Question for Missouri’s Amendment 2 Supporters and Ohio 2nd District Candidate Vic Wulsin
The Bush administration on Thursday awarded over $12 million in contracts to stem cell banks that store umbilical cord blood to obtain adult stem cells for research. The Department of Health and Human Services provided contracts for six institutions to expand their inventory and create a diverse national holding of cells.
This announcement follows the late September announcement of an additional $10 million to build and connect these banks into a National Inventory of Cord Blood - accessible to any physician across the country for transplant use.
The contracts are a result of the Stem Cell Research and Therapeutic Act of 2005 which Congress overwhelmingly approved in December as an alternative to forcing taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research, which destroys human life.
The bill authorized a total of $265 million from 2007-2010 to stock cord blood cells and bone marrow cells, both of which have already been used to help patients, unlike embryonic stem cells.
I though Wulsin’s opponent Jean Schmidt was against stem cell research. WRONG — Schmidt, and George Bush, only oppose embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). They both support adult stem cell research (ASCR).
I thought Michael Fox and Allah’s nominee for “the most shameless political ad you’ll ever see” (he’s right) told us that those opposed to Amendment 2 in Missouri, including incumbent Senator Jim Talent, oppsed stem cell research. WRONG AGAIN — Talent and those who oppose Amendment 2 only oppose ESCR.
Real progress is being made with adult stem cells, including promising treatments of serveral diseases (I think the actual number may be 72, but I’m in a hurry, so I’ll understate). ESCR, even if you could solve the problem with destruction of human life, has produced nothing of value.
Vic Wulsin is lying about Jean Schmidt.
Amendment 2 supporters in Missouri, including Michael Fox, are lying about Jim Talent and Amendment 2’s opponents.
It’s that simple.
In fact, many of those who are pushing ESCR and reporting on it are doing everything they can to minimize the significance of or stymie the successes that are being realized in ASCR. ESCR proponents who do not know this should ask them why.
__________________________________
Previous Post:
Nov. 3 — A Constitutional Right to Cloning in Missouri?
__________________________________
Other Voices:
– Life News, Nov. 4 — Missouri Amendment 2 is a Fraud, It Promotes Human Cloning
– Life News, Nov. 4 — Michael J. Fox’s Stem Cell Research Television Ads Are All Wrong
I think you’re giving Alex P. Keaton too much credit. I don’t think he’s lying about anything — I just think he’s another knee-jerk liberal too lazy to research a subject before opening his mouth. He’s going on his “feelings” that people would be better off if we could have this research. Like most liberals, of course, he doesn’t consider the innocent unborn to be “people.”
He openly admitted he hadn’t read the text of the proposed Missouri amendment.
Comment by Connect the Dots — November 5, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
#1, a tiny partial pass at best.
I’ll concede your point on Amendment 2, but Fox has had Parkinson’s for quite a while. I am sure by now that he knows the difference between ESCR and ASCR and knows that saying that someone is “against stem-cell” research SOLELY because they oppose ESCR is fundamentally dishonest. And yes, I’m sure he justifies it in the name of the “greater good.”
I’ll even concede that he may have been fooled into thinking ASCR hasn’t gone anywhere, but he HAS to know the difference.
Comment by TBlumer — November 5, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
OK, I’ll ask the question: Are so-called ‘adult’ stem cells the same as so-called ‘embryonic’ stem cells? Has some of the information been lost in the ‘adult’ variety? Has an irreversible step taken place as you go from ‘embryonic’ to ‘adult’?
They’re both called STEM cells, but isn’t it cartoonish to assume that they are really the same?
Isn’t a statement like just magical thinking? Shouldn’t the word ‘hopefully’ be placed in the front of that sentence? (If you want to quote reference material, please restrict yourself to serious journals like Science, Nature, NEJM, Cell, PNAS.)
You must be aware that Washington University, St. Louis and the University of Cincinnati are competing for limited research funds in Cell Biology. (Which is why Danforth, former Republican Senator from Missouri whose brother was Chancellor of WashU. supports the Missouri proposition.) Cincinnati in particular has stated that its economic future may rest on its ability to compete for biomedical funding.
It helps to have a representative in Congress who knows her stem from her stern.
It’s that simple.
Comment by Mike Roser — November 6, 2006 @ 12:16 am
#3, at the risk of being a PITA, you are really uninformed.
They are both called STEM cells. Embryonic stem cells come from (surprise) embryos. “Adult” stem cells are perhaps too narrowly named — come from organic material of some kind (umbilical cords, bone marrow, etc.
Jean Schmidt knows the difference, and cares about the difference. Vic Wulsin knows the difference, and DOESN’T care about the difference, because she thinks progress that sacrifices human life is fine as long as it’s in the interest of “the greater good.”
Please spare me the scientific journal condescension.
Now to the science of ESCR and ASCR as it stands: Read this column by Michael Fumento, especially since it skewers one of your supposedly reliable sources, and come back if you have anything worthwhile to add, which I doubt:
HERE
Comment by TBlumer — November 6, 2006 @ 12:46 am
#3, in case you’re not motivated to read, Fumento’s article notes that ASCs appear to have potential for treating or curing 72-80 diseases, and are currently involved in 1,175 clinical trials — which is 1,175 more than ESCs are involved in.
It has proven very difficult to control the actions of ESCs compared to ASCs, which intuitively makes sense because ASCs are more developed. If you want to know more, read more. Subscribe to the free daily e-mail from LifeNews.com, for starters.
Comment by TBlumer — November 6, 2006 @ 12:59 am
Your response is inane. The research interest in stem cells is that their information content can be ‘rolled back in time’.
Fumento’s opinion piece restates the obvious. Use for direct treatment of a disease is the most trivial aspect. Adult stem cell treatments have been around for generations - viz kidneys, heart, liver, marrow, etc. Anyone working with transplants has to assume that longterm acceptance of allogenic cells has to rely on some form of tolerance. Pregnancy is an interesting natural experiment. Chimerism gives some clues. Attempts to create ‘null’ cells have been interesting. But the Holy Grail is to coax an individual’s own cells to run their development ‘movie’ backwards to the point where a ’self’ repair can be made from the individual’s pluripotential cells such as you would find in an embryo. That way you void the complicated issues of antigenicity (self versus non-self). (Question: at what stage in the embryo does the information become fixed? 2-cell? 4-cell? 8-cell? etc. or do you have to go back to the egg and replicate the 3D conditions?) Bigger question: how do you get the information out of the DNA in a coherent fashion? If successful treatment comes from reprogramming cells, the ‘city on the hill’ will be built brick by brick. Isn’t it easier to jump low hurdles than high ones? Shouldn’t the plasticity of embryonic cells make research with them easier than with adult cells?
Comment by Mike Roser — November 6, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
#6, five points:
- The plasticity is why they are not controllable (*yet* — I believe EVER is the proper term).
- ASCs represent the jumping of low hurdles constantly. In sports terms, ASCs are blocking and tackling. ESCs represent a Hail Mary pass. (And, there are some signs ASCs can accomplish everything the embryonics are claiming is theirs alone, which you would know if you received the Life News daily e-mail).
- In act, ASCs are being used in studies to treat Parkinson*s, which makes the Michael Fox commercials all the more sickening (which you would also know if you got the daily e-mail).
- ESCR has been riddled with scandal, including the Korean clown who *somehow* got hs work past your vaunted *peer review*. The confidence still being placed in ESCR, which has accomplished nothing, and is (and I believe always will be) *10 years away* is what is *inane*.
- Finally, I believe that a loving God has given us all the tools to conquer disease without the taking of human life, if we would stop looking for shortcuts that will not work. Be of good cheer — ASCR is proving that to be the case more and more with each passing day.
Comment by TBlumer — November 6, 2006 @ 2:48 pm