One of the most infuriating bit of demagoguery from the last campaign was the shameless distortions thrown about by the Democrats regarding stem cell research. You remember- stem cells would cure everything, but Bush was banning hem because he is a religious nut. Why, even the crippled would rise up upon formerly useless limbs and dance a jig if only Bush were to lose the election.
If the Bush White House were as dishonest as the Kerry/Edwards campaign and that mealy-mouth Ron Reagan, JR, they would be issuing a press release after reading this:
Half of cancer patients who have stem cell transplants show signs of delirium after the procedure, says a study to be published in the Feb. 15 issue of Cancer.
These signs of delirium can be subtle and easily missed by doctors, the study noted. The symptoms include disturbances in the sleep-wake cycle, impaired attention and memory, and hypoactive behavior.
Classic symptoms of delirium include hallucinations, delusions, agitation and disorientation.
The study found the severity of delirium is associated with the levels of distress, pain and fatigue experienced by patients. This is the first research to identify this link between stem cell transplantation and delirium, the researchers said.
What kind of press release could they have. According to the Kerry/Edwards standards of honesty, any of the following would be acceptable:
“Kerry/Edwards Policy Cause Delirium”
“Kerry Policies Hurt Cancer Patients”
“Bush Policies Saves Cancer Patients”
Or so on. Some of you might be wondering why I am still attacking the Kerry/Edwards campaign. The reasoning is simple- I hated them because of their ideas, and I hated them because of their litany of lies. Their demagoguery of the stem cell issue was the most onerous of their sins.
What’s even more impression is that mere exposure to stem cells causes hysteria, delusions of medical knowledge, and explosive gaseous releases in conservatives. These sorts of side effects were covered up by the all-powerful but somehow ineffective MSM as part of their overall effort to get John Kerry elected.
Also, speaking as someone who has a friend with Muscular Dystrophy, please allow me to extend a personal FU to you for backing the closing off of a promising line of research. I am forced to wonder why you’re stuck working on this blog; with your apparent omniscience regarding forthcoming scientific discoveries, you should at minimum apply for a job evaluating research grants at NIH.
Don’t look now, John, but it just happened again. ;)
Jesus. Go fuck yourself with your sanctimonious twadlle and overwrought demagoguery, Kimmitt. Bush banned nothing. In fact, there was no funding of federal of embryonic stem cell research prior to Bush.
Research is going on fine, and you know it, you lying coward, hiding behind your friends Disease to score cheap political points.
Adverse events in hematopoietic stem cell transplant treatment involving graft versus host disease are already known. I’d like to know more about this particular study than I have googled so far: the source of the HSC, the type and stage of the cancer in the patients, the patients’ treatment experience/naivete, the technique used by the researchers to find causality rather than coincidence, and more.
I have some personal experience in the treatment of ultimately intractable cancer, but I’d rather not be accused of hiding behind pathos.
If you just enjoy throwing rocks at Kerry and Edwards, I say go with your bliss. But this study is hardly Frankenstein gone over the wall.
Did you read the second half of the post, Scott?
Of course this is not Frankenstein over the wall,- what Iwas trying to state was my disgust at the way the Democrats (think Kimmitt’s remarks right here) demagoued the issue during theelection.
“Bush banned stem cell research!”
Um, no he didn’t. He is actually funing it.
“Cripples will walk if Bush is defeated!”
Um, no they won;t, as no one is suggesting that stem cell research holds the cure to paralysis. Not to mention, most of the promising research regarding paralysis involves adult stem cells.
Just wait, Kimmitt will be back with some more dishonesty that will demonstrate my point further.
Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research was banned in 1995. It became clear by 1998 that embryonic stem cell research was a promising line of inquiry. By the end of Clinton’s term in office, the NIH, with Clinton’s support, had just put together new guidelines for the research with some restrictions and begun to receive grant applications. The fact that no money had gone out to embryonic stem cell research had nothing to do with Clinton Administration policy and everything to do with the fact that his term ended in January of 2001 instead of January of 2002.
Bush replaced Clinton’s guidelines with more restrictive ones in August 2001, ones which effectively halted research for nearly two years and which still siginificantly hamper research.
Again, I sincerely invite you to apply for a position with the NIH; your complete knowledge of which promising line of research will turn out to be the most effective will serve you well.
Bill Clinton- President, 1993-2001
Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research was banned in 1995.
DO I need to go on? The fact of the matter is I think there should be no restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research- but what irritates me is that you continue to lie about this. And while your historical background is partially correct, it leaves out some important parts.
Even your own source states the following: “President Bush is also right to say that he has not banned, limited, or restricted stem cell research. The question is strictly about providing researchers with federal funding.”
Also, once again, you are acting as if the possibility for future developments and breakthroughs is the same as a certain breakthrough. Try this- go out west to an old gold mining town, walk into the bank, and tell them you want them to give you a million dollars because there is a chance you might find gold in dem dar hills.
You seem, as always, completely unwilling to look at the issue through anything but the narrow lens through which you view life. Iam assuming you missed the numerous cogent arguments presented by Sebastian in the comments section.
Again, I am in favor of lifting many of he restrictions, but I find your demagoguery and dishonesty on the issue appalling.
John, I did read the second half of your post. I apologize that my brain sifted the information from the stem cell study as high interest and relevance and the points about the currently defunct Kerry/Edwards as low interest. Dude, you blinded me with science.
The stem cell debate wasn’t wanting in demagoguery on either side. Such are political campaigns.
Still, I missed your point.
Speaking as someone who has suffered from a chronic disease for a long time, if the Federal Government isn’t funding the basic research, it isn’t going to happen. That’s the essential problem.
You really need to take a look at what is being researched by companies like Gentech (sp) and the drug companies. These are not funded by the Federal government. There are also studies going on in a lot of the hospitals with funding from non-profits. You think the only one to do research is the government? Besdes, the study of adult stem cells is funded now and is more profitable than embryotic stem cells and does not require growing babies to harvest.
Kimmitt states: “Speaking as someone who has suffered from a chronic disease for a long time,…” At this point, it appears doubtful that any potential break throughs in stem cell research will serve to overcome conditions that result from a non-functioning brain. Sorry, Kimmitt.
Terry, you’re a class act all the way.
You think the only one to do research is the government?
No, but there are sound economic reasons why the government is going to be the major actor in basic research, such as what is currently taking place in stem cells. It’s a classic public goods problem.