Adult stem cells are continuing to promise revolutionary therapies, while embryonic stem cells remain a political football even after Obama’s loosening of restrictions. Some stories seem to suppress the word “embryonic” and just talk about “stem cells,” but there is a big difference in the ethics of one over the other. Embryonic stem cells require harvesting a human embryo.Adult Stem Cell NewsDiabetes: Sufferers of peripheral artery disease, common among diabetics, may have hope using stem cells from their own bone marrow. PhysOrg reported that researchers at the University of Western Ontario isolated three types of stem cells from bone marrow that can regrow blood vessels.Bone: Arthritis? Hip fracture? The BBC News reported that stem cells from bone marrow are showing promise to regrow bone. Researchers at Keele University attach the stem cells to tiny magnets and then guide them to places where they are needed. “The technique combines the patients [sic] own bone marrow stem cells with donor bone cells to patch-repair damaged bones that would otherwise need treatment with metal plates and pins.” Angina: Adult stem cells may alleviate the pain of angina and allow patients with the heart condition to walk again. Autologous (from-the-patient) stem cells from bone marrow helped patients walk longer on a treadmill without pain, reported Science Daily.Embryonic Stem Cell NewsFetal harvesting: An upbeat article from Science Daily says “New Stem Cell Therapy May Lead To Treatment For Deafness.” The body of the article describes a scientist from University of Sheffield harvesting cochlear cells from 9- to 11-week old human fetuses. They got them to differentiate into inner ear cell types, but not to form the hair bundles characteristic of the cochlea. The research is in the early stages; no actual treatments are being proposed. It was not clear from the article where they got the fetuses.Brazil nuts: Science last week reported that Brazil ran roughshod over religious leaders by banking on embryonic stem cell research over their objections. “Despite vocal opposition from religious groups, the Brazilian government has launched a major initiative in pluripotent stem cell research. In the past 3 weeks, eight university labs in four states started receiving the first payments of a 3-year, $9.3 million grant intended to reshape them into Cell Technology Centers.” In this predominantly Catholic country, religious leaders have opposed ES research for years, but “A coalition of scientific groups, including the Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science, and patients’ advocacy organizations fought back.” Last year, after one advocate “helped fill the Supreme Federal Court galleries with people in wheelchairs and their relatives,” Brazil’s Supreme Court upheld a 2005 law allowing the harvesting of stem cells from fertility clinics. Now the government is supporting it with the taxes of those who oppose it.Harvesting Obama for more: Constance Holden wrote in Science March 20 that scientists, though thrilled with Obama’s executive order loosening restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, want more: “Many scientists would like to work with lines created through research cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT).” Human cloning was considered abhorrent by most ethicists during the Bush administration. Arguments for stem cells from fertility clinics at the time stressed that those embryos were going to be destroyed anyway. Many politicians on both sides of the aisle at the time stressed that they did not support human cloning. Obama’s executive order, however, did not specify the source of the embryos. It appears that scientists might have the liberty to choose what stem cells to work on – including those of human embryos created solely for research purposes. What guidelines or restrictions will the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provide?The traditional opponents of hES cell research are expecting the worst. Even with the derivation of new cell lines still banned, some fear the new policy will turn the federal government into an indirect supporter of cloning. The executive order “turned out to be far more extreme than [the] biggest proponents had hoped,” said the Family Research Council. “With no clear policy from the White House, you and I could be footing the bill for research that clones embryos just to scavenge their parts.” Psychiatrist and columnist Charles Krauthammer, a former member of the president’s bioethics commission, said in an op-ed column that he does not oppose hES cell research but accused the president of “moral abdication” in leaving it up to scientists whether to create embryos solely for research. On the contrary, says Harvard University’s George Daley: “We need legislation that allows [such] decisions … to be left to scientists.” Daley points out that guidelines hammered out in 2005 by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and regularly updated, as well as recommendations by the International Society for Stem Cell Research, do not specify what biological sources should be used but focus on informed consent procedures for obtaining eggs, sperm, or embryos, and proper scientific procedures. So far, there’s no available evidence that researchers anywhere are using lines other than from excess IVF embryos….The tone of the article indicates that scientists want to police their own policies but fear running afoul of public concerns over ethics. Meanwhile, Kurt Gottfried and Harold Varmus, in the same issue of Science (March 20), portrayed the Obama Era (including his support of embryonic stem cell research) as “The Enlightenment Returns.” This presumably portrays the Bush Era as a kind of scientific Dark Ages. They commented on Obama’s call for scientific integrity, which they interpreted as science free from political agendas performed by those with good scientific qualifications, but they did not use the words ethics or morals. Speaking of ethics, two researchers wrote in the same March 20 issue of Science about the growing problem of offshore clinics that lure patients with promises of miracle cures with stem cells. Where to draw the line? The editorial in Nature March 26 said, “Now that the US federal funding ban on human embryonic stem cells is lifted, scientists must engage the public’s concerns about embryo research.” What kind of embryos are acceptable for research? Notice where these strong advocates of embryonic stem cell research drew an ethical line:A key requirement for productive dialogue is a common frame of reference. Here, the word ‘embryo’ is a stumbling block. This term refers to everything from a newly fertilized single-celled egg to millions of cells organized into eyelids, ears, genitals and limbs. Yet the latter form, which is present some eight weeks after fertilization, is not only ethically unacceptable for research but also far too old to yield embryonic stem cells. Multiple sets of widely accepted guidelines from, for example, the US National Academies, the International Society for Stem Cell Research and Britain’s Warnock Report agree that the first sign that cells for the future body are starting to specialize – the glimmer of a structure known as the primitive streak at about 14 days after an egg begins to divide – marks the end of when any laboratory research on human embryos should be considered. To discuss this responsibly, scientists should insist on precision, specifying an embryo’s developmental state in terms of its age, for example, or the number of cells.But is this stage of the embryo such a clear dividing line? Could it not be pushed to 15 days, then 16, then three weeks or more by a future consortium of scientists and politicians, especially when money or fame are at stake? The Germans learned in a grim way that scientific consensus is no bedrock on which to anchor a standard of what is “acceptable” (04/07/2005).Leading science journals have been attacking the Bush era and praising the Obama administration for its support of embryonic stem cell research. Nature said last week, “President Barack Obama’s appointment of academic scientists and economists to positions of high authority in his administration has created the sort of excitement in universities and among researchers that has not been seen for eight years. Certainly, after George W. Bush’s grudging agreement to a constricted programme of stem-cell research and his politicization of scientific findings about the environment, Obama’s choice of prominent scholars is a breath of fresh air.” Likewise, Science interviewed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, giving her high marks for her support of “science.” Reporter Jeffrey Mervis called her a “big hit” and said she “lights up a crowd” with her support of scientific institutions. “Donning her mantle as party leader, she used the events to take a swipe at the Bush Administration,” he said, quoting her: “For a long time, science had not been in the forefront. It was faith or science, take your pick. Now we’re saying that science is the answer to our prayers.” She also told a group of “assembled biomedical bigwigs” that “we need your help again to make President Obama’s executive order on stem cell research the law of the land.”The scientific societies, wedded to liberal politics as they are, don’t know ethics from a black hole. “We don’t see anyone cloning humans… yet” they say, softening the public, like a frog in the pot, to accept what is coming. To understand what is going on, read Ann Coulter’s book Godless about the secular liberal love fest with abortions and embryonic stem cells, in spite of the scientific evidence. Read how liberals use victims and emotional propaganda, like celebrity pleas and courtrooms filled with wheelchairs, to spin their desire to kill as “compassion.” See intentional folly turn into moral evil in the name of science by people who hate real science. It will break your heart. From the people who deny God as the Author of life, and who see humans as evolved slime, what would you expect? Life is cheap. Life is trash. Scientists can play with it and do whatever they want. Morals, shmorals. If a cure for some disease emerges, fine, but it’s not a requirement. Just get me a Nobel Prize. In a perverted revolutionary cry, the out-of-control scientists shout: give me liberty, and give me death.(Visited 11 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Several more cases of “extreme stasis” have turned up, calling into question Darwin’s notion of constant, gradual change over millions of years.Earlier human migration: Science Magazine reports evidence of mammoth bones in Siberia that indicate hunting and butchering by humans, 10,000 years earlier than evolutionists presumed people should have been up those cold climes. New Scientist‘s headline reads, “Humans adapted to Arctic life 10,000 years earlier than thought.” The bones are claimed to be 45,000 years old; that means that humans were essentially the same as us—intelligent, adaptable and capable—for at least 8 times all recorded human history (actually, much longer: they believe upright, thinking hominins existed for 1-2 million years). That phrase “earlier than thought” shows up a lot in evolutionary studies. It means that evolutionists are surprised at cases of early appearance and stasis. This pattern stretches into much longer time periods in the following examples.Tree shrews refused to evolve for 34 million years, Science Magazine says. A new fossil doubles its period of stasis. It has a “living fossil” story to tell:Tree shrews are often held up as being living fossils, presumably very similar to our own earliest primate ancestor. The dearth of actual fossils of these small tropical mammals, however, has meant that much of this conclusion has been speculative. Li and Ni describe a new fossil tree shrew that is exceedingly similar to the extant pen-tailed tree shrew (Ptilocercus lowii), yet twice as old as any previously described sister taxa. The fossil suggests that this tree shrew has gone nearly unchanged since the Oligocene (over 34 million years ago).Squid stasis for a much longer period was reported in Live Science. Belemnites are members of the Cephalopod (head-foot) class that includes octopuses, squid and cuttlefish. Fossils found in Solnhofen, Germany (home of Archaeopteryx and other exceptionally-detailed fossils of the Jurassic Period) show that one species was already highly skilled. “Generally speaking, Acanthoteuthis‘ fins and bullet-shaped body, much like modern squids’, suggest that it would be a good swimmer,” the article says. The Jurassic is claimed to span from 200 to 145 million years ago. Noting that cephalopods date back even farther, “500 million years,” the article points out that squid like this possessed balance-sensing organs (statocysts), muscles, cartilage, a digestive system, and 10 arms. Cephalopods also have exquisite eyes as complex as those of mammals, yet are not related to any tetrapods in the evolutionary scheme. For a type of animal that is abundant today, this squid had an awful long time to evolve into something else, but it didn’t. Its statocysts, for instance, “resembled structures found in pelagic squid” that swim in the same oceans today.Crustacean stasis: A division of crustaceans called branchiopods includes many living species, including water fleas and fairy shrimp. Current Biology published a find with a headline that tells all: “A 365-Million-Year-Old Freshwater Community Reveals Morphological and Ecological Stasis in Branchiopod Crustaceans.” This phylum dates to the Cambrian Explosion. Early fossils of branchiopods have been found in fossil beds as widely dispersed as Canada, Scotland and Sweden. This new find in Belgium tops them all, yet looks strangely familiar:Here we report the discovery of an ephemeral pool branchiopod community from the 365-million-year-old Strud locality of Belgium. It is characterized by new anostracans and spinicaudatans, closely resembling extant species, and the earliest notostracan, Strudops goldenbergi. These branchiopods released resting eggs into the sediment in a manner similar to their modern representatives. We infer that this reproductive strategy was critical to overcoming environmental constraints such as seasonal desiccation imposed by living on land. The pioneer colonization of ephemeral freshwater pools by branchiopods in the Devonian was followed by remarkable ecological and morphological stasis that persists to the present day.Not only do the bodies (morphology) look the same, the whole community (ecology) looks the same. How do evolutionists deal with the fact that this fossil bed looks like it was buried recently? These biologists got creative with their Darwinian imaginations. The creatures evolved, they say, but not in ways that are visible to the human eye—they used encryption!The ecological and morphological stasis may be explained by the mixing of eggs from decades-distant populations, a singularity likely to prevent the fixation of new phenotypic variations. Nonetheless, the apparent morphological stasis does not mean that these clades did not evolve through time, but rather that the changes are cryptic, as revealed by changes in egg size. In addition, variations in physiology and egg hatching phenology have been reported for several species without significant morphological change and seem to be important for the long-term occupation of ephemeral pool biotopes. Fishes are generally absent in ephemeral pools, and increased fish predation in marine and fluvial environments during the Devonian may have triggered the modifications that allowed large branchiopods to colonize these continental environments devoid of predators. Paradoxically, the variable and harsh ephemeral pool appears to have been one of the most stable continental ecosystems over hundreds of millions of years.This admission is amazing. They found an ephemeral pool that should have been subject to variation and harsh environmental change, yet their dating of the fossils forces them to say it must have been “one of the most stable continental ecosystems over hundreds of millions of years.” Were there not meteors, tsunamis, continents subducting, and other dramatic geological changes, including major extinctions, in 365 million years?B as in billions: The winner for stasis is the bacterium. PhysOrg discusses “evidence of cavity-dwelling microbial life from 3 billion years ago,” from a time when there was not supposed to be oxygen or protection