Yes, they are his tax dollars, as they are my tax dollars, and your tax dollars. So what? What does that have to do with a faith based government? I would rather spend much more money on research on all diseases, and until such time that scientists say "embryonic stems cells are a waste of time for research" I want the government to fund research implementing them... Bottom line is this: do we look to faith based thinking or the scientists for ideas on research? I vote for the scientists on research, that's their expertise. Boobs like Rush who make uninformed comments on Fox, ad hominem attacks at that, are the swill that the dumbass right wingers seem to thrive on. It would have been fine for Rush to take issue with his message, but the right wing doesn't seem to be able to do that.... Probably because they know how dumb the voters in a redneck state like MO really are, they can't appeal to logic and reason...they have to appeal to the ignorance of the audience to try to sway opinion....
It is his vote. If it is based on faith, which I do not personally agree with, that is his choice. He doesn't want tax dollars going to support something that is against his faith. His choice. My opinion is that abortion is wrong based on my faith, but I don't base my politics on this issue. If a woman wants to get one, then she has to face the consequences of her choice. Not me. I will vote yes on proposition 85 though, because I do believe that the parent should be notified as to their daughter getting an abortion. Not based on faith, but the saftey of the child. Where we differ, is that I'm the type that feels until scientists can say "embryonic stem cells are working to cure _______" I don't want to waste my tax dollars on it. Let the Chinese do the work. I don't think they are going to be successful, because at this point, there are no positive results. If embryonic stem cells were a viable solution, then researchers would not need to get government backing because the smart money (private sector) would be funding it. This above everything else should raise a red flag to everyone. As far as Michael J. Fox is concerned, I understand completely why he is doing what he is doing. He is determined to find a cure, which everyone can understand. However, he is also probably desperate to get back the life he had prior to the onset of his disease. The researchers have him convinced that embryonic stem cells are the solution, so of course he wants to believe that they will. Who wouldn't in his situation. I know I would be the same way. Sadly, this doesn't mean he is right. That is what the real decision for this should boil down to.
I would rather spend much more money on research on all diseases, and until such time that scientists say "embryonic stems cells are a waste of time for research" I want the government to fund research implementing them... This stupid statement is what lefty asshole makes a lefty asshole.Incredibly stupid and naive. If you are 15 or older you should know that once the funding starts it never stops. Good you are so reasonable and logical unlike those "klannish rightwingers". ZZZ.... how much time do you spend during tax season to get government off of your back?? Actually you don't because you have a plan for government "to spend much more money on research on all deseases". Again unlike those selfish "klannish rightwingers"
It is his vote. If it is based on faith, which I do not personally agree with, that is his choice. He doesn't want tax dollars going to support something that is against his faith. His choice. Sure, his choice. My opinion is that abortion is wrong based on my faith, but I don't base my politics on this issue. If a woman wants to get one, then she has to face the consequences of her choice. Not me. I will vote yes on proposition 85 though, because I do believe that the parent should be notified as to their daughter getting an abortion. Not based on faith, but the saftey of the child. So are you saying that the child doesn't have the capacity to make that decision on their own? Is that the issue here? Where we differ, is that I'm the type that feels until scientists can say "embryonic stem cells are working to cure _______" I don't want to waste my tax dollars on it. Let the Chinese do the work. I don't think they are going to be successful, because at this point, there are no positive results. If embryonic stem cells were a viable solution, then researchers would not need to get government backing because the smart money (private sector) would be funding it. This above everything else should raise a red flag to everyone. In the scheme of things, given where we waste money, this really should not be an issue. If scientists continue to think embryonic stem cells hold promise, why hold them back? As far as Michael J. Fox is concerned, I understand completely why he is doing what he is doing. He is determined to find a cure, which everyone can understand. However, he is also probably desperate to get back the life he had prior to the onset of his disease. The researchers have him convinced that embryonic stem cells are the solution, so of course he wants to believe that they will. Who wouldn't in his situation. I know I would be the same way. Sadly, this doesn't mean he is right. It doesn't mean he is right or wrong in his position. Though he happens to be on the side of science, not personal faith which would retard research. That is what the real decision for this should boil down to. How many great corporations survive are grow without innovation and research and development? Money for research is all about this generation and the health and welfare of future generations. Think of where we would be if following the oil embargo in the mid 70's, the country had made it job number one to put all top scientists on energy independence. This comes down to priorities, and whether we decide on faith based thinking, or on secular and science based....
"Incredibly stupid and naive. If you are 15 or older you should know that once the funding starts it never stops." Ignorance roars from Cesko. Tell me, are we still spending the same type of money for space exploration and development as we used to (on a pro rated basis) in the 60's and 70's? Or have we seen cutbacks for NASA and related R&D... Oh, and during tax season I spend little time on taxes, that's what accountants are for...
Most definitely. 35 years ago the government declared war on cancer. Doesn't look like it's going too well after spending untold billions.
The rate of people getting cancer has increased. People are getting cancer and dying at a younger age. "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner). "My overall assessment is that the national cancer programme must be judged a qualified failure" Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and was editor of its journal. (3) Dr. Bailer also says: "The five year survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before . . . More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being 'cured'. When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."
More people are getting cancer because the government does darn little to prevent cancer... The rising levels of pollution, carcinogens in food, etc. are the cause to a great extent. The treatments developed in the past 35 years at least provide hope for those who are getting cancer...
Here are some articles to consider in looking at the debate between embryonic and adult stem cells. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/nov/03112001.html Canadian Stem Cell Expert Speaks Out on Adult vs. Embryo Stem Cell Research Says "embryonic stem cells have yet to be used to treat any form of disease" TORONTO, November 20, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Dr. Peter Hollands, who holds a PhD in Stem Cell Biology from Cambridge University in the UK has spoken out on the controversy over adult and embryonic stem cells. In comments to LifeSiteNews.com, Dr. Hollands, who has worked with embryonic stem cells, noted the often overlooked fact that while adult and cord blood stem cells have been widely used for treatments, "embryonic stem cells have yet to be used to treat any form of disease." Dr. Hollands, who worked as a clinical embryologist at Bourn Hall Clinic - the world's first IVF unit, says that "common sense" dictates that resources be directed toward adult over embryonic stem cell research. "Embryonic stem cells have many legal, moral, ethical and religious objections before even the practicalities of obtaining the cells, growing them, storing them and not least transplanting them are addressed," Dr. Hollands told LifeSiteNews.com. "Adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells are readily available, have no objections associated with them and are tried and tested in clinical use. Umbilical cord blood stem cells, for example, have been used over 3000 times for 45 different diseases!" With numerous publications to his credit on the subject of stem cells and clinical embryology, Dr. Hollands takes issue with certain other researchers in the field who suggest that embryonic stem cells 'may work better'. A recent finding that adult stem cells can be used to repair muscle tissue, saw one of the researchers involved in the study, UBC's Dr. Fabio Rossi, said that "proposing (adult stem cells) as an alternative to embryonic cells, which may work better, is not the right thing to do." Commenting on Dr. Rossi's statement, Dr. Hollands said, "Why may they work better? We do not even know if they (embryonic stem cells) will work at all! The public must know that adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells are available, proven and ready to use for a range of diseases. We must get away from this idea of the promise of embryonic stem cells and look at the realities of adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells." Dr. Hollands, who is currently the Scientific Director of Cells for Life, a private cord blood bank in Markham Ontario, also disagreed with those who contend there is a great need to continue study of embryonic stem cells. "We should focus our attention on the most readily available and usable type of cells and these are adult and umbilical cord stem cells. Embryonic stem cells at present are largely political rhetoric and scientific hype. Adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells are proven and ready to use. The public needs to know this," he said. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities. The risks involved in using the cytomegalovirus promoter to drive over-expression of the transcription factor are undetermined. To avoid immune rejection, the ES cells have to be tissue-matched from a bank of stem cells created from âspareâ human embryos. Otherwise, a special human embryo has to be created for the purpose, by transferring the patientâs genetic material into an empty egg, a procedure prone to failure and morally objectionable to many, including scientists. By contrast, adult stem cells could be transplanted directly without genetic modification or pre-treatments. They simply differentiate according to cues from the surrounding tissues and do not give uncontrollable growth or tumours. The adult stem cells also show high degrees of genomic stability during culture. There is no problem with immune rejection because the cells can readily be isolated from the patients requiring transplant. And there is no moral objection involved. Better yet, research can be directed towards encouraging adult stem cells to regenerate and repair damaged tissues in situ, without the need for cell isolation and in vitro expansion. By minimising intervention, risks are reduced, as well as cost, making the treatment available to everyone and not just the rich. http://www.globalchange.com/stemcells.htm http://www.globalchange.com/futurebiotechnology.htm New evidence that stem cells from bone marrow can become brain cells in humans. Researchers at the US Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke have found male brain cells in four women after death who received bone marrow transplants from men. Eva Mezey who led the team, believes stem cells circulate all the time, looking for damaged tissues which they then settle near and repair. Other experiments in adult mice show that bone marrow cells can be persuaded to develop into brain or heart cells. This whole area is very exciting and hugely significant, because it means we probably don't need to develop replacement tissues from embryonic stem cells, thus avoiding all the ethical dilemmas of destroying human embryos for research purposes. It also means that arguments in favour of therapeutic cloning collapse, because adult stem cells are a neater and simpler method of generating other tissues - despite all the campaigning rhetoric by the human cloning community about the benefits to medicine. See more on stem cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI:10.1073