Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back' • Hacker News Board

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#51

Post by tialaramex » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:27 PM UTC

mjh2539 wrote: post #41

tialaramex wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your _opinion_ conflicts with reality then the resulting comments are likely to be useless noise and get filtered out. And that is probably going to feel unfair to you, but it's actually valuable information. HN readers find this unremarkable in many types of story. We don't find ourselves wondering if the comment "But five is an even number" for a number theory article might be signal that needs boosting, it's no…

How does my opinion conflict with reality? Which of these is "in conflict with reality"? 1. The human embryo is human (this is true by definition); 2. The human embryo is innocent; 3. The human embryo is alive; 4. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human life.

Although "Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human life" sounds like a reasonable definition out of context, you've presented a context in which "innocent human life" just means any human cells that you've arbitrarily judged "innocent". I'm going to guess this dodge is here because you support, or at least wish to avoid antagonising, people who believe that killing other people is a legitimate criminal punishment and so somehow it's not "murder" if the state chooses to do it. Although it's also possible you condone extra-judicial killing, with the same dodge, it's OK to torture somebody to death so long as you know, they're bad guys...

Anyway, a more reasonable definition of murder requires the victim to be a _person_ and an embryo is not a person.

Personhood is a strange phenomenon, and there's definitely room for a grey area. But embryos aren't in that grey area, not even close.

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#52

Post by DoreenMichele » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:35 PM UTC

robohoe wrote: post #31

maroonblazer wrote: post #25

I'd love to know if similar work is being done for loss of hearing/deafness. Is there an auditory equivalent to retinal pigment epithelium that nourishes the hair cell stereocilia?

I would love to see if there are any updates/trials going on in regards to hearing/deafness. Suffering from Tinnitus and hearing loss is not pretty.

Alternative remedy groups recommend magnesium supplements to treat tinnitus. I know at least one person whose tinnitus improved and became more bearable after improving their magnesium status. I rapidly get noise sensitive when I become magnesium deficient due to fever or vomiting and it rapidly resolves with consuming magnesium rich foods.

If you are magnesium deficient, you may also need calcium, vitamin D and vitamin K to fully resolve the issue.

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#53

Post by Mithaldu » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:38 PM UTC

philbarr wrote: post #18

epmaybe wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article, 29- and 21- letters improvement in visual acuity. I believe this means at least 4-6 rows improvement from the chart you read off of. Think about that for a second. Nearly blind, or actually blind, to being able to read again. I'm seriously debating specializing in ophthalmology, and sub-specializing in retina surgery just became an even more appealing career plan for me.

helping people be able to see again? sounds like a definition of "job satisfaction"

Really depends on the person. I have very small sight problems (+.5/-.75) which don't affect me most of the time, but are a danger in traffic. The doctor that diagnosed that really didn't care to answer any of my questions.

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#54

Post by hcknwscommenter » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:43 PM UTC

Brakenshire wrote: post #9

pmarreck wrote: post #2

> Cells from a human embryo Are they sure? They can now harvest stem cells from regular tissue and blood, as I understand it

> Are they sure? They can now harvest stem cells from regular tissue and blood, as I understand it There are adult stem cells which are differentiated or partly differentiated to particular systems, eyes, skin, blood etc, and there are induced pluripotent stem cells, where chemical or viral factors have been used to 'wind back the clock' for adult, differentiated cells back to completely non-differentiated (pluripote…

Very well put. I would add that it could take decades to "iron out" the issues with iPSCs. It could also never actually happen. For example, the iPSC generation process induces oncogenic properties in the cells ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998387 ). It could be that in the next few decades, iPSCs just turn out to be a lot less safe than embryonic stem cells. Considering the hundreds of millions of dollars it could take to move stem cell therapies like this through the validation and regulatory approval process, it would be foolish to handicap the process by using "unproven" iPSCs in favor of "gold standard" embryonic stem cells.

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#55

Post by hcknwscommenter » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:53 PM UTC

mjh2539 wrote: post #41

tialaramex wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your _opinion_ conflicts with reality then the resulting comments are likely to be useless noise and get filtered out. And that is probably going to feel unfair to you, but it's actually valuable information. HN readers find this unremarkable in many types of story. We don't find ourselves wondering if the comment "But five is an even number" for a number theory article might be signal that needs boosting, it's no…

How does my opinion conflict with reality? Which of these is "in conflict with reality"? 1. The human embryo is human (this is true by definition); 2. The human embryo is innocent; 3. The human embryo is alive; 4. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human life.

Assertion #1 is problematic here. As best I can parse it, you are saying, the human embryo is [of human origin]. That is very different from "the human embryo is a human." Most scientists and non-religious scholars and philosophers would disagree with the latter statement.

Assertion #3 is also problematic. You need a definition of alive that is both non-arbitrary and does not include skin cells, cancer cells (which can reproduce indefinitely), etc.

Assertion #4 is very interesting, and I think has been well-treated by other commentators.

Basically, you have asserted a syllogistic like statement that completely falls apart when examined closely. The attempt to save it by asserting that assertion number 1 is true by definition does not work. Assertion number 1 is only true by definition for trivial interpretations of assertion #1 (i.e., the human embryo is a collection of human cells).

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#56

Post by mjh2539 » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

tialaramex wrote: post #51

mjh2539 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does my opinion conflict with reality? Which of these is "in conflict with reality"? 1. The human embryo is human (this is true by definition); 2. The human embryo is innocent; 3. The human embryo is alive; 4. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human life.

Although "Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human life" sounds like a reasonable definition out of context, you've presented a context in which "innocent human life" just means any human cells that you've arbitrarily judged "innocent". I'm going to guess this dodge is here because you support, or at least wish to avoid antagonising, people who believe that killing other people is a legitimate criminal…

> an embryo is not a person > but embryos aren't in that grey area, not even close.

You're begging the question. You haven't provided any reasons or arguments for your position. You've merely re-asserted it. It's akin to saying "It's true that x, because it's true that x".

How is my judgement that an embryo is innocent arbitrary? What crime has the embryo committed? What did it do to warrant being killed?

The trouble with your position is that you have to make an arbitrary judgement. You have to arbitrarily judge the fetus to be a person at some point. Is it at 12 weeks, 6 days, 32 weeks? The day before it is born? When, exactly? What criteria are you using for making that judgement? Why not the day before? Why not a day later?

My position doesn't require making an arbitrary judgement, or answering any of those silly questions. It requires making an intuitive, simple, straightforward observation: from the very moment that the sperm and the ovum meet and the genetic material between the two is exchanged (i.e., the egg is fertilized), a new human life is formed, with its own ends and identity. If nature takes its course, the person either dies naturally and the mother miscarries, or the embryo continues to develop and is subsequently born.

Further, I'm not just designating "any human cells" as innocent. I can't just designate "any human cells" and make them develop in the way that an embryo or a fetus develop. I'm talking about a specific group of spells, easily identifiable as distinct from the cells of the mother, that act in unison and coordination with one another through pregnancy to further develop the human being that has been there from the very beginning. If that is an arbitrary grouping of human cells, then I don't see how the same point can't be made to you, or to me (simply being an arbitrary collection of human cells), but everyone would recognize that this (you are an arbitrary collection of human cells, in contrast to a fully-fledged human 'life') would be absurd.

In addition, you seem to be implying that we need to use different definitions of murder in different contexts, but I don't see that's the case. How isn't the definition I provided inclusive of every instance of murder?

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#57

Post by hcknwscommenter » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #44

telchar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misleading comment. You're talking about murder but this only involved embryos. Many/most people don't consider that murder any more than the spilling of seed is. If you want to push a political view don't couch it as a systemic complaint.

Killing embryos is more akin to abortion (before the 12th week, that's pretty much the definition of abortion). The topic of abortion is still widely debated (especially in the US), and your comment isn't doing it any more justice than your parent comment.

I would slightly disagree. Abortion requires removal/destruction of an implanted embryo. The scientific consensus in the field is that these "embryonic" cell masses used to make embryonic stem cells have no possibility of becoming a human being using current technology. In vitro fertilization techniques implant much earlier embryos than what are used here.

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#58

Post by gottebp » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 6:04 PM UTC

philbarr wrote: post #21

chapill wrote: post #14

>Cells from a human embryo were grown into a patch that was delicately inserted into the back of the eye. I assume the baby didn't survive the process since there's no mention of that.

It's not a baby, it's an embryo. Lots of embryos don't survive for lots of reasons.

It's a philosophical dilemma that demands rigour. When does a human person begin? If a few cells cannot be a person, well, adults are only bigger clumps of cells. What is the threshold? If personhood begins when the cells are independently viable, well, most infants are not independently viable and some elderly aren't either. What is the threshold? By contrast: The moment when it all begins and the DNA is first unique, and the potentiality for an adult is present is very simple and philosophically elegant. If personhood comes later, such as implantation, birth, 7th birthday, etc. it is difficult to give a basis in the philosophical sense. Many philosophers have struggled with this and it's no simple thing.

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#59

Post by ars » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 6:11 PM UTC

glibgil wrote: post #49

ars wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a child. Even if you want to use a broad definition of child (and I do), this cell was not implanted in a women, and could not grow. It's one thing to take positive action to stop a child from living (abortion). It's quite another to simply do nothing. This type of stem cell research is done from cells that would otherwise be thrown out - you have not prevented a child from living.

> It's one thing to take positive action to stop a child from living (abortion) Until someone creates a fetal transplant procedure it’s really not. You can’t make someone host a baby they don’t want

> it’s really not.

It's really not what? Not a positive action that kills a child?

You have to see a difference between not saving someones life, even though you can, and actually going and killing them.

> You can’t make someone host a baby they don’t want

We are getting offtopic here, but sure you can. We make people take care of their children all the time. If they don't they go to jail for neglect or abuse.

Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'

#60

Post by RobertoG » Tue, Mar 20, 2018, 6:22 PM UTC

mjh2539 wrote: post #56

tialaramex wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although "Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human life" sounds like a reasonable definition out of context, you've presented a context in which "innocent human life" just means any human cells that you've arbitrarily judged "innocent". I'm going to guess this dodge is here because you support, or at least wish to avoid antagonising, people who believe that killing other people is a legitimate criminal…

> an embryo is not a person > but embryos aren't in that grey area, not even close. You're begging the question. You haven't provided any reasons or arguments for your position. You've merely re-asserted it. It's akin to saying "It's true that x, because it's true that x". How is my judgement that an embryo is innocent arbitrary? What crime has the embryo committed? What did it do to warrant being killed? The trouble…

Something that deeply bother me about the "pro-life" stance is its hypocrisy.

They put advertisements about "protecting life" and use "life" and "humanity" all the time in their discourse, but that have nothing to do with what they think. What they think, normally, is in the line of "in the moment of the conception an immaterial entity take hold in the zygote".

For some reason, they refuse to discuss that. They believe in an immaterial soul but they hide their real beliefs in their discussion of the issue.

Of course, I don't know if this is so in your specific case, but I know other cases where it is.