21–30 of 42 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's real, but not practical. The risk of death during a transplant like this is as high as 10%, because it involves completely knocking out the immune system.
I think most AIDS patients would gladly take that 10% chance.
Just kidding. Or am I?
Stem Cell Research must be allowed.
The difficulty with using HIV as your use-case argument is last I checked, most religious organizations considered HIV to be God's scourge on homosexuals. e.g. they are not particularly worried about getting rid of it. (I'm not just being snarky or sarcastic)
As just one example, Christian Aid, a large UK charity which works to end poverty and injustice around the world clearly states that HIV is a virus, not a moral issue: http://www.christianaid.org.uk/resources/policy/HIV_AIDS.asp...
Stem Cell Research must be allowed.
The difficulty with using HIV as your use-case argument is last I checked, most religious organizations considered HIV to be God's scourge on homosexuals. e.g. they are not particularly worried about getting rid of it. (I'm not just being snarky or sarcastic)
Stem Cell Research must be allowed.
The trick is that there are many sources of stem cells, some controversial, some most definitely not. For instance: baby teeth[1]; amniotic fluid[2]; embryos[3]; fetuses[4]; and others. There are even "pluripotent"[5] cells which have similar attributes, which have even been created from skin cells. "Stem Cell Research must be allowed": of course. Blanket bans are ignorant of the sources, and are effectively idiotic…
(Disclaimer: I know nothing about stem cells. I merely have an interest in the science of breast milk as a nursing mother. :) )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think most AIDS patients would gladly take that 10% chance.
AIDS has actually become manageable, and most HIV+ patients in the developed world die of other causes (cancer, aging, etc.) instead of AIDS. So I wouldn't be too sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AIDS has actually become manageable, and most HIV+ patients in the developed world die of other causes (cancer, aging, etc.) instead of AIDS. So I wouldn't be too sure.
And now HIV patients have a choice between manageable and treatable. For most of us, I think the choice would probably be obvious.
Here is a hypothetical example (because I don’t know much about HIV): Getting rid of frequent headaches (the hypothetical side-effect of managing a hypothetical otherwise deadly disease) with a cure that has a 1:5 chance of death doesn’t seem like a good deal to me.
If this doesn't turn out to be overblown sensationalism, then the team behind this (actual!) cure probably deserves a Nobel for their efforts and results.
It's real, but not practical. The risk of death during a transplant like this is as high as 10%, because it involves completely knocking out the immune system.
Confounding the mortality stats is the fact that individuals undergoing treatment are very sick from the start. We might see better survival rates amongst comparatively healthy people.
In this case, you don't necessarily need a clean slate. "All" you need is a population of cells generating HIV resistant T-cells. AIDS manifests in individuals with extremely low T-cell counts. If a population of CD4 mutants could take hold within a larger population, it might be enough to prevent AIDS and bring viral titers low enough to eliminate transmission.
Nevertheless, I agree -- it's hardly practical, but it may be a beachhead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And now HIV patients have a choice between manageable and treatable. For most of us, I think the choice would probably be obvious.
That depends on what exactly manageable means and what the risks of the cure are. The choice seems by no means obvious to me. Here is a hypothetical example (because I don’t know much about HIV): Getting rid of frequent headaches (the hypothetical side-effect of managing a hypothetical otherwise deadly disease) with a cure that has a 1:5 chance of death doesn’t seem like a good deal to me.
HIV may not be a death sentence anymore, but it's still a serious disease with profound implications in one's lifestyle, and as far as I'm concerned, a cure can't come soon enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good question. If you lay out your options that you know about, I'll point out if there are among them any acceptable ones in my opinion.
Based on your username are you Jewish? Because you'll be interested to know that Judaism not only permits embryonic stem cell research it actually encourages using the embryos rather than wasting them.