Thanks Linda and thanks Mort!  An unbiased[when he has every reason to BE
biased], factual piece.  Refreshing.

Paula Wittekind

----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda J Herman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 12:18 AM
Subject: Kondracke: Christopher Reeve's Cause wasn't just stem cells, but
research


> FROM:
> Roll Call
> October 14, 2004
> as posted on CAMR website
> http://www.camradvocacy.org/fastaction/news.asp?id=1143
>
> Kondracke: Christopher Reeve's Cause Wasn't Just Stem Cells, but Research
>
>
> By Morton M. Kondracke
>
> Christopher Reeve's shocking death at age 52 is cause for deep mourning
> over the loss of a remarkable human being and for rededication to the
> cause he fought for: medical research across the board. Reeve, as the
> whole world knows, was the victim of a horrific spinal cord injury. But
> he did not limit his activism to finding a cure for his own affliction.
> He was an advocate for every disease victim * and everyone who could be
> cured of a disease in the future.
>
> In the midst of this presidential campaign, his death is legitimately
> focusing attention on his backing of embryonic stem-cell research, but
> it's getting lost that he also was a stout advocate of general increases
> in medical research funding.
>
> Reeve spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 1996 not about stem
> cells * which were only theoretical science then * but about the
> revolutionary potential of 21st century bio-research.
>
> Whenever Reeve traveled in the years immediately after his 1995 spinal
> injury, he risked his life. A sudden change in elevation or temperature
> could set off possibly fatal adverse reactions.
>
> Yet he traveled repeatedly to Washington and elsewhere to urge expansion
> of medical research. I got to know him as an advocate for Parkinson's
> disease research and for doubling the budget of the National Institutes
> of Health.
>
> He was a Democrat, but in the late 1990s the greatest impediment to
> significant NIH increases was the Clinton administration.
>
> Bill Clinton wasn't opposed to medical research * he added funds for
> politically important diseases like AIDS and breast cancer and lifted the
> first President George Bush's ban on fetal tissue research * but it was
> not a priority.
>
> Once Clinton personally promised Reeve an increase in funding for spinal
> cord research, but the money never came through. Reeve seethed in
> private, but said nothing publicly.
>
> It was a bipartisan group in Congress * including Sens. Arlen Specter
> (R-Pa.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) * who pushed through a plan to double the
> NIH budget from $13.5 billion in1998 to $27 billion in 2003, calling for
> an average annual increase of 15 percent.
>
> Clinton accepted the plan * and took credit for it * and the current
> President Bush promised during the 2000 campaign to complete it. And, he
> did. NIH's budget is now $28 billion.
>
> However, the Bush administration, besides limiting stem-cell research, is
> now also advocating severe reductions in medical research funding.
>
> From annual 15 percent increases, Bush is recommending 2.7 percent
> increases * including significant and necessary new outlays to counter
> bio-terrorism * which represent a cut after inflation. Next year,
> according to widespread reports, the administration will call for only a
> 2 percent increase.
>
> In Congress, the House has approved the administration's 2.7 percent
> request. At Specter's urging, the Senate Appropriations Committee has
> voted for a 3.9 percent increase.
>
> Medical researchers say that the abrupt reductions in the growth of
> federal funding will severely inhibit their ability to expand labs, mount
> innovative projects or encourage young investigators.
>
> Democratic candidate John Kerry has promised to significantly increase
> NIH funding as well as to undo Bush's limits on federal support for
> embryonic stem-cell research. It's no wonder that Reeve backed him before
> he died.
>
> There's no question that Democrats have hyped the immediate prospects for
> stem-cell research. Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), said
> after Reeve's death that "when John Kerry is president, people like
> Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of their wheelchair and walk
> again."
>
> That's nonsense. Embryonic stem-cell research is still in its infancy and
> it will be decades before it actually fulfills its potential to cure
> people with diseases like Reeve's or Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's or Mary
> Tyler Moore's juvenile diabetes.
>
> But the potential exists, the research is under way and it ought not be
> inhibited by ideology. Bush opposes aggressive embryonic stem-cell
> research because he opposes the destruction of 5-day-old embryos to
> harvest their stem cells * even when those "surplus" embryos are destined
> to be discarded at in vitro fertilization clinics.
>
> The Bush campaign falsely states on its Web site that Bush "did not in
> any way limit or restrict" the research when in fact he declared that
> federal funds could not be used to conduct research on any stem cells
> harvested after Aug. 9, 2001.
>
> Opponents of stem-cell research also have hyped the prospects for
> so-called "adult stem cells," derived not from embryos, but a patient's
> own fat, skin or blood cells.
>
> Some dramatic progress has been made with cord blood stem cells obtained
> from the umbilical cords of newborns, but claims that * for instance *
> spinal injuries have been cured in Portugal through adult cells obtained
> from eye cells have not been validated by scientific review.
>
> The director of Reeve's spinal injury foundation, Michael Manginello,
> told me: "You know Chris. If there had been any credibility to these
> claims, he'd have been on the next plane. But the overwhelming consensus
> of scientists is that it's not documented, not repeatable * in fact, is
> scary."
>
> The Bush administration is devoting $24 million this year to embryonic
> stem-cell research and $184 million to adult. That is letting ideology
> outweigh science. Both kinds of research deserve full funding.
>
> And so does medical research in general. Since 1980, largely because of
> research, the average U.S. life expectancy has increased by four years
> and disability rates for people over 65 had declined by 25 percent.
>
> Polls show that voters overwhelmingly prefer Kerry's stance on stem cells
> to Bush's. They also favor increases in research funding. If not to honor
> Reeve, then to do the public's will, Congress should do as it did in the
> 1990s * increase research funding and let the president take credit for
> it.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn