It appears that John Edwards’ disgusting abuse of Christopher Reeve’s death was not vile enough for the dynamic duo, becuse today John Kerry went back for seconds in the weekly radio address. This speech was so filled with lies, nonsense, pandering, and most evilly, the promise of false hope, that I almost wrecked my car on the way home from the grocery store. Here is a snippet:
This past week, America lost one of its heroes and my friend, Christopher Reeve. Chris was one of the most hopeful people I
asd
This is the first and last time I waste valuable digital bits on this inane website. *sheesh* Talk about having drunk the Kool-Aid! Jingoist fascism, here we come…
Glen
John,
I’m not a knee-jerk fan of government supported research. But if Bush’s ban goes on, some future American theocracy will be whooping it up over “Christ-blessed leeches” while other nations will actually have cures for some of these diseases.
Steverino
Glen, Bush hasn’t banned funding of stem cell research. Adult stem cell research is completely open to federal funding. And embryonic stem cell research on lines existing by 2001 may receive federal funding, as well. There’s nothing preventing research.
But the big question is: where is private funding for stem cell research going? And the answer to that is adult stem cells. It should tell you something when private money is being bet so heavily on one side.
Al Maviva
Glen,
Bush hasn’t banned stem-cell research. He has continued funding of research into existing lines, initiated funding of adult stem cell lines. He has merely forbidden funding of *new* embryonic stem cells lines – in other words, the Gubmint isn’t going to tell scientists to go out and whack a couple babies in order to develop a new stem cell line.
Besides, as Johnny Edwards reminded us this week, if Kerry was worth a shit, Reeves wouldn’t have died. Kerry would have healed him, and Reeves would be doing a tap dance, training for the NY Marathon and in all likelihood kicking extra points for the Patriots – but no, Kerry didn’t tell him to be healed and get up and walk.
Albino
“in other words, the Gubmint isn’t going to tell scientists to go out and whack a couple babies in order to develop a new stem cell line.”
Wrong. Nobody “whacks babies” to harvest new embrionic stem cells, and no one is suggesting it. The stem cells would be harvested from invitro fertilizations that are about to expire. Thousands are disgarded by invitro clinics every year. There’s no reason why they shouldn’t be put to good use. Where you idiots get the idea that killing a baby or fetus is necessary, or that abortion has anything to do with it is beyond me.
You morons could at least TRY to know what you’re talking about before opening your yaps.
Albino
By the way…the funding on the existing stem cell lines that Bush has funded are meaningless, because the existing stem-cell lines are contaminated. Very little progressive research can be done with them. If there could, there wouldn’t be a problem. Apparantly you guys would like to convince yourselves that the crazy hippy liberals want stem-cell research as an EXCUSE to hack up more babies, rather than to cure some of the world’s diseases before other nations eventually do (and thus, reap the credit AND profit from it).
How ’bout intead of worshiping John Cole’s whiny ass by reading his crappy blog, you actually pick up a medical journal once in a while and learn something useful? That way when you engage in a discussion on this issue, you’re actually armed with the facts instead of the talking points. Hmm?
syn
400 years of scientific discovery and all that remains are exploiting discarded embryos.
Anyway, what proof is available that embryonic stem-cell research is a viable means to cure disease?
Most likely the only effect this research will have is to increase Planned Parenthood’s billion dollar abortion industry into a viable trillion dollar industry.
Junk science embryonic stem-cell research may be duping us again like we were duped with the ice age/globalwarming crap.
False hopes based on false Gods.
Spud
Why don’t the Hollywierd liberals pay for the research if it is so humanitarian to do so? Heck, everyone knows that they are the only people who really care in this country. And if you don’t believe it, just ask Susan Sarandon and her gang of idiots. And the good Lord knows that they have screwed the average American out of enough money (just go to one lousy movie) to have plenty to burn.
Albino
The idiocy riddled in the last 2 posts proves my point perfectly. You guys are hopeless. It frightens me that you have a vote. Terrifying.
Huck
What’s disturbing Albino is using Christopher Reeves to make this point. (I actually agree with you and Kerry about stem cell research.) I think that’s what many find disgusting, especially since there’s really not much evidence (from my understanding) that stem cells offer much hope in curing spinal injuries. Dragging a recently deceased beloved figure into it is demagogic, I think that’s John’s point.
Albino
Fair enough, Huck. I don’t agree, but I see your point. I disagree because Kerry and Edwards had both mentioned Christopher Reeve before his death in defense of stem-cell research, and Kerry was a personal friend of Reeve’s. No one suggested that Reeve’s life would have been saved had more freedom been given to stem-cell research. It’s just that those who supported Reeve’s efforts want his legacy to live on now that he’s gone.
Let me ask you then – do you feel it was demagogic of Republicans to invoke Reagan after his death in stating Reagan would have been AGAINST stem-cell research, despite Nancy’s desperate pleading to the contrary? Or even demagogic when conservatives invoke Reagan…like, every other day, for whatever policy they’re trumpeting? Pay a visit to National Review online once in a while and see why I find it ironic when conservatives chastize liberals for invoking the name of dead heroes to make their points.
Huck
There’s nothing wrong with invoking dead heroes. (Both Kerry and Bush kept mentioning Reagan in the debates.)
I think what rubs people the wrong way is that the guy just died last week from complications related to his spinal cord injuries and Kerry is using the circumstances connected to his death to argue for a particular political policy.
I haven’t seen anyone from the Bush campaign argue that Reagan would’ve opposed stem cell research. Maybe they did and I missed it. If so, you’re point is valid. I really don’t care if some conservative pundit did, the campaign raising it is the point.
To be fair to Kerry though, I’m sure the Reeves family gave him permission to do this. Because if they hadn’t, I’m sure they woud’ve spoke up.
John Cole
Umm. What pisses me off are the blatant lies.
There is no evidence whatsoever that emrbyonic stem cells, which are not BANNED, but just won’t be funded federally exept for already existing lines. And BUsh didn’t ban anything, he lifted CLINTON’s ban.
Now add the bit about Chris Reeve. Spinal cord injuries are traumatic injuries involving the severing/damage of the spinal cord. There is no evidence stem cells will doanythingfor paralysis. There is more hope for degenerative diseases like parkinson’s.
I guess the other lies (stem cells curing cancer? heart disease?) just sort of fly under the radar when you have made so many big ones.
Huck
Fair enough John, I’ll let you speak for yourself. Just trying to foster peace, love and understanding between you and Albino :)
Albino
*sigh*
“there is no evidence stem cells will doanythingfor paralysis.”
Wrong.
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/20/1728_52645
“There is no evidence whatsoever that emrbyonic stem cells, which are not BANNED, but just won’t be funded federally exept for already existing lines. And BUsh didn’t ban anything, he lifted CLINTON’s ban.”
Then why are half the US House trying to get Bush to lift a ban that – according to you – doesn’t exist?
http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D157387%2526M%253D50011,00.html
Please…at least TRY to know what you’re talking about Mr. Cole.
Simon Rippon
Wow John, what blustering. Let’s see which of the “lies” you suppose have been told stand up to scrutiny. I’m glad you explained in your comments what you thought they were. So here we go:
(1) “…emrbyonic stem cells, which are not BANNED, but just won’t be funded federally exept for already existing lines.”
A little comprehension test now. Does Kerry’s statement: “Three years ago, George W. Bush put in place a ban on federal funding for stem cell research” mean “stem cells are BANNED”? Correct answer: No. John Kerry’s claim was inaccurate because (and only because) the ban makes an exception for old stem cell lines. But as a “blatant, brazen lie of [a] public figure in recent history” that doesn’t even come *close* to “Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans.” (GWBush – 1st presidential debate) when 53% of them went to the highest-earning 10%.
(2) “Now add the bit about Chris Reeve. Spinal cord injuries are traumatic injuries involving the severing/damage of the spinal cord. There is no evidence stem cells will doanythingfor paralysis.”
How could we investigate a claim like that? Ask a scientist? But maybe he’s a partisan liberal tree-hugger!Let’s see what the President says instead:
“Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer’s, from Parkinson’s to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.”
(GW Bush, August 9, 2001).
As for:
(3) “the other lies (stem cells curing cancer? heart disease?) just sort of fly under the radar when you have made so many big ones”
I guess the liberal partisans over at the Stanford University Institute for Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine, and at the University of Wisconsin Medical School where they grew stem cells into muscle cells found in the heart (http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/9064.html), might have something to say about that.
What about:
(4) “BUsh didn’t ban anything, he lifted CLINTON’s ban.” Kerry said: “George W. Bush put in place a ban on federal funding for stem cell research”, which contradicts your claim. Now Bush’s decision can if you like be described as a new permission to use federal funds for stem cell research within strict limits (no new lines). But it also closed a loophole in Congress’s 1995 ban of federal funding on any research destructive of human embryos. The Clinton administration had interpreted to mean that stem cells could be studied with public funding, as long as they were obtained using private funds. So Bush’s decision ended Clinton’s permission that got around Congress’s ban. To me, that looks quite like a ban.
Maybe you think that even if there were no lies, it was wrong to invoke Christopher Reeve, a man who was entitled to his paralysis being treated with privacy and respect. I mean, what does he really have to do with stem cell research? Except, that is, as the president of his own paralysis foundation, who said things like:
“Stem cell research holds the promise of hope for 100 million people living with incurable diseases from diabetes to heart conditions to Alzheimer
John Cole
Albino- YOu simply do not know what youare talking about. There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research. There is a band on federal funding for such research in lines that do not already exist.
Prior to Bush’s decision, all federal fundingofsaid research was banned- not the study itself. All Bush did was expand federal funding from nothing to existing stem cell lines. Quit lying.
And yes, as your 6 year old study stated (How can that be- there was NO federal funding of stem cell rsearch then!!!!!), there has been limited success in rats.
Nut graf:
“The biggest issue of all may be that human motor behavior is more complicated,” says Maiman. “Even if cells grow, it does not mean they will work. Also, in the real world, you often have to contend with blood, scarring, and other problems that were not mimicked in this model.”
What you are also failing to note is that most of the real progress has been accomplished with ADULT STEM CELLS.
Don’t come in here with you attitude teling me I don’t know what I am talking about- I can read. I have google, too. I am sick and tired of you lefties coming in here thinking yourlungs are reservoirs of thought, and that if you simply say something a hundred times, it becomes true.
Simon Rippon
John, you still do not know what you are talking about. In addition to my post above, I’d like to respond to your latest comment with another excerpt from the President’s 2001 speech where he endorses the following reasoning:
“Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.
However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.
Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds.”
If even HE gets it, why can’t you? The fact that, as Kerry said, embryonic stem cell research MAY lead to cures for various diseases is not altered one whit by the fact that research in this area still has a long way to go. The fact that research has progressed without federal funding does not alter the fact that it can progress faster with it. The fact that progress has been made with adult stem cells does not alter the fact there are good reasons for thinking that embryonic stem cells might hold be more promising in the long run.
People like you used to say that we shouldn’t research organ transplants in rats, because there was no proof they’d ever work, let alone work in humans.
Perhaps you need to spend more time alone with google.
John Cole
I am going to say thisslowly so everyone understands it:
Bush has stopped no research whatsoever of any kind of embryonic stm cell research.
None. Nada. Zip. Zero.
Simon Rippon
Nice argumentative strategy, John – when your earlier claims are all proven false, change the subject by making your claim weak and ambiguous enough that it’s obviously true (on one reading, which I’ve no doubt you will turn to if challenged).
Trouble is, nobody ever made THAT claim. The point was that Bush’s decision in 2001 made it illegal for embryonic stem cell research programs using new lines to obtain federal funding, and that some of those would have been permitted funding under Clinton’s NIH guidelines. For short, we could call that a “ban on federal funding”, for programs that are widely acknowledged to be scientifically promising and may help to cure a wide range of diseases in the future. In addition, Christopher Reeve’s legacy was one of support for such programs, because among other things, he thought they might lead to a cure for his kind of paralysis.
Are you now denying any of that? If not, then what reason exactly are you giving us to join you in your foaming at the mouth over Kerry’s speech?
John Cole
Simon- It is not an argumentative strategy, it is the truth. This is why the Democrats are going to lose again in afew weeks- because even when people support your position on issues, you are so damned obnoxious and over the top that no one wants to even be with you.
I think there should be unfettered access to any type of stem cell- which there is, in the private arena. As far as public financing, I am not in favor generally of public financing of any sort of thing ike this, but if we are already involved, I would tend to disagree with Bush and think we might as well have no limitations.
So, essentially, I am on your side. But they aren’t in favor of playing it straight. Instead, they lie, lie, and lie.
1.) There is no ban on stem cell research. There is a limitation of FEDERAL funding- limiting it to already existing cell lines. THAT IS NOT A BAN.
2.) There is no solid evidence- simply early possibilities, and while there are those early possibilities, the research is mixed at best, and points to adult stem cells as being as promising as embryonic.
3.) It is simply an outright lie to claim that heart disease and cancer will be cured with stem cell research. There is simply no way of knowing that and the stem cel progress that has been made to date has been with adult stem cell transplants, making this a moot pointto begin with, as the democrats are demagoguing EMBRYONIC stem cells.
4.) it is blatant pandering and most likely a lie to state that any time in the near future, should the government begin to fund embryonic stem cell research on other than the existing lines, any of these diseases would be cured.
From the University of Wisconsin:
http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/
S.W. Anderson
Let me get this straight. You castigate Kerry for raising false hopes among people with terrible diseases and afflictions. That’s because he favors accelerated, broadened embryonic stem cell research.
But you’re basically OK with Bush, after all the BS and mindless blather he’s uttered about Iraq and the war on terror?
Unbelievable!
TM Lutas
John Kerry, by his own statements, believes that life begins at conception. He therefore believes that the destructive harvesting of embryonic stem cells is direct human experimentation on the same moral plane as the Mengele experiments on hypothermia and harvesting those cells for societally useful products is morally no different than the human skin lampshades and human fat soap products coming out of concentration camps in WW II.
For the visiting Kerry supporters, could you please tell me where Kerry’s moral line is where he’s going to say stop? I can’t find it. Once you endorse the twin positions that life begins at conception and killing embryos is a positive moral good as John Kerry has, it’s Katie bar the door time.
The PETA people have long been up in arms about animal experimentation. Some have explicitly argued for human experimentation on prisoners. What’s John Kerry’s moral argument when he’s going to have to admit that prisoner experimentation is going to be cheaper than using animals (every dead prisoner saves you money after all) and faster (direct human experimentation is faster and surer than animal models)?
Kerry wants us to have high ethical standards. Whose standards, Princeton “bioethicist” Peter Singer’s with his explicit endorsement of infanticide up to about 6 months after birth?
TM Lutas
Correction:
In the first paragraph, I meant to say that destructive experimentation on stem cells is like the Mengele experiments and commercial product development would be like the human soap and skin products etc.
Whoever is John Kerry’s spiritual advisor really has his work cut out for him.
Aaron
If the government doesn’t fund research, does that mean it doesn’t happen?
syn
TM Lutas
Great point!
What is the moral distinction between experimenting on animals and experimenting on humans?
S W Anderson
Kerry castigated himself for raising false hopes among people with terrible diseases and afflictions.
And, if we move too quickly with this embryonic stem-cell research we may end up creating a scientific monster. Why do scientists believe they can create utophia when they too are only human!
Michael Crichton has given several excellent speeches on the subject of believing in over-zealous scientific “consensus” research that both Kerry and Edwards would be wise to read.
jeff
Where does the “100 million” number come from. It seems high.
MunDane
If Christopher Reeves died from a heart attack brought on from a system bacteriolical infection from an infected bed sore, how in hell did he make a telephone call less than 48 hrs before he died?
Having seen this kind of infection in loved ones beofre, he probably would have had a high fever (103+) for more than three days. During that delerium he called and left a message after watching the last debate?
Huh?
Lee
When will the people of this nation get a clue?!
There are now and have been for years, cures for cancer and every other devastating disease known to man. Read “Natural Cures THEY Don’t Want Us to Know About”and you will understand why. It’s all about $$$$ and the FDA, FTC, drug companies, research companies to name a few are responsible. We don’t need stem cell research – we already have the cures but the great USA will not now nor ever allow these cures to be used. It’s all about the money – the sicker we are the more money to be made!!!