Dr. Andrews Using Stem Cells to Speed Recovery??

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Just for clarity, nothing in this article or thread was talking about embryonic stem cells except your post.

Just for clarity my response was to Lotus' post, which in turn was a comment on other peoples comments indicating opposition to "stem cell research."

No sane person is opposed to "stem cell research." SOME PEOPLE are opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research for ethical reasons. That is the context of my post. It wasnt a rant on stem cell research by someone who didnt read the article, because i did read the article.

The purpose of my post was to explain why SOME PEOPLE are opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research -a distinction Lotus didnt make in his post by just referring to "stem cell research" in the general sense. The distinction is important.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Just for clarity my response was to Lotus' post, which in turn was a comment on other peoples comments indicating opposition to "stem cell research."

No sane person is opposed to "stem cell research." SOME PEOPLE are opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research for ethical reasons. That is the context of my post. It wasnt a rant on stem cell research by someone who didnt read the article, because i did read the article.

The purpose of my post was to explain why SOME PEOPLE are opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research -a distinction Lotus didnt make in his post by just referring to "stem cell research" in the general sense. The distinction is important.

Not really, because Lotus' point was that people would get into histrionics at the mere mention of stem cell research (ie AW's post) instead of looking at the facts that make it a viable research alternative. In fact your response was, in my opinion, exactly the response Lotus was saying was frustrating. If I want to talk about effective US stem cell therapies then by definition, and US laws, I am not talking about Embryonic stem cells.

You introduced that topic, and now here we are ranting on it, rather than just talking about how fascinating valid stem cell therapy may become.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Not really, because Lotus' point was that people would get into histrionics at the mere mention of stem cell research (ie AW's post) instead of looking at the facts that make it a viable research alternative. In fact your response was, in my opinion, exactly the response Lotus was saying was frustrating. If I want to talk about effective US stem cell therapies then by definition, and US laws, I am not talking about Embryonic stem cells.

You introduced that topic, and now here we are ranting on it, rather than just talking about how fascinating valid stem cell therapy may become.

I disagree with you 100%. NO ONE gets in hysterics about stem cell research in general. Its only embryonic stem cell research that causes concern in this country. In this country, if you are referring to stem cell debate, its UNDERSTOOD that youre talking about embryonic stem cells. I think it is important to make the distinction, to avoid confusion. I also dont understand youre reference to "valid" stem cell therapy. "Valid" is a subjective term.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I disagree with you 100%. NO ONE gets in hysterics about stem cell research in general. Its only embryonic stem cell research that causes concern in this country. In this country, if you are referring to stem cell debate, its UNDERSTOOD that youre talking about embryonic stem cells. I think it is important to make the distinction, to avoid confusion. I also dont understand youre reference to "valid" stem cell therapy. "Valid" is a subjective term.

ok we can leave it at agree to disagree.

edit: for sake of my statement, valid stem cell therapy meant any stem cell therapy which can be accomplished legally under current US laws. Sorry if that was not clear.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

ok we can leave it at agree to disagree.

My opinion is that we probably agree on the same points, i just dont think we're understanding the intent behind eachothers posts. I do agree that the speculated surgery is pretty nifty stuff - i do wonder why Andrews would publically say they used stem cells from his pelvic bone in the press release on the surgery. I would imagine he's something of a pioneer with the surgery and I would imagine he'd want credit as such.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

My opinion is that we probably agree on the same points, i just dont think we're understanding the intent behind eachothers posts. I do agree that the speculated surgery is pretty nifty stuff - i do wonder why Andrews would publically say they used stem cells from his pelvic bone in the press release on the surgery. I would imagine he's something of a pioneer with the surgery and I would imagine he'd want credit as such.

I would guess that it will all come out, but it may be that he wants to do follow up, and is using the results as part of a research paper he wants to publish or he may just be concerned about patient privacy. I hadn't heard of AP using this therapy (granted I didn't follow his recovery much) so maybe Dr Andrews just allows time to pass so that any concerns the athlete may have about their own privacy are alleviated. (Can't see Griffin being a privacy hawk though).