Pages

Jump to bottom

26 comments

1 dragonfire1981  Wed, Sep 28, 2011 5:41:43pm

I wonder if God told him to get the therapy.

2 Off Colfax  Wed, Sep 28, 2011 6:31:20pm

re: #1 dragonfire1981

I really wish God would tell him to get mental therapy...

3 researchok  Wed, Sep 28, 2011 6:52:22pm

This is an important story because it addresses just how stem cell research is misunderstood by many on the right and does not focus on the federal funding aspect of stem cell research.

4 freetoken  Wed, Sep 28, 2011 9:01:00pm

Today's Doonesbury seems quite appropriate for this thread.

5 RogueOne  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 3:58:43am

re: #3 researchok

This is an important story because it addresses just how stem cell research is misunderstood by many on the right and does not focus on the federal funding aspect of stem cell research.

I think trying to link his religious beliefs to FDA approval policies is a pretty tenuous connection. "He doesn't understand evolution so therefore he doesn't understand cancer", seriously? Perry isn't the only one pushing these options and it isn't the first argument over the slow approval processes of the FDA. Peyton Manning just had to travel to europe in order to get a stem cell procedure that he wanted because it isn't allowed in the US. I just read a related article about the rising number of Americans travelling to Europe to have procedures done that they can't get here because of the FDA. I can't seem to find it right now but I did find this one which is specific to the Perry plan.

Doctors wary of Perry’s stem cell treatment
[Link: articles.boston.com...]

BTW, It's much easier to tie his religious views to embryonic stem cell therapy since his objections there are directly tied to his religion.

6 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 4:01:14am

Of note?:

Mr. President, that’s the one guy you won’t have to worry about. Jews will never vote for anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution.

-- Ed Koch, to Barack Obama, on Rick Perry, according to the NY Times

7 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 4:18:21am

re: #5 RogueOne

Heh. Because of the FDA. That's hilarious.

8 RogueOne  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 4:46:22am

re: #7 Obdicut

Heh. Because of the FDA. That's hilarious.

Do you have an actual argument to make?

9 RogueOne  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 4:50:28am

Stem-Cell Tourism: Adventures at the Fringes of Experimental Medicine
[Link: www.popsci.com...]

10 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 5:16:21am

re: #8 RogueOne

Just the obvious one: the restrictions on stem-cell experimentation and use have come from religious objections from the GOP. FDA approval of therapies can only begin when the therapies actually are submitted for testing. The delay that is caused by the obviously-necessary process of approval by the FDA is nothing compared to the manacles that the GOP has put on scientific advancement.

And yes, when people don't actually understand science, they're more likely to abuse it, misuse it, or misunderstand it-- as the kerfluffle with the cloud formation work at CERN showed. The scientifically illiterate misunderstood the study and made fatuous, asinine claims about how it would require the climate models to be substantially rewritten. Anyone who actually had the slightest grasp of the science understood they were studying a very small corner of a small branch of the totality of climate-- and that, since cosmic rays haven't increased during the past thirty years,
it obviously isn't the cause of global warming.

11 RogueOne  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 5:29:51am

re: #10 Obdicut

Just the obvious one: the restrictions on stem-cell experimentation and use have come from religious objections from the GOP.

Which I believe I pointed out in my original post. This was adult stem cell procedure, not embryonic.

FDA approval of therapies can only begin when the therapies actually are submitted for testing. The delay that is caused by the obviously-necessary process of approval by the FDA is nothing compared to the manacles that the GOP has put on scientific advancement.

And yes, when people don't actually understand science, they're more likely to abuse it, misuse it, or misunderstand it-- as the kerfluffle with the cloud formation work at CERN showed. The scientifically illiterate misunderstood the study and made fatuous, asinine claims about how it would require the climate models to be substantially rewritten. Anyone who actually had the slightest grasp of the science understood they were studying a very small corner of a small branch of the totality of climate-- and that, since cosmic rays haven't increased during the past thirty years,
it obviously isn't the cause of global warming.

The idea that only the state through it's mass bureaucracy has the ability, or the right, to make medical decisions for individuals is a typical statist response. It's not up to the state to protect people from knowingly taking risks that only affect themselves. The FDA has said it's not proven and possibly unsafe that's all they need to do. If people have the information and decide on their own that the risk is worth it then why do you think the rest of us have the right to tell them "no"? It isn't up to us to protect people from "their own stupidity". The system we have now is only the wealthy have access to these procedures since they can afford to fly off to europe (where amazingly they've been tested and legal) while the poor are stuck waiting for the bureaucracy to catch up with the times.

But back to the original article. Do you agree that the people who elect to get procedures that aren't approved by the FDA (most of which can't be done in the US) are basing their decisions on their religious beliefs? The article argued that the belief in creationism keeps people from believing in cancer, do you really think that's a valid and honest argument?

12 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 5:38:03am

re: #11 RogueOne

The idea that only the state through it's mass bureaucracy has the ability, or the right, to make medical decisions for individuals is a typical statist response.

Hee hee. Now you're against the state saying some medical procedures aren't safe and shouldn't be done.

Holy shit, you really are an anarchist.

Hilarious.

Are you also against the licensing of doctors?

Do you agree that the people who elect to get procedures that aren't approved by the FDA (most of which can't be done in the US) are basing their decisions on their religious beliefs?

No, and that's not what the article claims, either. The article says, and it's right, that if you don't have a good grasp of the science behind something, and why it's risky, you're more likely to make bad decisions about it.

And subscribing to creationism certainly does impact your ability to grasp science well.

13 RogueOne  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 5:54:31am

re: #12 Obdicut

Hee hee. Now you're against the state saying some medical procedures aren't safe and shouldn't be done.

Holy shit, you really are an anarchist.

Hilarious.

I know, it's crazy to believe people have the right to make informed decisions for themselves about procedures that affect only themselves. That's outrageous isn't it? Why next you'll have people believing they have the right to make all kinds of decisions on their own, like who they should be allowed to marry and what they should be allowed to put into their own bodies, and we can't have that!

Are you also against the licensing of doctors?

Of course.

No, and that's not what the article claims, either. The article says, and it's right, that if you don't have a good grasp of the science behind something, and why it's risky, you're more likely to make bad decisions about it.

FTA:

No person with such a basic understanding of evolution would dream of injecting themselves with potentially cancerous cells, except maybe in some very desperate, life-threatening situation.

A contention shot down by the popsci article I posted above. I'm an atheist and even I recognize it's a ridiculous argument to make.

And subscribing to creationism certainly does impact your ability to grasp science well.

Another ridiculous argument. I have 2 friends that I've known since High School that work in medical R&D (both biochemists. one for roche and other for eli lilly). One is a youth minister and the other is an elder in a small church. Are you suggesting that only atheists are capable of understanding science?

14 RogueOne  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 6:02:16am

re: #13 RogueOne

Oops. I misread a portion. That should read I'm NOT against the licensing of doctors.

15 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 6:04:06am

re: #13 RogueOne

I know, it's crazy to believe people have the right to make informed decisions for themselves about procedures that affect only themselves.

It is crazy to believe that individuals can somehow get up to speed on all aspects of modern medicine quickly enough to call those opinions 'informed', yes.

Another ridiculous argument. I have 2 friends that I've known since High School that work in medical R&D (both biochemists. one for roche and other for eli lilly). One is a youth minister and the other is an elder in a small church. Are you suggesting that only atheists are capable of understanding science?

Did I say that, Rogue?

You're having to lie a lot more of late in order to make your arguments.

Anarchists are kind of adorable in a pathetic way, but their shortsightedness always irritates me. It's such a blank refusal to look at the actual world, and such masturbatory time spent gazing at the inside of one's own skull.


re: #14 RogueOne

Oops. I misread a portion. That should read I'm NOT against the licensing of doctors.

And why not? Why can the state say "Yes, this person is a licensed professional who adheres to the standards we set" but not "This procedure doesn't adhere to the standards we set, so it's banned"?

Where's the consistency?

16 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 6:07:12am

re: #13 RogueOne

"One is a youth minister and the other is an elder in a small church"

That's kind of beside the point. Are they creationists?

17 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 6:10:59am

re: #16 Sergey Romanov

Besides, you can be a creationist and do good scientific work. What I said was:

And subscribing to creationism certainly does impact your ability to grasp science well.

Which can easily be seen in the case of, for example, Dr. Roy Spenser, who's primary research is just fine but his conclusions from that data are recockulous.

18 RogueOne  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 6:17:11am

re: #15 Obdicut

It is crazy to believe that individuals can somehow get up to speed on all aspects of modern medicine quickly enough to call those opinions 'informed', yes.

Did I say that, Rogue?

You're having to lie a lot more of late in order to make your arguments.

Anarchists are kind of adorable in a pathetic way, but their shortsightedness always irritates me. It's such a blank refusal to look at the actual world, and such masturbatory time spent gazing at the inside of one's own skull.

Yes you did say that: "And subscribing to creationism certainly does impact your ability to grasp science well." It may not have been what you meant but that's a different story.

And why not? Why can the state say "Yes, this person is a licensed professional who adheres to the standards we set" but not "This procedure doesn't adhere to the standards we set, so it's banned"?

Where's the consistency?

I don't see any inconsistency. Going to a medical doctor, a licensed professional, is part of making an informed decision. Somehow you have it in your head that I'm some form of anarchist because I think people have the ability to make decisions for themselves instead of relying solely on a faceless bureaucracy to make it for them. If the FDA gives them the information that says a procedure isn't proven and may not be safe then they've done their due diligence as far as I'm concerned. From that point it should be up to the patient and their doctor.

19 RogueOne  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 6:21:52am

re: #16 Sergey Romanov

"One is a youth minister and the other is an elder in a small church"

That's kind of beside the point. Are they creationists?

Yeah. You can't be a non-denominational christian church minister without believing in creationism. To top it off they home school, the rest of his family are missionaries, and yet somehow he manages to have a pretty firm grasp of "science". He spends 1/4 of the year in Europe working on studies that aren't (or weren't) allowed to be done here. I think that's crazy.

20 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 6:22:50am

re: #18 RogueOne

Yes you did say that: "And subscribing to creationism certainly does impact your ability to grasp science well." It may not have been what you meant but that's a different story.

No, I meant exactly that. It impacts. It doesn't destroy your ability to do science, it impacts it. As can be seen, again, with Dr. Roy Spencer. It's a good example.

I don't see any inconsistency. Going to a medical doctor, a licensed professional, is part of making an informed decision.

Licensed by the government. Why do you think the government should be able to approve the professional credentials of a person but not the professional credentials of a procedure?

21 RogueOne  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 6:26:17am

re: #20 Obdicut

No, I meant exactly that. It impacts. It doesn't destroy your ability to do science, it impacts it. As can be seen, again, with Dr. Roy Spencer. It's a good example.

Licensed by the government. Why do you think the government should be able to approve the professional credentials of a person but not the professional credentials of a procedure?

What I said was " If the FDA gives them the information that says a procedure isn't proven and may not be safe then they've done their due diligence". There's where we go our separate ways. You believe the state has to make the decision for them by banning procedures they have yet to approve and I disagree.

22 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 6:32:03am

re: #21 RogueOne

What I said was " If the FDA gives them the information that says a procedure isn't proven and may not be safe then they've done their due diligence". There's where we go our separate ways. You believe the state has to make the decision for them by banning procedures they have yet to approve and I disagree.

But why do you think the state has to make the decision for them by banning people that they haven't approved from practicing medicine?

23 RogueOne  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 6:43:55am

re: #22 Obdicut

But why do you think the state has to make the decision for them by banning people that they haven't approved from practicing medicine?

I'm still not sure where you're seeing a contradiction. Deciding if a person is qualified to be a doctor is a much easier process than a drug/stem cell trial. Are you asking why they have the right to do one but not the other?

Since most Dr's accept federal money they obviously have the right to decide who gets their seal of approval. I also think it's in the public's interest that an agency license qualified medical professionals. That doesn't mean that the federal government should be the lead in those licenses but we've already made that decision so it's not worth going down that road. In the case of drug studies it's the same argument, their money, their approval, their rules. If they limited themselves to saying "you can decide on your own to have a procedure done that we haven't approved but we're not going to pay for it" then we'd be fine.

24 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 6:49:23am

re: #23 RogueOne

I'm still not sure where you're seeing a contradiction. Deciding if a person is qualified to be a doctor is a much easier process than a drug/stem cell trial.

What the fuck? How is it much easier?

Are you asking why they have the right to do one but not the other?

Yes, why you draw your arbitrary government line in the sand right there.

. In the case of drug studies it's the same argument, their money, their approval, their rules. If they limited themselves to saying "you can decide on your own to have a procedure done that we haven't approved but we're not going to pay for it" then we'd be fine.

So why is one okay or not the other? You dodged it with the absolutely meaningless "because most of them accept federal money". I mean, that wouldn't cover the case of a doctor who didn't accept federal money, or, rather a chiromant or whatever practicing 'medicine'.

Most pharma companies-- I'd bet all-- also accept federal money, work hand-in-hand with public institutions. They all use the basic science research done at the state schools. Your arbitrary lawn is a very arbitrary one indeed. Both groups get federal money, and other advantages from the federal government.

So you're not an anarchist. You're just a completely inconsistent dude who makes ad-hoc decisions about whether something should be licensed by the government based on not-really-anything.

