John Edward's comments over the top.

Originally posted by dmadman43
What research to we have to date that even indicates that it will? I mean, hell, I could say stem cell research could lead to a cure for the common cold.

So we should give up and not even try? Where would we be if people felt like this the polio, small pox and hosts of other vaccines were being developed?

As someone who watched a relative deteriorate from MS I will continue to support any valid research that gives hope towards eradicating a host of debilitating diseases and conditions.

Frankly the only people I think that have any right to possibly be offended by John Edwards statement is the Reeves family and knowing Christopher's position on this research I don't think that's likely.
 
I'm not opposed to embryonic stem cell research. I AM opposed to federal funding of it, since it is SO theoretical. If privately funded research yields some promisiung results, then try again for federal finding.

I do get irritated when people say Bush "banned" ESCR, it's a lie.

But in regards to Edwards statement, typical election year hyperbole. Yawn
 
Originally posted by CEDmom
So we should give up and not even try? Where would we be if people felt like this the polio, small pox and hosts of other vaccines were being developed?

As someone who watched a relative deteriorate from MS I will continue to support any valid research that gives hope towards eradicating a host of debilitating diseases and conditions.

Frankly the only people I think that have any right to possibly be offended by John Edwards statement is the Reeves family and knowing Christopher's position on this research I don't think that's likely.

Who said anything about giving up? Research is happening today!!! What Kerry/Edwards are doing is suggesting that unless govt funding is used, nothing will happen. That is ridiculous. Call me silly, but I perfer the motivation of the private sector in this space. And, as has been pointed out, Bush has approved funding for stem cell research. That fact that some don't agree with the law passed in 1996 doesn't mean there is no research going on.
 
Originally posted by tonyswife
I'm not opposed to embryonic stem cell research. I AM opposed to federal funding of it, since it is SO theoretical. If privately funded research yields some promisiung results, then try again for federal finding.

I do get irritated when people say Bush "banned" ESCR, it's a lie.

But in regards to Edwards statement, typical election year hyperbole. Yawn

Exactly, I could honestly could not care less about stem cell research, I just don't think it is the government's responsibility to fund it. Just like I don't agree with John Kerry who thinks it's the government's responsibility to provide abortions to low income women, whether I agree with Roe v Wade or not I don't think the government should tax us to pay for abortions.
 

Originally posted by JoeThaNo1Stunna
Exactly, I could honestly could not care less about stem cell research, I just don't think it is the government's responsibility to fund it. Just like I don't agree with John Kerry who thinks it's the government's responsibility to provide abortions to low income women, whether I agree with Roe v Wade or not I don't think the government should tax us to pay for abortions.


word, word and more word. :D
 
Originally posted by peachgirl
Your point? This issue has never been before a President until Bush. Of course he was the first one.....




The same hope that is offered through any research. There are promising indications regarding stem cell research. Until the funding is there, we'll never know what the results will be.
To say that there has to be definitive proof that research will provide successful treatments in the future is silly.

If that were the benchmark, we wouldn't have many of the drugs and treatments we have today.


Potential Applications.......

Stem cell research was chosen by Science magazine in 1999 as its “breakthrough of the year.” Stem cells provide the opportunity to study the growth and differentiation of individual cells into tissues. Understanding these processes could provide insights into the causes of birth defects, genetic abnormalities, and other disease states. If normal development were better
understood, it might be possible to prevent or correct some of these conditions.

Stem cells could be used to produce large amounts of one cell type to test new drugs for effectiveness and chemicals for toxicity. Stem cells might be transplanted into the body to treat disease (diabetes, Parkinson’s disease) or injury (e.g., spinal
cord). The damaging side effects of medical treatments might be repaired with stem cell treatment.

For example, cancer chemotherapy destroys immune cells in patients making it difficult to fight off a broad range of diseases; correcting this adverse effect would be a major advance.

Jump to conclusions much? Edwards is clearly implying that stem cell research WILL yield benefits in this space. I'm asking for the evidence supporting that. I have no problem with "might be", "could yeild", etc. I'm all for scientific research. I'm more supportive of the private sector in this area until we start to yield more definitive results and have reduced risks. Until then, I don't really favor govt funding for it. The motivation of the private sector can yield tremendous results.
 
Your point? This issue has never been before a President until Bush. Of course he was the first one.....

I thought Clinton was President in 1996 :confused:
 
The only thing that was missing in Edward's stump speech was the organ music in the back ground, but Howie Carr supplied that. Now will be wait for a resurrection?
 
Originally posted by dmadman43
I thought Clinton was President in 1996 :confused:

The issue of stem cells has been around since the 80's.

By the time it became apparent that the research had promise was in late '99 or 2000. Federal funding wasn't a serious issue until then.
 
Originally posted by jenfur
Have you ever heard of snowflake adoptions? Many childless couples actually "adopt" these embryos and go on to give birth.

http://www.embryoadoption.com/

I wasn't shocked or offended by the comment. I expected it when they announced Christopher Reeve had died. Its just typical of that party. I do get offended when my beliefs are patronized and made light of because of some non-existent greater good. If embronic stem-cell was so promising, private funds would be pouring in. Other stem cells are more promising, they have been working and have a steady record of doing so. They also are in always in constant supply, there will never be a reason to create these cell only to destroy them. Liberals always scream about the slippery slope of protecting an unborn child from crime, but when they have an agenda all bets are off.

To be honest I never heard of snowflake adoptions. Of course they should be given first preference. However it is my understanding that several thousand frozen embryos are destroyed as a result of invitro fertilization. My point was that IF the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway why not use them for research (with parental approval of course).
 
Originally posted by peachgirl
The issue of stem cells has been around since the 80's.

By the time it became apparent that the research had promise was in late '99 or 2000. Federal funding wasn't a serious issue until then.

Then why did Clinton issue a ban on federally supported embryonic stem cell research in '96?
 
Columnist Charles Krauthammer: "I've heard a lot of hype over the last 30 years about the keys to the kingdom here in this issue. And all of them have proved false. For Edwards to make the claims he did is the worst demagoguery I've heard in Washington in a quarter century. To imply that Christopher Reeve was kept in the wheelchair because of the policies of the Bush administration on stem cells is ridiculous and insulting" ("Special Report," FNC, 10/11).
FWIW, Charles Krauthammer is also a paraplegic.
 
I can't believe he actually said that! I could understand if he said "might" or "could" walk again, but "will". Talk about giving false hope. There is NO proof that this will happen. Also, there is, indeed, research going on right now so what the problem?
 
Now I know why the Scaramouche is in storage. Who needs a Yacht when you can walk on water!
 
Here's what Patty Davis (Reagan) said today about Chris Reeve and stem cell research.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6232686/site/newsweek/

Opinion: The Life He Left Behind
People who never met Christopher Reeve were emboldened by his crusade. If only President Bush had been one of them

By Patti Davis
Newsweek
Updated: 11:56 a.m. ET Oct. 12, 2004

Oct. 12 - I wonder if President Bush could look into the eyes of Christopher Reeve’s family and tell them that it’s because he values life so deeply that he is preserving clusters of cells in freezers—cells that resulted from in-vitro fertilization and could be used for embryonic stem cell treatment—despite the fact that more people will die as a result of his decision. I wonder if he could stare into their grief and defend the fact that he has released only a few lines of stem cells—lines that are basically useless because they have been contaminated. Or brazenly point out that he has authorized funding for adult stem cells—which do not hold the same miraculous potential as embryonic stem cells.

The sad fact is, the president probably could. After all, Laura Bush went on national television during the week of my father’s funeral and spoke out against embryonic stem cell research, pointing out that where Alzheimer’s is concerned, we don’t have proof that stem-cell treatment would be effective. It wasn’t too long after that interview that she gave a speech in which she chided people for offering “false hope” to the families of Alzheimer’s patients. In a sweetly patronizing tone, she said it’s terribly unfair to all of those who are vulnerable and in pain to suggest that a cure is just around the corner.
Memo to Mrs. Bush: I am one of those poor, vulnerable souls who you think has been misled. I speak for many others when I say that none of us believe a cure is just around the corner. We believe it’s around a very wide bend, which we can’t get around because your husband has put up a barrier to further research. And as far as false hope, there is no such thing. There is only hope or the absence of hope—nothing else.
Christopher Reeve understood that. He knew that everything begins with hope. His vision of walking again, his belief that he would be able to in his lifetime, towered over his broken body. His tireless work, his commitment to help turn stem-cell treatment into a reality revealed a courage that was molded out of fire and pain and tears. It was unbreakable. It was huge. It transcended paralysis. With that courage, he did more than walk; he soared. Many of us learned a valuable lesson about hope from a man whose life changed dramatically on a single afternoon. We learned that it’s limitless, that it’s as real as you allow it to be.
Even if the Bush Administration had flung open the gates to stem-cell research years ago, we would not be at the point of offering treatment today. Christopher Reeve would still have been taken from us. But we would be closer. Other people who are confined to wheelchairs or imprisoned by illness would have more hope. Scientists would be working feverishly to turn this miraculous cure loose on the world. Because they have families too. They have loved ones and friends, and they value them more than clusters of cells that will only ever be clusters of cells. With each day, each month, each year that passes more people will die. We will look at names, at lives, and we will be left with the sad truth that many of them didn’t have to die.
Some people, when they die, leave so much life behind that we wonder how they did it. How did a man paralyzed from the neck down find the strength, the reserve, the energy to do so much in these past years? People who never met Christopher Reeve were emboldened by his crusade; they were infused with faith and confidence, where before things had looked terribly bleak.
He said in an interview a few years ago that when he dreamed, he was never in a wheelchair. In his dreams, he walked and ran and sailed on the sea. He is doing all of that now—far beyond this world and the body that wouldn’t allow him those freedoms. He’s left the rest of us with a responsibility—to never let anyone stop us from one of the most towering medical achievements in history. To never let anyone call our hopes “false.”
© 2004 Newsweek
 
Originally posted by dmadman43
Then why did Clinton issue a ban on federally supported embryonic stem cell research in '96?

He didn't.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec01/stem_cells.html

When Bill Clinton was president, he and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) created guidelines for stem cell research. The guidelines said federal money could only be used for stem cells obtained through fertility clinics. No federal money could pay for research on cells from abortions.

Only a ban on cells from abortions.....
 
A bit of clarification on when the issue of human stem cells starting becoming an issue....


http://www.jdf.org/files/About_JDRF/StemCellPositionPaper092003.pdf


"Researchers only isolated stem cells from mouse embryos some 20 years ago; but it wasn’t until 1998 that scientists successfully isolated human embryonic stem cells, when research teams at the University of Wisconsin and Johns Hopkins University independently derived human pluripotent cells."
 
Originally posted by Geoff_M
FWIW, Charles Krauthammer is also a paraplegic.

He's also an right wing ultra conservative. What was posted was his personal opinion and nothing more.

I did a quick search for some of his writings and frankly, he's a nut.
 
Originally posted by peachgirl
He's also an right wing ultra conservative. What was posted was his personal opinion and nothing more.

I did a quick search for some of his writings and frankly, he's a nut.

Shooting the messenger. Gotta love it. So, because he is, in your words, "a nut", his condition doesn't qualify him to speak with sort of credibility. What does politics have to do with his medical condition. Don't you think he would have some first hand knowledge about the research in this area?
 
Originally posted by peachgirl
He's also an right wing ultra conservative. What was posted was his personal opinion and nothing more.

I did a quick search for some of his writings and frankly, he's a nut.

His columns appear in many, many major newspapers, so I would be careful about classifying him as a "nut" because he has a conservative opinion.
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom