|
|
|
Stem Cell Battles
Rayilyn Brown
Director AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson Foundation
[log in to unmask]
From: Diane Wyshak
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 3:30 PM
To: idelle ; ray ; annemarie
Subject: Emailing: Stem Cell Battles
a.. Home
a.. Stem Cell BattlesFeeds: Posts Comments Please Contact NIH
May 2, 2009 by diverdonreed
THE N.I.H. NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU! (Seriously, this is very important.)
The new National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research have just been issued.
They would significantly loosen the Bush restrictions. If you are glad about that, it is important to say so—because the opposition is mounting a full-scale attack.
This is the all-important public comment period. For the next 3 weeks, until May 26th, 2009, comments on the guidelines will be accepted from you, me, everybody.
Some folks will say, hey, I am not a scientist, I don’t know what kind of guidelines are good– what does this have to do with me?
Everything.
Here’s why.
Those who oppose the research will definitely be writing in.
Opponents are already being organizing a mass letter-writing campaign.
Every letter will be tabulated, divided into counted piles: for, or against.
What if the majority of people writing in are against embryonic stem cell research? That figure will be used against us at every opportunity: quoted by every anti-research legislator, at every budget hearing from now on.
The NIH needs to hear from you.
If you only send a one sentence letter, that would be great. The little electronic letter box is right below. It is so easy to fill it out.
Folks, this is for everyone, and accordingly, everyone needs to weigh in on it.
Here is an electronic form, which you can use. Or go to http://nihoerextra.nih.gov/stem_cells/add.htm and post your comments there.
Or, write a snail mail letter, to: NIH Stem Cell Guidelines, MSC 7997
9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892-7997
Below is the form you can use, followed by some comments from CAMR, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (the outstanding national organization which leads the way in virtually everything on stem cell research), and then the link to the complete information from the NIH itself.
Draft NIH Human Stem Cell Guidelines
Comments Form
Comments Deadline: 11:00pm EST on May 26, 2009.
Comments are requested below, as announced
in the April 23, 2009 Federal Register Notice.
( * = Required Field )
Name of Individual(s)
Submitting Comments:
Affiliation:
Commenting on behalf of:
Self
Organization:
Name of Organization:
Address of Organization:
* Comments:
Please enter your comments on the Draft NIH Human Stem Cell Guidelines, as announced in the April 23, 2009 Federal Register Notice. Please reference specific sections in the document, when applicable. Please note that comments will be publicly available, including those containing personally identifiable or confidential business information.
You may want to copy and paste from a word processor into the text box. Note that text will not be formatted (e.g. will not retain bold, colors and other formatting).
Attachment:
If you need to attach a file with any additional comments or information, the file must have an extension of “txt” (text only).
Note that the form will not submit if an invalid path or filename is entered, so please be sure to click the “Browse” button, then select the file to be uploaded.
Browse to File:
File Description:
* Security Check:
Please Enter the following Random Number in the Box below: 7222
Enter 7222 in this Box.
Note: Collection of this information is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 301; 44 U.S.C. 3101. The primary use of this form is to collect public comments on the draft NIH Human Stem Cell Guidelines. NIH will consider all comments. This information will be used by staff of the NIH, its contractors and others, for the purpose of reviewing, collating or analyzing the comments in developing final NIH Stem Cell Guidelines. Submission of this information is voluntary. By providing comments, you are consenting to their consideration and use by the NIH. All comments received before the close of the comment period, including those containing personally identifiable or confidential business information, will be made available at http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp after May 26, 2009. This includes the name and affiliation of those submitting comments (if provided). NIH will not post comments that are not related to the draft Stem Cell Guidelines or that NIH has determined as inappropriate or offensive.
If you have any questions regarding the submission of your comments, please contact [log in to unmask]
Go to NIH Stem Cell Information Page
(the next part is from CAMR)
Help Ensure Strong Federal Support for Embryonic Stem Cell Research –
Submit Comments to the NIH on its Draft Guidelines
As you know, President Obama recently issued an Executive Order instructing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop guidelines to establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. NIH has released its draft guidelines, and the public has the opportunity to comment on the draft over the next few weeks. NIH will be analyzing the content, as well as volume, of the comments as it finalizes the guidelines.
Although the Executive Order was a major step forward, there are sections of the draft guidelines that should be changed and/or clarified to ensure that the framework created builds on current progress. A background document is attached for your information.
It will be critical for NIH to hear from the public on these issues during the comment period. Please follow the instructions below to submit your comments to ensure that the final guidelines are crafted in a way that ensures that this science advances as quickly as possible. And, please forward this alert to your family, friends, and people you know who support embryonic stem cell research.
How to submit your comments:
• Click http://nihoerextra.nih.gov/stem_cells/add.htm to be connected to the NIH comment form;
• Provide your name, and select ‘self’ for Affiliation; and
• Copy and paste the text below into the comment box, provide the security check ID on the form, and click ‘submit comments.’
Suggested comment text (copy and paste into Comment section of NIH comment form and edit as appropriate for you):
Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for millions of Americans suffering from many diseases and disorders. I am not a scientist, but I have been following progress in this field with great interest. Significant strides have been made over the past decade, and the final guidelines issued by NIH must build on this progress so that cures and new therapies can get to patients as quickly as possible. The final guidelines should not create new bureaucratic hurdles that will slow the pace of progress.
I am pleased that these draft guidelines — in Section II B — would appear to permit federal funding of stem cell lines previously not eligible for federal funding and for new lines created in the future from surplus embryos at fertility clinics. However, as drafted, Section II B does not ensure that any current stem cell line will meet the criteria outlined and thus be eligible for federal funding. It will be important for the final guidelines to allow federal funds for research using all stem cell lines created by following ethical practices at the time they were derived. This will ensure that the final guidelines build on progress that has already been made.
I also believe that the final guidelines should permit federal funding for stem cell lines derived from sources other than excess IVF embryos, such as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Sections II B and IV of the draft guidelines do not permit such federal funding and I recommend that the final guidelines provide federal funding using stem cell lines derived in other ways. If not, it is essential that the NIH continue to monitor developments in this exciting research area and to update these guidelines as the research progresses.
NIH Draft Guidelines
Background
On March 9th, President Obama issued an Executive Order instructing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop guidelines to establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The NIH, in implementing the Executive Order, recently published draft guidelines in the Federal Register. The full text can be obtained at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-9313.pdf. The public has thirty days to submit comments on the draft guidelines; comments must be received by NIH by May 26th. Once the comment period is over, NIH will review the content and volume of comments as it drafts its final guidelines, expected to be issued on or before July 7th.
Summary
The draft guidelines establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cells that were derived from embryos created for reproductive purposes and were in excess of clinical need. In addition, to be eligible for federal funding, the guidelines impose significant eligibility criteria on the donation process of the embryo used to derive the stem cell line. The criteria include:
• All options for the use of the embryos were explained to the donor;
• No inducements were offered for the donation;
• A policy was in place at the facility where the embryos were donated that ensures that the decision to donate embryos for research would not affect the quality of care provided;
• There was a separation between the donor’s decision to create embryos for reproductive purposes and the donor’s decision to donate embryos for research;
• Consent for the donation was obtained at the time of donation from the individual who sought reproductive services;
• Whenever practicable, the physician responsible for the donor’s reproductive clinical care was not the same person as the researcher deriving the stem cells; and
• Written informed consent was obtained from individuals who sought reproductive services and who elected to donate embryos for research purposes (specific criteria is listed for the informed consent process).
We believe that these ethical parameters are appropriate for new stem cell lines that are created in 2009 and thereafter. Unfortunately, the draft guidelines do not explicitly ensure that current lines that are already being used in research will be eligible for federal funding. It is our recommendation that the final guidelines include a provision that allows for inclusion of current lines, already being used in very important research, if those lines were derived using the prevailing ethical practices at the time.
The draft guidelines prohibit federal funding of research using embryonic stem cells derived from other sources such as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), IVF embryos created for research purposes, and parthenogenesis. It is our belief that these very promising research techniques have potential that is beyond what is possible with embryonic stem cell lines that are derived from the IVF process and should be eligible for federal funding.
Why it’s Important to Submit Comments and How You Can Help
Although the draft guidelines represent a big step forward and create an ethical framework that will allow for federal funding of additional stem cell research in the future, there are a number of areas where the guidelines need to be clarified and/or changed to ensure that current research is allowed to continue and no new bureaucratic hurdles are created that would slow the pace of progress.
The main areas of concern are highlighted in the template we have provided to you.
NIH will be evaluating the public’s response to the draft guidelines and both the content of the remarks as well as the volume will guide the NIH as it finalizes the guidelines. It is critical that you help us generate as many comments focused on the points highlighted in the template as possible between now and the May 26th filing deadline. You do not need to be a researcher to submit comments – each comment will be recorded and counted. Please use the template provided to submit your comment and forward it on to your family, friends, colleagues, and anyone you know who supports embryonic stem cell research.
If you have any questions about the current status of human embryonic stem cell research, please visit www.camradvocacy.org/resources/camr_wp.pdf or contact CAMR at 202-725-0339.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged NIH, stem cell research | No Comments »
NIH GUIDELINE COMMENTS– FROM YOU?
May 2, 2009 by diverdonreed
THE N.I.H. NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU! (Seriously, this is very important.)
From Don C. Reed
The National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research have just been issued. These are the laws under which all federally-funded stem cell research will be conducted.
But they are not yet carved in stone.
This is the public comment period. For the next 3 weeks, until May 26th, 2009, comments on the guidelines will be accepted.
But– if you are not a scientist, what does this have to do with you?
Everything.
We need you to write a letter, just saying that you support the research.
Consider this: those who oppose the research will definitely be writing in.
Every letter will be tabulated, as well as read.
Opponents are already being organizing a mass letter-writing campaign.
What if the majority of people writing in are against embryonic stem cell research? That figure will be used against us at every opportunity: quoted by every anti-research legislator, at every budget hearing from now on.
This has happened before.
In 1999, when President Clinton proposed guidelines for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, there was a public comment period.
According to Lana Skirboll, Ph.D., office of the Director, NIH ___________, more than 80% of the comments were negative.
Imagine being a congressman in a swing state, and you are being hammered by the Religious Right, and you see that what looks like 80% of the interested American public is against the research?
Folks, wherever you are, the NIH needs to hear from you.
If you only send a one sentence letter, that would be great.
If you are a scientist or patient advocate, you will have more to say, which will get your letter put into a different category: like an expert witness gets more credibility.
Ideally? Every scientist in America should write a letter. Every medical student, every teacher, every parent of a child who has now or may contract an incurable disease— for which we want a cure.
Folks, this is for everyone, and accordingly, everyone needs to weigh in on it.
There are three ways to do it: electronically, and ground mail.
At the end of this letter is an electronic form, which you can use.
Or go to http://nihoerextra.nih.gov/stem_cells/add.htm and post your comments there.
Or, write a snail mail letter, to: NIH Stem Cell Guidelines, MSC 7997
9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892-7997
Here are the guidelines themselves, followed (at the very bottom) by an electronic comment form you could do instantly.
Advice: these letters will be public. If you have other family friends, relatives, and co-workers that want to help (and, they are soooooo welcome) be sure they do not just copy a form letter. The opposition will do this.
What will happen is this: the NIH will hire a contractor to go over all the communications, and sort them. They will be divided up into various categories. Some will offer suggestions: one pile. Others will say, thank you for supporting the research—another pile. After all the hopefully millions of communications are sorted, the results will be published.
This is a major assignment, folks. We need to all write our own letters, and then try to get five more people each to do the same.
Can anybody say: phone tree?
Please help me on this one, folks, we are playing for the big bucks now. Enclosed below are: the form you fill out to make comments, plus the information from the NIH.
Enclosed
[Federal Register: April 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 18578-18580]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23ap09-42]
———————————————————————–
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
Draft National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem
Cell Research Notice
SUMMARY: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is requesting public
comment on draft guidelines entitled “National Institutes of Health
Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research” (Guidelines).
The purpose of these draft Guidelines is to implement Executive
Order 13505, issued on March 9, 2009, as it pertains to extramural NIH-
funded research, to establish policy and procedures under which NIH
will fund research in this area, and to help ensure that NIH-funded
research in this area is ethically responsible, scientifically worthy,
and conducted in accordance with applicable law. Internal NIH
procedures, consistent with Executive Order 13505 and these Guidelines,
will govern the conduct of intramural NIH research involving human stem
cells.
These draft Guidelines would allow funding for research using human
embryonic stem cells that were derived from embryos created by in vitro
fertilization (IVF) for reproductive purposes and were no longer needed
for that purpose. Funding will continue to be allowed for human stem
cell research using adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem
cells. Specifically, these Guidelines describe the conditions and
informed consent procedures that would have been required during the
derivation of human embryonic stem cells for research using these cells
to be funded by the NIH. NIH funding for research using human embryonic
stem cells derived from other sources, including somatic cell nuclear
transfer, parthenogenesis, and/or IVF embryos created for research
purposes, is not allowed under these Guidelines.
NIH funding of the derivation of stem cells from human embryos is
prohibited by the annual appropriations ban on funding of human embryo
research (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. 110-161, 3/11/
09), otherwise known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.
According to these Guidelines, there are some uses of human
embryonic stem cells and human induced pluripotent stem cells that,
although those cells may come from allowable sources, are nevertheless
ineligible for NIH funding.
For questions regarding ongoing NIH-funded research involving human
embryonic stem cells, as well as pending applications and those
submitted prior to the issuance of Final Guidelines, see the NIH Guide
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-085.html.
DATES: Written comments must be received by NIH on or before May 26,
2009.
ADDRESSES: The NIH welcomes public comment on the draft Guidelines set
forth below. Comments may be entered at: http://nihoerextra.nih.gov/
stem_cells/add.htm. Comments may also be mailed to: NIH Stem Cell
Guidelines, MSC 7997, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-
7997. Comments will be made publicly available, including any
personally identifiable or confidential business information
they
contain.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 9, 2009, President Barack H. Obama
issued Executive Order 13505: Removing Barriers to Responsible
Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells. The Executive Order
states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the
Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically
worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell
research, to the extent permitted by law.
