Dr. Andrews Using Stem Cells to Speed Recovery??

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Just for clarity, nothing in this article or thread was talking about embryonic stem cells except your post.

Just for clarity my response was to Lotus' post, which in turn was a comment on other peoples comments indicating opposition to "stem cell research."

No sane person is opposed to "stem cell research." SOME PEOPLE are opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research for ethical reasons. That is the context of my post. It wasnt a rant on stem cell research by someone who didnt read the article, because i did read the article.

The purpose of my post was to explain why SOME PEOPLE are opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research -a distinction Lotus didnt make in his post by just referring to "stem cell research" in the general sense. The distinction is important.

[skinsfan69]

I'm sure Goodell will say stem cells is like steroids/HGH and get it banned.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Of course scientific research must follow ethical paths. There is no question in that. The question is, which ethics? The ethical stance which conflates stem cell research with abortion issues? Or the ethical stance which holds that healing people is a central good, so stem cell research should be expanded?

It seems to me that RGIII's case is an example which teaches that we should be expanding stem cell research of various types rather than being, as a society, so squeamish about stem cells. Just my opinion.

I agree with you - its just that to my knowledge, society isnt squeamish about stem cells - well "educated" society isnt anyways. To the best of my knowledge, the only real debate is over embryonic stem cell research and whether THAT is ethical or not. I highly doubt anyone would have a problem with grabbing stem cells from RGIIIs pelvic bone and injecting it into his knee.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I'm sure Goodell will say stem cells is like steroids/HGH and get it banned.

That was one of my first thoughts as well. Ireally dont like the leagues stance on HGH. In my opinion, HGH should be allowed to help players recover from injury faster. Its better for the league to have is players healthy. As long as the league would be allowed to approve HGH on a case by case basis (like they do with adderall), i dont see why they should have a problem with it.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Just for clarity my response was to Lotus' post, which in turn was a comment on other peoples comments indicating opposition to "stem cell research."

No sane person is opposed to "stem cell research." SOME PEOPLE are opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research for ethical reasons. That is the context of my post. It wasnt a rant on stem cell research by someone who didnt read the article, because i did read the article.

The purpose of my post was to explain why SOME PEOPLE are opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research -a distinction Lotus didnt make in his post by just referring to "stem cell research" in the general sense. The distinction is important.

Not really, because Lotus' point was that people would get into histrionics at the mere mention of stem cell research (ie AW's post) instead of looking at the facts that make it a viable research alternative. In fact your response was, in my opinion, exactly the response Lotus was saying was frustrating. If I want to talk about effective US stem cell therapies then by definition, and US laws, I am not talking about Embryonic stem cells.

You introduced that topic, and now here we are ranting on it, rather than just talking about how fascinating valid stem cell therapy may become.

[Schneed10]

Use this thread as a learning opportunity. There seem to be a striking number of people who think the only source of stem cells are a human embryo, completely unaware that we are all walking around with them inside our body.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Not really, because Lotus' point was that people would get into histrionics at the mere mention of stem cell research (ie AW's post) instead of looking at the facts that make it a viable research alternative. In fact your response was, in my opinion, exactly the response Lotus was saying was frustrating. If I want to talk about effective US stem cell therapies then by definition, and US laws, I am not talking about Embryonic stem cells.

You introduced that topic, and now here we are ranting on it, rather than just talking about how fascinating valid stem cell therapy may become.

I disagree with you 100%. NO ONE gets in hysterics about stem cell research in general. Its only embryonic stem cell research that causes concern in this country. In this country, if you are referring to stem cell debate, its UNDERSTOOD that youre talking about embryonic stem cells. I think it is important to make the distinction, to avoid confusion. I also dont understand youre reference to "valid" stem cell therapy. "Valid" is a subjective term.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Use this thread as a learning opportunity. There seem to be a striking number of people who think the only source of stem cells are a human embryo, completely unaware that we are all walking around with them inside our body.

Thank you.

That's what my post was about. The more research we can do on adult stem cells, the more light we can shed on how effective they are. We may be able to get them as viable as embryonic cells.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I disagree with you 100%. NO ONE gets in hysterics about stem cell research in general. Its only embryonic stem cell research that causes concern in this country. In this country, if you are referring to stem cell debate, its UNDERSTOOD that youre talking about embryonic stem cells. I think it is important to make the distinction, to avoid confusion. I also dont understand youre reference to "valid" stem cell therapy. "Valid" is a subjective term.

ok we can leave it at agree to disagree.

edit: for sake of my statement, valid stem cell therapy meant any stem cell therapy which can be accomplished legally under current US laws. Sorry if that was not clear.

[44ever]

Ahhhhh... Another RG3 recovery thread.... Who would have guessed...

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Use this thread as a learning opportunity. There seem to be a striking number of people who think the only source of stem cells are a human embryo, completely unaware that we are all walking around with them inside our body.

I agree. I did not mean to start any sort of debate - i was really just trying to paint a clear picture of the "stem cell debate" to explain why there are legitimate ethical concerns to certain types of stem cell research.

Most of us are not doctors (but some of us like to pretend to be, especially as it relates to RGIIIs knee). Its important for people to understand the distinction. The article which prompted this thread went out of its to make the distinction clear.

As to speculation that RGIII had stem cells injected in his knee - i think its pretty cool. I wonder if they'd have done the same thing for both knees to speed up recovery.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

ok we can leave it at agree to disagree.

My opinion is that we probably agree on the same points, i just dont think we're understanding the intent behind eachothers posts. I do agree that the speculated surgery is pretty nifty stuff - i do wonder why Andrews would publically say they used stem cells from his pelvic bone in the press release on the surgery. I would imagine he's something of a pioneer with the surgery and I would imagine he'd want credit as such.

[44ever]

Report: Several Redskins players duped by fake woman

[DynamiteRave]

^^ lol

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I agree. I did not mean to start any sort of debate - i was really just trying to paint a clear picture of the "stem cell debate" to explain why there are legitimate ethical concerns to certain types of stem cell research.

Most of us are not doctors (but some of us like to pretend to be, especially as it relates to RGIIIs knee). Its important for people to understand the distinction. The article which prompted this thread went out of its to make the distinction clear.

As to speculation that RGIII had stem cells injected in his knee - i think its pretty cool. I wonder if they'd have done the same thing for both knees to speed up recovery.

I suppose it depends on how the stem cells help the knee heal. Are they helping the ligaments adhere to the bone with great strength in a quicker fashion? Seems that way, since the article states that they're injecting them into reconstructed joints to generate strength in the ligaments sooner. But what about grafted tendons? Will stem cells help the grafted tendon from his other knee heal stronger?

Suffice it to say that wherever Andrews thought it would aid the healing process, he is probably doing it. It's smart business and good medicine for him. Doing this enables him to heal patients faster and grow his cache as the miracle worker for sports medicine.