Michael J Fox - Human Shield

[no1tovote4]

It's not the job of Congress to set scientific guidelines on behalf of the religious right.

No thanks.

You really know nothing of me...

Honestly, there is more to the world than some people's religion. No guidelines at all can lead to some serious things...

Imagine a couple going in to get help having a child, the doctor creates a few extra just for research purposes, lets them choose from the others and without telling them sells them for a profit to researchers...

So forth.

 

[Annie]

I was wondering where you were on this topic. Your objection is fiduciary? Most of the objections to embryonic stem cell research I have read in this thread are religious. Federal involvement is necessary because, as I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, embryonic stem cell research is very long-term, with unknown results, and costs billions of dollars. Other than a state like California, no other agency can fill that role besides the Feds. Who knew that bone marrow transplants would work until that technique was researched and developed 40 years ago? There is nothing on Lily's website about any kind of stem cell research, adult or embryonic. Why? The profit potential is not quick enough for Wall Street. Do not expect an economy dominated by the equities market to take big, long-term risks, with shareholder money. There are only four links on Pfizer's website that even mention stem cells. None of the articles pertain to research of any type on stem cells. We know the reason why. The payback, if it comes, is a long way off. Shareholders don't like that kind of corporate spending. California’s $3 billion dollar program is over ten years. Remember the Republican dominated House and Senate passed a bill for funding embryonic stem cell research. Bush on 4 September, either pandering to religious extremists or actually believing it himself, used the only veto of his Presidency to kill Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research authorized by a Republican Congress.

I disagree, the success is not only not 'guaranteed' but with embryonic stem cells, there is no light. I'm not saying might not happen, but so far the 'hope' is not even close. There's been more success with adult stem cells, though the long term results are mixed. In any case, I don't think this is the role of the fed, in any circumstance. IF it were to prove out over time, the beneficiaries are individuals, not the country. I'm not heartless, I know the families and individuals think it's all important, I'm wishing them the best, truly. But the funding needs to come from charities, states, universities loosening up grants, what have you. Most likely, if there are real possibilities, it will be med/pharmaceuticals. They want the patents and $$$.

The fed should be spending on defense, securing our borders, taking care of our needs, not as individuals or families, but for the 'common good.'

 

[Kagom]

I felt the same way listening to Randi Rhodes from Airhead Amer,
in just ten minutes.....

Never listened in to AA. Didn't care to either.

 

[no1tovote4]

Never listened in to AA. Didn't care to either.

Randi Rhodes is some seriously angry woman...

 

[jillian]

Randi Rhodes is some seriously angry woman...

She ain't got nothing in that regard compared to Rush, O'Reilly, Savage and the Coultergeist

 

[no1tovote4]

She ain't got nothing in that regard compared to Rush, O'Reilly, Savage and the Coultergeist

Um... I'd say that she is right on par with Savage and Coulter... Rush and O'Reilly are a setting below.

 

[onedomino]

I disagree, the success is not only not 'guaranteed' but with embryonic stem cells, there is no light. I'm not saying might not happen, but so far the 'hope' is not even close. There's been more success with adult stem cells, though the long term results are mixed. In any case, I don't think this is the role of the fed, in any circumstance. IF it were to prove out over time, the beneficiaries are individuals, not the country. I'm not heartless, I know the families and individuals think it's all important, I'm wishing them the best, truly. But the funding needs to come from charities, states, universities loosening up grants, what have you. Most likely, if there are real possibilities, it will be med/pharmaceuticals. They want the patents and $$$.

The fed should be spending on defense, securing our borders, taking care of our needs, not as individuals or families, but for the 'common good.'

The prevention and treatment of disease is not for the "common good?" Given your logic nothing would ever happen on big, long-term projects with unclear payback such as interstate transportation, the space program, education, energy, public health, the list goes on and on. Contrary to your assertion, it is the function of the Federal Government to authorize and fund projects that states, private companies, or individuals cannot perform by themselves. Using your logic we would limit ourselves to a future shaped only by the limited resources of those entities. Expensive, long-term projects would be science fiction. You are right. We disagree on this topic.

 

[Annie]

The prevention and treatment of disease is not for the "common good?" Given your logic nothing would ever happen on big, long-term projects with unclear payback such as interstate transportation, the space program, education, energy, public health, the list goes on and on. Contrary to your assertion, it is the function of the Federal Government to authorize and fund projects that states, private companies, or individuals cannot perform by themselves. Using your logic we would limit ourselves to a future shaped only by the limited resources of those entities. Expensive, long-term projects would be science fiction. You are right. We disagree on this topic.

Nope, you are mistaking my logic. The Eisenhower project helped build cities, suburbs, and commerce. The space program not only added to our defense capabilities but also provided a myriad of products that were put into the private sector. Personally I don't think the fed should play a role in public or private education, other than ensuring that all have access to it, that's a state responsibility. I've already said energy is a national problem, for security at the minimum. Public health, as far a CDC? Yeah, there is a role, that of carrier of bad news, not the solution.

 

[onedomino]

Nope, you are mistaking my logic. The Eisenhower project helped build cities, suburbs, and commerce. Which was very long-term, with unclear payback, just like ESC research. At over a million bucks per mile in the 1950s, my father has told me that Eisenhower even felt he had to sell the Interstate Highway System partly as a national security system, where jets could land and so forth. Why? Because of attitudes toward the Federal Government such as the very restricted view that you have expressed. Everyone knew that justification was a bone thrown to the anti-Federalist forces in Congress. The space program not only added to our defense capabilities but also provided a myriad of products that were put into the private sector. Don't you think that billions in ESC research would add to the economy; providing jobs and new technologies? Personally I don't think the fed should play a role in public or private education, other than ensuring that all have access to it, that's a state responsibility. I've already said energy is a national problem, for security at the minimum. Public health, as far a CDC? Yeah, there is a role, that of carrier of bad news, not the solution. Well, we disagree. No private companies have the long-term research strategies and spending necessary to support ESC research. Any CEO who did fund long-term ESC research with an unclear profit potential would be fired by the Board of Directors. There are some things that only collectively do we have the ability to viably pursue in a reasonable time frame. ESC research is one of them, as was the multi-year federally funded project to decode the human genome.

-

 

[Annie]

-

Well I can't think of someone I'd rather disagree with, well maybe Eddie, but he seems to have gone over to the dark side.

 

[Kagom]

Randi Rhodes is some seriously angry woman...

I'd rather not find out.

 

[manu1959]

I'd rather not find out.

do you think she wore white at here wedding?

 

[Kagom]

do you think she wore white at here wedding?

DON'T YOU TEMPT ME!

 

[Hobbit]

I still don't buy the "it's too long term for Wall Street" garbage. Pfizer sometimes spends decades and billions to create a single drug that they can only sell at full price for 5 years. If ESCs were medically viable, they'd be all over it. And I'm not giving you 'religious' reasons, you just think I am because it's the only reason you can wrap your brain around, but yes, an intelligent person can simply believe that stem cells are not a productive use of dollars, which is why I'm against my tax money going to it and why my private dollars don't go to it. I'm against any federal spending towards scientific research outside the bounds of national defense or interstate commerce. If I want to support disease research, I'll do what I do for autism, palsey, Alzheimer's, Lou Gerrig's, Parkinson's, and, especially, childhood cancer, and just give my own money to see it happen. In fact, I raise at least $1000/year for the American Cancer Society, on top of a $100 donation. My status as a cancer survivor gives me both the incentive and the means to do so.

As far as ESC goes, I will always object to federal funding of it. I will also decline private support as long as it requires dead babies, with the possible exception of babies that died naturally (miscarriages). I make a pledge now, however, that if anything good comes out of ESCs that are taken without killing a baby, I will personally donate, at a minimum, $100 to a foundation that does such research.

 

[Hobbit]

Oh, and I do listen to Rush. I don't always agree with him, but he's entertaining and, in my opinion, charming. I was listening that day. Paraphrasing (I don't have a transcript in front of me), he said that Fox was off base with his comments, since the bill opposed by the candidate he was slamming would legalize human cloning for the purpose of destroying the embryos for their stem cells, a very questionable proposal. He went on to say that Fox was likely being used by the Democratic party in the same fashion of Cindy Sheehan. He also pondered that Fox may not even know that what he was saying isn't true, and that they candidate he slammed isn't trying to block stem cell research. In this same vein, he mentioned that it was very possible that Fox went off whatever med suppressed the shaking solely for the purpose of the commercial, which he admitted in his book to doing before testifying before Congress. He went on to say that Fox, as an actor, may even have been exaggerating his condition, but after taking a couple of phone calls from people angry over the last remark, he withdrew it, saying that he did, in fact, go a little too far and never intended to belittle Fox's condition. He was simply questioning how, shall we say, honest the commerical was with the conclusions it was trying to draw.

He apologized in full before the end of the program. He said he got a little carried away. He still, however, questions the content of the ad, as well people should. Michael J. Fox is not immune to criticism simply because he has Parkinson's, and he was off base in the ad.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually, McKay didn't say scientists lied at all. He said people took slight hope in the area of alzheimers and blew it out of proportion because *THEY*, not scientists needed something to believe in.

But then again, I've never seen an anti-choice or religious right site that ever got anything scientific right.... which is why science and religion, while not being mutually exclusive, don't mix.

"anti choice",,,,is that where the Dems dont want to allow parents to choose the schools their kids can go to? Particularly the poor families?

Yup, you got all the propaganda talking head points down very, very well. Shall we start referring to you as Lemming Jill?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Where did I say stupid? I said you shouldn't be in the science business. And you certainly shouldn't be inerfering with the rest of us benefitting from scientific advances.

And I was absolutely correct about religious sites not getting the science right. Get your bible reading from your Church. Get your science from scientists.

You do realize the greatest scientist ever was extremely religious.?

My god, you are the biggest hypocrite in existence. You belong to the compassionate liberal left, the all encompassing "free to choose" group, just as long as you arent a Christian wishing to be a scientist, according to the goddess jillian herself. Yes, Jillian shall decide which careers Christians can and cant choose. Because she is PRO CHOICE.

You inferred Christians are stupid.

As for us interfering with you benefitting from research, we arent you bufoon. What we oppose is you and your ilk STEALING our money via taxes and FORCING us to help pay for the research. When the government has to do something, it's pretty much proof there isnt much hope or future in it. I guarantee you if there was a lot of promise, private interprises would be popping up all over the place. Remember all the money invested in the dot com businesses that hadnt even made a dime yet?

Ok, and as for no religious site ever getting anything right, hmmm, here we go:http://www.tcu.edu/

and how about this one:http://www.nd.edu/

Psssst, that second one is a link to the home page of the University of Notre Dame. Yea, nothing but a bunch of idiots running that school.

aHHHHHHHHH, but dont let a few facts get in the way of continuing your blind rage and agenda driven opinons you try to dress as information and facts.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Congratulations, you just proved yourself wrong. How can cutting Federal funding "effectively prevent such research" when you yourself point out that States can and do fund the research. The fact that states can fund the research is exactly why the Federal government shouldn't.

vBulletin Message
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to theHawk again.

Brilliant!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

What none of you who are so gleefully bashing Michael J. Fox's support for expanding stem-cell research seem to remember is that in 2004, he did a campaign commercial for Arlen Spectre,who supports expanding stem-cell research. You see, he's not voicing opposition to a candidate so much as he is voicing support for and issue which is very important to the lives of himself, and many other Americans.

And golly, you didn't see drug-addled gasbag Limbaugh bashing Nancy Reagan for her vocal support of stem-cell research, now did you. And did you see Fox's response to Limbaugh's attacks? Pure class.

CONGRATULATIONS, you managed to get two lies into your very first sentence.
We are gleeful about it? I guess you are psychic or something. And we arent bashing "extending stem cell research" we are basing using tax dollars to do so.

As for "who would Jesus torture"? Yea, as usual, a liberal who selectively reads the Bible. Uh, dude, Jesus did torture the demons by putting them into the bodies of pigs and have them go off a cliff. He also attacked the money changers. Now, as for pure torture, dont you think HELL fits the definition?
Fucking idiots in this world.

 

[onedomino]

Lung cancer is one of the deadliest diseases that affects Americans. Do we see pharmaceutical companies paying for long-term clinical trials of technology that can best detect this disease? You know the answer. Here is a program available from the National Cancer Institute, funded by the Federal Government, that seeks to find the most effective way to screen for small cell lung cancer. Such lung cancer is difficult to detect in the early stages. Of course the sooner cancer is discovered, the greater the chances for survival. http://www.cancer.gov/nlst/what-is-nlst This is medical R&D that would not exist without Federal funds because the clinical trials are very long (at least 8 years), expensive, and the profit potential of sCT scanning is far from clear. But if we are to accept the Federal funding arguments of some posters in this thread, spiral computed tomography is an R&D project that represents the misuse of Federal funds. Moreover, we should depend on state agencies, private companies, or who knows what entity, to spend the money necessary for these trials.

Some people use the same “it’s not the Federal Government’s responsibility” argument to also deny Federal funding for embryonic stem cell R&D. For some, the fiduciary argument against Federal funding of ESC R&D is a smokescreen for religious beliefs that this type of medical research kills human beings. They believe that the moment an egg is fertilized it is a human being complete with soul. No amount of objective discussion with these people will convince them that ESC R&D is appropriate, save perhaps ESCs obtained from umbilical cords. These are the same people who oppose all abortion no matter the stage of pregnancy. The only way to obviate this religious belief is to vote around it, as did California with Prop 71.

However, that does not solve the ESC Federal funding problem when a person influenced by religious extremists holds veto power in the White House. If the potential of ESC R&D is important to you, then keep that in mind when you next vote for a Presidential candidate. By vetoing the 4 September bill that provided funds for ESC R&D, Bush has handicapped America’s search for effective treatments to some very devastating diseases. He let extreme religious beliefs get in the way of signing the ESC R&D bill passed by the Republican controlled Congress. Does that make any sense except to mollify the very far right? Is that a decision he made for the “common good” of all Americans?

Clinical trials of sCT small cell lung cancer scanning do not misuse Federal funds. If they do, then where is Bush on this issue? The answer is nowhere because the objection to Federal funding of medical R&D is not viable. If you believe that ESC R&D is inappropriate on religious grounds, no one will be able to convince you otherwise. But do not throw up the smokescreen of misused Federal funds or claim we just do not know enough about the potential of ESC R&D. Neither one of those arguments is correct, unless you just do not care whether potentially life saving trials for technology such as sCT scans are ever performed. sCT scanning trials do not misuse Federal funds and neither would ESC R&D.