Jump to content

stem cell contact lenses cure blindness


Rick B.

Recommended Posts

clicky

 

Here's something that people with poor or no vision will be excited about: three patients had their sight restored in less than a month by contact lenses cultured with stem cells.

 

All three patients were blind in one eye. The researchers extracted stem cells from their working eyes, cultured them in contact lenses for 10 days, and gave them to the patients. Within 10 to 14 days of use, the stem cells began recolonizing and repairing the cornea.

 

Of the three patients, two were legally blind but can now read the big letters on an eye chart, while the third, who could previously read the top few rows of the chart, is now able to pass the vision test for a driver's license. The research team isn't getting over excited, still remaining unsure as to whether the correction will remain stable, but the fact that the three test patients have been enjoying restored sight for the last 18 months is definitely encouraging. The simplicity and low cost of the technique also means that it could be carried out in poorer countries.

 

This is incredible and potentially game changing. It's stuff like this that makes you realize that we live in the future, and it's awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That is amazing Rick, it's just that one lil step towards something big! I like what you said about 'living in the future', very true!

 

I'd just wish they'd hurry up and allow scientists more freedom with genetics/cloning/stem cell research, as the ability to cure a load of diseases and problems is out there, it's just the bastards who think all that stuff is morally wrong are getting in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is amazing Rick, it's just that one lil step towards something big! I like what you said about 'living in the future', very true!

 

I'd just wish they'd hurry up and allow scientists more freedom with genetics/cloning/stem cell research, as the ability to cure a load of diseases and problems is out there, it's just the bastards who think all that stuff is morally wrong are getting in the way.

are you referring to embryonic stem cell research, because i don't see how destroying one life to save another is really helping anything. but if you are referring to adult stem cell research, then i think you need to do some of your own research. there are tons of people trying to work with it, but it's not as easy as you think.

 

from what i can tell, the stem cell contact lenses (technically not "stem" cells) wont repair nerve damage, but maybe a bad cornea, lense, or iris or something like that, but we are still trying to find ways to repair nerve damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice!!! And people doubted this kind of research.

 

And PBaller, embryonic stem cells aren't just taken from embryos, they are also taken from the umbilical cord as well as the placenta. Nothing is hurt by that. It would just go in the trash otherwise.

 

And the ones that are taken from embryos are in a lab setting, voluntarily donated eggs and sperm are used to create an embryo. There's no harvesting involved at all which is what most people think is going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice!!! And people doubted this kind of research.

 

And PBaller, embryonic stem cells aren't just taken from embryos, they are also taken from the umbilical cord as well as the placenta. Nothing is hurt by that. It would just go in the trash otherwise.

 

And the ones that are taken from embryos are in a lab setting, voluntarily donated eggs and sperm are used to create an embryo. There's no harvesting involved at all which is what most people think is going on.

 

I agree with the use of embryonic stem cells from umbilical cord and placenta. However, taking an egg and sperm in a lab to create an embryo.....that is creating a baby and I don't agree with that at all. The only difference is that they are creating a baby with the intent of killing it for harvesting stem cells. That doesn't make it any more right.....in my opinion it makes it even more wrong. Kind of like murder vs. pre-meditated murder.

 

Obviously my response is probably going to start a huge debate with this and abortion issues but that's not my intent. Just stating my outlook on it and I don't know how people can look at a living fetus and say "it's my choice" when the mother isn't the only one effected, but that's obviously an entire other debate.

 

Like I said, I'm all for using the by product of a birth for stem cells, but yes...I'm one of those hugely against using an actual embryo for stem cells and can't hardly even fathom thinking it's okay to create a baby in a lab just to kill it for it's stem cells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No debate from this guy lol.

 

But I kinda figured out why our two particular opinions differ.

 

You come from a very religious, deeply conservative background. While, even though I come from a conservative family as well, I've spent a very very large portion of my life devoting myself to medicine and bettering the lives of those who need it.

 

Your outlook is based on the miracle and sanctity of life, and that no life should be taken for any reason, no matter what stage of development they are in.

