Skip to comments.Ron Reagan Shocker: Stem Cells WON'T Cure Alzheimer's
Posted on 07/13/2004 8:12:11 AM PDT by kattracks
Ron Reagan, Jr., admitted Monday night that embryonic stem cell research will probably be absolutely useless in the quest to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease - throwing cold water on the big media's campaign to sell the controversial science as medically effective in battling the affliction that killed Reagan's father.
"Alzheimers is a disease, ironically, that probably wont be amenable to treatment through stem cell therapies," Reagan told MSBC's Chris Matthews. So why have he and his mother, former first lady Nancy Reagan, made stem cell research their cause celeb?
"For people to suggest that [Nancy Reagan] shouldnt support this because it isnt Alzheimer's . . thats very small," a defensive-sounding Reagan responded.
He says he still backs the campaign for embryonic stem cell research because it might cure other diseases such as Parkinson's and diabetes.
But Reagan became the nation's foremost spokesman for stem cell research largely based on the notion that it might have saved the beloved fortieth president, something he now acknowledges isn't true.
The revelation could prove particularly embarrassing for the national press, which has printed hundreds of stories in recent days touting stem cell science as a cure for Alzheimer's.
Tuesday morning's New York Times report was typical:
"Scientists theorize that the cells, which give rise to all other cells and tissues in the body, could yield treatments for Parkinson's disease, diabetes and, perhaps, Alzheimer's disease, which former President Reagan had."
Monday night NBC's Kelly O'Donnell noted that, "John Kerry believes the work could lead to new cures for diseases like Alzheimer's."
But now that Mr. Reagan has contradicted the top Democrat, it's not clear whether Sen. Kerry will publicly acknowledge he and Reagan are at odds over the potential for stem cell research as a cure for Alzheimer's when Reagan addresses the Democratic convention at the end of this month.
Well, well. Look who just caught up. Did Ronny finally do a little research?
Forget Alzheimers. Twinkle toes appearance at the Dim convention has one purpose only, and, although it will be mentioned, it has absolutely nothing to do with stem cell research.
"Alzheimers is a disease, ironically, that probably wont be amenable to treatment through stem cell therapies,"
Everything is ironic.
Thanks Alanis Morissette.
Absolutely not. He's a "I don't believe in GOD", anything for a few minutes of face time stupid dumocrat.
I'm shocked he admitted it. Usually when liberals get a piece of truth that doesn't fit their agenda they keep it to themselves.
"So why have he and his mother, former first lady Nancy Reagan, made stem cell research their cause celeb? "
Two words: Patti Davis.
The compulsion of former President Reagan's children to disrespect him while he was in office, and after he left office, is only surpassed by what they are planning to do now that he has passed away.
Its "mommie dearest" without the rationale.
It will backfire. People will be talking not about Kerry, but about Ronald Reagan and what he would have said.
That's what infuriates me. The top-of-the-hour news was covering this subject yesterday, and the guy clearly said that Bush was "blocking stem cell research". This caused me to turn around and yell "Liar!" at my radio, which was quite a shock to one of our managers who had just walked in to use the copier.
But I would guess Ron Reagan will be buried in the schedule. All they want is some counter to Zell: A "Reagan" spoke at our convention.
Nope, they're giving him primetime.
Doesn't that drive you nuts?
And they only get three hours of primetime coverage.
I really can't believe they're putting this dim bulb in primetime.
But I guess it doesn't surprise me, these people are inhaling spite these days.
Here's the link to the recent Washington Post article:
Here 'ya go.... (I googled & this was the first one I found)
Here's all they have so far at dems2004.org:
I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you suggesting the kids are using their mom? Have they exploited her love for her husband to manipulate her on this issue and try to remake the "Reagan" image in opposition to their father's positions?
I know very little of what Ron P. & Patti have been up to in recent years. Michael's been a self-promoting, exploitative mouthpiece and Mo, who seemed to be the most decent and genuine of the tribe, unfortunately passed on.
"I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you suggesting the kids are using their mom? "
Thats exactly what I'm saying.
"I'm shocked he admitted it."
He hasnt learned how to LIE LIKE A LIBERAL yet...
If they want to be part of medical research, I think they should volunteer to take the place of a rat.
An interesting article I found recently:
Origins of the Current Policy
In accordance with the "Dickey Amendment," passed each year since 1995, research involving the destruction of human embryos cannot be funded with taxpayer dollars. This is not Bush's policy; it is the law of the land, passed annually by Congress and signed by both Presidents Clinton and Bush. This law does not ban embryo research, and it does not fund embryo research. It is a policy of public silence.
In 2000, the Clinton administration discovered a loophole that would allow the NIH to provide some federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research without asking Congress to overturn the Dickey amendment. By law, the government could not fund research "in which" embryos were destroyed. But if the destruction itself were funded privately, the government could offer funds for subsequent research on embryonic-stem-cell lines derived from the destroyed embryos. In other words: A researcher could destroy endless numbers of embryos in his private lab, and then use the fruits of such destruction to get public funding. This would not violate the letter of the law, but surely the spirit.
When he took office in 2001, President Bush put implementation of the Clinton guidelines on hold. He wanted a way to support potentially promising research, but he also did not believe the federal government should create an ongoing incentive for the destruction of human embryos. On August 9, 2001, President Bush announced his new guidelines: federal funding for research using stem-cell lines that existed before the announcement, but not for those created after. In this way, federal money would not act as an incentive for destroying human embryos in the future, but stem cells derived from embryos already destroyed in the past could be used with federal money to explore the basic science.
This was the fundamental bargain of the policy: no limits on embryonic-stem-cell research in the private sector (unlike much of the world, which regulates this practice), but no public subsidies to encourage a limitless industry of embryo destruction.
Thank you for that. I wish the media would put it out there.
This crowd still hasn't figured out that President Bush isn't a "Jr".
Well of course it's no good for Alzheimers, but at least stem cell jam is tasty on crackers, right?
President Reagan lived to be 93 years old, which is considerably longer than the current average lifespan in America. Granted, the last ten years of his life were far from quality years, but even if a cure for Alzheimer's had been discovered, I'm not sure how much longer the family could reasonably have expected the guy to live.
However much longer that would have been, he would have been tearing into junior's politics, philosophy and religion.
Just a side note : I was surprised this morning on the Imus Show, to hear Orin Hatch (Mormon) state that after a year of research, he has decided to vote FOR Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Hmmmmmmmm.
I don't see room for Ron Reagan in there.
This is going to be such a joke. Half the speakers are vets. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but Kerry should really have more to run on than he got shot at on occasion for 4 months 30 years ago. The not-so-swiftboaters, Retired Marine Lt. Col. Steve Brozak of New Jersey (whoever that is, he's a marine and only a Lt. Col., I am not impressed). Mayor O'Malley of Baltimore will be speaking on Wednesday: "Mayor Martin O'Malley is more worried about President Bush's policies than he is about al-Qaida terrorists, and he's not reluctant to say so."
Two words: Freak Show.
What a line-up! What, no Kennedy's?
Follow the money.
Yeah, Teddy's on the dais. But why would you have a guy like O'Malley who is certifiable and is only known for being nutty?
Just over four years ago, my wife gave birth to a healthy baby boy, our son Benjie. Prior to birth, we took all the standard classes and were naturally introduced to a number of products and services - including the cryogenic storage of stem cells from the blood collected from the umbilical cord and other matter. The motivation for doing this is to have a source of stem cells for Benjie and Mom (from my understanding it can't help dad as much) in the event of the onset of a variety of ills including certain types of cancer (not to mention what may be able to be done with the cells as medical science progresses). Since 2000, Benjie's stem cells have been in cold storage in Florida and available for use (The service also advertises that the cells can be donated for research and other uses).
So why is it necessary to use stem cells only from fetal tissue? What is the difference? Isn't a stem cell a stem cell? Is this issue more to do with abortion (justification) than medical science? Doesn't it also mean the more births we have, the more stem cells that would be available for research and treatment - without using aborted fetuses?
This is not a scientific answer, but I played a nurse once!
We all start from 2 cells, which have the information to become the gazillion-celled persons that we are.
Embryonic stem cells are much closer to the original 2, so are much less differentiated than even the stem cells found in your baby's umbilical cord blood (after nine whole months of specialized growth.) Those cells are much more 'controllable' in a lab setting than the original 2 or 2 week-old cells.
When is a stem cell an embryonic stem cell and not a mature (?) stem cell like found in the cord blood? Is it based on time from conception or some other factor?
Main Entry: em·bryo
Inflected Form(s): plural em·bry·os
Etymology: Medieval Latin embryon-, embryo, from Greek embryon, from en- + bryein to swell; akin to Greek bryon catkin
1 a archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching b : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception
The bold definition is the common medical usage.
It is possible for identical twins to be born if the original 1 egg and 1sperm join and then separate into 2 forming embryos. Siamese twins occur when this separation is not complete. A further disfunction of the original embryo can happen when a few of the first cell-divisions does not become a second human but a tumor of different kinds of cells called a teratoma) inside the 1 developing baby. All of these biological facts lead me to believe that the closer a cell is to the fertilization stage, the less differentiation it has - the more potential it has to become anything - so more in the realm of God's work than man's.
apologies to those who made it here before me.
NewsMax is apparently boycotting the correct spelling of French words until Chirac joins the Coalition.