Kerry/Edwards & Reeves
 

What do you guys think about the Kerry/Edwards comments about Christopher Reeves?

What comments?

I heard Edwards say in a sound byte something along the lines that if Kerry were President, Reeves would have gotten up out of the chair and walked.

I heard Edwards comments on the radio yesterday. Just like when he won the mega multi million dollar medical malpractise lawsuit, he didn't let science get in the way of his argument, or what I call blatant lies. You guys correct me if I'm wrong but I listened to a Doctor who specializes in spinal cord injuries and he went into detail on the problems of healing a severed spinal cord. He didn't think stem cell research was going to provide any answers and wasn't this what Edwards was accusing President Bush of? Reeves dying in a wheelchair because of no federal funding for stem cell research? (footnote, Edwards won a major medical lawsuit using what has since proven to be junk science) So, what do I think about the comments? Edwards has to be the lowest slime covered piece of sh*t lawyer/lawmaker I've ever seen since the president before this one.

No really, I want to know what you think.... :cool:

Mr. Harsey:

I have heard that keeping your emotions bottled up is unhealthy for you.

Once in a while, you should say what you really think.

TR

I thought his comments were both false and ironic.

False because, firstly, I am not aware of any research that confirms stem cells hold the cure for spinal injuries. Secondly, POTUS policy did not impact private funding into stem cell research. Private companies contribute the most dollars into R/D. Which leads me to the irony....

Their 'plan' to slash profits of pharmaceutical companies will impact R/D funding and innovative medicine more so than public funded stem cell research.

Probably will sway a few votes but believe the overall impact will be minuscule.

Bill:

Would you please stop beating around the bush?

How is it ironic?

Ironic is the word that came to mind but may not have been the best choice.

He implies the President's policy is holding back the progress of research and that Kerry's plan will turn it around. Cures needed require more than the federal support of human embryonic stem cell lines, they demand time and funding. It also ignores the contribution being made by private research and funding. Pharmaceuticals contribute more worldwide R/D funding than any other sector. If Kerry has his way with the pharmaceutical profits, it will cut into the biggest contributors into R/D innovation and funding... and I find that ironic.

James Taranto, from the WSJ's Best of the Web, mentioned this recently. Excerpted below:

See "Verbal Shorthand" commentary listed second on this page

Typical hyperbole, that is happening on both sides. But it's particularly egregious from the Dems, since their platform is such a hash of contradictions.

Another way it's ironic is because of the false alternative. Leaving aside the debate about the virtue of stem cell research for a minute, just suppose you're for it.

The conservatives would like to ban it on religious grounds. In this scenario, stem cell research is supressed or prohibited by decree.

The liberals would like to promote stem cell research, but because of their mistrust of capitalism, private enterprise, and humans in general they would probably find some way to co-opt all the research into a new bureaucracy. In this scenario, stem cell research is impossible because it is run by an incompetent and inefficient bureaucracy, yet the illusion that some good is being done is maintained by liberal spin doctors and demagogues.

A proponent of solution number 2 impugning someone arguing for solution number 1 is indeed ironic.

Its a complete crock of shit. Although stem cell research does indeed play an important role in researching viable treatments for SCI/D, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, ALS and several other neurological problems, stem cell research alone won't do the job. There are a host of other processes involved in SCI/D (and the other CNS-related maladies) beyond the physical damage to a spinal cord that causes paralysis, and they have nothing to do with stem cells (i.e. growth inhibitors, calcium flooding, etc). Frankly, Reeve's goal of being able to walk by his 50th birthday was a pipe dream from the start. Now, I'm not saying that continued research won't be beneficial, especially to higher level injuries like Reeve had. When you're a quad with no grip function, a treatment that gives you the ability to use your hands is an incredible leap in independence and function. If you're a high quad on a vent, being able to breathe completely on your own is mind-blowing. However, the complex motor, sensory, balance and timing requirements of walking probably won't be something enjoyed by those with paralysis in our lifetimes. Perhaps our children will see that advance.

Edwards is talking out his ass to appeal to those who don't know any better. For the record, Reeve died from complications springing from a decubitus ulcer (bed sore). What is Kerry's plan for preventing that despicable medical scourge? :rolleyes:

More frequent flip-flopping?

Lawsuits.

TR

1. The Bush Admnistration does not oppose stem cell research. It opposes embryonic stem cell research.

2. The Federal funding ban has been noted, but due to #1, keep in mind that there can be Federal funding of stem cell research, just not embryonic stem cell research.

I personally was incensed by his comments. Reeve is not even cold in his grave...and Edwards just couldn't resist. If any politician used my dead husband's plight to further his political career he'd be drinking a nice scalding cup of STFU from my own hand.

More than disgusted by Edwards.
 

What Gypsy said. Scum, utter scum - not a shred of decency (but why should I expect any?) .

I thought he sounded a lot like a faith healer bumming for money on his TV show.

TR

Didn't he though? LOL that ties in with BMT's post Sir!

ROTFLMMFAO!! It wouldn't be so funny if it wasn't so true (on both counts). :)

Basic biological research is typically done in the public sector because it relies on freedom of information, and more flexibility than the arena of "intellectual property" allows. Most private ventures have their hands in academic pots, and vice versa. Currently it appears that the NIH handles the matter, though I do not have enough experience to defend them against your charge of incompetence.

Here are the numbers for 2003. While it is true that most funds for "R&D" come from Industry, the majority of the funds for "Basic Research" come from the federal government.

http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/infbrief/nsf04307/start.htm

BTW, human embryonic stem-cell research is still in the "Basic Research" phase.

LOL...I half expected to see him jumping around with a copperhead.

I love this website. Razor, thank you. I learned a lot from that post and will use the knowledge elsewhere to point out that Edwards is full of shit.

Agreed. But as you stated there is a interrelationship that should not be discounted. Basic research is often the platform of the biopharmas industry. Studies have shown where basic research increases productivity in the private sector by 30 to 40%. Government has also benefited from these relationships by receiving royalties to put back into the money pool. Again... to my point about the irony of Edwards statement v. their position towards pharmas.

I do not agree with the POTUS policy but I do understand it. He was put in a position to address a longstanding and sensitive issue. I believe he drew a line that he felt was giving all parties a little of what they wanted... a compromise. Unfortunately, IMHO, science does lose. It will only push HESC research into the private (get into patent nightmares which keeps the lawyers in business :D ) or international arenas which will slow down discovery. But to imply what Edwards did was just absurd and disingenuous.

Here is an study that talks alittle more about the interrelationship... one can also find papers by Andrew A. Toole.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...gi?artid=34128

In respect to the NIH and their role with the stem cell policy, I think they do a fine job.

Heal the sick and cure the blind, can he turn water into wine...........hum