8mm
Posted on 10/28/2006 6:59:07 PM PDT by wagglebee
Stem cell research is one of the major issues in many campaigns across the country in this election year, and it is being demagogued like few others.
In the interest of truth in politics it's worth noting that there are two kinds of stem cells research – one involving embryonic stem cells (ESC) and the other using adult or cord-blood stem cells.
The overwhelming number of candidates, Republican and Democratic, favor research on stem cells gathered from adult and core-blood sources. But many, mostly Republicans, oppose ESC research because harvesting the cells requires killing a living human embryo, and in many cases result from cloning human embryos for the sole purpose of harvesting the stem cells from the embryos killed in the process.
All across the country, Democrats and their lackeys in the media distort the issue by portraying those opposed to embryonic stem cell research as being opposed to all stem cell research, refusing to draw the crucial distinction between the two types.
In addition to this dishonest tactic, proponents of ESC research inevitably claim that it is the form of research holding out the most promise as an effective means of curing a host of serious physical and mental disorders, while either ignoring or downplaying the incredible results now demonstrated in adult and core-blood stem cell research.
Moreover, a great falsehood been spread that President Bush and fellow Republicans opposed to embryonic stem cell research have attempted to ban it outright, when the truth is that all they have done is to seek to deny it government funding. Those who want to pursue it are free to find other sources of revenue, which - if the promises made on its behalf were credible - would be readily available from sources such as drug companies.
Such funding is not forthcoming, and for very good reasons.
Think about it this way: there are about 70 to 80 million baby boomers right now on the cusp of reaching the age where they will be susceptible to Alzheimer's disease.
With that many people just in the U.S. facing the threat of falling prey to Alzheimer's disease, wouldn't you think that if there were an answer to the problem - as the use of embryonic stem cells has been widely touted to be by its proponents - that the drug companies would be falling all over themselves to throw money at those wanting to do ESC research and come up with cures that would make them hundreds of billions in profits?
The fact that the drug companies have turned their back on ESC research should tell you something. One reason is that there is absolutely no basis for the claims that ESC holds a promise to cure all sorts of ailments from Alzheimer's to Parkinson's, or even spinal cord injuries. It's all smoke and mirrors and most of it is based on a single source -- the thoroughly discredited claims of South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk, who has been convicted of falsifying his research data.
One damning result of the ESC research that has been done is the fact that when the cells are injected into lab animals many grow brain tumors – some malignant and fatal. Thus far, that is the sole fruit of ESC research – fatal brain tumors. Drug companies aren't interested in funding that kind of outcome. There's no money in producing brain tumors.
In contrast to the dismal results of ESC, research on adult and cord-blood stem cells has produced real results, helping to cure such maladies as sickle cell anemia, lymphoma and juvenile leukemia. As a result funding is no problem here.
Claims that the president and his party are opposed to stem cell research fall flat on their back when you recall that last year Congress overwhelmingly passed - and the president signed - a bill funding the saving and storage of therapeutic core-blood stem cells and providing $150 million to fund storage of the cells.
That's the truth of the matter.
I don't know if you know this but back in da day when Ronnie was still alive Nancy I think because of seeing her husband with alzheirmer fall with Stem cells from infants crowd
Michael believe in adult stem cells that hold more promise I wonder Nancy believe it but I think she egg on by Ron Prescott Reagan her son
bttt
That article proves nothing except the usual self-congratulation at being involved is ESC research....... Was anything discovered-any researchers "closing in" on ANYTHING? What particular point are you trying to make?
Embryonic stem cell research is also a cash cow for charlatans. With the left using this topic as a way to extort taxpayer dollars away from it's citizens and donating them to their friends in the so called medical field.
I'd say there is room for compromise here. Any politician who wants to fund ESC research should lead the way for us and get a shot of ES cells.
People who suspect I am slyly setting pols up for brain tumors are not thinking. I said POLITICIANS. They are perfectly safe. It's people with brains who are at risk.
Bump
Thank you bump!
LOL - sure - the drug companies want LESS potential customers on the planet -
"What particular point are you trying to make?"
Our friend wagglebee appears to be presenting themselves as a voice of authority on this type of research, posting "...they know it will NEVER PAY OFF".
There are obvious major flaws in that thinking -
As far as your interest on them "closing in on anything" ... would that change your idea on it's acceptability ?
Here's a hypothetical quandry for you to ponder ...
A young researcher in ESC learns their craft, working in the field for 10 years - based on that knowledge, then goes on to find a miraculous cure that uses adult cells. Is the use of that cure "acceptable" since its dicovery was based on ESC research ?
"And, 1.37 million abortions per year sounds like a fertile and lucrative area of revenue producing business, wouldn't you say so?"
If you were a big drug company, would you rather supply to those as 1.37 million that were NOT terminated ?
I'm sure that each live birth uses up many times more in the way of drugs and supplies then an abortion - and when some of them will grow up and get AIDS, they hit the jackpot.
By your own arguement, the companies would be better off against abortions, but if people are going to do it - hey, lets take what we can get -
Big drug companies look at the fact that 1.37 million babies will be aborted on average each year regardless of what they want to happen, and they want to be the ones making money off of that fact. When the drug companies add up the numbers of population increases in the U.S. and the rest of the world, 1.37 million abortions is insignificant in their calculations for doing business - IN OTHER WORDS THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THOSE 1.37 MILLION AMERICAN LIVES SNUFFED OUT EACH YEAR. They know they will make tons of money despite those deaths, and in supplying the means of terminating those pregnancies they further fatten their wallets on those deaths. Their bottom line is hurt not in the least with those deaths (given that those deaths are going to happen anyway).
By the way, how many people in this country die each year from other means? Death is a money making feature of life for drug companies. What with all the medications they pump out for people who are destined to die despite all those meds, the drug companies are making a "killing" so to speak.
"...1.37 million abortions is insignificant in their calculations for doing business..."
That was my point back in post #7- UH ... Don't think there is a lot of money for the drug companies in "protecting the right to abortion" either ...
But I'm curious ... just how do they "fatten their wallet" with something that is "insignificant in their calculations" ?
Since you can't seem to get the meaning of what I've already clearly posted regarding this issue, our discussion is at and end. The drug companies are making money off of abortion and anyone whose paying attention knows that.
See my #19 to wagglebee: knowing that this is the Left strategy ( and I DO know it, whether you do or not), it is entirely logical to dismiss ESC out of hand, but not of course without attempting to start a dialog about it, which inevitably THEY will dismiss out of hand, by demagoguing it the way have global warming and other junk science. ANd as to your rhetorical question about ESC researchers discovering inadvertently or through a back or side door of research, that indeed ADULT stem cells are the answer---how or why could that ever happen? Is that a joke/rhetorical question. And isn't it pretty much the same thing as saying that we shouldn't shoot down a suicide bomber TODAY because in 10 years he might see the error of his ways and "reform" and have a revelation and join us?---as a number of them in fact have done) (Not trying to compare ESC researchers with Jihadists, mind you, just trying to make a point using your rather hypothetical terms.)I for one don't know on whose behalf you are conjuring your argument, or if you're just a contrarian. But I would like to know.
"The drug companies are making money off of abortion and anyone whose paying attention knows that."
Well duh ... but we have both proven that the amount is insignificant to their profits, and the money they would make from these pregnancies continuing would far exceed what they are getting from them.
Isn't what you are saying comparable to saying that cops make their money from crime ?
Pro-life people make money from abortion also.
"ANd as to your rhetorical question about ESC researchers discovering inadvertently or through a back or side door of research, that indeed ADULT stem cells are the answer---how or why could that ever happen?"
Do you really think that embyonic and adult or cord stem cells are COMPLETELY different ? That research on and techniques learned on one could NEVER apply to the other ?
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics2.asp
"Scientists are trying to understand two fundamental properties of stem cells that relate to their long-term self-renewal:
Why can embryonic stem cells proliferate for a year or more in the laboratory without differentiating, but most adult stem cells cannot; and
What are the factors in living organisms that normally regulate stem cell proliferation and self-renewal?"
Perhaps if ESC proponents could point to ANYTHING substantive even on a theoretical level, instead of asking questions, on the one hand, and exploiting people like Michael J. Fox on the other, people might take them seriously, or more seriously. By the same token as the initial question you asked---why indeed could not ASC research to tell us something about ESC research. And what specifically is the advantage or significance of E Stemcells proliferating for a year or more in a lab without differentiating? That is a GOOD thing? WHY??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.