John Edward's comments over the top.

Originally posted by peachgirl
He didn't.

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



Only a ban on cells from abortions.....

Actually that's not quite accurate. It's certainly one aspect of it, but the ban actually forbade the use of federal funds for research that would involve destroying human embryos. This is known as the Dickey Amendment. It stated:

None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or

(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204 and 46.207, and subsection 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).

(b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘human embryo or embryos’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of the governing appropriations act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.


for the current policy, see:
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/stemcell/fulldoc.html for

Some points:

The law effectively prohibits the use of federal funds to support any research that destroys human embryos or puts them at serious risk of destruction. It does not prohibit the conduct of such research using private funding. From a federal perspective research that involves the destruction of embryos is neither prohibited nor supported and encouraged, it's merely not funded

· Scientists may receive federal funding for using or deriving new animal embryonic stem cell lines, to assess the potential of these cells for treatment of animal models of human disease.

· Researchers can use federal funds for work involving human embryonic germ cells, obtained from aborted fetuses.

· Researchers can receive federal funds for work conducted on human adult (non-embryonic) stem cells.

· There are no restrictions regarding what American scientists can do with regard to adult stem cells using taxpayer funds, other than those requiring them to honor the usual human subject protections and clinical research requirements (if they are to be transplanted into human patients).

- The National Health Institute allocated over $170 million in fiscal year 2002, and approximately $181.5 million in fiscal year 2003 to the study of human adult stem cell reserach.

· Researchers remain free to pursue work (including the derivation of new lines of embryonic stem cells) in the private sector, without government funding.

· Under present law, work supported by private funds can proceed without restriction.
 
Looks like Edwards got it wrong on several levels:
Frist knocks Edwards over stem cell comment

Edwards invokes legacy of Christopher Reeve

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist attacked Sen. John Edwards on Tuesday over a comment the Democratic vice presidential candidate made regarding actor Christopher Reeve.

Edwards said Reeve, who died Sunday, "was a powerful voice for the need to do stem cell research and change the lives of people like him.

"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again," Edwards said.

Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, called Edwards' remark "crass" and "shameful," and said it gave false hope that new treatments were imminent.

Edwards campaign spokesman Mark Kornblau hit back, "Yes, breakthrough research often takes time, but that's never been a reason to not even try -- until George Bush."

Edwards made the comment Monday while he was stumping in Newton, Iowa.

Frist, who was a heart surgeon before coming to the Senate, responded Tuesday in a conference call with reporters arranged by the Bush-Cheney campaign.

"I find it opportunistic to use the death of someone like Christopher Reeve -- I think it is shameful -- in order to mislead the American people," Frist said. "We should be offering people hope, but neither physicians, scientists, public servants or trial lawyers like John Edwards should be offering hype.

"It is cruel to people who have disabilities and chronic diseases, and, on top of that, it's dishonest. It's giving false hope to people, and I can tell you as a physician who's treated scores of thousands of patients that you don't give them false hope.
"

Kornblau, Edwards' spokesman, said, "What's crass is George Bush standing in the way of promising stem cell research."

Edwards and Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry have been critical of President Bush's decision to limit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

The candidates charge the federal limitation is hindering scientific progress on therapies that could offer hope to people suffering from maladies such as Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes and Alzheimer's disease.

Reeve, who was left paralyzed after a horseback-riding accident nine years ago, was an advocate for increased funding for new treatments for spinal cord injuries and stem cell research.

Kerry mentioned Reeve by name in Friday's presidential debate while criticizing Bush's stem cell policy.

Three years ago, citing moral and ethical considerations in destroying human embryos to extract stem cells, Bush limited federal research funding to embryonic stem cell lines already in existence.

Research using stem cells extracted from adult cells was not affected by the policy, nor was privately funded research using new embryonic stem cell lines.

The president and his supporters note that his administration is the first to offer any federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, accusing Democrats of trying to create the impression that Bush has banned the practice.

Criticizing Edwards' comment linking the lifting of Bush's policy to medical breakthroughs, Frist said research related to spinal cord injuries does not involve embryonic stem cells but rather adult stem cells, "where the president has absolutely no restrictions, no limitations and there are about 140 treatments."

Embryonic stem cells are believed to be able to develop into more kinds of cells than adult stem cells, and thus more useful in potentially treating diseases. Yet some research indicates that might not be the case, and the National Institutes of Health has called for further study of both adult and embryonic stem cells.

"Stem cell research is promising," Frist said. "The president vigorously promotes adult and embryonic stem cell research, but he does it with an ethical and moral framework."

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/12/edwards.stem.cell/index.html
 
Originally posted by Geoff_M
Looks like Edwards got it wrong on several levels:


Well, again, talk about using scare tactics. Not only do they use the good name of a man that devoted his life to "finding a cure to give people false hope (remember, Edwards did say "will walk"...perhaps he's now channelign Reeve? ), but they continue to misrepresent he current state of stem cell research. And they sayRepublicans aren't compassionate :rolleyes:
 
capt.mico10210090042.edwards__mico102.jpg


Can I get an AMEN????!!!!
 

Originally posted by dmadman43
capt.mico10210090042.edwards__mico102.jpg


Can I get an AMEN????!!!!

You can from me! Edwards is extremely handsome!

Face it ladies....John Edwards or Dick Cheney...who would you choose????;)


And neither is not an option.:teeth:


Just trying to get into the spirit of the new kinder and gentler CB....:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by dmadman43
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?

Certainly, he probably would. I also think he is so blinded by his ultra conservatism that he can't see the forest for the trees.
 
Originally posted by peachgirl
Certainly, he probably would. I also think he is so blinded by his ultra conservatism that he can't see the forest for the trees.

What forest would that be? That embryonic stem cells WILL cure paralysis?
 
What forest would that be?

The one that says stem cell research shows great promise and is worth fully funding to see what we can learn.

My argument concerns stem cell research not typical campaign rhetoric. Both sides have more than enough to complain about in that regard. It's nitpicking and proves nothing.
 
Originally posted by peachgirl
The one that says stem cell research shows great promise and is worth fully funding to see what we can learn.

My argument concerns stem cell research not typical campaign rhetoric. Both sides have more than enough to complain about in that regard. It's nitpicking and proves nothing.

i would agree with you on your last point. As for stem cell research wrt to paralysis, I've not seen any evidence that embryonic stem cells would be used in this area. Thus, Edwards' argument is moot (and he knows it, I'm sure) as the Bush administration has no problems with funding for adult stem cell research.
 
As quoted on Crosswalk.com today:

Dr. David Stevens of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations is upset over the attempt to hide the truth in the debate over embryonic stem-cell research. "The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) is trying to mislead the public and the media by actually changing the terms used in describing cloning," Stevens explains. "In fact, they're recommending (that their members abstain from using) the term 'cloning' ... and talk about 'nuclear transfer' or 'somatic cell nuclear transfer' when you're writing in a journal or in the popular media." ... the ISSCR also suggests its members refrain from using the term "therapeutic" -- as in "therapeutic cloning" -- because, like "cloning," the term is misleading. In a statement to ISSCR members, the group states it is "far too early to predict therapeutic uses" of cloning. "(N)aming a technique for its hoped outcome," ISSCR states, "may inadvertently offer premature hope to desperate patients and families."

And BTW, I'm happy as a clam to be
a conservative, right-wing, Christian, nut-job
(did I get all the labels RIGHT? Err... I mean CORRECT?).

Opinions and Labels are like bellybuttons,
everybody's got one!
 
Just a personal chiming in...

I have diabetes. I have a few family members with it as well. Parkinson's and Alzheimer's have also played a part in our family's medical history.

Yet I do not want embryonic stem cell research to have the restrictions lifted. From my moral standpoint, I can't accept it. It all stems ( no pun intended) from my belief of when life begins and becomes sacred. In my eyes, it is a grave sin to do ESCR. And to benefit from it would be poison fruit.

I'd rather suffer and die from diabetes than to exploit embryos for the possibility of healing. Maybe my body would be healed, but my soul would suffer.

I know I have a minority opinion and I'm not trying to damn anyone's soul here. I'm just stating my viewpoint. If you're offended, you have my apologies. You are welcome to PM me if you like.
 
Originally posted by peachgirl
You can from me! Edwards is extremely handsome!

Face it ladies....John Edwards or Dick Cheney...who would you choose????;)


And neither is not an option.:teeth:


Just trying to get into the spirit of the new kinder and gentler CB....:rolleyes:

Speaking of which

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-ftr-date111.html
According to a survey of 5,000 single men and women by the dating service It's Just Lunch, Bush wins this race.
Of about 2,500 women polled, 49 percent said they'd rather date the president, while about one-third of singles said they would prefer Democratic challenger John Kerry. And 15 percent would go out with candidate Ralph Nader.
Bush also wins as most charming, with 54 percent of survey participants voting for him. Forty percent found Kerry most charming; Nader got 6 percent.
 
I'm looking for stem cell research treatments by comparison and am having a hard time finding info. Here is the first list I could find. The site is definitely biased, but I'm trusting it is the truth. Your thoughts are welcome.

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm
Current Stem Cell Treatments

Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells

Adult Stem Cells

Brain Cancer
Retinoblastoma
Ovarian Cancer
Merkel Cell Cancer
Testicular Cancer
Lymphoma
Acute Lymphobolastic Leukemia
Acute Myelogenous Leukemia
Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia
Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy with Dysproteinemia
Multiple Myeloma
Myelodysplasia
Breast Cancer
Neuroblastoma
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
Hodgkin's Lymphoma
Renal Cell Carcinoma
Various Solid Tumors
Soft Tissue Sarcoma
Scleromyxedema
Multiple Sclerosis
Crohn's Disease
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Juvenile Arthritis
Systemic Lupus
Polychondritis
Systemic Vasculitis
Sjogren's Syndrome
Behcet's Disease
Myasthenia
Red Cell Aplasia
Autoimmune Cytopenia
X-Linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome
X-Linked Hyperimmunoglobuline-M Syndrome
Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome-X1
Sickle Cell Anemia
Sideroblastic Anemia
Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia
Aplastic Anemia
Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia
Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection
Fanconi's Anemia
Diamond Blackfan Anemia
Thalassemia
Stroke
Osteogenesis Imperfecta
Sandhoff Disease
Corneal Regeneration
Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis
Primary Amyloidosis
Limb Gangrene
Surface Wound Healing
Heart Damage
Parkinson's Disease
Spinal Cord Injury

Embryonic Stem Cells

N/A
 
Originally posted by peachgirl
Ah yes, but they didn't include Edwards and their "poll" was admittedly tilted to Republicans. :D

Isn't this ever so much better????:crazy:

Because more Republican women use a dating service? :tongue:
 
Originally posted by DawnCt1
While listening to Fox News last evening with Brit Hume, a stump speech by John Edwards, eulogizing Chris Reeves effectively said that "if John Kerry is elected president, people like Chris Reeves will walk again". I have been looking for the link but sorry, I can't find one. Charles Krauthhammer described this as incredibly ill informed and cruel. He should know. He is a physician and he is a guadroplegic. One wonders if Edwards thinks he is talking to a jury that he is trying to convince. Perhaps a little reality would be useful.

Don't you know that Kerry and Edward's are the next coming? After they are elected, we won't need health care, they will just put their hands on you (even the TV screen will work) and you will never be sick again.;)
 
Originally posted by treesinger
I'd rather suffer and die from diabetes than to exploit embryos for the possibility of healing. Maybe my body would be healed, but my soul would suffer.

My husband is also a diabetic; he feels the opposite. If all these frozen embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them to save and improve lives? It's not as though they're being "farmed" for this purpose.

What strikes me as odd is that I don't hear anyone who is against using these embryos for research also railing against the fertility process that produces the surplus embryos in the first place. I think that's hypocritical.
 
I just heard the entire section of his speech played on ABC radio news. It is precisely what he said....not a distortion or taking "out of context".

If you heard the entire section of his speech then you know full well that what the OP said is not anywhere near "precisely" what Edwards said.

I just now got to see and hear Edwards statement and just as I suspected the original claim on this thread was a distortion and the comments WERE taken out of context.

What Edwards said was that "IF" we do the work we need to do, the work we will do if Kerry is elected President, people like Christopher Reeves will walk again.

Seven pages on this thread and the entire thread is based on something that, as usual, is not true.
 
I finally found the actual quote and from a site that even the most conservative Republicans surely can't disagree with...Rush...


Well, if we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.


As I said, seven pages for something that was a lie.
 


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

New Posts







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

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom