Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 83

Thread: Embryonic stem cell research disregards the lives of the living

  1. #11

    So you are nothing, Mr. Kelly.

    That would explain a lot of things.

    Thank you for setting the record straight.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Granbury, Texas, USA

    Thanks for your advice, but I already am focusing my efforts on promoting the most effective, most immediate research avenues not only for our condition, but also for Diabetes, Heart Disease, MS, Parkinson's, Leukemia, ALS, Liver Disease, Stroke, and TBI.

    Mike, you say:

    "I think it's a very selfish approach & incredibly short sighted. OK maybe the results are 20 years away. So what?"

    Are you that unaware of the state of research for the conditions listed above (including our own) that you can truly believe it's in the interest of "progress" to divert massive resources to cloning and ESCs for "twenty years?"

    James Kelly

  3. #13
    Senior Member kate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    bellevue, wa, usa

    Hello, again!

    Good old James, always ready to tweak whatever nerves us poor souls have left functioning . . . a couple of points of advice, if you're willing to hear it.

    1. Aim for brevity. You, sir, are way too longwinded for anyone's good! Hire an editor if you have to, but please, cut the gas.

    2. Calling people "pro-abortion" is a red flag. It means that you're either lying about your own position, or you have badly misunderstood the issue. It's best to stick with what you know yourself . . . however humble or grandiose that might turn out to be.

    Aside from that, post away. You're the comic relief some of us are dying for.


    [This message was edited by kate on Nov 17, 2002 at 12:04 AM.]

  4. #14
    Senior Member bill j.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Stratford, SD
    Thanks for the explanation about your "mistake," Jim. Too bad you could not do it with some class instead of juvenile type insults and name-calling , which you so often resort to. I should have also stated in my post that when someone disagrees with you, you will often also resort to a third tactic: 3) childish name-calling


    "Bill: As you know, I try my best to ignore you because I believe drunks and idiots can't help themselves.
    Anyway, Jim, perhaps you could also explain why you believe axons do not grow upward in the spinal cord, if you still believe that, or why you believed that at the time when you were so busy prescribing inosine for people.

    Yes, Jim, I know you try your best to ignore me and have in the past refused to answer my questions along with the questions of others who have put you on the spot. But I do think it is important that people that are newly visiting these forums know your history. I only regret that I did not have the time to write a more complete history of your postings and ideas or that your postings on the old Cando Forum are no longer available. Your own postings would serve as a better witness to your lack of qualifications and irrationality than anything I could write about your history.

    I do think it is important that people who visit these forums understand the forums are unedited and that any person, regardless of intelligence (or lack of ) and regardless of formal qualifications (or lack of) can express ideas here. It has been said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Readers of these forums must realize that Jim Kelly has just very little knowledge about neuroscience or any other branch of science and that he is not anything even close to being a scientist in spite of the language he may use or the image he may attempt to project. I do not want anyone conned by him as some were in Kelly's inosine fiasco on the old Cando forum. That caused harm and expense to some people who took his advice. When you are on the Internet, you should always be very careful who you take advice from and careful and cautions of those you don't know who are attempting to shape your ideas. Bill

    [This message was edited by Bill J. on Nov 17, 2002 at 07:48 AM.]

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Granbury, Texas, USA
    Care/Cure Commnunity:

    I apologize for diverging from the important issues being discussed in this topic to indulge in a childish spat.

    I addressed the definition of "regeneration" in response to Mr. Johnson's personal attack. The feasibility and direction of sensory axon growth is another worthwhile topic. Perhaps another thread could provide peer-reviewed evidence that sensory axons have in fact grown up through a chronic SCI lesion and re-made functional connections. I would be very encouraged to read of it. (Dr. Jerry Silver had told me he thought this might be more easily said than done, as he believed that before functional sensory connections could be re-established that neuronal dendrites would need to grow down to meet sensory axons growing up.)

    But the sensory axon issue is not the topic at hand. I raised certain points in this thread's topic concerning the most effective means of promoting cures through regenerative science. If others disagree with their merit, I suggest they refute them. Attacking the writer, rather than the content of his writing, strongly suggests the content is sound and correct.

    [This message was edited by James Kelly on Nov 17, 2002 at 12:39 PM.]

  6. #16
    Bill, you don't need to warn me about Jim Kelly. I have been a long-time reader of these and previous forums where he has posted. He is the type of guy my mommy used to worry about me meeting on the Internet. Your post should, however, be read and saved for those who are new to the forum and don't really know this character. And, yes, Kelly had no understanding of how "regeneration" is commonly referred to on this forum, no matter how he tries to wiggle out of his ignorance through semantic argumments. It does not surprise me that he did not know axons grow up and well as down the spinal cord.

    James says that because a trial has been started for ALS, we are "on the verge of cures" for it and for a number of other conditions for which trials have begun. However, clinical trials for cancer started decades ago, thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of cancer trials have been conducted and still no 100% cure has been found. If cancer research is used as a pattern, we are a long way from curing ALS and cures will come in small increments, not great leaps. If Kelly knew anything at all about science, he would be talking about the hundreds and thousands of clinical trials that might be needed to cure the many conditions he sites, including a complete cure for sci.

    Let's face it, the man is an ignorant slob consumed with his own ego who has found a way to sound important. Like someone said, James is a wannabe who thinks he has uncovered world-wide conspiracies and for that he is hoping to gain acclaim and fame. The man is a nut. I have no respect for his ideas or views. Like bill M. I'll place my faith in the Noble lauraetes , thank you.

  7. #17
    Oh, James, I forgot. In the interest of disclosure, why don't you tell us all who paid your way to New Jersey and Washington, D.C. In other words, who are you in bed with and who is using you so unmercifully?

    Another question: Why do you rely so much on "peer reviewed literature" when you believe scientists are unethical and imorral. In other words, how can you expect to trust any peer reviewed scientific literature given your nutty views?

    I really don't expect you to answer these questions because you simply ignore questions you don't want to answer. In the past I have tried to be somewhat tactful and kind to you. But I am beginning to believe you do not deserve such treatment.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Granbury, Texas, USA

    Like Bill, you seem to think this thread is about me. It's not. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people disabled by neurological conditions come to this forum for information and take part in discussions concerning topics vital to their health and future. They do not come here to discuss James Kelly. (If they do, they're really in need of a life.)

    But regarding the issue at hand, please do not misrepresent my words. Yes, I've claimed we "stand on the threshold of cures" for many conditions. Perhaps you haven't seen the evidence I've presented on other threads to support this claim. In doing so I didn't cite clinical trials whose results have yet to be gauged. Rather I've pointed to reports of humans apparently cured or whose conditions have improved through the successful use of non-ES, non-cloning avenues, including clinical testing of treatments for M.S., Leukemia, Sickle Cell Anemia, Stroke, SCI, Parkinson's Disease, Heart Disease, and other conditions.

    Are these treatments irrefutably established as full-fledged cures? No, they're not. Hopefully I didn't present them as such, because that wasn't my point. Those promoting cloning and ESC Research insistently claim the avenues they promote represent mankind's "most promising" hope for cures. In my opinion they're not. In some cases (such as Christopher Reeve's March 5th testimony to the Senate regarding ALS and remyelination) ESC supporters have publicly claimed that ESCs are the only hope for cures. In my opinion they're not. In fact, I believe the evidence shows the safest, most immediate, "brightest promise" for cures to all the conditions ESCs and cloning are being hyped for lay in non-embryonic, further-advanced avenues.

    Btw, it may surprise you to learn that I agree with your premise that we should not place our eggs in one basket, nor am I against all embryonic stem cell research. My objections in this regard concern allowing public and non-profit resources to be spent on the slowest, least likely method of producing safe, effective therapies through ES usage. For example: in another thread, Dr. Young admits that designer cells made through cytoplasmic transfer could provide safe, affordable, effective cells for transplantation within "several years." Also, recent reports indicate that scientists are very close to unraveling exactly which genes control the robust proliferation and maturation of all stem cells, including adult, fetal, and embryonic. In fact, many feel the true promise of regenerative medicine will be found not in removing cells from embryos, fetuses, or adult tissues, culturing them, and implanting them in the body, but rather in simply instructing existing cells within the body to repair the condition in question.

    The point I'd like to suggest is that not only do we have effective, safer, more immediately available alternatives to cloning and ESCs, but if we do decide the embryonic regenerative process is the most desirable therapeutic option, we have more safer, more direct, less problematic means of accessing it than removing embryonic stem cells from embryos for implantation in a foriegn environment (the adult body), or engineering ESCs in-vivo to a desired stage. My objections regarding cloning and ESCs concern using crucial resources to hopefully overcome non-regenerative issues, such as immune rejection, tumor formation, in-vivo maturation, genetic mutation, cloning inefficiency, etc., rather than focusing our embryonic regeneration research efforts on understanding and harnessing the process. To do this we certainly don't need cloning, and we don't need unlimited access to human embryonic stem cells. In fact, in my opinion, opening the door to human cloning and expanding access to human embryos only encourages science to meander down the longest, most convoluted, least certain paths to our clinical goals.

    By all means we should hedge our bets. But at the same time we'd be fools to advocate spreading our resources thinner than needed.

    Ann, the facts speak for themselves...if only they're accurately presented, which I've tried my best to do. If in doing so I've seemed more intent on presenting myself than presenting the issues, I'm sincerely sorry...for all our sakes.

    James Kelly

    [This message was edited by James Kelly on Nov 17, 2002 at 04:17 PM.]

  9. #19
    James, why don't you cut the broken-record rhetoric and answer my questions? I for one will never believe you are in any way qualified to determine which research avenues and methods will bring cures the fastest. You have no crystal ball. You have no science education and probably couldn't pass biology 101 if you tried. You are a nobody just like Linda said.

    Now answer my questions below. Who's picking up the tab for your trips and why do you rely on peer-reviewed science literature when you believe scientists are unethical crooks? You do have a way of ignoring hard questions, don't you James?

  10. #20

    james kelly

    Every avenue of research should be pursued period!!

    I don't know what your disability or deal is, but stop speaking in the Cure forum and kiss Leon Kass' ass!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts