41–50 of 61 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. A common question people have is "is being dead healthier than being alive but sick?" I suspect we may never know the answer to this. Science cannot find this truth.
A common question people have is "is being dead healthier than being alive but sick?" You think this is a 'common question'?
These sort of articles pop up every few months and make people hopeful for a cure, but this is sadly unlikely to ever be a viable one. Stem cell transplantation is a standard treatment for several blood cancers, but will almost certainly never be a standard HIV treatment for anyone except patients who need a transplantation anyway, for one single reason: with modern medicine, living with transplanted stem cells is si…
These sort of articles pop up every few months and make people hopeful for a cure, but this is sadly unlikely to ever be a viable one. Stem cell transplantation is a standard treatment for several blood cancers, but will almost certainly never be a standard HIV treatment for anyone except patients who need a transplantation anyway, for one single reason: with modern medicine, living with transplanted stem cells is si…
This is correct. I have an extremely rare leukemia This is not something you're going to want for something as apparently treatable as HIV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On our underfunded government socialized healthcare systems? No way. Those who are minted go to the US or Switzerland for best cutting edge treatments and prosthetics.
Only 5 patients worldwide has had this dual treatment so far, as far I understand - it's experimental. There's basically one clinic running tests on this specific treatment. Stem cell treatments for this kind of cancer, however, is on the UK NHS's list of treatments when the first line treatments do not get an optimal response, and from what I can see they've been in the guidelines since at least 2020. Given the NHS…
These sort of articles pop up every few months and make people hopeful for a cure, but this is sadly unlikely to ever be a viable one. Stem cell transplantation is a standard treatment for several blood cancers, but will almost certainly never be a standard HIV treatment for anyone except patients who need a transplantation anyway, for one single reason: with modern medicine, living with transplanted stem cells is si…
There are a lot of treatments that started off just like this. For things we thought we would never have a proper cure for, until we gradually understood how treatment worked and how to refine that treatment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some highlights after reading the Wikipedia article on Stem cell controversy: - Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Portugal and Ireland do not allow the production of embryonic stem cell lines - The creation of embryonic stem cell lines is permitted in Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom - Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, North Dakota and South Dakota have passed laws to "prohibit the creati…
[flagged]
Although their arguments often are based on religious grounds that you may dismiss, you may also find that similar principles can be derived from humanistic traditions alone.
Stem cells seem to have this potential to cure so many things but we are somehow not there yet.
Are there still laws in place that prohibit research using stem cells? That might not help
As far as I know there is no treatment, or even research that requires those cells vs adult ones. It also helps that there are embryonic cell lines available commercially, with no restrictions (in the US), for those who want to specifically study them and not adult ones.
So to answer your question: No, the laws are not harming anything.