What's the latest on optic nerve regeneration with stem cells?
Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'
71–80 of 106 posts
Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'
#72I'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?
This lab at Stanford is working on some similar things (there are also other research centers I can't recall right now): https://hearinglosscure.stanford.edu/
I'm watching them like a hawk hoping that some day my 2 year old son might benefit from their work.
Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 belie…
> For some reason, they refuse to discuss that.
That's because neither our legal, nor medical frameworks recognize an immaterial soul. They would lose that debate.
Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'
#74About a year and a half ago, my wife was showing symptoms of early-onset macular degeneration, and it led to a rabbit hole of me searching for treatments, and I remember the earlier stages of this being discussed. 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.
I'm really curious to see what the statistics of early-onset macular degeneration will be in 30-40 years, when a large portion of the population will have been looking at screens 10+ hours a day, for 30+ years. I suspect humans current eye-usage habits will affect the numbers.
results in this area of the field can't come fast enough!
Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is the fourth time in this thread that you have attempted to reiterate this argument. 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 orde…
> You don't appear to have a follow-up to that argument other than "isn't that just your opinion."
This is patently false. I have tried to give arguments but people are generally incapable of understanding what "begging the question" means. I cannot convince people that are not rational.
Something is either a human, or it isn't. If it isn't a human, it has to be something else. Assume that the embryo is not a human. It follows that it has to be something else. If it is something else, what is it?
If you say "an embryo", this is circular (the embryo is an embryo). If you say "not a human", you're begging the question. What's left? You have to attribute it as some other species of being, but if you do this, you're committing yourself to the absurd proposition that humans conceive something other than humans, and these non-humans then become humans. This is complex (and absurd) in a way that saying that human beings conceive other human beings is not.
Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'
#76My mother had macular degeneration. She lost almost all vision in a couple of years. She was a very active women all her life, a business woman when women had to ask permission to her husband to open a bank account.
It was devasting for such an independent person. She was deeply depressed and being in her early seventies her health deteriorated quickly, finally dying.
If researchers find a solution it will improve the quality of life of millions elder people.
Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moral indignity? Murder? Person? It looks like we have vastly different definitions of each of these words. Scaremongering with no basis in reality is closer to noise than it is to signal.
Watch out, I'm about to "scaremonger": 1. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent, human life. 2. Embryos are innocent, human, and alive. 3. Intentionally killing an embryo is murder. What are you definitions for "murder" or "embryo"? How exactly is any of this "not based in reality"? Please engage with me on a rational level. Give definitions. Give an argument. This is what I'm trying to do. I'm not: a: usi…
1. Correct.
2. Incorrect.
3. Incorrect.
An embryo is completely dependent on another life to live. Nobody has the right to enslave another person against his/her will.
Try again.
Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'
#78My mother had macular degeneration. She lost almost all vision in a couple of years. She was a very active women all her life, a business woman when women had to ask permission to her husband to open a bank account. It was devasting for such an independent person. She was deeply depressed and being in her early seventies her health deteriorated quickly, finally dying. If researchers find a solution it will improve th…
[deleted]
Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'
#79Earlier 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.
I would applaud that choice. 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 anesthe…
The one thing that drives me away is that while I feel like I am improving one's quality of life, much of my experience in medicine has been seeing my mentors and role models save one's life. It's probably the one thing I will miss most if I choose ophthalmology.
Re: Macular degeneration: 'I've been given my sight back'
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Watch out, I'm about to "scaremonger": 1. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent, human life. 2. Embryos are innocent, human, and alive. 3. Intentionally killing an embryo is murder. What are you definitions for "murder" or "embryo"? How exactly is any of this "not based in reality"? Please engage with me on a rational level. Give definitions. Give an argument. This is what I'm trying to do. I'm not: a: usi…
By that definition the usage of condoms is murder, too, as their usage means intentionally killing ovocytes, which are innocent, human, and alive. But it doesn't stop there! Following that logic, not getting every single fertile girl and woman forcibly pregrant every 28 days is murder, too! Otherwise, all those ovocytes will die. Somewhere in the syllogism you postulated has to be a logical flaw.
Actually, It is you whose logic is faulty here. Life (according to the commentator) begins when an embryo is fertilized.