from UV radiation. Supposedly, South African greenstone beds allowed microbes to shield themselves by dwelling in cavities in the rock. Notice the word similar in what they say about these microbes:The team conducted multiple tests on the mats and the microbes found hidden under them, including bulk carbon and SEM analysis and Raman micro-spectroscopy and report that the microbes were shaped like rods, growing in train like filaments, similar to many bacteria alive today. They note also that the microbes were quite uniform in shape and that they were able to control their diameter and length as modern microbes do. The fossils are also approximately 500 million years older than any other previous fossil found in a habitat, and thus represent some of the earliest forms of life ever found (the very earliest date back to approximately 3.43 billion years ago.)With their short generation times, bacteria should evolve very rapidly. Wouldn’t anyone get bored living in a rod-shaped cell for billions of years?Wag your head in astonishment at the credulity of the modern evolutionary biologist. When they jumped onto Darwin’s bandwagon in 1859, and got drunk with his Darwine snake oil, their inhibitions over just-so storytelling faded away. They let go of their scientific rigor and all joined in singing, “How dry I am.” What they didn’t know was that Charlie bamboozled them. He sold them the Stuff Happens Law and tricked them into thinking Darwine was a health tonic; “Everything evolves constantly,” he would say, “except when it doesn’t. When something stays the same for billions of years, that’s evolution, too!” He used his own lyrics. He was really singing, “How wry I am.”(Visited 72 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
The MOMS Denise Albert and Melissa Musen Gerstein along with award-winning actress and singer Kristin Chenoweth hosted a MAMARAZZI event on Wednesday, September 28th, 2016.Denise Albert, Kristin Chenoweth, Melissa Musen GersteinCredit/Copyright: Fredy Mfuko/Mission 101 ProductionsThe event was sponsored by breast cancer support initiative Warriors in Pink powered by Ford, and was held at the renowned The Carlyle Hotel on New York’s Upper East Side.The event was an impactful one with several heartfelt speeches; the first one from breast cancer survivor and Warriors in Pink “Model of Courage” Lorraine Elmo. She told the attendees about not only her own struggle with cancer but also her mother’s struggle with cancer and how difficult it was to explain it to her children. She explained how important it was in the middle of her cancer battle to keep up her spirits and give her last bit of energy to her children to ease their struggle, and the big role music had in helping her heal.The MOMS extended a wholehearted thank you to guests for attending this important event and for supporting breast cancer awareness month. Denise Albert took off her wig for the first time in public as Kristin Chenoweth had expressed a wish to see her without it.Kristin Chenoweth’s speech revolved around how inspirational it is to see Denise fight her cancer so fiercely and how Melissa is there for her through thick and thin just like a sister. She also went on to explain how during lower days, music helps to inspire and lift one up and how music has helped her get through the devastation of having both a mother and two aunts battle breast cancer. Said Chenoweth, “Music is the vibration that heals the soul”.Through the Warriors in Pink program, Ford is committed to helping those touched by breast cancer and has dedicated $130M to research, education and support services. Warriors in Pink (#WarriorsInPinkMOMS) also empowers people to take real action to help those battling the disease through the More Good Days initiative (#MoreGoodDays), which launched in 2015 to help lessen the burden on those living with breast cancer and bring them what they ultimately deserve – more good days.The MAMARAZZI event is part of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, with Denise Albert and Melissa Musen Gerstein helping to raise awareness about how to bring More Good Days to those living with breast cancer. Denise, currently undergoing treatment for breast cancer, alongside her friend and business partner, Melissa, can offer insights from first-hand experience into dealing with the everyday challenges of fighting breast cancer and finding the strength within to continue the fight.
Twitter Advertisement Advertisement Jonas Brothers TORONTO — The Jonas Brothers have announced a new 40-city comeback tour that includes two Canadian dates.Live Nation announced Wednesday that the pop trio’s first headline tour in almost a decade will hit Toronto’s Scotiabank Arena on Aug. 23 and Vancouver’s Rogers Arena on Oct. 11.The brothers’ Happiness Begins tour, with guests Bebe Rexha and Jordan McGraw, begins in Miami on Aug. 7 and ends Oct. 20 in Los Angeles.#HappinessBeginsTour ? @beberexha @jordanmcgrawAmerican Airlines / MasterCard pre-sales begin May 7th!https://t.co/oO1hpzdzRf pic.twitter.com/YeFZEbdwrU— Jonas Brothers (@jonasbrothers) May 1, 2019 Login/Register With: The Jonas Brothers have also launched pre-orders for their first album since 2009, also called “Happiness Begins,” after various individual projects.#HappinessBegins officially drops June 7th but you can pre-order and pre-save it right… NOW! https://t.co/gICiw5QJiD pic.twitter.com/mgxHjVGP0Z— Jonas Brothers (@jonasbrothers) May 1, 2019. Facebook Advertisement LEAVE A REPLY Cancel replyLog in to leave a comment