Stem Cell Therapy Causes Tumors 327
SpaceAdmiral writes, "Using human embryonic stem cells, researchers have cured a Parkinson's-like disease in rats. Unfortunately, the Parkinson's cure causes brain tumors." From the first article: "...10 weeks into the trial, [University of Rochester researchers] discovered brain tumours had begun to grow in every animal treated... By definition, human embryonic stem cells have the almost mythical, immortal power to grow and divide indefinitely as they become the various tissues that make up the body. As a result, scientists have always known that any stem cell therapy could result in an uncontrolled growth of cells that could give rise to cancer."
Tumors? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Tumors? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This experiment proves that stem cells can be used to cure disease, but it also demonstrates that we lack the control required to put them into use. The real trick here isn't convincing stem cells to become X other cell, it's convincing them to _stop_ doing their thing at the correct time. Otherwise cancer is the inevitable outcome.
Re:Tumors? (Score:5, Informative)
What this experiment ALSO shows is the difficulty in using EMBRYONIC stem cells in that they often (and EVERY instance in this experiment) lead to uncontrolled growth (read CANCER).
Bullshit. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Interesting)
The only proven effective Type-1 diabetes cure, in mice was based on adult-stems cells -- just like what several other posters have been saying. This article [harvard.edu] refers to lab results where they reversed Type in mice, using ADULT not EMBRYONIC stems cells. This is not Christian pro-life lobby rantings.
You are right in saying it is not a Type I cure for humans (yet), but it is certainly promising.
BTW, No Type II cures based on stem cells have published to my knowledge.
In many ways, I could care less about adult vs. embryonic cell research in the U.S. (there are other countries you know). But as a U.S. Taxpayer, I would prefer not to have my tax dollars wasted on research that has to date proved useless when there is similar alternative that has been proved quite fruitful to date. Gov. Arnie bought the b.s. re: embryonic stem cells -- I would bet that California taxpayers see nothing useful coming out of it when the money is all spent.
Re: (Score:2)
I should have mentioned that there is supposed to be a clinical trial starting in Florida based on cord blood. This also reflects the current successes in stem cell research.
Yeah, embryonic stem cells research may pay out some day, but most certainly not yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stem cells are indeed a promising treatment for a variety of auto-immune and other genetic disorders, but all the gp poster did was point out that this research demonstrates an issue with the use of embyonic stem cells that hasn't been solved and state his preference for the use of adult stem cells.
I don't have any moral problem with destroying undifferentiated lumps of cells, but I understand why other people do, and calling them idi
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't people been working with stemcells successfully?
Is this one clinical trial that just exploded because of some level of carelessness?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are a number of ROUTINE ADULT stem cell therapies in use today. From treating multiple blood disorders (leukemia, for example).
From everything I've read, adult stem cells are less likely to result in uncontrolled growth. Far less. Their effectiveness in neurological disorders is on par with embryonic stem cells, far less risk of rejection (once the cells differentiate) and far less chance of the unc
Re:Tumors? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes I am- but it's a bit of a failure for other reasons. The real safety concern in using adult stem cells is implant compatibility- embryonic stem cells have a tendency to keep their mitochondrial information even when the nucleus is destroyed, thus causing rejection of the tissue created.
There are a number of ROUTINE ADULT stem cell therapies in use today. From treating multiple blood disorders (leukemia, for example).
Absolutely agreed- but they all contain this particular danger; you can *cause* leukemia with the exact same therapy as the treatment if you're not careful.
From everything I've read, adult stem cells are less likely to result in uncontrolled growth. Far less.
I think that may depend upon your definition of uncontrolled- like I said, many cancers are *caused* by adult stem cells having uncontrolled growth. I think what you mean is that Adult Stem Cells are less omnipotentary- they can create fewer types of tissue, so you're far more likely to create the tissue you want instead of the tissue you don't. This alone means a much lower chance of *malignant* cancer- but without the *benign* cancer, you wouldn't have any tissue to implant to begin with.
Their effectiveness in neurological disorders is on par with embryonic stem cells, far less risk of rejection (once the cells differentiate) and far less chance of the uncontrolled growth of embryonic stem cells.
I think what you're missing here is different types of uncontrolled growth. The one the article is talking about is the difficulty of stopping the accellerated growth once started (even an adult stem cell therapy won't do you any good if it takes a human lifetime to grow an organ for replacement). That affects all forms of stem cells equally. The one you're talking about is *additional differerntiation* which is a different type of tumor. The adult stem cells are much less likely to grow something you don't want.
Re:Tumors? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole key to the use of stem cells (adult, embryonic, or cord blood) is that you need to get the cells to divide and grow into the tissue you want. Without the cell division, without the accelerated growth, the stem cell implantation won't do anything at all for
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not normally a grammar nazi, but that sentence was so borked that I cannot understand it. Well, with sufficient work, I might be able to puzzle out what you meant. But I'm tired and it is not worth that much work. The amount of work required would almost certainly be more than that required to post a re
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am honestly speaking from ignorance here so please correct me if I'm wrong. I always thought geometri
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oh the humanity!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tumors? (Score:5, Informative)
Yep- that's the primary area of stem cell research today. How to get them to start, how to get them to stop, how to control what they turn into. And it's not one solution; different target tissues with different starting stem cells seem to require different growth and stopping solutions. And even then, the research is young- we can't be 100% sure.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tumors? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tumors? (Score:4, Interesting)
such research is funded at the federal level.
Speaking as a European, I can safely say, so what?
Re:Tumors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking as an American, "embryonic" stem cell research is one of those polarizing issues (like abortion) which at worst is ripping apart our nation and at best is keeping our representatives from cooperating with each other on the MUNDANE tasks of government because they are so busy stroking their respective constituencies passion with such hot-button issues
Okay. My point was, the rest of the world is zipping merrily ahead while the US sits and debates politics and/or religion, and turns good science i
Re:Tumors? (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Mr. Meanie Guy,
Do be so mean. We can kill you.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay. My point was, the rest of the world is zipping merrily ahead while the US sits and debates politics and/or religion, and turns good science into another chess piece. Better sort it out quick or you'll be left too far behind to catch up!
Except California, you mean? So Caltech and Berkeley are still doing fine.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you and many others here are missing the point.
First of all, there is no law against embryonic stem cell research in the US. All the current Prez did was fund research for existing stem cell lines from embryos and other sources (adult and chord blood stem cells
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're assuming that there's something there to begin with... Embryonic stem-cell research could well be a dead-end, resulting in no viable treatments.
It's also strange that you categorize it as if it is a race... Europeans aren't going to find some magical cure and keep it to themselves. If European scientists develop something before the US, good for them. It would be a nice change.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't dispute this.
By all means, try and prove me wrong (with facts, not anecdotes nor opinion).
I already said I'd leave it to the Europeans to provide counter-examples.
I wasn't objecting to a statement which claimed the U.S. produces *more* results (as it should, with the world's leading economy), I object to the implication that the Europeans *never* produce any scientific results (your quote: "...for a change"), and especially the way you have to confirm eve
Are there really? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, with equal certainty, such experts are *not* qualified to make final decisions on these questions. They represent no-one, were elected by no-one, and are accountable to no-one outside their medical specialty.
Whatever you may think of politicians - and believe me, I probably share most of your views - they are nevertheless the only people in a position to make legi
Re:Tumors? (Score:4, Insightful)
NO. That's your vocabulary. My sperm is human life, and I kill millions every day; other 'human life' includes my hair and fingernails. We (the 'you' in your sentence) say embryos (nice Quayle spelling of that word BTW) are not Human Beings. Big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Baggage? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to defining when life begins, I think some people are uncomfortable playing with the building blocks of life like so many tinker toys - designer children, genetic improvements for the rich, eliminating the biological need for traditional families, etc. You can disagree, but you have to admit there are huge ramifications for (global) society. Birth control itself has had huge ramifications, from the em
Re: (Score:2)
There have been lots of false starts in any field of medicine. Don't forget, Pasteur saved the boy from rabies only by taking an enormous ethical risk. Marie Curie died from radiation poisoning.