And mine is the more clinical view, that, yes we are using a human embryo to do research, but it will better those who are severely disabled or with incurable disease.

 

But that's just me, lol. That close Nate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D

 

I understand Nate...but it's just that just because sperm and egg come into contact and create something, it doesn't mean that it has to go full term!

 

kind of like...everytime anyone masterbates, we are killing babies?

 

And for the religious view: if God really wanted every sperm/egg together to become a great baby, there wouldn't be so many misscarriages/defects!

 

I see big potential in that little lab plate where something is growing! Potential to help humanity already existing in real life!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No debate from this guy lol.

 

But I kinda figured out why our two particular opinions differ.

 

You come from a very religious, deeply conservative background. While, even though I come from a conservative family as well, I've spent a very very large portion of my life devoting myself to medicine and bettering the lives of those who need it.

 

Your outlook is based on the miracle and sanctity of life, and that no life should be taken for any reason, no matter what stage of development they are in.

And mine is the more clinical view, that, yes we are using a human embryo to do research, but it will better those who are severely disabled or with incurable disease.

 

But that's just me, lol. That close Nate?

 

I think that's pretty accurate on where we each get our differing opinions.

 

:D

 

I understand Nate...but it's just that just because sperm and egg come into contact and create something, it doesn't mean that it has to go full term!

 

I completely disagree. When the egg and sperm "connect/bond" they are no longer two non-living parts, they form together to make a new living being. Once that is being created, there IS a living being. You can argue whether that being is a person, but you can not argue that it is now a living creature.

 

kind of like...everytime anyone masterbates, we are killing babies?

 

No. Sperm by itself is not living. An egg by itself is not living. It takes the two combined to make the living creature.

 

And for the religious view: if God really wanted every sperm/egg together to become a great baby, there wouldn't be so many misscarriages/defects!

 

Wrong again. If that was the case, then you should say, all people should be killed (every last one of us) because if God would let somebody die of cancer, then he must not want any of us to live anyway. That's absurd. The point is that creating and ending the lives of babies should not be in our hands, but in God's.

 

I see big potential in that little lab plate where something is growing! Potential to help humanity already existing in real life!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well.. all people do die. So the getting killed part is true. If we weren't supposed to die we wouldn't grow old :). I'm all for stem cell research, even though unborn/aborted fetuses and embryos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nate, but a sperm/egg connection isn't a living baby yet! It takes time so that's what I'm arguing...the time is what that thing won't go through to become an actual baby.

 

The whole thing about everything being in God's hands...I don't know...I don't believe in some other thing haven't such control...there is something out there but I don't know what it is and I can't call it "God."

 

I'm all for using anything we can to help people who are living life with health problems. It's a crazy cycle...we create all the issues with the bad environment sometimes and then try to help it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nate, but a sperm/egg connection isn't a living baby yet! It takes time so that's what I'm arguing...the time is what that thing won't go through to become an actual baby.

 

The whole thing about everything being in God's hands...I don't know...I don't believe in some other thing haven't such control...there is something out there but I don't know what it is and I can't call it "God."

 

I'm all for using anything we can to help people who are living life with health problems. It's a crazy cycle...we create all the issues with the bad environment sometimes and then try to help it...

 

I know that you are agnostic so we will never agree on the issue which is fine. However, the second that the sperm penetrates the egg, cells start splitting and multiplying creating a living thing. The difference between you and I is that I consider the second that the two combine and start growing as the beginning of life, whereas you (and many, many others) think that this early stage of development is either not life, or not "human" life and therefore not as valuable as a "born" human life would be. I personally believe that the second of conception it becomes a life worth saving no matter how small.

 

I understand that you (and many others in this thread) disagree with that view and that's okay....I can respect a difference of opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that you are agnostic so we will never agree on the issue which is fine. However, the second that the sperm penetrates the egg, cells start splitting and multiplying creating a living thing. The difference between you and I is that I consider the second that the two combine and start growing as the beginning of life, whereas you (and many, many others) think that this early stage of development is either not life, or not "human" life and therefore not as valuable as a "born" human life would be. I personally believe that the second of conception it becomes a life worth saving no matter how small.

 

I understand that you (and many others in this thread) disagree with that view and that's okay....I can respect a difference of opinion.

 

 

If I may interject, Nate, lets say that your theory is correct and the scientists are killing living human beings, what about the aspect of "kill one to save a thousand"? Even if thousands of little embryos are used, if we can cure diseases such as various cancers, we are advancing as a race and the sacrifice will ultimately save more lives than it took.

 

You may be thinking "Who are we to decide who lives and dies?" Well in every civilization, sacrifices must be made for the greater good.

 

Put yourself in this position: What if a person very close to you, a child, spouse, sibling, etc became terminally ill and the only way to cure the illness was through extensive embryonic stem cell research? Would you honestly still oppose it or hope for the cure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe nate would oppose it because he has faith for a reason.

 

killing one to save someone he cares about would be selfish and would be wrong in his eyes. nate believes in giving unto others, not sacrificing others for his own selfish gains.

 

the fetuses killed in embryonic stem cell research could have been the human that would grow up to cure cancer, or to defeat the next hitler like person.

 

i think alternative ways to harvesting stem cells should be looked into.

 

i also think we need to get a jump start on finding a new place to inhabit. at our current growth on this planet plus increasing life spans, we are quickly running out of room.

 

now im agnostic, which shouldnt be confused with atheism.

being agnostic means i have no certain religion. i dont believe in religion because it is fallible since it is/was created/governed by man and has too much dogma.

i would rather believe that by being a good person with morals should be enough.

 

i really want to go back to school and major in theology.

Edited by Rick B.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick, by the same token as "the fetuses killed in embryonic stem cell research could have been the human that would grow up to cure cancer, or to defeat the next hitler like person", statistically speaking, those fetuses are more likely to become drug addicts, murderers, and rapists.

 

I agree that alternative methods of harvesting the cells should be sought, if for nothing else, just to make ppl stop complaining and get the ball rolling on research.

 

By the way, I'm an atheist, not to be confused with agnosticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may interject, Nate, lets say that your theory is correct and the scientists are killing living human beings, what about the aspect of "kill one to save a thousand"? Even if thousands of little embryos are used, if we can cure diseases such as various cancers, we are advancing as a race and the sacrifice will ultimately save more lives than it took.

 

You may be thinking "Who are we to decide who lives and dies?" Well in every civilization, sacrifices must be made for the greater good.

 

Put yourself in this position: What if a person very close to you, a child, spouse, sibling, etc became terminally ill and the only way to cure the illness was through extensive embryonic stem cell research? Would you honestly still oppose it or hope for the cure?

 

No.....give one life to save a thousand doesn't work for one reason. THe life being given is not the one that is deciding whether to give their life. If the embryo was able to and willing to give it's own life by it's own free will, then it would possibly be different. However an embryo or even a born baby can not decide those things so who are we to decide what they are worth and when they should die.

 

By your example, you would be fine with the following scenario:

 

My wife get's a heart disease and needs a transplant. You are a perfect Donor, so I (Myself Personally) decide to have you killed so that she can have your heart and live. If she was a Brain Surgeon and you were a cook and McDonalds would that make a difference.....she'd be saving more lives with the heart than you would. I don't know how you'd feel about this (would you be willing to die to save somebody who will be better in society than you?.....I doubt it). Even if you are a productive member of society....say a teacher, who decides which life is worth more than the others?

 

Bottom line is that giving a life to save a thousand is a good argument IF the life being given is able to decide for themselves. In this argument that's not the case.

 

Rick, by the same token as "the fetuses killed in embryonic stem cell research could have been the human that would grow up to cure cancer, or to defeat the next hitler like person", statistically speaking, those fetuses are more likely to become drug addicts, murderers, and rapists.

 

I agree that alternative methods of harvesting the cells should be sought, if for nothing else, just to make ppl stop complaining and get the ball rolling on research.

 

By the way, I'm an atheist, not to be confused with agnosticism.

 

Right, but the point is that they will have the choice. Who are you to play God/Higher Being/Whatever and say that just because they have a higher chance for failure that they shouldn't be given the chance to succeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.