Researchers have developed promising therapies, but it will be years before they reach patients.
By Rebecca Ruiz, Forbes.com
President Obama fulfilled a campaign promise Monday when he reversed a ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The ban had been in place since August 2001, when President Bush signed an executive order restricting funding of such research to several dozen pre-existing cell lines.
Many of those lines were later found to be unsuitable for high-level research by scientists who said they were not developed in controlled conditions and had been contaminated. While the funding reversal will serve as a catalyst for new research, it will be years before the majority of patients will benefit from new and recent breakthroughs.
Only one embryonic stem cell therapy!a possible cure for spinal cord injuries developed by Geron, a Menlo Park, Calif., biotech company!has received the necessary approval from the Food and Drug Administration to begin clinical trials.
In Pictures: Promising Stem Cell Research
Other potential therapies!including ones for blindness, diabetes and Parkinson's!have yet to undergo safety testing and, in some cases, continued rigorous scientific examination. That process will likely take several years, and it will be at least four months before the National Institutes of Health drafts regulatory guidelines for using federal funding to conduct new research. Even with those considerations, experts in the field are heralding Obama's move as a turning point in domestic stem cell research.
"It is really a new era for stem cell biology," says Renee Reijo Pera, Ph.D., director of the Center for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Education at Stanford University. "[It] has immediately changed the landscape and mentality ´ and there is a sense that this is legitimate science."
Embryonic stem cells' promise
Though researchers have successfully used non-embryonic stem cells in important discoveries, many cite the unique ability of embryonic stem cells to transform into any type of tissue or cell in the body. They are also more abundant than adult stem cells, which come from several different parts of the body.
Dr. Reijo Pera says research with embryonic cells has yielded potential therapies for blindness, spinal cord injuries, heart attacks and diabetes.
In patients with diabetes, for example, transplanting insulin-producing beta cells can be done with adult stem cells. But this requires 40 pancreases to harvest enough cells for one diabetic patient. In contrast, says Reijo Pera, using embryonic stem cells for the same procedure produces "bucket loads of the cells, and you don't need a cadaver."
Story Landis, Ph.D., chair of the National Institutes of Health Stem Cell Task Force, cites the development of a technique for deriving dopamine neurons as another important advancement. This breakthrough is critical for Parkinson's patients, since the disease robs the brain of the dopamine neurons necessary to control movement and function. The method is considered one of medicine's best answers to Parkinson's because it focuses on regenerating destroyed and damaged neurons.
In the private sector, some of the most promising discoveries have been made by Geron. In addition to its spinal cord program, the company is also working to develop a method to create insulin-secreting islet cells, which control blood sugar. Such cells are killed by diabetes. The company hopes to submit an application to the FDA to conduct clinical trials using its therapy.
Geron has spent $200 million on its stem cell program, including $45 million on spinal cord research. By comparison, the National Institutes of Health has allocated $240 million for embryonic stem cell research and $928 million for non-embryonic research since 2005.
Where the federal government could not fund more advanced research on embryonic stem cells, universities and private donors have made up the difference. At Stanford, one of many universities working on new discoveries, donors have contributed nearly $130 million to build a new research facility; one anonymous donor has given millions each year to support research there.
California, which created a stem cell institute with $3 billion in funding for research in 2004, has also been at the forefront of supporting scientific work.
Dr. Reijo Pera says this type of private investment and state funding has allowed researchers not only to make significant scientific advancements despite the ban, but also create new, higher-quality embryonic stem cell lines. She estimates that between 400 and 500 such lines now exist in the U.S., but Dr. Landis at the NIH says a comprehensive registry to verify that estimate has not yet been established.
What comes next
If the ban reversal is accompanied by substantial funding, it may speed what can be a very lengthy process of bringing lab breakthroughs to clinical trials and then to the market.
Les E. Silberstein, M.D., who oversees translational research at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, says that settling the practical issues, like establishing embryonic stem cell banks to ensure compatibility between cells and human recipients, could take as long as five years. It will also take time!and more federal funding!to build the infrastructure needed to support clinical trials and manufacturing of successful therapies.
And then there are ethical and safety issues. President Obama is leaving Congress to decide whether federal funding should be used to experiment on embryos, which has been banned since 1996. Until President Bush issued his executive order in 2001, the restrictions prevented embryonic stem cell research because the extraction of stem cells destroys an embryo. Congress will have to act on the controversial issue if it begins to hinder embryonic stem cell research.
Scientists also have yet to perfect the implantation of cells and tissues derived from embryonic stem cells. The problem, says Dr. Reijo Pera, is that cells derived from embryonic stem cells have the potential to transform into another type of cell!even a malignant one.
"That's the big elephant in the room," she says, noting that it will probably take five years to resolve this question and get the most acutely affected patients into clinical trials.
But Dr. Reijo Pera remains optimistic about the ability of scientific research and market forces to bring new therapies to consumers.
"The system we have is not duplicated anywhere," she says. "Where else do they give someone who is green as can be $1 million and say, 'See what you can do?'"
- posted on 03/10/2009
Chairman Obamao's life of the ban means what?
It means that he is imposing his own value judgment on some tax payers whose value judgment is different from his. Those people are against using their money (tax money) to do researches that are contrary to their conscience. They are put into a very uncomfortable position. They are working certain amount of time each work day to be forced by Chairman Obamao to financially support researches that they view as repulsing as killing innocent persons.
In that sense, Chairman Obamao is using his coercive power to hurt some residents' conscience in this country.
- Re: What The Stem Cell Ban Reversal Means For Youposted on 03/10/2009
That is why what seems so good on surface may actually be evil. - Re: What The Stem Cell Ban Reversal Means For Youposted on 03/10/2009
Why don't let persons decide by themselves whether to voluntarily fund any researches they see fit their conscience? Why force persons to pay tax and financially support those researches that are contrary to their conscience? - posted on 03/10/2009
Why don't you just move to your own dystopia where you will pay no tax but be left alone to fend for yourslef? What a classless ingrate when the people of this country took you in and yet you couldn't even bring yourself to refer to them as citizens! There is a simple solution for you pompous idiots, renounce the residential privilege given to you when you immigrated here.
st e-dou #167 wrote:
Chairman Obamao's life of the ban means what?
It means that he is imposing his own value judgment on some tax payers whose value judgment is different from his. Those people are against using their money (tax money) to do researches that are contrary to their conscience. They are put into a very uncomfortable position. They are working certain amount of time each work day to be forced by Chairman Obamao to financially support researches that they view as repulsing as killing innocent persons.
In that sense, Chairman Obamao is using his coercive power to hurt some residents' conscience in this country.
- Re: What The Stem Cell Ban Reversal Means For Youposted on 03/10/2009
Your turd for a brain just couldn't hold it in for one simple colossal dump but always squeezes out a tiny amount of wet fart at a time?
st e-dou #168 wrote:
Why don't let persons decide by themselves whether to voluntarily fund any researches they see fit their conscience? Why force persons to pay tax and financially support those researches that are contrary to their conscience? - Re: What The Stem Cell Ban Reversal Means For Youposted on 03/10/2009
I can see you are very angry. Why don't you do something to yourself to end your pain? I am not surprised that you are such an idiot.
Idiot, say something that show that you are not a socialist idiot.
Who granted me my citizenship, you or any other persons? Citizenship is just a convenience to me. To you, what is a citizenship? An obligation?
I do see your anger, socialist idiot.
;-)
tar wrote: - Re: What The Stem Cell Ban Reversal Means For Youposted on 03/10/2009
I am a nice person; but whenever I am in the right mood, I'll tear you apart. You are such a socialist idiot. ;-)
tar wrote: - Re: What The Stem Cell Ban Reversal Means For Youposted on 03/10/2009
st e-dou #168 wrote:
That is why what seems so good on surface may actually be evil.
What was so good on surface? - posted on 03/11/2009
Yeah? With what do you "tear" me apart? A second rate brain (is that a compliment?) who can only parrot indigested brain washing pamphlet material, the incoherent verbal diarrhea tumbling out your turd brain, you think you can take me on in a fight? Well, let's get it on then.
Like I said before, I will let you be if you confine yourself in your own little world. If you start to soil every thread with your diarrhea, then I will hit you senseless, turd!
Can't even write a simple sentence properly and you want to start a fight in English? How many years you lived here already and still can't muster a second grader's proficiency? Don't tell me you are writing English "poems" too. ;-)Why don't let persons...
st e-dou #170 wrote:
I am a nice person; but whenever I am in the right mood, I'll tear you apart. You are such a socialist idiot. ;-)
tar wrote: - posted on 03/11/2009
When you proclaimed that you'd never risk your precious little life in 6.4 but having no problem of enjoyed the fruits of others labor, I thought you were a pathetic little blowhard. Now having fooled the immigration officers to get your little passport, you are turning around and riling against the people of this country and laughing at their generosity, have I called you a pathetic ingrate already?
st e-dou #169 wrote:
I can see you are very angry. Why don't you do something to yourself to end your pain? I am not surprised that you are such an idiot.
Idiot, say something that show that you are not a socialist idiot.
Who granted me my citizenship, you or any other persons? Citizenship is just a convenience to me. To you, what is a citizenship? An obligation?
I do see your anger, socialist idiot.
;-)
tar wrote: - Re: What The Stem Cell Ban Reversal Means For Youposted on 03/11/2009
What Chairman Obamao has been forcing on residents in this country all seems so good on surface.
rzp wrote:
st e-dou #168 wrote:What was so good on surface?
That is why what seems so good on surface may actually be evil. - posted on 03/11/2009
I can sense that you seem so angry that you can hardly contain yourself.
I NEVER went to Beijing in 1989, not once. I was close to the protesters' cause, but I am not that close to that any more.
I AM ready to throw away my little blue passport into a fire whenever it is opportune to me. I now just use it to make my international travel easier.
That made you more angry? Please help yourself.
My English? Not only my written English is hopelessly beyond repairing, but also my spoken language has a strong Henan accent.
Does that make you feel better? Please help yourself.
I had always been cordial to you and had deferred to you. It was you who started this nasty quarrel. I already warned you: I would be relentless in my words since I had saw through you - an empty state-worshiping socialist. '-)
tar wrote: - Re: What The Stem Cell Ban Reversal Means For Youposted on 03/11/2009
You are kidding, right?
st e-dou #171 wrote:
What Chairman Obamao has been forcing on residents in this country all seems so good on surface.
rzp wrote:
st e-dou #168 wrote:What was so good on surface?
That is why what seems so good on surface may actually be evil. - posted on 03/11/2009
No, I'm serious.
(It is not joke. Chairman Obamao is ruining this country's residents except those privileged by the government.)
rzp wrote:
You are kidding, right?
st e-dou #171 wrote:
What Chairman Obamao has been forcing on residents in this country all seems so good on surface.
rzp wrote:
st e-dou #168 wrote:What was so good on surface?
That is why what seems so good on surface may actually be evil. - posted on 03/11/2009
What's the matter, a pretty shameful coward that you are but won't own up to your bragging on CND that you'd never put yourself in peril unlike the "stupid" students? You are what you are, a pathetic coward who only takes the advantage of others labor. Small wonder you watn to take all the benefits this country afforded you by letting you become a citizen but none of the obligations. My advice to you is never even hint of what you really think about America to the crowd you hang with, if there is one at all, or your fellow blowhards can TEAR you apart literally, which probably serves you right anyway.
And for your hatred of American citizenship, look at this way, if you renounce the American passport, you don't even need a visa to go back to China for all your "international" travels. A lot more easier for your kind.
st e-dou #172 wrote:
I can sense that you seem so angry that you can hardly contain yourself.
I NEVER went to Beijing in 1989, not once. I was close to the protesters' cause, but I am not that close to that any more.
I AM ready to throw away my little blue passport into a fire whenever it is opportune to me. I now just use it to make my international travel easier.
That made you more angry? Please help yourself.
My English? Not only my written English is hopelessly beyond repairing, but also my spoken language has a strong Henan accent.
Does that make you feel better? Please help yourself.
I had always been cordial to you and had deferred to you. It was you who started this nasty quarrel. I already warned you: I would be relentless in my words since I had saw through you - an empty state-worshiping socialist. '-)
tar wrote: - Re: What The Stem Cell Ban Reversal Means For Youposted on 03/11/2009
Please do not play your nasty green-card-stained-with-blood game on me because I never had any opportunity to "benefit" from that legislation. I owe nothing to the 1989 protesters. I am an independent person then and now.
That made you more angry? Please enjoy the rest of your day.
tar wrote: - posted on 03/11/2009
A Freudian slip? Maybe you still have a remnant of a conscience but working hard at washing it away? If you are not a born American citizen, then you owe people of this country the generosity of letting you become one. If nothing else, I will knock this little fact into your numbskull: this privilege is not free. If you don't want to renounce your passport, this "independent person" crap is just your hallucination.
st e-dou #174 wrote:
Please do not play your nasty green-card-stained-with-blood game on me because I never had any opportunity to "benefit" from that legislation. I owe nothing to the 1989 protesters. I am an independent person then and now.
That made you more angry? Please enjoy the rest of your day.
tar wrote: - posted on 03/11/2009
Then why is it good even on the surface? What we got from him is no surprise, he is doing what he said he would do, and what we expected he would bring.
st e-dou #173 wrote:
No, I'm serious.
(It is not joke. Chairman Obamao is ruining this country's residents except those privileged by the government.)
rzp wrote:
You are kidding, right?
st e-dou #171 wrote:
What Chairman Obamao has been forcing on residents in this country all seems so good on surface.
rzp wrote:
st e-dou #168 wrote:What was so good on surface?
That is why what seems so good on surface may actually be evil. - posted on 03/11/2009
What do YOU think? Do YOU think what he is doing as he said he would do is good or not? Do YOU think what YOU expected he would bring is good or not?
If your answer is "no", you don't need to argue with me because many others' answer is "yes" and I'm saying that the "good" is only on surface.
If your answer is "yes", then you are thinking that it is not only good on surface but also good in its content, and then feel free to argue with me.
rzp wrote:
Then why is it good even on the surface? What we got from him is no surprise, he is doing what he said he would do, and what we expected he would bring.
st e-dou #173 wrote:
No, I'm serious.
(It is not joke. Chairman Obamao is ruining this country's residents except those privileged by the government.)
rzp wrote:
You are kidding, right?
st e-dou #171 wrote:
What Chairman Obamao has been forcing on residents in this country all seems so good on surface.
rzp wrote:
st e-dou #168 wrote:What was so good on surface?
That is why what seems so good on surface may actually be evil. - posted on 03/11/2009
I "owe people of this country the generosity of letting you become one"?
Why should I? Who is "people of this country"? Does it have a belly-button (as I used to ask)? Are you talking about the immigration officers? Do I owe those officers anything? I don't think so at all.
I live on this earth. I work to make a living. I exchange part of what I own with others for what I need - a place to live in (a piece of land and a roof, etc.) It is based on voluntary exchange. No one is doing a favor to me. I do enjoy the abundance of accumulated capital in this country, but I don't need to feel debted to any individual person because the capital he accumulated was not necessarily out of his charity. In addition, I am also accumulating capital for latter generations out of my own self-interest.
I do owe something to unknown persons whose donation was used as fellowship money paid to me while I was in a university. I am paying that back to my university yearly.
What are you?
You are just an ignorant empty state-worshiping socialist shrouded with a musty coat of "refinement" such as your sickening empty English vocabularies.
I didn't see through you before. That is why I had always deferred to you out of consideration not to make any unwarranted offensive comments on you. Now that I see through you AND you repeatedly provoked me, I won't have any mercy on you - a sickening scum.
You consider yourself a anti-communist? You are nothing but a piece of scum. That is my current honest assessment on you based on what I read from your rotten posts.
I usually do not like to fight with such a scum as you like this. But you started it. Now please enjoy the crumbles falling from yourself - an ignorant empty state-worshiping socialist scum.
Oh, boy! I feel so good after I said those words. You enjoy the rest of your day.
I still have far better things to do. Those are my last words with you - scum. ;-)
tar wrote: - posted on 03/11/2009
I love rephrasing, thank you! No no, I do not wish to argue with you. I thought my entry point in the dialogue here is precisely the capital YOU here. I'd like to take it for granted that we have this in agreement.
What I (ME) think is just MY opinion, was also reflecting in my vote to pick the president. My NO to these two questions are among the contributing factors to my vote. However, I still think Obama as my president, as I convinced my daughter, who had been feeling like second-class student in school because her mom was not an Obama fan. I pray hard for all parts in the government work better together for our country that's hurting.
An argument based on good-bad judgment is weak in my opinion, for being good/bad is subjective. Those who are supporting for what you are opposing may feel equally strong on their judgment. I guess we can call it fair to play by the rule of the system, in which majority rules as to what gets passed in the Congress.
Thanks to maya / mayacafe, we are absolutely free to express OUR points, and OUR views, etc. If your mission is to be an advocate in cafe, and to change views of others, I wish you good luck.
st e-dou #175 wrote:
What do YOU think? Do YOU think what he is doing as he said he would do is good or not? Do YOU think what YOU expected he would bring is good or not?
If your answer is "no", you don't need to argue with me because many others' answer is "yes" and I'm saying that the "good" is only on surface.
If your answer is "yes", then you are thinking that it is not only good on surface but also good in its content, and then feel free to argue with me.
rzp wrote:
Then why is it good even on the surface? What we got from him is no surprise, he is doing what he said he would do, and what we expected he would bring.
st e-dou #173 wrote:
No, I'm serious.
(It is not joke. Chairman Obamao is ruining this country's residents except those privileged by the government.)
rzp wrote:
You are kidding, right?
st e-dou #171 wrote:
What Chairman Obamao has been forcing on residents in this country all seems so good on surface.
rzp wrote:
st e-dou #168 wrote:What was so good on surface?
That is why what seems so good on surface may actually be evil. - posted on 03/11/2009
I have no missions at all. I do not try to convince any either. I just speak.
Good-bad IS a value judgment. The problem is that what is bad for one person (unless he likes to suffer such suffering as the current economic crisis has brought to many) is often viewed very favorably by that same person. That is the current situation. Many persons do not know that Mr. Obama is actually hurting their economic interest (short-term or long-term or both) very badly while they are (mis)led to believe that Mr. Obama is doing a tremendous good to them. In that sense, they are totally blind. They are totally blind because they don't know how a lot of things run.
I repeat: I just speak, and I do not try to convince.
No matter who is the president, I am never loyal to him. I am only loyal to my own conscience. No one is my president.
rzp wrote:
I love rephrasing, thank you! No no, I do not wish to argue with you. I thought my point of entry in the dialogue here is precisely the capital YOU here. I'd like to take it for granted that we have this in agreement.
What I (ME) think is just MY opinion, was also reflecting in my vote to pick the president. My NO to these two questions are among the contributing factors to my vote. However, I still think Obama as my president, as I convinced my daughter, who had been feeling like second-class student in school because her mom was not an Obama fan. I pray hard for all parts in the government work better together for our country that's hurting.
An argument based on good-bad judgment is weak in my opinion, for being good/bad is subjective. Those who are supporting for what you are opposing may feel equally strong on their judgment. I guess we can call it fair to play by the rule of the system, in which majority rules as to what gets passed in the Congress.
Thanks to maya / mayacafe, we are absolutely free to express OUR points, and OUR views, etc. If your mission is to be an advocate in cafe, and to change views of others, I wish you good luck.
st e-dou #175 wrote:
What do YOU think? Do YOU think what he is doing as he said he would do is good or not? Do YOU think what YOU expected he would bring is good or not?
If your answer is "no", you don't need to argue with me because many others' answer is "yes" and I'm saying that the "good" is only on surface.
If your answer is "yes", then you are thinking that it is not only good on surface but also good in its content, and then feel free to argue with me.
rzp wrote:
Then why is it good even on the surface? What we got from him is no surprise, he is doing what he said he would do, and what we expected he would bring.
st e-dou #173 wrote:
No, I'm serious.
(It is not joke. Chairman Obamao is ruining this country's residents except those privileged by the government.)
rzp wrote:
You are kidding, right?
st e-dou #171 wrote:
What Chairman Obamao has been forcing on residents in this country all seems so good on surface.
rzp wrote:
st e-dou #168 wrote:What was so good on surface?
That is why what seems so good on surface may actually be evil. - posted on 03/11/2009
As for "majority rule", no matter what that really is, it is almost b***sh*t with gleaming veneers.
What is the current state of the "majority"? The current state is ignorance and being camels working for the few privileged by those in power.
That is where the recurrent economic crisis come from - the majority's ignorance. They are blind and deaf. In the mean time, they refuse to see and hear. They are content with being camels toiling for the bankers, politicians, etc.
I repeat: I only speak. - posted on 03/11/2009
What are those "bank bail-outs" about?
Those bankers (the big ones behind the scenes, not those CEO managers) use inflation gimmicks to steal money from the ignorant "majority" in "good" times. In bad time like this, their businesses' insolvency becomes obvious (the banks are actually always insolvent), and they are in the verge of closing their banks' doors forever, now they come to those in power again to ask for money. Whose money? Again, those working camels' money. Those working camels envy the CEO managers' pay, but they don't understand and do not want to understand how the system works and how their money was stolen both in "good" time and bad time.
They are blind and do not want to see.
That is the state of the "majority".
- Re: What The Stem Cell Ban Reversal Means For Youposted on 03/11/2009
happy speaking! and happy counting! :)
A "privileged banker" spoke today, the Obama Portfolio gained for the second day, as down the treasury, up the yen, up the pound and down the dallor, the old hymes are still chanting......
- Re: What The Stem Cell Ban Reversal Means For Youposted on 03/11/2009
Some blind camels say: I AM blind and I DON"T want to see. What you can do about me?
I say: I don't want to have anything to do with you in addition to my not willing to do anything about you. I just speak. ;-) - Re: What The Stem Cell Ban Reversal Means For Youposted on 03/11/2009
Camel 1 : so where is the change?
Camel 2 : don't you see the color, it is different.
Camel 1 : you think I am blind!?
Camel 2 : you are at least color blind.
(I feel like call myself rzp### now. I confess speaking does feel good.) - Re: What The Stem Cell Ban Reversal Means For Youposted on 03/11/2009
What can I say more?
It's a Brave New World.
;-) - posted on 03/11/2009
Acting like a schoolyard bully and cursing out a few obscene words (these are the only English words you learned to cuss and that's your idea of "relentless"?) make you throw a exhilarating fit and feel like victorious in your feeble Ah-Q mind, this is the freak show I like to whip you up and present to the cafe free of charge. You complained bitterly that I picked on you without provocation, guilty as charged. Over the years I watched your sanity deteriorated and your intelligence degenerated to a Ron Paul worshiping dittohead, yeah you are drafted into my circus moron legion I;'d like to showcase to the world. So get used to it. ;-)
And you keep challenging my English writing by making obscure references to my "vocabularies." (Vocabulary is a list of words a person employs in communicating; vocabularies are the two obscene words that send you into hysterical fits. ;-)) What exactly I wrote offended your sensibility, other than I was calling a spade spade, i.e you are an idiot? And what the hell is a "musty vocabularies" anyway? For someone who just admitted that his english writing is "beyond repair" and his spoken English a heavy Henan flavor (you always pick the most inappropriate things to brag don't you?), and you wanna challenge my writing, is there anybody who can still keep from falling off a chair for laughing too hard?
Now I will give you a free civic lesson you never learned before: becoming a citizen of any country incurs certain responsibilities including services, paying taxes, and in general give back to society that protects him with a stable and prosperous environment. A free loader like you should be sent back to where you came from and stripped off all the protections and services a civilized society provides, on the back of many OTHER citizens contribution, be their military services or their taxes to build this strong and free country. A classless ingrate like you who bit the feeding hand of the generous people should go to an island to provide your own protection and services, not freeloading on the rest of us who gladly making our own contributions. Like I said, you should go out and tell your sugar daddy Rush Limbough how you really feel about America. But of course you are too much a coward to stick your neck out, just like you said about 6.4, you are "close" to their cause but too "smart" to put yourself in harms way. And you wanna know why I started to pick on you? Because I hate idiots who are proud of their hypocrisies.
st e-dou #176 wrote:
I "owe people of this country the generosity of letting you become one"?
Why should I? Who is "people of this country"? Does it have a belly-button (as I used to ask)? Are you talking about the immigration officers? Do I owe those officers anything? I don't think so at all.
I live on this earth. I work to make a living. I exchange part of what I own with others for what I need - a place to live in (a piece of land and a roof, etc.) It is based on voluntary exchange. No one is doing a favor to me. I do enjoy the abundance of accumulated capital in this country, but I don't need to feel debted to any individual person because the capital he accumulated was not necessarily out of his charity. In addition, I am also accumulating capital for latter generations out of my own self-interest.
I do owe something to unknown persons whose donation was used as fellowship money paid to me while I was in a university. I am paying that back to my university yearly.
What are you?
You are just an ignorant empty state-worshiping socialist shrouded with a musty coat of "refinement" such as your sickening empty English vocabularies.
I didn't see through you before. That is why I had always deferred to you out of consideration not to make any unwarranted offensive comments on you. Now that I see through you AND you repeatedly provoked me, I won't have any mercy on you - a sickening scum.
You consider yourself a anti-communist? You are nothing but a piece of scum. That is my current honest assessment on you based on what I read from your rotten posts.
I usually do not like to fight with such a scum as you like this. But you started it. Now please enjoy the crumbles falling from yourself - an ignorant empty state-worshiping socialist scum.
Oh, boy! I feel so good after I said those words. You enjoy the rest of your day.
I still have far better things to do. Those are my last words with you - scum. ;-)
tar wrote: - Re: What The Stem Cell Ban Reversal Means For Youposted on 03/12/2009
I said "No one is my president."
I was wrong. I should have said:
I am my president; and no one else is.
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- July
- #1 st e-dou #167
- #2 st e-dou #168
- #3 st e-dou #168
- #4 tar
- #5 tar
- #6 st e-dou #169
- #7 st e-dou #170
- #8 rzp
- #9 tar
- #10 tar
- #11 st e-dou #171
- #12 st e-dou #172
- #13 rzp
- #14 st e-dou #173
- #15 tar
- #16 st e-dou #174
- #17 tar
- #18 rzp
- #19 st e-dou #175
- #20 st e-dou #176
- #21 rzp
- #22 st e-dou #179
- #23 st e-dou #180
- #24 st e-dou #181
- #25 rzp
- #26 st e-dou #182
- #27 rzp
- #28 st e-dou #183
- #29 tar
- #30 st e-dou #184
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation