<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_09_1814237</id>
	<title>Doctors Skirt FDA To Heal Patients With Stem Cells</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1268161020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>kkleiner writes <i>"For many years countless individuals in the US have had to watch with envy as dogs and horses with joint and bone injuries have been cured with stem cell procedures that the FDA has refused to approve for humans. Now, in an exciting development, Regenerative Sciences Inc. in Colorado has <a href="http://singularityhub.com/2010/03/09/colorado-doctors-skirt-fda-jurisdiction-to-provide-human-stem-cell-therapies-video/">found a way to skirt the FDA</a> and provide these same stem cell treatments to humans. The results have been stunning, allowing many patients to walk or run who have not been able to do so for years. There's no surgery required, just a needle to extract and then re-inject the cells where they are needed.  There has always been a lot of hype around stem cells, but this is the real deal. Real humans are getting real treatment that works, and we should all hope that more companies will begin offering this procedure in other states soon."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>kkleiner writes " For many years countless individuals in the US have had to watch with envy as dogs and horses with joint and bone injuries have been cured with stem cell procedures that the FDA has refused to approve for humans .
Now , in an exciting development , Regenerative Sciences Inc. in Colorado has found a way to skirt the FDA and provide these same stem cell treatments to humans .
The results have been stunning , allowing many patients to walk or run who have not been able to do so for years .
There 's no surgery required , just a needle to extract and then re-inject the cells where they are needed .
There has always been a lot of hype around stem cells , but this is the real deal .
Real humans are getting real treatment that works , and we should all hope that more companies will begin offering this procedure in other states soon .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kkleiner writes "For many years countless individuals in the US have had to watch with envy as dogs and horses with joint and bone injuries have been cured with stem cell procedures that the FDA has refused to approve for humans.
Now, in an exciting development, Regenerative Sciences Inc. in Colorado has found a way to skirt the FDA and provide these same stem cell treatments to humans.
The results have been stunning, allowing many patients to walk or run who have not been able to do so for years.
There's no surgery required, just a needle to extract and then re-inject the cells where they are needed.
There has always been a lot of hype around stem cells, but this is the real deal.
Real humans are getting real treatment that works, and we should all hope that more companies will begin offering this procedure in other states soon.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419998</id>
	<title>Re:Implants are a thing of the past?</title>
	<author>SlippyToad</author>
	<datestamp>1268133180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have devices in both my eyes that allow me to see at better than 20/20 vision.  They're flexible plastic discs that I attach to my corneas.</p><p>Every two weeks I throw them away and get a new pair.</p><p>I never knew I was a cyborg!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have devices in both my eyes that allow me to see at better than 20/20 vision .
They 're flexible plastic discs that I attach to my corneas.Every two weeks I throw them away and get a new pair.I never knew I was a cyborg !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have devices in both my eyes that allow me to see at better than 20/20 vision.
They're flexible plastic discs that I attach to my corneas.Every two weeks I throw them away and get a new pair.I never knew I was a cyborg!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418444</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1268126460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with embryonic stem cells is that for any treatment to really exist, the cells would have to be a genotype match with the person being treated.  This brings into focus a small, tiny, little problem - if you can make embryonic stem cells to order that match a specific genotype, you have just solved the problem of human cloning.</p><p>Now you have a real choice indeed - do we treat the heart condition with stem cells, or do we simply replace the heart with a newly grown one?  I suppose an argument could be made that as the cells more or less came from the person being treated the clone (that grew the heart) doesn't really have any right to exist apart from the original.  I don't think I would like to review the court transcript that would be involved with this decision, as it might be really, really thick.</p><p>How about demonstrators chanting "Freedom for Clones!"  This and many other things follow from embryonic stem cells.  I don't really care when you kill off the bunch of cells - once you have the ability to on-demand make genotype specific cells, you have human cloning.  If this provides meaningful treatments, there will be no stopping it - there will be cloning.  And we better figure out how exactly to deal with that little problem.  Burying your head in sand isn't a solution.</p><p>The Bush solution was simple - just say no for a variety of reasons without getting into the specifics.  Obama may (or may not) understand the real ramifications of success here, but by repealing the ban we are clearly opening the door to a discovery that leads to human cloning.  And it will be pretty much unsupressable once it is discovered.</p><p>Want Bill Gates to live forever through clones?  How about Warren Buffet?  John McCain is probably got enough money to go for it, if a solution gets found soon enough.  So, no, it isn't just about killing babies.  It is about human cloning and all that goes with it.  Personally, I think the risks outweigh any possible benefits because the risks are so incredibly large.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with embryonic stem cells is that for any treatment to really exist , the cells would have to be a genotype match with the person being treated .
This brings into focus a small , tiny , little problem - if you can make embryonic stem cells to order that match a specific genotype , you have just solved the problem of human cloning.Now you have a real choice indeed - do we treat the heart condition with stem cells , or do we simply replace the heart with a newly grown one ?
I suppose an argument could be made that as the cells more or less came from the person being treated the clone ( that grew the heart ) does n't really have any right to exist apart from the original .
I do n't think I would like to review the court transcript that would be involved with this decision , as it might be really , really thick.How about demonstrators chanting " Freedom for Clones !
" This and many other things follow from embryonic stem cells .
I do n't really care when you kill off the bunch of cells - once you have the ability to on-demand make genotype specific cells , you have human cloning .
If this provides meaningful treatments , there will be no stopping it - there will be cloning .
And we better figure out how exactly to deal with that little problem .
Burying your head in sand is n't a solution.The Bush solution was simple - just say no for a variety of reasons without getting into the specifics .
Obama may ( or may not ) understand the real ramifications of success here , but by repealing the ban we are clearly opening the door to a discovery that leads to human cloning .
And it will be pretty much unsupressable once it is discovered.Want Bill Gates to live forever through clones ?
How about Warren Buffet ?
John McCain is probably got enough money to go for it , if a solution gets found soon enough .
So , no , it is n't just about killing babies .
It is about human cloning and all that goes with it .
Personally , I think the risks outweigh any possible benefits because the risks are so incredibly large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with embryonic stem cells is that for any treatment to really exist, the cells would have to be a genotype match with the person being treated.
This brings into focus a small, tiny, little problem - if you can make embryonic stem cells to order that match a specific genotype, you have just solved the problem of human cloning.Now you have a real choice indeed - do we treat the heart condition with stem cells, or do we simply replace the heart with a newly grown one?
I suppose an argument could be made that as the cells more or less came from the person being treated the clone (that grew the heart) doesn't really have any right to exist apart from the original.
I don't think I would like to review the court transcript that would be involved with this decision, as it might be really, really thick.How about demonstrators chanting "Freedom for Clones!
"  This and many other things follow from embryonic stem cells.
I don't really care when you kill off the bunch of cells - once you have the ability to on-demand make genotype specific cells, you have human cloning.
If this provides meaningful treatments, there will be no stopping it - there will be cloning.
And we better figure out how exactly to deal with that little problem.
Burying your head in sand isn't a solution.The Bush solution was simple - just say no for a variety of reasons without getting into the specifics.
Obama may (or may not) understand the real ramifications of success here, but by repealing the ban we are clearly opening the door to a discovery that leads to human cloning.
And it will be pretty much unsupressable once it is discovered.Want Bill Gates to live forever through clones?
How about Warren Buffet?
John McCain is probably got enough money to go for it, if a solution gets found soon enough.
So, no, it isn't just about killing babies.
It is about human cloning and all that goes with it.
Personally, I think the risks outweigh any possible benefits because the risks are so incredibly large.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418210</id>
	<title>Re:Guns and weed, too. How big is this trend?</title>
	<author>faboo</author>
	<datestamp>1268125380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, all of them? That's how it was supposed to work, you know, when we put together The Law (that'd be the Constitution): The federal government gets a small, well-defined set of powers, and the states decide everything else individually. In practice, however, the Feds use the interstate commerce clause to lord over anything and everything you might toss over a border.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , all of them ?
That 's how it was supposed to work , you know , when we put together The Law ( that 'd be the Constitution ) : The federal government gets a small , well-defined set of powers , and the states decide everything else individually .
In practice , however , the Feds use the interstate commerce clause to lord over anything and everything you might toss over a border .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, all of them?
That's how it was supposed to work, you know, when we put together The Law (that'd be the Constitution): The federal government gets a small, well-defined set of powers, and the states decide everything else individually.
In practice, however, the Feds use the interstate commerce clause to lord over anything and everything you might toss over a border.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420566</id>
	<title>Re:A Real Cowboy</title>
	<author>DragonDru</author>
	<datestamp>1268135760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In most sane and civilized contexts, "Cowboy" is not a compliment.</p><p>See also "loose cannon".</p></div><p>In much the same way that "Republican" is a damning swear word.

*Some* people like Cowboys.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In most sane and civilized contexts , " Cowboy " is not a compliment.See also " loose cannon " .In much the same way that " Republican " is a damning swear word .
* Some * people like Cowboys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In most sane and civilized contexts, "Cowboy" is not a compliment.See also "loose cannon".In much the same way that "Republican" is a damning swear word.
*Some* people like Cowboys.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417750</id>
	<title>Countdown...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268166720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>beginning countdown till a lawsuit drives the cost to do so so high that only the elite can afford it... lawyer litgation gold rush in 10... 9... 8...</p><p>Face it, without real tort reform this will get litigated into oblivion...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>beginning countdown till a lawsuit drives the cost to do so so high that only the elite can afford it... lawyer litgation gold rush in 10... 9... 8...Face it , without real tort reform this will get litigated into oblivion.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>beginning countdown till a lawsuit drives the cost to do so so high that only the elite can afford it... lawyer litgation gold rush in 10... 9... 8...Face it, without real tort reform this will get litigated into oblivion...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418224</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268125440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just have relatively easy to hit minimum requirements for experimental procedures?  Seriously, who loses in this scenario?</p><p>The health care industry gets cheap, lawsuit-free testing which in turn makes health care cheaper for everybody.  Patients whose only sliver of hope is an experimental procedure would actually have that sliver of hope.  Seems win-win to me.</p><p>The only party that I can think of that's worse off with allowing experimental procedures is the lawyers, since they get less malpractice lawsuits involving difficult medical situations where there isn't a good well-tested alternative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just have relatively easy to hit minimum requirements for experimental procedures ?
Seriously , who loses in this scenario ? The health care industry gets cheap , lawsuit-free testing which in turn makes health care cheaper for everybody .
Patients whose only sliver of hope is an experimental procedure would actually have that sliver of hope .
Seems win-win to me.The only party that I can think of that 's worse off with allowing experimental procedures is the lawyers , since they get less malpractice lawsuits involving difficult medical situations where there is n't a good well-tested alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just have relatively easy to hit minimum requirements for experimental procedures?
Seriously, who loses in this scenario?The health care industry gets cheap, lawsuit-free testing which in turn makes health care cheaper for everybody.
Patients whose only sliver of hope is an experimental procedure would actually have that sliver of hope.
Seems win-win to me.The only party that I can think of that's worse off with allowing experimental procedures is the lawyers, since they get less malpractice lawsuits involving difficult medical situations where there isn't a good well-tested alternative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422938</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268154900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Real safety testing is very, very difficult to do in a controlled way.</p></div><p>The only way to test on humans is to actually test on humans.  People are always willing to take a risk when they are living with constant pain, as are these people.  I wonder if the real culprit on the delay is the insurance companies?  Or is it the established medical community who are not tooled up yet for maximum profit on the procedure?</p></div><p>Clones my good sir,</p><p>you can start with my dna, I will need new lungs/liver etc soon enough.....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Real safety testing is very , very difficult to do in a controlled way.The only way to test on humans is to actually test on humans .
People are always willing to take a risk when they are living with constant pain , as are these people .
I wonder if the real culprit on the delay is the insurance companies ?
Or is it the established medical community who are not tooled up yet for maximum profit on the procedure ? Clones my good sir,you can start with my dna , I will need new lungs/liver etc soon enough.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real safety testing is very, very difficult to do in a controlled way.The only way to test on humans is to actually test on humans.
People are always willing to take a risk when they are living with constant pain, as are these people.
I wonder if the real culprit on the delay is the insurance companies?
Or is it the established medical community who are not tooled up yet for maximum profit on the procedure?Clones my good sir,you can start with my dna, I will need new lungs/liver etc soon enough.....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419440</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268130540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's only true if insurance covered untested procedures.  Parent was not advocating this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's only true if insurance covered untested procedures .
Parent was not advocating this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's only true if insurance covered untested procedures.
Parent was not advocating this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417518</id>
	<title>Ends &amp; Means</title>
	<author>hardwarejunkie9</author>
	<datestamp>1268165640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do not rule out the importance of ethics in science. They guide us in possible repercussions of our actions. The interesting point is that there are more kinds of stem cells than just embryonic. To argue that embryonic cells are the only way is to ignore equally viable options. Simply to say that embryos aren't people is to apply the same logic used to pardon the continuation of slavery.
I say that if there's a way to get scientific results while avoiding ethical concerns, then that should be our main focus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do not rule out the importance of ethics in science .
They guide us in possible repercussions of our actions .
The interesting point is that there are more kinds of stem cells than just embryonic .
To argue that embryonic cells are the only way is to ignore equally viable options .
Simply to say that embryos are n't people is to apply the same logic used to pardon the continuation of slavery .
I say that if there 's a way to get scientific results while avoiding ethical concerns , then that should be our main focus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do not rule out the importance of ethics in science.
They guide us in possible repercussions of our actions.
The interesting point is that there are more kinds of stem cells than just embryonic.
To argue that embryonic cells are the only way is to ignore equally viable options.
Simply to say that embryos aren't people is to apply the same logic used to pardon the continuation of slavery.
I say that if there's a way to get scientific results while avoiding ethical concerns, then that should be our main focus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420678</id>
	<title>Re:Guns and weed, too. How big is this trend?</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1268136240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As part of the firearms community, there have been high profile cases dealing with machine guns, food products, and narcotics that have reached the community's radar, so to speak.</p><p>There was a guy a while back that made a Sten - a simple but effective submachinegun - in his basement and declared that it was exempt because it nor the materials used to make it ever crossed state lines.  If I recall, the case was summarily dismissed after a decision in Raich, which was a similar situation, but with marijuana.  Raich, in turn, built on Wickard v. Filburn, which makes my head hurt.</p><p>In Wickard, the court ruled that a commodity produced (grain) wholly inside a state, for personal consumption, could be regulated as interstate commerce because if it had not been produced, the consumer would have purchased it in interstate commerce.  Raich takes the leap to say that this also applies when the interstate commerce of the product is illegal, as is the case with marijuana.</p><p>From a firearm's advocacy POV, this whole thing revolves around clearing out federal restrictions on firearms, such as the National Firearms Act of 1934.  We are making progress in this arena today via direct challenge, though - first with DC v Heller, which affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right, and now in McDonald v. Chicago, where we are seeking incorporation of this right against the states, either under the "privileges and immunities" clause or the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment.  It looks like we're going to get it under "due process", but be denied under "P&amp;I".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As part of the firearms community , there have been high profile cases dealing with machine guns , food products , and narcotics that have reached the community 's radar , so to speak.There was a guy a while back that made a Sten - a simple but effective submachinegun - in his basement and declared that it was exempt because it nor the materials used to make it ever crossed state lines .
If I recall , the case was summarily dismissed after a decision in Raich , which was a similar situation , but with marijuana .
Raich , in turn , built on Wickard v. Filburn , which makes my head hurt.In Wickard , the court ruled that a commodity produced ( grain ) wholly inside a state , for personal consumption , could be regulated as interstate commerce because if it had not been produced , the consumer would have purchased it in interstate commerce .
Raich takes the leap to say that this also applies when the interstate commerce of the product is illegal , as is the case with marijuana.From a firearm 's advocacy POV , this whole thing revolves around clearing out federal restrictions on firearms , such as the National Firearms Act of 1934 .
We are making progress in this arena today via direct challenge , though - first with DC v Heller , which affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right , and now in McDonald v. Chicago , where we are seeking incorporation of this right against the states , either under the " privileges and immunities " clause or the " due process " clause of the 14th Amendment .
It looks like we 're going to get it under " due process " , but be denied under " P&amp;I " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As part of the firearms community, there have been high profile cases dealing with machine guns, food products, and narcotics that have reached the community's radar, so to speak.There was a guy a while back that made a Sten - a simple but effective submachinegun - in his basement and declared that it was exempt because it nor the materials used to make it ever crossed state lines.
If I recall, the case was summarily dismissed after a decision in Raich, which was a similar situation, but with marijuana.
Raich, in turn, built on Wickard v. Filburn, which makes my head hurt.In Wickard, the court ruled that a commodity produced (grain) wholly inside a state, for personal consumption, could be regulated as interstate commerce because if it had not been produced, the consumer would have purchased it in interstate commerce.
Raich takes the leap to say that this also applies when the interstate commerce of the product is illegal, as is the case with marijuana.From a firearm's advocacy POV, this whole thing revolves around clearing out federal restrictions on firearms, such as the National Firearms Act of 1934.
We are making progress in this arena today via direct challenge, though - first with DC v Heller, which affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right, and now in McDonald v. Chicago, where we are seeking incorporation of this right against the states, either under the "privileges and immunities" clause or the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment.
It looks like we're going to get it under "due process", but be denied under "P&amp;I".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418136</id>
	<title>Re:Ends &amp; Means</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1268168280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Simply to say that embryos aren't people is to apply the same logic used to pardon the continuation of slavery.</p></div><p>Please do not compare a mass of cells to a human being. They are not the same thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply to say that embryos are n't people is to apply the same logic used to pardon the continuation of slavery.Please do not compare a mass of cells to a human being .
They are not the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply to say that embryos aren't people is to apply the same logic used to pardon the continuation of slavery.Please do not compare a mass of cells to a human being.
They are not the same thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417686</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1268166480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we apparently have a pool of willing volunteers who are knowingly accepting medical treatment from a doctor that is not FDA approved.  You know for sure this guy's malpractice insurance isn't going to cover it if his patients all end up with sudden cases of terminal cancer, and in the meantime his procedures on willing subjects are going to give the FDA tons of useful data.  So, studies are being done, no worries about malpractice insurance rates going up.  Sounds like a winner to me.</p><p>I just hope the risks have been explained to the patients who are receiving the treatment.  I mean, REALLY explained.  Not in terms of the vacuous testimonials on this site, but in terms of "we don't know how big the risk really is yet, because we don't do this a lot in humans."</p><p>I know a few people who are suffering from severely reduced mobility (permanent crutches) who get far less exercise than they would if their legs worked properly.  If you told them there was a $10,000 cash treatment that gave them an 75\%+ chance of significant improvement within a year year, but a chance they could eventually develop cancer, I expect at least a couple of them would go for it.  One of them is in her 40s and due to weight (brought on by 15 years of waiting to qualify for surgery)  is a relatively poor candidate for knee replacement.  She can't exercise because she can barely get out of bed, and she can't get surgery because she can't exercise (any movement = pain), so she's in a nursing home.  I think she'd gladly trade a risk of dying of cancer a couple of decades from now for the ability to get some exercise and at least enjoy those decades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we apparently have a pool of willing volunteers who are knowingly accepting medical treatment from a doctor that is not FDA approved .
You know for sure this guy 's malpractice insurance is n't going to cover it if his patients all end up with sudden cases of terminal cancer , and in the meantime his procedures on willing subjects are going to give the FDA tons of useful data .
So , studies are being done , no worries about malpractice insurance rates going up .
Sounds like a winner to me.I just hope the risks have been explained to the patients who are receiving the treatment .
I mean , REALLY explained .
Not in terms of the vacuous testimonials on this site , but in terms of " we do n't know how big the risk really is yet , because we do n't do this a lot in humans .
" I know a few people who are suffering from severely reduced mobility ( permanent crutches ) who get far less exercise than they would if their legs worked properly .
If you told them there was a $ 10,000 cash treatment that gave them an 75 \ % + chance of significant improvement within a year year , but a chance they could eventually develop cancer , I expect at least a couple of them would go for it .
One of them is in her 40s and due to weight ( brought on by 15 years of waiting to qualify for surgery ) is a relatively poor candidate for knee replacement .
She ca n't exercise because she can barely get out of bed , and she ca n't get surgery because she ca n't exercise ( any movement = pain ) , so she 's in a nursing home .
I think she 'd gladly trade a risk of dying of cancer a couple of decades from now for the ability to get some exercise and at least enjoy those decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we apparently have a pool of willing volunteers who are knowingly accepting medical treatment from a doctor that is not FDA approved.
You know for sure this guy's malpractice insurance isn't going to cover it if his patients all end up with sudden cases of terminal cancer, and in the meantime his procedures on willing subjects are going to give the FDA tons of useful data.
So, studies are being done, no worries about malpractice insurance rates going up.
Sounds like a winner to me.I just hope the risks have been explained to the patients who are receiving the treatment.
I mean, REALLY explained.
Not in terms of the vacuous testimonials on this site, but in terms of "we don't know how big the risk really is yet, because we don't do this a lot in humans.
"I know a few people who are suffering from severely reduced mobility (permanent crutches) who get far less exercise than they would if their legs worked properly.
If you told them there was a $10,000 cash treatment that gave them an 75\%+ chance of significant improvement within a year year, but a chance they could eventually develop cancer, I expect at least a couple of them would go for it.
One of them is in her 40s and due to weight (brought on by 15 years of waiting to qualify for surgery)  is a relatively poor candidate for knee replacement.
She can't exercise because she can barely get out of bed, and she can't get surgery because she can't exercise (any movement = pain), so she's in a nursing home.
I think she'd gladly trade a risk of dying of cancer a couple of decades from now for the ability to get some exercise and at least enjoy those decades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420884</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1268137500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  This same ruling has been the bane of medical marijuana efforts vis-a-vis the DEA, as well as countless other seemingly local matters that are extrapolated into Federal affairs -- quite literally.  By the rationale of Wickard v Filburn, for those unaware, anything that affects or potentially affects supply and demand on a national level (which is literally everything), is subject to the Interstate Commerce clause, and thus falls under Federal jurisdiction.  If you're growing wheat locally, consuming it locally, and disposing of it locally, you're affecting demand for products from out of state.  If you're growing marijuana locally, then you're affecting the government's ability to regulate the market for marijuana nationally (where elimination is a form of regulation).  Likewise, if you're performing a procedure in Colorado, you're affecting the government's ability to eliminate the market for that treatment on a national scale.</p><p>This is clearly beyond the intent of the framers, as indicated by all available documents of the period, but laws often have unintended consequences.  Many people blame the USSC, although essentially they did their job:  They said, "Well, this is simply an unintended consequence of the law, but the law is still valid."  The real problem, as always (in a democracy) lies with an electorate which either does not know or does not care about the rights they are willfully surrendering.  The feet of Congress should be held to the fire to narrow their jurisdiction and to tailor laws as specifically and narrowly as the Supreme Court tends to tailor its decisions these days.</p><p>Note that I'm not holding my breath...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
This same ruling has been the bane of medical marijuana efforts vis-a-vis the DEA , as well as countless other seemingly local matters that are extrapolated into Federal affairs -- quite literally .
By the rationale of Wickard v Filburn , for those unaware , anything that affects or potentially affects supply and demand on a national level ( which is literally everything ) , is subject to the Interstate Commerce clause , and thus falls under Federal jurisdiction .
If you 're growing wheat locally , consuming it locally , and disposing of it locally , you 're affecting demand for products from out of state .
If you 're growing marijuana locally , then you 're affecting the government 's ability to regulate the market for marijuana nationally ( where elimination is a form of regulation ) .
Likewise , if you 're performing a procedure in Colorado , you 're affecting the government 's ability to eliminate the market for that treatment on a national scale.This is clearly beyond the intent of the framers , as indicated by all available documents of the period , but laws often have unintended consequences .
Many people blame the USSC , although essentially they did their job : They said , " Well , this is simply an unintended consequence of the law , but the law is still valid .
" The real problem , as always ( in a democracy ) lies with an electorate which either does not know or does not care about the rights they are willfully surrendering .
The feet of Congress should be held to the fire to narrow their jurisdiction and to tailor laws as specifically and narrowly as the Supreme Court tends to tailor its decisions these days.Note that I 'm not holding my breath.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
This same ruling has been the bane of medical marijuana efforts vis-a-vis the DEA, as well as countless other seemingly local matters that are extrapolated into Federal affairs -- quite literally.
By the rationale of Wickard v Filburn, for those unaware, anything that affects or potentially affects supply and demand on a national level (which is literally everything), is subject to the Interstate Commerce clause, and thus falls under Federal jurisdiction.
If you're growing wheat locally, consuming it locally, and disposing of it locally, you're affecting demand for products from out of state.
If you're growing marijuana locally, then you're affecting the government's ability to regulate the market for marijuana nationally (where elimination is a form of regulation).
Likewise, if you're performing a procedure in Colorado, you're affecting the government's ability to eliminate the market for that treatment on a national scale.This is clearly beyond the intent of the framers, as indicated by all available documents of the period, but laws often have unintended consequences.
Many people blame the USSC, although essentially they did their job:  They said, "Well, this is simply an unintended consequence of the law, but the law is still valid.
"  The real problem, as always (in a democracy) lies with an electorate which either does not know or does not care about the rights they are willfully surrendering.
The feet of Congress should be held to the fire to narrow their jurisdiction and to tailor laws as specifically and narrowly as the Supreme Court tends to tailor its decisions these days.Note that I'm not holding my breath...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419444</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1268130540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You know for sure this guy's malpractice insurance isn't going to cover it if his patients all end up with sudden cases of terminal cancer, and in the meantime his procedures on willing subjects are going to give the FDA tons of useful data.</i></p><p>Personally I'm not going to assume that a guy who is willing to ignore the FDA and start administering this treatment and advertise it with vacuous testimonials is going to make sure that he follows all the proper procedures to ensure that hs work constitutes a valid study that can be reviewed by the FDA and others.</p><p>There's a big difference between the way in which your personal doctor diagnoses and treats your ailments, and how this would be done within the context of medical research. Your doctor is <i>making use</i> of the results of medical research to do their best to make your life better, but your interaction with them does not constitute a valid way to recreate that research.</p><p>This guy seems to be operating in the mode of physician, not researcher.  He seems to already be convinced that his treatment works and is safe, and not trying to falsifying either of those hypothesis as a researcher does.</p><p><i>Not in terms of the vacuous testimonials on this site, but in terms of "we don't know how big the risk really is yet, because we don't do this a lot in humans."</i></p><p>"Because we don't do this a lot in humans, and because what we are doing doesn't constitute a valid risk assessment study."</p><p>I really, really hope the procedure does turn out to be safe since I don't get the impression he's out to find out if it isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know for sure this guy 's malpractice insurance is n't going to cover it if his patients all end up with sudden cases of terminal cancer , and in the meantime his procedures on willing subjects are going to give the FDA tons of useful data.Personally I 'm not going to assume that a guy who is willing to ignore the FDA and start administering this treatment and advertise it with vacuous testimonials is going to make sure that he follows all the proper procedures to ensure that hs work constitutes a valid study that can be reviewed by the FDA and others.There 's a big difference between the way in which your personal doctor diagnoses and treats your ailments , and how this would be done within the context of medical research .
Your doctor is making use of the results of medical research to do their best to make your life better , but your interaction with them does not constitute a valid way to recreate that research.This guy seems to be operating in the mode of physician , not researcher .
He seems to already be convinced that his treatment works and is safe , and not trying to falsifying either of those hypothesis as a researcher does.Not in terms of the vacuous testimonials on this site , but in terms of " we do n't know how big the risk really is yet , because we do n't do this a lot in humans .
" " Because we do n't do this a lot in humans , and because what we are doing does n't constitute a valid risk assessment study .
" I really , really hope the procedure does turn out to be safe since I do n't get the impression he 's out to find out if it is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know for sure this guy's malpractice insurance isn't going to cover it if his patients all end up with sudden cases of terminal cancer, and in the meantime his procedures on willing subjects are going to give the FDA tons of useful data.Personally I'm not going to assume that a guy who is willing to ignore the FDA and start administering this treatment and advertise it with vacuous testimonials is going to make sure that he follows all the proper procedures to ensure that hs work constitutes a valid study that can be reviewed by the FDA and others.There's a big difference between the way in which your personal doctor diagnoses and treats your ailments, and how this would be done within the context of medical research.
Your doctor is making use of the results of medical research to do their best to make your life better, but your interaction with them does not constitute a valid way to recreate that research.This guy seems to be operating in the mode of physician, not researcher.
He seems to already be convinced that his treatment works and is safe, and not trying to falsifying either of those hypothesis as a researcher does.Not in terms of the vacuous testimonials on this site, but in terms of "we don't know how big the risk really is yet, because we don't do this a lot in humans.
""Because we don't do this a lot in humans, and because what we are doing doesn't constitute a valid risk assessment study.
"I really, really hope the procedure does turn out to be safe since I don't get the impression he's out to find out if it isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418252</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268125560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If they are cautious about approving a new procedure, it is usually because there is insufficient data to really declare it safe."</p><p>That doesn't stop them from taking bribes and pushing bullshit pharmaceuticals into the market without required testing - Vioxx, anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If they are cautious about approving a new procedure , it is usually because there is insufficient data to really declare it safe .
" That does n't stop them from taking bribes and pushing bullshit pharmaceuticals into the market without required testing - Vioxx , anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If they are cautious about approving a new procedure, it is usually because there is insufficient data to really declare it safe.
"That doesn't stop them from taking bribes and pushing bullshit pharmaceuticals into the market without required testing - Vioxx, anyone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420420</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268135040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> 'moral questionable' is cultists way of saying 'we don't like it, so no one should get it'.</p><p>" adult stem cells have produced more and better results anyway,"<br>false. However they may, eventually. sadly if they could get federal funding for embryonic stem cells(cells that were going to be thrown away anyways) we would be a decade farther along, and probably wouldn't need them anymore.</p><p>It got stopped by a bunch of lies from the hypocritical neo-cons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'moral questionable ' is cultists way of saying 'we do n't like it , so no one should get it' .
" adult stem cells have produced more and better results anyway , " false .
However they may , eventually .
sadly if they could get federal funding for embryonic stem cells ( cells that were going to be thrown away anyways ) we would be a decade farther along , and probably would n't need them anymore.It got stopped by a bunch of lies from the hypocritical neo-cons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'moral questionable' is cultists way of saying 'we don't like it, so no one should get it'.
" adult stem cells have produced more and better results anyway,"false.
However they may, eventually.
sadly if they could get federal funding for embryonic stem cells(cells that were going to be thrown away anyways) we would be a decade farther along, and probably wouldn't need them anymore.It got stopped by a bunch of lies from the hypocritical neo-cons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418776</id>
	<title>Experimental medicine licensing</title>
	<author>Beryllium Sphere(tm)</author>
	<datestamp>1268127660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;I personally think people should be permitted access to experimental medical procedures, as long as they understand that as they are experimental, they're waiving their right to sue for wrongful death or medical malpractice, as well as any federal mandate for it to be covered by their insurance.</p><p>\_Astounding\_ editor John Campbell once suggested that quack doctors should be allowed to practice under a special quack license, which would alert patients to the fact that they weren't going to a mainstream doctor. He added a really interesting wrinkle, which was that a quack license would be conditional on keeping lab-grade records of treatments and results, so that quack treatments would get empirical testing with informed volunteers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I personally think people should be permitted access to experimental medical procedures , as long as they understand that as they are experimental , they 're waiving their right to sue for wrongful death or medical malpractice , as well as any federal mandate for it to be covered by their insurance. \ _Astounding \ _ editor John Campbell once suggested that quack doctors should be allowed to practice under a special quack license , which would alert patients to the fact that they were n't going to a mainstream doctor .
He added a really interesting wrinkle , which was that a quack license would be conditional on keeping lab-grade records of treatments and results , so that quack treatments would get empirical testing with informed volunteers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;I personally think people should be permitted access to experimental medical procedures, as long as they understand that as they are experimental, they're waiving their right to sue for wrongful death or medical malpractice, as well as any federal mandate for it to be covered by their insurance.\_Astounding\_ editor John Campbell once suggested that quack doctors should be allowed to practice under a special quack license, which would alert patients to the fact that they weren't going to a mainstream doctor.
He added a really interesting wrinkle, which was that a quack license would be conditional on keeping lab-grade records of treatments and results, so that quack treatments would get empirical testing with informed volunteers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417358</id>
	<title>It's a shame...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268165040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That medical breakthroughs in this field had to be restrained for almost a decade.  What did that do to help anybody?</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><p>
&nbsp;  </p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><p>
&nbsp;  </p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><p>
&nbsp;  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That medical breakthroughs in this field had to be restrained for almost a decade .
What did that do to help anybody ?
                       </tokentext>
<sentencetext>That medical breakthroughs in this field had to be restrained for almost a decade.
What did that do to help anybody?
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419230</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268129700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You expect people to know and understand the risks of an experiemental procedure?<br>Most people can't even pick the right cell phone plan!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You expect people to know and understand the risks of an experiemental procedure ? Most people ca n't even pick the right cell phone plan !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You expect people to know and understand the risks of an experiemental procedure?Most people can't even pick the right cell phone plan!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420032</id>
	<title>Re:Not to be the bad guy but...</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1268133360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I wonder how these stem cells will respond when moved to a new environment and what the long term effects will be. I guess that FDA sanctioned or not, we're going to find out.</i></p><p>But are we?  That's my question.</p><p>Somehow I doubt a Doctor who has already decided that their treatment is safe and effective enough to give to paying customers in spite of the FDA is going to be worried about making sure his practice also constitutes a valid long-term scientific.</p><p>I mean I don't know exactly what he's doing, but I think we can rule double-blind clinical trials right out.  If what he was doing was even close to the kind of research that the FDA requires before approving something, then it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to go the extra mile and apply for approval.  Getting FDA approval is expensive, but a lot of that is because valid, meaningful clinical trials are expensive.  Which is why I doubt he's doing them.</p><p>What I worry about is that when all is said and done, we still won't know anything more than the anecdotal testimonials of his happy customers, and maybe some other anecdotes from people who claim he gave them cancer.</p><p>You're a medical researcher, what do <i>you</i> think the odds are that simply looking at a practicing non-research physician's records after ten years will duplicate the work that actual medical research would have produced?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how these stem cells will respond when moved to a new environment and what the long term effects will be .
I guess that FDA sanctioned or not , we 're going to find out.But are we ?
That 's my question.Somehow I doubt a Doctor who has already decided that their treatment is safe and effective enough to give to paying customers in spite of the FDA is going to be worried about making sure his practice also constitutes a valid long-term scientific.I mean I do n't know exactly what he 's doing , but I think we can rule double-blind clinical trials right out .
If what he was doing was even close to the kind of research that the FDA requires before approving something , then it seems like it would n't be that hard to go the extra mile and apply for approval .
Getting FDA approval is expensive , but a lot of that is because valid , meaningful clinical trials are expensive .
Which is why I doubt he 's doing them.What I worry about is that when all is said and done , we still wo n't know anything more than the anecdotal testimonials of his happy customers , and maybe some other anecdotes from people who claim he gave them cancer.You 're a medical researcher , what do you think the odds are that simply looking at a practicing non-research physician 's records after ten years will duplicate the work that actual medical research would have produced ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how these stem cells will respond when moved to a new environment and what the long term effects will be.
I guess that FDA sanctioned or not, we're going to find out.But are we?
That's my question.Somehow I doubt a Doctor who has already decided that their treatment is safe and effective enough to give to paying customers in spite of the FDA is going to be worried about making sure his practice also constitutes a valid long-term scientific.I mean I don't know exactly what he's doing, but I think we can rule double-blind clinical trials right out.
If what he was doing was even close to the kind of research that the FDA requires before approving something, then it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to go the extra mile and apply for approval.
Getting FDA approval is expensive, but a lot of that is because valid, meaningful clinical trials are expensive.
Which is why I doubt he's doing them.What I worry about is that when all is said and done, we still won't know anything more than the anecdotal testimonials of his happy customers, and maybe some other anecdotes from people who claim he gave them cancer.You're a medical researcher, what do you think the odds are that simply looking at a practicing non-research physician's records after ten years will duplicate the work that actual medical research would have produced?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420196</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268134080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>History shows that you are wrong.</p><p>You might want to study up on why there is an FDA, look into non-regulated countries, and realize that people are no damn good at making informed decisions about areas outside their expertise.</p><p>The only people who don't want the FDA are ignorant people, and people who want to bilk innocent people out of there life saving based on a promise. Which one are you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>History shows that you are wrong.You might want to study up on why there is an FDA , look into non-regulated countries , and realize that people are no damn good at making informed decisions about areas outside their expertise.The only people who do n't want the FDA are ignorant people , and people who want to bilk innocent people out of there life saving based on a promise .
Which one are you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>History shows that you are wrong.You might want to study up on why there is an FDA, look into non-regulated countries, and realize that people are no damn good at making informed decisions about areas outside their expertise.The only people who don't want the FDA are ignorant people, and people who want to bilk innocent people out of there life saving based on a promise.
Which one are you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422516</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Spykk</author>
	<datestamp>1268151000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Results don't have anything to do with the moral argument. Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.</p></div><p>
If you don't legalize baby eating, then only the criminals will have laser eyes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Results do n't have anything to do with the moral argument .
Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating .
If you do n't legalize baby eating , then only the criminals will have laser eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Results don't have anything to do with the moral argument.
Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.
If you don't legalize baby eating, then only the criminals will have laser eyes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348</id>
	<title>Not surprising</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1268164980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't remember anyone saying stem cells were bad, it's always <i>embryonic</i> stem cell that caused controversy.
</p><p>This doesn't surprise me. I always figured some other country would start doing this, get amazing results, and then the laws would change fast once it stopped being claims of future magic and became real, testable results. When you start getting these kind of great results, the moral argument gets harder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't remember anyone saying stem cells were bad , it 's always embryonic stem cell that caused controversy .
This does n't surprise me .
I always figured some other country would start doing this , get amazing results , and then the laws would change fast once it stopped being claims of future magic and became real , testable results .
When you start getting these kind of great results , the moral argument gets harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't remember anyone saying stem cells were bad, it's always embryonic stem cell that caused controversy.
This doesn't surprise me.
I always figured some other country would start doing this, get amazing results, and then the laws would change fast once it stopped being claims of future magic and became real, testable results.
When you start getting these kind of great results, the moral argument gets harder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421416</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268141040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Relevant to the article, which is a poorly written promotional piece of fluff, this clinic that is offering stem cell therapy should warn its patients that there is <b>strong evidence of cancer resulting from stem cell injections</b>.</p></div><p>[Citation Needed]<br>The clinicians have <a href="http://www.benthamdirect.org/pages/gencorp.php?file=0011CSCR.pdf" title="benthamdirect.org" rel="nofollow">published a paper</a> [benthamdirect.org] (PDF) of their results showing 0/227 patients getting cancer at the injection site.<br>They also mention that their results are in line with the observed results of other doctors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Relevant to the article , which is a poorly written promotional piece of fluff , this clinic that is offering stem cell therapy should warn its patients that there is strong evidence of cancer resulting from stem cell injections .
[ Citation Needed ] The clinicians have published a paper [ benthamdirect.org ] ( PDF ) of their results showing 0/227 patients getting cancer at the injection site.They also mention that their results are in line with the observed results of other doctors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Relevant to the article, which is a poorly written promotional piece of fluff, this clinic that is offering stem cell therapy should warn its patients that there is strong evidence of cancer resulting from stem cell injections.
[Citation Needed]The clinicians have published a paper [benthamdirect.org] (PDF) of their results showing 0/227 patients getting cancer at the injection site.They also mention that their results are in line with the observed results of other doctors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417456</id>
	<title>Geez</title>
	<author>JumpDrive</author>
	<datestamp>1268165400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The next news story is a large group of people in Colorado are uncontrollably chasing cars.  Didn't these stem cell researchers learn anything from Toyota?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The next news story is a large group of people in Colorado are uncontrollably chasing cars .
Did n't these stem cell researchers learn anything from Toyota ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next news story is a large group of people in Colorado are uncontrollably chasing cars.
Didn't these stem cell researchers learn anything from Toyota?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420364</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>butchersong</author>
	<datestamp>1268134740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm curious why on earth she would have had to wait 15 years to qualify for surgery.  Was that for medical reasons?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious why on earth she would have had to wait 15 years to qualify for surgery .
Was that for medical reasons ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious why on earth she would have had to wait 15 years to qualify for surgery.
Was that for medical reasons?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417786</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>WrongMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1268166840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you allowed patients unrestricted access to experimental procedures, you're removing any incentive for companies to spend the time and money to thoroughly test anything. People will still pay, because their desperate for any sliver of hope and the pharma industry would be automatically protected from lawsuits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you allowed patients unrestricted access to experimental procedures , you 're removing any incentive for companies to spend the time and money to thoroughly test anything .
People will still pay , because their desperate for any sliver of hope and the pharma industry would be automatically protected from lawsuits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you allowed patients unrestricted access to experimental procedures, you're removing any incentive for companies to spend the time and money to thoroughly test anything.
People will still pay, because their desperate for any sliver of hope and the pharma industry would be automatically protected from lawsuits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419286</id>
	<title>*Cry*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268129880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... awesome.</p><p>At times, the FDA... must go... (bleep) themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... awesome.At times , the FDA... must go... ( bleep ) themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... awesome.At times, the FDA... must go... (bleep) themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420462</id>
	<title>Re:A Real Cowboy</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268135220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He is  a con man bring shit that doesn't work to the people. A modern snake oil salesmen who has a cure fro what ever ails ya.</p><p>YOU are praising a guy who can not back up his claims. He offers NO PROOF what so ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He is a con man bring shit that does n't work to the people .
A modern snake oil salesmen who has a cure fro what ever ails ya.YOU are praising a guy who can not back up his claims .
He offers NO PROOF what so ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is  a con man bring shit that doesn't work to the people.
A modern snake oil salesmen who has a cure fro what ever ails ya.YOU are praising a guy who can not back up his claims.
He offers NO PROOF what so ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419406</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1268130420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't go that far.  In this case, the FDA should at least be ensuring that the patients are informed that that their insurance companies now have valid cause to deny claims, and that the treatment is not proven to do any good, and that it might actually kill them, but that no one really knows for sure.</p><p>If, at that point, the patient wishes to proceed, I agree - the FDA can be heavyhanded on this sort of thing, and informed consent of the patient should trump FDA authority.</p><p>The patient should then be able to proceed.</p><p>Oh, one little detail.  After canceling their insurance policy, signing a wavier saying that Medicare/Medicaid don't have to spend tax dollars to cover them.  Once those little details are covered, they can proceed as they like.</p><p>Suicide isn't covered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't go that far .
In this case , the FDA should at least be ensuring that the patients are informed that that their insurance companies now have valid cause to deny claims , and that the treatment is not proven to do any good , and that it might actually kill them , but that no one really knows for sure.If , at that point , the patient wishes to proceed , I agree - the FDA can be heavyhanded on this sort of thing , and informed consent of the patient should trump FDA authority.The patient should then be able to proceed.Oh , one little detail .
After canceling their insurance policy , signing a wavier saying that Medicare/Medicaid do n't have to spend tax dollars to cover them .
Once those little details are covered , they can proceed as they like.Suicide is n't covered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't go that far.
In this case, the FDA should at least be ensuring that the patients are informed that that their insurance companies now have valid cause to deny claims, and that the treatment is not proven to do any good, and that it might actually kill them, but that no one really knows for sure.If, at that point, the patient wishes to proceed, I agree - the FDA can be heavyhanded on this sort of thing, and informed consent of the patient should trump FDA authority.The patient should then be able to proceed.Oh, one little detail.
After canceling their insurance policy, signing a wavier saying that Medicare/Medicaid don't have to spend tax dollars to cover them.
Once those little details are covered, they can proceed as they like.Suicide isn't covered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418014</id>
	<title>Baby Eating Advocacy</title>
	<author>srobert</author>
	<datestamp>1268167920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd have to say that I'm opposed to this "baby eating" that you advocate, laser-vision notwithstanding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd have to say that I 'm opposed to this " baby eating " that you advocate , laser-vision notwithstanding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd have to say that I'm opposed to this "baby eating" that you advocate, laser-vision notwithstanding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418050</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>fredjh</author>
	<datestamp>1268168040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>People will still pay, because their desperate for any sliver of hope and the pharma industry would be automatically protected from lawsuits.</i></p><p>So, your answer is to create a decades long bureaucratic process that removes all hope whatsoever.</p><p>I don't think I like that alternative.  Oh, I know I just presented a false dichotomy and that's probably not what you meant, ideally things can move along faster than that, but in practical terms they don't.</p><p>So we have the ongoing cases right now of people wanting to take experimental drugs for their cancer... the government won't let them.  On the one hand, they may die if they take these experimental drugs; on the other, they most assuredly will if they don't.  Shouldn't it be their choice?</p><p>Full disclaimers, of course... patients need to know the drugs or procedures are not vetted by the FDA, that's fine, it's the government telling me I CAN'T do something that bothers me... if they want to <i>warn</i> me before letting me make my own decision, that's fine with me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People will still pay , because their desperate for any sliver of hope and the pharma industry would be automatically protected from lawsuits.So , your answer is to create a decades long bureaucratic process that removes all hope whatsoever.I do n't think I like that alternative .
Oh , I know I just presented a false dichotomy and that 's probably not what you meant , ideally things can move along faster than that , but in practical terms they do n't.So we have the ongoing cases right now of people wanting to take experimental drugs for their cancer... the government wo n't let them .
On the one hand , they may die if they take these experimental drugs ; on the other , they most assuredly will if they do n't .
Should n't it be their choice ? Full disclaimers , of course... patients need to know the drugs or procedures are not vetted by the FDA , that 's fine , it 's the government telling me I CA N'T do something that bothers me... if they want to warn me before letting me make my own decision , that 's fine with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People will still pay, because their desperate for any sliver of hope and the pharma industry would be automatically protected from lawsuits.So, your answer is to create a decades long bureaucratic process that removes all hope whatsoever.I don't think I like that alternative.
Oh, I know I just presented a false dichotomy and that's probably not what you meant, ideally things can move along faster than that, but in practical terms they don't.So we have the ongoing cases right now of people wanting to take experimental drugs for their cancer... the government won't let them.
On the one hand, they may die if they take these experimental drugs; on the other, they most assuredly will if they don't.
Shouldn't it be their choice?Full disclaimers, of course... patients need to know the drugs or procedures are not vetted by the FDA, that's fine, it's the government telling me I CAN'T do something that bothers me... if they want to warn me before letting me make my own decision, that's fine with me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419206</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268129580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't remember anyone saying stem cells were bad, it's always embryonic stem cell that caused controversy.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Among (not all, but a big subset of) people who have problems with it, the distinction is not clear or they aren't even aware that there is one.  To a lot of people (including some politicians), "stem cells" == "mashed up dead baby".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't remember anyone saying stem cells were bad , it 's always embryonic stem cell that caused controversy .
Among ( not all , but a big subset of ) people who have problems with it , the distinction is not clear or they are n't even aware that there is one .
To a lot of people ( including some politicians ) , " stem cells " = = " mashed up dead baby " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't remember anyone saying stem cells were bad, it's always embryonic stem cell that caused controversy.
Among (not all, but a big subset of) people who have problems with it, the distinction is not clear or they aren't even aware that there is one.
To a lot of people (including some politicians), "stem cells" == "mashed up dead baby".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418088</id>
	<title>So, the way to improve health care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268168160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, the way to improve health care is to \_bypass\_ the Federal Government. Somebody should tell Obama!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the way to improve health care is to \ _bypass \ _ the Federal Government .
Somebody should tell Obama !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the way to improve health care is to \_bypass\_ the Federal Government.
Somebody should tell Obama!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31423084</id>
	<title>Re:A Real Cowboy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268156580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's "lose cannon"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... wait<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... nevermind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's " lose cannon " ... wait ... nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's "lose cannon" ... wait ... nevermind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417488</id>
	<title>Like my old man on testosterone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268165580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Me and his urologist know that his PSA rises on the stuff and we think we may be stirring up a hornets nest in his prostate, but on balance, the anaerobic effects, higher blood counts, and cognitive effects outweigh the downside of giving an 81-year-old, a potentially few less years.</p><p>Even if stem cell treatment was demonstratively resulting in increased cancer risk, a whole class of older patients could still benefit.</p><p>Dad's double-knee replacement surgery took a lot out of him. If we could resurface his knees with a treatment that might cause him cancer in his 90's, we would probably go for it.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Me and his urologist know that his PSA rises on the stuff and we think we may be stirring up a hornets nest in his prostate , but on balance , the anaerobic effects , higher blood counts , and cognitive effects outweigh the downside of giving an 81-year-old , a potentially few less years.Even if stem cell treatment was demonstratively resulting in increased cancer risk , a whole class of older patients could still benefit.Dad 's double-knee replacement surgery took a lot out of him .
If we could resurface his knees with a treatment that might cause him cancer in his 90 's , we would probably go for it .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me and his urologist know that his PSA rises on the stuff and we think we may be stirring up a hornets nest in his prostate, but on balance, the anaerobic effects, higher blood counts, and cognitive effects outweigh the downside of giving an 81-year-old, a potentially few less years.Even if stem cell treatment was demonstratively resulting in increased cancer risk, a whole class of older patients could still benefit.Dad's double-knee replacement surgery took a lot out of him.
If we could resurface his knees with a treatment that might cause him cancer in his 90's, we would probably go for it.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418774</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268127660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if the babies were surprisingly tasty?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the babies were surprisingly tasty ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the babies were surprisingly tasty?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418528</id>
	<title>Re:A Real Cowboy</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1268126700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In most sane and civilized contexts, "Cowboy" is not a compliment.</p><p>See also "loose cannon".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In most sane and civilized contexts , " Cowboy " is not a compliment.See also " loose cannon " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In most sane and civilized contexts, "Cowboy" is not a compliment.See also "loose cannon".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421620</id>
	<title>Re:alternative treatment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268142300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please look up the definition of anecdote. It does not mean what you seem to think it means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please look up the definition of anecdote .
It does not mean what you seem to think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please look up the definition of anecdote.
It does not mean what you seem to think it means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418460</id>
	<title>Odd, Colorado of all places?</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1268126460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll finally be able to clone a Shakey's, and have one for myself!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll finally be able to clone a Shakey 's , and have one for myself !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll finally be able to clone a Shakey's, and have one for myself!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418564</id>
	<title>Sham Surgery?</title>
	<author>meehawl</author>
	<datestamp>1268126820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am unimpressed by that MRI image before-and-after, which simply shows localised swelling resolving later on. Cancer risks have been explored enough in this thread, but what about any randomised testing against placebo or sham surgery? It's not like orthopaedics hasn't had repeated booms in lucrative, minimally invasive "<a href="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/347/2/81" title="nejm.org">treatments</a> [nejm.org]" that RCTs have later shown to be <a href="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/361/6/557" title="nejm.org">no better</a> [nejm.org] <a href="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/361/6/569" title="nejm.org">than placebo</a> [nejm.org], or worse if you take the risks into account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am unimpressed by that MRI image before-and-after , which simply shows localised swelling resolving later on .
Cancer risks have been explored enough in this thread , but what about any randomised testing against placebo or sham surgery ?
It 's not like orthopaedics has n't had repeated booms in lucrative , minimally invasive " treatments [ nejm.org ] " that RCTs have later shown to be no better [ nejm.org ] than placebo [ nejm.org ] , or worse if you take the risks into account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am unimpressed by that MRI image before-and-after, which simply shows localised swelling resolving later on.
Cancer risks have been explored enough in this thread, but what about any randomised testing against placebo or sham surgery?
It's not like orthopaedics hasn't had repeated booms in lucrative, minimally invasive "treatments [nejm.org]" that RCTs have later shown to be no better [nejm.org] than placebo [nejm.org], or worse if you take the risks into account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421438</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268141100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;The federal government just wasn't willing to pay for embryonic stem cell research, which seems like a fair response to morally questionable research.</p><p>The only moral questionability here is that they're preventing me from drinking my baby stem cell power shakes every morning!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; The federal government just was n't willing to pay for embryonic stem cell research , which seems like a fair response to morally questionable research.The only moral questionability here is that they 're preventing me from drinking my baby stem cell power shakes every morning !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;The federal government just wasn't willing to pay for embryonic stem cell research, which seems like a fair response to morally questionable research.The only moral questionability here is that they're preventing me from drinking my baby stem cell power shakes every morning!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332</id>
	<title>cancer worries</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1268164920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm bullish on these techniques, and feel strongly that they will usher a new wave of medical breakthroughs, redefinitions of disease states, and significant increases in longevity.</p><p>However, there are real concerns about neoplastic growth from stem cells - that older cell used to create "autologous" transplants (cell lines that start from the given subject and are re-injected back into that subject) may have damage that leads to uncontrolled growth.  Real safety testing is very, very difficult to do in a controlled way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm bullish on these techniques , and feel strongly that they will usher a new wave of medical breakthroughs , redefinitions of disease states , and significant increases in longevity.However , there are real concerns about neoplastic growth from stem cells - that older cell used to create " autologous " transplants ( cell lines that start from the given subject and are re-injected back into that subject ) may have damage that leads to uncontrolled growth .
Real safety testing is very , very difficult to do in a controlled way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm bullish on these techniques, and feel strongly that they will usher a new wave of medical breakthroughs, redefinitions of disease states, and significant increases in longevity.However, there are real concerns about neoplastic growth from stem cells - that older cell used to create "autologous" transplants (cell lines that start from the given subject and are re-injected back into that subject) may have damage that leads to uncontrolled growth.
Real safety testing is very, very difficult to do in a controlled way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417440</id>
	<title>Implant some grammar cells</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268165400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTFA: "How can Centeno and Schultz flaunt the lack of federal approval?"</p><p>Personally I'd flaunt it in the trade press!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : " How can Centeno and Schultz flaunt the lack of federal approval ?
" Personally I 'd flaunt it in the trade press !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA: "How can Centeno and Schultz flaunt the lack of federal approval?
"Personally I'd flaunt it in the trade press!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417672</id>
	<title>Re:Implants are a thing of the past?</title>
	<author>repka</author>
	<datestamp>1268166360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMO parent has a point, what's flamebait about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMO parent has a point , what 's flamebait about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMO parent has a point, what's flamebait about it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418208</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1268125380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but a chance they could eventually develop cancer</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>she'd gladly trade a risk of dying of cancer a couple of decades from now</p></div><p>If they're alive, they already have a chance to develop cancer.</p><p>Everyone alive now, has a risk of dying of cancer a couple decades from now, unless they already have a short term terminal diagnosis or are very elderly (someone in their 90s now will almost certainly will not live another half century, etc)</p><p>Look at how effective printing "The surgeon general has determined that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a dramatically higher chance of cancer" on cigarette packs has been.</p><p>You can scare people with one per ten million sticking accelerators.  You can scare them into anything by telling them there's a terrorist hiding behind every tree stump.  They even verbally say they're scared of cancer because they know its the culturally correct thing to say.  But in practice, virtually no healthy, non elderly people are genuinely scared of cancer to the point that it'll affect their decisions, even if their relatives die of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but a chance they could eventually develop cancershe 'd gladly trade a risk of dying of cancer a couple of decades from nowIf they 're alive , they already have a chance to develop cancer.Everyone alive now , has a risk of dying of cancer a couple decades from now , unless they already have a short term terminal diagnosis or are very elderly ( someone in their 90s now will almost certainly will not live another half century , etc ) Look at how effective printing " The surgeon general has determined that ... a dramatically higher chance of cancer " on cigarette packs has been.You can scare people with one per ten million sticking accelerators .
You can scare them into anything by telling them there 's a terrorist hiding behind every tree stump .
They even verbally say they 're scared of cancer because they know its the culturally correct thing to say .
But in practice , virtually no healthy , non elderly people are genuinely scared of cancer to the point that it 'll affect their decisions , even if their relatives die of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but a chance they could eventually develop cancershe'd gladly trade a risk of dying of cancer a couple of decades from nowIf they're alive, they already have a chance to develop cancer.Everyone alive now, has a risk of dying of cancer a couple decades from now, unless they already have a short term terminal diagnosis or are very elderly (someone in their 90s now will almost certainly will not live another half century, etc)Look at how effective printing "The surgeon general has determined that ... a dramatically higher chance of cancer" on cigarette packs has been.You can scare people with one per ten million sticking accelerators.
You can scare them into anything by telling them there's a terrorist hiding behind every tree stump.
They even verbally say they're scared of cancer because they know its the culturally correct thing to say.
But in practice, virtually no healthy, non elderly people are genuinely scared of cancer to the point that it'll affect their decisions, even if their relatives die of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419520</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>drunkenoafoffofb3ta</author>
	<datestamp>1268130900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really think people should have "moral problems" with embryonic stem cell research. Human embryos left over from IVF are (mandated by law) thrown in a bin. Is IVF immoral?</p><p>Embryonic stem cells have many, many reasons going for them over adult stem cells, not least of which a lower potential for developing into cancer. In terms of basic medical research, they are - for want of a better phrase - a godsend. Adult stem cells are not as good.</p><p>Why should "moral issues" about trash from a process that brings the joy of children to many stop genuine medical advances?</p><p>Anyhow, clinical trial entry in the US is dependent on the person receiving the trial therapy signing a waiver saying that they understand what they're doing. The worrying thing in this circumstance is that these people are desperate, which never helps clear judgement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really think people should have " moral problems " with embryonic stem cell research .
Human embryos left over from IVF are ( mandated by law ) thrown in a bin .
Is IVF immoral ? Embryonic stem cells have many , many reasons going for them over adult stem cells , not least of which a lower potential for developing into cancer .
In terms of basic medical research , they are - for want of a better phrase - a godsend .
Adult stem cells are not as good.Why should " moral issues " about trash from a process that brings the joy of children to many stop genuine medical advances ? Anyhow , clinical trial entry in the US is dependent on the person receiving the trial therapy signing a waiver saying that they understand what they 're doing .
The worrying thing in this circumstance is that these people are desperate , which never helps clear judgement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really think people should have "moral problems" with embryonic stem cell research.
Human embryos left over from IVF are (mandated by law) thrown in a bin.
Is IVF immoral?Embryonic stem cells have many, many reasons going for them over adult stem cells, not least of which a lower potential for developing into cancer.
In terms of basic medical research, they are - for want of a better phrase - a godsend.
Adult stem cells are not as good.Why should "moral issues" about trash from a process that brings the joy of children to many stop genuine medical advances?Anyhow, clinical trial entry in the US is dependent on the person receiving the trial therapy signing a waiver saying that they understand what they're doing.
The worrying thing in this circumstance is that these people are desperate, which never helps clear judgement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422922</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268154540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that they actually prevent you from doing what you want anyway.  They're really just warning you of what might happen if you can find someone willing to do the procedure (in spite of potential consequences they might face) and are yourself willing to face the potential consequences they warned you of.</p><p>That said I have no idea what they would actually do in such a case anyway, other than possibly having the doctor's medical license revoked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that they actually prevent you from doing what you want anyway .
They 're really just warning you of what might happen if you can find someone willing to do the procedure ( in spite of potential consequences they might face ) and are yourself willing to face the potential consequences they warned you of.That said I have no idea what they would actually do in such a case anyway , other than possibly having the doctor 's medical license revoked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that they actually prevent you from doing what you want anyway.
They're really just warning you of what might happen if you can find someone willing to do the procedure (in spite of potential consequences they might face) and are yourself willing to face the potential consequences they warned you of.That said I have no idea what they would actually do in such a case anyway, other than possibly having the doctor's medical license revoked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417430</id>
	<title>Slashdot Shopping Network</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1268165340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Now, in an exciting development, Regenerative Sciences Inc. in Colorado has found a way to skirt the FDA and provide these same stem cell treatments to humans."</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
And if you call in the next 15 minutes, you get 5 plastic syringes, absolutely free.
</p><p>
Call now.
</p><p>
* The free syringes may or may not be new pending supply.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Now , in an exciting development , Regenerative Sciences Inc. in Colorado has found a way to skirt the FDA and provide these same stem cell treatments to humans .
" And if you call in the next 15 minutes , you get 5 plastic syringes , absolutely free .
Call now .
* The free syringes may or may not be new pending supply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Now, in an exciting development, Regenerative Sciences Inc. in Colorado has found a way to skirt the FDA and provide these same stem cell treatments to humans.
"

And if you call in the next 15 minutes, you get 5 plastic syringes, absolutely free.
Call now.
* The free syringes may or may not be new pending supply.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420264</id>
	<title>Re:Implants are a thing of the past?</title>
	<author>srothroc</author>
	<datestamp>1268134320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I have a cochlear implant, though I'd love to be able to hear with just one simple injection. The cochlear implant is large, annoyingly bulky, takes money to maintain, vulnerable to weather, and not exactly great for any kind of impact sport (including running quickly).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I have a cochlear implant , though I 'd love to be able to hear with just one simple injection .
The cochlear implant is large , annoyingly bulky , takes money to maintain , vulnerable to weather , and not exactly great for any kind of impact sport ( including running quickly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I have a cochlear implant, though I'd love to be able to hear with just one simple injection.
The cochlear implant is large, annoyingly bulky, takes money to maintain, vulnerable to weather, and not exactly great for any kind of impact sport (including running quickly).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417284</id>
	<title>Hmmmm</title>
	<author>iMac Were</author>
	<datestamp>1268164800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like a nice stem...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like a nice stem.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like a nice stem...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>fusiongyro</author>
	<datestamp>1268165640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Results don't have anything to do with the moral argument. Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.</p><p>Furthermore, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem\_cell\_laws#United\_States" title="wikipedia.org">embryonic stem cell research was never actually banned.</a> [wikipedia.org] The federal government just wasn't willing to pay for embryonic stem cell research, which seems like a fair response to morally questionable research. At any rate, my understanding is that adult stem cells have produced more and better results anyway, and that's exactly what this doctor is doing: taking your own stem cells and giving them back to you. No fetuses = no moral problem. What's actually being skirted here is federal regulation over medical and drug procedures, not anything specific to stem cells.</p><p>I personally think people should be permitted access to experimental medical procedures, as long as they understand that as they are experimental, they're waiving their right to sue for wrongful death or medical malpractice, as well as any federal mandate for it to be covered by their insurance. If you have money and want to take the risk, by all means have at it. As for me, the state can pay for it when I'm reasonably convinced of the scientific validity&mdash;which includes that the long-term side effects do not outweigh the short-term benefits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Results do n't have anything to do with the moral argument .
Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.Furthermore , embryonic stem cell research was never actually banned .
[ wikipedia.org ] The federal government just was n't willing to pay for embryonic stem cell research , which seems like a fair response to morally questionable research .
At any rate , my understanding is that adult stem cells have produced more and better results anyway , and that 's exactly what this doctor is doing : taking your own stem cells and giving them back to you .
No fetuses = no moral problem .
What 's actually being skirted here is federal regulation over medical and drug procedures , not anything specific to stem cells.I personally think people should be permitted access to experimental medical procedures , as long as they understand that as they are experimental , they 're waiving their right to sue for wrongful death or medical malpractice , as well as any federal mandate for it to be covered by their insurance .
If you have money and want to take the risk , by all means have at it .
As for me , the state can pay for it when I 'm reasonably convinced of the scientific validity    which includes that the long-term side effects do not outweigh the short-term benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Results don't have anything to do with the moral argument.
Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.Furthermore, embryonic stem cell research was never actually banned.
[wikipedia.org] The federal government just wasn't willing to pay for embryonic stem cell research, which seems like a fair response to morally questionable research.
At any rate, my understanding is that adult stem cells have produced more and better results anyway, and that's exactly what this doctor is doing: taking your own stem cells and giving them back to you.
No fetuses = no moral problem.
What's actually being skirted here is federal regulation over medical and drug procedures, not anything specific to stem cells.I personally think people should be permitted access to experimental medical procedures, as long as they understand that as they are experimental, they're waiving their right to sue for wrongful death or medical malpractice, as well as any federal mandate for it to be covered by their insurance.
If you have money and want to take the risk, by all means have at it.
As for me, the state can pay for it when I'm reasonably convinced of the scientific validity—which includes that the long-term side effects do not outweigh the short-term benefits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417888</id>
	<title>FDA is a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268167380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are so many things that people put in their body that the FDA refuses to regulate.</p><p>What job is it of the FDA to decide how I want to use my own body's stem cells within my own body.  I will put them where I please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are so many things that people put in their body that the FDA refuses to regulate.What job is it of the FDA to decide how I want to use my own body 's stem cells within my own body .
I will put them where I please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are so many things that people put in their body that the FDA refuses to regulate.What job is it of the FDA to decide how I want to use my own body's stem cells within my own body.
I will put them where I please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417832</id>
	<title>Daring? Really?</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1268167140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Finally. One daring little company, and we finally move forward. Thumbs up for the Colorado mavericks.</p></div><p>Medical history is replete with "mavericks" that hawked miracle cures. The common thread was their claim that the Man was engaged in a conspiracy to surpress their wonderful new miracle treatment. You may or may not be too young to remember the whole <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine\_sulfate" title="wikipedia.org">Hydrazine Sulfate</a> [wikipedia.org] scam. Bob Guccione (the publisher of Penthouse) sent his wife to a quack named Dr. Joseph Gold, who sold them on Hydrazine Sulfate... formerly an industrial chemical... as a miracle cancer treatment. Guccione railed in Penthouse about how the National Cancer Institute was suppressing this vital new treatment out of greed and jealousy. His wife took the stuff anyway, telling everyone how much better she was feeling.</p><p>She died of breast cancer soon afterwards. And to this day, the FDA says there's no evidence for the benefit of that compound.</p><p>I'm well aware that sometimes a clique mentality can settle in among scientists. They're human, after all, and are as fallible as anyone else. And in the end, perhaps these stem cell guys will be hailed as heroes. But when someone is crying "conspiracy!", I'd at least be careful before taking what they're selling.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally .
One daring little company , and we finally move forward .
Thumbs up for the Colorado mavericks.Medical history is replete with " mavericks " that hawked miracle cures .
The common thread was their claim that the Man was engaged in a conspiracy to surpress their wonderful new miracle treatment .
You may or may not be too young to remember the whole Hydrazine Sulfate [ wikipedia.org ] scam .
Bob Guccione ( the publisher of Penthouse ) sent his wife to a quack named Dr. Joseph Gold , who sold them on Hydrazine Sulfate... formerly an industrial chemical... as a miracle cancer treatment .
Guccione railed in Penthouse about how the National Cancer Institute was suppressing this vital new treatment out of greed and jealousy .
His wife took the stuff anyway , telling everyone how much better she was feeling.She died of breast cancer soon afterwards .
And to this day , the FDA says there 's no evidence for the benefit of that compound.I 'm well aware that sometimes a clique mentality can settle in among scientists .
They 're human , after all , and are as fallible as anyone else .
And in the end , perhaps these stem cell guys will be hailed as heroes .
But when someone is crying " conspiracy !
" , I 'd at least be careful before taking what they 're selling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally.
One daring little company, and we finally move forward.
Thumbs up for the Colorado mavericks.Medical history is replete with "mavericks" that hawked miracle cures.
The common thread was their claim that the Man was engaged in a conspiracy to surpress their wonderful new miracle treatment.
You may or may not be too young to remember the whole Hydrazine Sulfate [wikipedia.org] scam.
Bob Guccione (the publisher of Penthouse) sent his wife to a quack named Dr. Joseph Gold, who sold them on Hydrazine Sulfate... formerly an industrial chemical... as a miracle cancer treatment.
Guccione railed in Penthouse about how the National Cancer Institute was suppressing this vital new treatment out of greed and jealousy.
His wife took the stuff anyway, telling everyone how much better she was feeling.She died of breast cancer soon afterwards.
And to this day, the FDA says there's no evidence for the benefit of that compound.I'm well aware that sometimes a clique mentality can settle in among scientists.
They're human, after all, and are as fallible as anyone else.
And in the end, perhaps these stem cell guys will be hailed as heroes.
But when someone is crying "conspiracy!
", I'd at least be careful before taking what they're selling.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417878</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268167320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we, as a species, proceeded at speeds stymied by 100\% safety measures, most of the human race would be dead by now.</p><p>That this procedure is any more dangerous than the questionable long term food we eat, water we drink, or air we breathe, remains to be seen. It's risky breakthrough's like this, that give me just a little hope that the entire medical industry isn't completely fucked. Frankly, having some bone marrow extracted, processed, then shot into my knee sounds a hell of a lot easier than a full on synthetic knee replacement that I'm looking at in about 10-15 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we , as a species , proceeded at speeds stymied by 100 \ % safety measures , most of the human race would be dead by now.That this procedure is any more dangerous than the questionable long term food we eat , water we drink , or air we breathe , remains to be seen .
It 's risky breakthrough 's like this , that give me just a little hope that the entire medical industry is n't completely fucked .
Frankly , having some bone marrow extracted , processed , then shot into my knee sounds a hell of a lot easier than a full on synthetic knee replacement that I 'm looking at in about 10-15 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we, as a species, proceeded at speeds stymied by 100\% safety measures, most of the human race would be dead by now.That this procedure is any more dangerous than the questionable long term food we eat, water we drink, or air we breathe, remains to be seen.
It's risky breakthrough's like this, that give me just a little hope that the entire medical industry isn't completely fucked.
Frankly, having some bone marrow extracted, processed, then shot into my knee sounds a hell of a lot easier than a full on synthetic knee replacement that I'm looking at in about 10-15 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417644</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1268166300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This may have a wonderful ending, and maybe it wont, but you know, there's a <i>reason</i> that the FDA takes a long time to approve treatments. You might want to consider that before you try to beat the system, so to speak. Now, if you're going to definitely die without it, then I could see taking the risk. Otherwise, I'd be vary wary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may have a wonderful ending , and maybe it wont , but you know , there 's a reason that the FDA takes a long time to approve treatments .
You might want to consider that before you try to beat the system , so to speak .
Now , if you 're going to definitely die without it , then I could see taking the risk .
Otherwise , I 'd be vary wary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may have a wonderful ending, and maybe it wont, but you know, there's a reason that the FDA takes a long time to approve treatments.
You might want to consider that before you try to beat the system, so to speak.
Now, if you're going to definitely die without it, then I could see taking the risk.
Otherwise, I'd be vary wary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418880</id>
	<title>Re:A Real Cowboy</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1268128140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless significant numbers of his patients develop cancer, I have to agree.</p><p>Oh, wait, we don't know.</p><p>That's the point.</p><p>I wish him and his patients luck.  But the fact is, he's risking his patients using this procedure.  There's a very good chance the procedure will turn out to be safe, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. there's a chance it won't.  I certainly hope he's doing a better job of disclosing the risks to his actual patients than his PR firm is doing with this article.</p><p>And in that disclosure I hope he's mentioning that health complications brought on by unapproved procedures are not covered by most insurance policies, so if one of his patients develops cancer their insurance company has a really good way to disqualify them from coverage.  Even if the cancer is unrelated to the treatment, the question can be raised.</p><p>I salute the doctor, and more importantly the patients, for taking the risks in the name of expanding medical knowledge.  I hope they know that's what they are doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless significant numbers of his patients develop cancer , I have to agree.Oh , wait , we do n't know.That 's the point.I wish him and his patients luck .
But the fact is , he 's risking his patients using this procedure .
There 's a very good chance the procedure will turn out to be safe , but .. there 's a chance it wo n't .
I certainly hope he 's doing a better job of disclosing the risks to his actual patients than his PR firm is doing with this article.And in that disclosure I hope he 's mentioning that health complications brought on by unapproved procedures are not covered by most insurance policies , so if one of his patients develops cancer their insurance company has a really good way to disqualify them from coverage .
Even if the cancer is unrelated to the treatment , the question can be raised.I salute the doctor , and more importantly the patients , for taking the risks in the name of expanding medical knowledge .
I hope they know that 's what they are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless significant numbers of his patients develop cancer, I have to agree.Oh, wait, we don't know.That's the point.I wish him and his patients luck.
But the fact is, he's risking his patients using this procedure.
There's a very good chance the procedure will turn out to be safe, but .. there's a chance it won't.
I certainly hope he's doing a better job of disclosing the risks to his actual patients than his PR firm is doing with this article.And in that disclosure I hope he's mentioning that health complications brought on by unapproved procedures are not covered by most insurance policies, so if one of his patients develops cancer their insurance company has a really good way to disqualify them from coverage.
Even if the cancer is unrelated to the treatment, the question can be raised.I salute the doctor, and more importantly the patients, for taking the risks in the name of expanding medical knowledge.
I hope they know that's what they are doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421636</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268142420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't bribe the FDA, but doctors conducting the tests....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't bribe the FDA , but doctors conducting the tests... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't bribe the FDA, but doctors conducting the tests....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31424800</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1268226840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I think the bigger question is "is abortion moral?" "<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and I think you're absolutely right.</p><p>I think the Bush administration felt this was one small issue that they could 'take the risk on' and make a moral stand against something-somewhat-in-relation-to abortion, and perhaps it would be a camel's nose situation.</p><p>People seem to instinctively understand this, and the split over embryonic stem cells mirrors perfectly (in all the folks I've talked to) the split on abortion.</p><p>Personally I have deep qualms about abortion, and I also had deep qualms about the use of embryonic stem cells.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I think the bigger question is " is abortion moral ?
" " ...and I think you 're absolutely right.I think the Bush administration felt this was one small issue that they could 'take the risk on ' and make a moral stand against something-somewhat-in-relation-to abortion , and perhaps it would be a camel 's nose situation.People seem to instinctively understand this , and the split over embryonic stem cells mirrors perfectly ( in all the folks I 've talked to ) the split on abortion.Personally I have deep qualms about abortion , and I also had deep qualms about the use of embryonic stem cells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I think the bigger question is "is abortion moral?
" " ...and I think you're absolutely right.I think the Bush administration felt this was one small issue that they could 'take the risk on' and make a moral stand against something-somewhat-in-relation-to abortion, and perhaps it would be a camel's nose situation.People seem to instinctively understand this, and the split over embryonic stem cells mirrors perfectly (in all the folks I've talked to) the split on abortion.Personally I have deep qualms about abortion, and I also had deep qualms about the use of embryonic stem cells.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417476</id>
	<title>alternative treatment</title>
	<author>losfromla</author>
	<datestamp>1268165520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am all for this therapy, but the hard numbers they talk about say things like "\%x patients feel \%y better..."  I know that it will receive a standing ovation in slashdot but, these are not hard results, they are anecdotal.  I'd like to see x-ray or cat scan evidence of, say \% regeneration after x months, etc.  If the topic were alternative eating regiments or differences from eating organic vs non-organic (spare the rants, we know that words mean different things in different contexts and we're not talking o-chem), or improvement from chiropractic care, then I'm sure no one here would accept their "hard numbers" easily.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am all for this therapy , but the hard numbers they talk about say things like " \ % x patients feel \ % y better... " I know that it will receive a standing ovation in slashdot but , these are not hard results , they are anecdotal .
I 'd like to see x-ray or cat scan evidence of , say \ % regeneration after x months , etc .
If the topic were alternative eating regiments or differences from eating organic vs non-organic ( spare the rants , we know that words mean different things in different contexts and we 're not talking o-chem ) , or improvement from chiropractic care , then I 'm sure no one here would accept their " hard numbers " easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am all for this therapy, but the hard numbers they talk about say things like "\%x patients feel \%y better..."  I know that it will receive a standing ovation in slashdot but, these are not hard results, they are anecdotal.
I'd like to see x-ray or cat scan evidence of, say \% regeneration after x months, etc.
If the topic were alternative eating regiments or differences from eating organic vs non-organic (spare the rants, we know that words mean different things in different contexts and we're not talking o-chem), or improvement from chiropractic care, then I'm sure no one here would accept their "hard numbers" easily.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418328</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1268125860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I just hope the risks have been explained to the patients who are receiving the treatment.</p></div></blockquote><p>That would be nice.
</p><p>It would be even nicer if we had any way of knowing whether the patients "who are receiving the treatment" are actually receiving the treatment....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just hope the risks have been explained to the patients who are receiving the treatment.That would be nice .
It would be even nicer if we had any way of knowing whether the patients " who are receiving the treatment " are actually receiving the treatment... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just hope the risks have been explained to the patients who are receiving the treatment.That would be nice.
It would be even nicer if we had any way of knowing whether the patients "who are receiving the treatment" are actually receiving the treatment....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417792</id>
	<title>Americans skirted the FDA for years, via Mexico</title>
	<author>snadrus</author>
	<datestamp>1268166900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right on the other side of the border are fancy all-English-speaking hospitals with American doctors doing procedures the FDA bans. <br> <br>
As long as you're avoiding regulation, go where it's been done for years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right on the other side of the border are fancy all-English-speaking hospitals with American doctors doing procedures the FDA bans .
As long as you 're avoiding regulation , go where it 's been done for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right on the other side of the border are fancy all-English-speaking hospitals with American doctors doing procedures the FDA bans.
As long as you're avoiding regulation, go where it's been done for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421104</id>
	<title>Re:A Real Cowboy</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1268138820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In most sane and civilized contexts, rebel, hacker, and free thinker are not compliments either. Luckily for us both, the world is not always a sane and civilized place.
<br> <br>
See also, "aristocrat"</htmltext>
<tokenext>In most sane and civilized contexts , rebel , hacker , and free thinker are not compliments either .
Luckily for us both , the world is not always a sane and civilized place .
See also , " aristocrat "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In most sane and civilized contexts, rebel, hacker, and free thinker are not compliments either.
Luckily for us both, the world is not always a sane and civilized place.
See also, "aristocrat"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417724</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1268166660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do the moral arguments change with the efficacy of the treatments?</p><p>Are there really people who believe the lump of cells has a soul, but it is okay to destroy it to fix cancer in papa?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do the moral arguments change with the efficacy of the treatments ? Are there really people who believe the lump of cells has a soul , but it is okay to destroy it to fix cancer in papa ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do the moral arguments change with the efficacy of the treatments?Are there really people who believe the lump of cells has a soul, but it is okay to destroy it to fix cancer in papa?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418006</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1268167920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Furthermore, embryonic stem cell research was never actually banned. The federal government just wasn't willing to pay for embryonic stem cell research, which seems like a fair response to morally questionable research</i></p><p>When you look at how research is funded, withholding federal funds might as well be a ban.  Meanwhile all those stem cells end up in an incinerator instead of potentially yielding knowledge.  That's not morally questionable, that's flat out wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Furthermore , embryonic stem cell research was never actually banned .
The federal government just was n't willing to pay for embryonic stem cell research , which seems like a fair response to morally questionable researchWhen you look at how research is funded , withholding federal funds might as well be a ban .
Meanwhile all those stem cells end up in an incinerator instead of potentially yielding knowledge .
That 's not morally questionable , that 's flat out wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Furthermore, embryonic stem cell research was never actually banned.
The federal government just wasn't willing to pay for embryonic stem cell research, which seems like a fair response to morally questionable researchWhen you look at how research is funded, withholding federal funds might as well be a ban.
Meanwhile all those stem cells end up in an incinerator instead of potentially yielding knowledge.
That's not morally questionable, that's flat out wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418710</id>
	<title>Re:A Real Cowboy</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1268127480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's a classic American cowboy attitude on display right there.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of "Classic American Snake-Oil Salesman."</p><blockquote><div><p>and now ~80\% of his patients are reaping the benefits.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nobody who has ever heard of a placebo puts any faith in the numbers provided.  Without double-blind tests, we have no way of knowing if there is ANY positive effect, and we certainly don't know what the long-term consequences will be.</p><p>When we find these people getting WORSE, and perhaps developing cancer or other growths, the story will take a huge swing the other way:  "Greedy doctor tricked desperate people into spending money on unsanctioned and untested medical treatment..."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a classic American cowboy attitude on display right there.Actually , I was thinking more along the lines of " Classic American Snake-Oil Salesman .
" and now ~ 80 \ % of his patients are reaping the benefits.Nobody who has ever heard of a placebo puts any faith in the numbers provided .
Without double-blind tests , we have no way of knowing if there is ANY positive effect , and we certainly do n't know what the long-term consequences will be.When we find these people getting WORSE , and perhaps developing cancer or other growths , the story will take a huge swing the other way : " Greedy doctor tricked desperate people into spending money on unsanctioned and untested medical treatment... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a classic American cowboy attitude on display right there.Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of "Classic American Snake-Oil Salesman.
"and now ~80\% of his patients are reaping the benefits.Nobody who has ever heard of a placebo puts any faith in the numbers provided.
Without double-blind tests, we have no way of knowing if there is ANY positive effect, and we certainly don't know what the long-term consequences will be.When we find these people getting WORSE, and perhaps developing cancer or other growths, the story will take a huge swing the other way:  "Greedy doctor tricked desperate people into spending money on unsanctioned and untested medical treatment..."
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421370</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268140800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the medical corporations make more money treating the pain.</p><p>cooperation could save lives... think about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the medical corporations make more money treating the pain.cooperation could save lives... think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the medical corporations make more money treating the pain.cooperation could save lives... think about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417564</id>
	<title>Guns and weed, too.  How big is this trend?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268165880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Per the article:

</p><blockquote><div><p><i>They claim that Regenexx is solely used as a part of their medical practice, <b>only within the state of Colorado</b> <i>(emphasis added)</i>, and as such is no more regulated by the FDA than it would be by the FAA or the Department of Motor Vehicles.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>So at least part of their legal claim that the FDA can go jump in the lake is based on the notion that their work is limited to one state.  Others are saying the same thing.  Gun-rights activists are pushing

<a href="http://www.panamalaw.org/montana\_governor\_signs\_new\_gun\_law.html" title="panamalaw.org">legislation, some of which has been passed into law</a> [panamalaw.org] to make firearms made and sold in a single state exempt from federal regulation.  (That's an odd link, but it was one of the first I found.  Google a bit and you'll see lots of pages devoted to this stuff.)

</p><p>How many other issues are being pushed in this way?  There's medical marijuana, of course, (I didn't figure I needed to find a cite for that one) but are there any others?

</p><p>I'm curious about how widespread this trend is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Per the article : They claim that Regenexx is solely used as a part of their medical practice , only within the state of Colorado ( emphasis added ) , and as such is no more regulated by the FDA than it would be by the FAA or the Department of Motor Vehicles .
So at least part of their legal claim that the FDA can go jump in the lake is based on the notion that their work is limited to one state .
Others are saying the same thing .
Gun-rights activists are pushing legislation , some of which has been passed into law [ panamalaw.org ] to make firearms made and sold in a single state exempt from federal regulation .
( That 's an odd link , but it was one of the first I found .
Google a bit and you 'll see lots of pages devoted to this stuff .
) How many other issues are being pushed in this way ?
There 's medical marijuana , of course , ( I did n't figure I needed to find a cite for that one ) but are there any others ?
I 'm curious about how widespread this trend is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Per the article:

They claim that Regenexx is solely used as a part of their medical practice, only within the state of Colorado (emphasis added), and as such is no more regulated by the FDA than it would be by the FAA or the Department of Motor Vehicles.
So at least part of their legal claim that the FDA can go jump in the lake is based on the notion that their work is limited to one state.
Others are saying the same thing.
Gun-rights activists are pushing

legislation, some of which has been passed into law [panamalaw.org] to make firearms made and sold in a single state exempt from federal regulation.
(That's an odd link, but it was one of the first I found.
Google a bit and you'll see lots of pages devoted to this stuff.
)

How many other issues are being pushed in this way?
There's medical marijuana, of course, (I didn't figure I needed to find a cite for that one) but are there any others?
I'm curious about how widespread this trend is.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418354</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>ArcherB</author>
	<datestamp>1268125980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This doesn't surprise me. I always figured some other country would start doing this, get amazing results, and then the laws would change fast once it stopped being claims of future magic and became real, testable results. When you start getting these kind of great results, the moral argument gets harder.</p></div><p>Remember that the "moral argument" against stem cells only deals with stem cells derived from by starting an embryo and destroying it.  Embryonic stem cells from existing stem cell lines, embryonic stem cells derived from  other methods such as cord blood, and adult derived stem cells have not "moral argument" against them.</p><p>Since the results discussed here are from adult stem cells, it actually supports the "moral argument" and makes the argument for embryonic stem cells that much harder.  Even the "Father of Stem Cell Research", James Thomson now believes that there is no point in pursuing treatments from embryonic stem cells because of the risks involved and the superiority of adult derived cells from the actual patient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't surprise me .
I always figured some other country would start doing this , get amazing results , and then the laws would change fast once it stopped being claims of future magic and became real , testable results .
When you start getting these kind of great results , the moral argument gets harder.Remember that the " moral argument " against stem cells only deals with stem cells derived from by starting an embryo and destroying it .
Embryonic stem cells from existing stem cell lines , embryonic stem cells derived from other methods such as cord blood , and adult derived stem cells have not " moral argument " against them.Since the results discussed here are from adult stem cells , it actually supports the " moral argument " and makes the argument for embryonic stem cells that much harder .
Even the " Father of Stem Cell Research " , James Thomson now believes that there is no point in pursuing treatments from embryonic stem cells because of the risks involved and the superiority of adult derived cells from the actual patient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't surprise me.
I always figured some other country would start doing this, get amazing results, and then the laws would change fast once it stopped being claims of future magic and became real, testable results.
When you start getting these kind of great results, the moral argument gets harder.Remember that the "moral argument" against stem cells only deals with stem cells derived from by starting an embryo and destroying it.
Embryonic stem cells from existing stem cell lines, embryonic stem cells derived from  other methods such as cord blood, and adult derived stem cells have not "moral argument" against them.Since the results discussed here are from adult stem cells, it actually supports the "moral argument" and makes the argument for embryonic stem cells that much harder.
Even the "Father of Stem Cell Research", James Thomson now believes that there is no point in pursuing treatments from embryonic stem cells because of the risks involved and the superiority of adult derived cells from the actual patient.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418768</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Daxx22</author>
	<datestamp>1268127660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, but stem cells to the the average joe have achieved a similar status as nuclear power.  AKA while there is are perfectly safe(nuclear) and morally fine (stem cells) way, they both suffer from their earlier associates.

After all, ask yourself whats the first thing that comes to mind when you say stem cells?  Usually it's the embryo controversy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , but stem cells to the the average joe have achieved a similar status as nuclear power .
AKA while there is are perfectly safe ( nuclear ) and morally fine ( stem cells ) way , they both suffer from their earlier associates .
After all , ask yourself whats the first thing that comes to mind when you say stem cells ?
Usually it 's the embryo controversy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, but stem cells to the the average joe have achieved a similar status as nuclear power.
AKA while there is are perfectly safe(nuclear) and morally fine (stem cells) way, they both suffer from their earlier associates.
After all, ask yourself whats the first thing that comes to mind when you say stem cells?
Usually it's the embryo controversy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418280</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268125680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the laws would change fast once it stopped being claims of future magic and became real, testable results. When you start getting these kind of great results, the moral argument gets harder."</p><p>The problem is that there are no "great results", it's marketing and badscience. People claim great responses from farm animal homeopathy as well. Hell, a lot more probably gets past veterinary medical boards than human, that doesn't mean that they're on the "cutting edge".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the laws would change fast once it stopped being claims of future magic and became real , testable results .
When you start getting these kind of great results , the moral argument gets harder .
" The problem is that there are no " great results " , it 's marketing and badscience .
People claim great responses from farm animal homeopathy as well .
Hell , a lot more probably gets past veterinary medical boards than human , that does n't mean that they 're on the " cutting edge " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the laws would change fast once it stopped being claims of future magic and became real, testable results.
When you start getting these kind of great results, the moral argument gets harder.
"The problem is that there are no "great results", it's marketing and badscience.
People claim great responses from farm animal homeopathy as well.
Hell, a lot more probably gets past veterinary medical boards than human, that doesn't mean that they're on the "cutting edge".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417526</id>
	<title>Patients aren't the only ones excited</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268165700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Medical treatment that skirts federal regulations? Sounds like a lawyer's wet dream. Stem cell treatment has great potential, but they better tread carefully.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Medical treatment that skirts federal regulations ?
Sounds like a lawyer 's wet dream .
Stem cell treatment has great potential , but they better tread carefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Medical treatment that skirts federal regulations?
Sounds like a lawyer's wet dream.
Stem cell treatment has great potential, but they better tread carefully.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418458</id>
	<title>FDA, What purpose?</title>
	<author>SolarStorm</author>
	<datestamp>1268126460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A theme I read in many of the replys were centered around "I should be able to make my own choices".  Yes to a certain extent. But how many of these people will run back to the gov't when they develop bone cancer?  How does the average person who has trouble with their VCR make an informed decsion on a new experimental medical procedure.  Medicine will turn into (if not already there) a salemanship game.  "Cures baldness, impotence and raises IQ's, come one come all, only 10 cents".

The FDA ensures a standard of research and documentation required to provide some common level of proof.  Its not perfect, but I dont trust the masses to make informed decisions.  There were a whole bunch of women who thought Thalydimide was a wonder drug, until their babies were born.  But for every bad story there is also a good one. If the treatment has the success purported, why not get some investors, and get the approval required and own the procedure, instead of the cowboy approach.  This is only going to lead to a legal battle, someone else will find the investors, but the treatment itself could end up in court for years as well as the FDA process.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A theme I read in many of the replys were centered around " I should be able to make my own choices " .
Yes to a certain extent .
But how many of these people will run back to the gov't when they develop bone cancer ?
How does the average person who has trouble with their VCR make an informed decsion on a new experimental medical procedure .
Medicine will turn into ( if not already there ) a salemanship game .
" Cures baldness , impotence and raises IQ 's , come one come all , only 10 cents " .
The FDA ensures a standard of research and documentation required to provide some common level of proof .
Its not perfect , but I dont trust the masses to make informed decisions .
There were a whole bunch of women who thought Thalydimide was a wonder drug , until their babies were born .
But for every bad story there is also a good one .
If the treatment has the success purported , why not get some investors , and get the approval required and own the procedure , instead of the cowboy approach .
This is only going to lead to a legal battle , someone else will find the investors , but the treatment itself could end up in court for years as well as the FDA process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A theme I read in many of the replys were centered around "I should be able to make my own choices".
Yes to a certain extent.
But how many of these people will run back to the gov't when they develop bone cancer?
How does the average person who has trouble with their VCR make an informed decsion on a new experimental medical procedure.
Medicine will turn into (if not already there) a salemanship game.
"Cures baldness, impotence and raises IQ's, come one come all, only 10 cents".
The FDA ensures a standard of research and documentation required to provide some common level of proof.
Its not perfect, but I dont trust the masses to make informed decisions.
There were a whole bunch of women who thought Thalydimide was a wonder drug, until their babies were born.
But for every bad story there is also a good one.
If the treatment has the success purported, why not get some investors, and get the approval required and own the procedure, instead of the cowboy approach.
This is only going to lead to a legal battle, someone else will find the investors, but the treatment itself could end up in court for years as well as the FDA process.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417666</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>Princeofcups</author>
	<datestamp>1268166360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Real safety testing is very, very difficult to do in a controlled way.</p></div><p>The only way to test on humans is to actually test on humans.  People are always willing to take a risk when they are living with constant pain, as are these people.  I wonder if the real culprit on the delay is the insurance companies?  Or is it the established medical community who are not tooled up yet for maximum profit on the procedure?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Real safety testing is very , very difficult to do in a controlled way.The only way to test on humans is to actually test on humans .
People are always willing to take a risk when they are living with constant pain , as are these people .
I wonder if the real culprit on the delay is the insurance companies ?
Or is it the established medical community who are not tooled up yet for maximum profit on the procedure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real safety testing is very, very difficult to do in a controlled way.The only way to test on humans is to actually test on humans.
People are always willing to take a risk when they are living with constant pain, as are these people.
I wonder if the real culprit on the delay is the insurance companies?
Or is it the established medical community who are not tooled up yet for maximum profit on the procedure?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417448</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>Cazakatari</author>
	<datestamp>1268165400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is one reason it has been so difficult to be officially approved, but now that it is at least starting, this information will begin to come out.  New procedures always involve risk.  It is unfortunate when 1 in a 1000 treatments kill or adversely affect a patient, but if you want to walk again and are faced with those odds, I think the choice is clear.</p><p>Regardless, these kinds of procedures are routine or nearly so already in other animals, I see no reason why it would be much different in people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is one reason it has been so difficult to be officially approved , but now that it is at least starting , this information will begin to come out .
New procedures always involve risk .
It is unfortunate when 1 in a 1000 treatments kill or adversely affect a patient , but if you want to walk again and are faced with those odds , I think the choice is clear.Regardless , these kinds of procedures are routine or nearly so already in other animals , I see no reason why it would be much different in people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is one reason it has been so difficult to be officially approved, but now that it is at least starting, this information will begin to come out.
New procedures always involve risk.
It is unfortunate when 1 in a 1000 treatments kill or adversely affect a patient, but if you want to walk again and are faced with those odds, I think the choice is clear.Regardless, these kinds of procedures are routine or nearly so already in other animals, I see no reason why it would be much different in people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31431662</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>BCSWowbagger</author>
	<datestamp>1268218860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, that's not quite the case, rattaroaz.  Actually, it's not AT ALL the case.  Embryonic stem cells are derived from the "termination" of excess embryos from IVF procedures.  These are often frozen embryos in storage.  Sometimes, they are fresh embryos who, if they weren't killed for ECS harvesting, would probably be killed anyway.  Either way, they're definitely alive and definitely can be (and have been) brought to term (often by so-called "embryo adoption"). </p><p>Moreover, there are a <i>whole lot</i> of people who think that killing embryos for the sake of their stem cells is a terrific idea.  (Indeed, one of the fastest ways to get yourself labeled a "religious fundamentalist" in this country is to propose that that's a monstrous idea.)  Look up "therapeutic cloning" at Wikipedia, and, while you're at it, check the NIH's page on ECS research at <a href="http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp" title="nih.gov" rel="nofollow">http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp</a> [nih.gov] for a general overview of cell-harvesting techniques.</p><p>Some of the replies above attempt to skirt this issue using the ridiculous (and oxymoronic) term "fertilized egg" in a bizarre attempt to deprive the blastocyst of its biological status as a living member of the human race.  This attempt to use euphemism to avoid biological and ethical challenges, however, is both transparent and silly.</p><p>At bottom, rattaroaz, yeah, I agree with you that the <i>real</i> question is whether the lives of fetuses are ours to do with as we please.  If yes, then abortion and ECS are fine.  If no, then probably not.  But the fetal-life question figures just as prominently -- and directly -- into embryonic stem cell research questions as it does into the abortion question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that 's not quite the case , rattaroaz .
Actually , it 's not AT ALL the case .
Embryonic stem cells are derived from the " termination " of excess embryos from IVF procedures .
These are often frozen embryos in storage .
Sometimes , they are fresh embryos who , if they were n't killed for ECS harvesting , would probably be killed anyway .
Either way , they 're definitely alive and definitely can be ( and have been ) brought to term ( often by so-called " embryo adoption " ) .
Moreover , there are a whole lot of people who think that killing embryos for the sake of their stem cells is a terrific idea .
( Indeed , one of the fastest ways to get yourself labeled a " religious fundamentalist " in this country is to propose that that 's a monstrous idea .
) Look up " therapeutic cloning " at Wikipedia , and , while you 're at it , check the NIH 's page on ECS research at http : //stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp [ nih.gov ] for a general overview of cell-harvesting techniques.Some of the replies above attempt to skirt this issue using the ridiculous ( and oxymoronic ) term " fertilized egg " in a bizarre attempt to deprive the blastocyst of its biological status as a living member of the human race .
This attempt to use euphemism to avoid biological and ethical challenges , however , is both transparent and silly.At bottom , rattaroaz , yeah , I agree with you that the real question is whether the lives of fetuses are ours to do with as we please .
If yes , then abortion and ECS are fine .
If no , then probably not .
But the fetal-life question figures just as prominently -- and directly -- into embryonic stem cell research questions as it does into the abortion question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that's not quite the case, rattaroaz.
Actually, it's not AT ALL the case.
Embryonic stem cells are derived from the "termination" of excess embryos from IVF procedures.
These are often frozen embryos in storage.
Sometimes, they are fresh embryos who, if they weren't killed for ECS harvesting, would probably be killed anyway.
Either way, they're definitely alive and definitely can be (and have been) brought to term (often by so-called "embryo adoption").
Moreover, there are a whole lot of people who think that killing embryos for the sake of their stem cells is a terrific idea.
(Indeed, one of the fastest ways to get yourself labeled a "religious fundamentalist" in this country is to propose that that's a monstrous idea.
)  Look up "therapeutic cloning" at Wikipedia, and, while you're at it, check the NIH's page on ECS research at http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp [nih.gov] for a general overview of cell-harvesting techniques.Some of the replies above attempt to skirt this issue using the ridiculous (and oxymoronic) term "fertilized egg" in a bizarre attempt to deprive the blastocyst of its biological status as a living member of the human race.
This attempt to use euphemism to avoid biological and ethical challenges, however, is both transparent and silly.At bottom, rattaroaz, yeah, I agree with you that the real question is whether the lives of fetuses are ours to do with as we please.
If yes, then abortion and ECS are fine.
If no, then probably not.
But the fetal-life question figures just as prominently -- and directly -- into embryonic stem cell research questions as it does into the abortion question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419866</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268132400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me guess... You are not a lawyer.</p><p>The case you cited did indeed happen. However, you left out a VERY important word.<br>"</p><p>man growing and consuming <b>excess</b> wheat entirely on his own property is covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause..."</p><p>Roscoe was growing and selling wheat on the open market, and then claimed that only the excess was used for him. See the difference?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me guess... You are not a lawyer.The case you cited did indeed happen .
However , you left out a VERY important word .
" man growing and consuming excess wheat entirely on his own property is covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause... " Roscoe was growing and selling wheat on the open market , and then claimed that only the excess was used for him .
See the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me guess... You are not a lawyer.The case you cited did indeed happen.
However, you left out a VERY important word.
"man growing and consuming excess wheat entirely on his own property is covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause..."Roscoe was growing and selling wheat on the open market, and then claimed that only the excess was used for him.
See the difference?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418382</id>
	<title>Re:A Real Cowboy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268126160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you part of the same PR firm that generated T aptly-referred-to FA?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you part of the same PR firm that generated T aptly-referred-to FA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you part of the same PR firm that generated T aptly-referred-to FA?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418214</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>Tacvek</author>
	<datestamp>1268125440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wondering about that. Bone marrow by nature is about as highly protected as any cell source from outside forces that tend to cause mutations, such as high energy photons (UV light (skin cancer) though gamma rays at the very least).</p><p>as for internal forces, I'm not aware how well carcinogens can penetrate bones, but I would suspect it is harder to do so then to get into most other tissues.</p><p>Thus I would tend to guess that excepting cells that have ceased dividing, cells in bone marrow probably have fewer mutations than most other cells.</p><p>That would imply that injecting them elsewhere would not increase the risk of cancer, as the other cells in the injection area likely aready have more cancer friendly mutations than the stem cells.</p><p>Now, I do see several areas where this logic could go wrong.</p><p>Perhaps the marrow is more likely to be mutated, as a result of carcinogens that make it in to the marrow are unlikely to leave, so they continue to damage cells.</p><p>Perhaps the dozen to two dozen generations of cell growth used in this procedure significantly overcome any additional mutation protection bone marrow may provide. After all, ever cell division is another opportunity for mutation.</p><p>Perhaps these cells being normally protected by the bone are more susceptible to external mutation than other cells are, thus the transplanting being a danger in that regard, at least until the stem cells fully specialize.</p><p>Is there any evidence or reason to believe one of those three cases, or something similar is true? If not, I'd tend to question worries of cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering about that .
Bone marrow by nature is about as highly protected as any cell source from outside forces that tend to cause mutations , such as high energy photons ( UV light ( skin cancer ) though gamma rays at the very least ) .as for internal forces , I 'm not aware how well carcinogens can penetrate bones , but I would suspect it is harder to do so then to get into most other tissues.Thus I would tend to guess that excepting cells that have ceased dividing , cells in bone marrow probably have fewer mutations than most other cells.That would imply that injecting them elsewhere would not increase the risk of cancer , as the other cells in the injection area likely aready have more cancer friendly mutations than the stem cells.Now , I do see several areas where this logic could go wrong.Perhaps the marrow is more likely to be mutated , as a result of carcinogens that make it in to the marrow are unlikely to leave , so they continue to damage cells.Perhaps the dozen to two dozen generations of cell growth used in this procedure significantly overcome any additional mutation protection bone marrow may provide .
After all , ever cell division is another opportunity for mutation.Perhaps these cells being normally protected by the bone are more susceptible to external mutation than other cells are , thus the transplanting being a danger in that regard , at least until the stem cells fully specialize.Is there any evidence or reason to believe one of those three cases , or something similar is true ?
If not , I 'd tend to question worries of cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering about that.
Bone marrow by nature is about as highly protected as any cell source from outside forces that tend to cause mutations, such as high energy photons (UV light (skin cancer) though gamma rays at the very least).as for internal forces, I'm not aware how well carcinogens can penetrate bones, but I would suspect it is harder to do so then to get into most other tissues.Thus I would tend to guess that excepting cells that have ceased dividing, cells in bone marrow probably have fewer mutations than most other cells.That would imply that injecting them elsewhere would not increase the risk of cancer, as the other cells in the injection area likely aready have more cancer friendly mutations than the stem cells.Now, I do see several areas where this logic could go wrong.Perhaps the marrow is more likely to be mutated, as a result of carcinogens that make it in to the marrow are unlikely to leave, so they continue to damage cells.Perhaps the dozen to two dozen generations of cell growth used in this procedure significantly overcome any additional mutation protection bone marrow may provide.
After all, ever cell division is another opportunity for mutation.Perhaps these cells being normally protected by the bone are more susceptible to external mutation than other cells are, thus the transplanting being a danger in that regard, at least until the stem cells fully specialize.Is there any evidence or reason to believe one of those three cases, or something similar is true?
If not, I'd tend to question worries of cancer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418304</id>
	<title>Re:Not to be the bad guy but...</title>
	<author>jbeaupre</author>
	<datestamp>1268125800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who has made stuff regulated by the FDA, I can shed a little light on what they regulate.</p><p>The first rule of thumb is that doctors can do any medical treatment.  There are rules and customs that limit doctors on what they do, but legally once they are a doctor, they can do pretty much anything.  So in theory, a podiatrist could do brain surgery (if he could find a patient dumb enough, a hospital dumb enough, staff dumb enough, etc).  States tend to have enough rules to prevent it, but they aren't as rigid as you might imagine.  And it does mean that doctors can prescribe pretty much any chemical legally available, and some that aren't</p><p>The second rule of thumb is that the FDA regulates drugs and devices, not treatments or surgery.  Some people argue that autologous cell transplants are surgery maybe with a few drugs tossed into the mix.  You're just moving stuff around and using drugs.</p><p>The third rule of thumb is that the FDA focuses on medical claims.  You've heard the term "off label use?"  It means that the product is approved for market, and cannot be marketed as useful for anything but what it was approved for, but doctors can use it for something else.  Botox used to be sold that way.  Even mentioning off label use by a company is a big no-no.</p><p>So what you have here is a doctor, who can do pretty much what he wants, and may not even subject to the FDA.  But if his company is making marketing claims, the FDA might still go after him (presumably he is an officer of the company, which makes him subject to criminal arrest by the FDA.  Unlike ISO, FDA agents carry badges and can slap cuffs on you)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who has made stuff regulated by the FDA , I can shed a little light on what they regulate.The first rule of thumb is that doctors can do any medical treatment .
There are rules and customs that limit doctors on what they do , but legally once they are a doctor , they can do pretty much anything .
So in theory , a podiatrist could do brain surgery ( if he could find a patient dumb enough , a hospital dumb enough , staff dumb enough , etc ) .
States tend to have enough rules to prevent it , but they are n't as rigid as you might imagine .
And it does mean that doctors can prescribe pretty much any chemical legally available , and some that aren'tThe second rule of thumb is that the FDA regulates drugs and devices , not treatments or surgery .
Some people argue that autologous cell transplants are surgery maybe with a few drugs tossed into the mix .
You 're just moving stuff around and using drugs.The third rule of thumb is that the FDA focuses on medical claims .
You 've heard the term " off label use ?
" It means that the product is approved for market , and can not be marketed as useful for anything but what it was approved for , but doctors can use it for something else .
Botox used to be sold that way .
Even mentioning off label use by a company is a big no-no.So what you have here is a doctor , who can do pretty much what he wants , and may not even subject to the FDA .
But if his company is making marketing claims , the FDA might still go after him ( presumably he is an officer of the company , which makes him subject to criminal arrest by the FDA .
Unlike ISO , FDA agents carry badges and can slap cuffs on you )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who has made stuff regulated by the FDA, I can shed a little light on what they regulate.The first rule of thumb is that doctors can do any medical treatment.
There are rules and customs that limit doctors on what they do, but legally once they are a doctor, they can do pretty much anything.
So in theory, a podiatrist could do brain surgery (if he could find a patient dumb enough, a hospital dumb enough, staff dumb enough, etc).
States tend to have enough rules to prevent it, but they aren't as rigid as you might imagine.
And it does mean that doctors can prescribe pretty much any chemical legally available, and some that aren'tThe second rule of thumb is that the FDA regulates drugs and devices, not treatments or surgery.
Some people argue that autologous cell transplants are surgery maybe with a few drugs tossed into the mix.
You're just moving stuff around and using drugs.The third rule of thumb is that the FDA focuses on medical claims.
You've heard the term "off label use?
"  It means that the product is approved for market, and cannot be marketed as useful for anything but what it was approved for, but doctors can use it for something else.
Botox used to be sold that way.
Even mentioning off label use by a company is a big no-no.So what you have here is a doctor, who can do pretty much what he wants, and may not even subject to the FDA.
But if his company is making marketing claims, the FDA might still go after him (presumably he is an officer of the company, which makes him subject to criminal arrest by the FDA.
Unlike ISO, FDA agents carry badges and can slap cuffs on you)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419150</id>
	<title>Re:Guns and weed, too. How big is this trend?</title>
	<author>Artagel</author>
	<datestamp>1268129340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is first-year constitutional law in law school. Wickard v. Filburn. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard\_v.\_Filburn" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard\_v.\_Filburn</a> [wikipedia.org]

This is during the Roosevelt administration. Roosevelt is trying to keep supplies of food low so the price stays high enough for farmers to stay in business as opposed to prices dropping until they are all out of business.

Filburn grew wheat for his own use to feed his own chickens. The idea was that since Filburn was not buying from the limited supply of wheat allowed, he was depressing prices in interstate commerce. The Supreme Court accepted this argument.

This has been the basis of interstate commerce ever since with just a few notable exceptions. (United States v. Lopez for example. Ok, you say, this wheat and chickens things is silly. But what about a meal at a lunch counter? Guess what. Civil Rights laws depend on this expansive notion of Interstate Commerce.

This is not a small or trivial issue. The doctor will not win it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is first-year constitutional law in law school .
Wickard v. Filburn. http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard \ _v. \ _Filburn [ wikipedia.org ] This is during the Roosevelt administration .
Roosevelt is trying to keep supplies of food low so the price stays high enough for farmers to stay in business as opposed to prices dropping until they are all out of business .
Filburn grew wheat for his own use to feed his own chickens .
The idea was that since Filburn was not buying from the limited supply of wheat allowed , he was depressing prices in interstate commerce .
The Supreme Court accepted this argument .
This has been the basis of interstate commerce ever since with just a few notable exceptions .
( United States v. Lopez for example .
Ok , you say , this wheat and chickens things is silly .
But what about a meal at a lunch counter ?
Guess what .
Civil Rights laws depend on this expansive notion of Interstate Commerce .
This is not a small or trivial issue .
The doctor will not win it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is first-year constitutional law in law school.
Wickard v. Filburn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard\_v.\_Filburn [wikipedia.org]

This is during the Roosevelt administration.
Roosevelt is trying to keep supplies of food low so the price stays high enough for farmers to stay in business as opposed to prices dropping until they are all out of business.
Filburn grew wheat for his own use to feed his own chickens.
The idea was that since Filburn was not buying from the limited supply of wheat allowed, he was depressing prices in interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court accepted this argument.
This has been the basis of interstate commerce ever since with just a few notable exceptions.
(United States v. Lopez for example.
Ok, you say, this wheat and chickens things is silly.
But what about a meal at a lunch counter?
Guess what.
Civil Rights laws depend on this expansive notion of Interstate Commerce.
This is not a small or trivial issue.
The doctor will not win it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418028</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Citizen of Earth</author>
	<datestamp>1268167980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When you start getting these kind of great results, the moral argument gets harder.</p></div></blockquote><p>You mean like "God wants you to stay a cripple."  Gee, God, why did you invent stem cells?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you start getting these kind of great results , the moral argument gets harder.You mean like " God wants you to stay a cripple .
" Gee , God , why did you invent stem cells ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you start getting these kind of great results, the moral argument gets harder.You mean like "God wants you to stay a cripple.
"  Gee, God, why did you invent stem cells?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419758</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1268131920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that that reasoning doesn't apply in this case.</p><p>Not that that will matter of course, but it isn't a slam dunk by that case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that that reasoning does n't apply in this case.Not that that will matter of course , but it is n't a slam dunk by that case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that that reasoning doesn't apply in this case.Not that that will matter of course, but it isn't a slam dunk by that case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417342</id>
	<title>How great</title>
	<author>vikingpower</author>
	<datestamp>1268164980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally. One daring little company, and we finally move forward. Thumbs up for the Colorado mavericks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally .
One daring little company , and we finally move forward .
Thumbs up for the Colorado mavericks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally.
One daring little company, and we finally move forward.
Thumbs up for the Colorado mavericks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422222</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>THENate</author>
	<datestamp>1268147940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Federal funding was ended for new embryonic cell lines. Research involving existing lines was not banned or restricted at all.</p><p>You were correct about the separation of research, of course, but recall that private funding spiked. Less funds total than if the federal government funded it? Probably. Effective ban? No.</p><p>That's certainly not a complete ban, without a stretch of imagination applied.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Federal funding was ended for new embryonic cell lines .
Research involving existing lines was not banned or restricted at all.You were correct about the separation of research , of course , but recall that private funding spiked .
Less funds total than if the federal government funded it ?
Probably. Effective ban ?
No.That 's certainly not a complete ban , without a stretch of imagination applied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Federal funding was ended for new embryonic cell lines.
Research involving existing lines was not banned or restricted at all.You were correct about the separation of research, of course, but recall that private funding spiked.
Less funds total than if the federal government funded it?
Probably. Effective ban?
No.That's certainly not a complete ban, without a stretch of imagination applied.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419140</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268129280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Results don't have anything to do with the moral argument. Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.</p><p>Furthermore, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem\_cell\_laws#United\_States" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">embryonic stem cell research was never actually banned.</a> [wikipedia.org] The federal government just wasn't willing to pay for embryonic stem cell research, which seems like a fair response to morally questionable research. At any rate, my understanding is that adult stem cells have produced more and better results anyway, and that's exactly what this doctor is doing: taking your own stem cells and giving them back to you. No fetuses = no moral problem. What's actually being skirted here is federal regulation over medical and drug procedures, not anything specific to stem cells.</p><p>I personally think people should be permitted access to experimental medical procedures, as long as they understand that as they are experimental, they're waiving their right to sue for wrongful death or medical malpractice, as well as any federal mandate for it to be covered by their insurance. If you have money and want to take the risk, by all means have at it. As for me, the state can pay for it when I'm reasonably convinced of the scientific validity&mdash;which includes that the long-term side effects do not outweigh the short-term benefits.</p></div><p>Why does the state have to pay for it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Results do n't have anything to do with the moral argument .
Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.Furthermore , embryonic stem cell research was never actually banned .
[ wikipedia.org ] The federal government just was n't willing to pay for embryonic stem cell research , which seems like a fair response to morally questionable research .
At any rate , my understanding is that adult stem cells have produced more and better results anyway , and that 's exactly what this doctor is doing : taking your own stem cells and giving them back to you .
No fetuses = no moral problem .
What 's actually being skirted here is federal regulation over medical and drug procedures , not anything specific to stem cells.I personally think people should be permitted access to experimental medical procedures , as long as they understand that as they are experimental , they 're waiving their right to sue for wrongful death or medical malpractice , as well as any federal mandate for it to be covered by their insurance .
If you have money and want to take the risk , by all means have at it .
As for me , the state can pay for it when I 'm reasonably convinced of the scientific validity    which includes that the long-term side effects do not outweigh the short-term benefits.Why does the state have to pay for it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Results don't have anything to do with the moral argument.
Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.Furthermore, embryonic stem cell research was never actually banned.
[wikipedia.org] The federal government just wasn't willing to pay for embryonic stem cell research, which seems like a fair response to morally questionable research.
At any rate, my understanding is that adult stem cells have produced more and better results anyway, and that's exactly what this doctor is doing: taking your own stem cells and giving them back to you.
No fetuses = no moral problem.
What's actually being skirted here is federal regulation over medical and drug procedures, not anything specific to stem cells.I personally think people should be permitted access to experimental medical procedures, as long as they understand that as they are experimental, they're waiving their right to sue for wrongful death or medical malpractice, as well as any federal mandate for it to be covered by their insurance.
If you have money and want to take the risk, by all means have at it.
As for me, the state can pay for it when I'm reasonably convinced of the scientific validity—which includes that the long-term side effects do not outweigh the short-term benefits.Why does the state have to pay for it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419356</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Beezlebub33</author>
	<datestamp>1268130240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But, that's silly because we are going to figure out human cloning.  Eventually, if it can be done (and I don't know of any show stoppers), someone will figure it out, regardless of whether we used embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells.  So, the moral questions about human cloning are relevant, regardless of the moral questions about ESCs, which appear to be highly entwined with moral questions about abortion.
<br> <br>
So, we're going to be able to make human clones, we're going to be able to make organs, and might as well start figuring out how to deal with it.  Putting your finger in the dike isn't going to work on this issue.  As usual, the people who have been thinking about this sort of thing are the sci-fi writers.  Maybe we can have William Gibson or Bruce Sterling help us work through the implications.   Actually, it would be nice to have a clone of Asimov that we can have ponder the issues, but maybe he'd be biased.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , that 's silly because we are going to figure out human cloning .
Eventually , if it can be done ( and I do n't know of any show stoppers ) , someone will figure it out , regardless of whether we used embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells .
So , the moral questions about human cloning are relevant , regardless of the moral questions about ESCs , which appear to be highly entwined with moral questions about abortion .
So , we 're going to be able to make human clones , we 're going to be able to make organs , and might as well start figuring out how to deal with it .
Putting your finger in the dike is n't going to work on this issue .
As usual , the people who have been thinking about this sort of thing are the sci-fi writers .
Maybe we can have William Gibson or Bruce Sterling help us work through the implications .
Actually , it would be nice to have a clone of Asimov that we can have ponder the issues , but maybe he 'd be biased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, that's silly because we are going to figure out human cloning.
Eventually, if it can be done (and I don't know of any show stoppers), someone will figure it out, regardless of whether we used embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells.
So, the moral questions about human cloning are relevant, regardless of the moral questions about ESCs, which appear to be highly entwined with moral questions about abortion.
So, we're going to be able to make human clones, we're going to be able to make organs, and might as well start figuring out how to deal with it.
Putting your finger in the dike isn't going to work on this issue.
As usual, the people who have been thinking about this sort of thing are the sci-fi writers.
Maybe we can have William Gibson or Bruce Sterling help us work through the implications.
Actually, it would be nice to have a clone of Asimov that we can have ponder the issues, but maybe he'd be biased.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417562</id>
	<title>Not to be the bad guy but...</title>
	<author>00Sovereign</author>
	<datestamp>1268165820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a biomedical researcher, I'm glad to finally see some of the promises of stem cells.  However, this must be tempered by knowing that there exists a fine line between stem cells and cancer cells.  Both grow outside of the normal controls that keep excess cell division in check.  For stem cells, this is developmentally controlled by the neighboring cells.  I wonder how these stem cells will respond when moved to a new environment and what the long term effects will be.  I guess that FDA sanctioned or not, we're going to find out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a biomedical researcher , I 'm glad to finally see some of the promises of stem cells .
However , this must be tempered by knowing that there exists a fine line between stem cells and cancer cells .
Both grow outside of the normal controls that keep excess cell division in check .
For stem cells , this is developmentally controlled by the neighboring cells .
I wonder how these stem cells will respond when moved to a new environment and what the long term effects will be .
I guess that FDA sanctioned or not , we 're going to find out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a biomedical researcher, I'm glad to finally see some of the promises of stem cells.
However, this must be tempered by knowing that there exists a fine line between stem cells and cancer cells.
Both grow outside of the normal controls that keep excess cell division in check.
For stem cells, this is developmentally controlled by the neighboring cells.
I wonder how these stem cells will respond when moved to a new environment and what the long term effects will be.
I guess that FDA sanctioned or not, we're going to find out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418898</id>
	<title>Re:Implants are a thing of the past?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268128260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great, now my girlfriend doesn't have to be jealous of women with bigger boobs than hers--she can be jealous of MY bigger boobs!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...once I get a girlfriend, I mean.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , now my girlfriend does n't have to be jealous of women with bigger boobs than hers--she can be jealous of MY bigger boobs !
: ) ...once I get a girlfriend , I mean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, now my girlfriend doesn't have to be jealous of women with bigger boobs than hers--she can be jealous of MY bigger boobs!
:) ...once I get a girlfriend, I mean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419108</id>
	<title>Re:FDA is a joke</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1268129160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FDA has not approved this, because they have not tested it and do not know if it is effective AND safe.</p><p>You may feel free to continue to get this kind of treatment, and take the risks that are involved in it. The FDA exists to make sure you are aware of those risks, and to stop businesses who make unsupported claims from doing so.  Your insurance company can also deny any claims you may make that could feasibly have been caused by buying this procedure.</p><p>This guy is making claims that are currently unsupported by a properly documented body of science, selling a procedure that has not been fully tested in humans and may have unknown side effects, including death by cancer.  The FDA exists to make sure that, should you choose to engage in a procedure, you understand the risks involved in that procedure and how likely it is you will benefit.</p><p>You may continue putting your stem cells where you please.  No one says everyone who does things to you needs to be a doctor.  Maybe along with chiropractor, homeopathic consultant, and crystal therapist, we'll have a stem cell therapy technician.  But understand that your insurance company might not be terribly happy with you making body modifications they don't understand and haven't been approved, so if you come down with cancer and it metastasizes from your knee to your liver, they aren't on the hook for the millions of dollars it will take to make you comfortable in your last few years.</p><p>The FDA exists to try and identify what things are good for people, and what things can harm them.  They try to encourage the former and discourage the latter.  If something is harmless but not effective, they allow its sale as long as no claims are made that cannot be supported.  If something is harmful, they have the power to regulate its sale and use.  Until something is proven safe, it is necessary for them to treat it as potentially harmful.</p><p>If you don't like the nanny state bullshit that involves, please do feel free to engage in any treatment you choose.  You want to go off and engage in experimental and unproven stuff and you've got the money?  Go for it!  I'm not trying to be mean, though, when I say that if it doesn't work out for you please don't expect my insurance rates to cover you on it, and don't expect a lot of sympathy.</p><p>If this doctor is not disclosing the risks of the procedure to his patients, he <b>must be stopped</b> until he discloses the risks fully.  If his patients are knowingly taking this risk, then more power to 'em.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FDA has not approved this , because they have not tested it and do not know if it is effective AND safe.You may feel free to continue to get this kind of treatment , and take the risks that are involved in it .
The FDA exists to make sure you are aware of those risks , and to stop businesses who make unsupported claims from doing so .
Your insurance company can also deny any claims you may make that could feasibly have been caused by buying this procedure.This guy is making claims that are currently unsupported by a properly documented body of science , selling a procedure that has not been fully tested in humans and may have unknown side effects , including death by cancer .
The FDA exists to make sure that , should you choose to engage in a procedure , you understand the risks involved in that procedure and how likely it is you will benefit.You may continue putting your stem cells where you please .
No one says everyone who does things to you needs to be a doctor .
Maybe along with chiropractor , homeopathic consultant , and crystal therapist , we 'll have a stem cell therapy technician .
But understand that your insurance company might not be terribly happy with you making body modifications they do n't understand and have n't been approved , so if you come down with cancer and it metastasizes from your knee to your liver , they are n't on the hook for the millions of dollars it will take to make you comfortable in your last few years.The FDA exists to try and identify what things are good for people , and what things can harm them .
They try to encourage the former and discourage the latter .
If something is harmless but not effective , they allow its sale as long as no claims are made that can not be supported .
If something is harmful , they have the power to regulate its sale and use .
Until something is proven safe , it is necessary for them to treat it as potentially harmful.If you do n't like the nanny state bullshit that involves , please do feel free to engage in any treatment you choose .
You want to go off and engage in experimental and unproven stuff and you 've got the money ?
Go for it !
I 'm not trying to be mean , though , when I say that if it does n't work out for you please do n't expect my insurance rates to cover you on it , and do n't expect a lot of sympathy.If this doctor is not disclosing the risks of the procedure to his patients , he must be stopped until he discloses the risks fully .
If his patients are knowingly taking this risk , then more power to 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FDA has not approved this, because they have not tested it and do not know if it is effective AND safe.You may feel free to continue to get this kind of treatment, and take the risks that are involved in it.
The FDA exists to make sure you are aware of those risks, and to stop businesses who make unsupported claims from doing so.
Your insurance company can also deny any claims you may make that could feasibly have been caused by buying this procedure.This guy is making claims that are currently unsupported by a properly documented body of science, selling a procedure that has not been fully tested in humans and may have unknown side effects, including death by cancer.
The FDA exists to make sure that, should you choose to engage in a procedure, you understand the risks involved in that procedure and how likely it is you will benefit.You may continue putting your stem cells where you please.
No one says everyone who does things to you needs to be a doctor.
Maybe along with chiropractor, homeopathic consultant, and crystal therapist, we'll have a stem cell therapy technician.
But understand that your insurance company might not be terribly happy with you making body modifications they don't understand and haven't been approved, so if you come down with cancer and it metastasizes from your knee to your liver, they aren't on the hook for the millions of dollars it will take to make you comfortable in your last few years.The FDA exists to try and identify what things are good for people, and what things can harm them.
They try to encourage the former and discourage the latter.
If something is harmless but not effective, they allow its sale as long as no claims are made that cannot be supported.
If something is harmful, they have the power to regulate its sale and use.
Until something is proven safe, it is necessary for them to treat it as potentially harmful.If you don't like the nanny state bullshit that involves, please do feel free to engage in any treatment you choose.
You want to go off and engage in experimental and unproven stuff and you've got the money?
Go for it!
I'm not trying to be mean, though, when I say that if it doesn't work out for you please don't expect my insurance rates to cover you on it, and don't expect a lot of sympathy.If this doctor is not disclosing the risks of the procedure to his patients, he must be stopped until he discloses the risks fully.
If his patients are knowingly taking this risk, then more power to 'em.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422530</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1268151120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The stem cells from fetuses are from already dead, aborted fetuses. No one, that I know of, is advocating killing fetuses for the sake of getting the stem cells.</i></p><p>The only problem is, that is Exactly what you are advocating in a capitalist nation by placing a value on something.</p><p>Granted, I doubt that was ever the governments intent there, but it is still a concern.  The government can only outlaw the practice (well, more so than it already is) but as we all know that doesn't always stop a thing from happening, it can only punish those who did after the fact.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The stem cells from fetuses are from already dead , aborted fetuses .
No one , that I know of , is advocating killing fetuses for the sake of getting the stem cells.The only problem is , that is Exactly what you are advocating in a capitalist nation by placing a value on something.Granted , I doubt that was ever the governments intent there , but it is still a concern .
The government can only outlaw the practice ( well , more so than it already is ) but as we all know that does n't always stop a thing from happening , it can only punish those who did after the fact .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The stem cells from fetuses are from already dead, aborted fetuses.
No one, that I know of, is advocating killing fetuses for the sake of getting the stem cells.The only problem is, that is Exactly what you are advocating in a capitalist nation by placing a value on something.Granted, I doubt that was ever the governments intent there, but it is still a concern.
The government can only outlaw the practice (well, more so than it already is) but as we all know that doesn't always stop a thing from happening, it can only punish those who did after the fact.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419942</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268132820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you have shown is that even with all the safety procedures, sometimes something may get through.<br>Of course, the actual risk of Vioxx is still debated.</p><p>Rofecoxib was tested. No the testing is perfect. Congratulation, you have shown that medicine is hard.</p><p>The risk of heart attack from Vioxx is no greater then ibprophen.</p><p>No one has shown any scientific evidence of anyone dying from it. Court awards were not around evidence, but around pity.<br>evidence</p><p>It's a problem of litigation. One that had prevented a helpful drug from being on the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you have shown is that even with all the safety procedures , sometimes something may get through.Of course , the actual risk of Vioxx is still debated.Rofecoxib was tested .
No the testing is perfect .
Congratulation , you have shown that medicine is hard.The risk of heart attack from Vioxx is no greater then ibprophen.No one has shown any scientific evidence of anyone dying from it .
Court awards were not around evidence , but around pity.evidenceIt 's a problem of litigation .
One that had prevented a helpful drug from being on the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you have shown is that even with all the safety procedures, sometimes something may get through.Of course, the actual risk of Vioxx is still debated.Rofecoxib was tested.
No the testing is perfect.
Congratulation, you have shown that medicine is hard.The risk of heart attack from Vioxx is no greater then ibprophen.No one has shown any scientific evidence of anyone dying from it.
Court awards were not around evidence, but around pity.evidenceIt's a problem of litigation.
One that had prevented a helpful drug from being on the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420578</id>
	<title>Re:Implants are a thing of the past?</title>
	<author>longhairedgnome</author>
	<datestamp>1268135820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You would be surprised at how few noncyborgs running around</htmltext>
<tokenext>You would be surprised at how few noncyborgs running around</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would be surprised at how few noncyborgs running around</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417898</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268167440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fusiongyro,<br>ESC research funding was cut off completely and entirely.  No lab that accepted federal funding could do ESC, and they couldn't even use existing equipment for privately funded ESC if that equipment had been paid for in any way by federal funds.  Effectively, the research was banned in every sense but the literal one.</p><p>Relevant to the article, which is a poorly written promotional piece of fluff, this clinic that is offering stem cell therapy should warn its patients that there is strong evidence of cancer resulting from stem cell injections.  This is one of the main reasons stem cell therapy has not made it into mainstream medicine (it is being used in Brazil with some success).</p><p>Religious fundamentalism aside, there's a reason for caution in the approval of new treatments such as stem cell therapy.  For example, tysabri is a promising new drug for treating multiple sclerosis, but after several human deaths it was discovered that it activates a normally dormant virus in the brain in a few people, killing them.  It was taken off the market, then allowed back under stricter controls.  Thalidomide was handed out all over the world in the 1950s, resulting in horrible birth defects.  Fortunately, the FDA blocked its approval in the U.S., probably saving thousands of children from disfigurement.</p><p>I'm all for stem cell research, and I think the Bush Administration and the fundies were idiotic for blocking it, but we can't just approve every new treatment that comes along without some rigorous testing.  On the other hand, if patients are adequately informed of the risks, and I'm not the one paying for the side effects they may encounter, more power to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fusiongyro,ESC research funding was cut off completely and entirely .
No lab that accepted federal funding could do ESC , and they could n't even use existing equipment for privately funded ESC if that equipment had been paid for in any way by federal funds .
Effectively , the research was banned in every sense but the literal one.Relevant to the article , which is a poorly written promotional piece of fluff , this clinic that is offering stem cell therapy should warn its patients that there is strong evidence of cancer resulting from stem cell injections .
This is one of the main reasons stem cell therapy has not made it into mainstream medicine ( it is being used in Brazil with some success ) .Religious fundamentalism aside , there 's a reason for caution in the approval of new treatments such as stem cell therapy .
For example , tysabri is a promising new drug for treating multiple sclerosis , but after several human deaths it was discovered that it activates a normally dormant virus in the brain in a few people , killing them .
It was taken off the market , then allowed back under stricter controls .
Thalidomide was handed out all over the world in the 1950s , resulting in horrible birth defects .
Fortunately , the FDA blocked its approval in the U.S. , probably saving thousands of children from disfigurement.I 'm all for stem cell research , and I think the Bush Administration and the fundies were idiotic for blocking it , but we ca n't just approve every new treatment that comes along without some rigorous testing .
On the other hand , if patients are adequately informed of the risks , and I 'm not the one paying for the side effects they may encounter , more power to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fusiongyro,ESC research funding was cut off completely and entirely.
No lab that accepted federal funding could do ESC, and they couldn't even use existing equipment for privately funded ESC if that equipment had been paid for in any way by federal funds.
Effectively, the research was banned in every sense but the literal one.Relevant to the article, which is a poorly written promotional piece of fluff, this clinic that is offering stem cell therapy should warn its patients that there is strong evidence of cancer resulting from stem cell injections.
This is one of the main reasons stem cell therapy has not made it into mainstream medicine (it is being used in Brazil with some success).Religious fundamentalism aside, there's a reason for caution in the approval of new treatments such as stem cell therapy.
For example, tysabri is a promising new drug for treating multiple sclerosis, but after several human deaths it was discovered that it activates a normally dormant virus in the brain in a few people, killing them.
It was taken off the market, then allowed back under stricter controls.
Thalidomide was handed out all over the world in the 1950s, resulting in horrible birth defects.
Fortunately, the FDA blocked its approval in the U.S., probably saving thousands of children from disfigurement.I'm all for stem cell research, and I think the Bush Administration and the fundies were idiotic for blocking it, but we can't just approve every new treatment that comes along without some rigorous testing.
On the other hand, if patients are adequately informed of the risks, and I'm not the one paying for the side effects they may encounter, more power to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417692</id>
	<title>Good luck with that</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1268166540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They claim that Regenexx is solely used as a part of their medical practice, only within the state of Colorado</i></p><p>If the Supreme Court can <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard\_v.\_Filburn" title="wikipedia.org">rule</a> [wikipedia.org] that a man growing and consuming wheat entirely on his own property is covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause, then everything is.  The FDA will have no problem asserting jurisdiction here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They claim that Regenexx is solely used as a part of their medical practice , only within the state of ColoradoIf the Supreme Court can rule [ wikipedia.org ] that a man growing and consuming wheat entirely on his own property is covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause , then everything is .
The FDA will have no problem asserting jurisdiction here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They claim that Regenexx is solely used as a part of their medical practice, only within the state of ColoradoIf the Supreme Court can rule [wikipedia.org] that a man growing and consuming wheat entirely on his own property is covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause, then everything is.
The FDA will have no problem asserting jurisdiction here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417950</id>
	<title>Political Landscape</title>
	<author>MortimerGraves</author>
	<datestamp>1268167680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Are there really people who believe the lump of cells has a soul, but it is okay to destroy it to fix cancer in papa?</p><p>No necessarily. The efficacy of the treatments may or may not change the moral position of individuals but is likely to alter the political landscape. Consider the hypothetical position of a Politician before and after stem cell treatments shown to be efficacious:</p><p>[Before] Politician faced with one vocal constituent who believed that the "lump of cells has a soul' along with two apathetic ones.</p><p>[After] Politician faced with same one vocal constituent who still believes that the "lump of cells has a soul' along with two who are clamouring for treatments to be approved to "fix cancer in papa".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Are there really people who believe the lump of cells has a soul , but it is okay to destroy it to fix cancer in papa ? No necessarily .
The efficacy of the treatments may or may not change the moral position of individuals but is likely to alter the political landscape .
Consider the hypothetical position of a Politician before and after stem cell treatments shown to be efficacious : [ Before ] Politician faced with one vocal constituent who believed that the " lump of cells has a soul ' along with two apathetic ones .
[ After ] Politician faced with same one vocal constituent who still believes that the " lump of cells has a soul ' along with two who are clamouring for treatments to be approved to " fix cancer in papa " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Are there really people who believe the lump of cells has a soul, but it is okay to destroy it to fix cancer in papa?No necessarily.
The efficacy of the treatments may or may not change the moral position of individuals but is likely to alter the political landscape.
Consider the hypothetical position of a Politician before and after stem cell treatments shown to be efficacious:[Before] Politician faced with one vocal constituent who believed that the "lump of cells has a soul' along with two apathetic ones.
[After] Politician faced with same one vocal constituent who still believes that the "lump of cells has a soul' along with two who are clamouring for treatments to be approved to "fix cancer in papa".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419512</id>
	<title>Reporting bias...</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1268130840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this had been done with <em>embryonic</em> stem cells, I have little doubt they&rsquo;d have prominently featured this in the headline. But since it was an <em>adult</em> stem cell treatment, this pertinent fact is not considered worthy of mention in the headline, or even the summary.</p><p>And then there are the typical responses about how the evil Republicans were trying to prevent these treatments just to save a few embryos, which of course are completely irrelevant because no embryos are involved in these treatments and Republicans, to my knowledge, are not opposed to research in <em>adult</em> stem cell treatments.</p><p>In fact, the whole situation here was that the typically slow-moving FDA just hasn&rsquo;t decided whether the treatments are safe yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this had been done with embryonic stem cells , I have little doubt they    d have prominently featured this in the headline .
But since it was an adult stem cell treatment , this pertinent fact is not considered worthy of mention in the headline , or even the summary.And then there are the typical responses about how the evil Republicans were trying to prevent these treatments just to save a few embryos , which of course are completely irrelevant because no embryos are involved in these treatments and Republicans , to my knowledge , are not opposed to research in adult stem cell treatments.In fact , the whole situation here was that the typically slow-moving FDA just hasn    t decided whether the treatments are safe yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this had been done with embryonic stem cells, I have little doubt they’d have prominently featured this in the headline.
But since it was an adult stem cell treatment, this pertinent fact is not considered worthy of mention in the headline, or even the summary.And then there are the typical responses about how the evil Republicans were trying to prevent these treatments just to save a few embryos, which of course are completely irrelevant because no embryos are involved in these treatments and Republicans, to my knowledge, are not opposed to research in adult stem cell treatments.In fact, the whole situation here was that the typically slow-moving FDA just hasn’t decided whether the treatments are safe yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418302</id>
	<title>Re:alternative treatment</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1268125800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're using figures similar to those used for surgical procedures including replacement. It's necessary to use those procedures for replacement since all an MRI can say there is yes, there is an artificial implant there. For this, they're trying to avoid apples to oranges comparisons.</p><p>The problem with \% regeneration over x months is that we don't CARE about the volume of the tissue so much as what that does for the patient.  We care about how much less pain the patient feels during daily activities and whether or not  the patient is able to return to activities they had to give up before due to their condition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're using figures similar to those used for surgical procedures including replacement .
It 's necessary to use those procedures for replacement since all an MRI can say there is yes , there is an artificial implant there .
For this , they 're trying to avoid apples to oranges comparisons.The problem with \ % regeneration over x months is that we do n't CARE about the volume of the tissue so much as what that does for the patient .
We care about how much less pain the patient feels during daily activities and whether or not the patient is able to return to activities they had to give up before due to their condition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're using figures similar to those used for surgical procedures including replacement.
It's necessary to use those procedures for replacement since all an MRI can say there is yes, there is an artificial implant there.
For this, they're trying to avoid apples to oranges comparisons.The problem with \% regeneration over x months is that we don't CARE about the volume of the tissue so much as what that does for the patient.
We care about how much less pain the patient feels during daily activities and whether or not  the patient is able to return to activities they had to give up before due to their condition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418348</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>rattaroaz</author>
	<datestamp>1268125980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Results don't have anything to do with the moral argument. Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.</p></div><p>This is a straw man argument though.  Not really talking to you, but rather, others who make this argument against fetal stem cells.  The stem cells from fetuses are from already dead, aborted fetuses.  No one, that I know of, is advocating killing fetuses for the sake of getting the stem cells.  But since they are already dead, why not harvest them instead of throwing them in the trash?  Kind of like harvesting organs from a dead guy, only aborted fetuses usually do not have funerals or viewings.  I think the bigger question is "is abortion moral?"  Talking about taking the stem cells seems to be just dancing around the topic.  If abortion is immoral, then certainly taking the cells is too.  If abortion is not immoral, then not sure why throwing the fetuses in the trash is an more moral than experimenting with them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Results do n't have anything to do with the moral argument .
Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.This is a straw man argument though .
Not really talking to you , but rather , others who make this argument against fetal stem cells .
The stem cells from fetuses are from already dead , aborted fetuses .
No one , that I know of , is advocating killing fetuses for the sake of getting the stem cells .
But since they are already dead , why not harvest them instead of throwing them in the trash ?
Kind of like harvesting organs from a dead guy , only aborted fetuses usually do not have funerals or viewings .
I think the bigger question is " is abortion moral ?
" Talking about taking the stem cells seems to be just dancing around the topic .
If abortion is immoral , then certainly taking the cells is too .
If abortion is not immoral , then not sure why throwing the fetuses in the trash is an more moral than experimenting with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Results don't have anything to do with the moral argument.
Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.This is a straw man argument though.
Not really talking to you, but rather, others who make this argument against fetal stem cells.
The stem cells from fetuses are from already dead, aborted fetuses.
No one, that I know of, is advocating killing fetuses for the sake of getting the stem cells.
But since they are already dead, why not harvest them instead of throwing them in the trash?
Kind of like harvesting organs from a dead guy, only aborted fetuses usually do not have funerals or viewings.
I think the bigger question is "is abortion moral?
"  Talking about taking the stem cells seems to be just dancing around the topic.
If abortion is immoral, then certainly taking the cells is too.
If abortion is not immoral, then not sure why throwing the fetuses in the trash is an more moral than experimenting with them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417328</id>
	<title>No Surgery Required?</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1268164920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does that mean we just <a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103906/" title="southparkstudios.com" rel="nofollow">crack open the fetuses and suck out the stem cells?</a> [southparkstudios.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that mean we just crack open the fetuses and suck out the stem cells ?
[ southparkstudios.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that mean we just crack open the fetuses and suck out the stem cells?
[southparkstudios.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417558</id>
	<title>A Real Cowboy</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1268165820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't speak to the medical benefits/drawbacks of stem cell therapies as I am not a doctor. However, I have to say that the attitude and gumption displayed by Dr. Centeno in his field is inspiring. Despite all the legal bullshittery and political asshatting going on around the country with regards to stem cell therapy, he managed to pioneer forward, develop some techniques and facilities, and find enough of a technicality to bring an actual treatment to his actual patients. That's a classic American cowboy attitude on display right there. He didn't let his exhaustion or cynicism get him down. He pioneered and worked hard and now ~80\% of his patients are reaping the benefits. I have to say, that is very inspiring.
<br> <br>
Folk like Dr. Centeno deserve a lot of recognition and thanks. I, for one, wish him luck. As soon as the blood-sucking lawyers get ahold of him, he's going to need it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't speak to the medical benefits/drawbacks of stem cell therapies as I am not a doctor .
However , I have to say that the attitude and gumption displayed by Dr. Centeno in his field is inspiring .
Despite all the legal bullshittery and political asshatting going on around the country with regards to stem cell therapy , he managed to pioneer forward , develop some techniques and facilities , and find enough of a technicality to bring an actual treatment to his actual patients .
That 's a classic American cowboy attitude on display right there .
He did n't let his exhaustion or cynicism get him down .
He pioneered and worked hard and now ~ 80 \ % of his patients are reaping the benefits .
I have to say , that is very inspiring .
Folk like Dr. Centeno deserve a lot of recognition and thanks .
I , for one , wish him luck .
As soon as the blood-sucking lawyers get ahold of him , he 's going to need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't speak to the medical benefits/drawbacks of stem cell therapies as I am not a doctor.
However, I have to say that the attitude and gumption displayed by Dr. Centeno in his field is inspiring.
Despite all the legal bullshittery and political asshatting going on around the country with regards to stem cell therapy, he managed to pioneer forward, develop some techniques and facilities, and find enough of a technicality to bring an actual treatment to his actual patients.
That's a classic American cowboy attitude on display right there.
He didn't let his exhaustion or cynicism get him down.
He pioneered and worked hard and now ~80\% of his patients are reaping the benefits.
I have to say, that is very inspiring.
Folk like Dr. Centeno deserve a lot of recognition and thanks.
I, for one, wish him luck.
As soon as the blood-sucking lawyers get ahold of him, he's going to need it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417654</id>
	<title>gov't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268166300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA<br>The FDA seems to have taken the stance that all stem cells (whether used autologously or not) are drugs. As such, they would need FDA approval, and would likely only be developed by large pharmaceutical companies.</p><p>Boo! There are lot of people on this planet... it's time to let the willing take risks in the name of advancing science and medicine instead of throwing up procedural and monetary barriers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTAThe FDA seems to have taken the stance that all stem cells ( whether used autologously or not ) are drugs .
As such , they would need FDA approval , and would likely only be developed by large pharmaceutical companies.Boo !
There are lot of people on this planet... it 's time to let the willing take risks in the name of advancing science and medicine instead of throwing up procedural and monetary barriers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTAThe FDA seems to have taken the stance that all stem cells (whether used autologously or not) are drugs.
As such, they would need FDA approval, and would likely only be developed by large pharmaceutical companies.Boo!
There are lot of people on this planet... it's time to let the willing take risks in the name of advancing science and medicine instead of throwing up procedural and monetary barriers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418984</id>
	<title>Commerce Clause will do them in</title>
	<author>Rene S. Hollan</author>
	<datestamp>1268128680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They claim to skirt the FDA because they operate solely in state.</p><p>The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution serves to ensure that there are no inter-state trade wars (e.g. due to tarrifs at state borders).</p><p>However, it has been used broadly <b>within</b> states when an argument can be made that internal commercial activities affect commerce outside the state's borders.</p><p>In this case, it could be argued that stem-cell treatment within Colorado affects the markets for prosthetics outside of Colorado and therefore falls within the purvue of the Commerce Clause.</p><p>You can read more on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce\_Clause" title="wikipedia.org">Commerce Clause</a> [wikipedia.org] but the main problem is that the Feds decide what constitutes "commerce". In fact, the Commerce Clause has been use to require sex offender registration outside the states where they were convicted. This is a contentious issue and the circuit courts are split on the matter, leading to a likely ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court (expected in 2010).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They claim to skirt the FDA because they operate solely in state.The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution serves to ensure that there are no inter-state trade wars ( e.g .
due to tarrifs at state borders ) .However , it has been used broadly within states when an argument can be made that internal commercial activities affect commerce outside the state 's borders.In this case , it could be argued that stem-cell treatment within Colorado affects the markets for prosthetics outside of Colorado and therefore falls within the purvue of the Commerce Clause.You can read more on the Commerce Clause [ wikipedia.org ] but the main problem is that the Feds decide what constitutes " commerce " .
In fact , the Commerce Clause has been use to require sex offender registration outside the states where they were convicted .
This is a contentious issue and the circuit courts are split on the matter , leading to a likely ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court ( expected in 2010 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They claim to skirt the FDA because they operate solely in state.The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution serves to ensure that there are no inter-state trade wars (e.g.
due to tarrifs at state borders).However, it has been used broadly within states when an argument can be made that internal commercial activities affect commerce outside the state's borders.In this case, it could be argued that stem-cell treatment within Colorado affects the markets for prosthetics outside of Colorado and therefore falls within the purvue of the Commerce Clause.You can read more on the Commerce Clause [wikipedia.org] but the main problem is that the Feds decide what constitutes "commerce".
In fact, the Commerce Clause has been use to require sex offender registration outside the states where they were convicted.
This is a contentious issue and the circuit courts are split on the matter, leading to a likely ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court (expected in 2010).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419976</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268133120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haha, yes, dn't let your ignorance of the industry stop you from making stupid ass posts.</p><p>If this works, the insurance companies would embrace it. Hell, they embrace crap that doesn't work.<br>This treatment would be cheaper.</p><p>"Or is it the established medical community who are not tooled up yet for maximum profit on the procedure?"<br>That really makes you sound like a conspiracy nut.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..also it showcases you inability to think thoughts through.</p><p>It would mean that every company in the medical industry is working together in order to NOT make more money then the other guy.<br>Idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Haha , yes , d n't let your ignorance of the industry stop you from making stupid ass posts.If this works , the insurance companies would embrace it .
Hell , they embrace crap that does n't work.This treatment would be cheaper .
" Or is it the established medical community who are not tooled up yet for maximum profit on the procedure ?
" That really makes you sound like a conspiracy nut .
..also it showcases you inability to think thoughts through.It would mean that every company in the medical industry is working together in order to NOT make more money then the other guy.Idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haha, yes, dn't let your ignorance of the industry stop you from making stupid ass posts.If this works, the insurance companies would embrace it.
Hell, they embrace crap that doesn't work.This treatment would be cheaper.
"Or is it the established medical community who are not tooled up yet for maximum profit on the procedure?
"That really makes you sound like a conspiracy nut.
..also it showcases you inability to think thoughts through.It would mean that every company in the medical industry is working together in order to NOT make more money then the other guy.Idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420824</id>
	<title>Re:A Real Cowboy</title>
	<author>Ironhandx</author>
	<datestamp>1268137200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is so true. Experimental treatments need to not have quite so many regulations around them. I agree that some regulations are necessary, but there are way way too many. It currently takes something like 10 years to get a drug from development just to the human testing stage plus another 10 to get it to treatment? Plus all of the expenses associated with even getting it into trials?</p><p>The whole process seems to be built around people with gobs of money abusing the system to make even more gobs of money. People yelling "Conspiracy" on the stem cell front have a good bloody reason to. Most people don't seem to have a single clue about how MUCH stem cells could potentially CURE. We're talking 10's, even 100's of billions of dollars of current drug/treatment revenue streams disappearing. There are trials in Canada right now that have cured people of cancer. Now, this is anecdotal evidence, but I know one woman who had lung cancer, the only treatment she received was the stem cells. She's cancer free right now. Nothing else would have saved her, the best they could do with other treatments was extend her life.</p><p>I mean shit, if they take the gloves off the research on this stuff who even<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cares/ if it causes cancer in a few people, the more its used the better it will be understood, the faster it can be adapted and used to treat any new cancers it creates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is so true .
Experimental treatments need to not have quite so many regulations around them .
I agree that some regulations are necessary , but there are way way too many .
It currently takes something like 10 years to get a drug from development just to the human testing stage plus another 10 to get it to treatment ?
Plus all of the expenses associated with even getting it into trials ? The whole process seems to be built around people with gobs of money abusing the system to make even more gobs of money .
People yelling " Conspiracy " on the stem cell front have a good bloody reason to .
Most people do n't seem to have a single clue about how MUCH stem cells could potentially CURE .
We 're talking 10 's , even 100 's of billions of dollars of current drug/treatment revenue streams disappearing .
There are trials in Canada right now that have cured people of cancer .
Now , this is anecdotal evidence , but I know one woman who had lung cancer , the only treatment she received was the stem cells .
She 's cancer free right now .
Nothing else would have saved her , the best they could do with other treatments was extend her life.I mean shit , if they take the gloves off the research on this stuff who even /cares/ if it causes cancer in a few people , the more its used the better it will be understood , the faster it can be adapted and used to treat any new cancers it creates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is so true.
Experimental treatments need to not have quite so many regulations around them.
I agree that some regulations are necessary, but there are way way too many.
It currently takes something like 10 years to get a drug from development just to the human testing stage plus another 10 to get it to treatment?
Plus all of the expenses associated with even getting it into trials?The whole process seems to be built around people with gobs of money abusing the system to make even more gobs of money.
People yelling "Conspiracy" on the stem cell front have a good bloody reason to.
Most people don't seem to have a single clue about how MUCH stem cells could potentially CURE.
We're talking 10's, even 100's of billions of dollars of current drug/treatment revenue streams disappearing.
There are trials in Canada right now that have cured people of cancer.
Now, this is anecdotal evidence, but I know one woman who had lung cancer, the only treatment she received was the stem cells.
She's cancer free right now.
Nothing else would have saved her, the best they could do with other treatments was extend her life.I mean shit, if they take the gloves off the research on this stuff who even /cares/ if it causes cancer in a few people, the more its used the better it will be understood, the faster it can be adapted and used to treat any new cancers it creates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417752</id>
	<title>Re:Ends &amp; Means</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1268166720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The result of not acting is that people are unnecessarily suffering and dying. You think that's a good thing? You think that's even something that can be called ethical?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The result of not acting is that people are unnecessarily suffering and dying .
You think that 's a good thing ?
You think that 's even something that can be called ethical ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The result of not acting is that people are unnecessarily suffering and dying.
You think that's a good thing?
You think that's even something that can be called ethical?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419830</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268132220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I personally think people should be permitted access to experimental medical procedures, as long as they understand that as they are experimental, they're waiving their right to sue for wrongful death or medical malpractice, as well as any federal mandate for it to be covered by their insurance. If you have money and want to take the risk, by all means have at it. As for me, the state can pay for it when I'm reasonably convinced of the scientific validity&mdash;which includes that the long-term side effects do not outweigh the short-term benefits."</p><p>I agree in principle, however, if you've never seen a person who is in a dire medical state, they can be incredibly desperate and willing to try anything, no matter how crazy.  If some snake-oil salesman offers them even a <i>remote</i> chance of success with loads of caveats, there still will be people who will pay money for the procedure.  If people could sign away all possible rights to sue for malpractice then it would open up a huge potential problem with no recourse when it sometimes (inevitably) went wrong.  The only circumstances where something like this should be approved is under extraordinarily restrictive terms, such as doctors, the procedures, and the patients going through some kind of special "experimental qualification" or "fast track" process.  By the time you had a process that would prevent disasters you probably wouldn't be far off what they have now anyway.</p><p>I've tried to think of ways to keep people honest without such a process.  Perhaps if both the doctor (for malpractice) and the patient (for subsequent medical coverage) are required to put up a bond (held in escrow for X years after) to cover the possibility that things go terribly wrong.  This would limit both the number of treatments a doctor could perform and the number of patients that would go for it.  If something bad happens you have the money to get out of the situation on your own without the government having to foot the bill for your very risky decision, and there is a recourse to go after the doctor if they have been selling you bogus treatment (they forfeit their money).  If you don't have the money to put up front to cover the treatment and to cover when it could go wrong, then the answer is "No."</p><p>Anyway, what you describe is a nice principle (after all, it's the patient's money and body), but implementing it is fraught with serious dangers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I personally think people should be permitted access to experimental medical procedures , as long as they understand that as they are experimental , they 're waiving their right to sue for wrongful death or medical malpractice , as well as any federal mandate for it to be covered by their insurance .
If you have money and want to take the risk , by all means have at it .
As for me , the state can pay for it when I 'm reasonably convinced of the scientific validity    which includes that the long-term side effects do not outweigh the short-term benefits .
" I agree in principle , however , if you 've never seen a person who is in a dire medical state , they can be incredibly desperate and willing to try anything , no matter how crazy .
If some snake-oil salesman offers them even a remote chance of success with loads of caveats , there still will be people who will pay money for the procedure .
If people could sign away all possible rights to sue for malpractice then it would open up a huge potential problem with no recourse when it sometimes ( inevitably ) went wrong .
The only circumstances where something like this should be approved is under extraordinarily restrictive terms , such as doctors , the procedures , and the patients going through some kind of special " experimental qualification " or " fast track " process .
By the time you had a process that would prevent disasters you probably would n't be far off what they have now anyway.I 've tried to think of ways to keep people honest without such a process .
Perhaps if both the doctor ( for malpractice ) and the patient ( for subsequent medical coverage ) are required to put up a bond ( held in escrow for X years after ) to cover the possibility that things go terribly wrong .
This would limit both the number of treatments a doctor could perform and the number of patients that would go for it .
If something bad happens you have the money to get out of the situation on your own without the government having to foot the bill for your very risky decision , and there is a recourse to go after the doctor if they have been selling you bogus treatment ( they forfeit their money ) .
If you do n't have the money to put up front to cover the treatment and to cover when it could go wrong , then the answer is " No .
" Anyway , what you describe is a nice principle ( after all , it 's the patient 's money and body ) , but implementing it is fraught with serious dangers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I personally think people should be permitted access to experimental medical procedures, as long as they understand that as they are experimental, they're waiving their right to sue for wrongful death or medical malpractice, as well as any federal mandate for it to be covered by their insurance.
If you have money and want to take the risk, by all means have at it.
As for me, the state can pay for it when I'm reasonably convinced of the scientific validity—which includes that the long-term side effects do not outweigh the short-term benefits.
"I agree in principle, however, if you've never seen a person who is in a dire medical state, they can be incredibly desperate and willing to try anything, no matter how crazy.
If some snake-oil salesman offers them even a remote chance of success with loads of caveats, there still will be people who will pay money for the procedure.
If people could sign away all possible rights to sue for malpractice then it would open up a huge potential problem with no recourse when it sometimes (inevitably) went wrong.
The only circumstances where something like this should be approved is under extraordinarily restrictive terms, such as doctors, the procedures, and the patients going through some kind of special "experimental qualification" or "fast track" process.
By the time you had a process that would prevent disasters you probably wouldn't be far off what they have now anyway.I've tried to think of ways to keep people honest without such a process.
Perhaps if both the doctor (for malpractice) and the patient (for subsequent medical coverage) are required to put up a bond (held in escrow for X years after) to cover the possibility that things go terribly wrong.
This would limit both the number of treatments a doctor could perform and the number of patients that would go for it.
If something bad happens you have the money to get out of the situation on your own without the government having to foot the bill for your very risky decision, and there is a recourse to go after the doctor if they have been selling you bogus treatment (they forfeit their money).
If you don't have the money to put up front to cover the treatment and to cover when it could go wrong, then the answer is "No.
"Anyway, what you describe is a nice principle (after all, it's the patient's money and body), but implementing it is fraught with serious dangers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418652</id>
	<title>I smell quackery...</title>
	<author>assert(0)</author>
	<datestamp>1268127240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.quackometer.net/?suspectquack=Dr.+Centeno" title="quackometer.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.quackometer.net/?suspectquack=Dr.+Centeno</a> [quackometer.net]:</p><p>This person may be associated with Quackery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.quackometer.net/ ? suspectquack = Dr. + Centeno [ quackometer.net ] : This person may be associated with Quackery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.quackometer.net/?suspectquack=Dr.+Centeno [quackometer.net]:This person may be associated with Quackery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417742</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1268166720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Patients of the company probably know that they be guinea pig, which won't be
much consolation if the come down if cancer. Stem Cell Medicine does need the safety
testing, it won't be until thousands have had it and aged, till we know how safe it is. I hope
safety fears don't put people off research stem cell, almost all of us, could potentially
use it to slow the aging process. There must be ways to test for damaged cells, and
perhaps even engineer for reduced rates of cancer in the cell lines to be transplanted.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Stem\%20cells/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Stem Cells</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patients of the company probably know that they be guinea pig , which wo n't be much consolation if the come down if cancer .
Stem Cell Medicine does need the safety testing , it wo n't be until thousands have had it and aged , till we know how safe it is .
I hope safety fears do n't put people off research stem cell , almost all of us , could potentially use it to slow the aging process .
There must be ways to test for damaged cells , and perhaps even engineer for reduced rates of cancer in the cell lines to be transplanted .
--- Stem Cells [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patients of the company probably know that they be guinea pig, which won't be
much consolation if the come down if cancer.
Stem Cell Medicine does need the safety
testing, it won't be until thousands have had it and aged, till we know how safe it is.
I hope
safety fears don't put people off research stem cell, almost all of us, could potentially
use it to slow the aging process.
There must be ways to test for damaged cells, and
perhaps even engineer for reduced rates of cancer in the cell lines to be transplanted.
---

Stem Cells [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420222</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1268134140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it's a real ethical issue. When people are in pain, then they are willing to take more risks, but that's because they no longer think rationally.
<p>
If you let any two bit snake oil company offer them completely random treatments that don't actually work, then those people won't just be in pain, chances are that they will be dead and destitute as well as their family. That's a real
economic cost to the country.
</p><p>
The only logical answer is to impose some standards on the treatments offered,
and that eventually comes down to nationally forbidding some practices and not others, even if it takes a few years until proper testing has been performed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's a real ethical issue .
When people are in pain , then they are willing to take more risks , but that 's because they no longer think rationally .
If you let any two bit snake oil company offer them completely random treatments that do n't actually work , then those people wo n't just be in pain , chances are that they will be dead and destitute as well as their family .
That 's a real economic cost to the country .
The only logical answer is to impose some standards on the treatments offered , and that eventually comes down to nationally forbidding some practices and not others , even if it takes a few years until proper testing has been performed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's a real ethical issue.
When people are in pain, then they are willing to take more risks, but that's because they no longer think rationally.
If you let any two bit snake oil company offer them completely random treatments that don't actually work, then those people won't just be in pain, chances are that they will be dead and destitute as well as their family.
That's a real
economic cost to the country.
The only logical answer is to impose some standards on the treatments offered,
and that eventually comes down to nationally forbidding some practices and not others, even if it takes a few years until proper testing has been performed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422098</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268146320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly what I was thinking (minus the Wickard v. Filburn reference.)</p><p>Everything is interstate commerce. If this really is a miracle cure, then I'm sure at least one of their patients traveled to Colorado from another state. The courts won't even have to try. If you don't like that reasoning, I'm sure I could find about 1,000 other justifications for why the FDA will control the treatment.</p><p>Either these guys are idiots who didn't bother checking with a lawyer or someone is about to get sued for malpractice...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly what I was thinking ( minus the Wickard v. Filburn reference .
) Everything is interstate commerce .
If this really is a miracle cure , then I 'm sure at least one of their patients traveled to Colorado from another state .
The courts wo n't even have to try .
If you do n't like that reasoning , I 'm sure I could find about 1,000 other justifications for why the FDA will control the treatment.Either these guys are idiots who did n't bother checking with a lawyer or someone is about to get sued for malpractice.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly what I was thinking (minus the Wickard v. Filburn reference.
)Everything is interstate commerce.
If this really is a miracle cure, then I'm sure at least one of their patients traveled to Colorado from another state.
The courts won't even have to try.
If you don't like that reasoning, I'm sure I could find about 1,000 other justifications for why the FDA will control the treatment.Either these guys are idiots who didn't bother checking with a lawyer or someone is about to get sued for malpractice...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418104</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>gangien</author>
	<datestamp>1268168160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These are all reasons why i say the FDA causes more harm then good.</p><p>People should be free to make their own choices.  hell, even if we keep the FDA, people should allowed to use things not approved by the FDA.</p><p>But people always look blankly at you if you suggest the FDA doesn't really protect you, and we should get rid of it. (or in slashdot's case, it's mock you or mod you down).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These are all reasons why i say the FDA causes more harm then good.People should be free to make their own choices .
hell , even if we keep the FDA , people should allowed to use things not approved by the FDA.But people always look blankly at you if you suggest the FDA does n't really protect you , and we should get rid of it .
( or in slashdot 's case , it 's mock you or mod you down ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are all reasons why i say the FDA causes more harm then good.People should be free to make their own choices.
hell, even if we keep the FDA, people should allowed to use things not approved by the FDA.But people always look blankly at you if you suggest the FDA doesn't really protect you, and we should get rid of it.
(or in slashdot's case, it's mock you or mod you down).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31424306</id>
	<title>Re:Reporting bias...</title>
	<author>Slashcrap</author>
	<datestamp>1268218260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And then there are the typical responses about how the evil Republicans were trying to prevent these treatments just to save a few embryos, which of course are completely irrelevant because no embryos are involved in these treatments and Republicans, to my knowledge, are not opposed to research in adult stem cell treatments.</p></div><p>LOL, you think the average Republican would be willing or able to understand the difference? No. The top few percent of Republican intellectuals would be able to understand it, but why should they be willing to understand it when failing to do so lets them rant about liberal baby killers? You talk about them like they're rational people, for God's sake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then there are the typical responses about how the evil Republicans were trying to prevent these treatments just to save a few embryos , which of course are completely irrelevant because no embryos are involved in these treatments and Republicans , to my knowledge , are not opposed to research in adult stem cell treatments.LOL , you think the average Republican would be willing or able to understand the difference ?
No. The top few percent of Republican intellectuals would be able to understand it , but why should they be willing to understand it when failing to do so lets them rant about liberal baby killers ?
You talk about them like they 're rational people , for God 's sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then there are the typical responses about how the evil Republicans were trying to prevent these treatments just to save a few embryos, which of course are completely irrelevant because no embryos are involved in these treatments and Republicans, to my knowledge, are not opposed to research in adult stem cell treatments.LOL, you think the average Republican would be willing or able to understand the difference?
No. The top few percent of Republican intellectuals would be able to understand it, but why should they be willing to understand it when failing to do so lets them rant about liberal baby killers?
You talk about them like they're rational people, for God's sake.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419722</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>DaFallus</author>
	<datestamp>1268131740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Then only criminals will have laser vision! Think of the children! The tasty tasty children...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating .
Then only criminals will have laser vision !
Think of the children !
The tasty tasty children.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.
Then only criminals will have laser vision!
Think of the children!
The tasty tasty children...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417838</id>
	<title>Re:It's a shame...</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1268167140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Embryonic stem cells had nothing to do with this. Read the article.  They are extracting stem cells from the patient.</p><p>This has been delayed because of the risks to the patient, not because of the pro-life/pro-choice debate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Embryonic stem cells had nothing to do with this .
Read the article .
They are extracting stem cells from the patient.This has been delayed because of the risks to the patient , not because of the pro-life/pro-choice debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Embryonic stem cells had nothing to do with this.
Read the article.
They are extracting stem cells from the patient.This has been delayed because of the risks to the patient, not because of the pro-life/pro-choice debate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417936</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268167620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mmm.  Delicious, delicious tumors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mmm .
Delicious , delicious tumors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mmm.
Delicious, delicious tumors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417626</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>JustinOpinion</author>
	<datestamp>1268166240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to agree. I'm a big believer in stem cell research, and think that it will play a crucial role in future life-saving medicine.<br> <br>

However, I also know researchers at the FDA, and these guys are not dumb. If they are cautious about approving a new procedure, it is usually because there is insufficient data to really declare it safe. In other words, more research is certainly needed before stem cell therapeutic techniques become widespread. Giving someone back their ability to walk is fantastic--but rather less so if we discover in 5 years of lethal side-effects.<br> <br>

TFA does <a href="http://www.benthamdirect.org/pages/b\_viewarticle.php" title="benthamdirect.org">link to a study published by the doctors offering these treatments</a> [benthamdirect.org]. They describe that for the 227 patients studied, none had neoplastic complications. This is encouraging, but again I think more research is needed: first these kinds of results need to be double-checked by others, and secondly over longer timespans (the study in question only followed patients for ~1 year).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree .
I 'm a big believer in stem cell research , and think that it will play a crucial role in future life-saving medicine .
However , I also know researchers at the FDA , and these guys are not dumb .
If they are cautious about approving a new procedure , it is usually because there is insufficient data to really declare it safe .
In other words , more research is certainly needed before stem cell therapeutic techniques become widespread .
Giving someone back their ability to walk is fantastic--but rather less so if we discover in 5 years of lethal side-effects .
TFA does link to a study published by the doctors offering these treatments [ benthamdirect.org ] .
They describe that for the 227 patients studied , none had neoplastic complications .
This is encouraging , but again I think more research is needed : first these kinds of results need to be double-checked by others , and secondly over longer timespans ( the study in question only followed patients for ~ 1 year ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree.
I'm a big believer in stem cell research, and think that it will play a crucial role in future life-saving medicine.
However, I also know researchers at the FDA, and these guys are not dumb.
If they are cautious about approving a new procedure, it is usually because there is insufficient data to really declare it safe.
In other words, more research is certainly needed before stem cell therapeutic techniques become widespread.
Giving someone back their ability to walk is fantastic--but rather less so if we discover in 5 years of lethal side-effects.
TFA does link to a study published by the doctors offering these treatments [benthamdirect.org].
They describe that for the 227 patients studied, none had neoplastic complications.
This is encouraging, but again I think more research is needed: first these kinds of results need to be double-checked by others, and secondly over longer timespans (the study in question only followed patients for ~1 year).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417850</id>
	<title>ABOMINATION!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268167260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an abomination! God will surely strike down (either in this life or the next) those who would be Him. SHAME on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an abomination !
God will surely strike down ( either in this life or the next ) those who would be Him .
SHAME on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an abomination!
God will surely strike down (either in this life or the next) those who would be Him.
SHAME on them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417738</id>
	<title>Re:Ends &amp; Means</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1268166660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Simply to say that embryos aren't people is to apply the same logic used to pardon the continuation of slavery"</p><p>Actually it's the same logic that could lead to the outlawing of masturbation, menstruation and miscarriages. People tend to gloss over the "implanting in the uterine wall" as the moment of conception, when that's really a much more key element than fertilization.</p><p>The slavery analogy doesn't really hold. Other than the fact that in your world slave owners could sue for the rights to the stored embryos. I think. I find you comparison somewhat confusing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Simply to say that embryos are n't people is to apply the same logic used to pardon the continuation of slavery " Actually it 's the same logic that could lead to the outlawing of masturbation , menstruation and miscarriages .
People tend to gloss over the " implanting in the uterine wall " as the moment of conception , when that 's really a much more key element than fertilization.The slavery analogy does n't really hold .
Other than the fact that in your world slave owners could sue for the rights to the stored embryos .
I think .
I find you comparison somewhat confusing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Simply to say that embryos aren't people is to apply the same logic used to pardon the continuation of slavery"Actually it's the same logic that could lead to the outlawing of masturbation, menstruation and miscarriages.
People tend to gloss over the "implanting in the uterine wall" as the moment of conception, when that's really a much more key element than fertilization.The slavery analogy doesn't really hold.
Other than the fact that in your world slave owners could sue for the rights to the stored embryos.
I think.
I find you comparison somewhat confusing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31424816</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1268227080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating."</p><p>That's a rather sweeping, unqualified statement.</p><p>Let's think of all the morally objectionable things that humans have done over the centuries.  Logically, the people that did them, did them for some reason more tangible than simply 'motivated by evil', no?  One might posit that with enough reward, people can be induced to do almost any abhorrent thing.</p><p>Thus I think it's a far more reasonable and historically supportable conclusion to say that if you had incontrovertible proof that performing an abhorrent act would give you some irrefutable personal gain, SOME people would, indeed, try to perform that act.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating .
" That 's a rather sweeping , unqualified statement.Let 's think of all the morally objectionable things that humans have done over the centuries .
Logically , the people that did them , did them for some reason more tangible than simply 'motivated by evil ' , no ?
One might posit that with enough reward , people can be induced to do almost any abhorrent thing.Thus I think it 's a far more reasonable and historically supportable conclusion to say that if you had incontrovertible proof that performing an abhorrent act would give you some irrefutable personal gain , SOME people would , indeed , try to perform that act .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.
"That's a rather sweeping, unqualified statement.Let's think of all the morally objectionable things that humans have done over the centuries.
Logically, the people that did them, did them for some reason more tangible than simply 'motivated by evil', no?
One might posit that with enough reward, people can be induced to do almost any abhorrent thing.Thus I think it's a far more reasonable and historically supportable conclusion to say that if you had incontrovertible proof that performing an abhorrent act would give you some irrefutable personal gain, SOME people would, indeed, try to perform that act.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421156</id>
	<title>Re:Guns and weed, too. How big is this trend?</title>
	<author>Al Dimond</author>
	<datestamp>1268139240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever the merits of the legal argument, I can only chuckle at what sort of clients this LAW FIRM is trying to attract by suggesting that Montana is likely to secede from the US on a public document on his web site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever the merits of the legal argument , I can only chuckle at what sort of clients this LAW FIRM is trying to attract by suggesting that Montana is likely to secede from the US on a public document on his web site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever the merits of the legal argument, I can only chuckle at what sort of clients this LAW FIRM is trying to attract by suggesting that Montana is likely to secede from the US on a public document on his web site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417312</id>
	<title>Implants are a thing of the past?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268164860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I imagine both sexes have something to look forward to from this exciting development in the self improvement industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine both sexes have something to look forward to from this exciting development in the self improvement industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine both sexes have something to look forward to from this exciting development in the self improvement industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417994</id>
	<title>Re:Implants are a thing of the past?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268167860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a device implanted in my left eye that not only allows me to see, but gives me better than 20/20 vision at all distances. Ther's at least one other cyborg here with a cochlear implant. There are implanted pacemakers, implanted filibrators, implanted joints, all sorts of cybernetic implants. You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.</p><p>Your attempt at humor is futile as well. Going for "funny" is dangerous to your karma, unless your karma's alrady excellent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a device implanted in my left eye that not only allows me to see , but gives me better than 20/20 vision at all distances .
Ther 's at least one other cyborg here with a cochlear implant .
There are implanted pacemakers , implanted filibrators , implanted joints , all sorts of cybernetic implants .
You will be assimilated , resistance is futile.Your attempt at humor is futile as well .
Going for " funny " is dangerous to your karma , unless your karma 's alrady excellent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a device implanted in my left eye that not only allows me to see, but gives me better than 20/20 vision at all distances.
Ther's at least one other cyborg here with a cochlear implant.
There are implanted pacemakers, implanted filibrators, implanted joints, all sorts of cybernetic implants.
You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.Your attempt at humor is futile as well.
Going for "funny" is dangerous to your karma, unless your karma's alrady excellent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418558</id>
	<title>Re:Ends &amp; Means</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1268126820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using embryonic stem cells is not at all ethically questionable. They come from the left-over embryos from IVF treatments that would otherwise be thrown away or stored until someone else is willing to try using them.</p><p>When it becomes questionable is when these embryos are generated specifically for their stem cells. This is not, however, something that will happen in the foreseeable future.</p><p>IVF protocol involves creating multiple embryos, and attempting to implant them a few at a time. Because there's little marginal cost in generating many embryos over generating one embryo (while you're extracting eggs, you might as well get as many as you can), there are almost always leftovers which the genetic parents do not need. These are either disposed of or stored for people who cannot generate embryos.</p><p>There are something like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IVF#Availability\_and\_utilisation" title="wikipedia.org">700,000</a> [wikipedia.org] IVF treatments a year. That's enough to both supply people who cannot create their own embryos as well as any researchers, and if the scientists don't discover anything worthwhile with embryonic stem cells it won't be an issue - and if they do find some treatments that are worth the effort, then we can discuss the ethical implications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using embryonic stem cells is not at all ethically questionable .
They come from the left-over embryos from IVF treatments that would otherwise be thrown away or stored until someone else is willing to try using them.When it becomes questionable is when these embryos are generated specifically for their stem cells .
This is not , however , something that will happen in the foreseeable future.IVF protocol involves creating multiple embryos , and attempting to implant them a few at a time .
Because there 's little marginal cost in generating many embryos over generating one embryo ( while you 're extracting eggs , you might as well get as many as you can ) , there are almost always leftovers which the genetic parents do not need .
These are either disposed of or stored for people who can not generate embryos.There are something like 700,000 [ wikipedia.org ] IVF treatments a year .
That 's enough to both supply people who can not create their own embryos as well as any researchers , and if the scientists do n't discover anything worthwhile with embryonic stem cells it wo n't be an issue - and if they do find some treatments that are worth the effort , then we can discuss the ethical implications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using embryonic stem cells is not at all ethically questionable.
They come from the left-over embryos from IVF treatments that would otherwise be thrown away or stored until someone else is willing to try using them.When it becomes questionable is when these embryos are generated specifically for their stem cells.
This is not, however, something that will happen in the foreseeable future.IVF protocol involves creating multiple embryos, and attempting to implant them a few at a time.
Because there's little marginal cost in generating many embryos over generating one embryo (while you're extracting eggs, you might as well get as many as you can), there are almost always leftovers which the genetic parents do not need.
These are either disposed of or stored for people who cannot generate embryos.There are something like 700,000 [wikipedia.org] IVF treatments a year.
That's enough to both supply people who cannot create their own embryos as well as any researchers, and if the scientists don't discover anything worthwhile with embryonic stem cells it won't be an issue - and if they do find some treatments that are worth the effort, then we can discuss the ethical implications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420038</id>
	<title>Re:cancer worries</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268133360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can do human studies; properly done their risk is LESS then using it as an unapproved treatment.</p><p>Why do you assume the risk is slight? Why do you even think this works?</p><p>I reread you post, and it's clear you don't understand risks and percentages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can do human studies ; properly done their risk is LESS then using it as an unapproved treatment.Why do you assume the risk is slight ?
Why do you even think this works ? I reread you post , and it 's clear you do n't understand risks and percentages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can do human studies; properly done their risk is LESS then using it as an unapproved treatment.Why do you assume the risk is slight?
Why do you even think this works?I reread you post, and it's clear you don't understand risks and percentages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417686</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31424306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31424816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31431662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31423084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31424800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1814237_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417898
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422222
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418348
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31424800
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31431662
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417786
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418050
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422922
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419440
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31424816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418252
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421636
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418104
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419406
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31422938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31424306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31419150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31423084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31421104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31420824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1814237.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31417752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1814237.31418558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
