Research shows setback for lab-made stem cells

Hohtopics said:
Yes, I heard that Nanotechnology could be another option or possibility.
Click to expand...

For what? It barely even exists as a theoretical science at the current stage, our technology is simply not good enough to do anything useful with it anytime soon.
 
StSapphire said:
For what? It barely even exists as a theoretical science at the current stage, our technology is simply not good enough to do anything useful with it anytime soon.
Click to expand...

The poster didn't say anything on the time scale but rather than nanotechnology is another possible option or possibility. Nanotechnology is a big field that continues to grow in the field of hearing loss.

Nanotechnology and the treatment of inner ear diseases
Nanotechnology and the treatment of inner ear diseases - Poe - 2011 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology - Wiley Online Library

Nanotechnology and Hearing Health Advances
Hearing aid and nanotechnology
 
Wirelessly posted (sent from a smartphone. )

netrox said:
Keep in mind that there's ALWAYS a tradeoff in everything, even how you eat and exercise, you eventually come up with diseases caused by your diet or exercise.

Example? If you eat a lot of fish (salmon, sardines, etc), you'll have lower risk of heart attacks as observed in studies BUT there's another thing that many don't mention - you also increase the risk of bleeding stroke.

Smoking - you'll be less likely to have Parkinson's or Alzhiemer's if you smoke but you're much more likely to have a heart attack or lung cancer.

So, we need to look at the whole picture. If smoking protects Parkinson's, why not start smoking? Well, here's the thing - you're much more likely to die of a heart attack caused by smoking than to die of Parkinson's if you never smoked.

So, even with cures, it can kill you in totally different ways. For example, aspirin can reduce heart attacks but it will increase the risk of bleeding.

I imagine that if everyone eats fatty fish, more people would die of strokes and you'd be bombed with suggestions to cut down on eating fish. That's exactly what's happening with studies.
Click to expand...

Thats why we have to balance the diet. Too much isnt good, of course.
 
kokonut said:
The poster didn't say anything on the time scale but rather than nanotechnology is another possible option or possibility. Nanotechnology is a big field that continues to grow in the field of hearing loss.

Nanotechnology and the treatment of inner ear diseases
Nanotechnology and the treatment of inner ear diseases - Poe - 2011 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology - Wiley Online Library

Nanotechnology and Hearing Health Advances
Hearing aid and nanotechnology
Click to expand...

I was more unsure what he was even saying he thought it would be an option for. Nanotech is definitely a cool idea, but I didn't know if he was referring to hearing loss restoration/reconstruction, or just health improvements in general.
 
kokonut said:
The poster didn't say anything on the time scale but rather than nanotechnology is another possible option or possibility. Nanotechnology is a big field that continues to grow in the field of hearing loss.

Nanotechnology and the treatment of inner ear diseases
Nanotechnology and the treatment of inner ear diseases - Poe - 2011 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology - Wiley Online Library

Nanotechnology and Hearing Health Advances
Hearing aid and nanotechnology
Click to expand...
Yes, admittedly I do not know much about it. But have heard that some of the deaf are wondering if it could be another option other than cochlear implants somewhere down the road.
 
Hohtopics said:
Yes, admittedly I do not know much about it. But have heard that some of the deaf are wondering if it could be another option other than cochlear implants somewhere down the road.
Click to expand...

There's always that possibility. Technology continues to make these things smaller while we gain greater understanding of biology in humans and medical applications.
 
StSapphire said:
For what? It barely even exists as a theoretical science at the current stage, our technology is simply not good enough to do anything useful with it anytime soon.
Click to expand...

People just don't seem to realize that the number of years between theoretical conception and actual application are sometimes in the 100's.
 
StSapphire said:
For what? It barely even exists as a theoretical science at the current stage, our technology is simply not good enough to do anything useful with it anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Hence why I'm not holding my breath for a cure.
 
kokonut said:
There's always that possibility. Technology continues to make these things smaller while we gain greater understanding of biology in humans and medical applications.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it gets a little exciting sometime. Hopefully those that want to hear better have good reasons to be optimistic as science and technology continues to progress onto to the future... :)
 
jillio said:
People just don't seem to realize that the number of years between theoretical conception and actual application are sometimes in the 100's.
Click to expand...

Right. HIV is an example - many thought there will be a vaccine or cure before 2000 and we're nowhere that close. Right now, if there is an effective vaccine right now, it'd take another 7 years before it can reach to the public.

Flu vaccine that protects you from all strains of flu has not yet come either. It has to guess which strain will hit America every season. Flu has been around forever.

No cure for colds. No vaccines for it either.

Herpes, still no cure nor a vaccine.
 
Back
Top