If adult stem cells can be used, that's fine. If stem cells from embryos have to be used, that's fine with me, too.
It did cure the p
Re:Tumors? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you meant Edward Jenner and smallpox, not Pasteur and rabies. True, Pasteur did give a rabies-vaccine to a boy and did so at some risk to himself (he wasn't a licensed physician), but the boy would have died if he had done nothing. You can't really say that what he did was unethical, he didn't really have a choice!
Edward Jenner however gave a 9-year old boy cowpox, which made him sick for 48 days. After that, he injected him with the smallpox virus, "just to see if it would work". This is hugely unethical, but it did eventually lead to the eradication of one of the worst diseases ever to plauge humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Ideology trumping science and hurting people (Score:2)
Cord Blood Hype (Score:4, Interesting)
I was really shocked when the pitch was given to me and you literally have 30 minutes to decide if you want to store this once in a lifetime thing "for your childs health". "Don't you want what's best for your child?"
By not paying the $2500 and $250 yearly fee, they make you feel like a bad parent and you've signed the death warrant for your kid that isn't even 24 hours old.
You can be aware of cord blood before you're a parent but there is a switch inside of you that flips the moment you see a progeny that contains part of your code using it's own life support system. That vulnerability is preyed upon by the cord blood companies, hospital staffed photographers, and hospital doctors because "The hospital doctors are better equipped and knowledgable than your own pediatrician." My guess is that they use that pitch to prey on people who haven't picked out a pediatrician prior to delivery.
I can understand people that have a genetic pre-disposition for bad health would want this but I question the validity of the methods of storage, insurance regarding it, possiblilty of `visits` to make sure they still have it, and that the cord blood stored is in fact yours.
We know for a fact that there are cases where stored sperm did not belong to the donors but to the doctor or the technician responsible of storing it. Obvisouly, there have been cases where labeling was an issue. This would be disastrous in a cord blood case if it were a labeling issue.
Another scam (not calling cord blood a scam, I just don't approve of their sales tactics and I question their validity) is Stride Rite shoes. They want to have your kids in shoes before they learn to walk because "you don't want to have your kids feets deformed, do you?" It's funny that they have their own `certification` for Fitting Specialists, like Microsoft has their own certification for System Engineers. I have seen parents with crawling babies wearing Stride-Rite shoes and I know a former 'Fit Specialist' so I know that their tactics work.
Re:Tumors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I like seeing how people got so upset about this article. It's a goddamn rat fetus.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's why it didn't work. And, if it would work, why couldn't they just use rat fetus cells in a human?
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't you consider it unethical to spend limited public resources on research which has displayed far less promise than, say ADULT stem cell research? Maybe not "unethical", but certainly unsound fiscal policy...
Not that the current administration isn't currently spending like a drunken sailor...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's really an unsound fiscal policy then one would not expect it to be so popular outside the US where it isn't banned from public funding. Hmm...
=Smidge=
Related Links (Score:4, Funny)
What are you trying to sell me today,
Re:Related Links (Score:5, Funny)
>> What, are you trying to sell me today,
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
OH SWEET ROBOT JEBUS, what ARE these things?!
Re: (Score:2)
Oblig Futurama quote (Score:2)
Shady Guy: Psst. You want to buy organ? Fresh and cheap, ready for transplant.
Fry: [points to the eyeball] Ooh, what's this?
Shady Guy: S' X-Ray eye. See through anything.
Fry: Wait a minute, this says "Z-ray!"
Shady Guy: "Z" is just as good! In fact, it's better, it's two more than "X."
Fry: Hmmm, I can see where that can be an advantage. Do you take cash?
Calm down.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the same thing, in reverse. It's an interesting, frustrating animal result in a pretty good journal, not a crashing doom for stem cell research.
A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been (Score:2, Funny)
Because by the second day of incubation any cells that have undergone reversion mutation give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship, then the ship sinks.
It's tough... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
On a totally unrelated note, i'm LOVING the spell checking in firefox 2
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's tough... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not scientist, and certainly not a religious fellow. Just a curious citizen of earth who's seen his fair share of cancer victims. The results of th
Re: (Score:2)
pointy haired boss' take (Score:2, Funny)
Glass half-empty reading (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a partial success. The therapy did what it was supposed to do - it cured the Parkinson's Disease. It's just that the side effects are worse than the disease at this point. But that's a whole lot better news than it not working at all.
Everybody with even a modest understanding of how scientific research goes knows that the road from interesting phenomena to practical application is usually a long and complex one, and that the claims of instant cures for everything from heart attack to spinal cord injuries were exaggerated for the purposes of winning political debate. But when a trial has a partial success, in my view that is further encouragement to continue research.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though... It doesn't necessarily follow that the cure (especially a cure that is still in its infancy - 'scuse the joke) is better than the disease, and the idea is to do the research now so that we can use the stem cells to cure terrible illnesses (and repair missing limbs and all the rest of it) without the side effect of the stem cells going out of control.
Of course medicine has side effects. Many of the drugs given to a person on chemo and radio therapy are to keep them alive while the actual cure goes ahead and kills their cancer. As yet we are still learning how to control the stem cells, and they are doing what cells do when uncontrolled: making more of themselves and living life to the full. We'll get better at controlling them if we research them. That's why it's called stem cell research...
Now harvesting human fetal midbrain tissues is OK? (Score:2, Insightful)
From the article: Goldman and his team took human fetal midbrain tissues, in which dopamine cells are made, and extracted glial cells, whose normal role is to support and maintain the growth of neurons. They then cultured stem cells in this glia-rich environment.
I'm sure they have an professional ethecist on board who told them all is well, but I'd say this goes a wee bit beyond the use of stem cells harvested from blastocysts. Where exactly did they obtain "human fetal midbrain tissues"?
I cringe in
Re:Now harvesting human fetal midbrain tissues is (Score:5, Insightful)
Well now... IANASTR, but I'll go out on a limb and say "from the midbrains of human fetuses", with a pretty high level of confidence in my answer.
I cringe in disgust at how far this slippery slope is progressing...
What slippery slope? We have a significant portion of the population that deliberately aborts unwanted pregnancies. If someday we benefit from the use of their medical waste to cure Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or even just slow down plain ol' ageing - Good for me, good for you, good for everyone!
This doesn't require any sort of moral relativism to accept. It can provide nearly miraculous benefits for no (extra) cost. Sounds like a win/win, even if you take the FUD spewed by its worst opponents (tempered by a small dose of reality).
The fact that it causes tumors I consider an exceedingly inconvenient (if somewhat predictable) complication, but one we can hopefully overcome with continued research.
As an aside, I also fully encourage continued research into adult stem cells... Though not for any squeamish "oooh, no dead babies" line of BS. Nope - Simply for the far more pragmaic reason that tissue rejection doesn't present a problem after the cure itself takes effect.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, embryonic stem cells aren't taken from unwanted pregnancies at all - they're taken from frozen embryos (fertility clinic waste) that have never been implanted.
Re:Now harvesting human fetal midbrain tissues is (Score:5, Insightful)
The ethical problem is that, if the raw material is "medical waste" and the results are successful, how long will it take before the demand out-strips the supply and people start looking for ways intentional generate the raw material? I'm already concerned about the outsourcing of pharmaceutical testing to thrid world countries - whether the test subjects are actually giving informed consent. Are we going to find out in ten or twenty years that these new wonder drugs are being produced by intentionally impregnating women and then harvesting their fetuses?
Before you respond that I'm being ridiculous, do a little research into the blood diamonds mined in Africa or children forced into the sex industry in southeast Asia. People will be "farmed" if there is a market for it, and it cna be hidden behind enough shell corporations that the big biotech firms have plausible deniability.
Re: (Score:2)
There are tricky ethical issues that have to be addressed and science operates, or should operate, within a code of ethics.
Not really. Why not just culture them in a petri dish? Cells taken from ethically acceptable sources, of course. Given the right conditions, you could do it on an industrial scale, surely?
Re: (Score:2)
Come off it, it's not as if you need a large feedstock, just the occasional infusion to
replace "worn out" lines. Of course you need some ethics, but existing sources acceptable
to many/most (but anti-FSM hardliners) should suffice.
Re: (Score:2)
or wait was that hunting deer....
Re: (Score:2)
Bad programming. (Score:5, Funny)
So when you debug one thing, something else brakes.
God was a terrible programmer. But I guess that's what you get with a tight 7 day timeframe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
God was a terrible programmer. But I guess that's what you get with a tight 7 day timeframe.
If God were clever, he would have divided the night and day last. Then he would have had all the time in the world to finish.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So when you debug one thing, something else brakes.
So true... I often see that my code has come to a screeching halt.
Actually, He's the greatest Hacker ever (Score:3, Interesting)
I dunno about you, but I'm thoroughly impressed. _You_ try programming a human in 750 MB, and then you can criticize. I'm talking not only the brain (which is a feat by itself), but also the whole organism there, including immune system, self-healing, metabolism, etc.
I don't even know if it's unstructured. What
Re: (Score:2)
Why not use the rats stem cells? (Score:2)
Stem cells and cancer (Score:5, Informative)
A repressor protein... (Score:2)
Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication, so that the newly formed DNA strand carries a mutation and you're got a virus again...
Obligatory post (Score:2)
I learned this in 1982 (Score:3, Funny)
Did't these scientists pay attention when they were kids?
Tyrell: The facts of life. To make an alteration in the evolvment of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
Roy: Why not?
Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutations give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship. Then the ship sinks.
Roy: What about EMS recombination.
Tyrell: We've already tried it. Ethyl methane sulfonate as an alkylating agent a potent mutagen It created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before he left the table.
Roy: Then a repressive protein that blocks the operating cells.
Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication so that the newly formed DNA strand carries the mutation and you've got a virus again. But, uh, this-- all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.
It's Called Research (Score:5, Insightful)
in 3... 2... (Score:2, Funny)
"Take this object, but beware, it carries a terrible curse"
"Ooo, that's bad"
"But it comes with a free frogurt!"
"That's good"
"The frogurt is also cursed"
"That's bad"
"But you get your choice of toppings!"
"That's good"
"The toppings contain potassium benzoate..."
Cells, division, and fiction (Score:2)
Well anyways I thought cells could only divide so many times over the course of a person's life time. So, from the day you are born your cells are dividing as you grow and age, but eventually your cells stop dividing and you body starts to decay.
Could someone please tell me if this was just fiction? I
Re: (Score:2)
misleading (Score:2)
Secondly, these researchers went through great lengths to make these cells grow, without understanding exactly what they were doing. And they found afterwards that their method went a little overboard, or perhaps that they were using a bad stem cell line.
Of course, it would be nice if this particular method had worked, but it's not a "setback" in the sense of calling into question the value or safety of stem cells in general.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A benign growth in the brain can be a serious problem. But benign growths in most other places are, for the most part, benign given modern surgical techniques.
A tumor just plain sucks.
This is early research. A therapy that causes benign tumors is much more easily fixable than one that causes cancer. In particular, there is probably no DNA damage involved here.
In fact, this effect actually may turn out to be very useful for ma
Stupid Michael J Fox! (Score:2)
The first step on a LONG road (Score:2)
Standardized human embryonic (or adult) stem cell therapies for Parkinson's disease are a long way away. Not months, or even years, but I'd bet at least a decade and a half. Why? Because of exactly the issues shown in this article.
In order to have a successful therapy you have to have the following:
1. A disorder sufficiently well-understood that you can identify the missing cells. Parkinson's is sort of in this class, although the rat model is a pseudo-Parkinsonian condition caused by chemical poisoning
This whole debate is based on half-truths. (Score:3, Interesting)
Stem Cells are "un-programmed" cells which can become any kind of cell in an organism. They are full of possibility! --As the organism grows, cells branch away (from the stem) to differentiate into eyeball cells, fingernail cells, knee cap or elbow cells. The medical community is excited about them, because you can use stem cells with their vast potential to regrow damaged organs. How wonderful!
The 'Big Problem', as it has been sold by the media and medical P.R. firms works like this. .
You can only get stem cells from babies or fetuses, where they still exist and have not yet differentiated. Why? Because, we are told, a cell once it has branched off to become an eyeball or an elbow, once it has differentiated, cannot de-differentiate. It's stuck as an eyeball or an elbow cell. Thus doctors and researchers must go to the source. Babies.
Horrors! What an effective way to keep people divided and in a constant state of uproar.
The only trouble is that it's a lie. Eyeball and elbow cells can de-differentiate. You can recreate stem cells.
--Observe the humble salamander which can regrow whole limbs if they are cut off. New cells split from existing ones and are able to grow into new elbows, arms and fingers. How do they do this? There isn't a storehouse of stem cells hiding somewhere in the salamander waiting to be used in an emergency. Nope. What happens is that when the salamander is injured, at the site of the injury the cells regress into a fibroblastic state, and then emerge as stem cells which then proceed to form the new parts required to re-grow the entire limb. Elbow cells, arm and finger cells. No dead babies required. Cool.
Interestingly, it is also observed in salamanders that when you attach electrodes to the creature's nose and tail, a charge can be measured. Apparently the nose is negative and the tail positive. Okay. And when you injure the creature by cutting off one of its legs, that charge reverses for a period of time until the healing process is well underway.
Um. Okay. That's kind of weird.
At the site of the injury itself, the DC electric potentials also do other strange things, and the cells exhibit behaviors directly related to those changes. Curiouser and curiouser.
And guess what? Humans exhibit similar DC electric traits. The currents are extremely small, but they are there. They are not the same as those in salamanders, but then human cells also behave differently. We can't re-grow limbs, for one thing. But at the site of an injury, our cells also go into a fibroblastic state. Cells stop being elblo and toenail cells and become fibroblastic cells which form into scar tissue.
But what happens when you apply DC currents from an external source? Well, it's odd, but the cells react. Human cancer cells, for instance, start to grow much, much faster. Hm. What else can happen? Well, lots of things, apparently. The human body, and in fact, all living tissues in all creatures, react in a variety of ways to micro-electric currents.
Chinese accupuncture, for instance, is almost certainly based on this. --A metal needle is inserted into a key point on the body, it is set to rotating, (cutting through the Earth's magnetic field, thus creating a small current), and the body reacts in some manner. Place the needles correctly and a variety of different healing effects can be obtained by accupuncture doctors.
Cool. What else can be achieved?
Well, human cells in a fibroblast state can be made to de-differentiate. They can be turned into stem cells. Hold on. Say what? That's not supposed to be able to happen! We're supposed to be in an uproar over dead babies. We're supposed to be distracted through a permanent state of in-fighting amongst ourselves so that we don't have the energy to ever be free of the control systems holding us fixed into place.
Has anybody mentioned this to the medical
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, Embryonic Stem Cells == Baby-killing.
Left, The right want cancer patients to DIE to prove a point.
Welcome to politics in the 21st century. They both put things in the most extreme way possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, and it raises an important question - why are these political parties the only ones we are paying attention to?
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of pathetic, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Combine that with the joys of Blogs and the current news services and you have our current situation.
Extreme pays in headlines. Take a look at Slashdot sometime. You will fine the faithful that feel that anything the republican party opposes must be good. Of course you will find the exact opposite as well. Almost nobody wants to try and see the othersides point of view anym
Re: (Score:2)
Re:According to Alex P. Keaton (Score:5, Insightful)
Vote Republican... because Democrats want to give you cancer.
Vote Libertarian... because the government shouldn't be deciding for you if you want cancer or Parkinson's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)