 |
 |
Hi Tom, The vote is over, and we're moving on.... This was just one issue and we didn't happen to see eye to eye, quite the contraire... I still don't agree entirely with your version of the "facts" but it has become a moot point, given the results on Prop. 71... We don't live in California but we may impact ever so slightly... You enjoy access to a somewhat different media than I and it goes without saying we can use all the awareness and exposure we can get... I'm looking forward to working with you on all the other issues to get our common point across... cheers ... murray * * * On 2 Nov 2004 at 23:50, Tom Berdine wrote: First let me say as always that I respect you both and appreciate all your hard work you accomplish every day. John Kerry's stance on stem cells was purely for votes from those the technology may help one day. I was worried that many in the community would vote on that one issue but it is evident now that the country has seen through Kerry's promises and plans for what they were--true hype. I am glad you find my points to be correct, although one sided. However keep in mind that your position is most always one sided as well. To be an effective force we have to understand and respect both sides of the issue. Did you ever see the episode of Law & Order (I belive it was Law & Order) in which a wealthy Parkinsonian pays a woman to become pregnant by him in order for him to abort it and use it for stem cells for his own use? While I do support and advocate FOR embryonic stem cell as well as SCNT I undertand the ethical concerns involved and the potential for this important research to go to far if left unchecked. South Korean scientists have cloned 30 human embryos to obtain cells they hope could one day be used to treat disease. This to a degree scares me. This technology was the same that was used to clone Dolly. But still I support it as I see the good that potentially be derived from embryonic stem cells. It is my hope that the community will focus on what we have vice what do have not. Awareness and support for the work such as Dr Levesque is doing in my opinion is something we need to rally behind. But at the same time continue to press for further raising of funds from the private sector for embryonic stem cell research. Both are vital to our futures. In closing please let me say that "I am sorry" if I have let the community down. But I could not go on "trying" to believe the positions that were not entirely truthful and were/are misleading the public. You don't know how many people who I have spoke to who "belive" that Bush has a total ban on all stem cell research. Best Regards, -----Original Message----- From: Murray Charters [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 5:03 PM Subject: Re: Celebrities Mislead & Confuse The Stem Cell Issue Dear Murray, thank you for alerting us to this article of Tom's. November 1, 2004 -- Like you, Michael J Fox, and tens of thousands of others in the United States, I too am a young onset Parkinson's disease patient. Like you, I do not have star power to influence voters. I am not a star, like Michael J.Fox, or Mel Gibson, or a prize-fighter, or a famous televangelist, or the President, all of whom use their power to influence the debate on the stem cell issue. I am simply a citizen with ten years of Parkinson's behind me, and an uncertain future ahead of me. I receive a small SSDI disability check, which allows me to call myself "retired" on forms if I don't want to write "disabled" in the occupation box. While we do not have star power, we have something we share with millions of others, including Michael J Fox: we each have one vote tomorrow and while Michael J Fox might walk in and out of the voting booth in the light of the cameras, my vote-God willing-- will be counted the same as his. And I do have the power to influence voters, as do you, which is why I am writing this response. I am afraid voters will read your opinion and be swayed by its arguments, which I find one-sided when not actually incorrect. You write: "There is no total restriction on stem cell research in the United States. The restrictions imposed are for "embryonic stem cell research" and the policy restricts utilizing federal funds (tax dollars) for embryonic stem cell research. It does not ban all stem cell research" That is true, and you will not find a proponent of furthering embryonic stem cell research with serious public funding who would dispute this. But it is also true that the federal government under the administration of George Bush has severely restricted public funding for embryonic stem cell research. The provision of $25 million in total grants for embryonic stem cell research last year is pathetic, and anti-embryonic stem cell research rhetoric can only claim that it is a record high for such funding because it was the first year in which the federal government actually funded any embryonic stem cell research. The consensus among scientists is that $25 million in public funding is not a serious commitment by the government to embryonic stem cell research. So the claims of those opposed to this research are consciously misleading and anyone with a familiarity with the issue would know that. Those opposed to real government funding for embryonic stem cell research and use these arguments are cynically playing on the ignorance of the general public with regard to a complex issue of science. "Researchers in the United States are free to use pre-existing lines using federal money and new lines using private funding to pursue embryonic stem cell research." What isn't said here again takes some close listening to comprehend. The pre-existing embryonic stem cell lines number a mere fraction of what President Bush claimed in his August 2001 address to the nation which established the current policy. And those lines that did exist are seriously flawed. They were nourished with "mouse feeder cells," which makes them unfit for any human research application because of the possibility that animal viruses could contaminate human subjects in clinical trials. Even if they were not contaminated, they are too few in number to provide a genetic base for any widespread applications. Despite these limitations, their scarcity has made them proportionately expensive to other research needs, i.e., they cost a lot. "Embryonic stem cell research in fact is flourishing at Universities as well as through private grants across the United States. Not to mention the work being accomplished worldwide. Adult stem cells have brought us treatments and cures for over 140 conditions. Embryonic stem cells have yielded none. The policy imposed by President Bush is a fair policy and it is working. Yes it was made using values and ethics, but those are two values that this country is supposed to represent." The first statement is an opinion. I am of the opinion that embryonic stem cell research is NOT flourishing, but, rather floundering in the US. And to say "through universities as well as through private grants" as if university research did not depend overwhelmingly on private endowments and contributions is plainly misleading Yes, embryonic stem cell research is being done across the world (as is adult stem cell research), with almost daily breakthroughs being reported in Singapore, Norway, South Korea, the UK and many other countries. In my opinion, that is all the more reason why the US should aggressively fund embryonic stem cell research. The US has by far the greatest resources to put into this research, so far beyond that of other countries that it is embarrassing to rely on them to pay for work that will benefit everyone. More importantly, it has started a "brain drain" from the US as our scientists leave to conduct research without unreasonable restrictions in other countries. This damages our leadership in science and will deprive the US of the revenues that come from advances generated by US scientists in foreign countries. How can we safeguard this research against abuse if we leave it in the hands of foreign countries or the private sector of our own country? By leading the world in this research we have the power to shape the ethical standards applied worldwide to embryonic stem cell research. It is by this means that we can influence other nations to apply the values and ethical standards held by the mainstream of the American public. And I submit to you that the values and ethics of the current president are alarmingly out of step with those held by the average American citizen. The statement that adult stem cells stem cells have been effective in treating many (perhaps 140, I hear many different figures but the point is made) illnesses and embryonic stem cell research has yielded nothing is true only in the most reductive sense, and you of all people should know how intentionally misleading that statement is. Adult stem cell research has been actively pursued in the decades since they were first isolated almost 30 years ago, and have been effective in mainly diseases of the blood such as leukemia. Embryonic stem cells were isolated by James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1998---just six years ago. The comparison is completely unfair and purposely misleading, because of the length of time the two types of stem cells have been available for research. Furthermore, research on adult stem cells has benefited precisely because it has received the kind of public funding that has been denied to embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research has shown great promise in its "infancy," or early stages of development. At the aforementioned universities, such as Harvard and University of California-Irvine, Parkinson's disease and spinal cord injuries have been successfully treated in animal models. Wouldn't that inspire most governments to actively support such work instead of treating it like a bastard child? Frankly, I am sick and tired of answering these diatribes. People are capable of making up their own minds once they have researched the issue themselves. So go read the material - from both sides (surf http://www.yeson71.com for a pro discussion). Keep an open mind. If you believe this is a pro-life/choice question, let's discuss it on that level. If you think this is a scientific battle, well, let's go there. But don't disguise a hidden pro-life agenda in the guise of misleading and incomplete scientific arguments. You know better, and as a person dealing with a chronic illness and having looked at the issue of stem cell research closely, you owe it to those who are less informed to be honest and straightforward in your arguments and your intentions. Tomorrow is an important day, for me, for all Californians, for the US, for the world. I hope that I can wake up Wednesday morning with a sense of pride in being an American in a world where America is trying to do the right thing. Sincerely. Ann Campbell Wasson Greg Wasson ______________________________________________ I have changed my name: from Ann Jeanette Campbell to Ann Campbell Wasson, from Ann Campbell to Ann Wasson, from ajc (AJC) to aWc or ACW but you can still call me aj ______________________________________________ SOURCE: Ann & Greg Wasson * * * This initiative may impact the lives of everyone of us. If you know one voter in California please contact that person and influence their vote on our behalf. It's time to start - with Proposition 71 cheers ... murray Murray Charters <[log in to unmask]> Please place this address in your address book Please purge all others Web site: Parkinsons Resources on the WWWeb http://www.geocities.com/murraycharters ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn