Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45

Thread: why i show no interest in esc

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    katonah , ny, usa
    Posts
    494
    the sad truth is that bush is gonna win again, esc research will stay exactly how it has been since 8/9/01. It will not be outlawed, and/or private funding limited, the Senate has too many influential members who support the research. However, in this country, research will be slow and plodding, but it will continue to move forward, not backwards. The timeframes of 15 years given back in 2001 by experts, until results are found, seems pretty darned accurate today. The dumb Democrats deserve to lose the election. They never were proactive enough with pushing for uninhibited esc research, they merely brought it up after pollsters and various political gadflies found it to be a pressing issue. I remember talking with a Dr. Levesque back around this time in 2000. He noted serious concerns if Bush were to win the election. So far his predictions are 100% accurate, 4 years have been severely compromised with esc research in the U.S. I find it rather insulting when the first lady is left to do the hatchetwork for her husband concerning wsc reearch. She feels that their has been over-hype concerning the potential for esc research. She is a librarian by trade, not a f***in' biochemist for cryin' out loud!! Bush slyly handed over this issue to her, getting it out of his way, and having her deliver the hard reality through pathetic interviews in media rags like Time and People. She and that crippled drip Charles Krauthhemmer ( or whatever ), are in cahoots. He is one of these old-school gimps who was injured back in the late sixties, early seventies, and is completely predictable and boring in his first grade assesment of the state of resarch. I hope he falls out of his chair and breaks his neck, only to suffocate on his fat lips.

    sherman brayton

  2. #22
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    Originally posted by Wise Young:

    DA, I disagree. In my opinion, President Bush has done more to obstruct spinal cord injury research and clinical trials than any president.
    so bush obstructed more then clinton, bush 41, reagan, and carter. i wonder why being president of the usa is also a license to obstruct sci research.


    I can understand that you want to support him for other reasons but please don't excuse his policies on embryonic stem cell research and spinal cord injury clinical trials.
    i never excused his policy on esc or clinical trials. i have opposed his esc policy manty times. i must be using invisible ink. if anyone i excused is you researchers who can't figure out which way the wind is blowing.

    The Federal government spends $2 billion on cancer clinical trials and research, $2 billion on aids research, hundreds of millions on other diseases. Why not on spinal cord injury?
    because we are not the darlings, we are small, we are divided, politics before cure, esc and kerry is our only hope for cure which means if kerry loses then no cure for us. we put ourselves in this lose lose position instead of playing both sides. so thank the pro cure community for putting us into this crackhead stupid position.



    I can even understand if you opposed embryonic stem cell research but you don't. You say that you want spinal cord injury research but you are willing to support a president who has not supported such research. You know that abortion has nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research and yet you spout it.
    this is not my doing. do you have any idea of the number of ppl who think esc and abortion is linked, that the only source of stem cells is esc, and that esc is the cure all. both sides, including forum members, have lied about stem cells to fit politics. yet, you say nothing about them. politics eh dr young?

    This is a President who proposed to give $1 billion to fund abstinence programs in high schools but not $300 million for clinical research to reverse paralysis.
    sad but true. why?


    Please, if you are not willing to hold the man's feet to the fire over these issues, then please stop complaining about the lack of clinical trials in the United States.

    Wise.
    TWISTING MY WORDS AGAIN. i havent complained about trials in years because nothing is worth going to trial. why dont you read my post before attacking.

  3. #23
    Even if Bush does win the elections! Which I sincereley hope not. ESC studies and funding will continue in other countries.
    What will happen when and if ESC are proven to be helpful and we are still all in these chairs.

    Will you change your priorities? Whoever is trying ASC, please continue and if you get there, great,but that does not mean we should forget ESC.

    What will happen if ESC is properly funded in the US? Even if they proved not to be helpful, at least we know that is not the way. And if they are helpful, they will be at our fingertips.

    I'm amazed at how people see Bush, he continuosly changes his opinions to fit his plans. He uses an excuse to do one thing and if something goes wrong he tries to back it up with something else or else he says he would have done it anyways. And so many Americans don't see this! What? Does he put something in the water?

    I read DA's posts and he seems a totally diferent person. I read Brayton's post and hardly recognize him, he seems so optimistic now.
    Politics are changing and dividing the SCI community to the extreme. Our goal is and should be one, our Party should be "CURE".

    [This message was edited by Sergio on 09-06-04 at 04:27 PM.]

  4. #24
    Senior Member Schmeky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    West Monroe, LA, USA
    Posts
    3,416
    Da said to Dr. Young:

    if anyone i excused is you researchers who can't figure out which way the wind is blowing.
    Ouch!!

    If I were a newbie visiting this site, we would probably appear to be a bunch of dogs lying around trying to chew each others tails off.

    DA,

    With all due respect, you said in October 2003 THE FULL CURE would be here in 18 months. Great. Why are you throwing issues around that probably have nothing to do with your prediction?

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    401
    DA,in your opinion, will spinal cord injury research get more funding with Bush or with Kerry?

  6. #26
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    Originally posted by Schmeky:

    Da said to Dr. Young:

    if anyone i excused is you researchers who can't figure out which way the wind is blowing.
    Ouch!!

    If I were a newbie visiting this site, we would probably appear to be a bunch of dogs lying around trying to chew each others tails off.

    DA,

    With all due respect, you said in October 2003 THE FULL CURE would be here in 18 months. Great. Why are you throwing issues around that probably have nothing to do with your prediction?
    clinical trials, not fully available. your right, im wasting my time with this non-sense. but it would speed up a full cure available to all if we united behind a cure instead of bush or kerry or esc.

  7. #27
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    Originally posted by VJS:

    DA,in your opinion, will spinal cord injury research get more funding with Bush or with Kerry?
    hard question because so many variables.
    9/11 hurt us bad, will there be more 9/11's under bush or kerry.
    lifting spending restriction on esc dont always mean more money or research for sci.
    is the cr bill more likely to be passed under bush or kerry? remember it will still be a republican congress.

    democrats treated reagan and bush 41 bad. republican treated clinton worse. democrats treated bush even worse. imagine the revenge a republican congress will do to kerry. i dont like it. it would hurt the cure efforts.

    however a kerry win would make it easier to hold his feet to the fire, as dr young put it.

    so to answer your question, I DONT KNOW.
    a good economy and no terrorism is our basic needs for a cure. bush gave us that for last 2 years, the question is can kerry do better?

  8. #28
    Contemporary History at its best or worst. Depends on how you look at it.

    http://www.bushwatch.com/bushmoney.htm

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    katonah , ny, usa
    Posts
    494
    Kerry would start more fundinf for sure! But, as it looks now, he is not going to win this election, and 2008 does not look too good with Mcain in the pipelines. Republicans being republicans regardless of religious idealogy will always cut back on sci research spending. ALWAYS! At this point we have to cross our fingers with Great Britiain and elsewhere to hope for restorative therapies. Here in the U.S. sci research is a bottom of the barrel priority and I am begining to agree. There is just too many opinions from professionals claiming that huge advances in sci research is not going to arise anytime remotely soon. Now this is all moot since I feel that nothing up to this point can promote any kind of valid recovery in humans living with chronic SCI. Not enough patient population, complexity of problem, lack of funding and public interest= half century

    sherman brayton

  10. #30
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    Kerry would start more fundinf for sure! But, as it looks now, he is not going to win this election, and 2008 does not look too good with Mcain in the pipelines.
    even brayton knows which way the wind is blowing. hmmmm, mccain vs clinton...wow what a match up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •