Friday, October 27, 2006
This is Sickening
Here you have an actor with a horrible disease, making an ad for stem-cell research; a science that can save his life. Then asshat Rush Limbaugh comes along and accuses him of acting, and making it seem worse to help the Democratic party! It's sickening!
Michael J. Fox is not Barbra Striesand. He's done ads for Republicans. He's got no party agenda, he only wants to be healthy, and will support whoever will help him do that. But as soon as Limbaugh here's the word Democrat he goes into attack mode.
First he says he was off his meds when he did the ad. Well, yes. But what he's trying to do is lead us to believe that as long as he's drugged up he never has any problems. That there's no need to find a cure, he's just grandstanding for the Democrats. We already knew the Bible-thumping Conservatives hate science, but to claim he's acting to make it worse because he's a Democrat is just wrong. Michael J Fox is only concerned about one issue, Stem-Cell research, and he will support any politician who is for it. In 2003 he gave $2000 to Arlen Specter, a pro stem-cell research politician, and Republican 1.
Then he tries to make it look like the Democrats are the bad guys by saying they're exploiting him. Yet it's okay for him to flame Fox, apparently.
I just don't get it. Why are these ugly little things (which are disposed of by the millions daily anyways)
more important than suffering adults?
Saving potential lives? Please. What good will come from having more babies living in orphanages? Is having more poor and unhappy children really a good idea? And besides, I don't think cells are going to know if we kill them. But adults with diseases will know if we save them. They're the ones with the priority, the real living people. I don't know when embryos received the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They're neither men, nor citizens of this country, so they get nothing.
Am I being too harsh on these cells? No. They're not itty bitty babies floating around. They don't have feelings. They don't feel pain. Now, it would be great if we could study stem-cells without killing the embryo. That way we could make the embryo into a baby, and save suffering adults. But if we can't, we can't.
Real people come first, not embryos. And health comes first, not Democrat and Republican bickering.
: 10/27/2006 10:07 AM 
: 10/27/2006 11:02 AM I am with you 100% on this one, Cody.
: 10/27/2006 4:01 PM I agree with most of this post -- I support stem cell research. Your theory that I would disagree with everything you said just for the sake of it has been proven wrong.
Now I'll attempt to steer this conversation towards the war in Iraq -- so as not to disappoint your expectations completely...
bush is against stem cell research, comparing it to murder -- yet he has no problem with the fact that he's basically murdered almost 3,000 American soldiers (by sending them to their deaths). The hypocrisy!
Well if they died naturally then of course I have no problem with it.
: 10/27/2006 6:48 PM haha
: 10/28/2006 5:15 PM : 10/28/2006 6:26 PM : 10/29/2006 3:44 PM An unbiased source that shows both sides but ultimately confirms my point. Satisfied?
Because of the restrictions placed on embryonic stem cell research by the bush administration. Not to hard to figure that one out.
The article states:
"The political and ethical environment in the United States is dampening down the VC community globally in terms of their willingness to invest in this".
Damian G. said... An unbiased source that shows both sides but ultimately confirms my point. Satisfied?
Was your point that embryoic stem cell research ISN'T promising? The article you linked to definitely doesn't prove that.
Nowhere in the article does it say that Adult stem cell research is MORE promising. In fact it is actually more problematic.
From the National Institutes of Health website: Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent (Not fixed as to potential development). Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin.
Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies. (Stem Cell Information)
Another reason people aren't rushing to invest in this is the HIGH cost.
From the article: "I think what we should look for are the first clinical trials hopefully being successful, and then I will be very disappointed if venture capital doesn't join in".
"The cost of all of this will be so great that I don't think it will be right to rely on either the government or the private capital. I think we need both".
Also of interest was the last line of the article which states, "In America you have a strange government setup where the president can actually call the shots -- That is not democracy. That can't happen in Britain".
I agree. Why is all of American being forced to live by one man's "morals". It's ridiculous.
Yeah, same thing with the cord blood, it's just not as good.
Also, embryonic stem cells have proven harmful when applied; they have caused tumours when used to "cure" people.
I'm not aware of this gallbladder you speak of. I do know that there are severe limitations as to what can be accomplished with adult stem cells.
Adult Stem Cell Limitations. Some people mistakenly believe that adult stem cells offer the same, or better, potential as embryonic stem cells for treating disease. This reflects an incomplete understanding of the qualities of the respective stem cell types. While embryonic stem cells have qualities that give them the potential to treat a wide range of diseases and injuries, adult stem cells simply do not. (follow the link for the complete run down on all the limitations).
Damian G. said... Also, what in the hell do restrictions have to do with hampering research? Shouldn't investment offset Government hand-outs? I do not buy your line of thinking.
The cost is high and it will probably be a long time before we see any results. Neither of these realities are attractive to investors. Which is why Government funding of this research is so important.
Taking Bush Personally: Two years ago, Bush announced an unexpectedly restrictive policy on the use of stem cells from human embryos in federally funded medical research. Because federal funding plays such a large role, the government more or less sets the rules for major medical research in this country. (10/23/2003. Slate)
I don't know what "Government handouts" you're referring to. This is research which could benefit millions of Americans. It isn't a "handout", it's an investment.
Check and mate. I couldn't find the gall bladder story, but a liver is a liver. Also, here's a good summary that is from an admittedly conservative source.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/449djpmz.asp
Then of course the adult stem cells can only become what tissue they already are. Not to mention they're harder to find, let alone grow (seeing as they're already adults and all)
All of the facts I've seen point toward Embryonic stem-cells being the best ones. Not that adult and cord cells shouldn't be used, because they can be helpful too. But stem-cells prove to be the most promising research to invest in, and as Capitalist as I am, I see this as a science too important not to study just because venture capitalists don't see it as an industry to capitalize on. Like dervish said, it costs a lot, and the effects aren't immediate. Most of the people probably saw stem-cell research and immediately invested their money in Cialis.
<< Home
