Amniotic fluid found to be a source of ESC.....

 Another source of deriving embryonic stem cells without killing the baby. I heard Dr. Ming Wang speak of this at a meeting on using this source to cure blindness. As he said...God's way is always best.

 British researchers said they had succeeded in reprogramming amniotic fluid cells without having to introduce extra genes.

This suggests the possibility that stem cells derived from donated amniotic fluid could be stored in banks and used for medical therapies and in research, they said, offering a less problematic alternative to embryonic stem cells.

Pix: AP

Tennessean: headline incomplete due to space,ignorance or to advance liberal agenda ??

Article in Tennessean yesterday had a catchy headline.That is what it if for. To attract your attention and get you to read the article. Too bad the headline is not always accurate. I know space is limited but sometimes key words are left out on purpose due to agendas or ignorance. Many reporters do not have a good knowledge of the subject matter; but often there is an agenda. The Tennessean is a liberal paper and it is easy to see their agenda. This article was on stem cells. Many, unfortunately, skim over the words and do not understand the difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells.

The article tells about two ladies in this area suffering from degenerative diseases, MS and spinal cord injury. They travel abroad for ADULT stem cell treatments. Neither one brought the success they had hoped for but it allowed them, in one case, some relief and in the other case closure. I wish the reporter would have clarified the difference between adult and embryonic stem cells. They tend to lump them together in an attempt to confuse and persuade the public. There is promise in adult stem cells, the kind that come from umbilical cords or your own cells or other cells that do not require killing in order to use. There should be more money invested in this research. Embryonic stem cells are derived from killing the embryo which is LIFE in an early form. We were all embryos at one time.

  I wish the reporter had realized that there never has been a ban on embryonic stem cell research but a ban on using tax money to fund this. What researchers really want is an open wallet of tax money to do their research. Think it is not important that the embryo is killed to do this?? Because it is so small and does not yet  look like a baby or going to die anyway? Then do not criticize the Nazis for their experiments on the Jews in the prison camps who were the subject of experimentation to further their science. They were destined to die in the gas chambers eventually so why not use them for experimentation?

We are no better. No one has to teach us how to be selfish....it comes naturally to us. But look into the face of snowflake baby and ask if that life should be ended to  help another born life.  Why not invest in adult stem cell research which has shown such promise without the ethical dilemna! Agendas and incomplete reporting......yuk.

Cal Thomas: Evolutionists are deaf to the uniqueness of human life

 Tennessean had a great column from Cal Thomas but relegated it to the online version only......figures... it does not fit in with their liberal group think.

In ret­ro­spect, great hor­rors are usu­ally seen as spring­ing up full-formed. Many peo­ple didn’t notice the small steps that led to the Nazi Holo­caust or to the sell­ing of African slaves in the pub­lic square. Senses must first be dulled; reli­gion triv­i­al­ized; and self enthroned before tol­er­ance for the hor­rific is accepted.

Amer­i­can nov­el­ist Walker Percy saw clearly where the tin­ker­ing with human life leads. In The Thanatos Syn­drome, Percy wrote, “You are a mem­ber of the first gen­er­a­tion of doc­tors in the his­tory of med­i­cine to turn their backs on the oath of Hip­pocrates and kill mil­lions of old, use­less peo­ple, unborn chil­dren, born mal­formed chil­dren, for the good of mankind — and to do so with­out a sin­gle mur­mur from one of you. 

TN: Vanderbilt Dr. makes weak claim for federal funding of Embryonic stem cell research...they are going to die anyway!

Dr. Frank H. Boehm, a pro­fes­sor and vice chair­man of Van­der­bilt Uni­ver­sity Med­ical Center’s Depart­ment of Obstet­rics and Gyne­col­ogy pens an opinion piece for the compliant and left leaning Tennessean on ESCR.   He should have started off with a disclaimer that he is an employee of Vanderbilt who will losing millions of dollars of federal funds unless the law is changed on this issue.  He starts off with a story about  11th cen­tury, reli­gious lead­ers warning  that treat­ing ill­ness with med­i­cine demon­strated a lack of faith in God. Well, that is not a good example, but of course he was trying to say those who oppose ESCR are ignorant.  By treating the illness you were not causing the death of one individual ,no matter how small, to do research in the hopes of improving the life of another. Here are some of his points.

While I respect those indi­vid­u­als who con­sider har­vest­ing stem cells from embryos akin to abor­tion, I am also mind­ful of the axiom that is spo­ken by trans­plant sur­geons, “Don’t bury organs, trans­plant them to save lives.” This slo­gan can be used by those who sup­port research on human embry­onic stem cells.

There is no ques­tion that frozen embryos rep­re­sent poten­tial life and unfrozen embryos rep­re­sent end of life, but we no longer live in the 11th or 18th cen­tury. We need to come to terms with the real­iza­tion that although dis­card­ing embryos may be con­sid­ered a form of death by some, using embry­onic stem cells for research can mean life for others.

His biggest argument is that the embryos are going to die so why not try to get some good out of them. Scott Klusendorf uses a simple example to that tired argument.  Why not take the prisoners on death row who are destined to die and kill them for their organs....the argument is the same. They are condemned to death....all appeals exhausted, then kill them and use their organs. For those who say this is a religious or moral argument in disguise.....science must always answer moral arguments.

From Klusendorf:

Consider President Obama’s own justification for funding embryonic stem cell research. He’s repeatedly told the nation that ideology should not interfere with scientific progress.
Really? First, the claim that ideology should not get in the way of science is itself an ideological claim — and a highly controversial one at that. Second, if he is correct that scientific progress trumps morality, one can hardly condemn Hitler for grisly medical experiments on Jews. Nor can one criticize the Tuskegee experiments of the 1940s in which black men suffering from syphilis were promised treatment, only to have it denied so scientists could study the disease. Pro-life advocates are not anti-science. We are not anti-cures. We just insist that scientific progress be tied to moral truth.

photo credit: Tennessean

Down to the wire: Pro-life help needed to block taxpayer funding of human embryo research

 In TN, the ones we need to focus on is the following Dems....Tanner, Cooper and Gordon. Now I know that Gordon and Tanner are retiring and it is harder to pressure them but we need to let them know how we feel and if they want to retire in "good standing" they will listen to their constituents. Cooper of course is trying to paint himself as a conservative Dem so he should be pushed to say how he will vote.


Down to the wire: Pro-life help needed to block taxpayer funding of human embryo research

One other point in our favor. DeGette’s legislation in the House, and Specter’s companion legislation in the Senate, are comprehensive. They allow funding for clone and kill and even for the creation of chimeras (animal/human combinations). They only ban implanting clones in uteruses.  Even pro-escr legislators in the past have opposed this sort of all-encompassing legislation.

WSJ:Stem-Cell Plaintiffs Cite Ethical Motivation

 Cross posted at Jivin J.....a must read to understand this debate. Picture from WSJ article.

Today’s WSJ carries an exclusive by Janet Adamy and Laura Meckler about the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that blocked, at least temporarily, federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. In an interview, the two scientists, James Sherley and Theresa Deisher, raised ethical objections to destroying human embryos for medical research.
Deisher, a self-described former “left-wing liberal,” slammed the research, and said her own field of adult stem-cell science is more promising.
Here are some edited excerpts from the interview:
WSJ: How did you become involved with this issue?
Deisher: I had been working on stem cells and regenerative medicine really since I was a graduate student, and that was back in 1985 to 1990 at Stanford. At that time, the entire field of regenerative medicine was against scientific dogma. All the scientists were telling me back then “No, you’re crazy. There’s no such thing as regenerative medicine.”
In 1995-1996, I really sort of stumbled on the first adult cardiac resident stem cells. That created a huge furor at my company. At that time, I was really a left-wing liberal. I don’t know at that point that I would have morally objected to the use of human embryos for research. I have come to the point where I do because when you work in this area you’re forced to face those kind of issues. The best thing for a patient is always their own stem cells whenever that’s possible. Why wouldn’t we be celebrating and promoting adult stem-cell research?
Sherley: I’m an M.D., Ph.D.-trained scientist, and what that means in this country is my education’s been funded by taxpayers and my laboratory and research is funded by it as well. In my training, what I’ve realized is scientists have a responsibility to the people, and that’s to do the best research that we can do. With [National Institutes of Health] funding, that’s research that’s going to have the goal of leading to the better health of people.
About 2004, I was sitting in my kitchen with my kids listening to the radio – I have two daughters – and I heard one of my colleagues responding to a question from an interviewer. The question was, “Do scientists and physicians know when life begins?” And the response was, we weren’t sure. I knew that not to be the case. My whole reason for being here now is because of recognizing there’s a need for scientists to give the public information that’s correct. And then the public can make more informed decisions about what we should do with embryos and embryonic stem cell research.
WSJ: What did you think of President George W. Bush’s stem-cell policy (under which scientists could use a limited number of existing embryonic stem cell lines)?
Sherley: I didn’t like it either. The analogy one can give is this. Somebody goes into a house and they steal something. They sell it to somebody else and that person then uses it. Somebody else destroys the embryos. The question is whether that’s ethical. In my view, and many others, it’s not.
WSJ: What role did religion play in your involvement in this?
Deisher: President Barack Obama actually said in one of his speeches in the last year and a half that we weren’t going to allow morals to interfere with science. Our entire scientific process in the United States is predicated on respect for other people’s morals and philosophies. That’s respect for the people who are concerned about animal rights. Our research, all of our protocols, are very highly restricted and vetted, and it’s out of respect for people’s philosophies. So why would one choose to do something and to put American resources on this if it’s not safe, those cells form tumors, they’re not effective, they’re extremely expensive and they offend the morals of half of your population?
WSJ: Since you filed the lawsuit, have you gotten angry calls or emails?
Deisher: I have, and I’ve gotten them from people who don’t understand the science.
Sherley: Lots of emails from people I don’t know. Maybe two handfuls.

Spin machine in full force to keep the $$ flowing for ESCR

 Jill Stanek wrote an informative post with some inside information gleaned from a conference  call from  the  White House, Dept. of Justice, and National Institutes of Health  to liberal supporters and beneficiaries of federally funded embryonic stem cell research. The WH operatives told them to start the publicity machine going to get support for ESCR and purport   great public support. This is contrast to recent Rasmussen Report showing 57% OPPOSE funding of ESCR. They are encouraged to  get the spin going....

The local paper, The Tennessean, wrote a headline story last Sunday entitled 
Stem Cells: From researcher to plaintiff, TN enmeshed in embryo debate.
Actually it should have said embryonic stem cells but that is customary with print stories...often the author is not up to speed on the issue or deliberately seek to confuse/influence with the slight of hand on the words or it could be a space thing...but the story was pretty balanced.  On to my point, they tell how Vanderbilt in Nashville is  significantly hurt  by this court decision which they said hit them by surprise..gosh don't they have lawyers over there that can read the law???   Obama, the constitutional law professor, signs the appropriations bill including the Dickey Wicker amendment banning the use of federal funds for the destruction of ESCR two days after his much publicized Executive Order authorizing the use of federal funds for ESCR.....so I guess I should not be so hard on Vandy lawyers if even the POTUS does  it. But anyway the article points out how upset Vandy is with the loss of the very lucrative income from federal funding.... once you get plugged into the public trough, the good times just keep on rolling.

"The impact of the court statement is becoming painfully clear," said Dr. Mark Magnuson, director of the Vanderbilt Center for Stem Cell Biology. "Unless it is reversed, we will likely need to cease any and all work that involves the use of human embryonic stem cells. Already, we have halted all of our own experimental plans."
Vanderbilt also could have to suspend adult stem cell studies if any research equipment used was purchased with federal grant money for embryonic stem cells.

Today the liberal  Tennessean complied  by publishing an  editorial   from Stephen S. Ent­man, M.D., is pro­fes­sor emer­i­tus, obstet­rics and gyne­col­ogy, at Van­der­bilt Uni­ver­sity Med­ical Center. It was pretty weak in evidence and vague  but of course it was meant to rally support for spending tax money on ESCR for unrealized  cures but building  hopes for cures to come. He glosses over the fact that the embryo must be destroyed to get their  stem cells and with a courtesy nod to the life begins at conception "belief"  ...goes on with his half hearted comments. I almost felt like he got the assignment from someone on the conference call  to get the advocacy going since they benefited so handsomely from the funding.

The embryos that are avail­able for research will never achieve life beyond their cur­rently frozen state; the other options are dis­mal — or worse.
Nation­ally, there are tens of thou­sands of frozen embryos. Nobody really has a pre­cise count.

Alas, today Politico is running a story  about DeGettte (D CO) trying to rush through a bill permitting funding for ESCR. She is working to see that "pro life Dems" won't raise objections...unfortunately that is not too hard to get as we saw from the Obamacare vote. She hopes that this will help the Dems in the upcoming election and even says they will paint the opponents as extremists. She says the stars are aligned in her favor. Hmmmm ....isn't that something Obama said during the campaign. Maybe she was getting her talking points from the conference call from the WH and NIH.

Tennessean: Tennessee enmeshed in embryonic stem cell fight

Sunday's Tennessean featured this article on ESCR . Vanderbilt is on one side wanting federal money for their research. No mention of the fact that private funding is allowed. It is federal money they really want because once you turn on that facet, it never seems to get turned off.

 The article did mention in Dickey Wicker Amendment that originated in 1995 under Clinton but failed to mention that Obama signed the annual appropriations bill  including the Dickey Amendment two days after his much heralded Executive Order allowing for federal funding. It is almost comical that two days after the infamous EO he signed a bill that upheld the provision that federal funding NOT be used to destroy embryos for research. No one argues that the embryo is destroyed to get the stem cells but the govt. and those who seek to profit from it like Vanderbilt want to argue that the amendment does not apply to research on embryonic stem cells because they are not embryos. The good judge sees it differently.

"After filing a federal lawsuit 18 months ago, the Tennessee-based Christian Medical and Dental Association and others involved in the suit are cheering the recent court injunction as a victory on moral ground. "It's not a matter of if we should be doing regenerative medicine research; it is a question of where we get the stem cells," said Dr. David Stevens, chief executive officer of the representative group for 17,000 medical professionals, headquartered in Bristol in the northeast corner of Tennessee. "We crossed the line of ethical medicine." Opponents believe destroying an embryo to harvest its stem cells is the equivalent of taking a human life. They point to adult stem cells, taken from a living donor, as a more ethical alternative."

"Many opponents of embryonic stem cell research, including the National Embryo Donation Center in Knoxville, believe scientists should focus on developing cures from adult stem cells. They also support studying induced pluripotent cells, which are adult stem cells modified to behave like embryonic ones."Adult and induced pluripotent stem cells are now being used to treat or investigate more than 70 disease conditions, compared to only one clinical trial with embryonic stem cells," said Dr. Jeffrey Keenan, medical director of the National Embryo Donation Center. That clinical trial, involving therapy for spinal cord injuries, began last year."

Stem Shell Game Exposed: Obama signs bill blocking federal funding of ESCR two days after he signed EO allowing ESCR

 Monday August 23, 2010
from Life Training Institute

http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/

Excellent article
 
 Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. issued an injunction on the use of federal funding for embryo-destructive stem cell research.

The New York Times’ (for one example) reaction to the announcement was one of stunned indignation: "The ruling came as a shock to scientists at the National Institutes of Health and at universities across the country, which had viewed the Obama administration’s new policy and the grants provided under it as settled law."

What the Times failed to note in its story was that Judge Lamberth was not the first federal official to strike a legal blow against President Barack Obama's stem cell "policy" and thereby block federal funding of embryo destructive stem cell research. The first such move actually occurred on March 11, 2009. That move was made by ... President Barack Obama. The fact is that Judge Lamberth's ruling is perfectly consistent with the law. While the administration, with great public fanfare, claimed to have "lifted the ban" on ESCR with his March 9, 2009 Executive Order (EO), Mr. Obama quietly overrode his own EO just two days later when he re-signed (as has every president since 1996) the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to a federal appropriations bill (as Scott noted in his post on the subject). The Dickey-Wicker Amendment bans public funding of research that destroys human embryos. Mr. Obama signed it. He didn't call a big press conference to herald the occasion because doing so would not fit the narrative he is trying to sell about his forward looking faith in science as opposed to the Luddite opponents of ESCR. The dirty little secret here is that the stem cell research EO Mr. Obama and those who are carrying his water have called "policy" and referred to as "settled law" is a hollow document that carries no legal force. His signing of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment into law is binding and the unquestionable basis on which Judge Lamberth rendered his decision. The reality of that fact is something pro-lifers need to soak in. Though it is becoming a fading memory, it serves to remind us of another EO Mr. Obama issued during the health care debate. In exchange for the votes of so-called "pro-life" Democrats, Mr. Obama issued an EO proclaiming there would be no federal funding of abortion in the health care bill. They bought it. He signed it. And now we are left with an EO on abortion that contains the same amount of legal power we find in his EO on stem cell research. None.

Judge rules that federal finding cannot be used for embryonic stem cell research

Wonderful ruling  discussed in this article from Politico.
Some excerpts:

"A federal judge on Monday issued a temporary ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, sidetracking President Barack Obama’s executive order which had expanded federal funding for human stem cell research last year."

"U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that the order, which Obama signed in March 2009, violated a federal law that prohibits the use of federal funds for research practices that result in the destruction of a human embryo."

"According to the ruling, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which Congress passed in 1996, clearly prohibits the use of federal funds for stem cell research, regardless of whether the stage of research directly involves the destruction of an embryo."

"The ruling stems in part from an appeal by Nightlight Christian Adoptions, a nonprofit group that advocates for adoption of “snowflake babies” – children born from stored, fertilized human embryos. The group had argued that Obama’s executive order was illegal, and that embryonic stem cell research reduces the number of children available for adoption"

This does not mean that embryonic stem cell research can still be done with private funding. I am sure they will not be happy since it is the  public monies that they desire.

Van Dyke: Adult Stem Cell Research promoter

 I always liked Dick Van Dyke and here is another reason to.  Cell Therapy Foundation  has him as a spokesman. What I really like is he is contrasting his former TV wife Mary Tyler Moore who supports embryonic stem cell research and said " embryos bear as much resemblance to a human being as a goldfish.”

Mark Pickup: Shame on the MS Society

Mark Pickup  writes a strong and brave post taking to task the Multiple Sclerosis Society for their desire to use ESCR and encouraging others to support the passage of legislation. Since Mark suffers from MS he can say with boldness  what the  healthy cannot voice.

"After more than 26 years with this progressive disability, I know what discrimination and exclusion is like. Why would I accept any treatment based upon the belief that other human life is of less value -- so much less value that it is expendable?!"

Nortre Dame: Values-based decision making award to GE despite their involvement in ESCR

 Here we go again with Notre Dame. They have no shame.


From Spero News

The University of Notre Dame has ignored a request to rescind the University’s May 2010 honor to General Electric (GE) for “values-based decision making,” despite the company’s involvement with embryonic stem cell research, according to a press release from the Cardinal Newman Society.

In a letter dated June 1 to Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins, C.S.C., Cardinal Newman Society President Patrick J. Reilly wrote, “Given Notre Dame’s Catholic identity, especially considering its ‘Statement Supporting the Choice for Life’ issued a month ago, it is contradictory and potentially scandalous for the University to honor a company which is in clear conflict with the teaching of the Catholic Church.”

“Although the award has already been given to General Electric,” continued Reilly, “I strongly encourage you to publicly revoke the honor so that progress made by Notre Dame as a Catholic, pro-life institution may continue. Most importantly, I suggest that this honor and last year’s commencement controversy point to the value of a consistent university policy on honors and platforms to uphold Notre Dame’s Catholic mission.”

As of this date, The Cardinal Newman Society has not received a response from the University.

On May 28, the University of Notre Dame issued a press release announcing the 2010 recipients of the Mendoza School of Business’s Notre Dame Executive Education awards. GE was among the awardees honored for “commitment to values-based decision making.

Last year, GE launched a partnership with Geron Corp., a world leader in embryonic stem cell research and cloning, to sell products derived from embryonic stem cells. Reuters reported that Konstantin Fiedler, general manager of cell technologies at GE Healthcare, said, “This could replace, to a large extent, animal trials. Once you have human cells and you can get them in a standardized way, like you get right now your lab rats in a standardized way, you can actually do those experiments on those cells.”

In April, Forbes Magazine identified Geron (citing the partnership with General Electric) as one of four “standard-bearers for stem cell therapies.” Forbes noted that “Geron’s treatment for spinal cord injury was the first human embryonic stem cell therapy to receive FDA approval for a clinical trial.” In 2000, Geron patented the technologies used to create the infamous cloned sheep “Dolly.”

According to the Cardinal Newman Society, there are also indications that GE may itself be engaged in embryonic stem cell research, or at least intends to pursue it. In 2008, GE identified “[r]esearch involving embryonic stem cells” as a company priority in demonstrating “responsible citizenship.”

Since 2005, GE company policy has allowed research using embryonic stem cell lines that are approved for use by the federal government. Last year President Barack Obama allowed federal funding for research using new stem cell lines from destroyed human embryos—but even President George W. Bush’s limited approval or research on pre-existing stem cell lines was condemned by the U.S. bishops as “morally unacceptable.”

The U.S. bishops also mandated in 2004: “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

In June 2010, The Cardinal Newman Society protested Boston College’s decision to honor General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, who delivered the university’s commencement address and was awarded an honorary degree.

Notre Dame University has come under fire from Catholics and other Christians for its invitation to President Barack Obama despite his fervent defense of women's right to abortion.