Republican Mainstreet on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[Jaycee]

The biggest misconceptions are that republicans and religious people are against embryonic stem cell research. The truth is that the majority of both groups favor embryonic stem cell research.

 

The main reason you'll see republican legislators vote against ESCR is because they cater to their far right voting base:

 

America's pro-life: But not the way you think

 

Published November 23, 2006 in issue 0547 of the HooK.

 

By RONALD BAILEY

 

.....Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, executive director of the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership, noted in a press release: "For the last two years centrist GOPers have warned the leadership of our party of the consequences of pushing a legislative agenda cow-towing [sic] to the far right in our party. Our warnings were ignored, and now our party is paying a devastating price." She's right.

 

http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2006/11...roLife.rtf.aspx

[rdittman]

I would say that the far right of the Republican Party is where you will find most of our legislators who are against ESCR, and the Christian Right is there in the thick of it all. (Follow the money trail. The Christian Right influences with money). This does not include all Christians, for which I am a part of. The moderates in both parties seem to be upset at their respective extreme members though; not just the Republicans.

 

I consider myself a fairly conservative Republican, however only when it pertains to economic policies and somewhat to foreign policy. When it comes to social issues, I lean left quite a bit. Maybe I am a bit of a strange Republican, but based on the report in the Hook, which I would tend to agree with, the Republican Party has lost touch with the common folk. An issue, such as ESCR, is where the party misses it.

 

I'm not sure I agree with growing embryos just for the sake of medical science, but those discarded embryos that are not going to be used for fertility I have no problem with. I still think that there is much to discover yet with other forms of stem cells that will help mankind overcome illness. There is so much we don't know yet. Members of all parties of our government, need to get behind stem cell research, not to stifle it in any way, and fund it as much as possible, so we can overcome the many diseases and afflictions that may be cured by stem cell research.

 

A frustrated Republican,

Bob

 

 

[Phyllis4732]

The problem I see is what if those discarded embryos carry some things that aren't so good? Is it wise to put into bodies cancer cells etc? Is there a gurrantee that there is nothing harmful. Now, cells derived from ones own body are a different story. Whatever bad there is is there already but t9 introduce??????????what about suits etc. then??????????? that could be opening a can of worms.

[Jaycee]

The problem I see is what if those discarded embryos carry some things that aren't so good? Is it wise to put into bodies cancer cells etc? Is there a gurrantee that there is nothing harmful.

Rigorous scientific research and oversight is all that's needed. We wouldn't transplant a sick heart in someone either. It's no different with stem cell research.

 

Just because something is new, doesn't mean it should be feared. Please look into ESCR before making off the cuff commments like these....

 

nitnitr, I just came across some info by the Conservative Revolutionary American Party regarding stem cell research and the spinning of science by the Bush administration:

 

In banning federal funding for research on new stem cell lines, President Bush stated (in 2001)that "more than 60 genetically diverse" lines were available for potential research. Soon thereafter, Tommy Thompson, then the HHS Secretary, acknowledged that the correct number was 24 to 25. Still later, National Institutes of Health director Dr. Elias Zerhouni told Congress that only 11 stem cell lines were widely available to researchers.

http://crap713three.blogspot.com/2006/11/s...ng-science.html

[rdittman]

Jaycee,

 

Thanks for the link to the website. Interesting.

 

Spin can be put on by both Democrats and Republicans (or really anybody) though. Who knows what the real truth is on the lines we have available today. Needless to say, I wouldn't put it past the President and his administration to spin it in whatever way it would appeal to the masses and the scientific community.

 

Still, I think there is so much to discover pertaining to ESCR and any other form of stem cell research. As far as ESCR is concerned, I am still not completly convinced to grow embryos just for the sake of science. That is my opinion, and just my opinion.

 

Bob

[Jaycee]

As far as ESCR is concerned, I am still not completly convinced to grow embryos just for the sake of science. That is my opinion, and just my opinion.

 

Bob

Bob, that is another line used to scare people..........it has never been the intent to "grow embryos for the sake of science" or to "destroy life to save life" as you'll hear in all the opponents' speeches.

 

Luckily more and more people understand those lines are deceptive, because the legislation that passed congress but was vetoed by Bush would have ONLY used cells that are discarded from In Vitro Fertlilization procedures, with express consent of the donors.

 

Today's good news is that we may be able to overturn Bush's veto of that legislation with sufficient republican support:

 

Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says he believes the next Congress will pass legislation expanding stem cell research, over a presidential veto if necessary.

 

Hatch has broken with President George W. Bush on the issue. Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress last year, authorizing federally funded stem cell research.

 

'I think we have the votes in the Senate to override a veto, and we may have them in the House. I think we can get there,' Hatch told the Salt Lake City Tribune. 'According to some, we`re only a couple votes short, and I think I know where those votes are.'

 

Hatch hopes to put together a compromise that would avoid a veto.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/health/...m_cell_research

[Jaycee]

Bob, maybe it helps for you to read the bill for yourself........there is no "fine print", everything is very clearly and simply stated.

 

Here is a link to the entire bill which was vetoed by Bush:

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109...p/~c109Mwyebr::

 

The pertinent section is here:

 

HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.

 

`(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo).

 

`(b) Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:

 

`(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.

 

`(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.

 

`(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.

 

So really,.......the question is: "is it better for the cells to be discarded than to be used in research?"

 

The president seems to think so,........but it doesn't make any sense because his policy doesn't "save" a single embryo,.........they'll just continue to be discarded during the course of IVF treatments regardless of a "ban" on federal funding on new stem cell lines.

 

The 11 embryonic stem cell ines which are currently available for federal funding are old and have acquired genetic problems which make them unsafe for future human use as is Phyliss's concern.

One of their problems was that they were grown on mouse feeder cells that makes them inappropriate for human use. They have better ways of growing and maintaining the new stem cell lines making them more useful for research and application for cures.

[smallory]

Interesting topic!

 

Our government focus should be on advancing the types of stem cells that have been proven? What about the science on stem cells that already exists? You don't hear debates or news reports about the stem cells that work. You don't hear republicans or democrats debating about making adult or fetal stem cells legal.

 

If this is going on behind the scenes then why don't they make this information available? Isn't it just like the politicians to not pursue something that is obvious? They would rather keep haggling over embryonic stem cells. We don't even know if they work!

 

I'm fed up with the republican Congress and I am a staunch republican!

[Jaycee]

 

The government has already funded adult and fetal stem cell research to the tune of 300 million EVERY YEAR.

 

It is completely legal and so needs absolutely no discussion.

 

And of course we don't even know ESC's work........until the first heart transplant was done, we didn't know for sure if it would work either. That's the purpose of research: to find out if it works.

 

My point is that after 30+ years of adult stem cell research we still have not found a way for the paralyzed to walk again........, so we should look to other types of cells.

 

This is not to say someone cannot benefit somewhat from adult stem cell treatment........but why stop at very limited recovery when we could aim for more fully restored lives?

[smallory]

If it is legal then why must SCTI perform their stem cell therapy at overseas medical facilities? It was not legal last time I spoke with the COO of SCTI! Where are your facts to support that fetal stem cells are legal in the USA? Didn't you know that two of our members had to travel to Kiev and Mexico for stem cell therapy? Is there something, like an article, that everybody can look at saying that this type of stem cell therapy is already legal?

 

My point is that who cares about embryonic stem cells, anyway? Our government should focus on stem cells, in general, that are known to work and do not cause tumors. There must be a very good reason that so much money went to fetal and adult stem cell research and not embryonic stem cell research, like good common sense and scientific rationale. Fetal stem cells are already helping stroke survivors to recover. This is what should be important to you. Are you a stroke survivor or stroke caregiver?

 

It's not just the republican mainstream who is dragging their feet but it's also the democrats and independents, ie, our whole government is dropping the ball!

 

 

Can we please limit our discussions to topics that are pertinent to stroke? Embryonic stem cells makes an interesting subject to debate but this forum was created to debate the pros and cons of fetal stem cells that affect stroke survivors.

[Jaycee]

ESCR is very pertinent to stroke.

 

Research on adult stem cell research has been legal and government funded for over 30 years. Treatments with adult stem cells ( human application) have got to go through phase 1, 2 and 3 to obtain FDA approval. That is why people go overseas for their treatments. These are considered "experimental treatments" and have not been "proven" to work through the clinical trial process involving scientific phase 1, 2 and 3 trials.

 

As I said until I see someone like you walking and talking again from adult stem cell research, you will never convince me ESCR is not needed.

 

Even Peter understands the need for ESCR to continue.

