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