The political stakes imbued in the high court's 5-4 ruling allowing the Affordable Care Act to stand were starkly evident by midday Thursday in Washington, as Obama and Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, laid out clearly different visions when it came to the law, "Obamacare."
The opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the court's liberals, determined that the act's individual mandate -- the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance, or face a penalty -- was constitutional as a tax.
Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., discusses his surprise over the health care ruling and says the decision puts the law "back into the hands of the American people."
Advertise | AdChoices
"I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost," Obama said in remarks at the White House, in which he emphasized many of the law's benefits. "That discussion completely misses the point. Whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives are more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court's decision to uphold it."
Sen. Ben Cardin says with the ruling, the government can now more forward and give people the type of health care they need. Cardin stresses his hopes that Democrats and Republicans will work together to improve the health care system.
Related: Supreme Court upholds health care law
A few minutes earlier, Romney renewed his promise to seek the full repeal of the law from his first day in office.
"What the court did not do on the last day of its session I will do on my first day as president," Romney said. He called the court's opinion both bad law and bad policy.
Each candidate's comments underscored, though, the political dividing lines that w
Showing posts with label Mircle Drugs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mircle Drugs. Show all posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Scientists Can Now Grow Functioning Liver From Stem Cells
Scientists have promised a lot of regenerative medicine will come from stem cells, but so far progress has been fairly slow: they can stimualte regrowth of heart tissue, make incredibly expesnive artifical blood, or—at best—construct a short piece of vein. Now, though, scientists are claiming they can grow functional liver.
Nature reports that a team of scientists from Japan has presented its works at a conference, and it's incredible. In fact, George Daley, director of the stem-cell transplantation program at the Boston Children's Hospital in Massachusetts, told Nature that "it blew [his] mind." Wow.
The researchers used stem cells created from human skin cells, then placed the cells on growth plates in a specially designed culture medium. Over the course of nine days, the cells started producing chemicals that a typical liver cell, otherwise known as a hepatocyte, would produce. They then added endothelial and mesenchymal cells—which form parts of blood vessels and other structural tissues within the body—to the mix, in the hope that they would be incorporated and begin to help the cells develop a structure akin to the liver.
The result was amazing: two days later, the researchers found the cells assembled into a 5-millimeter-long, three-dimensional lump. That lump was almost identical to something known as a liver bud—an early stage of liver development. From Nature's report:
Image by Spirit-Fire under Creative Commons license
Scientists Can Now Grow Functioning Liver From Stem Cells
Nature reports that a team of scientists from Japan has presented its works at a conference, and it's incredible. In fact, George Daley, director of the stem-cell transplantation program at the Boston Children's Hospital in Massachusetts, told Nature that "it blew [his] mind." Wow.
The researchers used stem cells created from human skin cells, then placed the cells on growth plates in a specially designed culture medium. Over the course of nine days, the cells started producing chemicals that a typical liver cell, otherwise known as a hepatocyte, would produce. They then added endothelial and mesenchymal cells—which form parts of blood vessels and other structural tissues within the body—to the mix, in the hope that they would be incorporated and begin to help the cells develop a structure akin to the liver.
The result was amazing: two days later, the researchers found the cells assembled into a 5-millimeter-long, three-dimensional lump. That lump was almost identical to something known as a liver bud—an early stage of liver development. From Nature's report:
"The tissue lacks bile ducts, and the hepatocytes do not form neat plates as they do in a real liver. In that sense, while it does to some degree recapitulate embryonic growth, it does not match the process as faithfully as the optic cup recently reported by another Japanese researcher. But the tissue does have blood vessels that proved functional when it was transplanted under the skin of a mouse. Genetic tests show that the tissue expresses many of the genes expressed in real liver. And, when transferred to the mouse, the tissue was able to metabolize some drugs that human livers metabolize but mouse livers normally cannot. "While it's not perfect, it's the first time anyone has successfully created part of a functional human organ from stem cells produced from human skin. If scientists hadn't quite managed to deliver on the promise of stem cells so far, they have now. [Nature]
Image by Spirit-Fire under Creative Commons license
Scientists Can Now Grow Functioning Liver From Stem Cells
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
User action
Thread action
It is the stem cells pulled from fetuses (no clue if i spelt that right) which were controvertial. From what I can tell fetal stem cells aren't as promising any more, primarily becuase most people don't have fetal stem cells left from when they were a baby (some do if their parents had their cord blood frozen).
