Iraq Veterans for Cures Supports the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act

[Faye]

If you are looking for a group that is 100% supportive of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act,......... this is it;

www.IVCure.com

Here is another Iraq Vet who has incurred a spinal cord injury while fighting for his country:

January 27, 2006
Soldier to receive Purple Heart

TAMPA, Fla. — Army Sgt. Wayne Landis, 25, a Middleburg, Pa., native, will receive his Purple Heart during a ceremony today at the James A. Haley Veterans Hospital, 13000 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., Tampa Spinal Cord Injury Center.
He is a 1998 graduate of Middleburg High School, where he was a varsity soccer player and a wrestler.
He was deployed to FOB Courage, Mosul, Iraq, in August and was wounded in action while leading a squad in a raid in Mosul on Nov. 19.

http://www.dailyitem.com/archive/200...es/04local.htm

[Faye]

For the 95% on CC which is Pro-ESCR, here is a list of House of Representatives who voted NO on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Please look through it and see if there are any from your state who are up for re-election, send them a letter to remind them that 70% of the american public is Pro-ESCR, and urge their support for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

This is important in case Bush vetoes the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act after it passes the Senate.

Because the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will be voted on again in the House and Senate to try to get a 2/3 majority to override the president's veto.

My sincere hope though is that the Iraq Veterens for Cures ads will be so compelling that the president will not carry out his threat to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Bush has never yet used a veto on any bill passed by congress, although he once threated to veto the "anti-torture" bill by McCain, and then ended up NOT vetoeing that bill.
There is a reasonable chance that Bush will again not carry out his threat to veto, but only if we keep the pressure on and make it look politically disadvantageous to veto the humanitarian Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

The following list is not by state, but I will work some more on it and repost it by state to make it easier for everyone to find House of Representatives by state for those of you who are new to writing your representatives.

BTW you can write all House of Representatives in your state who voted No on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement act regardless of whether you are in their district or not. It is for example a way to tell them how Floridians feel about this very humanitarian act.

Also just to be complete the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act already passed the House of Representatives in May 2005 on the first pass through with an overwhelming margin of 238-194 of which 50 republican YES votes.

Now we want to be able to get 288 YES votes which means we need 50 more yes votes from the list below.

Thanks everyone for your support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act!!

---- NAYS 194 --->>>>>To be contacted for a YES



Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf

[Faye]

Likewise, stem cells can serve as sources of replacement cells that can treat many diseases that affect the brain and the spinal cord such as stroke, spinal cord injury, Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Stem cells can also be made to multiply rapidly and transform into skin cells that can cover burned areas.

http://www.mb.com.ph/HLTH2006013055042.html


There are a lot of burn injuries and head unjuries among the Iraq Veterans who also need help from Stem Cell Research!!!

[Faye]

Let's help these guys by NOT supporting any other stem cell related bill but the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act HR 810/S 471

Here are some of the most important reasons again:

Alternative Methods Of Producing Stem Cells: No Substitute For Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Use these facts to show why an amended bill will slow research:

Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research
2021 K Street, N.W., Suite 305 ¨ Washington D.C. 20006 ¨ 202.293.2856 ¨ www.camradvocacy.org



ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF PRODUCING STEM CELLS:
NO SUBSTITUTE FOR EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH


The promise of stem cell research to eventually lead to better treatments and cures for diseases afflicting millions of Americans today is powerful. The most successful method of creating stem cells is to derive them from excess human embryos – created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) - which would otherwise be discarded.

Some who oppose this method have proposed alternative methods for creating stem cell lines. These methods may be incorporated in legislation that would fail to produce the humanitarian benefits of H.R. 810. Every one of these alternative methods presents serious scientific and ethical barriers that make it less appropriate than deriving stem cells from excess IVF embryos donated voluntarily.

A few of these alternative ideas include:
§ Deriving stem cells from embryos that have stopped developing
§ Deriving stem cells from a single cell (blastomere) separated from a live embryo
§ Deriving stem cells from biological artifacts ("altered nuclear transfer")
§ Reprogramming adult cells to revert to an early, undifferentiated stage
§ Deriving stem cells from unfertilized eggs induced to divide

The problem with these approaches is that none of them has proved successful to date – and thus are not methods currently available for creating viable stem cell lines.
Legislation providing for so-called "alternative methods" is no substitute for the bipartisan legislation that relaxes the federal limitations on stem cell research. These new techniques are not yet scientifically proven and the bill merely duplicates existing NIH authority.

While we need to continue to encourage human imagination and scientific discovery into alternatives that might one day prove workable, it is now time to expand embryonic stem cell research derived from excess IVF embryos donated voluntarily. While we must be guided by ethics, we must also be guided by sound science too. And the science says these alternative methods are not currently feasible ways of producing stem cell lines.

As a first order of business, the Senate should pass the bipartisan stem cell bill (H.R. 810) that expands this promising field. Waiting on new techniques that may never develop only delays research - and makes patients wait that much longer for potential treatments and cures.

Apart from that fundamental problem, most of these methods, even if successful, do not solve the underlying ethical issue and generate only more ethical questions. Others face real world limitations of scientific feasibility and reliability.

While we need to continue to encourage human imagination and scientific discovery into alternatives that might one day prove workable, it is now time to expand embryonic stem cell research derived from excess IVF embryos donated voluntarily.


1. Deriving Stem Cells from Embryos that Have Stopped Developing

Researchers Donald Landry and Howard Zucker have proposed that stem cells could be derived from embryos that are left over from IVF procedures and have failed to divide after 24 hours in culture. The rationale is that these embryos are, in essence, "biologically dead," and thus harvesting stem cell from them is similar to harvesting organs from cadavers for transplantation. The researchers plan to monitor several hundred excess embryos that have stopped developing and look for chemical and genetic "signatures" that reliably indicate arrested development. Those signatures would be used in ongoing research to deem a particular embryo "dead" and thus available for use to create stem cells.

Limitations:

§ Diagnosing such embryo death requires methods for determining irreversible arrest, and objective criteria for determining irreversible arrest do not currently exist. As Michigan State University stem cell researcher Jose Cibelli has said, "We don't have an EEG machine we can plug into the embryo."

§ It is unknown whether such embryos could really yield cell lines, and if so, whether the stem cells would be normal and healthy.

§ Stem cell scientists prefer to work with the best materials available. As the President's Council on Bioethics observed, why would scientists settle for cells derived from dead embryos, especially since embryos that die early are generally abnormal, either chromosomally or in other ways? As one council member pointed out, it seems illogical to ask scientists to make strenuous efforts to rescue cells, potentially normal but potentially abnormal, only from those thawed embryos that have spontaneously stopped dividing, while forbidding them from using large numbers of unwanted but otherwise normal and viable IVF embryos.


2. Deriving Stem Cells from A Single Cell (Blastomere) Separated from a Live Embryo

The procedure involves growing embryonic stem cell lines from single cells ("blastomeres") that have been detached from embryos without damaging them. (This method is already used for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, to see whether the embryo carries a genetic disease.)

The appeal of this approach is that the original embryo retains the capacity to develop into a human, and a new stem cell line can be created without destroying a potential human life. However the feasibility and reliability of this method has not been proven, and it actually raises more ethical objections than does deriving stem cells from excess IVF embryos.

Limitations:

§ The proposed procedure is highly theoretical and should not be regarded as a proven alternative to current methods of deriving stem cells, which are reliable, solidly established, and constantly improving. The technology is not proven and could take years of intensive investigation by leading embryonic stem cell researchers to see whether it would reliably work. The best researchers would be starting over pursuing a course of research that is unexplored and offers no therapeutic advantage over the current method of producing stem cell lines.

§ The blastomere method does NOT avoid the ethical dilemma over whether it is acceptable to destroy an embryo to derive stem cells. In order for the blastomere method to work, researchers have to remove a blastomere from an early (four or eight-cell) embryo and then stimulate that blastomere to begin dividing and developing to the blastocyst stage, at which it can be a source of stem cells. The fact that the blastomere developed into a blastocyst means that it has the same potential as the original embryo. So if destroying the original embryo is unethical, then destroying the blastomere-created embryo is just as unacceptable.

§ Furthermore, the original embryo from which the cell is taken is being subjected to as-yet-unknown risks from the separation process. The original embryo, in a sense, is being exploited for the benefit of others. Those opposed to the creation of embryonic stem cells because it uses an embryo for utilitarian reasons (rather than the embryo's own benefit) also would oppose this method because the original embryo is exposed to a procedure that could potentially bring harm. As Leon Kass, chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics told reporters on May 12: "Blastomere extraction from living embryos, we found unacceptable ethically in humans because we do not believe that one should impose risks on living embryos destined to become children for the sake of getting stem cells for research. One might try this in animals, but it's not clear to us how the results from animal experimentation could alter this assessment of the ethical impropriety of doing this in humans."


3. Deriving Stem Cells from Biological Artifacts ("Altered Nuclear Transfer")

This method, proposed by William Hurlbut of Stanford, involves creating a kind of "disorganized" cloned embryo that would be incapable of completing its first stage of development. Before implanting DNA from a nuclear donor cell into an egg, scientists would turn off a gene that is essential for directing the proper formation of the embryo. This reprogrammed cell would still be capable of producing stem cells, but an actual embryo would never be created. Since correct development was never possible, an embryo is considered to never have existed.

Limitations:

§ There is no evidence that this technique will work. Top stem cell scientists, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, argued that Hurlbut's proposal has no scientific validity:

o There is no basis for concluding that the action of any one gene represents a transition point at which a human embryo acquires moral status;

o There is no way for determining the moral status of embryos disrupted at different stages by different mutations.

o Establishing that the technique will work would require experimentation on many hundreds or thousands of human eggs. This raises a serious ethical dilemma, for what would be the source of the eggs?

§ As this is a variation of somatic cell nuclear transfer, those opposed to therapeutic cloning would have similar objections to this approach. The 'altered nuclear transfer' approach raises ethical questions about purposefully creating and mutating embryos.


4. Reprogramming Adult Cells to Revert to Early, Undifferentiated Stage

Because this approach involves neither the creation nor the destruction of embryos, it would not prompt the main ethical objection to embryonic stem cell research. Such stem cells might then serve as a potential source of replacement cells for the donor of the adult cell. These replacement cells would be genetically identical to the donor and thus would probably not be rejected.

Limitations:

§ There is no way of knowing whether this method will ever succeed. Research in this area is at a very preliminary stage, and scientists do not know whether it's even possible to dedifferentiate cells, let alone have them go back to the early stage and then forward. Researchers are already struggling with the second half of this process – coaxing cells to develop into an intended cell type – and expect years of very hard work before having success. Given the urgency of stem cell research to produce new therapies, it would be foolhardy to add an even more difficult, if not impossible, step to the process.

§ Even if the method is successful, the resulting cells produced by the technique might not be normal. Cells do not naturally revert to their earliest stage and then develop into a different cell type. It is impossible to gauge how reprogramming the cells might affect expression of the genes in the cells, possibly causing them to malfunction at some point.


5. Deriving Stem Cells From Unfertilized Eggs Induced to Divide

This method involves "tricking" unfertilized human eggs to divide by injecting them with an enzyme that is normally supplied by sperm. (This dividing egg is called a parthenote.) The British researchers who developed this technique used standard chemical treatments to force the eggs to retain both copies of the egg donors' chromosomes. (The donor carries one set from each of her parents, so the eggs do also.) The embryos appear to undergo the same changes as naturally fertilized eggs.

Limitations:

§ No stem cells have been isolated from human parthenotes. It is not clear whether the technique will work or if so, whether stem cells derived from parthenotes will be normal.

§ Some would consider the parthenote to be a potential human life. Spurring a human egg to divide does not avoid the ethical dilemma over whether it is acceptable to destroy a potential life to derive stem cells.

§ Establishing that the technique will work would require experimentation on many hundreds or thousands of human eggs. This raises the same ethical dilemma mentioned in the "altered nuclear transfer" method – what would be the source of the eggs?


For more information, visit www.CAMRAdvocacy.org.

[Faye]

Wounded Marine wants his life back
More American soldiers surviving war injuries, but with lives forever changed
By Denise Grady, NEW YORK TIMES
PALO ALTO — It has taken hundreds of hours of therapy, but Jason Poole, a 23-year old Marine corporal, has learned all over again to speak and to walk.


At times, though, words still elude him. He can read barely 16 words a minute. His memory can be fickle, his thinking delayed. Injured by a roadside bomb in Iraq, he is blind in his left eye, deaf in his left ear, weak on his right side and still getting used to his new face, which was rebuilt with skin and bone grafts and 75 to 100 titanium screws and plates.
Wounded on patrol near the Syrian border on June 30, 2004, he said he considers himself lucky to be alive.

So do his doctors.

"Basically I want to get my life back," Poole said. "I'm really trying."

But Poole knows the life ahead of him is unlikely to match the one he had planned, in which he was to attend college and become a teacher, get married and have children. His girlfriend from before he went to war is now just a friend. Before he left, they had agreed they might talk about getting married when he got back. "But I didn't come back," he said.

The survival rate — thanks to improved body armor, advances in battlefield medicine and swift evacuation — among Americans hurt in Iraq is higher than in any previous war: There are seven to eight survivors for every death, compared with just two survivors per death in World War II.
But these survivors are coming home with serious injuries that will transform their lives: combinations of damaged brains and spinal cords, vision and hearing loss, disfigured faces, burns, amputations, mangled limbs, and psychological ills like depression and post-traumatic stress.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_3427014?source=rss

[Faye]

‘Army Wounded Warrior’ aids Soldiers

By Capt. Jennifer D. Gerald Patient Administration Division, Tripler Army Medical Center

[SIZE=3] [SIZE=2] HONOLULU -- An advocacy program designed to help severely disabled Soldiers from the time of injury through recovery to their return to active duty or civilian life is the mission of the U.S. Army Wounded Warrior Program. The program was implemented by the Department of the Army on April 30, 2004, and then was known as the Disabled Soldier Support System (DS3).
On Nov. 10, 2005, the name of the program was officially changed to the U.S. Army Wounded Warrior Program, or AW2. Soldiers who qualify for AW2 served in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, and other conflicts post-September 11.
http://www.25id.army.mil/article.asp?artid=5670

[Faye]

Dear Friends, Advocates, and Colleagues:
The Public Broadcasting stations are airing a poignant and informative
segment on the Iraq war's signature injury, Traumatic Brain Injury
(TBI).

Go to www.californiaconnected.org to find the air time for War Stories
from Ward D on PBS "California Connected". It focuses on Dr. Harriet
Zeiner's work and the TBI injuries at Palo Alto VA. It airs tonight
(Friday 11/10) on KCET at 8:30 pm.
For more information on TBI and California resources, please visit
http://www.tbisca. org and www.calbia.org and our St. Jude Brain Injury
Network at www.tbioc.org

Claudia Ellano, LCSW
Director, Orange Caregiver Resource Center

[ctoom91]

These young Vets need more national exposure.I've seen very little publicity about paralyzed Iraqi war vets.If they had more of a public face no politician or billionaire trust fund would have the courage to deny these young heroes requests for all types of SCI research funding.

[betheny]

Just a little correction...if they are Iraqi war vets, that means they are from Iraq. Iraqi means "from Iraq", just as American means "from America".

[ctoom91]

Thanks for the public correction.I'm pretty sure everyone knows what I'm talking about, bad spelling aside.