Great!

25 RogueOne  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 7:00:27am

re: #24 Obdicut

I finally see where you think there's a contradiction. You believe since the feds have the right to license a dr. that they therefore have right to ban them from performing procedures that haven't been approved. I don't. They have the right (and I've already admitted the need) to license a dr. but the final decision over care should be left to the patient.

26 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 29, 2011 2:26:21pm

re: #25 RogueOne

Yes, Rogue. I know that you think that. I'm pointing out it's a contradiction. Your response is just to reassert it.

It remains a contradiction.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Half-Staff Notice: Death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg In accordance with the US Flag Code, 4 U.S. Code § 7. Position and manner of display (m), the Flag of the United States and all subordinate government agencies shall be placed at half-staff from the day of death until ...
Anymouse 🌹🏡😷
9 hours, 57 minutes ago
Views: 86 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 200913In all our spare time, we've been working on a small side project since probably last August.We pulled out the scalloped border, sifted out all the rocks, installed the wood border and put in some sod.Saturday we put the vase ...
dangerman
14 hours, 27 minutes ago
Views: 143 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 5
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Better Know a Ballot: Stephen Colbert’s State-by-State Guide to Voting in the 2020 Election Do you want to vote in the 2020 election? Confused about how to register or vote by mail? That makes sense because the rules all vary from state to state, which is why we created . #Colbert #Election2020 #BetterKnowABallot ...
Thanos
23 hours, 25 minutes ago
Views: 357 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Deep Sea Diver - Impossible Weight Featuring Sharon Van Etten (Official Video) “Impossible Weight” off Deep Sea Diver’s new album “Impossible Weight” out October 16th. Pre-order /pre-save Impossible Weight here smarturl.it Distributed by ATO Records ~~~~~~~~~ Directors: Jessica Dobson, Peter Mansen, Tyler KalbergArt direction: Jessica Dobson, Tyler KalbergDirector of photography: Tyler ...
Thanos
23 hours, 31 minutes ago
Views: 153 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Alicia Keys - Wasted Energy (Visualizer) Ft. Diamond PlatinumzAlicia Keys - ALICIA: smarturl.it Follow Alicia Keys:Instagram: instagram.comFacebook: facebook.comTwitter: @aliciakeysWebsite: aliciakeys.com #AliciaKeys #ALICIA #NewRnB
Thanos
1 day ago
Views: 159 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Bobby Watson & Horizon — Post Motown Bop Provided to YouTube by Universal Music Group The Punjab Of Java Po' · Bobby Watson & Horizon · Victor Lewis Post-Motown Bop ℗ A Blue Note Records Release; ℗ 1991 Capitol Records, LLC Released on: 1991-01-01 Producer, Co- Producer, ...
Thanos
1 day, 18 hours ago
Views: 185 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Nick Mason’s Saucerful of Secrets - One of These Days (Live at the Roundhouse) Nick Mason’s Saucerful Of Secrets Live At The Roundhouse available now at smarturl.it Watch the trailer for the blu-ray smarturl.it‘Set the Controls For The Heart Of The Sun’ YouTube‘Fearless’ YouTube'Astronomy Domine' YouTube'Green Is The Colour' YouTube'See Emily Play' YouTube ...
Thanos
2 days, 15 hours ago
Views: 263 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Future Islands - ‘Moonlight’ (Official Music Video) Future Islands’ new album 'As Long As You Are', released October 9th on 4AD. Listen to new tracks, pre-save and pre-order the album here: futureislands.ffm.to future-islands.cominstagram.com@futureislandsfacebook.com Credits:Director: Will MayerFemale Lead: Callie HernandezMale Lead: Matthew Gray Gubler Executive Producer: Alyssa ...
Thanos
2 days, 17 hours ago
Views: 266 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
The Mandalorian Season 2 Trailer ‘The Mandalorian’ season 2 trailer dropped Tuesday morning, bringing back the main trio Din Djarin aka the Mandalorian (Pedro Pascal), Cara Dune (Gina Carano), Greef Carga (Carl Weathers) and, of course, Baby Yoda! A hooded and mysterious new character, ...
Thanos
2 days, 19 hours ago
Views: 296 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
The Pineapple Thief - Versions of the Truth 'Versions Of The Truth” is the title track and third single to be taken from our new studio album which will be released on September 4th on Kscope. Pre-order: tpt.lnk.to Directed by George LaycockProduced by Blacktide Phonic/Visual Swimmers: Abi ...
Thanos
5 days, 13 hours ago
Views: 444 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook