View Full Version : John Edwards-Faith Healer
10-12-2004, 01:31 PM
<font color="blue">Oral Roberts and Benny Hinn would be proud... </font color>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote John Edwards:</font><hr> 'When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again'...
<font color="blue"> President Bush has authorized $20 million bucks this year for stem cell research, just not for embryonic stem cell research.
and the insanity continues unabated.. </font color>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote John Edward:</font><hr> 'When John Kerry is president, people like <font color="red"> Christopher </font color>Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again'...
<hr /></blockquote> I guess John Edwards was not as good a friend with Christopher Reeve as John Kerry. In the last debate, Kerry referred to his good friend, "Chris" Reeve. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Kerry:</font><hr> <font color="red"> Chris </font color> Reeve is a friend of mine. <font color="red"> Chris </font color>Reeve exercises every single day to keep those muscles alive for the day when he believes he can walk again, and I want him to walk again. <hr /></blockquote> I do think it is ridiculous of Edwards to be stating that, had Christopher Reeve still been alive during the Kedwards Presidency, he would be healed. I don't think there are many people out there that believe we are less than 4 years away from these types of miracles.
Why is it insane to criticize a president that opposes funding embryonic stem cell research that most scientists say might lead to breakthrough therapies for many devastating diseases?
He is totally hypocritical on this. The embryos are left over from the in-vitro fertilization process. If he thinks that destroying these 5 to 6 day old 100-cell embryos is "taking life" then why doesn't he oppose in vitro fertilization procedures? Has he said a word against that in his stump speeches? Is it ok to "take life" to make babies but not to try to find cures for diseases? And why doesn't he oppose the private funding of embryonic stem cell research? It's ok to "take life" if it is done with private funding?
And his arguments that adult stem cells research is a substitute for embryonic stem cell research is just plain wrong scientifically.
And then his spokesmen make the bogus argument that there aren't any cures yet due to embryonic stem cell research. Well, duh, that's because it is in the early research stage.
And his final bogus argument is that we already have 60 cell lines to work with. Well the truth is that only about 20 of those are usable, and even they aren't suitable for much of the research because they were grown in mouse cells and are contaminated with animal viruses.
And if indeed the entire federal budget for stem cell research in general is a paltry $20 million, then that is really sad. As a random example of what a drop in the bucket that is in federal spending, the US just bought 50 transport planes that were built with no oversight*, don't meet military specifications, are unsafe, and now sell for about 64 million each.
* If you want to read about that "look the other way" handout of taxpayer money to a military contractor boondoggle go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10266-2004Jul23.html :
"The planes are undergoing a fourth set of modifications and, as of the end of 2003, had 33 outstanding deficiencies considered capable of causing "death, severe injury or illness, major loss of equipment or systems, or directly restrict[ing] combat or operational readiness," according to the inspector general's report. Congress has approved spending $4 billion for the planes, and the entire program is likely to cost more than $7.5 billion."
10-12-2004, 06:56 PM
Until we have another Prez, looks like stem cell research is a dead issue with the Feds.. in California there is a ballot initiative to fund three Billion $$ for research..
The U.S. is not the only player in the stem cell game, the continent and the U.K. are deeply involved.
A severed spinal cord.. bless Reeves optimism, but that one will be a tough nut to crack - I am no whiz kid, but the experts don't have much hope, and stem cells don't seem a path for that particular problem - they could be wrong.
Benny Hinn, Kedwards?? Whatever it takes to get elected, then forget the patient, IMHO.
All Edwards was saying was that, if elected, the Kerry/Edwards administration would get rid of the ban on embryonic stem cell research, giving some additional hope to finding a cure for a range of terrible health problems.
Leave it to a bunch of win-at-all costs snake-oil salemen like Drudge to present it like Edwards was promising a cure in 4 years. You know that wasn't what he was saying, Drudge knew that wasn't what he was saying, but who cares - there may be some people out that will fall for this BS and we can get this wonderful anti-science, cater-to-the-religious-right Dubya re-elected.
What a noble cause. I bow to you Drudge, Newsmax, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh. You are such messengers for the "truth."
Excuse me while I go throw up.
10-12-2004, 11:06 PM
In the first place, all stem cell research on spinal cord injuries concentrates on adult stem cells, where there are no restrictions.
In the second place, Bush is the first and only president to ever to fund stem cell research anyway. He chose a compromise measure, which nobody was really happy with. That's usually the sign of a fair compromise. The scientific and ethical issues should be balanced when the Federal Government is the one doing the funding.
The science will get done regardless. That is the nature of research. The data will be shared, that's the nature of science. BTW, Ross, embryonic stem cells are separated when the blastule is at the 8 cell stage, not 100.
While I don't share the President's view on the matter, I do respect that other people may not share mine.
In any case, it was Edwards who was being the hypocrite here, not Bush. Medically, you do not offer false hope to people when the therapies are in their infancy, and any possible cure is years off. Any MD knows this, but Edwards, as a lawyer, clearly does not. Edwards' comment was just more of his courtroom style theatrics, like his channeling of dead babies.
And by the way, here is the actual Edwards quote (when talking about Reeves who was a staunch stem-cell research advocate):
"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again," Edwards said."
To give the false impression that Edwards was claiming that paralysis would be cured while Kerry was president, Drudge and Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist chopped out the first half of the sentence. That makes the phrase "when John Kerry is president" look like it refers to when paralysis will be cured, when it actually refers to when the research will be done. Drudge actually went so far as to capitalize the word "When" (even though it was in the middle of the sentence) to falsely make it look like the sentence starts there. Then after lying about what Edwards was saying Bill Frist criticizes Edwards for being "cruel" and giving "false hope" to patients! Edwards wants to support stem cell research that Bush opposes - so Edwards is the cruel one? What hypocritical asses.
Remember Drudge was the site to falsely report that Kerry's daughter had fled to Africa to cover up an affair. I work with a pretty conservative colleague (Bush voter) and even he has refused to read Drudge any more after that smear campaign on the daughter.
10-13-2004, 05:26 AM
It seems to me like a very calculated and deliberate statement designed to give the impression, while not quite saying it. (kinda like not saying Sadam and OBL were connected while giving that impression.) Both sides do it. What pi$$es me off, is using the memory of such a high profile individual, whose recent death is going to push some emotional buttons, for political gain. This is without a doubt one of the lowest lawyer tricks I've seen yet.
(Now...if he would promise to cure male hair loss, and a cure for choking on the money ball, I might have to reconsider my vote! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif )
10-13-2004, 06:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> All Edwards was saying was that, if elected, the Kerry/Edwards administration would get rid of the ban on embryonic stem cell research, giving some additional hope to finding a cure for a range of terrible health problems............ <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">Really? That's not the way I read it. </font color>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote John Edwards:</font><hr> 'when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again'...
<font color="blue">To me it reads like a statement of fact
I suppose we disagree. Imagine that /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Edwards needs to watch his hyperbole a bit more closely.</font color>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> All Edwards was saying was that, if elected, the Kerry/Edwards administration would get rid of the ban on embryonic stem cell research, giving some additional hope to finding a cure for a range of terrible health problems. <hr /></blockquote> Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe there is a "ban" on this research. I thought what Bush said was that the government would not be funding it. If what I am saying is correct, then the private industry is welcome to fund this themselves.
Talk about snakeoil salesman.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.