These cells can be derived from someones own skin cells, making them unlikely to be rejected.
(Edit comment)
Get your terminology right. No group ever opposed adult stem cell research. The controversy was for embryonic stem cells - and it turns out the people opposing embryonic stem cells were absolutely, 100% correct in thier assessment. Even MJF has been forced to abandon his platform of embryonic cell research because after years and millions of dollars they concluded it was a dead-end science. You know - exactly what opponents told them over a decade ago but they just wouldn't listen...
[nation.foxnews.com]
(Edit comment)
While I, and I would dare say most of the readers on this site, understand that stem cell research is far beyond the fetus stem cell stage, people are still going to argue that you're playing god. You just can't win.
(Edit comment)
I've learned over the years that people will always complain about how we find a treatment until they need that treatment.
(Edit comment)
Look, I don't think anyone (left or right) should watch biased "news." This includes MSNBC and Fox News. Also, it's not just the "opinions." I watched Fox's "news" reports and read their website articles. There's biased there too in not only what they choose to cover, but how they cover it. I think Rachel Madow and Hannity need to be taken off the airwaves.
BTW, I did a super quick search and came up with three news outlets that are covering the gun/cartel thing. Huffington Post, Forbes, Wired, and Bloomberg....
[www.huffingtonpost.com]
[www.forbes.com]
[www.wired.com]
[www.bloomberg.com]
(Edit comment)
I think all news outlets are biased (my preferred news source is CNN but I agree with most of their analysis so it doesn't really enlighten much, where fox on the other hand shows me what the teapartiers are thinking)
Regarding the gun runner story, its not that no one else is covering it (its been mentioned on almost every news outlet) its that no one else is harping on it. It is a big deal, we sold guns to drug cartels, we didn't track them, people got killed with those guns. People should lose their jobs over a screw up like that but CNN and MSNBC have pretty much dropped the story (they never really ran with it in the first place).
I will completely admit that the only reason Fox is harping on this is becuase it looks bad for the democratic administration but that doesn't discredit the fact that it is a valid story and should be pursued.
(Edit comment)
The Huffington Post link I posted early specifically mentions how Obama used some questionable power in this case...and it's considered a progressive news outlet. So, like you said, it is a valid story; however it IS being pursued and covered fully by many news outlets. Fox is pouring it on to make Obama look really bad....which benefits their biased goal or preventing his re-election. Remember, intense coverage does not equal more factually accurate and/or that others are not covering the story enough. Simple as that.
On a semi-related note, a friend on mine argued that because Fox News was the most watched cable news network, it must be correct. In other words, popular = correct. You can easily see this is a flawed argument without me having to explain it.
(Edit comment)
While I am an Obama suporter, this news story deserves front page attention until it is resolved through and independent investigation and someone is held accountable.
(Edit comment)
If that were the case (Fox News being the only one), even hardcore liberals would start watching Fox News for reasons other than to see what the "enemy" is saying. This is simply not happening. Plus, with FN's history, even if they were the only one (which it seems like you're inferring) how can I take their word for anything with their spin-ful past? They have no creditability.
(Edit comment)
Additionally, more and more people get their news online, which is why print is struggling so much.
(Edit comment)
CNN hasn't in fact CNN didn't have a story on their front page about it for almost the entire congressional investigation until the contemp deicison and the now subsequent full house vote. Even right now, if you go to CNN, you have to go down to the politics section and there are a few links for articles on the contempt proceedings where Fox has a huge front page banner.
I believe this good coverage by fox is politically modivated but it doesn't change the fact that it is good coverage.
(Edit comment)
Just remember my point, which is Fox's coverage (no matter how extensive or "front page") also has no credibility since it's a biased news organization. Don't confuse this with Fox New is always wrong or is incapable of delivering real news. It's just means that people like myself, who are aware of their bias, will avoid their coverage period. Think crying wolf....
(Edit comment)