Michael J. Fox looks bad....

[Dr Mordrid]

In many, if not most, states and the Federal government there has been a tratition of not spending tax dollars on abortion funding since it was legalized, and this has extended to embryonic stem cell cloning etc. The specifics vary state by state.

Before you knee-jerk; this is often non-partisan save for a vocal few. There are a lot of medical ethicists who are very uncomfortable with destroying viable embryos for the harvesting of stem cells, cloning etc. and they span the spectrum from religious to agnostic to atheist and lberal to conservative.

"Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. "

[cjolley]

In many, if not most, states and the Federal government there has been a tratition of not spending tax dollars on abortion funding since it was legalized, and this has extended to embryonic stem cell cloning etc. The specifics vary state by state.

Before you knee-jerk; this is often non-partisan save for a vocal few. There are a lot of medical ethicists who are very uncomfortable with destroying viable embryos for the harvesting of stem cells, cloning etc. and they span the spectrum from religious to agnostic to atheist and lberal to conservative.

"Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. "

This is just gibberish in the face of tens of thousands of "excess" frozen embryos that will be dumped when they expire.
Why is that legal, but using them for something isn't?

[Dr Mordrid]

Because that's how it's been done for 35+ years, mainly because of a conflict about the ethics of using human embryos for experimentation.

Also remember that those embryos belong to those who put them in stasis. They have a say as well. It's the 'orphan' embryos and aborted foetuses that are controversial.

I find the whole thing stupid. The whole (supposed) idea is to enlarge the number of distinct stem cell lines available for research, right? Those could be obtained from cord blood plus cord blood;

*is a rich, non-controversial source of stem cells. With 4 million births/year a few weeks worth would vastly out-strip the number of orphan embryo sources if harvesting were organized. Abortions besides being even more controversial may or may not be numerous in the future, making that source iffy at best.

*stem cells have successfully treated children and adults. Cord blood stem cells are now used in the treatment of over 40 life-threatening diseases.

*is readily available when needed (if collected and stored at birth).

*stem cells are a perfect match for the baby and have a ~75% chance of being a match for siblings.

Plus a related source of stem cells (ex: cord blood) is always the best treatment option.

Another source, adult stem cells, have yielded 72 peer-reviewed treatments for conditions ranging from spinal injuries to leukemia.

Embryonic stem cell research: ZERO, plus with unrelated embryonic stem cells you have the possibility, some say likelihood, of tissue rejection just as you would have in a transplant.

[Kooldino]

If the ban is of no importance, why was it put in place?

Perhaps to appease the religious right?

[cjolley]

1Because that's how it's been done for 35+ years, mainly because of a conflict about the ethics of using human embryos for experimentation.

2 Also remember that those embryos belong to those who put them in stasis. They have a say as well.

3The whole (supposed) idea is to enlarge the number of distinct stem cell lines available for research, right? Those could be obtained from cord blood plus cord blood;
...

1, Because of raw political pandering to a small population of religious super conservatives.

2, What we are talking about is federal funding of research, so with the law in place they don't have any more choice than anyone else.

3, So if federal research was allowed on embryonic stem cells it couldn't be done on the other sources too? Why not? And if the idea is to enlarge the breadth of the available stem cell lines, then why cut off an entire line of research?

[Dr Mordrid]

Besides the ethical issues....

For one embryonic has been unproductive and in the case of the one of the major labs in the field, massively fraudulent (S. Korea - huge scandal).

For another until they can get some working embryonic results with private money the Feds would be failing their fiduciary duty by throwing good money after bad.

Just having more stem cell lines means nothing if rejection and tumor growth can't be managed in the existing ones or animal studies, and there's little if any sign of that.

On the other hand there is a large and growing list of working cord blood and adult stem cell therapies for numerous conditions including Parkinsons and diabetes; the two diseases the embryonics supporters always drag out when pressed.

Put the gas in the car that works....not the Pinto.

[cjolley]

The very first criteria given by NIH proves that this is a purely political policy.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/

On August 9th, 2001, President George W. Bush announced that federal funds may be awarded for research using human embryonic stem cells if the following criteria are met:
-The derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 P.M. EDT on August 9, 2001.

It's ethical, or it's not.

Put the gas in all the cars and start the race!

[Dr Mordrid]

That was to only use existing cell lines & not to destroy more embryos.

The non-partisan, non-denominational ethical problems remain. The medical ethicists aren't coming from either of those angles.

This could well all be moot; findings published in August 2006 say that differentiated cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic-like state by introducing four specific factors (Cell #126: pp 663-676).

This finding, if verified, could allow for the creation of stem cells from adult cells without any reliance on embryonic stem cells, hopefully muting the whole discussion.

[KvHagedorn]

Geez, Doc.. I bet you don't even think the witch in Hansel and Gretel was ethical! Clearly children, since they can't legally drink, vote, or have sex, are not fully vested humans yet, so they should be perfectly eligible for roasting.

[cjolley]

...

This could well all be moot; findings published in August 2006 say that differentiated cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic-like state by introducing four specific factors (Cell #126: pp 663-676).
...

Everything in research except the final answer is moot in that sense.

Eventually this will all be done using designer virii to program cells to do anything we want.

But this truncated federal funding for a line of basic research.
And it was done to please a base of voters.
If he really believed that destroying an embryo was murder, then he would shut down the fertility clinics that lead to the destruction of so many embryos.
But he doesn't. His "ethics" just happen to coincide with his political needs.
Please the base, don't offend the middle.
How convenient.

[Jessterw]

To pull things back to the original topic, Rush Limbaugh has apparently decided to try for an a$$hat award by mocking Fox's condition: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15408508/

Some choice quotes...

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."

"This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has," Limbaugh said. "He can barely control himself."

He's apparently not seen a number of interviews or public appearances by Fox since he came forward with his having Parkinson's.

Of course Fox had something to say about that...

Fox was campaigning yesterday for Tammy Duckworth, a congressional candidate, outside Chicago, when he alluded to Limbaugh's remarks. "It's ironic, given some of the things that have been said in the last couple of days, that my pills are working really well right now," he said, according to a report on the CBS2 Web site.

Then there's Limbaugh's laughable attempt at an apology...

"Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial," Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on his Web site. "All right then, I stand corrected. . . . So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act."

Then Limbaugh pivoted to a different critique: "Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician."

Finally Limbaugh can admit to the whole reason behind ignorant remarks.

[ZokesPro]

If it wasn't for his operation I think that Micheal would probably be worse off than he is now.

[Technoid]

ROFL

Someone edited the Rush Limburger page on wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh

[Technoid]

well, they removed it

[ZokesPro]

Do you remember what it said? Must have been something for two posts.