Its all politics, Fox's ad is running against Steele in MD and Cardin actually voted against Stem Cell funding once.

Sorry Mark, but to say that proponents of stem cell research are simply determined to slaughter fetuses is in and of itself misguided. Many of us have had beloved family members with chronic diseases that could possibly be treated or cured by such research. This isn't a cut-and-dry issue. You can't say that stem cell proponents are "anti-life" because they are in fact trying to save lives through the use of new technology.

From what I understand the ads are blantantly dishonest...gee, who would have guessed!!!!!The Missouri 2 ballot initiative has nothing to do with criminializing etc. Missouri already permits stem cell research..this is regarding cloning..it is just cloaked in verbage that is confusing.
and guess who voted AGAINST stem cell research. the DEMOCRAT candidate in Maryland. NOT Michael Steele who voted FOR it!!!

Have you noticed the steadfast refusal of the radical Left to admit that fetal stem cell research has produced absolutely nothing of value?

No, the radical Left's ads are not only omitting such relevant information, they are actually providing "information" which is false.

They claim that fetal stem cell research is productive.

And they claim that efforts are made to ban it.

But the truth is, the research is not productive, no successful application has been made using fetal stem cells, and there has been no effort to make such research illegal. The issue has merely been to refuse to use federal funds to do it.

If those who claim to be promoting stem cell research in general were really doing so, they would be honest, and discuss the far greater advances using stem cells from adults and from umbilical cords and placentas. And they would not LIE and claim that lack of federal funding is the same as making something illegal.

The fact that their ads are simply false, full of lies and purposeful efforts to mislead, makes me very suspiciou of the true agendas of those making the claims.

So I have to agree with Mark, that the true underlying agenda is to stop the efforts to identify unborn life as having any intrinsic value. I think the culture of death is very threatened by anything which acknowledges that unborn children represent human life, so they work very hard to diminish such life to the lowly status of merely being the source of anonymous "cells". Remember, they urge frightened and vulnerable women to abort, explaining with all apparent sincerity that they are really only scraping out "clumps of cells". And remember how hard they fight to prevent any legislation which might encourage those women to actually get ultrasounds and other tests which would show heartbeats, or identifiable infants sucking their thumbs or responding to pain.

No, the entire pro-abortion movement is dedicated to reducing this stage of human life to mere "clumps of cells", so it is logical that they would present fetuses as having no more value than as cell donors---even if they have to lie about the value of such cell research.

So Mr. Fox was not 100 percent accurate. That's just a Democrat being a Democrat.

Almiranta wrote:

No, the entire pro-abortion movement is dedicated to reducing this stage of human life to mere "clumps of cells", so it is logical that they would present fetuses as having no more value than as cell donors---even if they have to lie about the value of such cell research.

Consider for a moment the big picture:

If one accepts as a fact of reality that there is a Right to Life prior to birth, at what subsequent point can that right be logically denied?

And can Socialism, which denies all the real rights of human beings, be brought into existance and maintained without the power to take human life at will?

Is it any surprise that the Left continues to fight tooth and nail for the false right to an abortion?

Actually I'm not sure how I feel about embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), but what I do find odd in what has happened since 2004 from the Pro ESCR camp is that they've forgotten to include the phrase embryonic.

Now isn't it ironic that they'd forget to include that bit of their desire to see embryos used for stem cell research... Since it's the ONLY way (in their view) that Christopher Reeve will be reborn or Michael J Fox can stop shaking is to forget to mention the word Embryonic....

Instead they paint all conservatives against ALL stem cell research when the furthest could be true. After all, we have treatments already from adult stem cell research so the Pro ESCR group has to lie in order to try and win the day.

Viagra and Oxycontin must make not having a soul a bit more bearable.

Mark,

What do you mean when you say that Michael J. Fox "wasn't 100% accurate in his portrayal of the issue"? You need to explain this accusation.

*According to Drudge*

EXCLUSIVE: Ad Response To Michael J. Fox running in Missouri tomorrow night; stars Jim Caviezel of 'The Passion of Christ' and Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan, who pitches Game 4 of World Series... MORE...

To answer for Mark - at least just partially - Mr. Fox implied that the Republican candidate in Missouri is against any form of stem cell research, and that is totally false. Stem cell research is legal in both Missouri and in Maryland. Fox is being used by the Donks.

What do you mean when you say that Michael J. Fox "wasn't 100% accurate in his portrayal of the issue"?

Let me help you out, other_gnat: Michael Fox either knowingly, or was duped into lying about Senator Talent's stance on stem cell research.

Mr. Fox is also knowingly, or is being duped into lying in Maryland, about Michael Steele.

It's a damn shame; I used to like Mr. Fox. Now I only pity him. He's become Michael J. Sheehan, either knowingly or unknowingly. Either way, he's carrying the water for the lying DemoCRAPs.

As I stated in an earlier thread, the DemocRATs can run on the issues. They run misleading ads, and their lemmings lap them up like thirsty dogs. Claire lied in a debate earlier this month, and now she's backing a lying ad by Mike Sheehan. Pathetic, isn't it?

Mark, I don't understand one thing, and I need your assistance. I hear this a lot on talk radio, about the pro-abort crowd embracing embryonic stem cell research.

What's the correlation?

Moderate Voter,

I did give you two choices - and you seem to fall in to the misguided camp.

I, too, have friends and family members with chrnoic illness which stem cell research might one day alleviate or cure - but it is from very pitt of Hell the concept that we should kill some to cure others. I cannot and will not EVER agree to the deliberate killing of the innocent - I don't care if you could prove to me conclusively that killing the innocent would cure all disease - we have no right to such a cure at the cost of someone else's life.