 

Democrats hope to pass the ESCR bill again by Jan 15th,.........with the support of 50 or more republicans.

 

As Michael J. Fox has said: ESCR for cures for stroke, Parkinsons, spinal cord injuries and all sorts of paralysis is a NON-partisan issue, calling for BI-partisan supports.

 

Hopefully you'll come on board on this too.

 

As my profile said I'm a stroke survivor. But whether I'm a caregiver or survivor, doesn't matter.....our lives are all impacted greatly, just ask Trudy (4mom)....

[tdehaas]

Jaycee

 

It's great to see someone taking up the cudgel here.. I' was reading up on the subject and following this debate but you are much more informed then me.

 

goodluck and keep us informed

 

Tom

[smallory]

I will allow this thread to play out but after this please adhere to the rules at the top of the subforum. This forum was not intended to just be about embryonic stem cells.

 

If you know the history of this Subforum it was created when our organization became affiliated with SCTI. Not much was known about their stem cell therapy so this forum was created so that we could debate the pros and cons of what their therapy did and anything questionable about it. I would like to keep it this way, especially since we have two members that have now received fetal stem cells. I suggest that you read their blogs and that will definitely raise issues to debate.

 

 

 

Jaycee, how do you know Peter and Trudy? What is your name and when was your stroke? I would like to ask them about what you mention their names on myself and then mention you by name.

 

How do you know about my physical deficits? If the technology existed 12 years ago, when I had my stroke, I definitely would be interested in fetal and not embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells can cause tumors. Fetal stem cells are not going to harm me. I would not want a tumor, for sure! i would not want embryonic stem cell therapy on me if it could potentially be so harmful!

 

Fetal stem cells can improve the quality of life for stroke survivors and have already been proven to work. Talk to Rich James and ask him how happy he is with fetal stem cells! I'm still confused why you would be so emphatic about embryonic stem cells, which are not anywhere near the degree of research of fetal stem cells. You could have fetal stem cell therapy, tomorrow, and start recovering from your stroke, immediately!

 

 

So, are you saying that ESCR is actually more promising than adult and fetal stem cells? Then, why is there so much more research about them and embryonic is not being researched to the same degree? Something logically tells me that embryonic must not have the same potential.

 

Why do you say that ESCR is so important if you are a stroke survivor? Fetal stem cells are already proven to work for stroke survivors!

 

ESCR research is also legal and has been so for years! The government has funded ESCR research for many years!

 

Like I said, who cares about embryonic stem cells?

 

 

Tom, BTW, I prefer to be called the big cheese as opposed to the cudgel. Cudgel sounds like something that you would hear on The O'Reilley Factor! LOL!

[Jaycee]

 

 

Let's not go in circles. Government funding of ESCR is limited to about 11 stem cell lines which are contaminated with mouse feeder cells. The funding began in 2002. A mere 4 years of government funding of useless ESC lines, compared to over 30 years of adult and fetal stem cell research.

 

 

70-80% of the american public want government funding of ESCR.

 

I don't know about you, but I am a young man who wants to walk again.

 

Personally I'd have more trouble with using fetal stem cells than embryonic stem cells.

 

Yes, undifferentiated ESC form tumors, that's why you want to pre-differentiate them to precursor cells before you do a transplant. I have explained that before too.

 

Though I think it's great what SCTI is doing........after all no ESC treatments are currently available, but why limit oneself or the stroke community to just one company. Competition is wonderful and choice is even better.

 

You might want to be aware of this development too:

 

UK scientists want human stem cell trials

11.49, Tue Dec 5 2006

 

 

Stem cell research has offered a glimmer of hope to people affected by strokes.

 

British-based scientists believe cells from foetuses can be used to repair the brain damage caused they cause.

 

The UK biotech company ReNeuron is seeking permission for trials from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates American research.

 

They will involve taking stem cells from the developing brain area of a 12-week aborted foetus and implanting them into patients.

 

Rats paralysed by strokes regained movement when similar foetal stem cells were injected into their brains.

 

Dr Eric Miljan, head of stem cell discovery at ReNeuron, whose headquarters are in Guildford, Surrey, said: "We're very excited. There have been a battery of tests. There have been a series of animal safety experiments, and they work. We feel that we are ready to go into patient trials."

 

The company is seeking approval for trials on 12 stroke patients which, if given the go-ahead, could begin early next year.

 

Joe Korner, spokesman for the Stroke Association, said: "This is very interesting. The Holy Grail for stroke research has been to find a way of regenerating the damaged part of the brain. Until now it has been thought that the damage was irreversible."

 

[smallory]

Jaycee, or would you prefer that I call you Jason? Faye 's son, right? I noticed the enthusiastic attitude about embryonic stem cells! You sound like a nice kid! Thanks for providing the information about embryonic stem cells!

 

You did not answer any of my questions? Most of them were not rhetorical questions.

 

Why do you think that embryonic stem cells would help you to walk? Would you risk getting a tumor? You would not know if you were going to get a tumor before the injection of cells. You cannot predetermine which cells do and which cells do not cause tumors. If it was as simple as that embryonic stem cells would have received much more consideration than it has.

 

I was reading several scientific reports tonight and almost every report talked about embryonic stem cell laboratory tests. The results said that the embryonic stem cells improved the research patient but that tumors were also observed. If they could have pre-differentiated them, like you keep claiming that they have the capability to do, don't you think that they would have done it? C'mon, Jason!

 

Link: http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/2006...82914-1508r.htm extremely important article!

 

 

Link: http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/pr/news/story.cfm?id=1314 note the recent date of this article

 

Link: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/23/2121258

 

 

 

The government has a limited number of embryonic stem cells but there is absolutely no limit on research by private industry.

 

Where did you get your statistics that 70-80% of America wants embryonic stem cell? Is this a government published figure?

 

If embryonic stem cells were funded where would the embryos be provided forresearch?

 

Please answer this question!

 

Please adhere to the rules at the top of the subforum. This forum was not intended to just be about embryonic stem cells.

[Jaycee]

Steve, I keep answering your questions although some of them are repeated. The embryonic stem cells used for research would come from discarded cells left over from procedures at In vitro Fertilization clinics.

Again: Is it better to throw these in the trash than to recycle them to find cures through research?

 

We also talked already about the number of stem cell lines needed to have enough diversity: 150+

 

Private industry typically does not get involved in basic research which is the stage ESCR is at right now. NIH is the government agency that usually takes care of basic research after which private industry will take on human application. My mom who is an economist explained to me that private industry want a fairly quick "return on investnment" for them to be interested in ESCR.

 

We all know that we still need to perfect the pre-differentiation process to make ESCR safe for human application. You might want to read a National Geographic article where they describe successful pre-differentiation of ESC's into rod cells for restoration of vision in mice. Good thing for us is that vision too concerns neurons, so if they were successful with this type of neurons, they will eventually be successful with motor neurons which I want most. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...stem-cells.html

 

Let us not forget that human ESCs were only fairly recently derived for the first time in 1998. Basic research takes a long time, but should not be held back by lack of government funding.

 

About the 70-80% americans supporting ESCR, all scientists except maybe a handful, the majority of physicians etc.,........this also has been repeatedly been shown in polls. But since I cannot post too many links, I will post the most comprehensive and most recent survey which was made available to the american public in Parade magazine: http://www.researchamerica.org/polldata/10statestemcell.htm

 

 

Clearly it is universally accepted that ESCR hold enormous promise. These people can't ALL be wrong.

 

We all understand fear of new things, and I guess you haven't heard about three different studies...., ESC work by Dr. Kerr, Dr. Keirstead and Dr. McDonald, that have made paralyzed mice walk again. Though this was with spinal cord injuries,.........there were no tumors.

 

It seems to me I have provided enough info and will hereby drop the cudgel. Sorry tdehaas. I cannot keep revisiting the overwhelming info out there that keeps pointing to the medical revolution we are on the verge of.

Steve, I guess you think all the 80 Nobel Laureates were wrong too when they asked Bush to loosen the restrictions on ESCR back in 2001........

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0201092_pf.html

 

I'm done with this.

 

Jason,

still living in the prison of paralysis due to a brainstem stroke.

[smallory]

Jason, glad that you revealed who you are. You need to be commended for the information on embryonic stem cells that you are providing our stroke community! You are very level headed and I like this about you!

 

Actually, we are much more in agreement about embryonic stem cells than it appears. My only problem with embryonic stem cells are where the cells would come from. I do not want to hijack this thread so I am going to start a new topic in this subforum. I would like you to participate. I think that we have beat this thread to death!