The purpose of these draft Guidelines is to implement Executive
Order 13505, issued on March 9, 2009, as it pertains to extramural NIH-
funded research, to establish policy and procedures under which NIH
will fund research in this area, and to help ensure that NIH-funded
research
in this area is ethically responsible, scientifically worthy,
and conducted in accordance with applicable law. Internal NIH
procedures, consistent with Executive Order 13505 and these Guidelines,
will govern the conduct of intramural NIH research involving human stem
cells.
Long-standing Department of Health and Human Services regulations
for Protection of Human Subjects, 45 CFR part 46, establish safeguards
for individuals who are the sources of many human tissues used in
research, including non-embryonic human adult stem cells and human
induced pluripotent stem cells. When research involving human adult
stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells constitutes human subject
research, Institutional Review Board review may be required and
informed consent may need to be obtained per the requirements detailed
in 45
CFR part 46. Applicants should consult http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/
humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm.
As described in these draft Guidelines, human embryonic stem cells
are cells that are derived from human embryos, are capable of dividing
without differentiating for a prolonged period in culture, and are
known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ
layers. Although human embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos,
such stem cells are not themselves human embryos.
Studies of human embryonic stem cells may yield information about
the complex events that occur during human development. Some of the
most
serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are
due to abnormal cell division and differentiation. A better
understanding of the genetic and molecular controls of these processes
could provide information about how such diseases arise and suggest new
strategies for therapy. Human embryonic stem cells may also be used to
test new drugs. For example, new medications could be tested for safety
on differentiated somatic cells generated from human embryonic stem
cells.
Perhaps the most important potential use of human embryonic stem
cells is the generation of cells and tissues that could be used for
cell-based therapies. Today, donated tissues and organs are often used
to replace ailing or destroyed tissue, but the need for transplantable
tissues and organs far outweighs the available supply. Stem cells,
directed
to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the
possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to
treat diseases and conditions, including Parkinson’s disease,
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, spinal cord injury, burns, heart
disease, diabetes, and arthritis.
[[Page 18579]]
NIH currently funds ongoing research involving human embryonic stem
cells as detailed under prior Presidential policy. Under that policy,
Federal funds have been used for research on human embryonic stem cells
where the derivation process was initiated prior to 9 p.m. EDT August
9, 2001, the embryo was created for reproductive purposes, the embryo
was no longer needed for these purposes, informed consent was obtained
for the donation of the embryo, and no
financial inducements were
provided for donation of the embryo.
These draft Guidelines would allow funding for research using only
those human embryonic stem cells that were derived from embryos created
by in vitro fertilization (IVF) for reproductive purposes and were no
longer needed for that purpose. Funding will continue to be allowed for
human stem cell research using adult stem cells and induced pluripotent
stem cells. Specifically, these Guidelines describe the conditions and
informed consent procedures that would have been required during the
derivation of human embryonic stem cells for research using these cells
to be funded by the NIH. NIH funding for research using human embryonic
stem cells derived from other sources, including somatic cell nuclear
transfer, parthenogenesis, and/or IVF embryos created for research
purposes, is not allowed under these Guidelines.
Please note that, for NIH funded research using the permitted human
embryonic stem cells, the requirements of the Department’s protection
of human subjects regulations, 45 CFR part 46, may or may not apply,
depending on the nature of the research. For further information, see
Human Embryonic Stem Cells, Germ Cells and Cell Derived Test Articles:
OHRP Guidance for Investigators
and Institutional Review Boards.
NIH funding of the derivation of stem cells from human embryos is
prohibited by the annual appropriations ban on funding of human embryo
research (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. 110-161, 3/11/
09), otherwise known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.
According to these Guidelines, there are some uses of human
embryonic stem cells
that, although those cells may come from allowable
sources, are nevertheless ineligible for NIH funding.
In developing these draft Guidelines, the NIH consulted its
Guidelines issued in 2000, as well as the thoughtful guidelines
developed by other national and international committees of scientists,
bioethicists, patient advocates, physicians and other stakeholders,
including the U.S. National Academies, the International Society
for
Stem Cell Research, and others.
As directed by Executive Order 13505, the NIH shall review and
update these Guidelines periodically, as appropriate.
The Draft Guidelines Follow:
National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research
I. Scope of Guidelines
These Guidelines describe the circumstances under which human
embryonic stem cells are eligible for use in extramural NIH-funded
research, and they also include a section on uses of human embryonic
stem cells or human induced pluripotent stem cells that are ineligible
for NIH funding.
For the purpose of these Guidelines, “human embryonic stem cells”
are cells that are derived from human embryos, are capable of dividing
without differentiating for a prolonged period in culture, and are
known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ
layers. Although human embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos,
such stem cells are not themselves human embryos.
II. Guidelines for Eligibility of Human Embryonic Stem Cells for Use in
Research
A. The Executive Order: Executive Order 13505, Removing Barriers to
Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells, states that
the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS),
through the Director of the NIH, may support and
conduct responsible,
scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human
embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law.
B. Eligibility of Human Embryonic Stem Cells Derived from Human
Embryos: Human embryonic stem cells may be used in research using NIH
funds, if the cells were derived from human embryos that were created
for reproductive purposes, were no longer needed for this purpose, were
donated for research purposes, and for which documentation for all of
the following can be assured:
1. All options pertaining to use of embryos no longer needed for
reproductive purposes were explained to the potential donor(s).
2. No inducements were offered for the donation.
3. A policy was in place at the health care
facility where the
embryos were donated that neither consenting nor refusing to donate
embryos for research would affect the quality of care provided to
potential donor(s).
4. There was a clear separation between the prospective donor(s)’s
decision to create human embryos for reproductive purposes and the
prospective donor(s)’s decision to donate human embryos for research
purposes.
5. At the time of donation, consent for that donation was obtained
from the individual(s) who had sought reproductive services. That is,
even if potential donor(s) had given prior indication of their intent
to donate to research any embryos that remained after reproductive
treatment, consent for the donation should have been given at the time
of the donation. Donor(s) were
informed that they retained the right to
withdraw consent until the embryos were actually used for research.
6. Decisions related to the creation of human embryos for
reproductive purposes were made free from the influence of researchers
proposing to derive or utilize human embryonic stem cells in research.
Whenever it was practicable, the attending physician responsible for
reproductive clinical care and the researcher deriving
and/or proposing
to utilize human embryonic stem cells should not have been the same
person.
7. Written informed consent was obtained from individual(s) who
sought reproductive services and who elected to donate human embryos
for research purposes. The following information, which is pertinent to
making the decision of whether or not to donate human embryos for
research purposes, was in the written consent form for donation and
discussed with potential donor(s) in the informed consent process:
a. A statement that donation of the embryos for research was
voluntary;
b. A statement that donor(s) understood alternative options
pertaining to use of the embryos;
c. A statement
that the embryos would be used to derive human
embryonic stem cells for research;
d. Information about what would happen to the embryos in the
derivation of human embryonic stem cells for research;
e. A statement that human embryonic stem cells derived from the
embryos might be maintained for many years;
f. A statement
that the donation was made without any restriction
or direction regarding the individual(s) who may receive medical
benefit from the use of the stem cells;
g. A statement that the research was not intended to provide direct
medical benefit to the donor(s);
[[Page 18580]]
h. A statement as to whether or not information that could identify
the donor(s) would be retained prior to the derivation or the use of
the human embryonic stem cells (relevant guidance from the DHHS Office
for Human Research Protections (OHRP) should be followed, as
applicable; see OHRP’s Guidance for Investigators and Institutional
Review Boards Regarding Research Involving Human Embryonic Stem Cells,
Germ Cells, and Stem
Cell-Derived Test Articles and Guidance on
Research Involving Coded Private Information or Biological Specimens,
or successor guidances); and
i. A statement that the results of research using the human
embryonic stem cells may have commercial potential, and a statement
that the donor(s) would not receive financial or any other benefits
from any such commercial development.
C. Prior to the use of NIH funds: Funding recipients must ensure
that: (1) The human embryonic stem cells were derived consistent with
sections II.A and B of these Guidelines; and (2) the grantee
institution maintains appropriate documentation demonstrating such
consistency in accordance with 45 CFR 74.53, which also details rights
of access by NIH. The responsible grantee institutional official must
provide assurances with respect to (1) and (2) when endorsing
applications and progress reports submitted to NIH for projects that
utilize these cells.
III. Research Using Human Embryonic Stem Cells and/or Human Induced
Pluripotent Stem Cells That, Although the Cells May Come From Allowable
Sources, Is Nevertheless Ineligible for NIH Funding
This section governs research using human embryonic stem cells and
human induced pluripotent stem cells, i.e., human cells that are
capable of dividing without differentiating for a prolonged period in
culture, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three
primary germ layers. There are some uses of these cells that, although
they may come from allowable sources, are nevertheless ineligible for
NIH funding, as follows:
A. Research in which human embryonic stem cells (even if derived
according to these Guidelines) or human induced pluripotent stem cells
are introduced into non-human primate blastocysts.
B. Research involving the breeding of animals where the
introduction of human embryonic stem cells (even if derived according
to these Guidelines) or human induced pluripotent stem cells may have
contributed to the germ line.
IV. Other Non-Allowable Research
A. NIH funding of the derivation of stem cells from human embryos
is prohibited by the annual appropriations ban on funding of human
embryo research (Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. 110-
161, 3/11/09), otherwise known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.
B. NIH funding for research using human embryonic stem cells
derived from other sources, including somatic cell nuclear transfer,
parthenogenesis, and/or IVF embryos created for research purposes, is
not allowed under these Guidelines.
Dated: April 17, 2009.
Raynard S. Kington,
Acting Director, NIH.
[FR Doc. E9-9313 Filed 4-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Draft NIH Human Stem Cell Guidelines
Comments Form
Comments Deadline: 11:00pm EST on May 26, 2009.
Comments are requested below, as announced
in the April 23, 2009 Federal Register Notice.
( * = Required Field )
Name of Individual(s)
Submitting Comments:
Affiliation:
Commenting on behalf of:
Self
Organization:
Name of Organization:
Address of Organization:
* Comments:
Please enter your comments on the Draft NIH Human Stem Cell Guidelines, as announced in the April 23, 2009 Federal Register Notice. Please reference specific sections in the document, when applicable. Please note that comments will be publicly available, including those containing personally identifiable or confidential business information.
You may want to copy and paste from a word processor into the text box. Note that text will not be formatted (e.g. will not retain bold, colors and other formatting).
Attachment:
If you need to attach a file with any additional comments or information, the file must have an extension of “txt” (text only).
Note that the form will not submit if an invalid path or filename is entered, so please be sure to click the “Browse” button, then select the file to be uploaded.
Browse to File:
File Description:
* Security Check:
Please Enter the following Random Number in the Box below: 7222
Enter 7222 in this Box.
Note: Collection of this information is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 301; 44 U.S.C. 3101. The primary use of this form is to collect public comments on the draft NIH Human Stem Cell Guidelines. NIH will consider all comments. This information will be used by staff of the NIH, its contractors and others, for the purpose of reviewing, collating or analyzing the comments in developing final NIH Stem Cell Guidelines. Submission of this information is voluntary. By providing comments, you are consenting to their consideration and use by the NIH. All comments received before the close of the comment period, including those containing personally identifiable or confidential business information, will be made available at http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp after May 26, 2009. This includes the name and affiliation of those submitting comments (if provided). NIH will not post comments that are not related to the draft Stem Cell Guidelines or that NIH has determined as inappropriate or offensive.
If you have any questions regarding the submission of your comments, please contact [log in to unmask]
Go to NIH Stem Cell Information Page
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged NIH, stem cell research | No Comments »
Oklahoma Courage: Governor Brad Henry and Chamber of Commerce Take Stand for Stem Cells
April 29, 2009 by diverdonreed
OKLAHOMA COURAGE: Governor Brad Henry and Chamber of Commerce Take Stand For Stem Cells
By Don C. Reed
Imagine you are Brad Henry, Governor of Oklahoma—a Democrat in a state as overwhelmingly Republican as California is Democratic—and you are a strong supporter of stem cell research.
Now, Governor, you have just been handed a bill: Senate Bill 1326.
The bill would criminalize embryonic stem cell research.
You have three choices: sign the bill into law, let it become law without your signature, or reject it by a veto.
What would you do? Remember, SB 1326 would actually make the research a crime, so scientists would be arrested for trying for a cure for disease or disability.
First, probably, you would study the odds: see what armies you were up against.
The bill, SB 1326, is backed by the Religious Right, one of the strongest power sources of the Republican party.
And how is the law doing so far?
It passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives by a staggering margin: 82 votes in favor of criminalization: only 6 to protect the research. The Senate? 38-9.
If you veto it, Governor, there will be an orchestrated firestorm of anger—and perhaps political retaliation, maybe blocking some other bills you want to see become law—and the bill is almost certain to pass anyway…
Remember, with a 2/3 majority, (68 in the House, where they got 82, and 32 votes in the Senate, where they got 38) SB 1326 will become law—overriding your signature.
What would you do?
Sign the bill, knowing it was going to pass anyway, and you might get some political credit from the ultra-conservatives?
Veto the bill, infuriating the opposition, which will immediately re-submit the bill for a veto over-ride anyway?
Or let the bill become law without your signature, so at least your friends know you did not approve?
Those were the options the real-life Governor Brad Henry faced, just a few days ago, in the Governor’s office, in Oklahoma.
Now, the man is not without political courage. He could not be where he is without being willing to buck the tide. But no politician wants to stand alone. Without political backup, Governor Henry’s options were extremely limited.
In that state’s entire House of Representatives, only one Republican was willing to vote in support of the embryonic stem cell research which President Obama supports.
“We don’t want to cut off research on cells that are going to be discarded,” said emergency room doctor Rep. Doug Cox (R-Grove)—Tim Talley, AP, 3/24/09
He was referring to the fact that embryonic stem cell lines are made from cells already scheduled for destruction. These are the microscopic blastocysts left over from In Vitro Fertility procedures. There are roughly half a million currently frozen.
The other Republicans, however, seemed to be having a contest to see who could talk the most trash, referring to embryonic stem cell research as “killing babies”, “harvesting children”, and other biological falsehoods.
Common sense makes clear the fallacy in their argument. It is impossible for a baby to be born without the involvement of his or her mother. Without a sheltering womb, there can no child. Unless implanted in a womb, a blastocyst can never become a child.
Embryonic stem cell research is cells, cells, nothing but cells: essentially invisible dots in a dish.
“This is about using embryos that are currently frozen in banks that are going to be destroyed and thrown away,” said Roy Williams, President of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce.
But facts and reason do not always sway voters. Emotion does.
In my minds eye, I see Governor Henry at his desk, considering. The pen is before him, in its little marble block. It would be so easy to just shrug, and sign the bill, or let it pass into law without his signature.
And then, everything changed. Somebody stood up, and said: don’t sign that bill.
Who was it? Scientists? Advocates? Some were involved, of course. Wherever there are patients willing to be counted, they or their families will become advocates, fighting for themselves, or their loved ones. Universities also are increasingly willing to speak up.
But these were expected, and accounted for.
This was something new.
It was the Chamber of Commerce, traditional source of Republican power. And no small chamber, either; these were the two largest cities in the state: Oklahoma City, (population 506, 132, US census 2000) and Tulsa (population 393,049); the next largest city is less than one-fourth their size: Norman, with a population of 95,694..
“The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber has been working for more than 10 years to create a national image of Oklahoma as a center of bioscience research,” said Mark Funke, vice chair of bioscience for the chamber. “For our state to pass the most restrictive stem cell law in the country would be detrimental to recruiting scientists to our state, hampering our ability to reap the economic benefits can have in Oklahoma.”—Randy Ellis, April 19, 2009, www.newsok.com
Why should embryonic stem cell research be protected?
“With the medical and research infrastructure in place, this would be an opportunity to save hundreds of thousands of lives in the future,” said Tulsa Metro Chamber President Mike Neal…The chamber points out that healthcare is considered to be one of the fastest growing industries in the country, and banning embryonic stem cell research may mean fewer jobs for Oklahomans in the future.”—Chris Wright, News on 6, Apr. 23, 2009
When it comes to business, no group is more respected than the Chamber of Commerce—because it is made up of the businessmen and women themselves.
These are loyal Republicans, tried and true– members of a party which in last year’s Presidential campaign pledged to criminalize embryonic stem cell research.
But they also have families. They know what it is like to see a loved one suffer, and to feel helpless to ease their pain.
They know that inability to pay medical costs is ruining families– and businesses—unable to afford health insurance.
And one thing more. These are the leaders of business. Unless the Republican party is going to disavow free enterprise, they need to consider the wishes of the people at the wheel of the engine which drives our economy. Who better to raise the issue of jobs?
The biomedical revolution is not only a gift of life; it may also keep food on a family’s table. This matters. Business has a right—and a responsibility– to raise this point.
Governor Brad Henry vetoed the bill. He issued a statement, saying: “I don’t think this bill is consistent with Oklahoma values, and I cannot approve it in good conscience.”
He also thanked the “Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce, the Tulsa Metro Chamber and all the health care advocates for working to cut through misconceptions and educate people about the dire consequences of this bill. They have been unjustly and unfairly criticized for their principled stand, and I think they deserve praise.”
Then came the reaction: furious words, untrammeled by truth, accusations of baby-killing, child-harvesting, and other vile inaccuracies—attacking not only Governor Henry, but also the Chamber of Commerce– impugning the motives of those who had taken a stand in favor of research for cure.
SB 1326 author Rep. Mike Reynolds (R-Oklahoma City) said of the Chamber:
“If these people value money more than human life, then they need to find another state, or even another country.”
Forgotten were the thousands of times the Chamber had stood up for free enterprise, supporting the Republican party’s position with almost 100% regularity.
This was the Chamber of Commerce, and they were being told, they were not welcome in their own home state?
That may have been part of the reason for what came next.
Remember, a 2/3 majority in both houses would pass the law, criminalizing the research, no matter what the Governor wanted.
And when the votes were counted?
The House of Representatives voted to override the Governor’s veto, so the bill to criminalize the research would pass, and become law.
But– instead of 82-6, this time the vote was 68-26. They got what they needed, but just barely, and the House is more conservative than the Senate.
Suddenly, there was a flicker of hope.
The Senate.
In the Oklahoma Senate, 32 votes were required to override. On the first vote, 38 had sided with the anti-research effort.
But the ground had shifted.
This time, the vote was 26 to 19. The Governor’s veto was not over-ridden.
Embryonic stem cell research is still legal in Oklahoma.
On behalf of my paralyzed son, Roman Reed, and the millions of American families who endure chronic disease and disability, I want to stay a special thank you to Governor Brad Henry. Thank you, Chamber of Commerce.
One day, I believe my son will fulfill Christopher Reeve’s great prediction, and rise up from his wheelchair, and walk away from it forever.
And when that happens, we will remember, that one of those first steps was taken in Oklahoma.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Brad Henry, Oklahoma, stem cell research | No Comments »
Texas Tornado– Three Billion dollars…
April 20, 2009 by diverdonreed
TEXAS TORNADO: Three Billion dollars in Cancer Research May be Swept Away
Texas Governor Rick Perry’s recent recommendation that Texas secede from America was nonsensical. If the Governor is so uncomfortable in our country that he wishes to leave, that is his right; but he will not take Texas with him. Recent polls show the rest of his state is quite happy being associated with the United States.
This fuss and furor is just a blustering dust storm, stirred up for whatever temporary political purpose the Governor hoped to achieve. Few people took him seriously; I doubt very much he did either. (When Mr. Perry’s political biography is written, it will quite rightly pay more attention to the kindness of the Governor when Hurricane Katrina created homeless refugees—and Texas took them in—than this secession nonsense.)
But there is another Texas tornado which is deadly serious, and which may cost Texas families a great deal.
Anyone who has cancer (my sister has it; my mother died of it) wants the research for cure to move forward.
Lance Armstrong is a fighter for research, and he helped Texas pass an amazing
$3 billion dollar research bill dedicated to finding a cure for cancer. That money came with no restrictive anti-research strings attached.
Unfortunately, Senator Steve Ogden (R-Bryan) is attempting to block a vital component of that research: shutting down embryonic stem cell research in Texas.
Ogden is a cunning politico; this guy is legitimately tough, and knows how to street fight—unfortunately he is using his very real strengths to back an anti-research vision that is as out of step with America as the Governor Perry’s secession plan.
At a time when the rest of the country is embracing cure research, Mr. Ogden wants to ban it.
Because he knows he is out of touch with Texas voters, he first tried to do the damage quietly.
Senator Ogden inserted a “rider” onto the state’s must-pass budget bill, Senate Bill One. This rider bans state funding of embryonic stem cell research.
As Committee chairman, Ogden waited until pro-research committee members were out of the room, and then rushed through a quick vote, which passed 6-5.
There was no public notice, no testimony, no discussion. When asked about this undemocratic procedure, he replied that the members had been talking about it “privately”. No worries about sunshine or openness for Mr. Ogden!
Now, like a tick on the neck of a horse, that anti-research rider is attached to the budget, to suck the life out of the cancer research bill, and weaken that state’s hope for cure.
Asked if he thought this would end embryonic stem cell research in his state, the Senator reportedly replied, “If that bill won’t do it, the next one will.”
The Senate let his rider stay on—the House stripped it off—now the two houses will confer, and one will win and one will lose…
The next attack he spoke of, is Senate Bill 1695.
We need to let Senator Ogden know—politely but firmly—that the families of Texas and America deserve better.
Now here’s the catch. The Senator is an old pro, and as such knows how to block unwanted correspondence.
I called yesterday and left a message. Then I emailed him.
I doubt very much either message will reach him.
But I am also going to send him a personal letter, the old-fashioned kind, remember those, they have stamps on them? And that—even if thrown away—will be noticed.
Because nobody writes letters anymore. Any personal letter gets attention, and the Senator’s staff will be tallying the responses.
The Senator expects, I am sure, to hear nothing but letters of support from his allies in the Religious Right.
Let us surprise him. Politely, of course: rudeness only makes us look like fringe elements, instead of mainstream America, which is what we are.
I will be sending three copies of my letter to the Senator: one to each of his three public offices.
Those addresses are:
1. Sen. Steve Ogden, Texas Senate, P.O. Box 12068, Capitol Station, Austin, TX 78711
2. East District Office, 3740 Copperfield Drive, Suite 103, Bryan, Texas 77802
979/776-0521
3. West District Office, 309 West Main, Suite 115, Round Rock, Texas 78664
512/828-5224
Want some background? Below is probably more than you need, so if you already are up on the effort, feel free to skip over it—but please, help me with a letter, a call, or an email—don’t leave it to somebody else.
This is for Texas, but it is also for everyone. Texas is a wonderful state, huge, full of diverse energy and power—we need the scientists and colleges and patients and advocates and political leaders of the Lone Star State—we need Texas, and so does the world..
The following info is from my friends at TXAMR—Texans for the Advancement of Medical Research.
SB 1695 BY OGDEN (this is the second wave of attack I mentioned earlier–dr)
Bill Background info: Would limit the use of state money or facilities for research involving the destruction of human embryos, even those destined for discard as medical waste by IVF clinics and used to create stem cell lines for research. The rider would also ban IVF treatments.
WHAT THE BILL DOES:
• Ban research on stem cell lines created using fertilized eggs from fertility clinics, eggs that were destined to be discarded as medical waste. Using these eggs that would otherwise be thrown out to study diseases and to search for treatments and cures, offers the hope of healthier life for thousands of Texans.
• Ban research currently being conducted in state research institutions around the state. SB 1695 does much more than ban funding for embryonic stem cell research; it bans the conduct of the research by NIH funds as well as private funding.
• Ban current research on previously approved federal stem cell lines. Research studies using the embryonic stem lines approved by President Bush in 2001 would come to a halt in Texas.
• Stop all embryonic stem cell research in all state institutions in Texas
• Senator Ogden’s bill would prohibit the use of state dollars to pay the salaries of our state employed researchers who work with embryonic stem lines.
• Senate Bill 1695 would prohibit the use of state supported labs for embryonic stem cell research even if the research money comes from federal grants.
• Under Senator Ogden’s bill, researchers will face a choice of leaving state institutions or stopping their research. The state of Texas will likely lose our best researchers, their staff, their research grant money and their graduate students and medical students to other states and countries that appreciate good science and good medicine.
• Under Senator Ogden’s bill, cancer research conducted at the newly established Cancer Research Initiative, and research into other life threatening diseases such as Parkinson’s Disease, Alzheimer’s and diabetes will be severely limited.
• Senator Ogden’s bill would halt the gains we have made at better understanding how cells function and where malignancies or mutations occur and why. Researchers have repeatedly said that studying embryonic stem cells helps in the development of adult stem cell therapies.
WHAT YOU MIGHT WISH TO SAY:
I urge Senator Ogden to abandon his plans to push SB 1695 in Senate Finance Committee.
As a state with premier research institutions, citizens across the country are hopefully awaiting treatments and cures for life threatening diseases and conditions that may be discovered in Texas.
Texas has too much to lose in banning the funding of ethical, regulated embryonic stem cell research.
I urge Senator Ogden to carefully consider the human and economic losses in not supporting legal, ethical and safe embryonic stem cell research in this state.
Here is my letter (Don Reed)
Dear Senator Ogden:
First, thank you for being a Senator– I am sure it is never an easy job!
As the father of a paralyzed young man, Roman Reed, I am deeply distressed by SB 1695. I am very familiar with embryonic stem cell research, having been the citizen sponsor of a small law in California, the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act of 1999. “Roman’s Law” funded the first state-sponsored embryonic stem cell research in the nation—the spinal cord injury research experiment which goes to human trials this Summer.
I have seen it work. On March 1, 2002, in the laboratory named after my son (the Roman Reed Laboratory, within the Reeve-Irvine Research Institute at UC Irvine) I held in my hand a laboratory rat which had been paralyzed, but which walked again, thanks to embryonic stem cell research.
Biblically, I tend to go along with Psalm 139, which says, “He knit me together in my mother’s womb”. That is where an individual life begins. Scientifically, as you know, it is biologically impossible to create a child without a mother’s womb– and accordingly, cells in a Petri dish can never become a child.
I respect your right to your views, Senator Ogden, but please be aware there are millions of Americans who suffer every day, and who want the research to move forward.
Do please reconsider your advocacy for SB 1695. If enacted into law, it would slow the progress of Lone Star scientists as they work their way toward cure.
Thank you,
Don C. Reed
Want to know more, do more? More from our friends in TXAMR
About Stem Cell Research Bills Now Pending in the Texas Legislature
If you had a chance to make a call to your state senator and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, many thanks. If you didn’t, here’s another opportunity to make calls in support of stem cell research. Below is information on what’s happening right now and how you can help. At the bottom are an editorial and an op-ed further explaining why this is so important. Again, please pass this on to your friends and family.
If you are not sure who represents you, click here and enter your home address under “who represents me” to find your senator and representative and their phone number.
Texans for Advancement of Medical Research (TAMR) thanks you for making your voices heard — we had word that the majority of calls coming in to the offices were in support of research.
We also appreciate your passing these emails on to others. (If you are not receiving TAMR’s alerts, sign up here to be an advocate.)
Unfortunately, the budget bill, SB1, passed with the rider still attached. Five senators, Kirk Watson, Eliot Shapleigh, Mario Gallegos, Rodney Ellis and Wendy Davis had the courage to vote against the bill that carried this destructive rider.
What happens next?
The House will act on its own budget bill, HB1. Then, both bills go to a Conference Committee with 5 people chosen from each of the committees that heard the bill. These 10 people will decide whether the rider becomes part of the budget for the next two years.
Finance chair, Steve Ogden changed his rider that will go before the committee to read:
Sec. 17.13 No Destruction of Human Embryos for Research Purposes. Until legislation is passed by the Texas Legislature and becomes law authorizing and regulating embryonic stem cell research, no funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to directly fund research, which involves the destruction of a human embryo.
This is not acceptable.
Even if the budget bill is stripped of the rider, we still have to deal with Ogden’s bill SB 1695, co-authored by Dan Patrick and Jane Nelson, that prohibits the use of state money for research involving destruction of human embryos. This is written broader than the rider to the budget and would end all embryonic stem cell and IVF research in any of the laboratories of our state and private universities (because all receive state funding.)
SB 1695 reads:
A person may not use state money or a facility owned, leased, or managed by a state agency, department or office for research involving the destruction of human embryos, including embryonic stem cell research, or to support research involving the destruction of human embryos.
So, the bottom line is:
We need you to keep up the good work and watch your email for alerts, as your help is certain to be needed over the next few weeks.
If you have not had the opportunity to make these three calls, please do so with this message:
“I want you to understand the importance of stem cell research, and the impact it will have on Texas if it is banned–for the institutions, researchers, patients, and the economy. I am asking you not to let a ban on embryonic stem cell research or the funding for it happen in Texas, either in a stand-alone bill like SB 1695 which has been filed, but has not yet been heard in committee, or in the budget for the state.”
Call: Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst (512) 463- 0001 (He will appoint 5 Senate members to the Conference Committee for the budget, where the rider that bans hESC will be stripped or retained.
Call: Speaker of the House Joe Straus (512) 463-0686 He will appoint 5 House members to the Conference Committee for the budget, where the rider that bans hESC will be stripped or retained.
Call: Rep. Jim Pitts (512) 463-0516 Chair of House Appropriations
Call: Rep. Leo Berman (512) 463-0584 District 6 or Rep. Tommy Merritt (512) 463-0750 District 7
If you missed the recent editorial from Houston Chronicle or the op-ed from Bernard Weinstein, economist, please read them below. I think you will find them interesting.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6354531.html
Stealth legislating: Vote down ban on state funding for stem cell research
By injecting an amendment into the Texas Senate budget bill to ban state funding for stem cell research that involves the destruction of a human embryo, Finance Committee Chairman Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, has provided a textbook example of how powerful elected officials can end-run democratic processes to suit their own ideological agendas.
Passed with scant discussion by Ogdens committee 6-5, the budget bill includes a rider that if allowed to become law, will inflict serious damage to efforts to boost regenerative medicine research in Texas, particularly at state institutions, including the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston.
Proponents of the stem cell funding ban have failed to pass bills in previous legislative sessions, as lawmakers from both parties have opposed it. Republican House members Beverly Woolley of Houston and Rick Hardcastle of Vernon are among the key supporters of responsible stem cell research, as is U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Now that the administration of President Barack Obama is dismantling federal barriers to expanded fetal stem cell use, new state funding restrictions would drive talent and research dollars to other states.
An open letter to legislators from pre-eminent members of the states scientific community contends that the ban would halt ongoing research projects and negatively impact the ability of the Texas academic health institutions, both public and private, to competitively recruit and retain world-class scientists, professors and medical students in the biological sciences. They contend that since private funding is almost never available for early-stage biomedical research, a ban such as this would effectively stifle this research in Texas. The letter is signed by researchers from Baylor College of Medicine, the UT Health System and Rice, as well as two Nobel Laureates and a former presidential science adviser.
Bernard L. Weinstein, who directs the Center for Economic Development and Research at the University of North Texas at Denton, says the ban would run counter to a campaign by Gov. Rick Perry to boost the Texas biotech industries. It would cost the state billions of dollars in economic activity while undermining Texas image as a hospitable environment for research.
State Rep. Ellen Cohen, a Democrat whose district includes the Texas Medical Center, says the amendment was passed with no public debate or input from the thousands of doctors, researchers and medical professionals responsible for extending so many lives I cannot stand by silently when the voices of so many responsible for so much good are not even heard.
Ogdens amendment is no minor technical measure inserted for some hometown special interests. It is an attack on the viability of a vital sector of the state economy and upon the well-being of future thousands of desperately ill Texans who could benefit from the cures resulting from stem cell advances.
Late Wednesday the Senate passed the budget, including Ogdens amendment, by a vote of 26-5. Before the vote, he explained that his intent was not to ban all such research but to keep state money from being used directly for research involving the destruction of a human embryo. Whatever his stated intent, more progressive members should strike the ban when the budget reaches conference committee.
While claiming the moral high ground in defense of fertility clinic embryos that are routinely discarded, Ogden used the amendment route rather than relying on his own bill with similar wording that would have faced public hearings and an up-and-down vote by colleagues.
This issue is far too important to be decided by a back-room legislative maneuver. It is now up to responsible lawmakers in the Texas Senate and House to counter Ogdens power play and approve a budget that does not undermine the ability of our medical institutions to participate in the renewed national effort to advance a promising field of medical research.
===
Proposed Restrictions on Stem Cell Funding May Kill Texas’ Emerging Biotechnology Industry
By Bernard L. Weinstein*
Recent scientific advances have caused tremendous excitement in the burgeoning field of regenerative medicine, which focuses on developing therapies to restore or replace damaged cells and tissues in the human body. Stem cell research has proven to be one of the most promising areas of research, offering the opportunity to revolutionize medical treatment, drug development and biomedical research.
From heart disease and diabetes, to Parkinson’s disease and spinal cord injuries, stem cell research in its many forms-including embryonic stem cell research-holds the key that could potentially unlock the secrets to treatments and cures that have long eluded patients suffering from some of the most devastating diseases.
Unlike Texas, many other states are making strong commitments to stem cell research, not only to improve public health but also to capitalize on its economic development potential. Institutions in California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Wisconsin have been the leaders in this field, in part because of state laws that ensure the legality of embryonic stem cell research. By contrast, the Texas Senate Finance Committee has just reported out a budget bill for the next biennium that would prohibit the use of any state funds for embryonic stem cell research, even as restrictions on federal funding for such research have been removed.
An even greater irony is that Governor Rick Perry has targeted the biosciences as a growth sector for the Texas economy. (emphasis added, dr) Texas currently possesses a biotechnology industry comprised of about 950 private companies as well as world-class universities and research facilities and the largest medical center in the world. But putting legislative restrictions on stem cell research runs the risk of damaging the entire biotech sector, as serious researchers are likely to locate in states with more accommodating political climates. The potential economic and humanitarian losses could be huge.
Texas currently accounts for only 2.9 percent of the nation’s biotechnology industry compared with almost 8 percent of its gross domestic product. Just increasing our share to the national average would contribute an additional $87.4 billion to state economic activity and support over 230,000 direct, indirect, and induced jobs paying more than $12.8 billion in salaries and wages. State and local tax receipts would be boosted by more than $8 billion annually.
The fruits of stem cell research also promise to reduce the financial burden of treating serious diseases such as stroke, type 1 diabetes, Parkinson ’s disease, and spinal cord injuries. Currently, the cost of treating Texans with these ailments is nearly $14 billion a year. Reducing these costs by as little as one percent would save almost $140 million each year. Over a thirty-year period, these cost reductions would sum to $4.2 billion. Savings would also be achieved in the state’s Medicaid program.
If Texas is to be a leader in the biosciences, with all the anticipated health and economic benefits that will follow, the state must maintain a hospitable environment for research and development. At a minimum, Texas needs to be known as a “safe haven” for medical research, including embryonic stem cells. Indeed, if we’re serious about becoming a major player in the global bioscience arena, we should be allocating-not prohibiting-state funding for such research.
*Weinstein is director of the Center for Economic Development and Research and a professor of applied economics at the University of North Texas in Denton. His email address is [log in to unmask]
====
Make a donation to support the work of TAMR.
Texans for Advancement of Medical Research (TAMR) is a Texas Nonprofit Corporation and is a 501(C)(4). grassroots volunteer legislative advocacy organization; therefore your contributions are greatly appreciated but are not deductible for IRS income tax purposes.
Tell a friend to Become an Advocate for regenerative medicine.
Thanks, Folks!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged stem cell research, Texas | No Comments »
President Obama and the Disability Community
April 15, 2009 by diverdonreed
OBAMA AND THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY
Before my son Roman received a spinal cord injury, I never gave much thought as to what it meant to be disabled. I was polite, of course. If I met a person in a wheelchair, I just went around. But what was it like to be denied the use of one’s limbs? Or to be unable to hear? Aside from an occasional movie, like the “The Miracle Worker”, Helen Keller’s true story of being both blind and deaf, the subject never seemed to come up.
Disability was just a word.
Then, in an instant, everything changed. Roman became paralyzed, and he (and indirectly his family) became part of the disability community.
I had no idea how many citizens with disabilities there were.
According to the most recent U.S. Census, roughly one in five Americans has a disability: meaning she or he has difficulty with everyday activities: like breathing, or seeing, or getting dressed in the morning.
The disability community is America’s largest minority—even without their families! If organized, we can win any election.
This vast potential power has not gone unnoticed.
During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Sarah Palin and John McCain tried to rally the disability community against the Democratic party. Their campaign stated that Obama’s tax plan would hurt disabled people, by taxing families who had set up trust funds for their special needs family members.
That was a surprise to me. Trust fund? Most folks in the disability community are poor: financially struggling to make ends meet. Even in the best of times, unemployment for disabled workers is like the Great Depression. When you are worried about scraping together enough money to put food on the table, there is no extra cash for stocks or bonds or any kind of trust fund.
I was glad to hear Obama spokespeople respond strongly. One advisor, Jason Furman, called the attack a “blatant lie”, saying that Obama would work with the Treasury department to “make sure tax rates do not…increase on any family making less than $250,000 a year.” Another (Bill Burton) said that Mr. Obama “has a comprehensive plan to support families that have children with special needs and empower individuals with disabilities.” –Wall Street Journal, Chozick and Timiraos, October 24, 2008.
Were they telling the truth?
Like millions of Americans, I was a volunteer worker for Obama, seeing his leadership as crucial for the nation as a whole, and the disability community in particular.
One of the people I worked with on the campaign was Kareem Dale. He was in charge of outreach to the disability community. We never met, just talked on phone conferences, where he was invariably calm and affable, very focused and on top of the situation. I did not realize till much later that he was blind.
So, after the campaign, did Mr. Dale go back to what he had been doing before? Did the Obama campaign tell him, thank you very much, we appreciate your support, see you next election?
Not exactly.
A new position was created in the White House.
And a few days ago, I received the following information from Kareem Dale, now Special Assistant to the President for Disability Policy..
Kareem Dale may be visually challenged, but he sees deeply into the problems of the disability community, and he is right there beside the President, making sure our families will never be forgotten.
Remember the disability community saying, “Nothing about us, without us”? Disability folks do not want occasional handouts, crumbs tossed from the table—we want to be seated at the table of power, contributing and participating when decisions are made.
The rest of this column is from Kareem Dale, listing some of the steps the Obama Presidency has already taken in support of Americans with disabilities.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN DISABILITY COMMUNITY IN FIRST 60 DAYS
SIGNINGS
(President Obama) signed SCHIP, which will provide insurance to millions of children, including children with disabilities.
Signed stem cell Executive Order, which will open the door to potential cures for many disabilities.
Signed Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, which will, for the first time in history, bring together the best minds across the country to collaborate on research, rehabilitation and improvement of quality of life for people living with paralysis.
RECOVERY ACT
People with disabilities were included as never before in the recovery plan.
Provided a one-time additional payment of $250 to people who receive Social Supplemental Income.
Provided $500 million to the Social Security Administration to help reduce backlogs.
Provided $87 billion in Medicaid funding for states.
Provided $140 million in funding for independent living centers.
Provided over $500 million in funding for vocational rehabilitation services to help with job training, education and placement.
Provided $12 billion in funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
APPOINTMENTS
Appointed a Special Assistant to the President for Disability Policy with responsibilities in the Domestic Policy Council and Office of Public Liaison for the first time in history.
Appointed a Special Assistant to the President in the White House Office of Personnel to focus on disability appointments for the first time in history.
Appointed a Senior Advisor on Disability Policy in the Domestic Policy Council for the first time in history.
Nominated a person with a disability, Kathy Martinez, to be Director of ODEP.
Nominated Seth Harris, a long time disability advocate, to be Deputy Secretary of Labor.
Nominated Tom Perez, a long-time supporter of the disability community, to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
OUTREACH
President hosted a greet with 10 disability leaders following the signing of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act.
Vice-President led a delegation to the Special Olympics.
Included people with disabilities at all public White House events.
Invited Carmen Jones, an African American woman with a disability, to participate in the small group meeting with seven other small business owners to discuss issues with the President facing small business owners.
Invited six leaders from the disability community to the signing of SCHIP.
Invited disability leaders to participate in the White House and regional healthcare summits, including members of CCD, ADAPT, National MS Society, mental health groups, autism groups and many other disability groups across the country.
Invited CCD to participate in the fiscal summit.
Hosted outreach meetings with disability leaders and organizations.
Hosting briefing and meeting for presidents of national disability organizations.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged disability, Obama | No Comments »
North Dakota, Stem Cells, and the Great “Personhood” Lie
April 13, 2009 by diverdonreed
NORTH DAKOTA, STEM CELLS, AND THE GREAT “PERSONHOOD” LIE
Filling sandbags against a raging river, North Dakota citizens inspired the world not long ago. Shoulder to shoulder the residents of Fargo, North Dakota worked, long nights in the pouring rain– and they built that sandbag dam, protecting the lives and homes of their neighbors.
But now imagine a piece of foolishness: suppose a new law has been enacted, criminalizing the making of sandbags. The legislation says each grain of sand has an existence of its own, and must be allowed freedom, independence, and a lawyer: full standing in a court of law.
The new legislation permits—no, requires!—that every sandbag be set free, yanked out of those North Dakota dams. And so the floods come roaring down, on the undefended homes…
Ridiculous? Don’t laugh too soon.
On February 17th, 2009, North Dakota’s House of Representatives passed an equally short-sighted bill with potentially devastating real-life consequences. That bill goes now to the state’s Senate.
House Bill 1572 is a “personhood” law… establishing microscopic human cells as a person, a full-fledged human being.
It sounds harmless enough, at first.
But this new definition of personhood—giving legal status to tissue samples smaller than a grain of sand– could blast the entire field of embryonic stem cell research.
Let’s take a quick run through this bill, which would so casually criminalize one of humanity’s best hopes.
Here are a few brief highlights; complete text follows at the end.
98312.0200 Sixty-first Legislative Assembly HOUSE BILL NO. 1572 of North Dakota, Introduced by Representative Ruby.
“Section 1. Equality and rights guaranteed to all human beings….
a. “Human being” means any organism, (emphasis added) including the single-cell human embryo… (which) possesses a genome (for)… the human species.”
Comment: According to the Human Genome Project, the genome is “found in every nucleus of a person’s many trillions of cells…”
(http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/publicat/primer/prim1.html)
There are approximately 100 trillion human cells in every human body—according to the new definition, how many are human beings?
“2. The state shall naturalize all preborn persons and shall afford to them all the privileges and immunities of state citizenship, except that the state is not required to include preborn children in state and local censuses.”
Comment: The great commentator and comedian Will Rogers once said, “When Congress makes a joke, it’s a law.” HB 1572 does contain some unintended humor, like the above-named census exemption.
With trillions of newly-defined “preborn persons”, a census would indeed be difficult— not to mention the income tax complications — could we claim our own cells as dependents?
But the proponents of this bill are deadly serious.
In a clear attempt to tar stem cells by association (like repeatedly naming a Congressman in an article on horsetheft) HB 1572 contains numerous references to: incest, abortion, dismemberment, torture– and the killing of children.
“Section 3, part d:
“Because scientists have discovered a way of creating pluripotent cells using umbilical stem cells, there is no need to kill children to obtain their embryonic stem cells.”
There it is: the great personhood lie– the pretense that there are children involved in embryonic stem cell research.
And what a shameful deception it is.
A blastocyst in a Petri dish is living tissue, not a life.
To prove this, we need only ask ourselves one question:
Can a sperm and egg become a child—outside the womb?
Common sense provides the answer. Without the nurturing shelter of a mother’s womb, it is biologically impossible to make a child.
No mother, no child: this is not rocket science.
Stem cell research, as the name implies, is cells, cells, nothing but cells—and the possibility of cure.
Why would such a ludicrous bill even be considered?
First, the opposition is running scared. They are losing, and they know it. When President Obama overturned the Bush restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, that put the Federal government officially on our side. The game is almost up.
However: if personhood laws can re-define life as having citizenship at the single-cell level, the U.S. Supreme Court (remember, the Roberts Court is very conservative) might actually find grounds to criminalize the entire field of embryonic stem cell research.
Impossible?
The Dickey-Wicker Amendment already blocks federal funding for any new embryonic stem cell lines—and it does so with personhood language and concepts.
To be continued…
As promised, here is the full text of HB 1572.
“98312.0200 Sixty-first Legislative Assembly
HOUSE BILL NO. 1572 of North Dakota
Introduced by Representative Ruby
A BILL for an Act to provide for equality and rights to all human beings at every stage of
biological development; to create and enact two new sections to chapter 12.1-17, relating to the crimes of dismemberment and torture; to amend and reenact subsection 3 of section 12.1-20-03, section 12.1-20-11, subsection 2 of section 12.1-20-17, and section 12.1-27.2-04.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to penalties for crimes against born alive children; to provide legislative intent; and to provide a penalty.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. Equality and rights guaranteed to all human beings.
1. For purposes of this Act:
a. “Born”, “birth”, “partially born”, “born alive”, and any derivation thereof, apply
to any child located inside a uterus, which is pulled out of the mother; or who
has ever had any part of its body, including the head, pulled out of the uterus,
such as during natural birth, artificial birth, or abortion.
b. “Human being” means any organism, including the single-cell human embryo,
irrespective of the method of reproduction, who possesses a genome specific
for and consistent with an individual member of the human species.
c. “Human embryo” means all human beings from the beginning of the
embryonic period of their biological development through eight weeks,
irrespective of age, health, function, physical dependency, or method of
reproduction, whether in vivo or in vitro.
d. “Human fetus” means all human beings from the beginning of the fetal period
of their biological development, which begins at nine weeks gestation through
birth, irrespective of age, health, function, physical dependency, or method of
reproduction, whether in vivo or in vitro.
e. “Human genome” means the total amount of nuclear and extra-nuclear DNA
genetic material that constitutes an organism as an individual member of the
human species, including the single-cell human embryo.
f. “Person” or “individual” means the legal recognition of a human being’s full
status as a human person that applies to all human beings, irrespective of
age, health, function, physical dependency, or method of reproduction,
including their preborn offspring at every stage of their biological
development.
2. The state shall naturalize all preborn persons and shall afford to them all the
privileges and immunities of state citizenship guaranteed in section 21 of article I of
the Constitution of North Dakota, except that the state is not required to include
preborn children in state and local censuses.
3. The state shall afford the equality and inherent rights guaranteed to individuals in
section 1 of article I of the Constitution of North Dakota and the right to due
process guaranteed to persons in section 12 of article I of the Constitution of North
Dakota to all human beings, including the preborn, partially born, born alive, and
born alive who reenter the womb.
4. Personhood may not be denied:
a. If all the body parts are pulled out of the uterus except the legs or arms or
portions of legs or arms are still inside the uterus;
b. When the child is about to be born;
c. When the child’s head is taken out and placed back inside the uterus;
d. If a child’s head is pushed back inside the uterus;
e. To partially born or born alive babies; or
f. Once a uterus is placed back inside the mother.
SECTION 2. Legislative findings regarding certain effects of establishing
personhood.
1. With respect to preborn personhood, it is the intent of the legislative assembly to:
a. Immunize a woman from criminal prosecution for abortion.
b. Increase and decrease the penalties for crimes against persons.
2. It is the intent of the legislative assembly that every available means to assert
preborn personhood be used, which has been denied to even late term preborn
and partially born children.
3. It is the finding of the legislative assembly that:
a. The right to life is the paramount right of a person. The right to life is a more
fundamental right of a preborn child than the mother’s right to liberty or pursuit
of happiness, which does not include the right to kill other people. In no way
does a child’s right to life interfere with a mother’s right to life.
b. The state does not need to prove that it has a prerogative or a compelling
interest before the courts allow this state to recognize that all children are
persons and human beings, which they are. The legislative assembly may
not attempt to immediately solve all the effects of preborn personhood until
after thorough study and more importantly until after actually establishing
preborn personhood and waiting for the courts to recognize it.
c. When the uterus with a child inside is placed back inside the mother,
personhood extends to all other preborn children due to equal protection of
the laws.
d. Because scientists have discovered a way of creating pluripotent cells using
umbilical stem cells, there is no need to kill children to obtain their embryonic
stem cells.
e. It is not yet possible to conclusively determine whether all chemical
contraception is abortifacient or not.
f. All abortions, whether surgically or chemically induced, terminate the life of a
whole, separate, unique, living human being. There is an existing relationship
between a pregnant woman and her preborn child during the entire period of
gestation.
g. Because all preborn children are persons, no abortion performed with specific
intent is legal. A direct abortion is always performed with the specific intent to
bring death to a preborn child; it is a deprivation of the right to life and the right
to the equal protection of the law and is the ultimate manifestation of the
involuntary servitude of one human being to another.
h. A mother is not going to die by recognizing her child’s right to life. When the
mother needs a life-saving medical operation, then an indirect abortion is not
legally or morally considered abortion because it is not performed with specific
intent to bring death to a preborn child. The death of the child may be
permitted as an indirect and unavoidable result of steps necessary to save the
mother’s life. Physicians shall make, in all cases, every effort to preserve
both the life of the mother and the life of the preborn child. Physicians shall
provide equal care and equal consideration to the mother and child.
i. Medical treatment that has as its primary purpose to cure a disease of the
pregnant woman or of a twin preborn human being may not be considered
abortion. The pregnant woman must be given the choice of which treatment
to receive provided it is treatment intended to act upon or cure a disease.
This excludes the possibility of ever performing an abortion under the
pretense of a medical necessity since a preborn human being is not a
disease.
j. In the case of twins, all medical procedures designed to address specific
medical conditions that affect both twins are lawful provided as the physician’s
actions are performed with the specific intent to save the life of the preborn
human being with highest chance of survival.
k. If a pregnant woman’s health is in danger during a pregnancy, the physician
may not be held criminally responsible for unintentionally causing the death of
the preborn human being from legitimate treatment administered to the
pregnant woman. Chemotherapy, radiation treatment, and other medical
procedures that are not intended to cause the death of the preborn human
being but that are likely to do so, may not be prohibited if prescribed to cure
the pregnant woman. Under no circumstance may abortion be considered
legitimate treatment.
SECTION 3. Two new sections to chapter 12.1-17 of the North Dakota Century Code
are created and enacted as follows:
Dismemberment - Penalty.
1. A person is guilty of an offense if that person intentionally dismembers the body of
another human being, as defined in section 1 of this Act, without causing the death
of the other human being.
2. The offense is a class C felony, except if the victim is a born alive child, as defined
in section 1 of this Act, the offense is a class B felony.
Torture - Penalty.
1. A person is guilty of an offense if that person intentionally inflicts excruciating pain
on another human being, as defined in section 1 of this Act, without causing the
death of the other human being.
2. The offense is a class C felony, except if the victim is a born alive child, as defined
in section 1 of this Act, the offense is a class B felony.
SECTION 4. AMENDMENT. Subsection 3 of section 12.1-20-03 of the North Dakota
Century Code is amended and reenacted as follows:
3. a. An offense under this section is a class AA felony if in the course of the
offense the actor inflicts serious bodily injury upon the victim, if the victim is a
born alive child, as defined in section 1 of this Act, if the actor’s conduct
violates subdivision a of subsection 1, or if the actor’s conduct violates
subdivision d of subsection 1 and the actor was at least twenty-two years of
age at the time of the offense. For any conviction of a class AA felony under
subdivision a of subsection 1, the court shall impose a minimum sentence of
twenty years’ imprisonment, with probation supervision to follow the
incarceration. The court may deviate from the mandatory sentence if the
court finds that the sentence would impose a manifest injustice as defined in
section 39-01-01 and the defendant has accepted responsibility for the crime
or cooperated with law enforcement. However, a defendant convicted of a
class AA felony under this section may not be sentenced to serve less than
five years of incarceration.
b. Otherwise the offense is a class A felony.
SECTION 5. AMENDMENT. Section 12.1-20-11 of the North Dakota Century Code is
amended and reenacted as follows:
12.1-20-11. Incest. A person who intermarries, cohabits, or engages in a sexual act
with another person related to him within a degree of consanguinity within which marriages are declared incestuous and void by section 14-03-03, knowing such other person to be within said degree of relationship, is guilty of a class C felony. If the victim is a born alive child, as defined in section 1 of this Act, the person is guilty of a class B felony.
SECTION 6. AMENDMENT. Subsection 2 of section 12.1-20-17 of the North Dakota
Century Code is amended and reenacted as follows:
2. A person who, knowing that that person is or has been afflicted with acquired
immune deficiency syndrome, afflicted with acquired immune deficiency syndrome
related complexes, or infected with the human immunodeficiency virus, willfully
transfers any of that person’s body fluid to another person is guilty of a class A
felony. The person is guilty of a class AA felony if the victim is under the age of
fifteen or the victim is a born alive child as defined in section 1 of this Act.
SECTION 7. AMENDMENT. Section 12.1-27.2-04.1 of the North Dakota Century Code
is amended and reenacted as follows:
12.1-27.2-04.1. Possession of certain materials prohibited. A person is guilty of a
class C felony if, knowing of its character and content, that person knowingly possesses any motion picture, photograph, or other visual representation that includes sexual conduct by a minor. A person is guilty of a class B felony if the minor is a born alive child as defined in section 1 of this Act.
SECTION 8. STATE TO DEFEND CHALLENGE. The legislative assembly, by joint
resolution, may appoint one or more of its members, as a matter of right and in the legislative member’s official capacity, to intervene to defend this law in any case in which its constitutionality is challenged.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged personhood, stem cell research, stem cells | No Comments »
ONE PHONE CALL FOR TEXAS STEM CELL RESEARCH RIGHTS!
March 31, 2009 by diverdonreed
ONE PHONE CALL—TO SAVE TEXAS STEM CELL RESEARCH RIGHTS!
by Don C. Reed
Dear Friends:
Anti-research forces in Texas are trying to pull a fast one, to kill all hopes for embryonic stem cell research in the state, permanently. They are doing it two ways.
First, Senator Steve Ogden (R-Bryan) “quietly” inserted a 24-word provision banning state funds for any form of embryonic stem cell research– into the Texas budget (SB 1). If the budget passes (which it must) as is, the research is effectively banned.
According to the Dallas Morning News, “The Senate finance committee, which Ogden heads, took only two minutes to consider his rider. It says, “No funds appropriated under this act shall be used in conjunction with or to support research which involves the destruction of a human embryo.”—R. T. Garrett, Dallas Morning News, March 30, 2009.
Senator Ogden did not allow research scientists or patient advocates to speak.
Afterwards, Ogden was asked if that provision would kill embryonic stem cell research in Texas. He reportedly responded, “If that one doesn’t, my next one will.”
Second, Senator Ogden’s bill, SB 1695, would “…end all embryonic stem cell research…in any of the laboratories of our state. Even private institutions like Baylor College of Medicine would be affected because they receive state funding.”—Texas research advocate Dr. Ralph Dittman, cited in Huffington Report.
Folks, the debate on the Texas budget begins Wednesday, which is TOMORROW.
Any chance you could make one phone call, to try and preserve Texas stem cell research? (Which, by the way, is very much worth fighting for; I will tell you later about some of the outstanding scientists in the Lone Star state.)
It doesn’t matter where you live. Texas voters have the most importance of course, but right now, the main thing is to make some noise. This is attack legislation– in a state which has the possibility of genuinely vast amounts of research, as much as three billion dollars for cancer alone. We dare not lose the enormous contributions of this vital state.
As always, Texans for the Advancement of Medical Research, TAMR, is leading the charge against this insidious infringement on research rights.
Friend Judy Haley, immediate past President of TAMR, says:
“This is the worst situation we have ever had… an emerging disaster. They (the rider to the budget, SB 1, and the bill, SB 1695–dr) would ban ALL hESC in Texas in any research facility that receives any state funding—(including) all our public and private labs. This would be a disaster, not only in Texas, but as a model for how to do it (damaging legislation) for the rest of the nation.”
Joe Brown, current President of TAMR suggests a message:
First, if you live in Texas:
Click on this link http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/ and enter your home address under “who represents me” to find your senator and their phone number.
CALL OR FAX YOUR STATE SENATOR WITH THE MESSAGE:
“Stem cell research is important to me, to my family, and to millions of Texans; it is unacceptable for the Texas Legislature to pass any bill or rider which restricts embryonic stem cell research done under National Academy of Science ethical guidelines. I want Senator _____________ to actively work to make sure that neither SB 1’s prohibitive rider nor SB 1965 do not become part of Texas law.”
Don’t live in Texas?
Call anyway.
Three calls you could make:
1. David Dewhurst, President of the Senate and Lt. Governor: (512) 463-0001
2. Jim Pitts, Chairman of House Appropriations Committee: (512) 463-0516
3. Joe Straus, Speaker of the House: (512) 463-0516
Nothing fancy is required. Just tell whoever answers that you oppose the anti-embryonic stem cell research rider on the Texas budget this year, and also you oppose SB 1695.
You might even tell them why, maybe mentioning a condition which affects you or a loved one.
The opposition calls itself “right to life” people. But the way I see it, my sister Barbara has both cancer and leukemia, and she has a right to life as well.
Please make that phone call; it will take you five minutes, and it could make the difference.
To help heal our loved ones—stand tall for Texas today!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged stem cell research, Texas | No Comments »
A YEAR IN THE LIFE OF THE CALIFORNIA STEM CELL PROGRAM
March 26, 2009 by diverdonreed
A YEAR IN THE LIFE OF CALIFORNIA’S STEM CELL RESEARCH PROGRAM
By Don C. Reed
Imagine that you and I are involved in a terrible war, against a relentless enemy which fully intends to kill us and all our families. But we are fighting back hard, and despite tremendous odds against us, we are beginning to win.
Suddenly good news arrives: reinforcements are on the way!
Should we respond by laying down our arms, to surrender?
President Obama’s reversal of the Bush stem cell restrictions is wonderful: a decision that will echo down the halls of history. But it is not victory.
The Obama edict brings no guarantees of new stem cell funding. Those “extra” NIH funds you heard about? At best, they help make up for 5 years of flat-lined funding, when National Institutes of Health budgets remained stagnant, not even matching increases of inflation.
Now is the time to redouble our efforts, not relax them.
Let me show you why.
In the midst of all the economic gloom and doom, something shining has emerged in California: the beginning of a vastly better world.
Take a look at some highlights of what the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) did—with just twelve months of reliable funding, in 2008.
(You can verify the following amazements by going to http://www.cirm.ca.gov/ Scroll down the left side of the page, until you find a bright red picture of stem cells, click under that: 2008 report, download it for free.)
LABORATORIES: have you tried to find parking for your car at an overcrowded college campus lately? Imagine what a nightmare it is to find space for new stem cell laboratories, let alone equip them. Dedicated buildings are urgently needed.
But bricks and mortar costs a lot, and the last thing California wants is to spend precious research dollars on a bunch of unnecessary buildings. So, a limit was set: no more than 10% of the entire program’s cost, $300 million, could be used for facilities. But, that’s not much money. In today’s market, it would pay for only about three or four hundred homes: nowhere near enough for serious labs.
How did the CIRM meet this challenge?
They authorized $271 million on facilities (buildings and equipment)—and, to make sure we got the most possible bang for its buck, a special requirement…. Any organization wanting a grant had to bring their own money as well.
This strategy brought in an additional $880 million dollars. Our $271 million in taxpayer money was leveraged (great word) into $1.15 billion dollars.
Twelve major facilities will be built—and soon. All these buildings are contractually obligated to be up and running by the end of 2010.
And of course, we must not forget the stem cells…
CIRM NEW CELL LINES AWARDS
After 8 years of being stuck with a tiny number of ancient stem cell lines, America desperately needs new ones–$25 million went to derive new cell lines. Some were disease-specific: allowing us, for the first time in history, to watch the development of Alzheimer’s disease in a Petri dish, instead of only seeing—too late—its devastating results on a person.
Other stem cell lines are needed to compare embryonic stem cells with the new kind of cells, induced Pluripotentiary Stem cells (iPS). As we struggle to find out if the new (iPS) method can be made safe for human use, or even as a research tool, we also need to know if it can really do the job.
And who will be allowed access to these new stem cell lines funded by CIRM?
These valuable biomaterials will be available to any responsible researcher working toward cures…
New buildings, new stem cell lines– how about some new scientists?
TRAINING NEW SCIENTISTS: CIRM RESEARCH TRAINING PROGRAM II
For too long, only scientists in their mid to late forties, folks who had their PhD’s for almost a decade, have been able to receive funding from the NIH.
But if we only fund scientists that far along in their career, how will the field grow? If young scientists cannot get grants, their options are limited. At best, they will work for other scientists, doing research directed by them instead of blazing their own trail; or, financial need may drive them out of the field altogether.
The very first project CIRM funded was training grants, to help new scientists into our field, an oasis of funding in what had been barren desert. Training Program II continues providing funds for these young men and women and their labs: allocating $40 million for this vital effort.
But even the greatest scientist cannot do his or her work alone.
TEAM ASSISTANCE: Generals are nothing without soldiers; even so, scientists rely on the assistance of trained professionals; where will they come from?
“An educated and properly trained workforce is essential if our state is to retain its premier position and fully realize the medical and economic benefits from this emerging industry.”—joint statement, Senator Gloria Romero and Senate President Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg.
The “CIRM Bridges to Stem Cell Research Awards” program is designed to insure training exists for these incredibly valuable technicians: the workforce to make the miracles possible, perhaps becoming future superstars themselves– you never know where success in such a new enterprise may lead.
$17 million in these Bridges awards has been approved.
But what about the business side? The greatest stem cell idea in the world means nothing, if it is not translated into something real and usable: and that means biotech.
LOANS
“Our new loan program for biotech companies is meant to provide… support for institutions testing the safety and efficacy of possible therapies.”—Robert N. Klein, Chair, ICOC.
Developed by our new Vice-Chairman Duane Roth and Finance subcommittee Chairman Michael Goldberg, (and of course Chairman Klein, who is pretty much everywhere) the new loan program is for $500 million—and hopefully an additional $500 million in federal loan guarantees as part of the stimulus package.
Numbers that big numb my brain like novocaine at the dentist’s.
But wait, there’s more!
“That amount would be scaled up by recycling an additional $1 billion in repayment proceeds over the first decade of the program. In short, with $500 million in federal long-term guarantees and recycled principal repayments, interest and stock warrant revenue from borrowers, over $1.5 billion in additional resources could be added to the Proposition 71 portfolio.”—BK.
As I understand it (always an element of doubt about that) this would be astonishing.
Leveraging five hundred million in state dollars to two billion, perhaps even two and half billion, so that California got five times the value of its initial investment?
And, these loans are targeted: designed to answer an unmet and colossal need.
CLINICAL TRIALS
Taking just one new product from idea to pharmacy costs hundreds of millions of dollars, due to safety testing.
The time between basic research and clinical trials completion is called the “Valley of death” because so many products and companies die during that period. What an agony it would be to have a great cure for paralysis, for example, and then watch it fail– for lack of money to pay for those tests.
The new loan program is designed to help turn the ideas of cure into products everyone can use: promising new medicines or therapies through the grueling cycle of tests, so they can be submitted to the FDA for approval.
MODEL FOR THE COUNTRY
Look at the path that CIRM has laid down for cure: educating and supporting scientists, helping train their support staff, setting up loans for the companies that will risk so much to develop products for patients… this is something which should be shared, and imitated.
COMMUNICATION:
Next ICOC meeting you go to, look for a crew-cut, glasses-wearing individual with tremendous energy, listening to everything, hardly ever sitting still—this is Don Gibbons. Very often, he has the honor of being the voice of the CIRM.
A tough job indeed. For starters, he has to understand enough of the science to be able to translate it into people talk, enough legalese to do the same for those complicated aspects.
In addition to sharing information through public outreach, some of Gibbons’ projects include: updating the CIRM website, (major improvements just days away, btw) Town Hall Meetings (You MUST come to one of these—the first one was last week, and it was terrific—three outstanding scientists use people talk to share where their corner of the science is at—more info at bottom of page.
And what a message he has to share, as the CIRM’s influence grows, even leaping beyond the artificial boundaries of lines drawn on a map.
COOPERATING WITH OTHER STATES AND NATIONS:
“…no one state or nation (can) do this alone,” stated Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,”…collaborations…which bring together leading medical researchers from around the globe have a great potential in improving the lives of not only Californians, but all the people around the world.”
The CIRM has already made agreements for combined research with countries including Australia, Spain, Japan, the United Kingdom and Canada, bringing in additional funds to the effort. Those countries have already committed over $200 million dollars to collaborative efforts with CIRM.
For example, Canada will be teaming with California to fight cancer.
There is more to come. California money must always be spent inside the borders of our state (as required by Prop 71 statute), but knowledge can and should be shared.
State to state cooperation will, increase our strength. Consider the example set by Dr. Dennis Clegg of UC Santa Barbara. Working with colleagues in Massachusetts, he found a molecule that helps embryonic stem cells multiply faster, while still maintaining their stability, vital characteristics for the large quantities of pure cells we will need for cure.
CALIFORNIA GOLD
It is not enough just to labor endlessly—everybody wants results. As President Alan Trounson puts it: “I tell my colleagues here at CIRM probably at least once a week: “We are in a hurry; we have a short time frame, and we need to get genuine cures to Californians.”
The opening page of the 2008 report shows the official motto of the CIRM:
“turning stem cells into cures”.—Roman Reed.
That is my son who wrote those words, in case you did not know—and that is our goal.
Success will come in careful reliable steps, and we are taking them right now.
We benefit from the leadership of chief science officer Marie Csete (pronounced chet-uh) an energetic little exclamation point of a person, and the indefatigable Director of Scientific Activities, Patricia Olson.
Do you know them? If you live in California, you should. Walk up and say hello to them at the next CIRM meeting.
Are they approachable? You bet. Here is an example.
There will soon be an autism workshop: for scientists only. This is fairly common, giving the scientists a chance to speak their own language, and interchange ideas—very important. BUT— such knowledge should be shared. So, seeing Dr. Csete at another public meeting (there have been about 150 public meetings so far) I asked her if there was a way to make the autism meeting more open, because there were literally millions of people interested in this all-too-common condition. She thought about it for a minute, and then said, there should be a transcript, print and video, and that could be made available on the web. (Something I forgot to ask was: could parents of autistic children send in questions to be asked of the scientists?)
That is how this program works. The decisions are made in public, and anyone who wants to get involved is welcome.
Come to the meetings; California wants you! (to find out when and where the meetings are, go to http://www.cirm.ca.gov/ and click on Meetings; it is up near the top of the page.
Already, CIRM scientists have authored more than 70 scientific publications, adding to the world’s understanding.
If you go to the meetings, you will get to hear Dr. Trounson talking about the latest breakthroughs in stem cell science. Such as:
Remember one huge difficulty with the new stem cell method, iPS, induced Pluripotent Stem cells, mainly that the use of viruses might cause cancer? At Scripps Institute, a scientist named Sheng Ding may have found a way around that obstacle, using “small molecules rather than viruses to carry reprogramming genes into cells, moving the iPS cells closer to being safe for clinical use.”
And speaking of genes, this miniscule marvels which turn body processes on and off, it is vital we know exactly which genes do what– and Dr. Jean Loring and her team “published a database of gene expression profiles”, vital information for the sorting of cells.
(Both those scientists, by the way, received CIRM grants.)
Sometimes, a step in one area helps in another; look at the next two paragraphs.
First, If we can learn how healthy cells are turned into cancer cells, (as Dr. Wei Guo of UCLA did with blood cells), maybe we can learn how to do the reverse– and turn cancerous cells back into healthiness.
Second, at Stanford, Dr. Emmanuelle Passegue showed that a “family of cancer-fighting proteins also helps blood-forming stem cells divide normally.”
As CIRM President Dr. Alan Trounson observed, “These two push-and-pull findings hold great promise for uncovering novel ways of treating cancer and preventing its spread.”
CIRM helped Dr. Catriona Jamieson of UCSD as she brought a new approach to fighting leukemia to human trials.
So much more: at Stanford, human embryonic stem cells were grown into “primitive cardiac tissue (which) repaired heart damage in mice”.
At UCLA, scientists matured human embryonic stem cells into T cells and inserted a gene—why does that matter? “Their eventual goal is to insert a gene that makes the cells immune to HIV/AIDS, then replace a person’s infected cells with the resistant ones…”
Yet there are still dark days ahead, much work to do, battles yet to fight—including financial ones.
WILL THERE BE MONEY TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING?
If the financial equivalent of Hurricane Katrina crashes down upon us, (and it did) we have only two choices: adjust, or let the program die.
First, every new grant comes with a proviso that the money will be provided if and when it is available. Some extremely worthwhile projects may have to be delayed a year. This is just a fact of economic life.
Our program depended on selling bonds.
If California cannot sell bonds, will we be able to keep the stem cell program alive?
Here is the official CIRM answer.
“CIRM’s Financial Commitments Are Secure… CIRM currently has significant cash reserves of $160 million, which can fund all existing commitments through at least September. The agency’s plans have always called for raising new capital on a cash-flow, as-needed basis. We expect the traditional bond market will open soon with resolution of California’s budget situation. To supplement this public bond market, CIRM is working with the State Treasurer’s office on a CIRM private placement of $200 million in general obligation bonds this year and $200 million again next year… The Agency intends to continue the planning and review needed to maintain its mission on schedule…”
The men and women of California’s stem cell program have taken up the gauntlet, accepting this new challenge.
They deserve the support and thanks of a nation.
SO WHAT DO WE DO NOW?
In California we have funded a solid beginning. We must build on that, in “synergistic cooperation” (Gibbons’ phrase) with the federal government, each side strengthening the other, and the same with other states across the land.
Ten thousand stem cell advocates developed Proposition 71; seven million Californians voted it into law; what we need now is more of the same.
Not every state wants or needs to be a California or New York, with major biomedical infrastructure employing hundreds of thousands of workers in excellent and good-paying jobs. But every state should at least have funding for regenerative research, and the freedom to do it.
As patient advocates, you and I are involved in a war against chronic disease and disability. And it is a war, make no mistake about that. Millions of lives are at stake, as well as the economies of every nation.
Our motivation is continual; for those who themselves are suffering, the pain and distress is a constant reminder. For we who have the luck of health, our loved ones must be fought for.
But ours is a war like none that ever was before. It is a very civilized combat.
We have two sides essentially throwing words at each other. We pound the keyboards for a while—argue, argue, argue—then rest, do some other chores for a while, and then come back to the computer, fight some more.
These are epic confrontations, on which the future of the world depends; yet, nobody is killed. There are no ruined families, no widows made, nor orphans, no silent graveyards, no white crosses on a hill.
In this war, we are fighting to save lives, not take them.
And when we win, there will be no reason for tears: save only those of joy.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged California, CIRM, research, stem cells | No Comments »
Yesterday at the White House
March 10, 2009 by diverdonreed
YESTERDAY AT THE WHITE HOUSE
by Don C. Reed
Dear Stem Cell Research Advocate:
Yesterday, being in the room when President Obama signed an executive order reversing ideological restrictions on embryonic stem cell research was an honor and a delight.
But for my paralyzed son Roman Reed and all the other patient advocates in the room, it meant so much more than that: the White House is now squarely on the side of cure.
The East Room was jammed with dignitaries as we waited for the President to come in. Just a few feet away were Senators Orrin Hatch, Dianne Feinstein, Jim Langevin, many more. Scientists like Renee Reijo-Peira, Harold Varmus, and Irv Weissman. Patient advocates, champions all, Bob Klein, Zach Hall, Dan Perry, Kris Gulden, Alta Charo, literally hundreds more, each one deserving of his or her own book, champions all.
And then the voice said, “Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.” LAn emotion like an electric current surged through us, and I found myself on my feet without knowing how I got there.
You have to look up his speech, it was too great to miss. It is only ten minutes, but just packed with value.
Not only did he speak out strongly on behalf of stem cell research,but he also announced a new White House-directed effort to be sure that scientific policy was based on science, not ideology.
He spoke clearly, and calmly, and with the accuracy too often dismissed as mere eloquence. He spoke the truth, and it registered strongly because it was the truth.
All too soon it was over, and he was heading out the door, but he stopped to shake a few hands, and to take a picture or two, including one with my son, Roman. My wife Gloria tried to get him to allow another one with me personally, but he said “Hey, guys, I really have to go,” talking to us like we were neighbors, and he had to go answer the phone.
Like John F. Kennedy who pointed toward the moon, the President has challenged a nation: we are all part of this tremendous adventure, as we work to cure diseases and disabilities that are not only ruining lives, but also devastating our economy.
Last year America spent $2.3 trillion on medical costs, more than all federal income taxes put together.
Only cure can substantially lower these mountainous costs.
That was what yesterday meant: that we have set cure as a goal for our nation, and the world.
P.S.
The Reed family got home at 11:30 last night, and will be on the road again at 4:30 this morning, one hour from now, to go down to the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act “Meet the Scientist” Days at UC Irvine and another day of meetings on California’s stem cell program.
I will write more later, but I had to speak now or burst with happiness.
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
In Memory of Jerry Yang
February 10, 2009 by diverdonreed
IN MEMORY OF JERRY YANG
Humanity stands on the shoulders of its champions: men and women who work, often in obscurity, all their lives, and when they die, become part of the great mountains.
On December 31, 2008, I received the following email, which I now keep in a computer file, the one marked Family.
Don;
Today is the New Year eve. Happy New Year to you and your family.
I am still on chemotherapy for my late stage cancer. I am still alive, longer than I thought.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for our friendship in my lifetime.
Cheers year 2009.
I hope to live another 1 or 2 years as a cancer survivor.
Jerry Yang
Time was not given to him. Just a few days later, Jerry was gone. He was just forty-nine. His friends and family, all who knew him, are diminished by his loss.
When I think of Jerry Yang, I think of a little boy in rural China, unable to go to school, because his family was too poor. His country knows poverty and famine all too well; Jerry himself nearly starved to death as an infant. His job as a child was to watch his infant brother while both parents worked in the fields. So Jerry took his brother to school. The teacher would not allow him in, because the baby would be a distraction. So, while the students learned, little Jerry Yang crouched outside the window, listening. When the baby got hungry, Jerry would chew his scant vegetable lunch—but not swallow—so he could give the juice to his brother.
He overcame tremendous difficulties to earn an education; then came to America, where he worked at the University of Connecticut (Uconn) and even persuaded a fellow scientist, Dr. Cindy Tian, to stop by and visit—because he intended to marry her– and they did.
Jerry’s goal was to fight starvation. He knew that one good milk-producing cow could mean the difference between life and death for a village like the one where he was born.
His work resulted in the first cloned cow in the world.
As an article in the Harford Courant stated: “Yang proved that early reports that clones would age prematurely were false. The Food and Drug Administration relied heavily on Yang’s work when it found meat and dairy products from cloned farm animals were safe to eat and drink.
“Jerry was one of the greatest scientists and cloning pioneers of our time,” Dr. Robert Lanza, chief science officer at Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, a biotech company which has pursued creating stem cells through cloning, told The Hartford Courant. “He was a really great man who struggled to his last hours to better the world and to advance the scientific cause.”–Information from: The Hartford Courant, http://www.courant.com
We never met in person. I just called him up one day to express respect for his work, and to see if there was anything I could do to advance our countries’ cooperation on stem cell research. We became friends. He liked that I was trying to learn Mandarin and would say polite fibs about my non-existent skills with the language. For myself, I loved to hear Jerry talk. Even when the cancer operations on his face cut into the muscles and made speech difficult, he would not let it stop him. He spoke rapid fire, all enthusiasm, bursting with valuable knowledge.
Bob Klein speaks of him with great respect, and enjoyed meeting and talking with him back East, about stem cell research, and their shared hopes for Chinese-American cooperation.
Jerry’s “Bridges” project, building international scientific cooperation, will continue.
He did not live long enough to see the great changes he was part of , and which he influenced; but today we approach the dawn of a new day of regenerative medicine.
For the rest of my life, on New Years Eve, that special time just before a new beginning, I will remember Jerry Yang. He lived his life for good, and he has triumphed: succeeded beyond all expectations. His work will help feed hungry children all across the world.
Jerry Yang is a part of the mountains now.
But he will be remembered.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged cloning, Jerry Yang, stem cell research | No Comments »
Older Posts »
a.. Archives
a.. May 2009
b.. April 2009
c.. March 2009
d.. February 2009
e.. January 2009
f.. December 2008
g.. November 2008
h.. October 2008
i.. September 2008
j.. August 2008
b.. Categories
a.. Uncategorized
Blog at WordPress.com.
Theme: Mistylook by Sadish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archives |
March 2024, Week 4
January 2022, Week 4
November 2021, Week 4
February 2021, Week 2
December 2020, Week 2
October 2020, Week 4
June 2020, Week 4
May 2020, Week 2
May 2020, Week 1
April 2020, Week 5
April 2020, Week 1
March 2020, Week 5
March 2020, Week 4
March 2020, Week 2
March 2020, Week 1
February 2020, Week 4
February 2020, Week 3
February 2020, Week 1
January 2020, Week 5
January 2020, Week 2
October 2019, Week 1
September 2019, Week 5
September 2019, Week 3
July 2019, Week 1
June 2019, Week 5
June 2019, Week 4
June 2019, Week 3
June 2019, Week 1
April 2019, Week 5
April 2019, Week 4
April 2019, Week 2
March 2019, Week 5
March 2019, Week 3
March 2019, Week 2
March 2019, Week 1
February 2019, Week 4
January 2019, Week 3
January 2019, Week 2
January 2019, Week 1
December 2018, Week 5
December 2018, Week 4
December 2018, Week 2
November 2018, Week 3
November 2018, Week 2
November 2018, Week 1
October 2018, Week 4
October 2018, Week 3
October 2018, Week 1
September 2018, Week 4
September 2018, Week 3
August 2018, Week 4
August 2018, Week 3
August 2018, Week 1
July 2018, Week 4
July 2018, Week 3
July 2018, Week 2
July 2018, Week 1
June 2018, Week 5
June 2018, Week 3
June 2018, Week 1
May 2018, Week 5
May 2018, Week 4
May 2018, Week 3
May 2018, Week 2
May 2018, Week 1
April 2018, Week 4
April 2018, Week 3
April 2018, Week 2
February 2018, Week 3
January 2018, Week 5
January 2018, Week 2
January 2018, Week 1
December 2017, Week 4
December 2017, Week 3
December 2017, Week 1
November 2017, Week 5
November 2017, Week 4
November 2017, Week 3
November 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 1
October 2017, Week 4
October 2017, Week 2
October 2017, Week 1
September 2017, Week 5
September 2017, Week 4
September 2017, Week 3
September 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 1
August 2017, Week 4
August 2017, Week 2
August 2017, Week 1
July 2017, Week 5
July 2017, Week 4
July 2017, Week 3
July 2017, Week 2
July 2017, Week 1
June 2017, Week 5
June 2017, Week 4
June 2017, Week 3
June 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 1
May 2017, Week 5
May 2017, Week 4
May 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 2
May 2017, Week 1
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 4
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 5
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
October 2015, Week 1
September 2015, Week 5
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 3
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 5
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 1
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 4
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
September 2014, Week 1
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 3
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 5
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 5
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 5
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 5
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 5
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 5
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 5
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 5
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 5
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 5
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 5
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 5
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
July 2008, Week 1
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 5
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007, Week 5
December 2007, Week 4
December 2007, Week 3
December 2007, Week 2
December 2007, Week 1
November 2007, Week 5
November 2007, Week 4
November 2007, Week 3
November 2007, Week 2
November 2007, Week 1
October 2007, Week 5
October 2007, Week 4
October 2007, Week 3
October 2007, Week 2
October 2007, Week 1
September 2007, Week 5
September 2007, Week 4
September 2007, Week 3
September 2007, Week 2
September 2007, Week 1
August 2007, Week 5
August 2007, Week 4
August 2007, Week 3
August 2007, Week 2
August 2007, Week 1
July 2007, Week 5
July 2007, Week 4
July 2007, Week 3
July 2007, Week 2
July 2007, Week 1
June 2007, Week 5
June 2007, Week 4
June 2007, Week 3
June 2007, Week 2
June 2007, Week 1
May 2007, Week 5
May 2007, Week 4
May 2007, Week 3
May 2007, Week 2
May 2007, Week 1
April 2007, Week 5
April 2007, Week 4
April 2007, Week 3
April 2007, Week 2
April 2007, Week 1
March 2007, Week 5
March 2007, Week 4
March 2007, Week 3
March 2007, Week 2
March 2007, Week 1
February 2007, Week 4
February 2007, Week 3
February 2007, Week 2
February 2007, Week 1
January 2007, Week 5
January 2007, Week 4
January 2007, Week 3
January 2007, Week 2
January 2007, Week 1
December 2006, Week 5
December 2006, Week 4
December 2006, Week 3
December 2006, Week 2
December 2006, Week 1
November 2006, Week 5
November 2006, Week 4
November 2006, Week 3
November 2006, Week 2
November 2006, Week 1
October 2006, Week 5
October 2006, Week 4
October 2006, Week 3
October 2006, Week 2
October 2006, Week 1
September 2006, Week 5
September 2006, Week 4
September 2006, Week 3
September 2006, Week 2
September 2006, Week 1
August 2006, Week 5
August 2006, Week 4
August 2006, Week 3
August 2006, Week 2
August 2006, Week 1
July 2006, Week 5
July 2006, Week 4
July 2006, Week 3
July 2006, Week 2
July 2006, Week 1
June 2006, Week 5
June 2006, Week 4
June 2006, Week 3
June 2006, Week 2
June 2006, Week 1
May 2006, Week 5
May 2006, Week 4
May 2006, Week 3
May 2006, Week 2
May 2006, Week 1
April 2006, Week 5
April 2006, Week 4
April 2006, Week 3
April 2006, Week 2
April 2006, Week 1
March 2006, Week 5
March 2006, Week 4
March 2006, Week 3
March 2006, Week 2
March 2006, Week 1
February 2006, Week 4
February 2006, Week 3
February 2006, Week 2
February 2006, Week 1
January 2006, Week 5
January 2006, Week 4
January 2006, Week 3
January 2006, Week 2
January 2006, Week 1
December 2005, Week 5
December 2005, Week 4
December 2005, Week 3
December 2005, Week 2
December 2005, Week 1
November 2005, Week 5
November 2005, Week 4
November 2005, Week 3
November 2005, Week 2
November 2005, Week 1
October 2005, Week 5
October 2005, Week 4
October 2005, Week 3
October 2005, Week 2
October 2005, Week 1
September 2005, Week 5
September 2005, Week 4
September 2005, Week 3
September 2005, Week 2
September 2005, Week 1
August 2005, Week 5
August 2005, Week 4
August 2005, Week 3
August 2005, Week 2
August 2005, Week 1
July 2005, Week 5
July 2005, Week 4
July 2005, Week 3
July 2005, Week 2
July 2005, Week 1
June 2005, Week 5
June 2005, Week 4
June 2005, Week 3
June 2005, Week 2
June 2005, Week 1
May 2005, Week 5
May 2005, Week 4
May 2005, Week 3
May 2005, Week 2
May 2005, Week 1
April 2005, Week 5
April 2005, Week 4
April 2005, Week 3
April 2005, Week 2
April 2005, Week 1
March 2005, Week 5
March 2005, Week 4
March 2005, Week 3
March 2005, Week 2
March 2005, Week 1
February 2005, Week 4
February 2005, Week 3
February 2005, Week 2
February 2005, Week 1
January 2005, Week 5
January 2005, Week 4
January 2005, Week 3
January 2005, Week 2
January 2005, Week 1
December 2004, Week 5
December 2004, Week 4
December 2004, Week 3
December 2004, Week 2
December 2004, Week 1
November 2004, Week 5
November 2004, Week 4
November 2004, Week 3
November 2004, Week 2
November 2004, Week 1
October 2004, Week 5
October 2004, Week 4
October 2004, Week 3
October 2004, Week 2
October 2004, Week 1
September 2004, Week 5
September 2004, Week 4
September 2004, Week 3
September 2004, Week 2
September 2004, Week 1
August 2004, Week 5
August 2004, Week 4
August 2004, Week 3
August 2004, Week 2
August 2004, Week 1
July 2004, Week 5
July 2004, Week 4
July 2004, Week 3
July 2004, Week 2
July 2004, Week 1
June 2004, Week 5
June 2004, Week 4
June 2004, Week 3
June 2004, Week 2
June 2004, Week 1
May 2004, Week 5
May 2004, Week 4
May 2004, Week 3
May 2004, Week 2
May 2004, Week 1
April 2004, Week 5
April 2004, Week 4
April 2004, Week 3
April 2004, Week 2
April 2004, Week 1
March 2004, Week 5
March 2004, Week 4
March 2004, Week 3
March 2004, Week 2
March 2004, Week 1
February 2004, Week 5
February 2004, Week 4
February 2004, Week 3
February 2004, Week 2
February 2004, Week 1
January 2004, Week 5
January 2004, Week 4
January 2004, Week 3
January 2004, Week 2
January 2004, Week 1
December 2003, Week 5
December 2003, Week 4
December 2003, Week 3
December 2003, Week 2
December 2003, Week 1
November 2003, Week 5
November 2003, Week 4
November 2003, Week 3
November 2003, Week 2
November 2003, Week 1
October 2003, Week 5
October 2003, Week 4
October 2003, Week 3
October 2003, Week 2
October 2003, Week 1
September 2003, Week 5
September 2003, Week 4
September 2003, Week 3
September 2003, Week 2
September 2003, Week 1
August 2003, Week 5
August 2003, Week 4
August 2003, Week 3
August 2003, Week 2
August 2003, Week 1
July 2003, Week 5
July 2003, Week 4
July 2003, Week 3
July 2003, Week 2
July 2003, Week 1
June 2003, Week 5
June 2003, Week 4
June 2003, Week 3
June 2003, Week 2
June 2003, Week 1
May 2003, Week 5
May 2003, Week 4
May 2003, Week 3
May 2003, Week 2
May 2003, Week 1
April 2003, Week 5
April 2003, Week 4
April 2003, Week 3
April 2003, Week 2
April 2003, Week 1
March 2003, Week 5
March 2003, Week 4
March 2003, Week 3
March 2003, Week 2
March 2003, Week 1
February 2003, Week 4
February 2003, Week 3
February 2003, Week 2
February 2003, Week 1
January 2003, Week 5
January 2003, Week 4
January 2003, Week 3
January 2003, Week 2
January 2003, Week 1
December 2002, Week 5
December 2002, Week 4
December 2002, Week 3
December 2002, Week 2
December 2002, Week 1
November 2002, Week 5
November 2002, Week 4
November 2002, Week 3
November 2002, Week 2
November 2002, Week 1
October 2002, Week 5
October 2002, Week 4
October 2002, Week 3
October 2002, Week 2
October 2002, Week 1
September 2002, Week 5
September 2002, Week 4
September 2002, Week 3
September 2002, Week 2
September 2002, Week 1
August 2002, Week 5
August 2002, Week 4
August 2002, Week 3
August 2002, Week 2
August 2002, Week 1
July 2002, Week 5
July 2002, Week 4
July 2002, Week 3
July 2002, Week 2
July 2002, Week 1
June 2002, Week 5
June 2002, Week 4
June 2002, Week 3
June 2002, Week 2
June 2002, Week 1
May 2002, Week 5
May 2002, Week 4
May 2002, Week 3
May 2002, Week 2
May 2002, Week 1
April 2002, Week 5
April 2002, Week 4
April 2002, Week 3
April 2002, Week 2
April 2002, Week 1
March 2002, Week 5
March 2002, Week 4
March 2002, Week 3
March 2002, Week 2
March 2002, Week 1
February 2002, Week 4
February 2002, Week 3
February 2002, Week 2
February 2002, Week 1
January 2002, Week 5
January 2002, Week 4
January 2002, Week 3
January 2002, Week 2
January 2002, Week 1
December 2001, Week 5
December 2001, Week 4
December 2001, Week 3
December 2001, Week 2
December 2001, Week 1
November 2001, Week 5
November 2001, Week 4
November 2001, Week 3
November 2001, Week 2
November 2001, Week 1
October 2001, Week 5
October 2001, Week 4
October 2001, Week 3
October 2001, Week 2
October 2001, Week 1
September 2001, Week 5
September 2001, Week 4
September 2001, Week 3
September 2001, Week 2
September 2001, Week 1
August 2001, Week 5
August 2001, Week 4
August 2001, Week 3
August 2001, Week 2
August 2001, Week 1
July 2001, Week 5
July 2001, Week 4
July 2001, Week 3
July 2001, Week 2
July 2001, Week 1
June 2001, Week 5
June 2001, Week 4
June 2001, Week 3
June 2001, Week 2
June 2001, Week 1
May 2001, Week 5
May 2001, Week 4
May 2001, Week 3
May 2001, Week 2
May 2001, Week 1
April 2001, Week 5
April 2001, Week 4
April 2001, Week 3
April 2001, Week 2
April 2001, Week 1
March 2001, Week 5
March 2001, Week 4
March 2001, Week 3
March 2001, Week 2
March 2001, Week 1
February 2001, Week 4
February 2001, Week 3
February 2001, Week 2
February 2001, Week 1
January 2001, Week 5
January 2001, Week 4
January 2001, Week 3
January 2001, Week 2
January 2001, Week 1
December 2000, Week 5
December 2000, Week 4
December 2000, Week 3
December 2000, Week 2
December 2000, Week 1
November 2000, Week 5
November 2000, Week 4
November 2000, Week 3
November 2000, Week 2
November 2000, Week 1
October 2000, Week 5
October 2000, Week 4
October 2000, Week 3
October 2000, Week 2
October 2000, Week 1
September 2000, Week 5
September 2000, Week 4
September 2000, Week 3
September 2000, Week 2
September 2000, Week 1
August 2000, Week 5
August 2000, Week 4
August 2000, Week 3
August 2000, Week 2
August 2000, Week 1
July 2000, Week 5
July 2000, Week 4
July 2000, Week 3
July 2000, Week 2
July 2000, Week 1
June 2000, Week 5
June 2000, Week 4
June 2000, Week 3
June 2000, Week 2
June 2000, Week 1
May 2000, Week 5
May 2000, Week 4
May 2000, Week 3
May 2000, Week 2
May 2000, Week 1
April 2000, Week 5
April 2000, Week 4
April 2000, Week 3
April 2000, Week 2
April 2000, Week 1
March 2000, Week 5
March 2000, Week 4
March 2000, Week 3
March 2000, Week 2
March 2000, Week 1
February 2000, Week 5
February 2000, Week 4
February 2000, Week 3
February 2000, Week 2
February 2000, Week 1
January 2000, Week 5
January 2000, Week 4
January 2000, Week 3
January 2000, Week 2
January 2000, Week 1
December 1999, Week 5
December 1999, Week 4
December 1999, Week 3
December 1999, Week 2
December 1999, Week 1
November 1999, Week 5
November 1999, Week 4
November 1999, Week 3
November 1999, Week 2
November 1999, Week 1
October 1999, Week 5
October 1999, Week 4
October 1999, Week 3
October 1999, Week 2
October 1999, Week 1
September 1999, Week 5
September 1999, Week 4
September 1999, Week 3
September 1999, Week 2
September 1999, Week 1
August 1999, Week 5
August 1999, Week 4
August 1999, Week 3
August 1999, Week 2
August 1999, Week 1
July 1999, Week 5
July 1999, Week 4
July 1999, Week 3
July 1999, Week 2
July 1999, Week 1
June 1999, Week 5
June 1999, Week 4
June 1999, Week 3
June 1999, Week 2
June 1999, Week 1
May 1999, Week 5
May 1999, Week 4
May 1999, Week 3
May 1999, Week 2
May 1999, Week 1
April 1999, Week 5
April 1999, Week 4
April 1999, Week 3
April 1999, Week 2
April 1999, Week 1
March 1999, Week 5
March 1999, Week 4
March 1999, Week 3
March 1999, Week 2
March 1999, Week 1
February 1999, Week 4
February 1999, Week 3
February 1999, Week 2
February 1999, Week 1
January 1999, Week 5
January 1999, Week 4
January 1999, Week 3
January 1999, Week 2
January 1999, Week 1
December 1998, Week 5
December 1998, Week 4
December 1998, Week 3
December 1998, Week 2
December 1998, Week 1
November 1998, Week 5
November 1998, Week 4
November 1998, Week 3
November 1998, Week 2
November 1998, Week 1
October 1998, Week 5
October 1998, Week 4
October 1998, Week 3
October 1998, Week 2
October 1998, Week 1
September 1998, Week 5
September 1998, Week 4
September 1998, Week 3
September 1998, Week 2
September 1998, Week 1
August 1998, Week 5
August 1998, Week 4
August 1998, Week 3
August 1998, Week 2
August 1998, Week 1
July 1998, Week 5
July 1998, Week 4
July 1998, Week 3
July 1998, Week 2
July 1998, Week 1
June 1998, Week 5
June 1998, Week 4
June 1998, Week 3
June 1998, Week 2
June 1998, Week 1
May 1998, Week 5
May 1998, Week 4
May 1998, Week 3
May 1998, Week 2
May 1998, Week 1
April 1998, Week 5
April 1998, Week 4
April 1998, Week 3
April 1998, Week 2
April 1998, Week 1
March 1998, Week 5
March 1998, Week 4
March 1998, Week 3
March 1998, Week 2
March 1998, Week 1
February 1998, Week 5
February 1998, Week 4
February 1998, Week 3
February 1998, Week 2
February 1998, Week 1
January 1998, Week 5
January 1998, Week 4
January 1998, Week 3
January 1998, Week 2
January 1998, Week 1
December 1997, Week 5
December 1997, Week 4
December 1997, Week 3
December 1997, Week 2
December 1997, Week 1
November 1997, Week 5
November 1997, Week 4
November 1997, Week 3
November 1997, Week 2
November 1997, Week 1
October 1997, Week 5
October 1997, Week 4
October 1997, Week 3
October 1997, Week 2
October 1997, Week 1
September 1997, Week 5
September 1997, Week 4
September 1997, Week 3
September 1997, Week 2
September 1997, Week 1
August 1997, Week 5
August 1997, Week 4
August 1997, Week 3
August 1997, Week 2
August 1997, Week 1
July 1997, Week 5
July 1997, Week 4
July 1997, Week 3
July 1997, Week 2
July 1997, Week 1
June 1997, Week 5
June 1997, Week 4
June 1997, Week 3
June 1997, Week 2
June 1997, Week 1
May 1997, Week 5
May 1997, Week 4
May 1997, Week 3
May 1997, Week 2
May 1997, Week 1
April 1997, Week 5
April 1997, Week 4
April 1997, Week 3
April 1997, Week 2
April 1997, Week 1
March 1997, Week 5
March 1997, Week 4
March 1997, Week 3
March 1997, Week 2
March 1997, Week 1
February 1997, Week 5
February 1997, Week 4
February 1997, Week 3
February 1997, Week 2
February 1997, Week 1
January 1997, Week 5
January 1997, Week 4
January 1997, Week 3
January 1997, Week 2
January 1997, Week 1
December 1996, Week 5
December 1996, Week 4
December 1996, Week 3
December 1996, Week 2
December 1996, Week 1
November 1996, Week 5
November 1996, Week 4
November 1996, Week 3
November 1996, Week 2
November 1996, Week 1
October 1996, Week 5
October 1996, Week 4
October 1996, Week 3
October 1996, Week 2
October 1996, Week 1
September 1996, Week 5
September 1996, Week 4
September 1996, Week 3
September 1996, Week 2
September 1996, Week 1
August 1996, Week 5
August 1996, Week 4
August 1996, Week 3
August 1996, Week 2
August 1996, Week 1
July 1996, Week 5
July 1996, Week 4
July 1996, Week 3
July 1996, Week 2
July 1996, Week 1
June 1996, Week 5
June 1996, Week 4
June 1996, Week 3
June 1996, Week 2
June 1996, Week 1
May 1996, Week 5
May 1996, Week 4
May 1996, Week 3
May 1996, Week 2
May 1996, Week 1
April 1996, Week 5
April 1996, Week 4
April 1996, Week 3
April 1996, Week 2
April 1996, Week 1
March 1996, Week 5
March 1996, Week 4
March 1996, Week 3
March 1996, Week 2
March 1996, Week 1
February 1996, Week 5
February 1996, Week 4
February 1996, Week 3
February 1996, Week 2
February 1996, Week 1
January 1996, Week 5
January 1996, Week 4
January 1996, Week 3
January 1996, Week 2
January 1996, Week 1
December 1995, Week 5
December 1995, Week 4
December 1995, Week 3
December 1995, Week 2
December 1995, Week 1
November 1995, Week 5
November 1995, Week 4
November 1995, Week 3
November 1995, Week 2
November 1995, Week 1
October 1995, Week 5
October 1995, Week 4
October 1995, Week 3
October 1995, Week 2
October 1995, Week 1
September 1995, Week 5
September 1995, Week 4
September 1995, Week 3
September 1995, Week 2
September 1995, Week 1
August 1995, Week 5
August 1995, Week 4
August 1995, Week 3
August 1995, Week 2
August 1995, Week 1
July 1995, Week 5
July 1995, Week 4
July 1995, Week 3
July 1995, Week 2
July 1995, Week 1
June 1995, Week 5
June 1995, Week 4
June 1995, Week 3
June 1995, Week 2
June 1995, Week 1
May 1995, Week 5
May 1995, Week 4
May 1995, Week 3
May 1995, Week 2
May 1995, Week 1
April 1995, Week 5
April 1995, Week 4
April 1995, Week 3
April 1995, Week 2
April 1995, Week 1
March 1995, Week 5
March 1995, Week 4
March 1995, Week 3
March 1995, Week 2
March 1995, Week 1
February 1995, Week 4
February 1995, Week 3
February 1995, Week 2
February 1995, Week 1
January 1995, Week 5
January 1995, Week 4
January 1995, Week 3
January 1995, Week 2
January 1995, Week 1
December 1994, Week 5
December 1994, Week 4
December 1994, Week 3
December 1994, Week 2
December 1994, Week 1
November 1994, Week 5
November 1994, Week 4
November 1994, Week 3
November 1994, Week 2
November 1994, Week 1
October 1994, Week 5
October 1994, Week 4
October 1994, Week 3
October 1994, Week 2
October 1994, Week 1
September 1994, Week 5
September 1994, Week 4
September 1994, Week 3
September 1994, Week 2
September 1994, Week 1
August 1994, Week 5
August 1994, Week 4
August 1994, Week 3
August 1994, Week 2
August 1994, Week 1
July 1994, Week 5
July 1994, Week 4
July 1994, Week 3
July 1994, Week 2
July 1994, Week 1
June 1994, Week 5
June 1994, Week 4
June 1994, Week 3
June 1994, Week 2
June 1994, Week 1
May 1994, Week 5
May 1994, Week 4
May 1994, Week 3
May 1994, Week 2
May 1994, Week 1
April 1994, Week 5
April 1994, Week 4
April 1994, Week 3
April 1994, Week 2
April 1994, Week 1
March 1994, Week 5
March 1994, Week 4
March 1994, Week 3
March 1994, Week 2
March 1994, Week 1
February 1994, Week 4
February 1994, Week 3
February 1994, Week 2
February 1994, Week 1
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
|
|
