I think with time, advancement in medicine and education that if its not completely wipe out it will be drastically reduced. I am not saying that CFers will stop having kids, but as more gene mutations are discovered. The more we pass on that knowledge of the family tree, the more carriers have their mates tested etc that we will get closer. CF being such a tricky disease....I cant say that something else within the gene mutation arena wont throw a curve ball. BUT realizing how many families have no known or confirmed CF in their families and realizing how its SLOWLY becoming addressed in another billion years we should be all set LOL! Being that medicine is not an exact science.....well that pretty much says it all!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Carryover from another topic
- Thread starter julie
- Start date
I have to say, I agree wholeheartedly with lightnlife. People fool around with Mother Nature way too much now adays. I'm not saying that's always a bad thing; if I didn't use the medicines available to me, I'd be dead now, no question. But using medication (like lightnlife said) to preserve an organism that already exists is not the same thing as creating another human being via artificial means. There are just some things that shouldn't be messed with when it comes to natural order...
Now, for anyone who's had it done, don't jump down my throat. I'm not saying your the devil, yadayadayada. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't do it. If I'm not able to concieve naturally, I'm taking Nature's hint.
Now, for anyone who's had it done, don't jump down my throat. I'm not saying your the devil, yadayadayada. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't do it. If I'm not able to concieve naturally, I'm taking Nature's hint.
I have to say, I agree wholeheartedly with lightnlife. People fool around with Mother Nature way too much now adays. I'm not saying that's always a bad thing; if I didn't use the medicines available to me, I'd be dead now, no question. But using medication (like lightnlife said) to preserve an organism that already exists is not the same thing as creating another human being via artificial means. There are just some things that shouldn't be messed with when it comes to natural order...
Now, for anyone who's had it done, don't jump down my throat. I'm not saying your the devil, yadayadayada. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't do it. If I'm not able to concieve naturally, I'm taking Nature's hint.
Now, for anyone who's had it done, don't jump down my throat. I'm not saying your the devil, yadayadayada. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't do it. If I'm not able to concieve naturally, I'm taking Nature's hint.
I have to say, I agree wholeheartedly with lightnlife. People fool around with Mother Nature way too much now adays. I'm not saying that's always a bad thing; if I didn't use the medicines available to me, I'd be dead now, no question. But using medication (like lightnlife said) to preserve an organism that already exists is not the same thing as creating another human being via artificial means. There are just some things that shouldn't be messed with when it comes to natural order...
Now, for anyone who's had it done, don't jump down my throat. I'm not saying your the devil, yadayadayada. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't do it. If I'm not able to concieve naturally, I'm taking Nature's hint.
Now, for anyone who's had it done, don't jump down my throat. I'm not saying your the devil, yadayadayada. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't do it. If I'm not able to concieve naturally, I'm taking Nature's hint.
And see, I disagree that using the medical technology to sustain life is any different than using medical technology to create life (other than the methods behind the two which are of course very different). To me, they carry the same weight and level of importance and .... what's the word I'm looking for... well, I can't find it. But what I'm trying to say is that to me, it's one in the same on the "morals" playing field. And believe me, I get frustrated with Mark because I don't understand how he doesn't want a lung transplant (something about using artificial technology in his life, or to sustain life or something like that...) but then is ok with IVF. It doesn't make sense to me and he knows I feel that way.
I wasn't insulting you Light, just having a discussion that I wished to continue, but not on that other posters thread.... No problem civilly disagreeing.
I wasn't insulting you Light, just having a discussion that I wished to continue, but not on that other posters thread.... No problem civilly disagreeing.
And see, I disagree that using the medical technology to sustain life is any different than using medical technology to create life (other than the methods behind the two which are of course very different). To me, they carry the same weight and level of importance and .... what's the word I'm looking for... well, I can't find it. But what I'm trying to say is that to me, it's one in the same on the "morals" playing field. And believe me, I get frustrated with Mark because I don't understand how he doesn't want a lung transplant (something about using artificial technology in his life, or to sustain life or something like that...) but then is ok with IVF. It doesn't make sense to me and he knows I feel that way.
I wasn't insulting you Light, just having a discussion that I wished to continue, but not on that other posters thread.... No problem civilly disagreeing.
I wasn't insulting you Light, just having a discussion that I wished to continue, but not on that other posters thread.... No problem civilly disagreeing.
And see, I disagree that using the medical technology to sustain life is any different than using medical technology to create life (other than the methods behind the two which are of course very different). To me, they carry the same weight and level of importance and .... what's the word I'm looking for... well, I can't find it. But what I'm trying to say is that to me, it's one in the same on the "morals" playing field. And believe me, I get frustrated with Mark because I don't understand how he doesn't want a lung transplant (something about using artificial technology in his life, or to sustain life or something like that...) but then is ok with IVF. It doesn't make sense to me and he knows I feel that way.
I wasn't insulting you Light, just having a discussion that I wished to continue, but not on that other posters thread.... No problem civilly disagreeing.
I wasn't insulting you Light, just having a discussion that I wished to continue, but not on that other posters thread.... No problem civilly disagreeing.
lightNlife
New member
My first explanation was a little lofty. Here's a version that uses a metaphor that I hope helps clarify things:
When something is carried out in the body on site (which is what in situ means) it is much more successful. In the case of antibiotics, medical technology is attempting to jump start a process that will take place on its own. IVF, unlike antibiotic treatment, is a process that involves manipulation by medical technology outside of the body (which is what ex situ means).
Things like antibiotics work to deal with an infection because, like I already said, they're a jumpstart to a naturally occurring bodily response. IVF on the other hand, is not a jumpstart, but rather an attempt to completely change how the body would naturally allow conception to take place. This is why it doesn't work very often, and also why people undergoing the procedure attempt to increase the odds of implantation taking place by putting in multiple embryos. Another example that shows how medical procedures that attempt to trick the body into doing something it won't naturally do, includes organ transplantation. The body was designed in such a way that it will attempt to get rid of anything that isn't a natural part of itself. This is what causes organ rejection, and why the body much be tricked into accepting the new organ by means of anti-rejection medication.
I suppose one way to think of it is to imagine that the human body is a toaster. So long as the toaster is plugged in, it should work, right? Now suppose that the lever on the side of the toaster doesn't stick when you push it down. You can hold it down and still heat up your bread to make toast. This is what it's like to use medical know-how to apply antibiotics. The body still knows how to wipe out infection (in other words, it's still plugged in like the toaster and will heat things up) but we need someone to hold down the lever (this is what the antibiotics do). Using the toaster to get things done is an ON SITE (in situ) solution.
On the other hand, methods like IVF is like trying to make toast in a toaster that has a broken lever, AND isn't even plugged in. It can't be done. So, IVF is like browning the bread in the oven, then throwing it in the broken toaster and pretending that the toaster worked in the first place. Using the oven instead of the toaster, is an OFF SITE solution (EX SITU).
I hope that helps!
When something is carried out in the body on site (which is what in situ means) it is much more successful. In the case of antibiotics, medical technology is attempting to jump start a process that will take place on its own. IVF, unlike antibiotic treatment, is a process that involves manipulation by medical technology outside of the body (which is what ex situ means).
Things like antibiotics work to deal with an infection because, like I already said, they're a jumpstart to a naturally occurring bodily response. IVF on the other hand, is not a jumpstart, but rather an attempt to completely change how the body would naturally allow conception to take place. This is why it doesn't work very often, and also why people undergoing the procedure attempt to increase the odds of implantation taking place by putting in multiple embryos. Another example that shows how medical procedures that attempt to trick the body into doing something it won't naturally do, includes organ transplantation. The body was designed in such a way that it will attempt to get rid of anything that isn't a natural part of itself. This is what causes organ rejection, and why the body much be tricked into accepting the new organ by means of anti-rejection medication.
I suppose one way to think of it is to imagine that the human body is a toaster. So long as the toaster is plugged in, it should work, right? Now suppose that the lever on the side of the toaster doesn't stick when you push it down. You can hold it down and still heat up your bread to make toast. This is what it's like to use medical know-how to apply antibiotics. The body still knows how to wipe out infection (in other words, it's still plugged in like the toaster and will heat things up) but we need someone to hold down the lever (this is what the antibiotics do). Using the toaster to get things done is an ON SITE (in situ) solution.
On the other hand, methods like IVF is like trying to make toast in a toaster that has a broken lever, AND isn't even plugged in. It can't be done. So, IVF is like browning the bread in the oven, then throwing it in the broken toaster and pretending that the toaster worked in the first place. Using the oven instead of the toaster, is an OFF SITE solution (EX SITU).
I hope that helps!
lightNlife
New member
My first explanation was a little lofty. Here's a version that uses a metaphor that I hope helps clarify things:
When something is carried out in the body on site (which is what in situ means) it is much more successful. In the case of antibiotics, medical technology is attempting to jump start a process that will take place on its own. IVF, unlike antibiotic treatment, is a process that involves manipulation by medical technology outside of the body (which is what ex situ means).
Things like antibiotics work to deal with an infection because, like I already said, they're a jumpstart to a naturally occurring bodily response. IVF on the other hand, is not a jumpstart, but rather an attempt to completely change how the body would naturally allow conception to take place. This is why it doesn't work very often, and also why people undergoing the procedure attempt to increase the odds of implantation taking place by putting in multiple embryos. Another example that shows how medical procedures that attempt to trick the body into doing something it won't naturally do, includes organ transplantation. The body was designed in such a way that it will attempt to get rid of anything that isn't a natural part of itself. This is what causes organ rejection, and why the body much be tricked into accepting the new organ by means of anti-rejection medication.
I suppose one way to think of it is to imagine that the human body is a toaster. So long as the toaster is plugged in, it should work, right? Now suppose that the lever on the side of the toaster doesn't stick when you push it down. You can hold it down and still heat up your bread to make toast. This is what it's like to use medical know-how to apply antibiotics. The body still knows how to wipe out infection (in other words, it's still plugged in like the toaster and will heat things up) but we need someone to hold down the lever (this is what the antibiotics do). Using the toaster to get things done is an ON SITE (in situ) solution.
On the other hand, methods like IVF is like trying to make toast in a toaster that has a broken lever, AND isn't even plugged in. It can't be done. So, IVF is like browning the bread in the oven, then throwing it in the broken toaster and pretending that the toaster worked in the first place. Using the oven instead of the toaster, is an OFF SITE solution (EX SITU).
I hope that helps!
When something is carried out in the body on site (which is what in situ means) it is much more successful. In the case of antibiotics, medical technology is attempting to jump start a process that will take place on its own. IVF, unlike antibiotic treatment, is a process that involves manipulation by medical technology outside of the body (which is what ex situ means).
Things like antibiotics work to deal with an infection because, like I already said, they're a jumpstart to a naturally occurring bodily response. IVF on the other hand, is not a jumpstart, but rather an attempt to completely change how the body would naturally allow conception to take place. This is why it doesn't work very often, and also why people undergoing the procedure attempt to increase the odds of implantation taking place by putting in multiple embryos. Another example that shows how medical procedures that attempt to trick the body into doing something it won't naturally do, includes organ transplantation. The body was designed in such a way that it will attempt to get rid of anything that isn't a natural part of itself. This is what causes organ rejection, and why the body much be tricked into accepting the new organ by means of anti-rejection medication.
I suppose one way to think of it is to imagine that the human body is a toaster. So long as the toaster is plugged in, it should work, right? Now suppose that the lever on the side of the toaster doesn't stick when you push it down. You can hold it down and still heat up your bread to make toast. This is what it's like to use medical know-how to apply antibiotics. The body still knows how to wipe out infection (in other words, it's still plugged in like the toaster and will heat things up) but we need someone to hold down the lever (this is what the antibiotics do). Using the toaster to get things done is an ON SITE (in situ) solution.
On the other hand, methods like IVF is like trying to make toast in a toaster that has a broken lever, AND isn't even plugged in. It can't be done. So, IVF is like browning the bread in the oven, then throwing it in the broken toaster and pretending that the toaster worked in the first place. Using the oven instead of the toaster, is an OFF SITE solution (EX SITU).
I hope that helps!
lightNlife
New member
My first explanation was a little lofty. Here's a version that uses a metaphor that I hope helps clarify things:
When something is carried out in the body on site (which is what in situ means) it is much more successful. In the case of antibiotics, medical technology is attempting to jump start a process that will take place on its own. IVF, unlike antibiotic treatment, is a process that involves manipulation by medical technology outside of the body (which is what ex situ means).
Things like antibiotics work to deal with an infection because, like I already said, they're a jumpstart to a naturally occurring bodily response. IVF on the other hand, is not a jumpstart, but rather an attempt to completely change how the body would naturally allow conception to take place. This is why it doesn't work very often, and also why people undergoing the procedure attempt to increase the odds of implantation taking place by putting in multiple embryos. Another example that shows how medical procedures that attempt to trick the body into doing something it won't naturally do, includes organ transplantation. The body was designed in such a way that it will attempt to get rid of anything that isn't a natural part of itself. This is what causes organ rejection, and why the body much be tricked into accepting the new organ by means of anti-rejection medication.
I suppose one way to think of it is to imagine that the human body is a toaster. So long as the toaster is plugged in, it should work, right? Now suppose that the lever on the side of the toaster doesn't stick when you push it down. You can hold it down and still heat up your bread to make toast. This is what it's like to use medical know-how to apply antibiotics. The body still knows how to wipe out infection (in other words, it's still plugged in like the toaster and will heat things up) but we need someone to hold down the lever (this is what the antibiotics do). Using the toaster to get things done is an ON SITE (in situ) solution.
On the other hand, methods like IVF is like trying to make toast in a toaster that has a broken lever, AND isn't even plugged in. It can't be done. So, IVF is like browning the bread in the oven, then throwing it in the broken toaster and pretending that the toaster worked in the first place. Using the oven instead of the toaster, is an OFF SITE solution (EX SITU).
I hope that helps!
When something is carried out in the body on site (which is what in situ means) it is much more successful. In the case of antibiotics, medical technology is attempting to jump start a process that will take place on its own. IVF, unlike antibiotic treatment, is a process that involves manipulation by medical technology outside of the body (which is what ex situ means).
Things like antibiotics work to deal with an infection because, like I already said, they're a jumpstart to a naturally occurring bodily response. IVF on the other hand, is not a jumpstart, but rather an attempt to completely change how the body would naturally allow conception to take place. This is why it doesn't work very often, and also why people undergoing the procedure attempt to increase the odds of implantation taking place by putting in multiple embryos. Another example that shows how medical procedures that attempt to trick the body into doing something it won't naturally do, includes organ transplantation. The body was designed in such a way that it will attempt to get rid of anything that isn't a natural part of itself. This is what causes organ rejection, and why the body much be tricked into accepting the new organ by means of anti-rejection medication.
I suppose one way to think of it is to imagine that the human body is a toaster. So long as the toaster is plugged in, it should work, right? Now suppose that the lever on the side of the toaster doesn't stick when you push it down. You can hold it down and still heat up your bread to make toast. This is what it's like to use medical know-how to apply antibiotics. The body still knows how to wipe out infection (in other words, it's still plugged in like the toaster and will heat things up) but we need someone to hold down the lever (this is what the antibiotics do). Using the toaster to get things done is an ON SITE (in situ) solution.
On the other hand, methods like IVF is like trying to make toast in a toaster that has a broken lever, AND isn't even plugged in. It can't be done. So, IVF is like browning the bread in the oven, then throwing it in the broken toaster and pretending that the toaster worked in the first place. Using the oven instead of the toaster, is an OFF SITE solution (EX SITU).
I hope that helps!
6
65rosessamurai
Guest
To give basis to my disagreement with lightNlife, I'd like to point out that Pulmozyme does not follow the description of an antibiotic which "naturally" restores the body back to it's "occuring state of function"-(lightNlife quote).
In fact, by looking at the home page, and perhaps even finding it was indicated in one of my posts many months (or weeks) ago, the drug "Manipulates DNA" in order to get results.
So, anyone using that medication is getting their "DNA" rearranged.
True, the method to IVF is equally manipulative to the body, but then, what about those "Genetic Counselors"?
Also, the IVF is not cloning. Your example with the broken toaster sounds more like cloning. The IVF method is more like a stereo amp!!
You want to listen to the bass on one of Paul McCartney and Wing's albums, but your stereo doesn't have enough "clarity", so you turn it up until you can hear the bass! In the meantime, the neighboors are complaining that the stereo is too loud.
Moreover, With my understanding of IVF, you've got the eggs, and the guy's sample (not sure if it's okay to use the right word on this site) to make your 'milkshake' with!
And, to stay focused on the 'control' of CF, Until there is a cure for the 'source' of the problem, like ridding the double delta F508, then there won't be any way to 'kick it off this planet', so to say. One point to mention is that IF the gene can be riddened of, that also is due to the advancement in medical technology.
Hope I made my opinion clear without confusing anyone (I <u><b>almost</b></u> confused myself with it!)
Peace!
In fact, by looking at the home page, and perhaps even finding it was indicated in one of my posts many months (or weeks) ago, the drug "Manipulates DNA" in order to get results.
So, anyone using that medication is getting their "DNA" rearranged.
True, the method to IVF is equally manipulative to the body, but then, what about those "Genetic Counselors"?
Also, the IVF is not cloning. Your example with the broken toaster sounds more like cloning. The IVF method is more like a stereo amp!!
You want to listen to the bass on one of Paul McCartney and Wing's albums, but your stereo doesn't have enough "clarity", so you turn it up until you can hear the bass! In the meantime, the neighboors are complaining that the stereo is too loud.
Moreover, With my understanding of IVF, you've got the eggs, and the guy's sample (not sure if it's okay to use the right word on this site) to make your 'milkshake' with!
And, to stay focused on the 'control' of CF, Until there is a cure for the 'source' of the problem, like ridding the double delta F508, then there won't be any way to 'kick it off this planet', so to say. One point to mention is that IF the gene can be riddened of, that also is due to the advancement in medical technology.
Hope I made my opinion clear without confusing anyone (I <u><b>almost</b></u> confused myself with it!)
Peace!
6
65rosessamurai
Guest
To give basis to my disagreement with lightNlife, I'd like to point out that Pulmozyme does not follow the description of an antibiotic which "naturally" restores the body back to it's "occuring state of function"-(lightNlife quote).
In fact, by looking at the home page, and perhaps even finding it was indicated in one of my posts many months (or weeks) ago, the drug "Manipulates DNA" in order to get results.
So, anyone using that medication is getting their "DNA" rearranged.
True, the method to IVF is equally manipulative to the body, but then, what about those "Genetic Counselors"?
Also, the IVF is not cloning. Your example with the broken toaster sounds more like cloning. The IVF method is more like a stereo amp!!
You want to listen to the bass on one of Paul McCartney and Wing's albums, but your stereo doesn't have enough "clarity", so you turn it up until you can hear the bass! In the meantime, the neighboors are complaining that the stereo is too loud.
Moreover, With my understanding of IVF, you've got the eggs, and the guy's sample (not sure if it's okay to use the right word on this site) to make your 'milkshake' with!
And, to stay focused on the 'control' of CF, Until there is a cure for the 'source' of the problem, like ridding the double delta F508, then there won't be any way to 'kick it off this planet', so to say. One point to mention is that IF the gene can be riddened of, that also is due to the advancement in medical technology.
Hope I made my opinion clear without confusing anyone (I <u><b>almost</b></u> confused myself with it!)
Peace!
In fact, by looking at the home page, and perhaps even finding it was indicated in one of my posts many months (or weeks) ago, the drug "Manipulates DNA" in order to get results.
So, anyone using that medication is getting their "DNA" rearranged.
True, the method to IVF is equally manipulative to the body, but then, what about those "Genetic Counselors"?
Also, the IVF is not cloning. Your example with the broken toaster sounds more like cloning. The IVF method is more like a stereo amp!!
You want to listen to the bass on one of Paul McCartney and Wing's albums, but your stereo doesn't have enough "clarity", so you turn it up until you can hear the bass! In the meantime, the neighboors are complaining that the stereo is too loud.
Moreover, With my understanding of IVF, you've got the eggs, and the guy's sample (not sure if it's okay to use the right word on this site) to make your 'milkshake' with!
And, to stay focused on the 'control' of CF, Until there is a cure for the 'source' of the problem, like ridding the double delta F508, then there won't be any way to 'kick it off this planet', so to say. One point to mention is that IF the gene can be riddened of, that also is due to the advancement in medical technology.
Hope I made my opinion clear without confusing anyone (I <u><b>almost</b></u> confused myself with it!)
Peace!
6
65rosessamurai
Guest
To give basis to my disagreement with lightNlife, I'd like to point out that Pulmozyme does not follow the description of an antibiotic which "naturally" restores the body back to it's "occuring state of function"-(lightNlife quote).
In fact, by looking at the home page, and perhaps even finding it was indicated in one of my posts many months (or weeks) ago, the drug "Manipulates DNA" in order to get results.
So, anyone using that medication is getting their "DNA" rearranged.
True, the method to IVF is equally manipulative to the body, but then, what about those "Genetic Counselors"?
Also, the IVF is not cloning. Your example with the broken toaster sounds more like cloning. The IVF method is more like a stereo amp!!
You want to listen to the bass on one of Paul McCartney and Wing's albums, but your stereo doesn't have enough "clarity", so you turn it up until you can hear the bass! In the meantime, the neighboors are complaining that the stereo is too loud.
Moreover, With my understanding of IVF, you've got the eggs, and the guy's sample (not sure if it's okay to use the right word on this site) to make your 'milkshake' with!
And, to stay focused on the 'control' of CF, Until there is a cure for the 'source' of the problem, like ridding the double delta F508, then there won't be any way to 'kick it off this planet', so to say. One point to mention is that IF the gene can be riddened of, that also is due to the advancement in medical technology.
Hope I made my opinion clear without confusing anyone (I <u><b>almost</b></u> confused myself with it!)
Peace!
In fact, by looking at the home page, and perhaps even finding it was indicated in one of my posts many months (or weeks) ago, the drug "Manipulates DNA" in order to get results.
So, anyone using that medication is getting their "DNA" rearranged.
True, the method to IVF is equally manipulative to the body, but then, what about those "Genetic Counselors"?
Also, the IVF is not cloning. Your example with the broken toaster sounds more like cloning. The IVF method is more like a stereo amp!!
You want to listen to the bass on one of Paul McCartney and Wing's albums, but your stereo doesn't have enough "clarity", so you turn it up until you can hear the bass! In the meantime, the neighboors are complaining that the stereo is too loud.
Moreover, With my understanding of IVF, you've got the eggs, and the guy's sample (not sure if it's okay to use the right word on this site) to make your 'milkshake' with!
And, to stay focused on the 'control' of CF, Until there is a cure for the 'source' of the problem, like ridding the double delta F508, then there won't be any way to 'kick it off this planet', so to say. One point to mention is that IF the gene can be riddened of, that also is due to the advancement in medical technology.
Hope I made my opinion clear without confusing anyone (I <u><b>almost</b></u> confused myself with it!)
Peace!
lightNlife
New member
Pulmozyme changes the DNA of the MUCUS, not of the person using it. It makes mucus thinner by cutting apart (lysing) the strands of DNA contained in it. The specific process by which is does this, is to hydrolyze (adds water to) the mucus. It does NOT change my DNA. If it did, then eventually my lungs would be lined with an entirely new set of tissue. This is not the case. And what I said about things returning to a "natural" state still applies. The lungs will continue to produce overly thick mucus when Pulmozyme is not being administered.
And I know that IVF isn't cloning. I don't see how you got that idea from my toaster metaphor, but it wasn't a perfect metaphor in the first place, so I won't try to defend it further.
I think I see what you're saying about the stereo amp, although I think that description only applies to the point at which the embryos are selected for implantation. You put in more to get more result. However, you still wouldn't have had anything to listen too (fertilized embryos) if you didn't put the album (guy's "swimmers" in the stereo (gal's uterus). CF guys can't do that part of the whole reproduction process without intervention (i.e. extracting his swimmers)
And I know that IVF isn't cloning. I don't see how you got that idea from my toaster metaphor, but it wasn't a perfect metaphor in the first place, so I won't try to defend it further.
I think I see what you're saying about the stereo amp, although I think that description only applies to the point at which the embryos are selected for implantation. You put in more to get more result. However, you still wouldn't have had anything to listen too (fertilized embryos) if you didn't put the album (guy's "swimmers" in the stereo (gal's uterus). CF guys can't do that part of the whole reproduction process without intervention (i.e. extracting his swimmers)
lightNlife
New member
Pulmozyme changes the DNA of the MUCUS, not of the person using it. It makes mucus thinner by cutting apart (lysing) the strands of DNA contained in it. The specific process by which is does this, is to hydrolyze (adds water to) the mucus. It does NOT change my DNA. If it did, then eventually my lungs would be lined with an entirely new set of tissue. This is not the case. And what I said about things returning to a "natural" state still applies. The lungs will continue to produce overly thick mucus when Pulmozyme is not being administered.
And I know that IVF isn't cloning. I don't see how you got that idea from my toaster metaphor, but it wasn't a perfect metaphor in the first place, so I won't try to defend it further.
I think I see what you're saying about the stereo amp, although I think that description only applies to the point at which the embryos are selected for implantation. You put in more to get more result. However, you still wouldn't have had anything to listen too (fertilized embryos) if you didn't put the album (guy's "swimmers" in the stereo (gal's uterus). CF guys can't do that part of the whole reproduction process without intervention (i.e. extracting his swimmers)
And I know that IVF isn't cloning. I don't see how you got that idea from my toaster metaphor, but it wasn't a perfect metaphor in the first place, so I won't try to defend it further.
I think I see what you're saying about the stereo amp, although I think that description only applies to the point at which the embryos are selected for implantation. You put in more to get more result. However, you still wouldn't have had anything to listen too (fertilized embryos) if you didn't put the album (guy's "swimmers" in the stereo (gal's uterus). CF guys can't do that part of the whole reproduction process without intervention (i.e. extracting his swimmers)
lightNlife
New member
Pulmozyme changes the DNA of the MUCUS, not of the person using it. It makes mucus thinner by cutting apart (lysing) the strands of DNA contained in it. The specific process by which is does this, is to hydrolyze (adds water to) the mucus. It does NOT change my DNA. If it did, then eventually my lungs would be lined with an entirely new set of tissue. This is not the case. And what I said about things returning to a "natural" state still applies. The lungs will continue to produce overly thick mucus when Pulmozyme is not being administered.
And I know that IVF isn't cloning. I don't see how you got that idea from my toaster metaphor, but it wasn't a perfect metaphor in the first place, so I won't try to defend it further.
I think I see what you're saying about the stereo amp, although I think that description only applies to the point at which the embryos are selected for implantation. You put in more to get more result. However, you still wouldn't have had anything to listen too (fertilized embryos) if you didn't put the album (guy's "swimmers" in the stereo (gal's uterus). CF guys can't do that part of the whole reproduction process without intervention (i.e. extracting his swimmers)
And I know that IVF isn't cloning. I don't see how you got that idea from my toaster metaphor, but it wasn't a perfect metaphor in the first place, so I won't try to defend it further.
I think I see what you're saying about the stereo amp, although I think that description only applies to the point at which the embryos are selected for implantation. You put in more to get more result. However, you still wouldn't have had anything to listen too (fertilized embryos) if you didn't put the album (guy's "swimmers" in the stereo (gal's uterus). CF guys can't do that part of the whole reproduction process without intervention (i.e. extracting his swimmers)
I quite enjoyed your metaphor of the toaster. My opinion on the matter.....I'm sitting on the fence, but kind of leaning to one side, which side? On LightNlife's side.... in fact its more of a 5% list rather than a leaning.
I also enjoyed the Stereo metaphor..... I dont really know where I sit on the fence.
I also enjoyed the Stereo metaphor..... I dont really know where I sit on the fence.
I quite enjoyed your metaphor of the toaster. My opinion on the matter.....I'm sitting on the fence, but kind of leaning to one side, which side? On LightNlife's side.... in fact its more of a 5% list rather than a leaning.
I also enjoyed the Stereo metaphor..... I dont really know where I sit on the fence.
I also enjoyed the Stereo metaphor..... I dont really know where I sit on the fence.
I quite enjoyed your metaphor of the toaster. My opinion on the matter.....I'm sitting on the fence, but kind of leaning to one side, which side? On LightNlife's side.... in fact its more of a 5% list rather than a leaning.
I also enjoyed the Stereo metaphor..... I dont really know where I sit on the fence.
I also enjoyed the Stereo metaphor..... I dont really know where I sit on the fence.
lightNlife
New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>dyza</b></i>
I quite enjoyed your metaphor of the toaster. My opinion on the matter.....I'm sitting on the fence, but kind of leaning to one side, which side? On LightNlife's side.... in fact its more of a 5% list rather than a leaning.
I also enjoyed the Stereo metaphor..... I dont really know where I sit on the fence.</end quote></div>
LOL. Come to this side of the fence. The grass is greener (mostly because there are fewer people eating it!)
I quite enjoyed your metaphor of the toaster. My opinion on the matter.....I'm sitting on the fence, but kind of leaning to one side, which side? On LightNlife's side.... in fact its more of a 5% list rather than a leaning.
I also enjoyed the Stereo metaphor..... I dont really know where I sit on the fence.</end quote></div>
LOL. Come to this side of the fence. The grass is greener (mostly because there are fewer people eating it!)