Well, Family Research Council,  I have a copy of  "Adult Stem Cells - Nine
Faces of Success" and I am outraged!!!!

Dennis Turner. page 5,  sounds like he is still doing African safaris.  He
told me by phone on 3-24-06 that his Parkinson's disease had returned with a
vengeance.  2002 is the oldest date mentioned in the section on Turner in
this most recent publication of yours.  To a person like me who has
Parkinson's disease, this is not success.
Jacki Rabon, page 3,.standing wearing braces and clinging to a walker says,
"I'm really against abortion, so I'm not for embryonic stem cell therapy.
But anything that doesn't involve killing a baby is great."  She is a bit
confused, wouldn't you say?

The only thing successful about adult stem cells so far is your selling the
idea that hESCR equals abortion to ignorant people like Jacki.   Susan Fajt,
Dr. Lima's other also uncured but smarter patient, has broken with you guys.

The majority of Americans support therapeutic cloning or SCNT when they
learn that cells, not people are being cloned.  Telling me that nearly all
American Christian theologians oppose reproductive cloning would be enough
in itself to make me support it, although my interest is not in
reproductive, but in therapeudic cloning.

A blastocyst is not a fetus, baby, kid or person, it is a cluster of
microscopic undifferentiated cells and there is no reason why research on it
should be restricted.

The President's White House Bioethics Council pamphlet contains one Patricia
Payne, a Parkinson's patient who in February 2005 testified before the
Massachusetts State Legislature that she was going to be in Dr. Michael
Levesque's Phase II.  Although she was never in it because it never took
place, she is still listed as an adult stem cell success along with ten
unnamed people from Kentucky who were participants in Amgen's aborted GDNF
infusion therapy trials, which contained no stem cells of any kind, adult or
embryonic.  Dr. Levesque informed me by email in January 2007 that Phase II
was due to resume in about six to eight months.

You have no credibility at all.   Lying about research seems to be a routine
disinformation technique of your tax-exempt organization.

I don't expect  you to change your position on hESCR, but I do ask that you
give up your tax exempt status because the information you disseminate is
misleading and false.  It is especially hurtful to learn that your claims
for Parkinson's disease are untrue.  JUST STOP LYING.

Rayilyn Brown
[log in to unmask]


From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Why is cloning of cells wrong?


> 1045592  Ms. Rayilyn Brown
>
> Dear Rayilyn,
>
> Thank you for contacting Family Research Council regarding cloning and
> stem cell research. It appears as though you are confused regarding the
> process by which stem cells are harvested for research and FRC's position
> regarding stem cell research and cloning.
>
> Cloning is the creation of genetically identical individuals. The process
> entails removing the nucleus of an egg cell and replacing it with the
> nucleus from another person's or animal's cell. Hence, the egg serves as a
> host for the genetic material of another. The genetic material directs the
> growth of the organism once the electrical charge is supplied. Therefore,
> whereas the characteristic fertilized egg cell produced in nature gets its
> genetic material from both a male and a female parent, the clone gets its
> genetic material from a single donor (the donor of the nucleus). What's
> more, normal fertilization creates a new and unique combination of the
> genes of the two parents, resulting in a genetically unique individual. By
> contrast, the cloned individual has the exact gene pattern of the
> individual from which the nucleus was taken: The clone's genetic
> composition is not unique.
>
> There are two types of cloning procedures: reproductive and therapeutic.
> Reproductive cloning would create a clone in order to bring it to birth.
> (Yet, all cloning results in the creation of a new human embryo. A more
> accurate term for this type of cloning is "cloning to implant.")
> Fortunately, nearly every American and Christian theologian agree that
> reproductive cloning is immoral and ought to be banned. Therapeutic
> cloning would create a clone to be used for research. This is clearly
> immoral because it creates a new person purely to use that person, without
> his or her permission, for experiments, or to take cells or organs from
> that person, in order to benefit another. This process results in the
> death of the clone and could be more accurately termed "cloning to kill."
>
> Regarding stem cells, FRC does not oppose all forms of stem cell research.
> We do, however, oppose the destruction of human embryos that is the
> natural result of embryonic stem cell research.
>
> For embryonic stem cells, the researcher must actually destroy a living
> embryo that is about 1 week old. It's true that all of our tissues come
> from our embryonic stem cells back when we were embryos. But once the
> embryo is destroyed and the cells put in the lab dish, the experimental
> evidence has been anything but convincing. There is not yet a single
> published paper that shows the researcher able to get all the cells in the
> dish to form, for example, all nerve cells, or all heart cells, etc.
> Instead there is a mixture of all types of cells. And when embryonic stem
> cells are injected into experimental animals, there is a tendency to form
> tumors, or a mixed mass of cells, and very few experiments have shown any
> benefit to the animals with disease. Though embryonic stem cells may have
> looked interesting theoretically, they are wild, untamed cells once
> removed from the embryo.
>
> And while it is illegal to produce or abort a fetus (weeks old) to obtain
> stem cells, it is perfectly legal to produce an embryo, by fertilization
> or by cloning, and destroy it for its stem cells one week later.
>
> Current federal law restricts federal spending to human embryonic stem
> cells that existed as of Aug 9, 2001, but there is no legal restriction on
> creating and harvesting human embryos for stem cells, as long as other
> funds are used. Most of the embryos currently used in research are from
> fertility clinics, and these embryos were created to implant into a womb
> for a live birth, and could still be given this chance at life, but there
> are already several reported cases where researchers have created embryos
> by fertilization or cloning to harvest their embryonic stem cells.
>
> Regarding adult stem cells, this field of investigation has been moving
> very fast. There are now hundreds of published scientific papers that show
> adult stem cells capable of surprising things of which we were unaware
> just a few years ago. Unfortunately the public has not been given this
> news, and even some scientists still hold to old dogma about adult stem
> cells. It is no longer correct to say that adult stem cells can only form
> a limited number of tissues, or that they are difficult to isolate or to
> grow in culture. The evidence now shows that adult stem cells (including
> cord blood stem cells) have great capacity to form other tissues and to
> repair damaged tissues. These cells have convincingly been shown in paper
> after paper to repair damaged tissue in animals, and now in dozens of
> papers to repair damage in humans as well. Hundreds of patients have been
> successfully treated for various conditions, including sickle cell anemia,
> heart attack damage, stroke, Parkinson's, and spinal cord injury. It is
> not yet a "cure"--these are beginning clinical trials to test the
> effectiveness of adult stem cells--but they have been successful when
> tested.
>
> You can read more about recent successes of adult stem cells in a paper
> (with ample references) that our Senior Fellow for Life Sciences and the
> Center for Human Life and Bioethics wrote recently for the President's
> Council on Bioethics at
> http://bioethics.gov/reports/stemcell/appendix_k.html
> As he notes in one of the early paragraphs, many of the treatments are not
> discussed in his paper because these were being reviewed by others, but he
> still gives some of the references for those patient treatments. Please
> also note that David Prentice and Bill Saunders have recently produced a
> brochure, "Adult Stem Cell Treatments- 9 Faces of Success" that may be of
> some help to you at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC06I01.
>
> Also, you might check out the following website, which discusses adult
> stem cell advances, written more for a general audience (but with
> references): http://www.stemcellresearch.org
>
> We hope this has helped, and if you have other questions, please feel free
> to contact us.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Your Friends at the Family Research Council
>
> --- Original Message --------------------------------------------------
>
> Ms. Rayilyn Brown
> 18507 N Windfall Dr
> Surprise, AZ 85374-8938
> E-Mail:  [log in to unmask]
> Subject:  Why is cloning of cells wrong?
> Date:  March     09, 2007
>
> I am so sick of you!!!  Nobody wants to clone people - it's cells, stupid.
> Why do you lie to  oppose to stem cell research which could save actual
> living people?  What makes you so ignorant and cruel?
>
>
>

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