Dr. Oz to Oprah and Michael J Fox: “The stem cell debate is dead.”

Posted on December 12, 2009
Filed Under self treatment | 26 Comments

Science Matters #1: Dr. Oz explains to Oprah and Michael J. Fox why embryonic stem cell research is dangerous and won’t cure Parkinson’s, but Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell research will! Supporting documents: – Downloadable PDF of successful adult stem cell treatments of Parkinson’s patients, including a study where the patients reduced 83% of symptoms! tinyurl.com – More information on iPS research under #1 of article: “9 Things the Media Messed Up About the Obama Stem Cell Story” tinyurl …

Comments

26 Responses to “Dr. Oz to Oprah and Michael J Fox: “The stem cell debate is dead.””

  1. VindictusDame on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    that actually makes sense =)

  2. ilysillybilly on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    i dont know but isn’t it
    ‘whatever good comes bad follows along’
    everything good that came out of humanity somethig bad came along with it (its yin/yang)

  3. VindictusDame on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    such as?

  4. TheWarPope on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    so cells back in time huh wich year 1955?
    no just kidding it;s awsome that they mabey can do this in 10 years

  5. DiscipleOfChrist96 on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    Did you actually think about what you were saying when you wrote that? Is it ok to kill a defenseless innocent human being because that being has something you want? Is it ok to kill someone who is trying to kill you? Yes. How is an embryo trying to kill you? What kind of self-defense argument is that?

  6. rsvamri on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    Since when has a TV doctor that talks about everyday lifestyle issues become an authority in fundamental research in stem cell therapy?
    Sorry to say this but this dr. Oz guy should be refraining from this sort of comments since it is in no way his field of expertise.
    (and it is equally despicable to misquote him in the debate on the ethics of embryonic stem cell research by the way)

  7. LENNYlanes on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    are u morons still stuck on embyonic stem cells get over it, you can get it from sperm,bone,muscle anywhere but why would they want you to live? what good would that help the elite? it wouldnt look at all the presidents and the elite they live a very active life at such old ages mind you without cancer!!! think4urself people there are many cures out there, esp the ones that are man made ex: aids,cancer,sickle cell,hep,std’s, where do you think they came from? morons

  8. colineck21 on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    he got Parkinson’s

  9. ilysillybilly on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    something tells me when they find a cure something more terrible will happen

  10. thunderham619 on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    whats wrong with him does he have a sickness?

  11. hebronisimo on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    I thought it was going to be a video about real science.(sad face)

  12. mbenson2790 on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    it is never ok to destroy a human life to better someone else? i can think of alot of instances where the only thing to do is to kill when another human life is in danger. as soon as you mix your politcal or religous belifes with science you loose all credibility

  13. malebeautyforum on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    Great video very informative, keep up the great work…

  14. spulkagent47 on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    I can’t believe people still think these cells come from dead fetuses.

  15. shannonm75 on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    That sounds better than stem cells. Let’s hope that will cure it and a lot of people can get well.

  16. scorpionkings on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS that you hold so valuable are being tossed in the trash instead of being used to save lives! How fucking stupid is that?

  17. TheWarPope on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    YAY CURE FINNALY

  18. GrandSupremeDaddyo on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    We’ll have to adress this EMBRYO argument then. How do T&G establish the moral worth of the embryo?
    As I’ve said, morality can best be described as the desire to improve the quality of life, which is the reasoning behind the law that makes abortion illegal past a certain point in the pregnancy.
    Anyways I’m starting to feel like we’re hogging this comment thread, would you mind moving this discussion into messages?

  19. BoyGenteel on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    Similar to the “acorns vs. adult oak trees” analogy addressed by Tollefsen and George in EMBRYO, it should be pointed out that we value the bouquet more than the seeds because we treat flowers differently from how we treat human beings — i.e. more for their utility (beauty) than their moral worth.

  20. ILIKESFLAN on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    snap, well done :D

  21. oran6es on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    However, the “stem cell line” at 9 months has surely developed into billions of cells. In fact, one dish contains a group of beating heart cells, another, groups of brain cells firing electrical impulses between them, yet another, pancreatic cells. You’ve grown infant parts in multiple separate dishes, by artificially separating the cells from each other, then artificially forcing their development.

    That’s one f#@ked up unethical flower arrangement, wouldn’t you say?

  22. FrankCastlez on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    “what if you give birth to a retard?”

    Well, then ILIKESFLAN how exactly do you explain your birth?

    effen moron!

  23. GrandSupremeDaddyo on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    What needs to be established is when & why inanimate biological material becomes the “one” you referred to, rather than the “none”. Everytime I have considered it, I reach the conclusion that yes, life begins at conception, but that it is more like .0001 than 1. I suppose it’s a fairly dumbed-down example, but if someone ordered a bouqet of flowers and received a pot of dirt with an array of freshly planted seeds I imagine their complaint would be ‘This isn’t a bouqet of flowers.’

  24. GrandSupremeDaddyo on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    Oh I would definitely not say that one is actually none, hence my adressing it as ‘human but not A human’.
    I think, so long as religion isn’t called into play, the core problem with this issue is how and what defines our humanity, which is a philosophical nightmare since we are, objectively speaking, worthless.

  25. ILIKESFLAN on December 12th, 2009 6:02 pm

    Could you possibly be this dim?

    Most of the womans fertilized eggs are shitted out her asshole during those delightful 5 weeks she has every year.

    We can pretend pieces of flesh are alive at any point you want. Hell I’d allow abortions 10 months from conception. What if you give birth and you got a retard? who wants that? no one, that’s who. fuck no.

  26. Peter on December 20th, 2009 9:06 pm

    While iPS cell technology is very promising, there will continue to be a need for embryo derived ES cells for research in the near future. The statement by Dr. Oz (cardiac surgeon, not stem cell scientist) incorrectly implied that there is no cancer risk with iPS cells, when in fact both ES and iPS cells can lead to tumors. Federal funding for the derivation and study of ES cells will be critical to the advancement of regenerative biomedical research.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19590502

    “…Teratoma-formation of SNS from embryonic fibroblast-derived iPS cells was similar to that of SNS from embryonic stem (ES) cells.”

Leave a Reply




Powered by WP VideoTube