I have had tendonitis for three years and Ive been following RICE for all that time. Rest it, Ice it, Compress it and Exercise it.
My wrist is getting to the point where guitar playing it becoming virtually impossible and it looks like I ll have to give up playing forever because my wrist just refuses to heal. Ive done everything concievably possible. Ive changed how I hold the guitar, how I fret etc. Everything about the way I hold the guitar screams perfect in the classical guitar sense. I hold the electric like I hold the classical guitars that I play. There is no wrist tension when I play.
The injury is actually a mixture of different things. Ive had nerves in my arm trapped at various points along my entire arm. This caused delayed signals to reach my fingers and also caused a hell of a lot of tension. Three years of physio and only now is the nerve becoming unstuck. The problem is, my neck and shoulders are now stiff and my wrist is hurting even more.
And on top of that I have tendonitis, and I have massive amounts of swelling around my carpel tunnel, although the test of carpel has come back negative 6 times in 3 years.
Cortisone injections havent worked. The only thing that keeps the pain and inflammation away is anti inflammatories. I dont want to be popping pills everyday. So Ive decided.
I have to end my guitar playing days until the time that I have no more chronic wrist pain and all my RSI goes away.
Three years, a battery of tests, the doctors, the physio nurses and my guitar teachers do not know what the exact problem is.
So... I ll have to keep resting it, keep on icing it, keep on compressing it, and keep on doing the wrist exercises that make me look rather retarded.
Is Stem Cell Research Morally Acceptable? UG's Mad
Current mood: geeky
Human embryonic stem cells are blank cells that are formed in the initial stages of development. These cells are usually found in a cluster of 70 – 100 cells known as the blastocyst. However, stem cells are also found in aborted foetuses, placental blood and umbilical cord blood. The importance of stem cells in medical research is one of the greatest discoveries of the 21st century and herald a new age of medical technology. Human embryonic stem cells have the ability to differentiate into any cell structure in the human body, which means debilitating diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis can be reversed (adult stem cells are not as versatile as embryonic stem cells). In fact, in New Scientist, an article was published recently that has shown that stem cells have reversed the effects of MS and stopped every patient in the clinic trial from going into remission. The fact of the matter is, there are no moral or ethical problems in regards to using human derived embryonic stem cells for medical research, which has the potential to save millions of lives, unless you are religious to the point of ignorance. There is no nice way of saying this. Religion impedes human technological advancements by breeding ignorance within its following. Why are religious groups (mainly Catholics and evangelicals) opposed to stem cell research? The answer is complex, however it stems from ignorance. Religion suffers from moral superiority complex. However, its absolute morals are misplaced and misguided to the extent that scientific advancement is hindered greatly. In The US, stem cell research was banned because of religious lobbyists. This caused research to be practically halted. Only old lines of stem cells were allowed to be used, and these usually yielded poor results. The moral issue for religion is that life starts at conception, and that by removing stem cells from the blastocyst, you are destroying a life. This is a fallacy because life does not start at conception. Life is an ongoing process that started 4 billion years ago. The issue is of senescence. For the senescence to be destroyed, the embryo must be self aware, and this cannot happen before the brain is fully developed, usually within the first 3 – 6 months, at which point, the embryo is actually a developing foetus and not an embryo. The distinction is clear in biology. An embryo is no more alive than the skin cells in your skin. A foetus is as much alive as you are. Individual cells do not function as a whole organism, and an embryo, or a blastocyst is not a fully functioning organism. These are blank slates that later through developmental stages differentiate into other cells to form the organism. However, there is a legal limit of 14 days for viability of an embryo, which means that after 14 days, the embryo is classed as living, even though it has no specific cell differentiation to class it as a living organism. A brain hasn’t even developed at this point and therefore is not self aware and therefore should not be classed as a senescent being.
Religious moral superiority claims that without religion there would be no morals in society. Without a moral code, it is true society would break down. However, according to eminent biologists such as Richard Dawkins et al, morals are derived from altruistic traits. Altruism is essential for the functioning of a society or a population of animals. Altruism has been observed in thousands of animal species and as such primitive moralistic behaviours are observed. Social and pack animals do not kill members of their own groups or tribe. This is because for a social system to work, members within a group need to work together. Killing members of your group is detrimental and therefore altruistic behaviours beneficial. Murder within the social group is deemed wrong and punished. However, murder between groups is observed in social animals simply because of competition. It’s ok to kill your enemy, but not your brethren. Parallels are observed in the human social structure too. The conclusion is therefore that morals are not absolute. They are relative. Put two groups of people on an island with enough food for only one group and then tell me murder is wrong. Pretty soon all hell will break loose and the dominant group will kill for survival. Altruism evolved because it is a beneficial survival trait for social and pack animals. Any moral act performed within a group or within a population has evolved because it is beneficial to the survival of the species and to the point that any moral action is beneficial to the survival of the members of the individual groups. The point is, religion did not spawn these morals, so for religious groups to take the moral high ground is rooted in ignorance and is in fact, immoral. Morals are an evolved trait, beneficial to the survival of the human race or to the survival of any social species. Now, the use of stem cells for medical research is a moral act purely because the act saves lives. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If a small amount of aborted foetuses are used for stem cell research and help save lives, isn’t this more moral than allowing people to suffer. You could be mistaken for thinking religion want people to suffer by lobbying for stem cell research to be outlawed. The fact is if stem cell research is saving lives, the religious fundamentalists need to shut their mouths and read some science because all they are doing is spewing dogmatic ignorance brought on by blind faith. In a case of blinding ignorance from the religious elite, we have the example of IVF. The Catholic Church spent years fighting IVF as an immoral act since children born from IVF would lack a soul. Science found that IVF children are no different to children conceived via natural sex. The Vaticant then had to apologise for this.
Due to religious fundamentalism and the ignorance as the effect of it, animal-human hybrid stem cells have been produced to try and combat religious moral objections to using fully human embryos. In the February edition of New Scientist, it has been found that human-animal hybrids are pretty much useless for stem cell research. Pretty much meaning completely and utterly of no use at all because the stem cells produced are low in quality and number and, subject to rejection. Full human embryonic stem cells are not prone to rejection because they can be made from the actual persons own cells, which the MS study mentioned earlier, did. Since the religious fundamentalists have a problem with stem cell research, Dr Lanza and his team (Nature 2006) found a way to preserves human embryos when stem cells are extracted. This is new advancement which brings me back to my earlier point. There are NO moral or ethical issues in regards to using human embryonic stem cells for medical research. The only objections on moral grounds are rooted in religious indoctrinated ignorance and dogmatic assertions that are logical fallacies. Even the use of aborted foetuses cannot be objected to on moral grounds purely because it is morally wrong for an aborted foetus to be discarded as medical waste rather than used for medical research. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. It may sound heartless but I would rather aborted foetuses stem cells be used for medical research than just being discarded as medical waste. At the end of the day it is an inescapable fact that abortions occur, so instead of discarding potential life saving cells, we should utilise them for medical research, which will save millions of lives. People need to stop humanising every aspect of modern life and look objectively at every situation, morally or otherwise. If stem cell research can save lives, and it has been shown to, we should pursue the research to the fullest extent of moral objectivity, and it should not be clouded by pointless religious dogmatic rhetoric or absolute religious morality. Religious morality is non-existent. Morals are an altruistic evolved trait in social species, and therefore, are subjective. Science and religion should be completely separate entities for one reason: Religion breeds ignorance where as science breeds knowledge. Where science helps to expand human knowledge, religious belief holds it back if you are fundamental enough about it. By replacing an unknown with a supernatural explanation, you are in adding another unknown that cannot be explained, therefore you are committing intellectual suicide. Science fills the unknowns with explanations based on evidence and therefore expands knowledge.
The greatest moral objectivity comes from knowledge, not from dogmatic religious assertions of absolutes. Why would I follow a god who has a place full of fire, burning, suffering and torture and torment where I will go for all eternity to suffer and burn, who at the same time... Loves me and hates to see me suffer? Religion is full of such contradictions. If you read the bible, god says thou shalt not kill, but he has no problems wiping out sinners, such as homosexuals etc. Yes, completely objective absolute morals right there!? An all loving god, who creates us in his own image, will torture and kill us if we sin. It makes no sense if you think about it. Remember, its the religious fundamentalists who believe this crap. It’s the religious fundamentalists who are ignorant and will do just about anything to stop scientific process because their imaginary friend said so. The most morally objective stance one can take on stem cell research is the following: Stem cell research has the potential to save millions of lives. If a few aborted foetuses have to be sacrificed, or a few blastocysts have to be sacrificed, then morally, the research must be pursued to end the suffering and potential suffering of human beings. It is morally unjust to withhold genuine medical research on religious grounds because what you are in effect doing is promoting suffering. Due to the fact that embryonic human stem cells are able to differentiate into any tissue, this gives them far greater medical applications than current adult stem cells, where the research is 30 years ahead of embryonic stem cell research.
End note: I use religious fundamentalists in this argument purely because fundamentalists are the ones attacking the scientific establishment. I have no problem with moderate Christians, and this blog was written with fundamentalists in mind, not your moderate run of the mill Christian. Although I disagree with your religious beliefs, I will never attack them if you are a moderate. If you are a fundamentalist, then this blog was written with the intent of instigating a debate, whilst in turn satirically mocking you. The views expressed here are extreme, purely because fundamentalists are extreme. Also, if you feel I haven’t attack the Jewish and Muslim faiths, this is because I have spoken to my Jewish and Muslim friends and have found that there is very limited opposition to stem cell research in this context when compared to the evangelical and Catholic fundamentalists.
I Love Abortions, Homosexuality, Murder and Incest
Yes.
As an sinning Athiest murdering, rapist scum bag that I am, I enjoy killing unborn feotuses, raping virgins and abusing young boys (Oh wait thats the catholics). I regularly parttake in un natural homosexual acts and I watch lots of porn.
I think that because there is no god, and that because I believe I am an animal I am allowed to do what ever I want. Rape, murder, incest, polygamy, stealing, these are ok to me as an atheist.
God is an asshole and I regularly enjoy sacraficing virgins and goats to my fuck buddy satan who I positively love. I want to fellate him on a daily basis.
---
Seriously get the fuck over yourselves you self righteous fundie christians. I can no longer stand the moral high ground with you people. Because I am atheist, I am somehow less of a human being?
I do not judge other people based on their lifestyles. Homosexuality is not a problem to me, and I do not single people out because of their lifestyle. I do not believe that these people are sinners. They are human beings too. You are just too close minded to see past the book you hold so dear.
As an athiest, I do not think I have a right to harm other people. I do not see murder, rape and incest as good things. I see them as wholly immoral but I do not need a religious text to tell me that. I live a good wholesome life without religion. I know right from wrong, and I was taught it not from a religious perspective but from a perspective of being a civil person. Being a hurtful person is detrimental to myself and others. I live life in a manner of what I would like to be done to me. I dont want to be hurt so I do not hurt other people.
Morals were around before religion. Religion I have no problem with. Its the close minded fundies that get to me.
Just because I do not believe in god does not mean I worship satan. To say something like that is just retarded. If I do not believe in a god, it means just that. It doesnt mean I am satanic.
Abortions. I do not like the idea of them, however I will never voice an opinion to say women cannot have them. I would hate to live in a world where women are forced to carry rape babies to term. Abortion is not murder. Until you can prove when life starts, you fail. Life does not start at conception.
Prove otherwise. We do not know when life starts but we do know that below 20 weeks, the feotus cannot survive, no matter how great our medical technology is. Below this point, the feotus is not fully developed and placing it in incubation does not mean it will survive. It has a high mortality rate.
As an atheist, I live my life in a non judgemental manner. I weigh up all the evidence and I keep my mind open. I am never afriad to say I dont know and never afraid to admit when I am wrong. I abhor anything that goes against logic and basic reasoning. I abhor fundamentalists who try to use their religion to force their beliefs on people. Close minded people annoy me.
Stereotyping atheists is just as bad as me stereotyping all cathloics as child molesters.
If you want intolerance, look to religion. It amazes me how a good thing can turn some people bat shit crazy. You fundamentalists have corrupted the good nature of your religions. The moderates I have no problem with. I acknwoldge religion has done a lot of good, but the bad things you fundamentalists have done negates this.
I do not need a book to live my life by. If you follow religion, but do not throw it down my throat, my respect to you.
If you tell me I am going to hell because I have a logical problem with your literal beliefs, go away. I do not want to speak to you.
Now onto evolution. I know you fundies hate it but the literal genesis is wrong. God did not create the heavens and the Earht in 6 days or whatever other "time span" you want to put on it. I dont care if 6 days is 6 ages or another time scale. The fact is, this has nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution does not need the universe and life to be created. It is a mechanism to describe how life changes once it is here. It is independent of the big bang, independent of abiogenesis.
All of science contradicts the bible. Science is right since it is based on observable, testable phenomena. We have gathered evidence. The bible is of unknow authorship.
Creationism is a logical fallacy so go away. Open your mind and understand the science around you and you will realise that the bible is wrong on this and many counts. Follow your religion but do not use it as a literal truth. Use it as a guideline to live your life if you want to. Do not throw it at me and tell me I am wrong when what I know is testable, proven and repeatable in experiements. What I believe is peer reviewed.
Like I said, I do not care if you are religious. It is not my life to care. I only care when you impose on me your beliefs. All I ask of you all is to read as much science to understand your world. I would never ask you to give up your beliefs because of what is known contradicts them. If you aknwoledge that, then you are no longer close minded.
| My Profile
Guitardude19's blogs, last updated : August 16, 2009
