And an angry child like you is here because...?

I was woundering what some of our esteemed collegues thought of this:

"NZ doctors to carry out stem cell operations"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10562384

"The procedure involves extracting nerve tissue from a volunteer's nose and inserting this into the injured area of the spinal cord."

Are you still opposed to Obama lifting the funding ban on stem cell research when it seems that there are definate results for this so-called "failed" technology? The donor can even give permission for the cells to be taken from him/her? Or are you still opposed because the cells themselves did not give written permission

I'm mostly interested in hearing from those who have claimed it's a failed technology that has led no-where.

> finished milking the cows on the farm and
> then raping your sister and daughter already?

Or is he raping the cows and milking the family .

Balsz, did you follow the link? It's short and informative. You may like to get yourself informed before posting.

Perhaps you did read the link and you just know more than doctors. Let me help you out just incase you didn't read it:

"Mr Edmonds said at least a dozen New Zealand labs were researching **non-embryonic** [emphasis added obviously] adult stem cells for conditions such as brain injury and arthritis.

The procedure to be applied in New Zealand had been carried out overseas in countries such as Portugal, Italy, Japan and China on well over 100 people with few negative side-effects and varying degrees of improvement for each patient.

This had included recovering bowel and bladder-function, through to extra feeling and movement in limbs.

The procedure involves extracting nerve tissue from a volunteer's nose and inserting this into the injured area of the spinal cord.

Ms Vallis said the procedure offered no controversy over the source of cells because it involved a transfer of the patient's own cells."

> K. William Fancsali wrote:

> lol @ Econamatrix. You're just backing up my point.

Which is......?

I went to the effort of looking at your posts. I find it strange that I'm genuinely interested in why/if anyone would oppose research such as that discussed in the link I posted; and that I'm using the ic forum to satisfy this curiosity.

Your first post said something along the lines of 'stem cell procedures don't always work as intended, and you get side effects'. How many new procedures have worked very quickly with no failures? Are organ transplants 100% effective even now (perhaps you are against them as well)?

Have you personnally made a decision as to how much time R&D should be allowed to progress, then if all side effects are not eliminated by that time the research must be canned? How many drugs and procedures are available where there are a big pile o' side effects to go along with them?

If God threw down a few more miracles for the good people of the world by returning the use of legs or re-growing lots limbs like he does for salamders, then perhaps we wouldn't need to look into this quite so much.

Then on 11-Mar-2009 13:02:22 you started posting about the difference between adult and embryonic cells. I'm not sure if the differences between these types of cells is the point you are trying to make, you have not been explictly clear on that. If you are supporting R&D on adult cells but not embryonic, then I respect your opnion on that.

Still looking forward to hearing more from the other two I mentioned previously ^^^

> K. William Fancsali wrote:

>I was sooooo explicitly clear. <===that is my message.

I re-read your first post, and yup you were clear in that one. I didn't read it properly the first time cause I started skim reading when you were talking about your story and mexico and stuff. Short attention span I guess

Anyway, I was referring to your later posts. Perhaps now your position in those later posts would be clearer if I felt like going and rereading them again,.

So, now that we got that sorted, why are you "lol" that my post supports your opinion? I wasn't challenging an opinion such as yours when I posted that link, so it's not funny at all. It's those other two that I'd like to hear from.

Perhaps Obama should have allowed only stem cell research on adults (presumably you would be happy with that), but that's not what I'm asking.