Stem Cell Research is a GO

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6241780.html
Seems like repubs & wingers are out in the cold.
Good.
--
Cliff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Stem cell research was never forbidden. Just with federal money paying for it. If it is so good, why not the drug companies footing the bill?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:27:33 -0800, "Calif Bill"

Amen. Sue

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

this is very complicated. Once one reads about this technically they find the illegal stem cells are pretty much worthless. Not one anything has ever been used or found un them to do nadda. Legal cells used all the time is kicking total ass.
it's just another troll like global warming.
The stem cell research bush kept illegal is useless. Anybody who invest an hour researching will agree.
More propaganda.
New nick suggestion for cliff "Propaganda Cliff"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sure man, if you believe all the propaganda and do zip for research except reading huffingtons blog, it prolly lokks that simple. In fact going to the moon looks pretty damn simple to the naked eye also...doesn't make it so.

Havn't been to any nutcase blogs yet if thats what you mean.

ewtn. And after watching that I seen a book review. Looked up the info after that on google. Seems it's a big ass troll. Stem cell research is working, in fact seen some chick on the news that had a larnx grown and put in her throat. Those came from adult stem cells. The real winner is embillical cord stem cells, where people are paying to have their kids stem celss frozen when born. lots of hopeful stuff coming from there. Baby embrio stem cells....nothing has been shown to date for them to be of any use whatsoever.

Im not a winger ya braiwashed lib. I just don't buy every lie shoved in my brain by the media and politicians.

do some learning on your own before you join the propaganda team and spew ignorance all over usenet.
there's all kinds of stem cells. Bone marrow has been used successfully for a long time now in bone marrow transplants. they come from adults.
********** nor for cliff but for open minded people: ****** pasted** Practical Results No currently approved treatments have been obtained using embryonic stem cells. There are no human trials-despite all the hype and all the media. After 20 years of research, embryonic stem cells haven't been used to treat people because the cells are unproven and unsafe. They tend to produce tumors, cause transplant rejection, and form the wrong kinds of cells.
Private investors aren't funding embryonic stem cell research. They are funding adult stem cell research, which is an ethical alternative. Some of the most startling advancements using adult stem cells have come in treating Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.
The scientific data on embryonic stem cell research simply does not support continued investment in research. Even if the research were successful, it is morally bankrupt and endangers women. Federal funding should not be used to pay for research that many Americans know is morally wrong and scientifically unsound. That makes embryonic stem cell research a bad investment for our tax dollars.
Philip H. Coelho: Let's take a look at three sources of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, adult bone marrow stem cells, and neo-natal cord blood stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have theoretical advantages: they can become all the different tissues of the body and they have a whole life's worth of cell divisions available to them. But they have also triggered malignant carcinomas in animals, and so researchers are cautious about expecting any clinical trials using embryonic stem cells in the near term.
Adult stem cells are typically drawn from the bone marrow of patients. They also have advantages and have been used clinically about 30,000 times. They do have some disadvantages, however: there are risks to the donor during extraction; there is significant risk of transmission of infectious disease from donor to recipient; and the cells have the potential for fewer divisions.
end paste******
Her'es a web page showing a video from the heritage foundation. It has 3 panelists commenting on it. All three are highly educated, semi famous people. And it's live.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm749.cfm
The heritage foundation seems to be non political.
Believe what you want, vote for who you want, give your money to who you want. be a slave to propaganda if it makes you feel like the republicans are finally getting the punishment they deserve?
Or whatever cliffs motives are for buying every piece of nonsence the liberal nitcases are throwing at him.
(crossposting into alt.usenet.kooks?)
Jeesh...some people have no pride whatsoever.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because they're not interested in your health. They're interested in making as much money as possible with as little risk as possible. Like all biologic-treatment research, it's too close to basic research for private corporations to take the risk. There are better ways for them to make money, such as inventing new weight-loss pills. That's where the big money is.
If you care about your health, or for a cure for a disease or condition some relative or friend may have, you have to support the university research, and that means federal money.
If you don't care, no problem. You can just ignore it or pretend there's another way, to avoid challenging your spiritual beliefs. It's no skin off your nose, after all.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

90% of most drugs are developed with government money / university research and then the drug companies take it the last 10% and patent it. Calif, Bankrupt California, voted to support stem cell research. With taxpayer $$$$$$$$$$ and the writers of the proposition put in that the state could not make a profit from it. Idiot voters passed the law.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're talking to a guy who worked for the pharmaceutical industry for four years. Would you like to re-phrase your answer as a question? It would be a good idea.

Yes? And?
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Studies show that 93% of all statistics offered on usenet were either fabricated on the spot or if independantly supported were the result of faulty research.

four
a
He should be talking to the shareholders I guess...

could
Suggest he should head northwards--I'll wave as he passes by...keep going...pretty sure a few villiages in Alaska still needing an idiot...
--




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I like that number. d8-)

It seems they have a strong self-focus wherever he was working. The university researchers do develop most of the small-molecule drug precursors these days, but the vastly larger investment is done by private pharma. And they spend most of their money on clinical studies, not on marketing, overall.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Don't settle in Anchor Point, AK. They've got my ex-husband. Sue
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Cites? :>)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

to
big
there's
four
a
could
And the not so idiot voters knew that they would like someday to receive the benefits from the money put into scientific research. Like in the form of new medications, procedures, and innovations, that will inevitably come from putting money into medical research. That's pretty smart if you ask me. Not like republicans who don't want to spend the money and then die from some horrible disease.
Hawke
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They went along with the proposition writers. Who happen to be the same ones who get the money and get to patent any finds and make money from same. Not even pay back the taxpayers for funding them. Pretty nice to have the taxpayers be the venture capitalists and not have to give them any ownership. You want to give me all your money and I will try to create business with it? If the business fails, you lose your money. If the business succeeds you lose your money. Why not get the cure and help the state stay out of bankruptcy? And you do not seem to be very smart if you ask me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's true, and it may be annoying, but the political deal was that it would reduce the cost of federal funding for those research centers. It was one of those back-door deals to reduce government spending.
Increases to NIH funding ran at the rate of 14% - 15%/year for years before 2004. Then it was reduced to 2%/year. In 2007, NIH got their first actual *cut* in funding.
I'm sure there's more to it but those cuts were the objective of the whole deal.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:18:31 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

Of course, Bush had to pay for his wars even at the cost of Americans not receiving health care. Good demonstration of Bush/Cheney priorities.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think your figures are misleading, Bill. University researchers develop a chemical, and if it has potential as a drug, a drug company will license it or buy it and develop it into a drug for humans. In terms of the chemistry I wouldn't disagree -- the university researchers often create the active agent (I forget what percentage it is of new drugs, but it's significant) -- but that usually requires further lab work to make it a safe and effective drug.
What's misleading is the implication in your statement about where the work and money goes. I don't recall the figures but this is the order of magnitude: the chemical typically costs 10% or so of the cost to bring a drug to market; pre-approval marketing may be 30%; and most of the balance is in clinical testing done by the pharma company, at their own risk.
This is the last drug I worked on when I was in the industry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimonabant
Sanofi Aventis had, IIRC, around $300 million sunk into the drug when the FDA decided not to approve it. Of that, the figure I heard was that something like $10 million - $20 million was the cost of acquiring the chemical. Around $110 million was spent on marketing (in Europe) and pre-approval marketing in the US. The rest was refinement of the chemical and clinical trials, and, at the time of disapproval, two enormous, worldwide clinical trials were underway, which dwarfed the sized and cost of the ones that had been done to that point.
More crucial than specific drugs is the work university research departments do in the basic science of pharmacology. If they don't do it, nobody else will, and that's where the ideas for new drugs come from. Those labs make some money by developing specific products that may become drugs, but the outside funding is necessary for the basic research.
I don't underestimate the value of those university research labs -- they're the cornerstone of the whole thing -- but they are not the ones spending the really big bucks in drug development.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The 300 mill for clinical is a big cost, but the basis for the chemical and the treatment came out of a university most times. So the chemical company takes it the extra 10%, which may cost more than 10% of the money and gets a patent on it. I worked on biomechanical systems. RF treatment of collagen, and we went off others work, added extra complexity to the system to avoid patent infringement. And then hurt a couple women during clincals. some because of bad training, and a couple because the management would not accept some concerns and change the physical design. Not my part that failed, as I was the electronic / embedded software guy. Of the $35 million burned by the company, a lot was saved by leveraging prior arts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, it was a big one -- Wall Street was predicting that rimonabant was going to be a $3.5 billion/yr. blockbuster in the US, and the FDA was especially picky for a couple of reasons. But the order of magnitude of those costs is quite common with major new drugs.
I don't know where the basic work on the chemical was done -- I suspect university labs, because it has a completely novel mechanism of action and it was based on some deep, basic-science research with newly discovered metabolic processes.

I think we discussed your work before, and we said then that the relationship of costs, and the relative work that went on in university research versus private companies was somewhat different for devices than it is for drugs. With drugs, the big money is in the clinical trials, which only Big Pharma can afford today.
And a drug like rimonabant (brand name Acomplia in Europe) often needs further work to make it safe and/or effective. Nevertheless, the university work, as I said, underpins the whole process of new-drug discovery.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:11:03 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:

Hmmm, we cover the same profession. I've done a number of medical products. The last was the electronics which attached to a drip line and periodically sucked some fluid from the patient for testing then returned the sample to the patient via the same drip line. Our chemists had a polymer which could be doped to react to a broad range of chemicals and hormones.
In this case we were testing for lactic acid to determine the state of patient distress in real time. Prior technology required a mass spectrometer which was anything but real time. Before that I did the electronics for inhalation therapy and long ago I did physiological patient monitors. And lots of embedded system projects before, in between, and a after until I closed my consulting business.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.