Great news from California

[7th Angel]

oralpain is now our registered medical advisor and arbiter of when we shall accuse.

In other words... you're more than a mere oral pain.

So, are you saying he's also a proctologist?
J/K

[oralpain]

In other words... you're more than a mere oral pain.

Damn straight, I'm correct.

[brewzer]

Aaaahhhh....the sound of crickets! How nice!

[omegasteve]

Here is some more information that has been conveniently left out of the newspapers.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...1/110237.shtml


The Stem Cell Scam


James Hirsen, NewsMax.com
Monday, Nov. 1, 2004

The near bankrupt state of California is asking taxpayers to participate in a $6 billion corporate giveaway and ethical ruse. The scam goes by the name of Proposition 71.

The Yes on Prop 71 folks have been outspending the No opponents 100 to 1, so unfortunately they’ve been able to mislead the public without getting a whole lot of resistance.

The reality, though, is that cloning is at the core of the proposed state constitutional amendment. Believe it or not the Frankenstein-like effort received relatively scant attention until very recently when actor Mel Gibson entered the debate.
“I found that the cloning of human embryos will be used in the process and ... I have an ethical problem with that,” Gibson explained in an October 28 interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Gibson has unearthed several of the dirty little secrets about Proposition 71. I’ve been able to work alongside him, sifting through the pro-71 campaign dirt.

“I would find it difficult to look at myself in the mirror if I didn’t take a stand against this disingenuous proposition, particularly in light of the fact that in 23 years of research with embryonic stem cells not one single cure has been obtained,” Gibson told me. Thanks to a first-rate group of experts, the code words, underhanded tactics, and emotional manipulation that promoters have been using to hide the agenda and hoodwink the public have been laid bare.

Language contained in the official voter’s guide claims that Proposition 71 prohibits reproductive cloning. But in a statement regarding the initiative, Gibson pointed out, “That’s what it says—‘somatic cell nuclear transfer.’ And that’s a scientific term for cloning.”

Evidently, the qualified wording is an attempt to trick people into believing that the measure isn’t about cloning. But cloning is exactly what it’s about.

The wiggle word here is “reproductive.” The Prop 71 explanation makes the case that the cloning of embryos, i.e., the creation of human life, is not for implanting and eventual offspring purposes.

But cloning is involved nonetheless, and apparently we’re supposed to believe that experimentation, killing of an embryo that’s in the process of development, using its vital parts and then disposing of its remains is somehow okay.

In a clever concealment of the facts and attempt to manipulate emotions, Prop 71 television ads have been bringing the late Christopher Reeve, the suffering Michael J. Fox and the caring Brad Pitt into our living rooms to garner voter support.

Of course, a majority of folks are opposed to cloning and as awareness builds so does opposition to the measure. Because the truth is, when most people thumb through their mental dictionaries, Dolly the Sheep’s picture is what pops to mind right next to their cloning definition. So it really comes as no surprise that promoters are trying to conceal their aims.

Basically, proponents are trying to claim a distinction without a difference. They’re attempting to distinguish between so-called experimental cloning and the reproductive kind by asserting that there’s a difference between the two because their objectives vary.

In reproductive cloning, the embryo is implanted in a woman's uterus in order to produce a birth. In so-called experimental cloning, the human embryo is cloned using the same biotechnology that produced Dolly the sheep, where the nucleus of a skin cell is transferred into an egg and transformed into an embryo, only here the embryo is allowed to develop for about a week and then it’s disassembled.

Those who seek to advance this type of research also like to play another semantic game. They intentionally avoid using the words “embryo” and “embryonic, opting instead for the sophisticated sounding term “pluripotent stem cells.” And human embryos that come from fertility clinics are referred to with the clinically sounding words “surplus products of in vitro fertilization.”

If passed, what Proposition 71 would do is amend the California Constitution and force the people of the state to engage in and subsidize a huge cloning experiment. Gibson brings up a good question: “If cloning human embryos for destruction is so promising, why aren’t private companies paying the $6 billion?”

Well, private companies aren’t paying because the costs involved in embryonic stem cell research are exorbitant, and the only thing that the over two decades of research has yielded is a load of failed experiments and a record of rejection, mutation and tumor creation. It hasn’t produced one single solitary human cure.

Meanwhile, what’s being ignored in the measure and the general discussion are the positives about adult and umbilical cord stem cell use. These cells have been used to treat several dozen diseases and serious medical conditions like spinal cord injury, Parkinson's disease, stroke, cardiac damage and multiple sclerosis. Part of the reason for the success story is that adult stem cells avoid the problems of tissue rejection. The hope they offer is real.

The cash-strapped state of California is in no position to spend $6 billion on totally unproven therapies that involve unethical techniques or on a plan that benefits biotech companies which, incidentally, hold key patents to the cloning research.

The way I see it, rather than being compassionate, Proposition 71 is a cruel hoax. It raids public coffers so that fat cats don’t have to risk their own cash. It disregards the real promise of tomorrow by ditching the effective adult stem cell route and taking the embryonic dirt path. And in a truly despicable fashion, it callously peddles false hope to millions of patients and their families who desperately await cures.

[Pehu]

Stem cells have already been proven to cure type 1 diabetes.

? There is no cure that stem cells have been proven to provide. It is all a theory, although perhaps not ALL that far from practise, but still none is. Cure for type 1 diabetes exists? Heck no. If it did it would be in use already.

[jimzinsocal]

My biggest gripe with the deal in CA.....is if the State is gonna go on the hook for some huge investment in a new business? Why not something with a bigger impact on the job creation situation everyone is complaining about.
You think this deal will put any unemployed workers to work? Were talking a bunch of scientists here who will simply move.

[Enmore]

Does the state taxpayer help finance research into other medical matters - AIDS for instance - or is this the only one?

[Dutchcedar]

^^ Good question Enmore and without much info at my fingertips, I can tell you that our State University and University of California (yes, there are two university systems here) systems do indeed do a heck of a lot of medical research and are state funded.

[Enmore]

/\/\/\/\ Thanks. So there is some precident for this then.

[Dutchcedar]

^^ Most certainly.

[liteman]

But cloning is involved nonetheless, and apparently we’re supposed to believe that experimentation, killing of an embryo that’s in the process of development, using its vital parts and then disposing of its remains is somehow okay.

The embryos to be used are frozen embryos that fertility clinics would be disposing of, not developing embryos.

[l3p3r_M355i4h]

thanks mr. governator! Saw him on 60 minutes sunday, was good. Glad to know that he isn't a pupet of the GOP. Funny though, that California has that defciet and they're finacing 3 billion more? at least its a step forward though...

[brewzer]

? There is no cure that stem cells have been proven to provide. It is all a theory, although perhaps not ALL that far from practise, but still none is. Cure for type 1 diabetes exists? Heck no. If it did it would be in use already.

You are wrong and so is Mel Gibson. I already provided the quote on the previous page straight from the Juvenile Diabetes web site or did you not even read it as I suspect!?! Go there is you don't believe me and look it up for yourself. I am very knowledgable on this particualr issue since I am inflicted with Juvenile Diabetes myself. Inslet Transportation=stem cells. It works, it is proven. My Doctor has told me as much and so does the web site. I am curious to where you are getting your information?!?

[Pehu]

You are wrong and so is Mel Gibson. I already provided the quote on the previous page straight from the Juvenile Diabetes web site or did you not even read it as I suspect!?! Go there is you don't believe me and look it up for yourself. I am very knowledgable on this particualr issue since I am inflicted with Juvenile Diabetes myself. Inslet Transportation=stem cells. It works, it is proven.

I've read numerous articles on the subject, I really have no need to go to Juvenile Diabetes web site, since that really is not the place to go for the latest developments.

Yes, it is true that islet cell transplantation works (in principle), but that is still pretty far from having an actual cure and even further from having a cure that has anything to do with embryonic stem cells.

There's a LOT of problems still unsolved. In theory one could get the islet cells from: a) isolated of a cadaver b)isolated and cultivated from a cadaver's (or actually also from a living person) pancreatic progenitor cells c) differentiated and cultivated from embryonic stem cells d) differented and cultivated from the patient's own progenitor/stem cells. None of those are yet really effective (or even reality) in producing islet cells in sufficient amounts (which is one good reason to continue the studies).

The troubles don't stop there though since there is also a problem with how, if and how long the transplanted islet cells will actually survive in the 'patient' and it is possible that the patient will have to take immunosuppressive drugs for the rest of his/her life (which isn't necessarily any better than having to live with the insulin injections, that are also constantly developing for the better), which still wouldn't guarantee that the islet cells survive.

My Doctor has told me as much and so does the web site. I am curious to where you are getting your information?!?

I get my information mainly from Medline databases and many different medical publications. The potential is there, but a cure is not. Unlike Mel Gibson though, I'm all for trying to find that cure, with or without cloning embryonic stem cells.

[brewzer]

I've read numerous articles on the subject, I really have no need to go to Juvenile Diabetes web site, since that really is not the place to go for the latest developments.

Huh? I would think that the Juvenile Diabetes website would be one the BEST places for this type of info, or is it that you ignore anything that refutes your claim. Inslet transportation works, they just need to refine the process. There is already 250 people undergoing the treatment.