Verizon is BOMB!
Below is Verizon's response to my email.
Dear Jerome Alexander,
On behalf of Verizon Wireless, please let me apologize for the frustration you have gone through regarding your phone replacement. My name is Valerie, and I am eager to resolve your concerns that you have addressed.
Jerome, as we do value your business as a Verizon Wireless customer, I have issued a one time courtesy credit to your account in the amount of $50.00. I apologize that the store gave you information on the cause of water damage. This credit will appear on your December 28th statement.
I also want to apologize that you had to travel to a different store to get a replacement device. Not all stores carry the PDA phones and the reason is that not all store technicians are equipped to service them.
Jerome, I make it my personal goal to resolve all of your wireless concerns. I hope I have done that for you today by assisting with the credit of your deductible. We appreciate your business and thank you for using Verizon Wireless. Should you have additional questions or feel your concerns are not resolved, please reply to this e-mail.
Again, Thank you for choosing Verizon Wireless, have a wonderful Day.
Sincerely,
Valerie
Verizon Wireless
Customer Service
If you have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and deleting it and all copies and backups thereof. If you are the intended recipient and are a Verizon Wireless customer, this response is subject to the terms of your Customer Agreement.
If that's not great customer service, I don't know what is. I'm very happy to be a Verizon customer.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Pissed off Verizon Consumer
I know this post has nothing to do with stem cells. But as you can tell by the title of this post, I have something else on my mind.
This past Friday, I woke up to an unresponsive Palm Treo. The phone would turn on and let me receive phone calls, but wouldn't let me do anything else. My next step obviously involved taking the phone to the Verizon store. After waiting in the store' short line, I was greeted by one of the store's employees, and I told her my problem, "My phone isn't responding." She looked the phone over and then removed the battery.
Apparently, near the battery exists a white circle that can turn red if the phone is exposed to moisture; my phone's button was red. I was shocked. I have had that phone for all of 1 MONTH and my phone was exposed to moisture?? I told her, "I don't know how this happened," and she asked me, "Where do you normally keep your phone?" I said, "my pocket." Her response, "Yeh, that can do it?" Are you serious??? Because our bodies give off heat--is that really a surprise--that can cause my phone moisture damage? Doesn't that seem like poor package design? I'm a guy, and do not carry a purse. Where else am I suppose to place my phone? Furthermore, my previous phone was a Treo and I had that one for a year. Where do you think I kept it? The answer, IN MY POCKET!
Anyway, after yelling at the employee she then says well I can call the insurance company for you and replace your phone, you should be able to get one by tomorrow. News flash, I'm a college student who doesn't have a home phone, my parents live six hours away, and I work half an hour away, I need my phone in case of an emergency. She then gets the manager, because of how irate I had gotten. The manager then tells me that they can send me to a Verizon store in Irvine, about a 20 minute drive, to pick up a phone that same day. What pissed me off was that he made it appear like he was doing me a favor, because they do not replace PDA's in store. I then quickly reminded him that having people drive 20 minutes away was indeed NOT A FAVOR.
When my IPOD malfunctions, I go to the Apple Store and they replace it in store. When my television stopped working, I took it to Costco, and they replaced it in store. Just because I'm a young college student does not mean I am unfamiliar with good business practices. I'm a PR and Advertising major, which makes me very aware of good and bad customer service. Anyway, I wasn't going to waste any more time with them, so I went to the store in Irvine.
I get to the Verizon store, and they too under estimated my the level of my frustration. They give me the phone but tell me that I must pay the $50 deductible. That was not going to happen. I told him this was not my fault. My phone had not been emerged in water, I do not shower with my phone in the bathroom, and it didn't get wet. The fact that my phone can suffer from moisture damage, because I put it in my pocket is absurd. Verizon needs to find a better manufacturer. And not only that, I paid the $50 deductible two months ago to replace my phone after having it for a year. In that case, I had no issue paying the deductible, because that phone had been dropped; it needed to be replaced.
Basically, because of the moisture damage, which is really an atmospheric issue, this was somehow my fault. Honestly, the system is fucked. I'm an honest man and would not try to get Verizon to pay for a problem I caused. In the end, I paid the deductible, but called Verizon's customer service to complain some more.
I explained to them that the company's phone is made cheaply, and that it should pay my deductible. Verizon is at least a million dollar company capable of paying this. I'm a working college student who is not. I definitely lost respect for this company. When I decided to pay for my own phone bill, I picked Verizon without hesitation. My mom has been a customer of Verizon since it was Air Touch Cellular in the 80's. And this is how the company treats its customers? I thought the company valued its customers better. And as I stated before, I would have no problem paying the deductible if I dropped it in a pool or spilled a drink over it, but I did not.
I will definitely think twice about renewing my contract with Verizon.
This past Friday, I woke up to an unresponsive Palm Treo. The phone would turn on and let me receive phone calls, but wouldn't let me do anything else. My next step obviously involved taking the phone to the Verizon store. After waiting in the store' short line, I was greeted by one of the store's employees, and I told her my problem, "My phone isn't responding." She looked the phone over and then removed the battery.
Apparently, near the battery exists a white circle that can turn red if the phone is exposed to moisture; my phone's button was red. I was shocked. I have had that phone for all of 1 MONTH and my phone was exposed to moisture?? I told her, "I don't know how this happened," and she asked me, "Where do you normally keep your phone?" I said, "my pocket." Her response, "Yeh, that can do it?" Are you serious??? Because our bodies give off heat--is that really a surprise--that can cause my phone moisture damage? Doesn't that seem like poor package design? I'm a guy, and do not carry a purse. Where else am I suppose to place my phone? Furthermore, my previous phone was a Treo and I had that one for a year. Where do you think I kept it? The answer, IN MY POCKET!
Anyway, after yelling at the employee she then says well I can call the insurance company for you and replace your phone, you should be able to get one by tomorrow. News flash, I'm a college student who doesn't have a home phone, my parents live six hours away, and I work half an hour away, I need my phone in case of an emergency. She then gets the manager, because of how irate I had gotten. The manager then tells me that they can send me to a Verizon store in Irvine, about a 20 minute drive, to pick up a phone that same day. What pissed me off was that he made it appear like he was doing me a favor, because they do not replace PDA's in store. I then quickly reminded him that having people drive 20 minutes away was indeed NOT A FAVOR.
When my IPOD malfunctions, I go to the Apple Store and they replace it in store. When my television stopped working, I took it to Costco, and they replaced it in store. Just because I'm a young college student does not mean I am unfamiliar with good business practices. I'm a PR and Advertising major, which makes me very aware of good and bad customer service. Anyway, I wasn't going to waste any more time with them, so I went to the store in Irvine.
I get to the Verizon store, and they too under estimated my the level of my frustration. They give me the phone but tell me that I must pay the $50 deductible. That was not going to happen. I told him this was not my fault. My phone had not been emerged in water, I do not shower with my phone in the bathroom, and it didn't get wet. The fact that my phone can suffer from moisture damage, because I put it in my pocket is absurd. Verizon needs to find a better manufacturer. And not only that, I paid the $50 deductible two months ago to replace my phone after having it for a year. In that case, I had no issue paying the deductible, because that phone had been dropped; it needed to be replaced.
Basically, because of the moisture damage, which is really an atmospheric issue, this was somehow my fault. Honestly, the system is fucked. I'm an honest man and would not try to get Verizon to pay for a problem I caused. In the end, I paid the deductible, but called Verizon's customer service to complain some more.
I explained to them that the company's phone is made cheaply, and that it should pay my deductible. Verizon is at least a million dollar company capable of paying this. I'm a working college student who is not. I definitely lost respect for this company. When I decided to pay for my own phone bill, I picked Verizon without hesitation. My mom has been a customer of Verizon since it was Air Touch Cellular in the 80's. And this is how the company treats its customers? I thought the company valued its customers better. And as I stated before, I would have no problem paying the deductible if I dropped it in a pool or spilled a drink over it, but I did not.
I will definitely think twice about renewing my contract with Verizon.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Are You a Believer Now?
Well, I hope you have enough information to reach your own conclusions about stem cell research. What I hope I have made clear over the past few months are these arguments:
1) There are too many forms of research for the scientific community to dwell on one area of research, embryonic. If huge breakthroughs occur with umbilical cord blood, fat cells, and destroyed embryos, the government will have to budge and reconsider its strict policies on embryonic stem cell research.
2) If the United States doesn’t invest more money into stem cell research, we will continue to lose the lead in the medical community we once had over other countries like China and the UK.
3) Cloning to use embryonic stem cells is morally unjust. Donate your own stem cells like you donate your own blood. It should be a choice for the donator.
4) Write senators. There are too many high-ranking government officials who are supporters of stem cell research. Let me them know you agree, and are mad that stem cell research is moving within our country at an embarrassing slow pace.
5) And lastly, now that you’re educated on this matter—though it’s cliché—educate others. Speak out in debates and posit the option of using stem cells.
1) There are too many forms of research for the scientific community to dwell on one area of research, embryonic. If huge breakthroughs occur with umbilical cord blood, fat cells, and destroyed embryos, the government will have to budge and reconsider its strict policies on embryonic stem cell research.
2) If the United States doesn’t invest more money into stem cell research, we will continue to lose the lead in the medical community we once had over other countries like China and the UK.
3) Cloning to use embryonic stem cells is morally unjust. Donate your own stem cells like you donate your own blood. It should be a choice for the donator.
4) Write senators. There are too many high-ranking government officials who are supporters of stem cell research. Let me them know you agree, and are mad that stem cell research is moving within our country at an embarrassing slow pace.
5) And lastly, now that you’re educated on this matter—though it’s cliché—educate others. Speak out in debates and posit the option of using stem cells.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
If You Can't Beat 'Em, Go to China!
I never thought of this as an option, but it is definitely viable and also legal for Americans to go to where you can stem cell treatment with little to no governmental influence. It's just a very expensive "plan B" from plane tickets, to hotels, and also the stem cell procedure. One man, Alexander McKenzie Wallace, despite the expense made this trip.
At age 70, Alexander made the trip to China this past September as a last chance to save his life and fight his disease, Ataxia. Ataxia' means ‘absence of order’. People with ataxia have problems of co-ordination. This is because parts of the nervous system that normally control co-ordination and balance are affected. Ataxia is the principal symptom of a group of neurological disorders called the cerebellar ataxias. Most are progressive, meaning your symptoms get worse.
What's most exciting though is watching Alex's improvement. I cannot embed the videos onto my blog but can provide links for you to read his interviews and see his videos. After only a month, Alexander went from only being to walk short distances and then neeeding a rest, to stamina improvement so much he could walk upstairs. His story is truly unbelievable.
At age 70, Alexander made the trip to China this past September as a last chance to save his life and fight his disease, Ataxia. Ataxia' means ‘absence of order’. People with ataxia have problems of co-ordination. This is because parts of the nervous system that normally control co-ordination and balance are affected. Ataxia is the principal symptom of a group of neurological disorders called the cerebellar ataxias. Most are progressive, meaning your symptoms get worse.
What's most exciting though is watching Alex's improvement. I cannot embed the videos onto my blog but can provide links for you to read his interviews and see his videos. After only a month, Alexander went from only being to walk short distances and then neeeding a rest, to stamina improvement so much he could walk upstairs. His story is truly unbelievable.
Cheese Anyone?
In many of my blogs, I have mentioned how researchers have conducted experiments on mice and concluded their findings could be applied to humans. I didn't understand why until now. According to Dr Jane Rogers, Welcome Trust Sanger Institute, "We share 99% of our genes with mice, and we even have the genes that could make a tail." And not only that but, "The mouse "book of life" reveals that humans and mice share at least 80% of their genes, with only 300 unique to either organism."
America is not the only country conducting research on mice. The UK, China, and Japan, all use mice for scientific research. Scientists can work out what human genes do by "knocking out" similar looking genes in mice and studying the results.
Researchers can also trace the malfunctioning genes responsible for disease by examining sick mice that display symptoms apparently similar to human conditions. If I were you, I would think twice about killing this rodent that and sometimes unwelcome roommate.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Sanchez Supports Stem Cell Research Too
Before I dive into why Loretta Sanchez supports stem cell research, I want to cover something I was not recently aware of. In addition to Bush only allowing stem cell researchers to use damaged embryos, he has limited the supply of embryos available to those stem cell lines that existed when President Bush issued an executive order on August 9, 2001. So, stem cells that were made available after that date cannot be used. Way to abuse your power.
Sanchez is taking her support a step further than other congressmen and senators, and is actually working on a bill called The DeGette-Castle Stem Cell Research Bill. The bill only authorizes the use of stem cell lines generated from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. Furthermore, the bill includes stronger ethical guidelines than the President’s current policy--something Conservatives should find soothing but overlook.
Did I mention yet that 72% of Americans support this BIPARTISAN bill. That's right, democrats and republicans are actually agreeing. Additionally, almost 3/4 of Americans want to see this bill put into action.
Here's a short list of other congressmen who support stem cell research I compiled in litterally a few minutes; without question, there are more supporters than this. I just wanted to show the positions these officials occupy.
California's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
Majority Whip James E. Clyburn
Sen. Majority Leader Bill Fris
Sen. John Kerry,
Representative Roscoe Bartlett
These are key power players in the government, and they can't even persuade our president. Sometimes I wonder if I'm wasting my time.
Feinstein Supports Stem Cell Research
Something I learned is that Senator Feinstein supports stem cell research. In fact, many of "Caleefornyah's" officials support stem cell research including its governor, Schwarzenegger.
Feinsten says that we must engage in "sensible stem cell research legislation" and that it "must contain provisions to expand the number of lines eligible for federal funding." It still surprises me that our federal government does not agree and continues to hinder every state's progress.
Some of Feinstein's objectives are:
1)To lift restrictions to expand the number of stem cell lines available for federal funding.
2)To pass a federal ban on human reproductive cloning while protecting important medical research.
I hope you noticed that her second objective refutes the conservative argument.
Feinsten says that we must engage in "sensible stem cell research legislation" and that it "must contain provisions to expand the number of lines eligible for federal funding." It still surprises me that our federal government does not agree and continues to hinder every state's progress.
Some of Feinstein's objectives are:
1)To lift restrictions to expand the number of stem cell lines available for federal funding.
2)To pass a federal ban on human reproductive cloning while protecting important medical research.
I hope you noticed that her second objective refutes the conservative argument.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Clear Some Things Up
My blog informing people of what stem cells are is pretty lengthy...maybe even borderline unclear. Here is a two minute youtube video that could clarify some things.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
A New and Kind of Gross Trend
Parents are saving their childrens' umbilical cord blood after birth. According to research "A cord blood stem cell transplant with a person's own cord blood stem cells, or that of a sibling, gives your child the greatest possible chance of being cured of their disease." So, I guess it's worthwhile, just a very different practice.
I know you're thinking, "How is this done?"
After your baby is born and the umbilical cord is clamped and cut, your doctor will collect the cord blood using either a syringe or a blood bag. The procedure is safe, painless, and only takes a few minutes.
What's even more interesting is that not only is the newborn a good match for the stem cells, but so is the mother, because she carried the baby for nine months, and so are other siblings. It should also be noted that any family member who is a suitable genetic match may be able to use the stem cells if needed.
Moreover, cord blood can be stored for a long time. Current data reflects that cord blood cells stored for fifteen years have the same composition as they did at the time of storage. All science involving cryogenic storage of cells also indicates that the cells should remain viable indefinitely.
This last statistic is something I find to be most interesting. And although people are leery about interpreting stats, citing it can be manipulated to interpret anything, I would urge them to look beyond their skepticism.
According to medical research, the odds that a child will need to use his or her own stem cells for current uses is 1 in 2,700, and the odds that a family member would need to use those cells are about 1 in 1,400. These odds do not include the emerging use of cord blood stem cells to treat heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and spinal cord injury. The continued progress would greatly increase the likelihood of use.
I know you're thinking, "How is this done?"
After your baby is born and the umbilical cord is clamped and cut, your doctor will collect the cord blood using either a syringe or a blood bag. The procedure is safe, painless, and only takes a few minutes.
What's even more interesting is that not only is the newborn a good match for the stem cells, but so is the mother, because she carried the baby for nine months, and so are other siblings. It should also be noted that any family member who is a suitable genetic match may be able to use the stem cells if needed.
Moreover, cord blood can be stored for a long time. Current data reflects that cord blood cells stored for fifteen years have the same composition as they did at the time of storage. All science involving cryogenic storage of cells also indicates that the cells should remain viable indefinitely.
This last statistic is something I find to be most interesting. And although people are leery about interpreting stats, citing it can be manipulated to interpret anything, I would urge them to look beyond their skepticism.
According to medical research, the odds that a child will need to use his or her own stem cells for current uses is 1 in 2,700, and the odds that a family member would need to use those cells are about 1 in 1,400. These odds do not include the emerging use of cord blood stem cells to treat heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and spinal cord injury. The continued progress would greatly increase the likelihood of use.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Plans to Build the New Jersey Stem Cell Facility are Now Slowed
A few weeks ago New Jersey announced to the world that it was going to be building the first facility dedicated entirely to stem cell research in the country. At that time, the state believed that the public would without question be in favor of passing the initiative, but as we found out on Tuesday November 6th, that is not the case.
Though it was close, the state failed to persuade the majority of the public losing in the polls 53% to 47%. They needed 4% more. Does this mean the state is going to back down? Hell no. Instead, the state is going to hold meetings with pharmaceutical companies and get them to finance the remaining $450 million.
This is the kind of persistence I wish we all had. Why back down because of one shortcoming, because of one rock in the road, especially when New Jersey had 47% of its voters support the measure. This is the beginning of a change, and hopefully New Jersey will be a leader in this medical revolution.
Though it was close, the state failed to persuade the majority of the public losing in the polls 53% to 47%. They needed 4% more. Does this mean the state is going to back down? Hell no. Instead, the state is going to hold meetings with pharmaceutical companies and get them to finance the remaining $450 million.
This is the kind of persistence I wish we all had. Why back down because of one shortcoming, because of one rock in the road, especially when New Jersey had 47% of its voters support the measure. This is the beginning of a change, and hopefully New Jersey will be a leader in this medical revolution.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Want to Lose Weight???
BBC News reported that, "New nerves grown from stem cells taken from a patient's fat could be available by 2011." Enough of these cells could be used to heal hundreds of people. It's not many, but is definitely a start. Again, the research that produced these results was done on rats--I'm not exactly sure how humans are similar to these disgusting creatures--but still researchers are placing much emphasis on these findings.
According to Professor Giorgio Terenghi UK Centre for Tissue Regeneration,after receiving this stem cell transplant, "The patients will not be able to tell that they had ever 'lost' [the feeling to] their limb." How scientists accomplish this procedure is by extracting stem cells from fat tissue and then coax the cells into
becoming neurons - nerve cells - in the laboratory, which can form into anything.
The frequency of nerve injury is one in every 1,000 of the population. So, in other words, it's a common injury. And we can remedy this issue by not using embryos, so why aren't we? America seriously doesn't mind losing its status as the predominant and once innovative country it use to be. Does everything have to be related to the I-Phone to gain attention? Or can we can focus on health care for a second?
According to Professor Giorgio Terenghi UK Centre for Tissue Regeneration,after receiving this stem cell transplant, "The patients will not be able to tell that they had ever 'lost' [the feeling to] their limb." How scientists accomplish this procedure is by extracting stem cells from fat tissue and then coax the cells into
becoming neurons - nerve cells - in the laboratory, which can form into anything.
The frequency of nerve injury is one in every 1,000 of the population. So, in other words, it's a common injury. And we can remedy this issue by not using embryos, so why aren't we? America seriously doesn't mind losing its status as the predominant and once innovative country it use to be. Does everything have to be related to the I-Phone to gain attention? Or can we can focus on health care for a second?
I Love My Parents... kind of
I love my parents, but they are so freakin stubborn and set in their old ways. Earlier today I was talking to my dad, about how he should have considererd alternative eastern medical practices instead of western medicines when treating my sister's illness, and he said it never occurred to him to research eastern concepts of healing. And then I brought up the possible use of stem cells, and well he completely brushed off the idea.
He, and many other Americans are unwilling to inquire about this science, because they don't understand it, and nor do they want to take the time to research the promise of stem cells. Instead, these non-believers will be like the rest of this country and jump on the bandwagon once a breakthrough occurs, which will likely take place oversees because of our government. It's sad.
I understand realism and wanting to trust facts and proven methods, but apart of me is almost always willing to say, "let's take a chance." That's how progress is made. Am I alone on this?
He, and many other Americans are unwilling to inquire about this science, because they don't understand it, and nor do they want to take the time to research the promise of stem cells. Instead, these non-believers will be like the rest of this country and jump on the bandwagon once a breakthrough occurs, which will likely take place oversees because of our government. It's sad.
I understand realism and wanting to trust facts and proven methods, but apart of me is almost always willing to say, "let's take a chance." That's how progress is made. Am I alone on this?
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Tremors Got The Best of Her
For almost a decade now, my sister has taken medicine to treat her tremors. The downfall of taking medicine that treats tremors though is that it drastically effects her mood, almost to the point of mania.
The past two years have been the worse for her and my immediate family of 12 members--that was not a typo, I said 12, the number after 11. During the past two years, my sixteen-year-old sister has been in over 11 mental hospitals to treat her outbursts. She was literally a threat to my family, threatening to burn down my dad's house, she previously stole my dad's truck and crashed it, and has tried to jump out of moving vehicles on numerous occassions. The reason I say, "she was literally a threat" to my family is, because she's no longer living with my family.
Nine days ago I received an email from her twin sister informing me she was gone, and wasn't coming back. Her twin exaggerated that last fact. After speaking to my dad, she will either stay in a mental hospital in San Francisco until she's 18 or 21; so for at least two years.
If only embryonic stem cell research was legal, and could be used to treat her disease.
Friday, November 2, 2007
We Can Add Diabetes to The List
Not only are stem cells expected to cure Alzheimers and Parkinsons, but now evidence is suggesting that Type 1 Diabetes is a possibility. On World Diabetes Day, November 14th, a think tank will once again assemble to present their findings to the media via teleconference. The conference is held in Miami.
Type 1 Diabetes is growing in epidemic proportions effecting greatly children age 5 and younger. As a response to this phenomenon, diabetes researchers across the globe have been working to advance the study, prevention, and treatment of type 1 diabetes. The medical group decided to announce its findings through a teleconference instead of a typical press release, because this way, a question and answer session can occur to clarify the groups findings. The group of scholars will also disclose that, because of its findings, the way medical doctors are detecting Type 1 Diabetes is also changing. For example, a simple blood test can now identify the autoantibodies for type 1 diabetes up to 10 years before diagnosis.
Is Type 1 Diabetes really that bad?
YES! The serious complications of diabetes include heart disease, stroke, blindness, kidney damage and lower-limb amputations.
Type 1 Diabetes is growing in epidemic proportions effecting greatly children age 5 and younger. As a response to this phenomenon, diabetes researchers across the globe have been working to advance the study, prevention, and treatment of type 1 diabetes. The medical group decided to announce its findings through a teleconference instead of a typical press release, because this way, a question and answer session can occur to clarify the groups findings. The group of scholars will also disclose that, because of its findings, the way medical doctors are detecting Type 1 Diabetes is also changing. For example, a simple blood test can now identify the autoantibodies for type 1 diabetes up to 10 years before diagnosis.
Is Type 1 Diabetes really that bad?
YES! The serious complications of diabetes include heart disease, stroke, blindness, kidney damage and lower-limb amputations.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
You've Got to be Freakin Kiddin Me
Today, researchers from Oregon have alleged that they have successfully derived embryonic stem cells from a cloned animal. I don't understand how people can see this as okay? Nothing, whether human or animal, should be cloned only to be used for its cells. It should be the choice of the animal--and I agree it's hard for an animal to give consent--and the human if under 18 to give medical practitoners permission to use his or her cells. It's on only fair.
If confirmed, this would be a world first time we have been able to successfully use cells from clones. This could also potentially lead to the creation of human embryonic stem cells through cloning, which would really give the relgious sect and other human rights activists something to complain about. Though I am a supporter of willingly donating stem cells for research, I am strongly against creating clones to aid the lives of those already in existence. That's disgusting and inhumane.
If confirmed, this would be a world first time we have been able to successfully use cells from clones. This could also potentially lead to the creation of human embryonic stem cells through cloning, which would really give the relgious sect and other human rights activists something to complain about. Though I am a supporter of willingly donating stem cells for research, I am strongly against creating clones to aid the lives of those already in existence. That's disgusting and inhumane.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
New Stem Cell Facility to Open in Jersey
It is estimated that the building will cost $150 million and should be completed by 2011. Standing at 18 stories, the new research facility is being built in the city of New Brunswick near Rutgers University. Interestingly enough, the building will also feature a Christopher Reeve, the first Superman, pavillion. Reeve promoted stem cell research after he was paralyzed in a 1995 horse riding accident. Reeve died in 2004 at age 52.
This is great news! Not Reeve's death, but that a facility is being constructed. New Jersey is the first state to have used public money to build a stem cell research facility.
Of course all of this good can't exist without opposition. Those against abortion have already filed suit, because embryonic stem cell research destroys human embryos. Next month voters will be asked to approve borrowing $450 million for stem cell research grants.
Here are some quotes by abortion foes...
Marie Tasy, the executive director of New Jersey Right to Life, which filed the lawsuit, charged supporters of state investment in stem cell research with "shamelessly exploiting the sick and infirmed with empty promises of miracle cures and false economic benefits."
Gunter Schemmann, a cancer researcher at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, held a sign during the ceremony that featured an embryo and read, "Even then you were precious."
"I believe human life starts at conception and to destroy an embryo to get stem cells is to destroy human life," he said.
This is great news! Not Reeve's death, but that a facility is being constructed. New Jersey is the first state to have used public money to build a stem cell research facility.
Of course all of this good can't exist without opposition. Those against abortion have already filed suit, because embryonic stem cell research destroys human embryos. Next month voters will be asked to approve borrowing $450 million for stem cell research grants.
Here are some quotes by abortion foes...
Marie Tasy, the executive director of New Jersey Right to Life, which filed the lawsuit, charged supporters of state investment in stem cell research with "shamelessly exploiting the sick and infirmed with empty promises of miracle cures and false economic benefits."
Gunter Schemmann, a cancer researcher at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, held a sign during the ceremony that featured an embryo and read, "Even then you were precious."
"I believe human life starts at conception and to destroy an embryo to get stem cells is to destroy human life," he said.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Embryonic Stem Cells Helped Repair Heart Damage...
for a rat... Heart Disease as defined by the National Institute of Health, "impairs the heart's ability to pump blood and sustain the body's organs and tissues," and therefore it's not something to be taken lightly.
Still, even though embryonic stem cells have proven to repair heart damage for rats, scientists are facing many critical challenges getting these cells to work with humans. Some of the issues include the creation of enough new heart cells, making sure transplanted heart cells are not contaminated with immature or other cell types, and ensuring the heart cells' survival after transplantation; some of these issues are also common among other medical transplants.
As a solution to their problems, scientists are creating new techniques to generate large numbers of pure cardiomyocytes (heart muscle cells) from human embryonic stem cells abbreviated by(hESCs). Additonally, scientists are forming stem cell cocktails to prevent the deaths of stem cells after they are transplanted.
To digress slightly, after the scientists transplanted the stem cells, they induced the rats with heart attacks to examine the results. They found that cardiomyocytes were being supported by rat blood vessels in the treated rat hearts. The treated rat hearts also demonstrated an improved ability to pump blood.
Too bad we're not rats.
Still, even though embryonic stem cells have proven to repair heart damage for rats, scientists are facing many critical challenges getting these cells to work with humans. Some of the issues include the creation of enough new heart cells, making sure transplanted heart cells are not contaminated with immature or other cell types, and ensuring the heart cells' survival after transplantation; some of these issues are also common among other medical transplants.
As a solution to their problems, scientists are creating new techniques to generate large numbers of pure cardiomyocytes (heart muscle cells) from human embryonic stem cells abbreviated by(hESCs). Additonally, scientists are forming stem cell cocktails to prevent the deaths of stem cells after they are transplanted.
To digress slightly, after the scientists transplanted the stem cells, they induced the rats with heart attacks to examine the results. They found that cardiomyocytes were being supported by rat blood vessels in the treated rat hearts. The treated rat hearts also demonstrated an improved ability to pump blood.
Too bad we're not rats.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Since Embryonic Research Has So Many Restrictions, Scientists Consider Using the Umbilical Cord
Yup, that's right, I said, "Umbilical Cords!" Those flexible cordlike structures containing blood vessels that attach to humans or other mammalian fetuses to placentas during gestation are proving to actually possess some worth after birth.
After we're born, doctors ask the father to cut the umbilical cord of their newborn, and then the doctor throws the cord away. But now, doctors are reconsidering this common act, because using blood from the umbilical cord has already proven to be successful.
Still, even with some limited success, there are some very important variables within this particular form of stem cell research. “Banking cord blood ,” the term used for saving stem cells from the umbilicus, is extremely expensive and for some “too high of an expense" (Verter). The exact figure is never specified, but it is high enough for “only a limited number of institutions [to] have the funding to maintain public banks” (Verter). Storing cord blood is pricy because it requires freezers, buildings to hold the frozen blood that follow medical regulations, and also personnel (Verter). Another variable of cord blood is that evidence proves it only works for children. If one were to weigh more than one hundred pounds– more than half of the people in the United States weigh over one hundred pounds–-the amount of stem cells harvested from the umbilicus would not be found sufficient (Verter). Thus, stem cells from the umbilicus would only be able to help children, which is great, but is it worth halting the research of embryonic stem cells which could potentially benefit everyone?
On the bright side, this argument does not lend itself to the problems associated with fetuses or religion.
Verter, Frances. "Medical Pros and Cons to Banking Umbilical Cord Blood." 15 Dec. 2004. Medical Pros and Cons Cord Blood Banking. 15 Dec. 2004 http://www.parents guidecordblood.com/medmotiv.html>.
After we're born, doctors ask the father to cut the umbilical cord of their newborn, and then the doctor throws the cord away. But now, doctors are reconsidering this common act, because using blood from the umbilical cord has already proven to be successful.
Still, even with some limited success, there are some very important variables within this particular form of stem cell research. “Banking cord blood ,” the term used for saving stem cells from the umbilicus, is extremely expensive and for some “too high of an expense" (Verter). The exact figure is never specified, but it is high enough for “only a limited number of institutions [to] have the funding to maintain public banks” (Verter). Storing cord blood is pricy because it requires freezers, buildings to hold the frozen blood that follow medical regulations, and also personnel (Verter). Another variable of cord blood is that evidence proves it only works for children. If one were to weigh more than one hundred pounds– more than half of the people in the United States weigh over one hundred pounds–-the amount of stem cells harvested from the umbilicus would not be found sufficient (Verter). Thus, stem cells from the umbilicus would only be able to help children, which is great, but is it worth halting the research of embryonic stem cells which could potentially benefit everyone?
On the bright side, this argument does not lend itself to the problems associated with fetuses or religion.
Verter, Frances. "Medical Pros and Cons to Banking Umbilical Cord Blood." 15 Dec. 2004. Medical Pros and Cons Cord Blood Banking. 15 Dec. 2004 http://www.parents guidecordblood.com/medmotiv.html>.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Some Interesting Responses
Because I can't always catch grammmatical errors, I have had a few of my friends proof read my past posts. One of them, who prefers to remain nameless, asked me this question after reading my last blog, "If embryos aren't technically fetuses, which makes them not human, why can't we use all of them for research?" My response to him was basically a reiteration of my past blogs, "conservatives and religous organizations feel it's inhumane, so they have restricted the amount of embryos availabe." He then said this, "Well I guess that's okay. Humans--especially Americans--tend to do things not in moderation." I think he's got a point.
Humans should not be bred to aid the lives of the powerful reducing the value of human life and making them commodities or prized possessions. This is why we need the government to regulate growing human/fetal farms, not restricting the use of already existing embryos. Yes, I agree that humans do tend to drain all resources to ensure their own survival, a “survival of the fittest” mentality. But if we can create laws controling this field, everyone's worries can be avoided. It's not like you or I can go home into our laboratory and conduct stem-cell research. We would need specific equipment that is found in certain facilities. Is the government worried that stem cells will be sold on the black market? What's really the issue here? Oh wait, I know this answer. Religion.
Humans should not be bred to aid the lives of the powerful reducing the value of human life and making them commodities or prized possessions. This is why we need the government to regulate growing human/fetal farms, not restricting the use of already existing embryos. Yes, I agree that humans do tend to drain all resources to ensure their own survival, a “survival of the fittest” mentality. But if we can create laws controling this field, everyone's worries can be avoided. It's not like you or I can go home into our laboratory and conduct stem-cell research. We would need specific equipment that is found in certain facilities. Is the government worried that stem cells will be sold on the black market? What's really the issue here? Oh wait, I know this answer. Religion.
If I Agree About Not Growing "Human/Fetal Farms," What Other Options are There?
What about using abandoned and/or frozen embryos? Since scientists cannot use undestroyed embryos, wouldn't it be smart for them to focus on the defected and frozen embryos donated to research by parents? Oh wait, scientists cannot touch those either.
There are thousands of embryos left untouched and unresearched every year because of Bush's restrictions. So guess what? These donated embryos are being thrown away. Why? Because the embryos are healthy.
Let's look at it this way. The government is already unhappy women have the right to choose, so in order to make women opt not to donate their embryos to research, they say, "If you do not choose to have this baby, we will not allow you to donate your healthy baby/fetus, which could possibly help cure someone else's disease. Instead, it will sit in a freezer for a while and then be thrown away." Moreover, they are saying, "we will only allow researchers to use defected embryos--people that will be born with some form of disability; let's not even give them a chance to live."
In vitro fertilization clinics, there tends to be more embryos than can placed in the mother, leaving the embryos to be stored or frozen. Since there is no other probable use for them, why not donate them to stem cell research? Why not let the parents make the right decision and let the cells of their child save desperate lives, just as we do after an auto accident by using the organs of those who have tragically died? Also, since this is one of the only ways stem cell research can continue in most states, why not at least inform the parents of their rights?
Another intersting point would then be, isn't the government also guilty of abortion? The majority of these babies/fetuses are being thrown away, because the government won't allow scientists to research them. What do you think is the best option for these frozen embryos? To be researched and save lives or to be thrown away?
There are thousands of embryos left untouched and unresearched every year because of Bush's restrictions. So guess what? These donated embryos are being thrown away. Why? Because the embryos are healthy.
Let's look at it this way. The government is already unhappy women have the right to choose, so in order to make women opt not to donate their embryos to research, they say, "If you do not choose to have this baby, we will not allow you to donate your healthy baby/fetus, which could possibly help cure someone else's disease. Instead, it will sit in a freezer for a while and then be thrown away." Moreover, they are saying, "we will only allow researchers to use defected embryos--people that will be born with some form of disability; let's not even give them a chance to live."
In vitro fertilization clinics, there tends to be more embryos than can placed in the mother, leaving the embryos to be stored or frozen. Since there is no other probable use for them, why not donate them to stem cell research? Why not let the parents make the right decision and let the cells of their child save desperate lives, just as we do after an auto accident by using the organs of those who have tragically died? Also, since this is one of the only ways stem cell research can continue in most states, why not at least inform the parents of their rights?
Another intersting point would then be, isn't the government also guilty of abortion? The majority of these babies/fetuses are being thrown away, because the government won't allow scientists to research them. What do you think is the best option for these frozen embryos? To be researched and save lives or to be thrown away?
Monday, October 8, 2007
I've Tried to Avoid Using "The Lingo"
As fascinating as science truly is---yup that's sarcasm--the vast majority of people in the world find it boring. Still, and regardless of how boring stem cell jargon can be, it is necessary for me to posit this information, so that we're all on the same page. I apologize in advance, but will try to make this post as painless to read as possible.
What are embryonic stem cells?
Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell.
The definition in English...
Embryonic stem cells are found in infants, and “are blank cells that have the potential to develop into any type of cell in the body – nerve cells, heart cells, and kidney cells” (Berger). For instance, if Johnny happened to get into a car crash and ruptured some of the muscles in his spine, the chances of Johnny someday being able to walk or run would be minimal. However, stem cell evidence suggests that one day in the future, Johnny would be given back the life taken from him. Stem cells would form new spinal muscles, and replace the torn or damaged muscles in Johnny’s spine. In the future, situations like car crashes and the diagnosis of mental diseases will not end a person’s life, because stem cells are showing much
promise in “becoming certain types [of cells]” (Berger). This idea of saving helpless lives is what makes stem cell research a worthwhile endeavor. Now, people are forced to settle into the idea of paralyzation, but the use of stem cells gives them an alternative. It gives them a second chance.
What are adult stem cells?
An adult stem cell is an undifferentiated cell that has not yet generated structures or manufactured proteins of a specialized cell type and is found among differentiated cells. Differentiated cells are the process whereby an undifferentiated embryonic cell acquires the features of a specialized cell such as a heart, liver, or muscle cell in a tissue or organ, can renew itself, and can differentiate to yield the major specialized cell types of the tissue or organ. The primary roles of adult stem cells in a living organism are to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found. Some scientists now use the term somatic stem cell instead of adult stem cell. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which are defined by their origin (the inner cell mass of the blastocyst), the origin of adult stem cells in mature tissues is unknown.
Research on adult stem cells has recently generated a great deal of excitement. Scientists have found adult stem cells in many more tissues than they once thought possible. This finding has led scientists to ask whether adult stem cells could be used for transplants. In fact, adult blood forming stem cells from bone marrow have been used in transplants for 30 years. Certain kinds of adult stem cells seem to have the ability to differentiate into a number of different cell types, given the right conditions. If this differentiation of adult stem cells can be controlled in the laboratory, these cells may become the basis of therapies for many serious common diseases.
What are the cells differences and similarities?
Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Pluripotent cells are when a single stem cell is able to become all of the various cell types that make up the body. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become.
Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.
A potential advantage of using stem cells from an adult is that the patient's own cells could be expanded in culture and then reintroduced into the patient. The use of the patient's own adult stem cells would mean that the cells would not be rejected by the immune system. This represents a significant advantage as immune rejection is a difficult problem that can only be circumvented with immunosuppressive drugs.
What I hope we all understand now after reading the above definitions is that there is a huge advantage in using embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells, because they are more adaptable. The problem is though, scientists have a limited supply of embryonic stem cells, because of people like President Bush, and organizations like the Catholic Church and some Christian groups who believe this promising science is inhumane.
Why do they believe this science is inhumane, and as a consequence have severely slowed research?
One of the reasons is that the religious sect believes human/fetal farms will be the cause of the legalization of stem cell research. Human farms, also called "fetal farms" are where human embryos are gestated in a non-human uterus or from human pregnancies and are created specifically for the purpose of research.
What's probably surprising is that I believe the religious sect are right for showing concern towards growing human farms, but their argument using the Bible is weak (What Happened to Separation of Church and State.) Can't we all just agree fetuses, babies--whatever you want to call them--should not be grown to benefit others. There's no need to involve religion. But regardless, just because the government is scared this will be the outcome of the legalization of stem cell research does not justify slowing research and progress. To me, it seems more practical to legalize stem cell research and closely examine the scientists. It's not like these people are incapable of following rules. They are what I would assume to be people of integrity, intelligence, and extreme care considering how many people and organizations have fought to legalize the science. Does the government really think scientists would handle the unrestricted legalization with a disregarding mind and jeopardize the entire fields public image? If so, that's pretty sad.
Berger, Eleni "Research Avenue Adds Fuel to Stem Sell Controversy." 18 July 2001. CNN.com. CNN. 25 Oct 2004
What are embryonic stem cells?
Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell.
The definition in English...
Embryonic stem cells are found in infants, and “are blank cells that have the potential to develop into any type of cell in the body – nerve cells, heart cells, and kidney cells” (Berger). For instance, if Johnny happened to get into a car crash and ruptured some of the muscles in his spine, the chances of Johnny someday being able to walk or run would be minimal. However, stem cell evidence suggests that one day in the future, Johnny would be given back the life taken from him. Stem cells would form new spinal muscles, and replace the torn or damaged muscles in Johnny’s spine. In the future, situations like car crashes and the diagnosis of mental diseases will not end a person’s life, because stem cells are showing much
promise in “becoming certain types [of cells]” (Berger). This idea of saving helpless lives is what makes stem cell research a worthwhile endeavor. Now, people are forced to settle into the idea of paralyzation, but the use of stem cells gives them an alternative. It gives them a second chance.
What are adult stem cells?
An adult stem cell is an undifferentiated cell that has not yet generated structures or manufactured proteins of a specialized cell type and is found among differentiated cells. Differentiated cells are the process whereby an undifferentiated embryonic cell acquires the features of a specialized cell such as a heart, liver, or muscle cell in a tissue or organ, can renew itself, and can differentiate to yield the major specialized cell types of the tissue or organ. The primary roles of adult stem cells in a living organism are to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found. Some scientists now use the term somatic stem cell instead of adult stem cell. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which are defined by their origin (the inner cell mass of the blastocyst), the origin of adult stem cells in mature tissues is unknown.
Research on adult stem cells has recently generated a great deal of excitement. Scientists have found adult stem cells in many more tissues than they once thought possible. This finding has led scientists to ask whether adult stem cells could be used for transplants. In fact, adult blood forming stem cells from bone marrow have been used in transplants for 30 years. Certain kinds of adult stem cells seem to have the ability to differentiate into a number of different cell types, given the right conditions. If this differentiation of adult stem cells can be controlled in the laboratory, these cells may become the basis of therapies for many serious common diseases.
What are the cells differences and similarities?
Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Pluripotent cells are when a single stem cell is able to become all of the various cell types that make up the body. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become.
Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.
A potential advantage of using stem cells from an adult is that the patient's own cells could be expanded in culture and then reintroduced into the patient. The use of the patient's own adult stem cells would mean that the cells would not be rejected by the immune system. This represents a significant advantage as immune rejection is a difficult problem that can only be circumvented with immunosuppressive drugs.
What I hope we all understand now after reading the above definitions is that there is a huge advantage in using embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells, because they are more adaptable. The problem is though, scientists have a limited supply of embryonic stem cells, because of people like President Bush, and organizations like the Catholic Church and some Christian groups who believe this promising science is inhumane.
Why do they believe this science is inhumane, and as a consequence have severely slowed research?
One of the reasons is that the religious sect believes human/fetal farms will be the cause of the legalization of stem cell research. Human farms, also called "fetal farms" are where human embryos are gestated in a non-human uterus or from human pregnancies and are created specifically for the purpose of research.
What's probably surprising is that I believe the religious sect are right for showing concern towards growing human farms, but their argument using the Bible is weak (What Happened to Separation of Church and State.) Can't we all just agree fetuses, babies--whatever you want to call them--should not be grown to benefit others. There's no need to involve religion. But regardless, just because the government is scared this will be the outcome of the legalization of stem cell research does not justify slowing research and progress. To me, it seems more practical to legalize stem cell research and closely examine the scientists. It's not like these people are incapable of following rules. They are what I would assume to be people of integrity, intelligence, and extreme care considering how many people and organizations have fought to legalize the science. Does the government really think scientists would handle the unrestricted legalization with a disregarding mind and jeopardize the entire fields public image? If so, that's pretty sad.
Berger, Eleni "Research Avenue Adds Fuel to Stem Sell Controversy." 18 July 2001. CNN.com. CNN. 25 Oct 2004
I'm Spiritual NOT Religious
Even though I went to a private school until 9th grade, at home it was expected that I tolerated other viewpoints. In discussions, we had to acknowledge the other side of arguments, and learned that we could not enforce and/or shove our beliefs down anyone else's throat; I wish our current president felt the same.
Because of the pressure received from the Republican Party, in 2001 President Bush announced that "he would support limited federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research." This made furthering stem cell research much more difficult, because stem cells could only be extracted from the “already destroyed embryos” (Lockyer); destroyed embryos are embryos that would never be able to grow into fully functioning humans. I don't understand religous snobbery. Stem cell research has the potential to revolutionize the medical field, opening countless doors to other cures for diseases like AIDS and HIV, yet the majority of research has been severely slowed because of religous beliefs.
What Happened to Separation of Church and State?
Granted one's religous beliefs do effect their values, why should that specific belief effect everyones? It's not right. We should give people information and allow them, trust them, to make up their own minds. I guess I'm one of the few who still believe in freedom of choice.
I personally find the video below very difficult and uncomfortable to watch. It is an example of how federal laws are effecting legislatures around the country. What's even more disturbing though is that his condition could be cured. Here's a great example of how one powerful individual in DC is hurting people 3,000 miles away from himself.
Because of the pressure received from the Republican Party, in 2001 President Bush announced that "he would support limited federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research." This made furthering stem cell research much more difficult, because stem cells could only be extracted from the “already destroyed embryos” (Lockyer); destroyed embryos are embryos that would never be able to grow into fully functioning humans. I don't understand religous snobbery. Stem cell research has the potential to revolutionize the medical field, opening countless doors to other cures for diseases like AIDS and HIV, yet the majority of research has been severely slowed because of religous beliefs.
What Happened to Separation of Church and State?
Granted one's religous beliefs do effect their values, why should that specific belief effect everyones? It's not right. We should give people information and allow them, trust them, to make up their own minds. I guess I'm one of the few who still believe in freedom of choice.
I personally find the video below very difficult and uncomfortable to watch. It is an example of how federal laws are effecting legislatures around the country. What's even more disturbing though is that his condition could be cured. Here's a great example of how one powerful individual in DC is hurting people 3,000 miles away from himself.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Hello
Hello, my name is Jerome Alexander. I'm a Senior at Chapman University double majoring in Public Relations and Advertising and Dance. (Yes, I know it's an interesting combination.) After college, I plan on moving to LA in pursuit of "making it big"--as if success is a destination--and making alot of money doing what I enjoy.
However unfortuntately, as fascinating as it would be--at least for me--to blog about my adventures in auditions and working in Los Angeles as a dancer,my blogs will pertain entirely to the furtherance of stem cell research. I will address why it is so very crucial to not only the medical community, but also our national economy, us as homosapians, and maybe even animals; I will try to make it somewhat interesting. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)