61–70 of 106 posts
While it turned out that my wife's issue was (fortunately) something less severe, it still makes me happy to see that this treatment has had some success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
It's really not "one thing to take positive action", right. It's no big deal to terminate a fetus. It happens all the time in nature.
> sure you can
No, you cannot make anyone do anything. You can put them in jail, but you can't make them not try to abort. You cannot make them raise a child.
You can punish people, but you can't make them do anything.
>Both patients in the trial had "wet" age-related macular degeneration. This form of the disease is caused by abnormal blood vessels growing through the retinal pigment epithelium and damaging the macula. Dry age-related macular degeneration is more common and caused by the retinal pigment epithelium breaking down. If this is a viable treatment method, it would help only the minority of macular degeration patients.
Feel free to correct if I'm wrong. I'm not an expert. This is just what I've gathered from having two family members with it.
I regularly see comments on YC about Signal-to-Noise ratio, and how YC votes are meant to distinguish the "signal" from the "noise", but in this case, it's clear that this isn't what they're being used for. They're being used to enforce a preconceived bias. Of the two comments that addressed the moral indignity of the treatment (that it requires the death (murder, in most cases) of an innocent human person for its su…
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…
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…
I don't believe killing an embryo is murder, but this comment is a red herring. You're claiming it's possible that ¬innocent ∧ murder. But this is entirely consistent with mjh2539's claim that innocent → murder. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent.
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…
I find how HN completely hides comments with a "[flagged]" replacement a bit insulting as a reader. We're all adults and I'm sure we can handle reading whatever he wrote. Instead we have to guess what you are responding to.
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…
I find how HN completely hides comments with a "[flagged]" replacement a bit insulting as a reader. We're all adults and I'm sure we can handle reading whatever he wrote. Instead we have to guess what you are responding to.
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…
And completely dependent upon the mother whose body it is parasitically feeding off of and canabalizing.
The problem with pro lifers is that they completely dismiss the lives of adult women as being less valuable and less important than a single celled organism incapable of surviving on its own.
If you don't want to talk about souls or spirituality, you are saying the rights of a blob of cells supersedes that of a grown woman. I find this monstrous.
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.
You're begging the question that one of the following two is false: 1. The embryos in question are human, innocent, and alive. 2. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human life. I'm going to infer that you're begging the question that (1) is false. Your argument seems to be an appeal to popularity: most people disbelieve x, therefore x is false. But this doesn't follow. I'd like you to give your reasons…
Nearly everyone disagreeing with you is contesting your implication that an embryo is "a human" as opposed to "a potential human", and they further believe that "a potential human" does not have the same rights as "a human".
You don't appear to have a follow-up to that argument other than "isn't that just your opinion." In order to convince people, you will probably need a better answer.
This is a phase 1 trial (usually just undertaken to check safety before larger trials are done to test efficacy and dose), so it seems all the more amazing that such a big improvement was seen.
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.
I had a retinal tear 4 weeks ago and then then retina detached and started sagging in front of my lens, blocking half of my field of view. Seriously scary, especially since my mother has lost most of her vision after a similar problem.
I got a pneumatic retinopexy a couple of days later. Amazingly, it only took about 30 minutes in a (nice) back-room of the retina clinic with local anesthesia, and the retina re-attached itself in the course of the next few days. Now I am just waiting for the gas bubble to dissolve while my vision is getting better each day.