Dementia

[Guest The Architect]

Do you think there will be a cure for dementia within say

Edited February 28, 2007 by The Architect

[Walsingham]

I agree that our best results will probably occur in prevention. For my money I think that sleep is critical. I actually read a paper on the importance of sleep in adults forming new neurons, which seems to me consistent with staving off dementia.

 

However, even the charity themselves acknowledge that as we live longer we get picked off by different stuff. Really we're never going to be free of something that affects us in old age that is horrific. Having said that, I really am sorry to hear you're having to cope with the problems dementia brings, and your mum is suffering.

[Sand]

Who knows, we might have had a cure already if it wasn't the conservative types stone walling stem cell research. When it comes to diseases that effect the neural tissue such as dementia or Alzheimer's the only real cure is the stimulation of growth of new neural tissue which is one of the possibilities of stem ells. But no, the conservative factions who use the Bible to stunt progress in medical science say that it is against the will of God and that it kills people or some other nonsense.

[Guest The Architect]

I agree that our best results will probably occur in prevention. For my money I think that sleep is critical. I actually read a paper on the importance of sleep in adults forming new neurons, which seems to me consistent with staving off dementia.

 

I'll keep that in mind then. I'll try not to have too many late nights anymore!

 

However, even the charity themselves acknowledge that as we live longer we get picked off by different stuff. Really we're never going to be free of something that affects us in old age that is horrific. Having said that, I really am sorry to hear you're having to cope with the problems dementia brings, and your mum is suffering.

 

My mum doesn't have dementia, it's my nonna (my grandmother) that has it.

 

Who knows, we might have had a cure already if it wasn't the conservative types stone walling stem cell research. When it comes to diseases that effect the neural tissue such as dementia or Alzheimer's the only real cure is the stimulation of growth of new neural tissue which is one of the possibilities of stem ells. But no, the conservative factions who use the Bible to stunt progress in medical science say that it is against the will of God and that it kills people or some other nonsense.

 

I

[Walsingham]

I don't know that it's fair to entirely blame the conservatives. Scientists can be a lazy bunch.

 

As far as I know ALL neurotransmitters can get wonked by a lack of sleep.

[Diamond]

Bilingualism Has Protective Effect In Delaying Onset Of Dementia By Four Years, Canadian Study Shows

[Sand]

I don't know that it's fair to entirely blame the conservatives. Scientists can be a lazy bunch.

 

As far as I know ALL neurotransmitters can get wonked by a lack of sleep.

 

Fair or not, George W. Bush and his neocons have done as much as they to hamper stem cell research regardless of the health benefits. Their whole reasoning is that a fetus is a human being when it is just a collection of cells.

[Walsingham]

I don't know that it's fair to entirely blame the conservatives. Scientists can be a lazy bunch.

 

As far as I know ALL neurotransmitters can get wonked by a lack of sleep.

 

Fair or not, George W. Bush and his neocons have done as much as they to hamper stem cell research regardless of the health benefits. Their whole reasoning is that a fetus is a human being when it is just a collection of cells.

 

Like you and me, you mean? Look, I hapen to think that stem cel research is going to be the answer to just about every disease we currently face. Except twinkie addicton. But it deosn't mean that concern over when something becomes a baby is wrong. What bugs me far more is people getting into a flap about stem cells then not giving a damn about adults.

[Sand]

Well, we seem to have differing opinions on what constitutes human life, Walsh.

[Atreides]

In b4 Eddo's "How many foetuses is an adult life worth" thread.

[taks]

Who knows, we might have had a cure already if it wasn't the conservative types stone walling stem cell research.

that's nonsense. a leap of faith to conclude that fetal stem cells are the cure to man's ills. it's pretty easy to just conclude that since "conservatives" don't want fetal stem cell research, then they MUST be the cure, and now you have a built-in whipping boy to blame when cures aren't found. think, sand, please.

 

taks

Edited March 3, 2007 by taks

[taks]

Their whole reasoning is that a fetus is a human being when it is just a collection of cells.

actually, their reasoning is that it will encourage "harvesting," and increase abortions.

 

do you even understand the arguments you debate? silly boy.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

I'm often startled by how easily influenced some people must be. At least they assume everyone else is. Murderers only do it because it's easy. Abortions only occur because there's a drive-thru section at the hospital. If we can just make a drug addict travel one mile more to a dealer then they'll quit. etc etc.

[Sand]

Their whole reasoning is that a fetus is a human being when it is just a collection of cells.

actually, their reasoning is that it will encourage "harvesting," and increase abortions.

 

do you even understand the arguments you debate? silly boy.

 

taks

 

Wrong. Iowa researchers have developed a way to harvest stem cells without using abortions, using a technique they can clone stem cells.

[taks]

Their whole reasoning is that a fetus is a human being when it is just a collection of cells.

actually, their reasoning is that it will encourage "harvesting," and increase abortions.

 

do you even understand the arguments you debate? silly boy.

 

taks

 

Wrong. Iowa researchers have developed a way to harvest stem cells without using abortions, using a technique they can clone stem cells.

it's not "wrong" at all. that is their reason. sheesh sand, you don't even know how to counter an argument. what is it with the board these days?

 

whether or not you can harvest the cells otherwise is immaterial. being able to do it other ways might eventually change their views, however, assuming it does not result in death or defect.

 

taks

[taks]

Abortions only occur because there's a drive-thru section at the hospital.

actually, it's a slippery slope argument though the way you posed it isn't really correct. the argument is actually if you provide a reason, there will be more than there already are. assuming the abortion method of creating stem cells, you will find some opportunists getting pregnant and aborting to make money. capitalism at its finest. the slippery slope kicks in when they make the assumption it will be a dramatic increase, which is unlikely.

 

the same goes for when abortion was not necessarily legal. they still happened, though not very often. the argument was that there would be some huge jump, with abortions happening on tailgates, etc. everyone will use abortion as birth control, etc. (probably exaggerated). in any event, the number increased, but not by nearly as much as the early proponents would have had you believe.

 

taks

[Sand]

Their reasoning is wrong, plain and simple. The human species is in no danger of becoming extinct. In fact we have a great overpopulation of humans in the world right now. Early term abortions should be allowed without limitations and if we can harvest stem cells for research purposes in order to cure the ills of the world then lets do so. Saying that human life starts at conception is just plain silly. I am not here to argue, Taks, it simply is. A lot of those who object use some pseudo-religious idealogy to justify their claims that human life is sacred that we all have souls, even a small cluster of cells that have no discernable features. You claim that I am irrational, but in my view it is more irrational to base one's opinions on dogma and faith that has its origins thousands and thousands of years ago when they had no clue what a neuron was or the role of DNA has our development.

[taks]

Their reasoning is wrong, plain and simple.

whether their reasoning is right or wrong isn't the point. what i stated isn't wrong. argue what i said, sand, not what you think i said.

 

sheesh...

 

Saying that human life starts at conception is just plain silly. I am not here to argue, Taks, it simply is.

immaterial. where did i take a side anyway? also, you seem to think that a subjective argument has an objective conclusion. silly boy.

 

A lot of those who object use some pseudo-religious idealogy to justify their claims that human life is sacred that we all have souls, even a small cluster of cells that have no discernable features.

those with such ideologies find your ideology equally silly. for you to call them wrong and you right is just as hypocritical as them calling you wrong. duh.

 

You claim that I am irrational, but in my view it is more irrational to base one's opinions on dogma and faith that has its origins thousands and thousands of years ago when they had no clue what a neuron was or the role of DNA has our development.

yet somehow, your view isn't based on dogma... oh wait, it's not based on dogma because it is your view. what was i thinking.

 

you're trying to argue a subjective concept from the point of "being right." you aren't just irrational, you're moronic sometimes, sand.

 

taks

[Sand]

I never said my view isn't based on dogma. Its just not based on dogma that is out of date.

[taks]

I never said my view isn't based on dogma. Its just not based on dogma that is out of date.

oh, that's right... your dogma is new therefore it must be better.

 

taks

[taks]

oh, that and the fact that it's your dogma it _must_ be better.

 

newsflash sand, ideology is ideology and there is no right or wrong. only opinion.

 

taks

[Sand]

In my opinion, you are wrong.

[taks]

yeah, but i follow neither ideology (of the two that we seem to be discussing) so actually, i'm right.

 

taks

[Sand]

 

 

[Walsingham]

Abortions only occur because there's a drive-thru section at the hospital.

actually, it's a slippery slope argument though the way you posed it isn't really correct. the argument is actually if you provide a reason, there will be more than there already are. assuming the abortion method of creating stem cells, you will find some opportunists getting pregnant and aborting to make money. capitalism at its finest. the slippery slope kicks in when they make the assumption it will be a dramatic increase, which is unlikely.

 

the same goes for when abortion was not necessarily legal. they still happened, though not very often. the argument was that there would be some huge jump, with abortions happening on tailgates, etc. everyone will use abortion as birth control, etc. (probably exaggerated). in any event, the number increased, but not by nearly as much as the early proponents would have had you believe.

 

taks

 

taks, I don't know if I was being unclear or whatever, but I was deriding the viewpoint, not expounding it. I was saying that it's proven nonsense to assume that extremely weird stuff starts happening if you don't institute massive laws against it. Law enforcement being what it is, most things that are extreme marginal behaviours likely to happen are happening already.