Hi Tom,

The vote is over, and we're moving on....

This was just one issue and we didn't happen to see eye to eye, quite
the contraire...

I still don't agree entirely with your version of the "facts" but it
has become a moot point, given the results on Prop. 71...

We don't live in California but we may impact ever so slightly...

You enjoy access to a somewhat different media than I and it goes
without saying we can use all the awareness and exposure we can
get...

I'm looking forward to working with you on all the other issues to
get our common point across...

cheers ... murray

* * *

On 2 Nov 2004 at 23:50, Tom Berdine wrote:

First let me say as always that I respect you both and appreciate all
your hard work you accomplish every day.

John Kerry's stance on stem cells was purely for votes from those the
technology may help one day. I was worried that many in the community
would vote on that one issue but it is evident now that the country
has seen through Kerry's promises and plans for what they were--true
hype.

I am glad you find my points to be correct, although one sided.
However keep in mind that your position is most always one sided as
well. To be an effective force we have to understand and respect both
sides of the issue.

Did you ever see the episode of Law & Order (I belive it was Law &
Order) in which a wealthy Parkinsonian pays a woman to become
pregnant
by him in order for him to abort it and use it for stem cells for his
own use?

While I do support and advocate FOR embryonic stem cell as well as
SCNT I undertand the ethical concerns involved and the potential for
this important research to go to far if left unchecked.

South Korean scientists have cloned 30 human embryos to obtain cells
they hope could one day be used to treat disease.  This to a degree
scares me. This technology was the same that was used to clone Dolly.

But still I support it as I see the good that potentially be derived
from embryonic stem cells.

It is my hope that the community will focus on what we have vice what
do have not. Awareness and support for the work such as Dr Levesque
is
doing in my opinion is something we need to rally behind. But at the
same time continue to press for further raising of funds from the
private sector for embryonic stem cell research. Both are vital to
our
futures.

In closing please let me say that "I am sorry" if I have let the
community down. But I could not go on "trying" to believe the
positions that were not entirely truthful and were/are misleading the
public. You don't know how many people who I have spoke to who
"belive" that Bush has a total ban on all stem cell research.

Best Regards,


-----Original Message-----
From: Murray Charters [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: Celebrities Mislead & Confuse The Stem Cell Issue

Dear Murray, thank you for alerting us to  this article of Tom's.

November 1, 2004 -- Like you, Michael J Fox, and tens of thousands of
others in the United States, I too am a young onset Parkinson's
disease patient. Like you, I do not have star power to influence
voters. I am not a star, like Michael J.Fox, or Mel Gibson, or a
prize-fighter, or a famous televangelist, or the President, all of
whom use their power to influence the debate on the stem cell issue.
I
am simply a citizen with ten years of Parkinson's behind me, and an
uncertain future ahead of me. I receive a small SSDI disability
check,
which allows me to call myself "retired" on forms if I don't want to
write "disabled" in the occupation box.

While we do not have star power, we have something we share
with millions of others, including Michael J Fox: we each have
one vote tomorrow and while Michael J Fox might walk in and out
of the voting booth in the light of the cameras, my vote-God willing--

will be counted the same as his.

And I do have the power to influence voters, as do you, which is why
I
am writing this response. I am afraid voters will read your opinion
and be swayed by its arguments, which I find one-sided when not
actually incorrect.

You write: "There is no total restriction on stem cell research in
the
United States. The restrictions imposed are for "embryonic stem cell
research" and the policy restricts utilizing federal funds (tax
dollars) for embryonic stem cell research. It does not ban all stem
cell research"

That is true, and you will not find a proponent of furthering
embryonic stem cell research with serious public funding who would
dispute this. But it is also true that the federal government under
the administration of George Bush has severely restricted public
funding for embryonic stem cell research. The provision of $25
million
in total grants for embryonic stem cell research last year is
pathetic, and anti-embryonic stem cell research rhetoric can only
claim that it is a record high for such funding because it was the
first year in which the federal government actually funded any
embryonic stem cell research. The consensus among scientists is that
$25 million in public funding is not a serious commitment by the
government to embryonic stem cell research. So the claims of those
opposed to this research are consciously misleading and anyone with a
familiarity with the issue would know that. Those opposed to real
government funding for embryonic stem cell research and use these
arguments are cynically playing on the ignorance of the general
public
with regard to a complex issue of science.

"Researchers in the United States are free to use pre-existing lines
using federal money and new lines using private funding to pursue
embryonic stem cell research."

What isn't said here again takes some close listening to comprehend.
The pre-existing embryonic stem cell lines number a mere fraction of
what President Bush claimed in his August 2001 address to the nation
which established the current policy. And those lines that did exist
are seriously flawed. They were nourished with "mouse feeder cells,"
which makes them unfit for any human research application because of
the possibility that animal viruses could contaminate human subjects
in clinical trials.

Even if they were not contaminated, they are too few in number
to provide a genetic base for any widespread applications.

Despite these limitations, their scarcity has made them
proportionately expensive to other research needs, i.e., they cost a
lot.

"Embryonic stem cell research in fact is flourishing at Universities
as well as through private grants across the United States. Not to
mention the work being accomplished worldwide. Adult stem cells have
brought us treatments and cures for over 140 conditions. Embryonic
stem cells have yielded none. The policy imposed by President Bush is
a fair policy and it is working. Yes it was made using values and
ethics, but those are two values that this country is supposed to
represent."

The first statement is an opinion. I am of the opinion that embryonic
stem cell research is NOT flourishing, but, rather floundering in the
US. And to say "through universities as well as through private
grants" as if university research did not depend overwhelmingly on
private endowments and contributions is plainly misleading

Yes, embryonic stem cell research is being done across the world
(as is adult stem cell research), with almost daily breakthroughs
being reported in Singapore, Norway, South Korea, the UK and many
other countries. In my opinion, that is all the more reason why the
US
should aggressively fund embryonic stem cell research. The US has by
far the greatest resources to put into this research, so far beyond
that of other countries that it is embarrassing to rely on them to
pay
for work that will benefit everyone. More importantly, it has started
a "brain drain" from the US as our scientists leave to conduct
research without unreasonable restrictions in other countries. This
damages our leadership in science and will deprive the US of the
revenues that come from advances generated by US scientists in
foreign
countries.

How can we safeguard this research against abuse if we leave it
in the hands of foreign countries or the private sector of our own
country? By leading the world in this research we have the power to
shape the ethical standards applied worldwide to embryonic stem cell
research. It is by this means that we can influence other nations to
apply the values and ethical standards held by the mainstream of the
American public. And I submit to you that the values and ethics of
the
current president are alarmingly out of step with those held by the
average American citizen.

The statement that adult stem cells stem cells have been effective in
treating many (perhaps 140, I hear many different figures but the
point is made) illnesses and embryonic stem cell research has yielded
nothing is true only in the most reductive sense, and you of all
people should know how intentionally misleading that statement is.
Adult stem cell research has been actively pursued in the decades
since they were first isolated almost 30 years ago, and have been
effective in mainly diseases of the blood such as leukemia. Embryonic
stem cells were isolated by James Thomson at the University of
Wisconsin at Madison in 1998---just six years ago. The comparison is
completely unfair and purposely misleading, because of the length of
time the two types of stem cells have been available for research.

Furthermore, research on adult stem cells has benefited precisely
because it has received the kind of public funding that has been
denied to embryonic stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cell research has shown great promise in its
"infancy," or early stages of development. At the aforementioned
universities, such as Harvard and University of California-Irvine,
Parkinson's disease and spinal cord injuries have been successfully
treated in animal models. Wouldn't that inspire most governments to
actively support such work instead of treating it like a bastard
child?

Frankly, I am sick and tired of answering these diatribes.
People are capable of making up their own minds once they have
researched the issue themselves. So go read the material - from
both sides (surf http://www.yeson71.com for a pro discussion).
Keep an open mind. If you believe this is a pro-life/choice question,
let's discuss it on that level. If you think this is a scientific
battle, well, let's go there. But don't disguise a hidden pro-life
agenda in the guise of misleading and incomplete scientific
arguments.
You know better, and as a person dealing with a chronic illness and
having looked at the issue of stem cell research closely, you owe it
to those who are less informed to be honest and straightforward in
your arguments and your intentions.

Tomorrow is an important day, for me, for all Californians,
for the US, for the world. I hope that I can wake up Wednesday
morning with a sense of pride in being an American in a world
where America is trying to do the right thing.

Sincerely.

Ann Campbell Wasson

Greg Wasson

______________________________________________

I have changed my name:
from Ann Jeanette Campbell to Ann Campbell Wasson,
from Ann Campbell to Ann Wasson,
from ajc (AJC) to aWc or ACW

but you can still call me aj
______________________________________________


SOURCE: Ann & Greg Wasson

* * *

This initiative may impact the lives of everyone of us.

If you know one voter in California please contact that person and
influence their vote on our behalf.

It's time to start - with Proposition 71

cheers ... murray

Murray Charters <[log in to unmask]>
Please place this address in your address book
Please purge all others

Web site: Parkinsons Resources on the WWWeb
http://www.geocities.com/murraycharters

-------------------

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