Thank you for patronizing the Dreadnaughts. :noob:
Printable View
Thank you for patronizing the Dreadnaughts. :noob:
It's incomprehension, not patronization; one cannot patronize that which one can't even perceive to understand.
Strange story that didn't have much to do with the gun law. Unless your friend was prepared to shoot officers if they forced entry....after threatening them for responding to his infant's emergency? :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
No offense, but your friends sound typical of emergency responder worst fears; people who dial 911 in haste or hysteria, can't be calmed by the dispatcher, refuse treatment when an ambulance or police shows up, then get angry and threatening to everyone responding. Same people who needed professional intervention then deny professional intervention. To save a $200 ambulance fee covered by insurance? They should be charged more than that for 'abusing the emergency 911 system'. :confused:
This thread isn't about a gun law, it's about whether it's appropriate to make laws allowing the police to enter a home at any time, IE make it illegal to refuse entry to an officer.
Trust me, these are calm parents. They just couldn't calm the kid down after an unusually long time and she was running a fever. Their doctor didn't pick up the emergency cell, so they called 911 and described the issue for advice. The dispatcher said she felt an EMT was required to check out the baby in person. Then the EMTs said it was "policy" to take the infant back to the emergency room no matter what. I've never heard of being required to take someone back in an ambulance and charge them. Especially when the patient is sleeping again.
In other words, when do we want "professionals" doing their jobs, and when do want "lay people" dictating what's in their job description, and making it law? :hmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I wouldn't go so far as to make it illegal to refuse entry to an officer. Some circumstances may warrant that. There are places with police corruption, and citizens who don't trust cops at all (and it's not necessarily criminals who feel that way). There are cops that abuse no-knock warrants, or get the wrong address....etc. I don't think that can be fixed with a law aimed at people in their own homes.
It's known "policy" that 911 dispatchers can't "diagnose over the phone". Why your friends sought "medical advice" from dispatch is....well, weird. They have two options: send a responder or refer them to a hospital/physician. If it was accidental poisoning, they'd connect them to Poison Control for immediate instructions and send an ambulance. If they need help doing CPR or first aid, they can walk them through verbally and send an ambulance.
And yes, AFAIK, it's "policy" for all EMTs responding to infants and children....to make sure they're seen by a physician, but not the 'next day'. Any idea how much liability that would expose them to, when only MDs can diagnose? Not to mention future calls from parents with crying feverish kids a nightmare guessing game. Either they'll escort a car to the hospital or take the child in the ambulance. By calling 911 those parents gave consent for the EMTs to do their jobs. The only way their responsibility can be waived is....you got it....when police show up.
Dread, it sucks but they probably couldn't leave the kid without getting a proper assessment from a suitable physician. I understand the reluctance of your friends, but in this case you've gotta weigh their reluctance and inconvenience against the risk of missing a serious and preventable condition in a baby. Can you imagine the consequences? I'm afraid those EMTs did what they felt they had to do in a situation where they had cause to think that a baby's health--as well as their own jobs :o--was in jeopardy.
And do you see now the problem with your ridiculous healthcare system that gives parents financial incentives to jeopardize the health of their children while fighting with EMTs and messing with the police? :bulb:
See that actually makes sense. Reminds me of how the firefighters in the Zionist Entity once got a call about a woman who hadn't been seen out of her apartment for days. So before entering the firefighters got the police to come so there would be lots of witnesses due to accusations of firefighter theft in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Just a followup to this thread of argument. I just saw this article in Science magazine regarding funding for one kind of Ebryonic research vs. induced pluripotency research.....Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Quote:
Research on Induced Pluripotent and Embryonic Stem Cells 'Inextricably Intertwined'
Quote:
by Jocelyn Kaiser on 10 June 2011, 2:41 PM | Permanent Link | 0 Comments
Email Print | More
Previous Article
Enlarge Image
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...auto-10186.jpg Credit: C. T. Scott et al., Cell, 145 (10 June 2011)
A new literature analysis confirms what stem cell scientists have been saying for some time: Studies of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which are touted as an ethical alternative to human embryonic stem cells (hESCs), often involve hESCs as well. As a result, research that restricts funding for hESCs would also harm iPSC research.
HESCs are derived from human embryos, while iPSCs are made by reprogramming adult cells. In a study in the 10 June issue of Cell, Stanford University bioethicist Christopher Thomas Scott and colleagues analyze 2086 publications on hESCs and iPSCs from 1998 through 2010. While the number of publications using iPSCs has shot up since the first report on these cells in 2007, 100 of 161 iPSC papers (62%) published last year used both types of cells. Established investigators in particular tended to include hESCs, which are often used as controls.
Many researchers are worried that a lawsuit claiming federally funded hESC research violates a ban on research that destroys human embryos could stymie their work. The authors say that any decision by the courts or by legislators to limit funding for hESCs "will also have disastrous consequences for [iPSC funding] because research using the two different types of cell lines is deeply, perhaps inextricably, intertwined."
I can't see any clear explanation of how they are intertwined...beyond genetics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
You want to make iPSCs behave like hESCs. Thus you actually have to use a certain amount of hESCs in order to make sure that your iPSC cell line actually behaves like it should. Clear enough for you? Should've been clear from the bolded part in the article if you had but deigned to think about it for 10 seconds.Quote:
While the number of publications using iPSCs has shot up since the first report on these cells in 2007, 100 of 161 iPSC papers (62%) published last year used both types of cells. Established investigators in particular tended to include hESCs, which are often used as controls.
The point is that once your research is finished you hopefully have no need for hESCs and can simply use iPSCs. However, in order to get there, you'll need to use both variants.
I would be interested to know if they actually often detect much variance between HESCs and IPSCs or if they are just using them as controls for the sake of having them as controls. If there is a variance, it seems IPSCs have little value beyond becoming the building blocks of new tissue/hormones/etc. from stem cells.
Yes, Dread, molecular genetics is juuuuuust like building an airplane. Good gracious, do you want to tell us that you're studying molecular genetics now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
From what I've read recently there's quite a bit of difference. Recent work in mice has dashed a bit of the early optimism over the induced cells.... Too bad Tear's not around, I'm sure he could offer some informed talk about this stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Excuse me? Are you able to discuss anything without being over-the-top obnoxious? And when have I ever said I build airplanes. :weird:Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
If that is indeed the case then we're back to square one on this issue. Which BTW doesn't negate the whole ethical issue behind it, which is important to many people.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I hope its not square 1 - it may just be that its more complex and subtle than originally hoped for. And really the only thing caving to the ethical argument will get the US is loss of leadership in medical research - at least with this line of research which is extremely promising.... Its the same thing that caving to the anti-global warming propaganda is getting us - the loss of leadership in alternative/ advanced energy research and engineering, all of which sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Well, Dread, there's a reason why it's called research and not engineering. You don't know whether something is worthwhile until you actually have examined it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
As I've said I don't think a federal ban on funding this research would be catastrophic. There is enough established potential here for private and university investors to be involved in the space. Though I do wish the federal government would drop the pretense.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
But I really do disagree with this Thomas Friedman-esque idea that we're not leading the way in alternative energy. Go to Silicon Valley, there is tons of money flowing into alternative energy projects. These projects are more nuanced, sophisticated and promising than what countries like China are doing, which can basically be summarized as throwing a lot of money into cheap solar/wind suppliers. That's just China leveraging an advantage, not actually innovating (innovation is still illegal in China).
What's again, what is the point behind these vague and stupid insults? It looks like misunderstood my remark about biological building blocks. Or took it in some kind of insanely literal way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
And the point of this research based article is that it would be catastrophic. I'll defer to the article until you can bring something to support your, uh, opinion, more than just your, well, opinion. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Actually no, since as I've already said basically every lab in the country has federal funds provided equipment mixed with everything else and any lab that wanted to claim their research was 100% privately funded would have to prove none of the equipment they are using has any federal money involved. And imagine if federal dollars helped fund the building....Quote:
There is enough established potential here for private and university investors to be involved in the space.
I hope you're right.Quote:
But I really do disagree with this Thomas Friedman-esque idea that we're not leading the way in alternative energy. Go to Silicon Valley, there is tons of money flowing into alternative energy projects. These projects are more nuanced, sophisticated and promising than what countries like China are doing, which can basically be summarized as throwing a lot of money into cheap solar/wind suppliers. That's just China leveraging an advantage, not actually innovating (innovation is still illegal in China).
And what, precisely, are your credentials vis a vis this decision? Don't get me wrong, as long as the Latino demographic keeps growing I don't want the US gaining head in any area of research, but given that you live and breathe American air, oughtn't you have at least a passing interest in keeping American interests afloat on the globe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Although you were waving your little flags at Ryan's budget plan, so I guess you do have America at heart, but are dead set in buying whatever the Village has for sale. So, never mind, I guess.
All we have is them saying it would be, I haven't so far seen why. And if federal funding is really such a lifetime, I would imagine any federal funding restriction/cut on anything for any reason would also be "catastrophic."Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Nessie- I support the federal funding of stem cell research.
But don't you hold the position that the government shouldn't be in the business of....telling business what they can or can't do? If it's a ban on federal funding, isn't that the same thing as a ban on an activity that's too expensive for any private enterprise to start or carry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
:confused:
Branson may be using his billions for private space travel, but that's only on the tail winds of NASA's previous investment in R & D. Facebook and Twitter may be billion dollar companies, but only because Gates and Jobs and IBM (and Al Gore, of course :haha: ) invented the internet, with help from government investment first.
Bio research isn't too expensive for private enterprises to do. The federal government mainly has a higher tolerance for not seeing financial success from its research, which is useful for bio research (yes, I realize I'm oversimplifying).
I don't think you're saying anything at all, but heyQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Ah, you don't see. So, I repeat the question: Do you study molecular biology or a related field? No?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Oh my god! We don't have a practical application after five years! There won't ever be something worthwhile in this field!
Do you study biology? Does the fact that you didn't stop you from opining on anything?
We haven't read any detailed explanation on why it's catastrophic. We just have two scientists saying it is. More explanation is needed.
Oh, and I was briefly pre-med in college before switching because chemistry was gonna kill me and I needed better grades to switch colleges.
What have you got against Latinos? :confused: Also, the idea that the government should not invest in technology, engineering and infrastructure puts the US on a sure road to a 2nd tier nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
They're not Herrenvolk.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
So much better for the rest of us, non?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
IIRC the article looks at research papers that cite work on Embyros AND Pluripotents at the same time vs. those that only cite work on Pluripotents. (62% use both) The conclusion is that research on the latter requires us of the former.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
<sigh> Without America you Europeans would all be speaking Russian and wriggling under Commissar boot heels right now. Sure, life would be more predictable, predictably miserable, but uncertainty has its rewards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
German, my dear. German.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I'm not so sure of that. The Soviets seemed to have the upper hand after that first winter. You could argue that having 2 fronts and Lend Lease tipped the balance, but I'm not so sure..... Certainly by the time of the D-Day invasion it became, for practical purposes, a race to see how much of Europe would be behind the Iron Curtain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I for one think that Finland was biding it's time to overthrow both Russia and Germany before the damn yanks had to butt in.
Finland is full of very dangerous, very vitamin D defficient people.
And which untermensch is America guarding us Nordics from today? The Chink?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Where the hell have you been the last ten years? Hello - Islamofascist Suicide Extremists. Duh. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Actually, some Mohammedan jack-hole tried to take the "glory" of an unexploded bomb someone had left in a court-yard in Helsinki, but turns out it was just domestic anarchist jack-asses.
And you guys are being horribly inefficient with your genocide of the Ayrabs, shit even we knocked off more Rushki civvies in the 40s.
You must tell me which is the better tasting ice cream. Vanilla or Chocolate. While I will let you taste Vanilla, it is still not legal to taste, nor consume Chocolate ice cream, so use your judgement on what you think it tastes like. Whatever ice cream tastes the best you can use to make a lovely ice cream sunday. The future of the human race will be affected by your decision. :noob:Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
But consider the money so many people are making off all this. Doesn't that count for something? Besides, the government is expected to be inefficient. Haven't you been listenting to the anti-humanists here??? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
You forgot to mention that God may, or may not, get mad if I taste the Chocolate. And even though our government isn't supposed to be involved in such things, the main reason for banning chocolate is that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
What he actually forgot to mention is the fact that it is legal to taste and make chocolate, you just have to make it yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan