• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Stem Cell Research – A Little Truth Wouldn’t Hurt

Cal

Well-known member
http://www.reagan.com/article.php?id=179

MIKE'S WEEKLY COLUMN WEEKLY COLUMN ARCHIVES

Stem Cell Research – A Little Truth Wouldn’t Hurt October 26, 2006
by Michael Reagan

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.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
And then you will read an article from a more Liberal supporting media that will say just the opposite...This is the reason I don't believe it should be a question being debated by politicians- it should be left to the consensus of the medical field to make their own decision based upon scientific grounds...

I oppose Roe vs Wade- but not for the same reason of probably many...I oppose it because I think it was too broad an interpretation of the Constitution- and that the Justices that previously had refused to hear it were correct...It should not be a Federal Government issue- I don't think government should have been involved in any way- but if government had to be involved it should have been left to the states and locals to decide.....Actually I believe it is an issue that should be left to the individual, the family, the Doctor and God to decide.....

I agree with Mrs. Greg- that maybe stem cell research is Gods way of righting the wrong of abortion....

I am also enough of a realist that I know that just passing a law against something will not stop it-- how many reams of drug laws do we have?- and drugs and drug users are proliferating yearly...Just passing a law against abortion did not/will not stop it....Both issues will never be solved by passing laws- it will take education and returning religious, moral, and family values to our communities...

And as long as we keep re-electing and/or overlooking the crooks and perverts in public office and promoting them as role models we are losing ground daily... Combine this with business's/politicians present attitude of everythings fair and legal- as long as you don't get caught and you can see why many of the current generations are growing up with a weakened moral value......
 

Silver

Well-known member
As far as I'm concerned, any article that uses the word 'lackey' or anything like it in reference to the opposing side of an issue can be immediately discarded, as it shows an obvious bias. (Unless of course that adjective is immediately following rcalf :lol: )
 

passin thru

Well-known member
silver said:
As far as I'm concerned, any article that uses the word 'lackey' or anything like it in reference to the opposing side of an issue can be immediately discarded, as it shows an obvious bias. (Unless of course that adjective is immediately following rcalf )
You can dismiss it all you want.............however you can not dismiss the FACTS in the article.
For this I give you the
ostrich_looking.gif
award
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
And as long as we keep re-electing and/or overlooking the crooks and perverts in public office and promoting them as role models we are losing ground daily... Combine this with business's/politicians present attitude of everythings fair and legal- as long as you don't get caught and you can see why many of the current generations are growing up with a weakened moral value......
:clap: :clap: :clap:
 

Silver

Well-known member
passin thru said:
silver said:
As far as I'm concerned, any article that uses the word 'lackey' or anything like it in reference to the opposing side of an issue can be immediately discarded, as it shows an obvious bias. (Unless of course that adjective is immediately following rcalf )
You can dismiss it all you want.............however you can not dismiss the FACTS in the article.
For this I give you the
ostrich_looking.gif
award

There might well be facts in this article. I agree with basic premise laid out here. I would not , however, make any decisions BASED on it because it is obviously biased. You are welcome to make your moral decisions based on anything you want, including scrawlings on the public washroom door, but I wont.
PS, thanks for the award. You're a very clever little soul.
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
Why are people so hung up on wanting to continue embronic stem cell research when it is known that it has never proven any results when adult stem cells have been known to have results?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Martin Jr. said:
Why are people so hung up on wanting to continue embronic stem cell research when it is known that it has never proven any results when adult stem cells have been known to have results?

Martin-- I'm not going to argue the facts of stem cell research because I don't know enough about it-- but this article suggests to the contrary --Thats the reason I think the decisons about its use should be left to the Medical field.... Its a short FAQ section from the National Institute of Health website- It has reams of info on stem cell and can be googled under "stem cell research":

Basic Questions
What are human embryonic stem cells?
Stem cells are cells that have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells for as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each "daughter" cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell.

A more detailed primer on stem cells can be found at Stem Cell Basics.

What classes of stem cells are there?
There are three classes of stem cells: totipotent, multipotent, and pluripotent.

A fertilized egg is considered totipotent, meaning that its potential is total; it gives rise to all the different types of cells in the body.
Stem cells that can give rise to a small number of different cell types are generally called multipotent.
Pluripotent stem cells can give rise to any type of cell in the body except those needed to develop a fetus.
Where do stem cells come from?
Pluripotent stem cells are isolated from human embryos that are a few days old. Cells from these embryos can be used to create pluripotent stem cell "lines" —cell cultures that can be grown indefinitely in the laboratory. Pluripotent stem cell lines have also been developed from fetal tissue obtained from fetal tissue (older than 8 weeks of development).

Why do scientists want to use stem cell lines?
Once a stem cell line is established from a cell in the body, it is essentially immortal, no matter how it was derived. That is, the researcher using the line will not have to go through the rigorous procedure necessary to isolate stem cells again. Once established, a cell line can be grown in the laboratory indefinitely and cells may be frozen for storage or distribution to other researchers.

Stem cell lines grown in the lab provide scientists with the opportunity to "engineer" them for use in transplantation or treatment of diseases. For example, before scientists can use any type of tissue, organ, or cell for transplantation, they must overcome attempts by a patient's immune system to reject the transplant. In the future, scientists may be able to modify human stem cell lines in the laboratory by using gene therapy or other techniques to overcome this immune rejection. Scientists might also be able to replace damaged genes or add new genes to stem cells in order to give them characteristics that can ultimately treat diseases.



Healthcare Questions
Why are doctors and scientists so excited about human embryonic stem cells?
Stem cells have potential in many different areas of health and medical research. To start with, studying stem cells will help us to understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to problems that occur somewhere in this process. A better understanding of normal cell development will allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors that cause these medical conditions.

Another potential application of stem cells is making cells and tissues for medical therapies. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace those that are diseased or destroyed. Unfortunately, the number of people needing a transplant far exceeds the number of organs available for transplantation. Pluripotent stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions, and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Have human embryonic stem cells been used successfully to treat any human diseases yet?
Scientists have only been able to do experiments with human embryonic stem cells (hESC) since 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Moreover, federal funds to support hESC research have only been available since August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced his decision on federal funding for hESC research. Because many academic researchers rely on federal funds to support their laboratories, they are just beginning to learn how to grow and use the cells. Thus, although hESC are thought to offer potential cures and therapies for many devastating diseases, research using them is still in its early stages.

Adult stem cells such as blood-forming stem cells in bone marrow (called hematopoietic stem cells, or HSCs) are currently the only type of stem cell commonly used to treat human diseases. Doctors have been transferring HSCs in bone marrow transplants for over 40 years. More advanced techniques of collecting, or "harvesting", HSCs are now used in order to treat leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders.

The clinical potential of adult stem cells has also been demonstrated in the treatment of other human diseases that include diabetes and advanced kidney cancer. However, these newer uses have involved studies with a very limited number of patients.

What will be the best type of stem cell to use for therapy?
Pluripotent stem cells, while having great therapeutic potential, face formidable technical challenges. First, scientists must learn how to control their development into all the different types of cells in the body. Second, the cells now available for research are likely to be rejected by a patient's immune system. Another serious consideration is that the idea of using stem cells from human embryos or human fetal tissue troubles many people on ethical grounds.

Until recently, there was little evidence that multipotent adult stem cells could change course and provide the flexibility that researchers need in order to address all the medical diseases and disorders they would like to. New findings in animals, however, suggest that even after a stem cell has begun to specialize, it may be more flexible than previously thought.

There are currently several limitations to using adult stem cells. Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Finally, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime. These potential weaknesses might limit the usefulness of adult stem cells.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Thanks OT, that was actually truly an informative article.
And I couldn't help but notice the word 'lackey' wasn't used even once! :wink:
 

Cal

Well-known member
Research has been going on worldwide for a number of years with a huge "prize" at stake, yet so far not one actual cure for any human disease or affliction has been found...besides the ability to grow tumors in lab animals, from human embryonic stem cells. Hmmmm...better throw some more government money at this one since the private sector seems to be a bit leary. I'm curious as to know how much money the Canadian government is putting into this project?
 

Cal

Well-known member
Silver said:
Cal said:
I'm curious as to know how much money the Canadian government is putting into this project?

Why?
The left wing rhetoric we get down here amounts to the idea that we could just about raise the dead if it weren't for GWB. The fact is that many nations, including China, which has a history of no problem with even infanticide, is doing stem cell research. So to what degree are other countries spending money on research? Not just Canada but I would be curious because we have a good bit in common, and are other countries actually using research money that originated in the US? I also have trouble accepting rosy expectations from sources that benefit from an ongoing influx of government money.

One more thing, could we send some of those "lackies" up there to see if they can do anything for your logging industry? Maybe find some spotted owls or something. Maybe they could also help look for Caribou before you dig any more oil wells. :wink:
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
And actually nobody is stopping embronic stem cell research, just stopping the government from paying for the research, and if it ever works the company that finds a use for it will get rich.
In Missouri there is an amendment on the ballot that is misleading that will authorize embronic stem cell research, and I understand that huge sums of money is being spent to promote it. Why don't they just put this money into research? I think that they just want to push the limits as to what the public will accept in ethics.
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
Oh! I forgot to put the word "lackey" in the last post.
The dictionary says a Lackey is a servile follower.
I try to be a servile follower of truth. so I hope I am a lackey. If I was following something else I wouldn't want to be called that.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Cal said:
http://www.reagan.com/article.php?id=179

MIKE'S WEEKLY COLUMN WEEKLY COLUMN ARCHIVES

Stem Cell Research – A Little Truth Wouldn’t Hurt October 26, 2006
by Michael Reagan

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.

Last night on CNN, if I understood him right, David Gergen said that embrionic cells could be harvested without killing the embryo.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
If you take a stand against embryo stem cell research then you would also have to take a stand against in vitro fertilization. Where is the ruckus about that?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Martin Jr. said:
In vitro fertilization is not asking us for tax dollars to fund it.

Martin, you have a point there. The question is, is it a moral issue or a money issue?

Do you draw the line on it on govt. spending?
 
Top