Almiranta: "Have you noticed the steadfast refusal of the radical Left to admit that fetal stem cell research has produced absolutely nothing of value?"

I'm not a member of the radical left, but I wonder what you mean by "absolutely nothing of value". You do realize that human fetal stem cells were successfully cultivated for the very first time in 1998, right? You do realize that there are numerous lines of infrahuman research which show great promise, right? You do realize that it took oncology (cancer research) decades to develop any useful human therapies, right? And even now oncology research is largely at the stage of swatting flies with sledgehammers. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, you do realize that there are blastocysts (i.e., early stage embryoes) that are being thrown away, or stored in freezers, to the tune of hundreds of thousands, right?

I've been commenting on this subject for months now, and I have to say that this post of yours is without merit. I am pro-life, and yet I find it offensive that you suggest that fetal stem cell research requires one to "identify unborn life as having any intrinsic value". No, in-vitro fertilization has already required that. That's where the slippery slope starts. That's the real nexus of the culture of death. To draw the line at stem cell research is, well, dumb. Even more offensive is to suggest that "they urge frightened and vulnerable women to abort, explaining with all apparent sincerity that they are really only scraping out "clumps of cells".

Unbelievable.

Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeve, Nancy Reagan, et. al., are/were not being dishonest, they are/were being hopeful. How realistically hopeful remains to be seen. The fact is that research in spinal regeneration, with the help of fetal stem cells, has shown considerable promise in infrahumans. In fact, in terms of progress made in the last five years I would characterize it as astounding. There are things happening now that I never would have thought possible 10 years ago. At that time it was the stuff of science fiction. As far as Parkinson's disease goes, I was very recently in Atlanta for the annual Soc. for Neuroscience meeting (24,000 attendees this year, by the way -- down from a high of 37,000 three years ago), and had the opportunity to talk at length to a guy that had been active in dopamine cell transplants from its inception 20 or so years ago (dopamine cell depletion is what causes Parkinson's disease). He was located at U. Colorado Boulder Med Sch, but had a joint appointment with the Karolinska Inst in Stockholm, where the pioneering work was done (which he was involved in as a post-doc many years ago). He stated the obvious: there are so many factors involved in that kind of research. There are scarring factors, rejection factors, blood supply factors, structural factors, all kinds of things. But, chances are, if you figure them out in the rat spinal chord, there aren't all that many obstacles left for figuring it out in the human brain. At least you have a definite heads up.

His research has ground to a halt because none of the available fetal stem cell lines are appropriate for his area of research. He needed private funding to continue. But considering how things are set up now, he would have to replace all of his equipment. Why? Because it was bought on federal grants. Thus, it could not be used for research restricted by federal mandate. He would have had to replace his entire lab. And he couldn't do it. So he shut it down, retired, and became a consultant for one of the vendors.

Ricorun I understand that all research takes time. That's a given. (Or it should be) I also agree that many of the embryonic cells are coming from fertility clinics and not abortion clinics. I'm not really for either of those things so far I don't see a problem here.

Where I think we disagree is the focus and promise of Embryonic verses Umbilical or Adult stem cell research. From what I've heard (this isn't an area of major interest to me so I haven't done any first had research) is that ESCR has said lots of promising things but still seems to be a long way off. On the other hand USCR and ASCR seems to be showing results now that can be expanded into other areas.

Assuming that's true, what's wrong in focusing more on things that work now, than things that are still a ways off?

As for Michael J Fox, I like his acting. I've enjoyed him since he was Michael Keeton back on Family Ties. I grew up with him as one of those actors I enjoyed and I respect his career. Unfortunetly he's gotten involved in something that he's passionate and personally invovled with yet he didn't get the full information before he through his hat in here. Otherwise he's wasting his energy on purpose for something that isn't what he says he supports. It'd be one thing if he was supporting a law or amendment that would make sure Stem Cell research was okay, but this amendment is actually about cloning and not stem cells. So I have to wonder what happened there.

give me a break, Mark, you’re nothing but a hypocrite:
"I cannot and will not EVER agree to the deliberate killing of the innocent"
-but yet months ago you agreed that if a plane was heading into a building it was ok to shoot it down, so which is it, your only ok with killing the innocent if it helps your argument?

and for the rest of you who are anti-choice where's the call for immediate trips to the doctor anytime anyone has unprotected sex? That would be the logical next step wouldn't it, otherwise the potential mother may end up drinking alcohol or doing jumping jacks or smoking or eating a hamburger and risk the life of the fetus. If you're against a law demanding that any woman who doesn't immediately go to the hospital after having sex then you're nothing but a baby killer.

Opuss, go back to Romper Room--your analogy is apples and oranges, as usual.

Are you sure you weren't aborted?

I'm a big Fox fan, but I have many problems with this.

First, he's Canadian and not American

Second, Talent doesn't oppose Stem Cell research, he opposes federally funder EMBRYONIC stem cell research...a big difference.

Third, there is absolutely NO proof whatsoever that these stem cell lines have led to any cure of any kind anywhere

Fourth, the fact he didn't take his medication to make this ad is quite revealing.

I have a brother-in-law with Parkinson's. It's not a fun disease. No one wishes anyone had it.

But the Dems B.S. abuses of this and Christopher Reeves, suggesting that he would have been walking now if (John Edwards quote) if embryonic stem cells were federally funded is the lowest of the low. It will burn the Dems.

First, he's Canadian and not American

This matters not to the DemocRATs, Warriornation; they had OBL campaigning for Kerry...

I think Mr. Limbaugh presents another view...I know you libs hate him, but he tells exactly why Mr. Fox has errored in his claims including the fact that stem cell research is not only not a crime but perfectly legal in Missouri.

Here is the article including a rather interesting passage from Mr. Fox's own book.

I certainly hope all of you who are against embryonic stem cell research (since it promotes the taking of human life) are urging your friends and relatives not to avail themselves of in vitro fertilization in order to have children.

Because apparently, it's okay to throw away those embryos when no longer needed (or when the parents can't afford to store them indefinitely), but it's wrong to be able to donate those embryos in order to promote research which could possibly cure so many debilitating diseases.

And spare me the "nobody's stopping private companies from doing the research" - look at the advances in cancer treatment, AIDS treatment, etc, that have come from the Federal Government throwing its weight behind those causes.

The United States has the best scientists in the world, and they are being hamstrung because they are ineligible for any Federal grants if they accept private money for embryonic stem cell research. Those scientists would have to maintain completely separate facilities for their privately funded stem cell research and projects funded by the government, and most cannot afford to do this.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Apparently he became a US Citizen in 2001 so I apologize for implying he was still a Canadian.

Opus,

Given what we know of our terrorist enemies, if a plane is hijacked by them the presumption is that everyone on the plane is doomed already - in order to prevent the killing of additional innocent people, it would be permissible to shoot such a plane down. Understand that it still wouldn't be right - it would still be something we'd have to atone for; but it is less wrong than allowing even more innocent people to die.

This is, of course, vastly different from taking an innocent life which was in no way, shape or form involved in something which might cause the death of other innocent people.

The hypocrisy of the religious right is staggering. The death penalty is ok. Depleted uranium ammunition is ok. Cluster bombs are a-ok. But stem cell research is the devil's work? What's next, outlaw masturbation for the sake of the poor, innocent sperm cells? Wow, actually that sounds like something the Bush administration would consider.

keefer,

You gave me a sane and entirely understandable response, thank you. You misspelled my name, though; it's nate, not gnat.

Lapsed,

Come on home - we're waiting impatiently for you to rejoin us.

That aside, I'm also opposed to in-vitro fertilization.

John,

Actually, the death penalty is most no necessary in our modern world, and so I'm generally opposed - though I think we should keep the penalty on the books (what, after all, are we to do with the man who, sentenced to life without parole for murder, murders again?). As for the DU and cluster bombs - they are pieces of military hardware - no more horrific than heavy artillery and machine guns. But that does bring up another point:

You who are enamoured of science and believe that there should be no consideration of morality in the pursuit of whatever science goals appeal to you at the moment, please consider that the atomic bomb was once considered a good idea.

"The unborn cannot hide, escape, or ask for assistance. They are at the mercy of their mothers and doctors. Two hundred years of slavery, bigotry, lynchings, segregation, discrimination and racial violence have taught us a lesson that we cannot treat segments of the American population with disregard, violence, and extinction. Human beings are human beings, no matter what the Supreme Court or the laws of our country say. In its 1857 Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court defined black people as baggage, or chattel, the personal property of the woner who could dispose of his property at will. Roe vs. Wade granted American mothers the special privilege of being able to dispose of their unwanted children at will, as a matter of choice, just as their Southern forbearers had done to slaves in the mid-nineteenth century. The unborn have had misfortune to be conceived in an era when the baby has literally been thrown out with the bath water. With the coming of the birth control pill, technology provided teens and adults with the necessary means to free themselves from the consequences of illicit intercourse. The unborn have become the pawns in a chess game of higher stakes than their human lives seem to merit. Many of these victims are the unintended consequences of a sexual revolution out of control. They are the unwanted results of the neo-pagan urge to seek pleasure at each and every oppurtunity without a care for the results, based on self-indulgent behavior, personal whim and immediate gratification."

"The Clinton administration committed $50 MILLION A YEAR to the United Nations Population Fund which works closely with China to implement it abortion policy."

Just goes to show you how sick! Bill Clinton IS!

One thing is certain about this issue. It will not be swept into the dustbin of history. As Lincoln intoned, "A house divided against itself can not stand." It will either get better or the abortion mindset will further permeate the American soul, drowning any real form of civility; we will probably be finished as a civilization.

The death that is now being imposed on the unborn is slowly being forced on the sick and dying i,e. Terri Schiavo case,THAT'S THIRD REICH IDEALS!! ALL due to the Hitler type thinking of LIBERALS!!!!!!!!WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AMERICA! It is YOUR Country! Are you going to sit back and let this moral cancer created by the democratic party go un-attended??

Are you going to sit back and let these BARBARIC, CRUEL, LIBERAL COMMUNIST TYRRANIST DEMOCRATS, Force their shadow of TYRANNY OVER YOU?????

WAKE UP!!! AMERICA!!!!

Jeremiah

Notice that the way politics is being conducted now is with an enormous emphasis on the personal.

- "It's my body."

- "These are serious diseases."

Etc.

I bring this up because technology is bringing us to a realm beyond politics, that threatens to destroy politics entirely. For example: suppose we could create a drug that would make us feel happy all day, and have no ill side-effects otherwise. We'd take this drug in a heartbeat.

Never mind that in the process, we'd destroy the pain that makes love something we feel we need, or that the ability to get anyone to fight an invading enemy would go, or any of that stuff that might be a "higher" personal good which was, in previous ages, not unrelated to the "common good."

I don't want to tell people they have to die in order for us to have a notion of the "common good." But if they continue saying "the issue is personal," that effectively the response they're going to get from others, if we are going to have a democracy. For their insistence on immortality is transpolitical, and does demand that we engage in practices that other ages - not just the Middle Ages - would have deemed as transgressing the bounds of nature, and put us to death for even thinking of.

Warriornation,

Mr. Fox did not err in his claims. There are conservatives who do want to make certain types of research on stem cells illegal in Missouri and this referendum will prevent that from happening. The referendum is about keeping certain types of stem cells research legal, not making anything legal that wasn’t legal before.

The procedure in question involves fusing a human egg cell with the nucleus of an ordinary body cell. This is a vital part of stem-cell research. If conservatives were to ban this in Missouri, it would cause many research labs and scientists to leave the state.

Rush’s statement, that research on adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood cells are being rejected by the left is also not true. Rush asks, “Why not adult stem cells? Why not research on umbilical cord blood cells that can be extracted from the blood in the umbilical cord?” Nobody is saying that research should not be done on adult stem cells or on umbilical cord blood cells. The issue is whether or not research should be done on embryonic stem cells also. It is not necessary to stop research in one area in order to do research in another.

Mark,

The issue in question has to do with embryonic stem cells, not fetal stem cells. Fetal stem cells come from a fetus in a womb. The embryonic stem cells being used for research are created in a petri dish in fertility clinics and would be discarded as medical waste if they were not used for research. They have no possibility of ever becoming people.

How about Limbaugh and others (at least one in this thread) claiming Fox is being "used" by the democrats. They know people like Fox, that Fox is a good guy who's done a lot for people with Parkinsons, so they can't attack him. So they attack the Democrats for "using" Fox.

That idea is patently insulting to Fox. Do you think he doesn't know what he's doing? That he's in a state of vulnerability, so that he's able to be taken advantage of? No, he knows exactly what he's doing, and knows exactly who and what he's promoting.

And Mark,

Ford's father He called them "trackers," not "crackers."

What is a tracker? Someone who follows political opponents with a camera hoping to catch something embarrassing, like the father of the opponent calling your operatives "crackers."

Guess they didn't get anything good that day, so they had to falsely accuse him of calling them crackers. Hope you have the decency to retract your claim.

And Mark,

Ford's father He called them "trackers," not "crackers."

What is a tracker? Someone who follows political opponents with a camera hoping to catch something embarrassing, like the father of the opponent calling your operatives "crackers."

Guess they didn't get anything good that day, so they had to falsely accuse him of calling them crackers. Hope you have the decency to retract your claim.

Fox is not dishonest. Stem Cells will help many people. What I see as Dishonest is Rush Limbaugh calling ALL disabled people, Democrat, and liars. I will no longer send funds to Rush and his causes. I am quite angery. And I think Limbaugh should be fired.

Frankly, when Rush resorted to personally attacking someone with whom he disagreed, he lost all credibility... though that isn't really saying much.

This is a moral equivalency argument, through an through. If you think that a clump of less than a hundred cells is the moral equivalent to a living, breathing child which is made up of more than a million times that number of cells, then you are going to go one way on this debate. If you don't... then you will go the other way... simple as that.

Now, I fall into the latter category, which Noonan calls "misguided," but I am not the "lets slaughter all the embryos we can!" freak that you would love to paint me as. The fact of the matter is that fertility clinics have dozens of embryos that currently reside in freezers, and they will probably wind up in one of those little red bags marked "biohazard" within the next couple months.

Would you rather these embryos, whose very conception is "playing God", be idly thrown away, or would you rather them go to help cure a disease? Frankly... I think that I would rather them go to medical research, but I am biased, for I am not an embryo (though I am an organ donor).

Hell, if you think that embryos are the moral equivalent to a living, breathing baby, then the former should be the equivalent of throwing a baby in a dumpster!

How do you "pro-lifers" support fertility clinics, anyway? They facilitate the artificial creation of life (aka playing God), and that artificial creation of life almost always results in "extra" life which is almost always unceremoniously discarded. This would mean that you support the artificial creation and subsequent destruction of life in one instance and not in another... which is surely some sort of hypocrisy...

Think about it, be against ESR and Fertility clinics, or support them both... you can't truthfully have it both ways...

Mark, cluster bombs are not just like other pieces of military equipment. Yes all military equipment is designed to kill, but these are particularly lethal, when used in civilian areas it is just irresponsible/ or they just don't care about the civilians. They shatter into a thousand pieces, spraying the area with shrapnel, killing and wounding every one unlucky enough to be in the area. They don't always explode properly either so some parts will explode and then a wee kid will see the unexploded part one day and be blown to bits again with anyone else in the area. You only have to look at the effectivness of them in Lebanon I believe the Israeli army has used them very effectivly there and on the palestinians.

I don't see how stem cells are going to kill innocent "lives" there just cells, you can get cells from an umbilical cord but you wouldn't cosider that murder would you. If the cells aren't put to use they will just be thrown away and die naturally. Why not put cells that are never going to be life anyway to use to save lives?

Yeah...

Mark/Matt-

Stop wanting to be the victim... Harold Ford Sr. clearly said "tracker"... You heard what you wanted to hear... Besides, why would you think it's fair to judge someone by the actions of their fathers? Hell, if someone had levelled that against a Republican... "foul" would be cried so many times that is would make my head spin...

I wonder how long it will be before Mr. Fox decides to make a PSA about the magic and wonder of the drugs that STOP him from shaking as he does with the effects of Parkinsons. Will Mike produce an ad lauding a republican's support of Big Pharma, the companies who spend billions to create the drugs which help him lead a relatively normal life? The same companies that democrats cast as evil, money-grubbing social parasites?

He could even tie it in to this particular ad, a before and after type of thing; "youve seen me shaking without medicine, now you see me standing still, thanks to a company called Eli Lilly."

Be fair, Mr. Fox, the drugs which you take now have done infitely more than the diaphanous promises of an industry tied to abortion.

"Fourth, the fact he didn't take his medication to make this ad is quite revealing."

William J. Weiner M.D., professor and chairman of the department of neurology at the University of Maryland Medical Center had this to say:

"What you are seeing on the video is side effects of the medication. He has to take that medication to sit there and talk to you like that. ... He's not over-dramatizing. ... because people with Parkinson's don't look like that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff, and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk. And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of this movement, like what you see in the ad."

Gozer,
In response to your October 24, 2006 08:54 PM post, fetal stem cell research and adult stem cell research should be considered as a continuum, not a dichotomy. Research in on assists research in the other. And there are various reasons why that is true. One important one is the fact that the mechanisms of cellular specialization are poorly understood. Therefore, it is advantageous to be able to compare less specialized cells (ESC) with more specialized ones (ASC). And you can only do that if you have less specialized cells to work with.

Understanding cellular specialization is absolutely key if stem cell research is ever to fulfill its promise in a robust sort of way. For example, consider the article Mark presented in a topic a couple of months ago that reported that one lab was about to start human trials involving a line of spinal precursor cells that they developed from one of the authorized fetal stem cell lines. In order to get to that point they had to induce a certain level of specificity in those cells. It isn’t just a matter of injecting some fetal stem cells into the spinal cord at the site of damage and expect them to grow into neurons (nerve cells) and glia (the support cells for neurons). As far as I know, this is the first potential human therapy using ESCs. And this therapy would not be possible using any existing ASC or umbilical stem cell (USC) line (USCs are more specialized than ESCs, but less specialized than ASCs).

This potential therapy is the result of years of intensive research. First what they had to do is purify their ESC line, because ALL of the authorized lines were originally grown in a medium containing infrahuman by-products, which can be incorporated into the stem cells. Until you do that you can’t possibly consider any stem cell line for use in human therapy. That’s one big problem with the authorized ESC lines.

Newer ESC lines are grown in infrahuman product-free media, but you can’t use them if you’re performing federally funded research. But if you could you would eliminate the two or three years necessary to purify the cell line you are using. Moreover, in the process of that purification you have to be concerned with the possibility that you will accumulate too many genetic transcription errors over several generations of daughter cells.

Apparently though, they were successful in that endeavor. That put them back at square one. Then the real work began – coming up with a way to properly induce specialization of the right sort. Apparently they feel they’ve done that. I don’t know for sure, but my guess is that a great deal of trial and error was involved in which they basically had to rely on luck, because the specific mechanisms are poorly understood. But the more you know about the mechanisms the more efficient you can be in developing a targeted cell line for the purpose of interest. Moreover, once you do understand the mechanisms, there is a pretty good possibility that you can reverse the process – that is, create less specialized cells from more specialized ones. People are working on that too, apparently with some success. Likewise, there was a recent report of successfully extracting ESCs without affecting the viability of the embryo. As of yet, though, the viability of the embryo is by no means guaranteed. Maybe in time. After all, a similar technique (i.e., extracting cells while leaving the embryo intact) is already used as a first step in pre-implantation genetic screening. But that’s a whole other can of worms.

I hope this example serves to illustrate some of the issues involved in developing any sort of ESC-based therapy, as well as how the way things stand now has served to delay the development of useful human therapies. There’s a lot more to be said, but it’s a pretty good start. And other people have mentioned other issues.

It is true that existing ASC therapies have yielded results. But presently they are almost exclusively limited to blood-borne and bone diseases. ESC research may (and probably will) result in useful therapies all by itself. But it will also serve to assist in making ASC-based therapies more effective. It is wrong to separate the two and to think of them in terms of an either/or question. Likewise the potential of both are intricately entwined with advances in RNA transcription – a line of research for which this year’s Nobel prize in medicine was awarded. After all, cellular specialization is a matter of gene expression, not genetics per se.

As far as Michael J. Fox goes, I only saw one ad he did. In it he was very general in his comments. I don’t recall him mentioning anything but the potential inherent in ESC research. In the process, of course, he advocated a candidate who supports federal funding of ESC research over one that doesn’t. And for that some people consider him a shill. But isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work? Don’t each of us do the same kind of thing all the time? I don’t understand how he’s acting inappropriately. What about Bush gathering a bunch of snowflake babies around him when he talks about ESC research? Is he using them as shills?

Speaking of acting, have you ever seen a person with profound Parkinsonism? That’s the way they look – when they’re on their medications anyway. When they’re not they look more like statues. But I see Morphis has already pointed that out. Also, I understand Rush Limbaugh apologized for his comments. Good for him.

My basic view is that those advocating fetal stem cell research are either misguided

Considering your woeful lack of comprehension of science (as evidenced in your mind-numbingly stupid "death of science" thread), you should really refrain from calling anybody else "misguided" about scientific research. Ricorun's first post serves as a useful primer. I'm quite confident you'll duck it, but it's right there in front of your face.

So, just to plumb how hateful you are...do you share Rushbo's opinion that Fox was faking it for the ad?

The embryo portion of this isn't the argument for me.

It's having my government spend billions of dollars on research that hasn't yielded one damn result yet.

My money is better spent on the actual treatments that work.

Ann Coulter war right again, you aren't allowed to ever question a liberal...especially someone with a disease, someone who is gay, someone who is African American, etc, etc....not allowed or you are painted as a hate monger.

Incredible.

Warrior: "It's having my government spend billions of dollars on research that hasn't yielded one damn result yet."

One could argue the very same thing with regard to the Iraq war, lol!

But seriously, what's your definition of "result"? Does it have to be a full blown human therapy? Let's consider a baseball analogy. Say your lead-off hitter draws a walk. Is that a result? It certainly doesn't win the game, but it's a step in the right direction, right? Now suppose he manages to steal second. Is that a result? Say he comes home on someone else's single. Is that a result? None of those things win the game, but they are all steps in the right direction. And winning the game could not even be contemplated without enough of those types of things happening. Yes, sometimes you'll leave people on base. But it would be stupid to stop trying just because it sometimes happens. What you're asking for is a home run at every at-bat. That's just not going to happen.

My baseball analogy is not a perfect one, but hopefully you get the idea. The point is that there have been plenty of results analogous to walks, steals, single, runs. There just haven't been any game-winners yet. But the game is by no means over. In fact, in a very real sense, it's just started. I would characterize the overall situation as somewhere around the top of the second inning in most cases.

I have to say that to me the dumbest part of the anti-ESC research lobby is the proclamation that no viable human therapies currently exist. All I can say to that is... well duh. Likewise, I have to say that the notion that if and when federal funding of ESC research becomes less restricted, all of a sudden there will be ESC therapies for all sorts of heretofore intractable diseases. Neither of those things are true. What IS definitely true is that some people on both sides of the debate are hopelessly unrealistic. It's not like tinkerbell is going to wave her magic wand and suddenly useful therapies are going to appear. First you have to understand the wand before any real headway is likely to occur. But even then it's not likely to be easy. I mean for crying out loud it takes years to develop something so simple as a freakin' drug to replace aspirin in a certain subset of the population. And even then they can screw up royally. Take Vioxx for example. But that example, while it may be informative, is limited as well.

Then again, it's a good thing they weren't allowed to "stay the course". Lol!

M, Serpentine....
Oh, PULEEEZE!! You dolt...Rush did NOT say that..and I would bet the ranch that you have NEVER sent one plugged nickel to any of Rush's charities....
You are so transparent, I can see right thru to your little, teeny black heart!!!!!

Mark, you're OK with giving the false impression that Ford Sr. called his son's opponents "crackers"?

Ricorun,

Question – at what point would you consider the embryo to be a unique individual with its own soul with rights to life, if ever? See, what Mark pointed out is, doesn’t it seem contradictory to destroy one life (the embryo) to save another (the diseased or injured individual)? Are we more “inclined” toward one because we’ve know them or we can directly see and feel for their pain? In essence, using and destroying live embryos is akin to playing god. That is a deadly game that has all kinds of ramifications for going out of control. I think there are numerous examples of this already happening.

Tom,

Hey, I only know what I read in the papers...

Sees,

I wouldn't share that opinion - and if Rush were to ever say that Fox was faking it, I'd call him on it.

You shouldn't rely on MSM reports and leftwing blogs for information...

That's nice, Mark. Knowingly keep a false claim of racism up on your site. The Christian thing to do, right?

DM, this may sound counter-intuitive but the fact is that I am not in favor of invitro fertilization. I’m not sure I’d be in favor of a law banning the practice, but I don’t condone it because it’s against my moral principles. And it is against my moral principles precisely because the technique generates human embryos that will never have the possibility of becoming human. To me, this is the issue where the question about playing God is most clearly relevant.

Sometimes the extra embryos are discarded immediately. Sometimes they languish in freezers until they succumb to freezer burn. A few of those embryos end up being adopted, and become snowflake babies. That’s a wonderful thing. But it is not a solution to the dilemma. There are hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos right now, as we speak. And I understand that in any given week the number of embryos that are discarded across the country is greater than the number of snowflake babies that have ever been born. That’s the dilemma.

So to me the question is, is a trash can a more or less ignoble fate than medical research? It’s a difficult question that has no pleasant answer, but it is nonetheless a question that cannot be ignored – even though it often is. You say “In essence, using and destroying live embryos is akin to playing god.” I don’t disagree. I would, however, add that in essence not using and destroying live embryos is also playing god. That's the real choice we have.

OK, my two cents worth.

First the facts:

Embryonic stem cell research has been around for 40 years. During which time there has been NO proven applications where embryonic stem cell treatments are effective in treating diseases or conditions.

Recent embryonic stem cell research has shown that embryonic stem cell's may cause cancer.

Embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. There are a number of lines that are available for federally funded research. The current policy is that federal funds will not be used for additional lines of embryonic stem cell research.

There is a shortage of private funding for embryonic stem cell research because the research has failed to produce any results in 40 years.

Adult and umbilical cord stem cell research has shown greater potential for treating diseases and conditions. Federal funds are available for adult and umbilical cord stem cell research.

So what's the fuss about? Embryonic stem cell research is a non-starter. Anyone advocating using Federal Funds to expand the lines either has financial interest in additional Federal Funds, has a political agenda (such as tarring opponents as being unsupportive of medical research), or has alterative motives (such as advocating the harvesting of embryonic stem cells which basically requires having an abortion).

If Michael J. Fox was being "used" by the McCaskill campaign, all Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. If Michael J. Fox was part of the plot, he and all Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.

and if Rush were to ever say that Fox was faking it, I'd call him on it.

Limbaugh: "[Michael J. Fox] is moving all around and shaking, and it's purely an act.... Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting, one of the two."

The direct quote--hell, the freaking audio--is all over the internet and can be found in under 10 seconds, so your dodge attempt is more than a little pathetic. So, Noonan, are you a man of your word, or are you a liar? Safe money's on the latter, but here's your chance to call him on it. Sack up and be a man instead of a partisan hack. Go ahead, give it a try.

If you contract a major, or terminal disease, don’t take an antibiotic or chemotherapy. Die. It’s your god’s will, and, after all, science never gets past the hype. Childhood leukemia is as incurable today (90+%) as it was during 1956 (death sentence).

A message to those troglodytes who believe in so-called Creation Science and other Dark Age voodoo. Good riddence to your gene pool. Bye bye!

Well, by the time I got to the end of the comments so I could respond to Rico, I found that, once again, A-10 got there firsr.

There have been great and exciting advances in stem cell research, in general. But no FETAL or EMBYRONIC stem cell research has been productive. As A-10 points out, there have in fact been some very serious side effects associated with fetal and/or embryonic stem cell usage.

On the other hand, stem cells from umbilical cords, placentas, and adults have shown great promise. I fail to see the scientific merit in pursuing a path which has not only not been productive but which has been the exact opposite, as opposed to putting that effort into research which has been so successful and promising.

Rico, if you know of even ONE successful use of stem cells from embryos and/or fetuses, please let us know.

As for the Big Snake (Magnum Serpentetcetc) this is just some more infantile venting of Airhead non-points. As Annie so aptly pointed out, he has clearly never given a cent to Rush---not that Rush solicits donations.

But Snakie says " Stem Cells will help many people." Vague, general, and true---but not specific to embryonic or fetal stem cells. Learn a little, snakie, before emoting, OK?

He goes on, in typical mouthbreathing fashion, to inform us "What I see as Dishonest is Rush Limbaugh calling ALL disabled people, Democrat, and liars."

?????????????

Rush never called all disabled people Democrats. Or liars. He never called all Democrats liars. Or disabled. In other words, our snakebit Lib did not listen to what Rush said, or look up a transcript, but just swallowed some predigested pap from Ranty Rhodes or some other Airhead guru, and then tried to regurgitate it for us.

I just love these silly braindead poseurs, dropping in and trying to sound intelligent when they can't even keep their instructions straight. Their minders must be sooooo proud, though we just snicker.

But then, look at me---making fun of a disabled person.

Oxymoron Rush didn't say a peep when Fox did an ad for Republican Senator Arlan Spector in his last election. For that matter neither did the Democrats. They let him express his views and let the voters decide. They voted Republican

You are sick if you support Oxymoron in this matter.

Let’s review your facts, A-10…

Embryonic stem cell research has been around for 40 years.

ASC research has been around for 40 years or so, but not ESC research. Mammalian embryonic stem cells were first isolated and cultured from mouse embryos in 1981. Human embryonic stem cells were first isolated and cultured in 1998.

During which time there has been NO proven applications where embryonic stem cell treatments are effective in treating diseases or conditions.

Actually, there have been plenty of useful ESC therapies developed, but only in infrahumans. If you’re a rat with liver or kidney disease, or heart tissue damage, or a perforated bladder, or peripheral or spinal damage, or a variety of other diseases, your future is bright. But the process of transferring those successes to humans is in its early infancy. A lot of hard work remains to be done, and the current restrictions don’t help.

It seems like it should be self-evident, but just in case it’s not… the fact that not even a single human ESC line was available until 1998, the fact that even now, only about 20 lines are authorized even now. And the fact that all of those are contaminated and thus must be purified before they can even be considered for any sort of research that is intended to result in a therapy, makes it kind of obvious why there are not now, here in 2006, no human ESC therapies available. Doesn’t it?

Recent embryonic stem cell research has shown that embryonic stem cell's may cause cancer.

It is certainly clear that, in most cases, undifferentiated fetal stem cells are likely to, yes. But it was worth a shot I guess, lol! Anyway, it turns out that it is unrealistic to think that you can just take a bundle of fetal stem cells and inject them into a host and expect just good things to happen. All kinds of things can happen if you do, and many of them are bad. Like I said in a previous post, first you have to differentiate them into a germ cell line suitable for your purpose.

Embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. There are a number of lines that are available for federally funded research. The current policy is that federal funds will not be used for additional lines of embryonic stem cell research.

That is exactly correct. Though the number of useful lines that are available for federally funded research is about 20. And all of them are contaminated. Both of those facts make the authorized cell lines close to useless for developing therapies (which is another contributing reason for why there are as yet no therapies available). They’re okay for some forms of basic research. But you can’t go beyond that unless you start an entirely new lab, fit it with all new equipment, and populate it with personnel. That also is time-consuming, not to mention expensive.

There is a shortage of private funding for embryonic stem cell research because the research has failed to produce any results in 40 years.

There is a shortage of private funding, but not for the reason you stipulated. Basic research is usually the province of federal funding. Private funding typically serves an ancillary role in that regard. Moreover, sensing an opportunity, a number of other countries are pumping their federal money into human ESC research, including the UK, Sweden, Korea, China, and Japan. That wouldn’t be happening if, as you say, ESC research is a non-starter. It’s probably also worth mentioning that the current restrictions against human ESC research would have been lifted if Bush did not veto the bill that was passed this spring. So apparently majorities in both the House and Senate don’t view ESC research as a non-starter, either.

The rest of what you say, A-10, is total BS and I won’t dignify it by responding.

Finally, in response to Almiranta… there has been some great work done on ASCs, and a lot of useful therapies are either available or in the works. But ASCs are quite specific in their application, and are not appropriate for treating many diseases. It is possible, however, that as the understanding of the mechanisms of cellular differentiation increases, their range of suitability may expand. But without more robust alternatives with regard to ESC research, even those sorts of issues will be delayed. Like I said, ASC and ESC research is not properly construed as an either/or question. The information gleaned with one will assist the understanding of the other.

Let me further ask you to consider what the state of affairs would be in ASC research would likely be if, from its inception, it was limited to a handful of authorized, yet contaminated cell lines. Frankly the argument about why isn’t there any ESC therapies yet is like asking why a person with their wrists tied behind their back won’t shake your hand.

One final note: you do realize that the same disabled “shill” (M.J. Fox) has either appeared in ads for, or has actively supported several Republican candidates in years past, don’t you? And what about Nancy Reagan? Are you going to dump on her, too? If you don’t agree with him, or her, or me, fine. State your reasons and stick with the issues. But this tendency for character assassination every time someone says something you don’t disagree with is not very productive.

Ricorun,

I guess my bottom line is that it shouldn't be the responsibility of the US Government to fund this research.

Advocates of embryonic stem cell research shouldn't be making deceptive ads which distort the facts. And yes, if Ms. Reagan was participating in the making of blatantly dishonest political ads, she would be criticized as well.

Ricorun,

As clarification, if Michael J. Fox, Mrs. Reagan, and others want to be advocates for embryonic stem cell research that's fine. Let them.

But when they participate in the political arena, making deceptive ads, they become fair game. Just because their are celebrities or suffer from a disease, doesn't make them immune from criticism if they are not being honest in their claims.

You can correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, the Michael J. Fox ad distorts the voting record of those running for the Senate. He states that Senator Talent wants to make stem cell science illegal. This is not true. He also states that Senator Talent opposes stem cell research. Again, not true.

I'm sorry, but it a celebrity makes an ad that is not factually accurate, it doesn't matter if he is suffering from a debilitating disease or not, he needs to be called on it.

...

A-10, I revisited the ad in question. And what I found was that you again mischaracterized the facts. MJ Fox said that Talent opposes expanding stem cell research and that he even wanted to "criminalize the science that gives us the chance for hope."

To tell you the truth I haven't followed the MO senate race and I have a very cursory knowledge of the issues involved. So I looked into that a little too. And I think both of Fox's statements are factually accurate. Talent did vote against the bill that was passed this spring (and subsequently vetoed by Bush) to expand federal funding of ESC research, and he did co-sponsor a bill that would outlaw somatocellular nuclear transfer -- a bill which I think he recently abandoned. So Fox even got the tense right when he said Talent "even wanted to..."

Now, the transition between ESC research and therapeutic cloning might seem like something of an intellectual leap. But not if you're in MO. They know exactly what he's talking about. So no, I don't think Fox distorted Talent's voting record at all.

The other thing about the controversy surrounding Fox is the fact that it really wasn't about how accurately Fox portrayed the facts of Talent's voting record. It would have been nice if it was, but it wasn't. And if it was, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I am very much in favor of debates based on facts and the logic applied to them. But it wasn't. Rather, it was about how accurately Fox portrayed his disease. In other words it had nothing to do with the message. It had everything to do with the messenger. It was a personal attack designed to kill the messenger so the message could be ignored. And if that wasn't bad enough, even the attack lacked any factual basis. Limbaugh simply assumed that (a) Fox wasn't taking his meds (which isn't possible, because he would have displayed completely different symptoms -- and probably wouldn't have been able to talk), or (b) we was exaggerating the symptoms he displayed. That charge was also made completely on speculation. Is it possible? Yes. Is it certain? Absolutely not. But I can tell you with absolute certainty that if he was acting he was doing a damned good job. Many profound Parkinson's patients exhibit exactly the symptoms Fox showed. I've seen it with my own eyes. And the weird part about it is that even with all that bobbing and weaving they can still maintain constant eye contact. They are very good at tracking. Eye contact is an example. Another is this: if you try to get them to walk, you'll have better success if you draw a line on the floor that they can follow. And if you draw the line up to a wall, chances are they'll hit the wall. They perseverate: once they get going, it's hard for them to stop. And it ain't acting. But that only happens when they get really bad.

Ricorun,

The problem is that most, if not all, Missouri voters won't take the time you did to research the facts. On the surface, Mr. Fox seems to be saying that Senator Talent opposes all types of stem cell research, which he doesn't. We don't evn know if he opposes embryonic stem cell research, or just the use of federal funds to support the research. And it appears he is saying that Senator Talent is trying to criminalize all "science that gives us the chance for hope", which is not true.

As for somatocellular nuclear transfer, I Googled it and the term doesn't exist. I Googled "somatocellular", and got only one response. It seems as if you meant "Somatic cell nuclear transfer", also known as cloning. If Senator Talent does, in fact, oppose human cloning, or useing federal funds for human cloning experimentation, Mr. Fox should have been more specific. He left the viewers with a distorted impression, which, I'm sure, is what the producers of the ad intended.

As for Senator Talent "co-sponsor(ed) a bill that would outlaw somatocellular nuclear transfer", I checked the entire list of bills Seantor Talent either sponsored or co-sponsored and nothing even resembling somatocellular nuclear transfer, Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or cloning appeared. Perhaps you have a secret list that the Official US Senate site doesn't know about.

I can't seem to comment!

A-10, I tried, but for some reason I can't post anything worth posting. How about if I try on a later related post?

Ricorun,

"for some reason I can't post anything worth posting."

Since I feel merciful tonight, I'm not even going to touch that one.

weefee makes a valid point, though I doubt it is the one s/he wanted to make, in this statement:

"I don't see how stem cells are going to kill innocent "lives" there just cells, you can get cells from an umbilical cord but you wouldn't cosider that murder would you."

As we can see, weefee simply does not grasp the differnce between embyronic or fetal stem cell research and that using stem cells from adults and/or placentas or umbilican cords. I am guessing this is partly due to intellecutal laziness, but that is the result of merely accepting the MSM/Liberal/Airhead spin without question.

As so many do.....

There is an effort to confuse the two issues in the minds of the populace, and weefee is an excellent illustration of how well that is working.

But no, wf, using stem cells which do not involve ending human life is NOT "murder". An umbilical cord is not a human being. If I had to have a body part removed, that body part could be harvested for cells, skin, or whatever without any ethical violation, as far as I am concerned. Umbilical cords have been discarded for centuries. I don't know of any religion, philosophy, or teaching that would define them as human beings.

We have one research pathway that has been proven to offer success and hope for more. We have one that has not provided any success, beyond that of merely creating stem cell lines from embryonic tissue. The determination to treat both paths as equally promising just seems intellectually dishonest and misleading, and that makes me wonder why the effort is being made.