a cancer patient, like my wife, who was able to get the scans that detected the growth an was able to be operated on immediately and had a type 1 cancer removed along with half a lung.  Interestingly, the initial "shady spot on the lung" was found in a routine X-ray given in the ER for a totally different medical issue that had nothing to do with lungs. Lung cancer is so deadly because most of the time symptons only show up with advanced type 2 or type 3 cancers.   I don't think X-rays will be so freeely allowed in a national healthcare system...and that is the best cure for so many cancers.."early detection."

Pharma's blockbuster business model is broken.  The idea of billion dollar drugs that are going to be taken by large segments of the population is directly in opposition to the developments discussed in this thread-Big pharma has had relatively few new drugs approved by the FDA (and I think your distinction between US pharma and European pharma is not as dramatic as you think- these companies are multinationals.) over the past several years even though they've been spending more money in R + D.

Just name the top 100 drugs used globally and look at the number developed by the U.S. and those by "the rest of the world"!   It's also a key reason why our cost of healthcare is significantly more than France, UK or Canada, for example, who do  not put the cutting edge, but expensive drugs, on their drug Formularies

Pharma also doesn't develop diagnostic technologies including all the scanners you mentioned- those are companies like GE, Siemens, Hitachi and a few others.  And it's highly debatable whether the scans taken have actually improved medical care- although the cost has certainly increased!  That's because for a lot of ailments- the best treatment is to do... nothing and see if it resolves in a few months.

I'm all for Obama's push to actually start trying to correlate what advances in medicine actually have improved quality of life, and which are needless expenses. And you would put your life in the hands of a politician for these answers???   
In terms of socialized medicine-our current system is broken Please explain "broken"  I don't have a problem..what is your problem with the system?? and the pressing demand is to get the lawyers out. I agree with  you on this one..but it's not gonna happen with this democrat administration.  I'm also not impressed with the idea of insurance for most medicine- catastrophes maybe, but normal health care (define "Normal healthcare). should not be a function of insurance any more than paying a heating bill.

Sam

P.S. Sam...  I think most people would agree that there must be at least 8-10 world class medical instiutions in Boston and surrounding areas. Yet, when Sen. Kennedy had to have brain surgery, he flew to Duke Hospital Medical Center in North Carolina. where the surgery was successful and and performed by Dr. Allan Friedman, the prominent brain surgeon who led the operation, known as a resection. Do you think we would have access to that kind of quality doctoring in a National Healthcare System...and certainly be moved to the top of a waiting list? 
My present PPO healthcare insurance would have paid for my doctors in or out of system with a deductable ..but they would have paid the bulk of the expense.  What you re going to see in a national healthcare..prominant doctors, and dentists,,(just google dentist shortage in Canada) who opt out of the system.  And who will be left for us????  As a student in Germany my daugher was eligible for national healthcare...but opted to pay a dentist who was one of the best in Frankfurt..but not part of the system.  That's what we are going to be forced to do for quality care.. Pay..Pay Pay...

quote:

ORIGINAL: aravain

~FR~

It'll be interesting to see if they find anything... but it's severely hyped up and more of a political move than scientific, in my opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

Why would a person of consience, who believes strongly in his faith, who believes that life begins at conception be called a "fanatic".  I was born a catholic but don't practice my religion...............................................................................

"Fanatic"  liberals continue to use the word fanatic as one would describe a terrorist bomber, or a "skin head" or membes of Acorn....to describe people of faith.  Why should the tax money fund government programs that are against their religious beliefs, and also not really part of our constitution.   If someone wants to have five abortions or a scientist wants to do stem cell research using human embryo's be my guest, but pay for it privately.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
No, we choose our men on the basis of their good looks, cooking skills, and their ability to put together a decent interior decor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

I am amazed how the right is angered by stem cell research. What about the children?  But once our kids are born they could care less in what manner they are housed, fed or educated.

Hypocrites. 

Let's get the show on the road and try and tackle some of these illnesses that we might now be looking at in the rear view mirror if more "intelligent" heads would have prevailed.

Goodbye Pres Bush.  We are reminded daily of the damage that you have left in the wake of your presidency.  Undoubtedly he will be historically viewed as one of the worst Presidents to have ever held office.  What a complete turd.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
No, we choose our men on the basis of their good looks, cooking skills, and their ability to put together a decent interior decor.

Can I interest you in un pot de crème?  Avec crème Chantilly, peut-être?

quote:

BRITISH scientists have developed the world’s first stem cell therapy to cure the most common cause of blindness. Surgeons predict it will become a routine, one-hour procedure that will be generally available in six or seven years’ time.
The treatment involves replacing a layer of degenerated cells with new ones created from embryonic stem cells. It was pioneered by scientists and surgeons from the Institute of Ophthalmology at University College London and Moorfields eye hospital.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aravain

~FR~

It'll be interesting to see if they find anything... but it's severely hyped up and more of a political move than scientific, in my opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp

i figured i would recycle this stem cell thread rather than start a new one.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6122757.ece

quote:

BRITISH scientists have developed the world’s first stem cell therapy to cure the most common cause of blindness. Surgeons predict it will become a routine, one-hour procedure that will be generally available in six or seven years’ time.
The treatment involves replacing a layer of degenerated cells with new ones created from embryonic stem cells. It was pioneered by scientists and surgeons from the Institute of Ophthalmology at University College London and Moorfields eye hospital.