Chinese Medicine

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by wil

I suppose this should once and for all end the human stem cell research debate then yes? ie using animal parts for healing...

Don't really agree with that... lol.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Examples please. I don't think there is too much emphasis on this in the UK so I don't know much about it. Many thanks.

As in your lioness example, researchers have found that some stem cells activate other cells to grow...and some stem cells can be encouraged to grow into other cells, liver, kidney, skin, heart etc. So there are two main types of stem cells being researched, adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells.

In the US this gets embroiled into a right to life debate. And while research is being conducted on both adult and embryonic stem cells and the 'lions' share of the success has been with adult there exists a contigent that wishes to do more embryonic research. Currently embryonic research which is gov't funded is limited to a few hundred thousand stem cell lines that were past embryos that were destined for destruction. The crowd wants new stem cells, the right to lifers think it aberrant to create embryos (merge egg and sperm and start growth) to harvest stem cells. There is a concern we will begin stagnating growth in some aspects yet grow the seeds of needed replacement organs...much like your scenario except human...

The right to choose crowd feels this is ok, funny though, they like you, would completely oppose this if it were animals that were to be utilized...

I'm suddenly seeing a sunni/shia component in this....getting so wrapped into one portion that we can't see the big picture...

[17th Angel]

any animal is wrong ;\ Human is an animal remember..... I am just werid.... Taking life to save life should be something I agree with, but only to a point lol.... Like I would in certain situations lay my life down to save say my wife or someone lol.... But, to take a human fetus... Or any other animal and kill it, I don't agree with.. WAIT I clicked it! Choice..... Willinginess.. None of them have choosen that... That is why I deem it wrong, but if someone choose and said YES me! I will lay it on the line, for YOU. Then thats good.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by wil

As in your lioness example, researchers have found that some stem cells activate other cells to grow...and some stem cells can be encouraged to grow into other cells, liver, kidney, skin, heart etc. So there are two main types of stem cells being researched, adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells.

In the US this gets embroiled into a right to life debate. And while research is being conducted on both adult and embryonic stem cells and the 'lions' share of the success has been with adult there exists a contigent that wishes to do more embryonic research. Currently embryonic research which is gov't funded is limited to a few hundred thousand stem cell lines that were past embryos that were destined for destruction. The crowd wants new stem cells, the right to lifers think it aberrant to create embryos (merge egg and sperm and start growth) to harvest stem cells. There is a concern we will begin stagnating growth in some aspects yet grow the seeds of needed replacement organs...much like your scenario except human...

The right to choose crowd feels this is ok, funny though, they like you, would completely oppose this if it were animals that were to be utilized...

I'm suddenly seeing a sunni/shia component in this....getting so wrapped into one portion that we can't see the big picture...

Thanks Wil. Once again though all I can say is that if this stem cell reasearch causes animals to be put in pain, slowly killed or experimentation that results in death I think it is unacceptable. I myself wouldn't expect any animals to be slaughtered on mass to try and save my life from any condition, and neither would my family. If my time is up it's up! It's what god intends and that's it. Where is it carved in stone that an animals life is worth far less than a humans? Who governs that it is crucial animals are on this planet to suffer and get slaughtered? They were here before us and will be here after us. They are our compatriots on earth, not an accessory.

Humans can cope in life easily without having to do what we do to animals, but instead we choose the easy and more cost affective way, killing! thats what humans do and we are ignorant as pig sh*t. Humans are so wrapped up into one portion and a big picture, it's their own lives!
It seems to me that this stem cell thing is humans just trying to grasp onto everything and preserve their race for even longer no matter what. Clinging to hope, they are scared of dying out, ahh bless them. Who really cares if the human race goes on for 100 billion years after we die. We are all vip's on earth and it's a shame we don't give animals the same respect they deserve.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Thanks Wil. Once again though all I can say is that if this stem cell reasearch causes animals to be put in pain, slowly killed or experimentation that results in death I think it is unacceptable. I myself wouldn't expect any animals to be slaughtered on mass to try and save my life from any condition, and neither would my family. If my time is up it's up! It's what god intends and that's it. Where is it carved in stone that an animals life is worth far less than a humans? Who governs that it is crucial animals are on this planet to suffer and get slaughtered? They were here before us and will be here after us. They are our compatriots on earth, not an accessory.

Humans can cope in life easily without having to do what we do to animals, but instead we choose the easy and more cost affective way, killing! thats what humans do and we are ignorant as pig sh*t. Humans are so wrapped up into one portion and a big picture, it's their own lives!
It seems to me that this stem cell thing is humans just trying to grasp onto everything and preserve their race for even longer no matter what. Clinging to hope, they are scared of dying out, ahh bless them. Who really cares if the human race goes on for 100 billion years after we die. We are all vip's on earth and it's a shame we don't give animals the same respect they deserve.

Nothing to add penguin. Just wanted to say I agree with every sentence, word and punctuation of what you've posted.

s.

[Snoopy]

Generally speaking, people can pretty much do what they like to an animal and it won't be called murder. So some people do terrible things to animals BECAUSE THEY CAN and that they would never dream of doing to people. When people do this, it shows a terrible streak of what they are really like, because what they are doing they are doing with total freedom, acting out their impulses without restraint. We get a glimpse into their real inner person and it stinks.

s.

[wil]

Yes this started out as Chinese medicine but got into animal rights...

anyone know the difference between non toxic and toxic free? Well it starts out with determining if something is toxic, ie discovering the lethal dose of a substance by killing an animal doing it.

for new foods, personal care products, make up, eyeliner, shampoos etc the new vogue is no animal testing....well somewhere along the line someone has done animal testing or you can't use the product on humans.

So then we've got companies that say toxic free...this means no, zero known toxins are in the product. Like I said, somewhere along the line some other company proved that the ingredients are not toxic...the new company is not testing but utilizing old test results....

Now we have non toxic. Well you gotta test to get that label, because that conditioner which really makes hair shine has some toxins in it, or that lipgloss which makes your lips puffier has toxins in it, or maybe that food preservative or flavor enhancer that works so well....it has some toxins, but overall folks will buy it for some other perceived benefit.

Non-toxic by definition means that less than 50% of the animals tested died. So we run a test on our new shampoo and we need to see if someone used this product for 20 years what the outcome would be. So we shampoo some animals with pure shampoo, not watered down or we feed it to them or inject them with it (after all your skin is your largest organ and highly porous (hence nicotine and hormone patches)) So we want to make sure we won't get sued....so we plan to heavily test animals for 6 weeks to give them 20 years worth of shampoo absorption... And 3 weeks into the test we've already lost 40% of our test subjects... what do we do?? We stop the test, less than 40% died, and we can still get non-toxic on our label!! And then we can open a new company other another name, and sell the rights to the same product, claim no animal testing, non-toxic and charge 50% more to those that care about animals...

Whatta country!!

[pattimax]

I have always wondered what a mega injection of shampoo would do to a human.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by wil

Yes this started out as Chinese medicine but got into animal rights...

Hmm, your OP wil, was about my opposition to Chinese medicine; my answer was broadly concerned with it's connection with (the lack of) animal rights; i.e. animal abuses.

s.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hmm, your OP wil, was about my opposition to Chinese medicine; my answer was broadly concerned with it's connection with (the lack of) animal rights; i.e. animal abuses.

whoa there, you lettin facts get in the way of discussion?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by wil

whoa there, you lettin facts get in the way of discussion?

I realise this goes completely against the ethos of CR and contravenes my most deeply held philosophical beliefs. I apologise unreservedly. In my defense I can only say that I'd had a (rather large) glass of wine.

s.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by pattimax

I have always wondered what a mega injection of shampoo would do to a human.

This would be good (or perhaps a blow torch) on the people who brand themselves "scientists/researchers" as a label to have the right to torture and kill animals, so us humans can smell nice or live a few years longer. They will get what they deserve eventually

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by wil

Yes this started out as Chinese medicine but got into animal rights...

Sadly there is a connection between the two.

I agree with your point on the toxic testing. No just "whatta country" though wil, what about "whatta evil race we are?!"

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Penguin

This would be good (or perhaps a blow torch) on the people who brand themselves "scientists/researchers" as a label to have the right to torture and kill animals, so us humans can smell nice or live a few years longer. They will get what they deserve eventually

Throw in the Chinese government and you got yourself a deal. They just seem to have a real problem with rights, whether it be human or animal.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by pattimax

Throw in the Chinese government and you got yourself a deal. They just seem to have a real problem with rights, whether it be human or animal.

Now there is a true statement, if they are going to treat people the way they do what hope for animals? This nation skins dogs and cats alive for their fur, they also serve varieties of penis in fancy restaurants so I doubt they will care about bear bile or rhino horns.

Anyway, as I seemed to get the blame for this thread I may as well have my 10 pence worth.

My faith in chinese medicine stems from their ability to diagnose and the results of trials done at Great Ormand St childrens hospital with chinese herbal remedies. Some European doctors are now learning to diagnose by the chinese method.

Maybe I should have said that I have a lot of faith in Chinese herbology. Some of our most commonly used drugs to treat diseases are based on chinese herbal remedies. And don't even get me started on what we in the west do to animals.