 |
 |
Thanks Linda and thanks Mort! An unbiased[when he has every reason to BE biased], factual piece. Refreshing. Paula Wittekind ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda J Herman" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 12:18 AM Subject: Kondracke: Christopher Reeve's Cause wasn't just stem cells, but research > FROM: > Roll Call > October 14, 2004 > as posted on CAMR website > http://www.camradvocacy.org/fastaction/news.asp?id=1143 > > Kondracke: Christopher Reeve's Cause Wasn't Just Stem Cells, but Research > > > By Morton M. Kondracke > > Christopher Reeve's shocking death at age 52 is cause for deep mourning > over the loss of a remarkable human being and for rededication to the > cause he fought for: medical research across the board. Reeve, as the > whole world knows, was the victim of a horrific spinal cord injury. But > he did not limit his activism to finding a cure for his own affliction. > He was an advocate for every disease victim * and everyone who could be > cured of a disease in the future. > > In the midst of this presidential campaign, his death is legitimately > focusing attention on his backing of embryonic stem-cell research, but > it's getting lost that he also was a stout advocate of general increases > in medical research funding. > > Reeve spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 1996 not about stem > cells * which were only theoretical science then * but about the > revolutionary potential of 21st century bio-research. > > Whenever Reeve traveled in the years immediately after his 1995 spinal > injury, he risked his life. A sudden change in elevation or temperature > could set off possibly fatal adverse reactions. > > Yet he traveled repeatedly to Washington and elsewhere to urge expansion > of medical research. I got to know him as an advocate for Parkinson's > disease research and for doubling the budget of the National Institutes > of Health. > > He was a Democrat, but in the late 1990s the greatest impediment to > significant NIH increases was the Clinton administration. > > Bill Clinton wasn't opposed to medical research * he added funds for > politically important diseases like AIDS and breast cancer and lifted the > first President George Bush's ban on fetal tissue research * but it was > not a priority. > > Once Clinton personally promised Reeve an increase in funding for spinal > cord research, but the money never came through. Reeve seethed in > private, but said nothing publicly. > > It was a bipartisan group in Congress * including Sens. Arlen Specter > (R-Pa.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) * who pushed through a plan to double the > NIH budget from $13.5 billion in1998 to $27 billion in 2003, calling for > an average annual increase of 15 percent. > > Clinton accepted the plan * and took credit for it * and the current > President Bush promised during the 2000 campaign to complete it. And, he > did. NIH's budget is now $28 billion. > > However, the Bush administration, besides limiting stem-cell research, is > now also advocating severe reductions in medical research funding. > > From annual 15 percent increases, Bush is recommending 2.7 percent > increases * including significant and necessary new outlays to counter > bio-terrorism * which represent a cut after inflation. Next year, > according to widespread reports, the administration will call for only a > 2 percent increase. > > In Congress, the House has approved the administration's 2.7 percent > request. At Specter's urging, the Senate Appropriations Committee has > voted for a 3.9 percent increase. > > Medical researchers say that the abrupt reductions in the growth of > federal funding will severely inhibit their ability to expand labs, mount > innovative projects or encourage young investigators. > > Democratic candidate John Kerry has promised to significantly increase > NIH funding as well as to undo Bush's limits on federal support for > embryonic stem-cell research. It's no wonder that Reeve backed him before > he died. > > There's no question that Democrats have hyped the immediate prospects for > stem-cell research. Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), said > after Reeve's death that "when John Kerry is president, people like > Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of their wheelchair and walk > again." > > That's nonsense. Embryonic stem-cell research is still in its infancy and > it will be decades before it actually fulfills its potential to cure > people with diseases like Reeve's or Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's or Mary > Tyler Moore's juvenile diabetes. > > But the potential exists, the research is under way and it ought not be > inhibited by ideology. Bush opposes aggressive embryonic stem-cell > research because he opposes the destruction of 5-day-old embryos to > harvest their stem cells * even when those "surplus" embryos are destined > to be discarded at in vitro fertilization clinics. > > The Bush campaign falsely states on its Web site that Bush "did not in > any way limit or restrict" the research when in fact he declared that > federal funds could not be used to conduct research on any stem cells > harvested after Aug. 9, 2001. > > Opponents of stem-cell research also have hyped the prospects for > so-called "adult stem cells," derived not from embryos, but a patient's > own fat, skin or blood cells. > > Some dramatic progress has been made with cord blood stem cells obtained > from the umbilical cords of newborns, but claims that * for instance * > spinal injuries have been cured in Portugal through adult cells obtained > from eye cells have not been validated by scientific review. > > The director of Reeve's spinal injury foundation, Michael Manginello, > told me: "You know Chris. If there had been any credibility to these > claims, he'd have been on the next plane. But the overwhelming consensus > of scientists is that it's not documented, not repeatable * in fact, is > scary." > > The Bush administration is devoting $24 million this year to embryonic > stem-cell research and $184 million to adult. That is letting ideology > outweigh science. Both kinds of research deserve full funding. > > And so does medical research in general. Since 1980, largely because of > research, the average U.S. life expectancy has increased by four years > and disability rates for people over 65 had declined by 25 percent. > > Polls show that voters overwhelmingly prefer Kerry's stance on stem cells > to Bush's. They also favor increases in research funding. If not to honor > Reeve, then to do the public's will, Congress should do as it did in the > 1990s * increase research funding and let the president take credit for > it. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn