Michael Fox or Rush Limbaugh (interview, controversial, Clinton, insurance)

[MoMark]

I live in Missouri, I'm a Missouri voter, and I'm against embryonic stem cell research. Hey, use adult stem cells if you want from conscious and willing volunteers who can make a conscious decision to say yes, but protect our unborn. Yes, I'm a Democrat and yes, I'm pro-life. What got me about Michael J. Fox's public attempt to influence us was his calling Missouri "Missourah"...what Canadian would call Missouri "Missourah"? Not even many Missourians pronounce the state that way. Someone coached Fox to say it that way, and that's a clear and obvious manipulation attempt which comes across as fake and false. I'm voting no. My message to Mr. Fox would be. "Yes, I empathize with your plight, I truly do and I hope some kind of treatment or cure is found" but... one's personal suffering has no moral legitimacy in my opinion to justify the destruction of unborn children to provide answers. What are we going to have next... women coming in and getting fertilized so that they can carry a fetus to a certain point, get it aborted for a paycheck so that it can be killed to cure people like Michael J.Fox? It's already been widely written and published that adult stem cells appear to work better. It's also been recently reported that stem cells may cause brain lesions and tumors in the person receiving the therapy (divine justice?). If we want to pursue stem cell research, stick to adult stem cells and use stem cells from willing adult volunteers who are thoroughly educated about the issue to make an informed choice. And when making political ads as a Hollywood celebrity...use your common sense and try not to let coaching be so obvious in your "act" to attempt to sway a target audience that can instantly see through the "folksy" manipulation attempt.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by Nea1

Like I said beating a dead horse.

There's still life in this nag. (Meaning me, not you.)

Originally Posted by Nea1

I saw two of my loved ones die really bad deaths, I will do what is necessary to keep my kids for having to experience that with me or themselves or their children,

And believe me, you have my utmost sympathies. If there's any thing that we can do to find cures that does not involve taking other peoples' lives, I'm all for it. Giddyup.

Originally Posted by Nea1

And yes I have read his books, just because you are an author doesnt make you an authority on all things wise it is just his opinions.

Of course. But just because he writes about elves and hobbits doesn't necessarily mean that his opinions on life don't have merit. A healthy society needs the poets just as much as it needs the scientists.

[Nea1]

Again adult stem cells cannot be used for that type of disease, only diabetes, and transplants. I understand your view and respect it. However I will vote yes based on personal experience.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by MoMark

What are we going to have next... women coming in and getting fertilized so that they can carry a fetus to a certain point, get it aborted for a paycheck so that it can be killed to cure people like Michael J.Fox?

If the gates are thrown wide and no ethical guidelines established, that is exactly what you're going to have.

And it will be quickly followed by, "Poor women can't afford the procedure, so your tax dollars should pay for their abortion."

If we can find ethical means to help Mr. Fox and those like him, let's do it. But if it means killing other people to do it, then we just can't go down that road. You cannot commit evil in hopes that good might result.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by Nea1

Again adult stem cells cannot be used for that type of disease, only diabetes, and transplants.

Yet.

A stem cell is basically a "blank" cell, a cell in which the DNA programming has not yet "kicked in" to tell it how to develop. The hope is that doctors will be able to find ways to program the cell to grow like they want it to --- healthy cells to combat cancer, leukemia, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc.

We can't do it yet, but the concept does sound like it might offer some hope. But we must, must, MUST do so under strict ethical guidelines.

[Nea1]

Adult stem cells are not longer blank, they cannot regenerate into new cells to replace the ones killed off by Parkinsons and Alzheimers. They have already been "Programed" as they say.

And yes we need Poets, I just dont live by them.
And their may not be an "unethical"( as some believe) way to find a cure, it maybe this is the only way to go we wont know until we investigate further.
And no we should NEVER impregnate women solely for this purpose, that to me is unethical. I want to use the ones that are donated already frozen, and when all gone, thats it, if we havent found something by then then we wont, it should be written that way.

[Nea1]

When your child has cancer and you have to look in their eyes and see the agony and desperation and fear, there is no worse feeling in the world, and at that point your child comes before all.

nags are fun to beat!!! (just a joke) to lighten things.!!!

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by Nea1

And yes we need Poets, I just dont live by them.

And I don't live by scientists. At least not exclusively. You have to consider all the evidence from all the sources, then make up your mind.

Originally Posted by Nea1

And no we should NEVER impregnate women solely for this purpose, that to me is unethical. I want to use the ones that are donated already frozen, and when all gone, thats it, if we havent found something by then then we wont, it should be written that way.

Since you feel so strongly about this, I urge you to contact your representatives in Congress and tell them exactly this.

[MoMark]

Originally Posted by Nea1

Again adult stem cells cannot be used for that type of disease, only diabetes, and transplants. I understand your view and respect it. However I will vote yes based on personal experience.

Nea1. The following sources and articles dispute your statement about adult stem cells and Parkinsons.
Institute of Science in Society/i.sis.org.uk/stemcells:
ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities. The risks involved in using the cytomegalovirus promoter to drive over-expression of the transcription factor are undetermined. To avoid immune rejection, the ES cells have to be tissue-matched from a bank of stem cells created from ‘spare’ human embryos. Otherwise, a special human embryo has to be created for the purpose, by transferring the patient’s genetic material into an empty egg, a procedure prone to failure and morally objectionable to many, including scientists.
By contrast, adult stem cells could be transplanted directly without genetic modification or pre-treatments. They simply differentiate according to cues from the surrounding tissues and do not give uncontrollable growth or tumours. The adult stem cells also show high degrees of genomic stability during culture. There is no problem with immune rejection because the cells can readily be isolated from the patients requiring transplant. And there is no moral objection involved. Better yet, research can be directed towards encouraging adult stem cells to regenerate and repair damaged tissues in situ, without the need for cell isolation and in vitro expansion. By minimising intervention, risks are reduced, as well as cost, making the treatment available to everyone and not just the rich.
Lifeissues.org:
Researchers in China met with a disastrous result. Fetal tissue injected into a patient’s brain produced temporary improvement, but within two years the patient developed a brain tumor and died. An autopsy revealed that the fetal cells had taken root, but had then metamorphed into other types of human tissue – hair, skin and bone. These grew into the tumor, which killed the patient.
A devastating result occurred at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, and was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
In some of the patients, the implanted embryonic cells apparently grew too well, churning out so much of a chemical that controls movement that they writhed and jerked uncontrollably. Dr. Paul E. Greene called the uncontrollable movements developed by some patients as “absolutely devastating.” He said, “They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their writs flex and distend. It’s a real nightmare. And we can’t selectively turn it off. No more fetal transplants. We are absolutely and adamantly convinced that this should be considered for research only.”
In stark contrast to the failures of embryonic stem cell research, the future looks very promising for treatment with adult stem cells.
Estatesvault.com:
Injecting human embryonic stem cells into the brains of Parkinson's disease patients may cause tumors to form reports US researchers in the journal Nature Medicine.
The Anchoress who is keeping closer watch on this than I reports that earlier the injection of embryonic stem cells into the brains of Parkinson's patients were a nightmarish experimentation gone bad.
At the same time, the injection of adult stem cells has shown considerable success with Parkinson's patients.
National Review Online, (Wesley J. Smith.2002:
Unless you made a point of looking for these stories…you might have missed them. Patients with Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis received significant medical benefit using experimental adult-stem-cell regenerative medical protocols. These are benefits that supporters of embryonic-stem-cell treatments have yet to produce widely in animal experiments. Yet adult stem cells are now beginning to ameliorate suffering in human beings.
Stem cells were harvested from the patient’s brain using a routine brain biopsy procedure. They were cultured and expanded to several million cells. About 20 percent of these matured into dopamine-secreting neurons. In March 1999, the cells were injected into the patient’s brain.
Three months after the procedure, the man’s motor skills had improved by 37 percent and there was an increase in dopamine production of 55.6 percent. One year after the procedure, the patient’s overall Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale had improved by 83 percent — this at a time when he was not taking any other Parkinson’s medication!

[Nea1]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

And I don't live by scientists. At least not exclusively. You have to consider all the evidence from all the sources, then make up your mind.

All the evidence would include all stem cells for me.


Since you feel so strongly about this, I urge you to contact your representatives in Congress and tell them exactly this.

I will, and have in the past. I will not vote yes if it has loop holes stating other wise. I didnt used to believe in it until , I went through it with my family.