It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Kerry Claims 100 Million Americans Chronically Debilitated

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Well with the current situation all's we can hope for is that the blind will walk and the lame will see.

Bush reminds me of a guy I once saw trying to sell get-rich-quick schemes. He'd stick his hand in his pocket and say, "Well, I've got mine...".

I guess if you've 100's of millions of $$$(In illegal, immoral Nazi laundered gold), you can afford any cure that's available.

If that kind of money won't buy a cure, then you can die smug, thinking of all the stolen public money you managed to stuff in your pocket.




posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I would like for any person in a wheelchair like Christopher Reeve to be able to get up and walk. Under any President.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
Well with the current situation all's we can hope for is that the blind will walk and the lame will see.

Bush reminds me of a guy I once saw trying to sell get-rich-quick schemes. He'd stick his hand in his pocket and say, "Well, I've got mine...".

I guess if you've 100's of millions of $$$(In illegal, immoral Nazi laundered gold), you can afford any cure that's available.

If that kind of money won't buy a cure, then you can die smug, thinking of all the stolen public money you managed to stuff in your pocket.


First....what in the world are you talking about?.....the quote i made was from Edwards who is with Kerry, not with Bush...

Second, quoting sites which are just trying to influence people to their own agendas, exagerate the truth and even make up wild claims, does not help you make a point.

Was there a point to your response?



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
I would like for any person in a wheelchair like Christopher Reeve to be able to get up and walk. Under any President.


Otts, so would i, but do you think it is prudent, or realistic for anyone to make such claim?

Do you think Edwards and Kerry will keep their word and "disabled people will be able to walk again if Kerry is elected"?



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   
This is what Edwards said:



Christopher Reeve just passed away. And America just lost a great champion for this cause. Somebody who is a powerful voice for the need to do stem cell research and change the lives of people like him, who have gone through the tragedy. Well, if we can do the work that we can do in this country -- the work we will do when John Kerry is president -- people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.


What is it with some people and context?



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
This is what Edwards said:



Christopher Reeve just passed away. And America just lost a great champion for this cause. Somebody who is a powerful voice for the need to do stem cell research and change the lives of people like him, who have gone through the tragedy. Well, if we can do the work that we can do in this country -- the work we will do when John Kerry is president -- people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.


What is it with some people and context?



Curme....it is pretty much the same as i was saying....

Edwards is clearly stating that when Kerry is elected they will be able to get people who are in wheelchairs to get up and walk once more.... This is dishonest and propaganda, a promise which they cannot keep, as Edwards tries to win more votes for Kerry.

I did not take it out of context.

Honestly, do you really think that by choosing Kerry disabled people are going to be able to get up and walk again?.....


[edit on 31-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 10:42 PM
link   
A little hot under the collar, Mauddib?

What I'm saying is as long as Bush is president, they will not care about the people who can be helped by stem cell research because they don't care about anything , but stealing tax dollars.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Muaddib - what I'd hope, and this is the way I'm taking Edwards' speech, is that the next President is going to make decisions on stem-cell research that will put all the chances on the side of the paraplegics and quadraplegics. Like you, I don't think that we can cure this in four years; however, a well-placed executive decision can make a helluva difference in the long run.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Honestly, do you really think that by choosing Kerry disabled people are going to be able to get up and walk again?.....

[edit on 31-10-2004 by Muaddib]


What he is saying, with the inititives Kerry puts forth, yes, someday people will walk again. 10? 20? Years? Who knows. Yes, I believe stem-cell research will lead to that.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
Muaddib - what I'd hope, and this is the way I'm taking Edwards' speech, is that the next President is going to make decisions on stem-cell research that will put all the chances on the side of the paraplegics and quadraplegics. Like you, I don't think that we can cure this in four years; however, a well-placed executive decision can make a helluva difference in the long run.


Otts, there is a big difference between what you said, and what Edward claimed. His statement was obviously an attempt to sway public opinion by giving "false hope."

I am sure that under either candidate, there will be advances in the medical field having to do with stem-cell research.

[edit on 31-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Muaddib - yep, totally. It's electioneering, and both parties are masters at it. However, I still prefer a candidate who will put every chance on the side of research to cure spine injuries - and other diseases.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
Muaddib - yep, totally. It's electioneering, and both parties are masters at it. However, I still prefer a candidate who will put every chance on the side of research to cure spine injuries - and other diseases.


Okay, without pointing out once more the obvious "false hope" or lie that Edwards gave....why would Kerry be a better candidate because of this issue?



[edit on 31-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Here is another source on Edward's quote and the response from Kerry's spokesman...



October 13, 2004 -- TEMPE, Ariz. — John Edwards is claiming that if John Kerry wins the White House, paralyzed people like Christopher Reeve will get out of their wheelchairs and walk again — touching off a pre-debate fury. ...Edwards made his startling boast of miraculous cures to come in Newton, Iowa, after the death on Sunday of "Superman" Reeve, who was paralyzed in a 1995 horse-jumping accident.

"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 are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again," Edwards said on Monday.

He was referring to Kerry's vow to allow more federally funded research using embryonic stem cells.

Asked if Kerry agrees that the paralyzed could someday walk if he's elected, Kerry spokesman David Wade said: "That's what the scientists tell us — that we're not that far away from breakthroughs."


[edit on 31-10-2004 by Muaddib]



Maudib - every stem cell has strengths and limitations, depending on its source. Embryonic stem cells are most generally applicable. Cloning is required to provide the volume of stocks as well as the sheer number of actual cells needed for individual therapies.

Bush is working to prevent embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning from being made available to ordinary people in the USA. At the same time, he is fighting to ensuring that embryonic stem cell research AND human cloning remains legal internationally. ...protecting international legality means the research can continue in private US facilities, and continue to be legally available to the moneyed elite.

So the real issue is about rights to public access - not legality. Limited public access to stem cell therapies protects the drug industry's profits for treating secondary symptoms of diseases that stem cell therapies will cure.

FYI - Stem cell therapy has already been used to correct certain forms of blindness, and rebuild arteries after heart attacks.

Some broad backgrounders for you:

Stem Cells: Potent Potential
Disease Cures Possible With Embryonic and Adult Stem Cell Research
www.dailycal.org...

www.atsnn.com...
www1.umn.edu...
www1.umn.edu...
www.biomedcentral.com...

www.atsnn.com...
www.atsnn.com...


.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
it's also true that the pharmaceutical industry can't always be trusted


SO TRUE! They talk you into believing you are sick.
They provide the cure. Then they provide the cure
from the cure. It's all $$$$.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Thanks, Soficrow!

I didn't see the issue in such a Light before.

you clarified it for me !



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   
The 'haves' and the 'I'm sorry this treatment isn't available for yous'!

[edit on 11/1/2004 by bodebliss]



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss

I didn't see the issue in such a Light before.



Thanks bodebliss. Also check out "Bush Pushes Wrong Vaccine to Americans" for a related story, and more details how it all works.



.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Bush is working to prevent embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning from being made available to ordinary people in the USA. At the same time, he is fighting to ensuring that embryonic stem cell research AND human cloning remains legal internationally. ...protecting international legality means the research can continue in private US facilities, and continue to be legally available to the moneyed elite.

So the real issue is about rights to public access - not legality. Limited public access to stem cell therapies protects the drug industry's profits for treating secondary symptoms of diseases that stem cell therapies will cure.

FYI - Stem cell therapy has already been used to correct certain forms of blindness, and rebuild arteries after heart attacks.

Some broad backgrounders for you:


Soficrow, why is it that you are not mentioning which type of stem-cell is the one that has been giving the most success after success stories in the treatment of diseases and research on stem-cell? and why don't you mention which stem cell has not given almost any positive results?....

I am going to quote others, instead of making my "own opinion" on this issue with misconcieved ideas about stem-cell research.


The pattern in the media reportage about stem cells is growing very wearisome. When a research advance occurs with embryonic stem cells, the media usually give the story the brass-band treatment. However, when researchers announce even greater success using adult stem cells, the media reportage is generally about as intense and excited as a stifled yawn.

As a consequence, many people in this country continue to believe that embryonic stem cells offer the greatest promise for developing new medical treatments using the body's cells — known as regenerative medicine — while in actuality, adult and alternative sources of stem cells have demonstrated much brighter prospects. This misperception has societal consequences, distorting the political debate over human cloning and embryonic-stem-cell research (ESCR) and perhaps even affecting levels of public and private research funding of embryonic and adult stem-cell therapies.


This media pattern was again in evidence in the reporting of two very important research breakthroughs announced within the last two weeks. Unless you made a point of looking for these stories — as I do in my work — you might have missed them. Patients with Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis received significant medical benefit using experimental adult-stem-cell regenerative medical protocols. These are benefits that supporters of embryonic-stem-cell treatments have yet to produce widely in animal experiments. Yet adult stem cells are now beginning to ameliorate suffering in human beings.
....................
It's worth recapping just a few of the other advances made in adult-cell therapies and research in the last two years, all of which were significantly underplayed in the media:

-Israeli doctors inserted a paraplegic patient's own white blood cells into her severed spinal cord, after which she regained bladder control and the ability to wiggle her toes and move her legs. (I only saw reporting on this case in the Globe and Mail, June 15, 2001.)
-Immune systems destroyed by cancer were restored in children using stem cells from umbilical-cord blood. (There was a good story in the April 16, 2001 Time, but other than that I saw no reporting.)
-At Harvard University, mice with Type I diabetes were completely cured of their disease. The experiment was so successful that human trials are now planned. (This was reported in the July 19, 2001, Harvard University Gazette, but I saw no coverage at all in the mainstream press.)
-Diabetic mice treated with adult stem cells achieved full insulin production and all lived. This is in contrast to an experiment in which embryonic stem cells injected into diabetic mice achieved a 3 percent insulin production rate and all the mice died. (According to the May 2001 STATS, published by the Statistical Assessment Service, the embryo experiment made big news while the media ignored the adult cell experiment.)
-How many humans have been treated by embryonic stem cells? Zero. Indeed, before human trials can even be safely undertaken researchers will have to overcome two serious difficulties that stand between patients and embryonic-cell regenerative medicine: 1) ES cells cause tumors, and 2) ES cells may be rejected by the immune system. Surmounting these difficulties — if they can be surmounted at all — will take a very long time and much expense. There is no risk of rejection with adult cells, by contrast, because they come from the patients' own bodies. Nor, at least so far, does adult-stem-cell therapy appear to cause tumors. This puts adult therapies years ahead of the game.


Excerpted from.
www.nationalreview.com...

Now let's see what has happened with embryonic stem-cell research.


There are many sources of stem cells, but the two most often discussed are embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells come from early embryos within the first few days of life. Obtaining them requires the breaking apart of the embryo , which necessarily results in death. By contrast, adult stem cells can be found in virtually all tissues of the body from birth onward (as well as in umbilical cord blood and placenta) and harvesting of these cells does not harm the individual from whom they are obtained.

Despite the hype surrounding them, embryonic stem cells actually have little to offer for treatment of disease. Their supposed advantages *unlimited growth and potential for forming all tissues?are hindrances when it comes to transplants to repair damaged tissue. When transplanted into experimental animals, these cells generally continue this untamed behavior, with a tendency to form tumors or various unwanted tissues.

A recent attempt to treat diabetes in mice using embryonic stem cells showed that the cells did not form insulin-secreting cells, but did form tumors. Experiments at treating Parkinson's disease in animals gave a slight benefit, but also killed 20% of the animals with brain tumors caused by the embryonic stem cells.


The scientific literature is filled with similar results, even after over 20 years of research with mouse embryonic stem cells. Cries for more human embryonic stem cell lines to be made available for federal funding are unjustified, as research on current lines shows insufficient evidence that they are either safe or effective. Proponents are playing on the emotions of the vulnerable--lacking facts and making empty promises.


Excerpted from.
www.leaderu.com...


Some other links on stem-cell research.

First Randomized Trial Of Adult Stem Cell Injections In Heart Failure Patients Shows Benefit

STEM CELL RESEARCH


BTW, I do want to know exactly how is it that Bush can make legal or illegal international research...isn't it the choice of other countries as to what kind of research they want to make legal or illegal?...

Actually Bush made illegal, in the US, the import from other countries embryonic stem-cell research, he did not legalize it in the US....except those 60 lines from embryos which have already been destroyed.

Another thing that I see you mentioning is that "according to you" Bush is making legal human cloning, not only embryonic stem cell research as you were saying....

Would you mind posting evidence that backs this up? Because on the contrary the president has been clear that he opposes human cloning and embryonic research, except that he agreed that research should still be done on those 60 embryonic stem-cells which already exist and whose embryos were already destroyed.

Below you will find what president Bush has actually said about stem-cell research, and let me quote.


I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts, or creating life for our convenience. And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.

My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good -- to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And, like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.

I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world. And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.

Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care.

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.

Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.


Excerpted from.
www.whitehouse.gov...

---edited to correct errors---


[edit on 1-11-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TexasConspiracyNut
This post should read, " One Hundred Million People In The United States Think They Are Sick Because Of The Drug Companies Republican Majority Lobby In Washington D.C."

Money, Money, Money.

Kerry is a Democrat that is hoping the American public will believe that he has a solution to the public health problem and that will help his campain. His solution, more government, more taxes under the guise of crap like this. You see, Kerry doesn't think the American people can see through this crap and make up their own mind. This makes me for one realise Kerry is just as stupid as Bush but not as crazy. No clear winner here.

The real problem is if you aren't sick you soon will be, at least in your own mind because the drug companies can't make money off of normal people.

Advertise, advertise, advertise your drugs. that way all the people out there that are arm chair doctors can go to their real doctor and get the drug they saw on TV that will make them better because the TV said so.

What a total load of crap!

A Texas state legislator once told me that if I had a thousand dollors he would consider my opinion on a recent law. He said because I didn't have money to lobby then I was not worth his time.


Comment: Kerry is just as prepared to comfort the top of the pyramid drug companies, a chemical industry that pumps out remedies even more worthless than snake oil wagons of the 1800s.

Some of these health problems are by design, part of a subtle eugenics program that taxes the dying with medicines whose only criteria for approval is that they are less harmful than placebos. It is about worse than science fiction movies such as soylent green.

One example of this corporate-government marriage to sicken the public is the presence of bad oils such as canola and other margarines. Archer Daniels Midland stopped producing flax oil about 1950, but the damage was done by introduction of hydrogenated oils at the same time healthful omega 3 oils were removed from the public. Type II Diabetes has skyrocketed since then, while it has been common knowledge in studies from India that Flax oil practically reverses type II Diabetes in a well monitored program.

I do not even want to get into the Cancer Industry, since it too has suppressed favorable treatments; in fact that is probably the entire purpose of the American Cancer Society.

Only artificial chemistry is allowed, and the doctor's over-educated mind is as bad as an idiot after all those hours and internship. The entire focus is to buy from the top of the pyramid, the most profitable industry in the world, one whose subsidiaries create the illnesses through bad nutrition.

Of course the very rich have homeopathic remedies, and other natural means to health, while the rest of us can suck up on margarine, French fries, I mean "freedom fries," whoops, then head to a long chronic illness inspired by a flawed culture of corporate lies and looting. That industry is the most benign by the way, among other genocide inducing eugenics strategies.

These kinds of corporations and their influence must be broken forever. I do not think "prayers," alone will do, it will take every ounce of divine power within us each to crush these despicable institutions.

[edit on 1-11-2004 by SkipShipman]



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by soficrow

Bush is working to prevent embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning from being made available to ordinary people in the USA. At the same time, he is fighting to ensuring that embryonic stem cell research AND human cloning remains legal internationally. ...protecting international legality means the research can continue in private US facilities, and continue to be legally available to the moneyed elite.

So the real issue is about rights to public access - not legality. Limited public access to stem cell therapies protects the drug industry's profits for treating secondary symptoms of diseases that stem cell therapies will cure.

FYI - Stem cell therapy has already been used to correct certain forms of blindness, and rebuild arteries after heart attacks.

Some broad backgrounders for you:



I am going to quote others, instead of making my "own opinion" on this issue with misconcieved ideas about stem-cell research.


[edit on 1-11-2004 by Muaddib]



Embryonic stem cell research is legal in America - it's just not government funded, and not accessible to common people.

FYI - I read medical research - not political propaganda. But here's a simply written description:

Stem Cells: Potent Potential: Disease Cures Possible With Embryonic and Adult Stem Cell Research
www.dailycal.org...

Dr. Verfaillie is the pioneer stem cell researcher, often credited with discovering the treatment for leukemia, and currently director of the USA's premier university stem cell research center. The site offers a balanced review of the science.

www1.umn.edu...
www1.umn.edu...

To understand Bush's strategy:

Bush Blocks UN Ban on Cloning Human Beings
www.abovetopsecret.com...



.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join