Multiple Sclerosis Advancements with Non-Embryonic Stem Cells

Once again, we have news of medical advancements as the result of the use of NON-embryonic stem cells, and this time it's news that hits a personal note for me. Scientists have been able to stabilize or reverse Multiple Sclerosis using haemopoeitic stem cells harvested from the patient's own bone marrow. It essentially allows them to reset the immune system by removing the white blood cells that are attacking the myelin coating around the nerves and using the stem cells to create new white blood cells. While it's not the first time this has been done, it's the first time they've done it in patients with Relapsing-Remitting MS that have only had the disease for a relatively short period of time (about five years or so).

I'm excited about this news because so much progress is being made right now in treating this disease, and doubly so because this is yet another example of medical advancements being achieved using non-embryonic stem cells. The fact remains as well that in over ten years of research now, there is not a single approved treatment or human trial using embryonic stem cells. There are literally dozens upon dozens of therapies and and cures that have been developed using non-embryonic stem cells, including things like bone marrow transplants for leukemia patients. Despite what the media would have you believe, there IS embryonic stem cell research being done...it's simply not federally funded. All the research that has been done thusfar has not produced a single cure or therapy, yet some insist we must ignore ethical concerns about an embryo being a human life and use tax money taken from taxpayers who DO have those ethical concerns to fund further research in a field that has thusfar produced absolutely nothing.

It's ironic that these people have no qualms about destroying life in the name of preserving it.

Garbage In Garbage Out

Say it isn't so.

Apparently, a quite significant number of the nation's temperature monitor stations are providing unreliable data...data which is being used to bolster claims of Global Warming. This according to Anthony Watts, who is currently in the process fo surveying all 1,221 temperature monitor stations in the U.S. A visit to the effort's website (http://www.surfacestations.org/) will give you more information about the program, including examples of some severely compromised stations.

An Example of Worldview Affecting Science

I recently watched a video about the Hubble Deep Field, a.k.a "The Most Important Image Ever Taken." The images taken from the Hubble Space Telescope show an incomprehensible magnitude to the universe. Just using the numbers from the video, the Hubble Deep Field view gave us a glimpse at roughly 5 quadrillion stars (that's 5,000,000,000,000,000) in just one small patch of sky. To give you a sense of how small a patch of sky...notice the section zoomed in on at around the 5:00 mark of the above video.

During the narration of the video, a familiar device is used to argue (quite inconsistently) for the existence of other intelligent life in the universe outside of that on Earth. It echoes the argument made by Jodie Foster in the Carl Sagan-inspired movie Contact:

"There are 400 billion stars out there, just in our galaxy alone. If just one
out of a million of those had planets, and just one in a million of those had
life, and just one out of a million of those had intelligent life, there would
be literally millions of civilizations out there."

Forgetting for a moment the unfortunately errant math employed by this fictional lifetime astronomer, the argument is almost always tacked on with the emotional appeal that if there is not life out there it would be "an awful waste of space."

I could not disagree more.

Implicit in the claim that such would be a "waste" is the notion that the sheer relative magnitude of the universe being discussed required an inconceivable amount of resources and efforts to bring about. But for a self-existent eternal God that is simply not the case. In fact, Scripture tells us that God spoke the universe into existence. He said, "Let there be..." and there was.

"But, " you say, "is that not still a waste of the opportunity that all that created universe provides?"

No.

This is where one's worldview really comes into the argument. You have to ask yourself why the universe (or anything at all for that matter) was created in the first place. The Christian would rightly answer that the purpose of all creation is to glorify God. To that end, the fact that a universe as incomprehensibly immense as ours was created simply by the sheer power of God's will certainly shows forth the glory and awesomeness of the Creator. Some would say it is arrogant to believe that something of this magnitude would be created with us as the only intelligent inhabitants. Arrogant how? We didn't create it and we certainly can't take credit for it (though we attempt to deny credit where it's due by our fancy and fallacious atheistic evolutionary theories).

Strictly speaking, what many "scientists" today are attempting to do is take the observed nature or features of the universe and use them as arguments against its being created ex nihilo by a self-existent eternal God. The only POSSIBLE way one could do that is to prove that self-existence and eternality are themselves properties of the universe, which is impossible for them to do.

The magnitude of the universe (as best we can comprehend it in this present age) is constantly used as an argument against a self-existent eternal God. I say that, quite to the contrary, it is one of the strongest arguments in support of such a God and serves all the more to show forth how awesome and glorious He is.

Stem Cell Cure for Diabetics

Another medical breakthrough has been made with the aid of stem cells, and once again it involves the non-embryonic variety!

Thirteen out of the fifteen people who participated in this trial, which utilizes stem cells drawn from their own blood, no longer have to endure daily insulin shots to control their Type 1 diabetes. The results of the trial have scientists very optimistic about the possiblity of a "cure" for Type 1 diabetes in the next decade.

Of course, the article still laments the opposition to embryonic stem cell research by implying that we are missing out on so many major cures because we choose the ethical path of preserving life. By the rationale being used, we should start conducting medical trials on the comatose, invalids, etc since humans are the best and most accurate test subjects for developing cures for human diseases, right?

Still, this trial stands as yet another example of medical advancements from stem cell research that does not depend on the destruction of life.

Another Stem Cell Breakthrough

A British team has announced that they successfully grew a human heart valve using stem cells. Trials will begin soon with animals to test the viability of the valves, and if all goes well they could begin work on using these valves for the thousands of patients out there with valve-related heart problems.

What equally interests me in this article is what is glossed over: the fact that once again scientific breakthroughs have been made using non-embryonic stem cells. To date, all the major advancements derived from stem cells have been using non-embryonic stem cells, and new advancements are constantly being made.

This latest advancement simply reinforces the fact that we can continue to use ethical science (that does not rely upon conceived human beings as cell farms) to improve our health and quality of life.

Are You Smarter Than a Sixth Grader?

It's good to know that some kids are still being taught to think critically for themselves, and the result was a jury of sixth graders concluding that human beings don't cause global warming.

There are so many wonderful things in this article that need to be pointed out.

First, and most timely, is the heated exchange at the climax of the trial. Whereas those defending Global Warming Alarmism "slapped" cute charts onto the prosecution's table and blustered loudly, "We've proven you wrong!" the prosecution simply gave a rational rebuttal to an emotional argument by pointing out that the data was unreliable when taken out of its context.

Second is what followed the first point: the rational argument won the day.

Third is the fact that the teacher and his assistant, who held views against and for Global Warming Alarmism respectively, presented the issue objectively to the class and allowed them to make their own decision based on the facts. It's much more often the case that one side is presented as fact while the other is presented as a competing and untenable theory (if it's presented at all).

Fourth is the obvious concern of one parent over what their child was being taught, to the extent that they were willing to restrict their child's participation if the issue was going to be taught unobjectively.

And of course the final point is that this teacher, in addition to rejecting the religion of Global Warming Alarmism also rejects the religion of Darwinian Evolution. He's a teacher after my own heart :)

"The Greatest Deception in the History of Science"

Hey, they aren't my words! These are the words of Dr. Timothy Ball, the first Canadian PhD in Climatology, who says that "Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist."

Among the interesting tidbits in his article:

• Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), agrees that there is "no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change."
• Back in the 70's, scientists like Lowell Ponte were saying the following about the supposedly irrefutable 'global cooling' occuring: "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species." Sound familiar?

What really strikes me about this article is not only how concisely and directly he addresses what those who dare speak against Global Warming are facing, but also how similar his arguments are to those Creationists and Intellegent Design proponents who dare to speak against Darwinian Macroevolutionism.

This Will Only Hurt for a Second?

Well, my wife and I knew it was coming soon, and now the State of Texas has made it official: Texas is now requiring HPV vaccines for schoolgirls.

Why does this concern me? Because as parents it is OUR job to make decisions on what is and is not best for our children. I have some concerns about the vaccine itself, but my primary concern at the moment is that the government feels it has the right to make this decision for me.

At this point, Texas is allowing parents to opt their children out by "filing an affidavit stating that he or she objected to the vaccine for religious or philosophical reasons." That's fine, but how long will it be before it is considered like the polio vaccine (to which comparisons are already being made) and it is required or your child cannot attend public school?

As I stated, I have some concerns about this vaccine. For one, there have been no studies of the long-terms effects of the vaccine beyond 5-10 years. There have been virtually no studies of the effects on young girls. There is no indication of how long the vaccination lasts. There are more concerns as well (I apologize for the name of the blog this link references).

I do have concerns for my children as far as wanting to do what I can to keep my girls from getting cervical cancer, although it should be pointed out that cervical cancer is in rapid decline as far as occurances among women. But I absolutely refuse to have the government force my children to take a vaccine because a drug company lobbied and donated to get legislation passed to make it mandatory.

My children. My decision.

No AMS Seal of Approval for you!

I don't normally reproduce full articles here, but in this case the DrudgeReport issued a newsflash that I know will disappear soon and wanted to post here for informational purposes. It seems there are two books available (one already out, one soon to be released) which challenge the supposed scientific high ground of the Global Warming Theorists by documenting the reality of natural warming patterns and demonstrating how and why they occur:

Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity
Tue Jan 30 2007 10:02:32 ET

Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.

Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.

Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.

The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.

“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.

The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.

Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.

Of course, this article doesn't exist and neither do these two books, because after all no reputable scientists would dare challenge the Church of Global Warming!