That's amazing. I really hope that more research is done in (stem) cells. It shows outstanding promise, and it seems safe to assume that this is just the start for a technique of treatments that revolutionizes the way we view and treat illness.
Edit: The article did not mention stem cells, but I think stem cells will inevitably be discussed in this thread as they're a very closely related topic, hence the mention.
Re stem cells - my sister is a vet, she says currently animals get much better treatment than people because stem cells are experimental for people, but routinely used on animals, and the effects are astonishing.
She also have this conspiracy theory about sport stars returning to sport 3 months after especially bad injuries - they must get stem cells, it's impossible otherways.
I don't know if it's true, I hope it is because it means it will eventually be used on regular people as well.
I think it's a shame that this kind of experimentation is not done in a way that maximises the well being of mankind. Paralysed rats were sucessfully got to walk again at least as early as 2003 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x8e2qsAVGc) and it would seem to make sense to experiment on the odd human but instead we have to wait decades I think at least partly to cover the regulators arses in case there are any problems. But it would be better for society to have the odd experimental problem than thousands people suffer for years while they muck about with paperwork and the like.
I see from Wikipedia that Geron Corporation have recently submitted 28,000 pages of documents to the FDA for a stem cell related trial so maybe in 2023 or some such we'll be able to do for people what we could do for rats in 2003.
>She also have this conspiracy theory about sport stars returning to sport 3 months after especially bad injuries - they must get stem cells, it's impossible otherways.
No conspiracy, they are all using HGH. Someone did some analysis on the shortened recovery times for players with ligament tears (like ACLs) and found that while the recovery times have always been getting shorter thanks to improvements in physical therapy, but the there was a dramatic drop at about the time HGH started to be widely used.
The NFL just started lasting for HGH last month. The test supposedly is easy to beat, but it will be interesting to see if it has an effect on times.
My (sensory) neuropathy is total peanuts in comparison to being paralyzed but I still wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. It does not build character in any way. It eats away at me because the pain is so hard to control. No amount of anything in the afterlife is going to balance this out. All I can do is wait it out and try everything thrown at me to see what might stick.
The idea that I'm supposed to sit around and take it - because faith! - is quite frankly deeply offensive.
Wherever it came from it is an insensitive and antiquated quote.
There is nothing noble or character building about someone who has become a quadraplegic, lost all bowel and sexual function control and now relies almost entirely on strangers for day to day living. It recently happened to my sister-in-law and it's a truly devastating situation. If we can remove suffering in the world then we should.
I once heard a story from an old man, about wrestling at a small town school. He was in a very light weight class, such that when the school played matches against other schools, the opposing team might not even have anyone in his class. So rather than sit and watch, he wrestled above his weight class. Instead of seeking to win, sought to delay the pin as long as possible. So he practiced neck bridges, and developed the thickest neck on a skinny kid that you have ever seen. He took his own version of victory--namely that the heavier wrestler could not score a pin on him within the match time limit--from what might otherwise be considered defeat. There was no possibility of true victory, only the choice between aristeia--doing the best you possibly can--and resignation to defeat.
There was no expectation that anyone owed him a fair match. He just tackled the challenge before him to the best of his ability, and lost every time, until he finally won.
And now he has an interesting story to tell, for as long as he can keep the reaper from pinning him.
That HN is unwelcoming and intolerant towards people of faith?
All the faith in the world won't move us an inch closer to the stars. If the blind are going to see, the lame are going to walk, and the mute are going to speak, we'll have to make it happen ourselves.
I haven't downvoted any of your comments here, but I don't think a statement implying that you believe stem cells are immoral is much of a contribution to the conversation.
I think it's going to be difficult to have a productive conversation here on the reasons for believing it's immoral, but you didn't even try to acknowledge that there is some nuance when it comes to stem cells, you just tossed your morality out there for everyone to chew on.
And there needs to be nuance, since induced pluripotent stem cells are generally more interesting than embryonic stem cells, due to the induced patient derived cells not causing an immune response.
Or do you also believe that iPS cells are a moral quagmire?
Your interpretation of your faith != people of faith, sdegutis. I prefer a civil discussion of medical ethics to simple down voting myself. Feel free to drop a little bit more on your views here.
I'm a bit rusty but I did once have a very sharp Christian theological blade. I'll see if I can make you feel more at home and respected.
I assume at least some of the downvotes were given simply that he was off topic. The ethical issues of using embryonic stem cells are hardly applicable to grafting one's own cells from one part of the body to another.
Downvotes are a strong signal that your comment was generally regarded as either incorrect, irrelevant, or hurtful. In this case probably a bit of all three.
You'll find you get the best result on HN when you speak for yourself not for groups, speak on topic by contributing your personal knowledge or asking questions about TFA, and don't condescend the network because you failed to follow the guidelines.
That people don't find the downvoted material to be a substantive addition to the discussion.
> That HN is unwelcoming and intolerant towards people of faith?
As a person of faith who has been around HN a while, I don't find it that way. That the community may have reacted negatively to the particular way you expressed your faith in this particular discussion does not mean that the community is "unwelcoming and intolerant toward people of faith".
Unless they edited something there was no mention of embryonic stem cell research.
As to tolerance for religion that's not actually something I believe in. It's at best cruel and at worst a sick twisted perversion both promoting and feeding off of mindless ingrorance and human suffering.
...which has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.
EDIT: Your ninja edit doesn't make stem cells, let alone embryonic stem cells, any more relevant to the article, or the discussion this breakthrough warrants.
I don't agree with equating "downvoting" with "intolerance", but if you do, then yes, I am intolerant of your blanket classification of stem cell research as immoral.
Please try to be more tolerant of stem cell research. Much of it is not morally questionable at all.
As one of the downvoters: I object to the mindset that prefers people to suffer so they can build some character over attempting to cure them strong enough that I felt a downvote (and a flag for that matter) was the appropriate response.
I'm fine with expressions of faith, this isn't one of those.
So you downvoted and flagged him for something he didn't say?
The now-dead comment that seems to have sparked most of this said that cures should be sought from faith and science and that if all else fails, suffering patiently could serve a purpose of building character.
Frankly, if all else fails to bring about a cure, the suffering is a given.
He's suggesting an approach to dealing with unavoidable suffering that might find at least something good out of it. Surely that's worth consideration.
sdegutis has stated that he was referring to stem cell research, and he advocated that it was immoral and thus should be avoided at all costs.
Perhaps the suffering is not unavoidable after all if stem cell research would not be subject to religious beliefs. Perhaps some parts of stem cell research are morally questionable, but certainly not all. This is what is objectionable.
Edit: The article did not mention stem cells, but I think stem cells will inevitably be discussed in this thread as they're a very closely related topic, hence the mention.