Stem cell opposition has nothing to do with right to life.

[Robin Hood]

The right to life BS about stem cell research is a fraud. It's all about the pharamceutical companies and the grip that they have on this acrooked administration. Imagine what would happen to the pharmaceutical companies if stem cell therapy were to cure major disibilatating diseases that require lots and lots of long term drugs.

And because the pharm companies have such a strong opposition to it. It proves to me that there is great hope in this sort of therapy. Let's not let the robber barrons stand in the way of progress, tell it like it is.

[Hobarticus]

1. Agreed. The logic against stem cell research is so weak,

there's no other explanation.

[Indiana_Dem]

2. That's what i was thinking.

The only reason I could think of regarding the blocking of the R&D would be that the pharmaceutical companies would lose out.

I know first hand all the meds I have to give Parkinson's patients. Most have to take at least a pill every 4 hours around the clock every day.

[CHIMO]

17. Don't Know What

You are looking at.
Have you heard of the infamous mouse that has been patented for cancer research.
Have you heard of patented life items such as GM wheat?

[PVnRT]

3. Ummm

I have never heard anything from any Pharm company saying that they oppose stem cell research. They stand to make billions from it, why the hell would they oppose it?

[Pastiche423]

6. How would the pharma companies

stand to make billions off of a cure for many diseases and medical conditions?

If the people are cured of their medical conditions, they would not have to buy the meds the pharma companies are presently selling.

Cures would also adversely effect medical supply companies they sell supplies at fucking outrageous prices to the disabled.

Well damn, I can't believe this had not occured to me before. Of course it's the pharma companies that are holding back research!

[PVnRT]

10. Uh

People will still get those diseases. And for many years, the cure will still be fairly expensive because of the research costs, and further costs to refine it.

Well damn, I can't believe it hasn't occured to people here that pharmaceutical companies would be the ones making and selling these cures. Huh, imagine that.

And I have yet to see ANYONE here provide proof that the Pharm companies are opposing stem cell research. I'm still waiting.

[Pastiche423]

13. What?

You expect pharma companies to publically state that are against ESC research?

Out of curiousity, how much do you know about the ESC research that has gone on thus far?

[PVnRT]

19. Quite a bit, actually

I read up on it all the time in actual scientific journals. How about you?

[Pastiche423]

22. I've been following

Dr. Wise Young's SCI and ESC research for about seven years. Although his work is exciting and promising, I am realistic enough to know I, most likely, will not live to see a cure in regards to paralysis.

[Robin Hood]

23. The proof is Bush.

The fact that Bush is knee deep in pharm companies money is enough of a connection for me. Like Ron Reagan said, If you are against stem cell research than you must also be against nvitro fertilization as invitro fertilization throws thousand of eggs away each year.

[TahitiNut]

40. Pharma companies won't be able to 'sell' a cure that's not patentable.

Stem cell research is about techniques and processes. It's basic medical technology. It's not about new biochemical substances that can be patented and protected for 60 years. It's about therapeutic techniques that may cure rather than merely ameliorate symptoms.

We own our own genetic material and stem cells. At least we did the last time I noticed - who knows what the Busholinis did in secrecy last.

[CaTeacher]

42. what they develop using fetal lines,

they can patent and they can own.

That is why they want to go that route.

But even when it is our own cells used in the cure (which is the most lkely future scenario--because the fetal cells just are not yielding good results)---don't worry--they are set up to make billions.

I think this is already detailed in other posts within this thread--so I won't repeat, just read this thread.

[givemebackmycountry]

4. If this is true

And I believe it is than that makes this administration the biggest bunch of hypocritical, lying, murdering bastards that ever had the sorry luck to lead us.

They MUST go.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. It would come as a surprise to most

in the pro-life movement to be told that their very real concerns are "fraud." Taking the sanctity of life seriously means that embryos shouldn't be created and then used for research, nor should they be created and then destroyed. That necessarily precludes embryonic stem cell research, but not research using stem cells from the umbilical cords of newborns, or research using adult stem cells.

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that the pharmaceutical industry opposes stem cell research? I haven't heard a hint of that and I would expect them to actually profit from drugs developed through stem cell research.

[ljm2002]

7. Strange

You say, "Taking the sanctity of life seriously means that embryos shouldn't be created and then used for research, nor should they be created and then destroyed."

Yet, our pResident has not taken it upon himself to outlaw the creation of excess embryos in fertility clinics. These excess embryos are often discarded, yet no right-to-lifers picket these clinics or threaten to blow them up. Yet they don't want to allow those excess embryos be used in research... now why would that be?

Oh yeah, must be that sincere, well grounded belief in the "sanctity of life". Never mind that a very large portion of artificially implanted embryos end up as miscarriages -- aka nature's / God's own abortions. No sirree, that's all fine and dandy, but we surely don't want to make use of any of those extra bab... er, embryos that got left lying around, let's freeze 'em.

Others have said it before me: if right-to-life women are so concerned about the fate of these embryos, they ought to march right down to those clinics and offer their uteruses to gestate those poor li'l bab... er, embryos.

[CaTeacher]

9. Has nothing to do with Big Pharma--

try the Big Biotech companies (the same ones that are also genetically engineering our food etc).

Be very cautious of hyping this research---it is WAY over hyped (there is some potential--but it is mostly pie in the sky--many many years in the future--not nearly the rosy picture painted by Ron Jr).

SCR does NOT deserve as much federal funding as it gets--but in this instance I grudgingly support funding Bio Biotech just because it is a wedge issue with the repugs.

I hate Bio Biotech firms with a passion--they are going to be a bigger bane on our existence that Big Pharma--just wait and see. I would never support giving them all this federal funding--except that this is a wedge issue that wins a few repugs over to our side.

It is pathetic though, that in pushing this, we create false hope in people that suffer from diseases. I know that for many years, I came across people who thought lots of money for SCR would cure Reagan, Reeves, etc etc.....I hate it that some people buy and sell false hope to people in suffering.

There is some potential here--but it is far far down the line--the scenario that Ron Reagan junior described is not something that any of us should expect to see actually happen in our lifetimes--not even if we give Big Biotech all the money in the treasury.

[PVnRT]

11. Oh please

Spare us the Luddite screamings. Maybe you can drop some Frankenfood-bombs on us. Try actually reading about current stem cell research before spouting your propaganda about how EEEEEEEEeeeeevil biotech companies are.

[CaTeacher]

16. hey--pHd

in pharmacology/toxicology right here. I used to do research on this type of thing--at that time, I had a job that paid me (when I factor in the benefits) nearly 300 grand per year. (Oh and BTW, right after grad school, before I had the big job, I was a AAAS fellow for two years and I participated in writing several postion papers on SCR.) If you read, you will find that stem cells that do not come from fetal material are actually the most likely to yield the best results, so this is entirely a political issue.

Trust me, the companies that do this kind of thing do not need your federal funds. But, they will be happy to have your tax dollars to help them fund "low yield" research. This has political value only.

BTW, I gave all that up to give back to my society. I am a true believer in achieving a great society.

[wabeewoman]

26. Good comments, Strange...

It never cease to amaze me how some people get so hung up on the 'life and death' of embryos when right down the street are living, breathing people who could use some of this concern. I trace it all back to an lack of science education. Do these people think the world is a place where WE actually control life and death? And it is so rare that we should be concerned about millions of unfertilized eggs? Why waste so much time on something that isn't? An embryo has the potential to be a human just like this here lottery ticket has a potential to be a winner. But it isn't until it is.

[DemBones DemBones]

35. I was talking about

what many people sincerely believe about the sanctity of life. Not everyone who claims to be pro-life has a sincere conviction. We've had three Republican presidents who claimed to be pro-life but did little or nothing to advance the pro-life cause and all refused to go in person to address right-to-life marches, though still asking for and receiving the movement's support.

You seem to be making the assumption that all pro-lifers are insincere and stupid to boot. In fact, abortion is a complicated moral/ ethical issue, just as capital punishment is, just as war is. It's a funny thing that back in the sixties and seventies the left turned against war and capital punishment and then began to support abortion on demand. Those of us who oppose all three continue to exist and hope for understanding and dialogue while many on the left are willing to throw us (and our votes) away rather than admit that the ethical issues about abortion are unresolved by simple legalization.

[K-W]

8. But there are plenty fo stem cells to research on without

creating embryos for the purpose, why the full opposition?

[CaTeacher]

14. as far as I know,

there isn't really an "opposition", it is not as if the research is banned. Scientists at Big Biotech firms are pursuing it very aggressively (and it is not moving very fast).

What there is opposition to is federal funding for only one subtype of stem cell research (research on stem cells that come from new lines of fetal tissue).

Fundies are against their money funding this--because the research will be done on material that comes from potential "babies" (in their opinion).

BTW, this particular subtype (the one that does not get federal funds) is not even expected to produce the big winners in terms of fighting disease. It is really best as a wedge issue, pure and simple.

That is the only reason why I reluctantly support it--I HATE BIG BIOTECH with a PASSION!

[DemBones DemBones]

32. So what do you see as the motivation for the

controversy?

What you've said supports what I've read -- that embryonic stem cell research is really not the most promising type of stem cell research, that the biotech companies are already working on this, that cures are a false hope or at best a far-in-the-future possibility.

Yet Ron Reagan was in Boston last night promoting embryonic stem cell research and the common liberal thinking on it is that we must have embryonic stem cell research and it's those stupid pro-lifers who are stopping it.

So who is driving this wedge issue and why???

[CaTeacher]

36. the companies prefer to use fetal tissues for

patent reasons. I have been to several seminars where the patent lawyers have explained why this is so--but I am not good at explaining all the legal stuff.

The bottom line is that companies stand to make more money off therapies that are developed using fetal lines. So this is their research preference.

The fundies decided using fetal lines is bad--"protect the unborn" garbage--
So we have responded that using fetal lines is an absolute necessity and will be the best thing since sliced bread.

It is cool as a wedge issue--otherwise--we are in the wrong on this one. (But don't ever admit that to a RWer---after all--they are not even understanding the debate--they are only thinking about the tissue as "potential babies" which I totally think is ridiculous and indefensible.)

[GreenPartyVoter]

29. I would have been happy to donate my umbilical cords for that purpose

[CaTeacher]

33. The way we expect it to one day work

(optimistically 50-80 years in the future), is that when a baby is born, the umbilical cord will be maintained until special circumstances (probably chemically treated, placed under nitrogen, and then kept in a -80 freezer).

Then--as that baby ages and is diagnosed with diseases (if these diseases are on the short list of those can be cured by cell therapies), then cells from their own umbilical cord will be grown, harvested and used to "cure" that person. (Ron Jr's idea of taking cells from the skin--would never work--aged cells are not capable of the differentiation that would be needed.)

So--every person with enough money to pay to store their umbilical cord under special conditions (probably about 5000 dollars per year throughout their life) would have the opportunity to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to receive cell therapy IF they have a disease that can be cured by cell therapy. THIS WILL NOT BE CHEAP.

SCR will be great for Biotech and Pharma firms (Pharma has invested heavily in this--the Pharma firm I once worked for bought a small Biotech startup company and is putting multi-millions in this type of research). The big companies will make lots of money off storing the cells and treating the cells to provide therapeutic outcomes. Wealthy people (at least ones who are born wealthy--because you have to have parents wealthy enough to save that umbilical cord) will have access to cures for some diseases.

And the tax payers will even pay to develop these cures. Yep--sounds like a great idea. How good is your health insurance? Do you think you will have access to these cures? Oh sure--there will probably eventually be advances that will put this in the reach of the "common" man--maybe in 200 years or so.

And first the cell therapies have to be developed. Understand that the big companies are going forward as fast as they can (federal funds or not). They know that when they get a good lead on even one disease, it will make them billions. Now--it has gotten even better, because Shrub caved in to political pressure and provides federal funds without restrictions to all forms of SCR except fetal tissue. For fetal tissue--the pot of federal money is limited to only those cell lines that were established prior to his decision (this is actually reasonable--because you can develop a new line for every new fetus! Imagine if we fund every single one of these with tax dollars!

Actually, I would have limited the federal gravy train and made the same decision as Shrub--but not because of the abortion thing. Basically, Shrub made the right decision--but he did it for the WRONG reason--and so we can use that to hammer the hell out of him--and hopefully win some of the stupider freepers over to our side!

The research IS cool, I support all research--but I weep when this is used to manipulate poor folks who will probably NEVER benefit from this. There are quite a few diseases that MAY benefit from this type of treatment, so it is exciting--but Alzheimer's is not one of these diseases--and some of the others that are commonly mentioned are not very likely either.

Regarding federal funds--I want Kerry to win--so I use this as a wedge issue right now. After Kerry is in--I am 100% against more federal dollars for this. Let the venture capitalists come up with the money if they want to support every fetal line that could be developed. I am pissed enough at the extent that I am already supporting Big Pharma and Big Biotech.

[DrWeird]

15. Actually...

stem cell research would be more like research on tissues, organs, and bodies donated to science.

[Pastiche423]

18. That is not true

It has already been discovered that adult stem cells can not be replicated into different and needed cells like fetal stem cells can.

[DrWeird]

20. Yes.

It's tissue donated from fetuses. Or more like embryos.

It's not like they're encouraging women to have abortions for the express purpose of stem cell research. The choice is donating it to science, or letting it rot. Just like donating your body to science when you die. You don't hear many complaints about that from religious nutjobs. At least this day and age.

[CaTeacher]

21. There are not just the two kinds of stem cells.

Actually the very best are the ones that come from the umbilical cord. (not from a fetus or an adult).

But--there are other types of cells that have greater potential too. I can't tell you more about those cells, because I have done work on them, and I signed confidentiality agreements when I worked in the industry.

[Cheneys_former_heart]

12. DingDingDing!!!!

The Winner!! It's all bullsshite, meant to round up the "red fetus" right and help Drug companies, because if we can produce our own cellss, what the hell will they make moneey on?

[GiovanniC]

24. I Think a Lot of It Is Religion-Sponsored Ignorance

I don't think that the bulk of people who oppose stem-cell research oppose it because they are in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies. A lot of them are against "killing babies" (in their view) or "playing God" (by creating new tissue/organs/etc.)

I think a lot of them legitimately believe the crap they're spewing. But I also think they're wrong.

[Robin Hood]

25. I think that a lot of people could give a crap about saving stem cells.

But I am willing to bet that a lot of people are willing to find a cure for whatever ails them.

[lumpy]

27. Ron Reagan got that point across

very well. Hope the uneducated heard him speak.

[drdigi420]

28. Right to Life has nothing to do with Anti-Choice

If you support the government taking away a woman's right to choose, then you are against HER life. That makes you not just anti-choice, but anti-life.

(this is a rhetorical 'you', not a 'you' aimed at the poster, with whom i agree)



PS, I hate having to double and triple check and put disclaimers in my posts just in case someone takes it the wrong way, but, my last experience posting here, and the immediate vitriol that resulted from those mistaking my meaning has me wary now)

[Dirty Hippie]

30. This is an issue very near and dear to my heart.

My son has had juvenile diabetes for 16 years. About 14 years ago I read that a machine that would test blood sugar using laser light (avoiding finger pricks) was on the horizon. I've been waiting ever since.

I began to wonder if the pharmaceuticals had something to do with the "disappearance" of this technology.

I've since heard they use this technology to test and grade the sweetness of fruit.

Also, if you have gone to the hospital lately, your blood oxygen level was monitored using similar technology.

Blood sugar test strips cost about $0.90 apiece. The typical diabetic uses 4 a day. The revenue must be staggering. Diabetic supplies are a huge cash cow for these companies.

BTW: I was discussing this with my sister and I remarked that I could not think of a single cure for a major disease discovered since polio.

Treatments, yes. But outright cures, no.

Do I sound tinfoil? Maybe. But I've yet to see a machine to monitor blood sugar without the use of test strips and I've been waiting about 14 years.

[LibLabUK]

34. Hmm..

"About 14 years ago I read that a machine that would test blood sugar using laser light (avoiding finger pricks) was on the horizon."

There are laser lancets available, but at about £1200 they're quite pricey... but they still rely on taking a blood sample and applying it to a strip.

Infra-red glucose monitors are still indevelopment. I'd imagine that it is more difficult to measure glucose concentration than it is to measure O₂ saturation using light (blood changes it's redlight absorption markedly according to O₂, I don't think it does so in a way that is as easily detected with glucose concentration).

[happynewyear]

31. multiple sclerosis = up to $4,000 a mo. for drugs but do they work?

Real bitch of a disease. They have 4 approved drugs for this disease which alter/modify/suppress the immune system. But do they work? No one seems to really know. The evidence is very lean. You must inject these drugs and the cost is outrageous.

The pharmaceutical companies that sell these drugs push them like they are a cure for MS. They show people climbing trees, playing with children, playing baseball, etc. But, do they work?

Statistics on these drugs are very lean indeed. They in fact can make a person with MS worsen.

Would you inject yourself with a drug that MIGHT help or MIGHT make you a whole lot worse?

I cannot tell you what a nightmare multiple sclerosis is. The cause of multiple sclerosis is UNKNOWN still and the cure is seemingly far away.

There has been great evidence (as was presented on Montel Williams' show) that MS can be practically cured with stem cell therapy. He had a man on the show that had stem cell research that had been bedridden and in a wheelchair and was up and around and doing good. I do not know what his status is now though however.

Stem cell research would bankrupt the companies TEVA, Biogen, Berlex and the others that are rapidly making more of these same types of drugs - the most recent being Antegren which in infused intravenously once a month for a cost I heard could be as high as $30,000.00 a month. But, DOES IT WORK? No info. on this one either.

:grr:

:dem: :kick:

[CaTeacher]

37. I would like to hear more about this....

Quote:

There has been great evidence (as was presented on Montel Williams' show) that MS can be practically cured with stem cell therapy. He had a man on the show that had stem cell research that had been bedridden and in a wheelchair and was up and around and doing good.

Unquote.

This is fascinating--since most of the research I am familiar with is just at a cell culture level--as far as I know there have not been any FDA approvals to use stem cell on humans (we are not even really funding animal studies yet). We don't yet even know how to manipulate cells to "cure" MS--much less how to make this work in an organism as far as I know. I would love to hear more about this story if anyone knows anything else.....

[DemBones DemBones]

41. I've heard something about people going

somewhere outside the US and "being injected with stem cells," which cause remarkable improvements in their condition. Sounds fishy to me, like the old Laetrile scams.

[CaTeacher]

43. sounds like a scam. It is not the stem cells

themselves that would provide a future "cure"--

to have any kind of cure--the stem cells would have to be manipulated in ways that have not yet been fully developed before being reintroduced into the organism.

[DemBones DemBones]

44. Yes, I know, but apparently many

people don't realize that. Americans are not exactly known for their understanding of science. If anything, they're proud of their scientific ignorance. Some of it is math avoidance but, in my experience, teaching intro biology to college students is a struggle against a widespread anti-scientific mindset as well as a poor background in science.

The public has also heard, among others, the Reagan family and Christopher Reeve extol the promise of stem cell research for years. Come to think of it, I think it was reported Reeve was going to go to London for stem cell treatments.

[CaTeacher]

45. hey--we have a lot in common!

I am teaching too. We will have to talk more---I like the way you think--and you have a very good understanding of the issues.

It bothers me how little the average person understands science.

It makes me physically ill when I see people who are sick and desperate get scammed. I can't believe anyone would be so low, but I see all kinds of things out there--usually geared towards cancer and AIDS sufferers.

I am all for research---I want to see all lines of possibility explored.

However--I don't necessarily want to fund everything with tax money. I think the rewards for new biotechnology are so potentially great that the companies are going to be rewarded well for their investment in this type of research--so they may as well pay to do the research. I would prefer that when we fund research that we make an effort to prioritize so that we make sure to help out researchers who may not be in the "sexy" or "glamorous" research areas--because these researchers may not be able to to support their work without federal funds. Of course I am also in favor for supporting any idea that looks really good and will likely move us forward significantly. I also would prioritize research that may result in desirable social changes (like research on global warming).

For stem cell, the companies will pay--with or without us--so I would like my tax $$$ to go to other areas.

[Chovexani]

38. I never thought of it that way.

That's a damn good point. Chris Rock made a really good point about this in Bigger and Blacker, that the reason we never find cures for anything is that there's no money in the cure. The money's in the medicine, so they show you how to "live with it".

I also think Chimp Co. just hate science. It gets in the way of their greedy planet rape.

[Joanne98]

39. Don't let the fundies off the hook.

It's BOTH of them.

[Grover Cleveland]

46. Related: this is the fundy talking point I've been hearing on AM radio

about the issue.

Rush and them are always saying, if stem cells were so special, why aren't private researchers funding it?

I haven't really delved into this issue, so any help would be appreciated.

[CaTeacher]

47. The big companies have been funding it.

However, now that they can get federal $$$ for most of it--why not save their money--or spend it on other things? Hey--it is only smart to take the taxpayers $$$ if they are willing to hand them over!

You don't see individual wealthy people, like Nancy Reagan, donating a few million to Genentech and you never will. She would rather that the taxpayers help these companies out--why should the companies OR the rich people pay? And if smart people REALLY had a lot of confidence in these companies coming up with a cure quickly--then you can bet that their stock would be going through the roof.

???Do you see that happening?

[Robin Hood]

48. It's because big companies don't want to find cures.

They like you to be miserable and dependent on their drugs. This is one of the many problems with a capitalist society.

[CaTeacher]

49. Actually, they would love nothing better

than to own the "cure". Something like this would literally cost a person a fortune---hundreds of thousands of dollars for cell therapy. And you may need this cell therapy more than one time at hundreds of thousands of dollars per pop.

Plus, if people want to store their own umbilical tissue, proper storage to keep the cells viable will cost them perhaps as much as a half a million dollars over the course of an average lifetime.

Someone is going to make major bucks!!

Why else do you think that they are pursuing this? Do you think Eli Lily is staffed by a bunch of bleeding heart philanthropists?