Chris Reeve might be alive but for Bush

[genius]

I saw a posting elsewhere about how Kerry and Edwards shouldn't make an issue of Reeve's death. But it was the stem cell policies of Bush that killed Chris Reeve. And, if Bush gets four more years, a lot of other great people will die because of his policies. At this moment, I am very angry at Bush and all his supporters for their cold, cruel inhuman approach to medical research. That's not Christianity. It's HATEianity. I'm sure that, wherever Reeve's spirit is, he is rooting for John Kerry and wants us to do our part too. We need to win this election - in spite of the fact that Bush will cheat and try to steal again. He even stole the Afghan election for his Unical buddy. He'll do his best to do it here and we need to do whatever it takes to make sure that on November 2, Kerry is declared the winner.

[Barney Rocks]

1. so if Bush

had of spent the entire NIH budget on stem cell research starting Jan 21 2000 when he took office--we would have--(well before OCt of 2004) already fully developed and validated viable cures using stem cells, gotten them through the FDA, and already treated Reeves illness using them--and since he was treated he would have been immune from catching a bacterial infection, getting pneumonia, and dying? Wow--that is quick!

I support funding all research, however giving lots of money doesn't mean that you get a cure quickly. Have we "cured" AIDS yet? or cancer? Total up how much we have spent. And even if a cure is found--think 7-10 years to get it through the FDA. Then years before Drs. get used to using it!

I support research--but I do not support the false hopes that we give people by implying that if we allocate a few million--well then these people will be cured in a few short years--maybe even months. This is as cruel and EVIL as the people that sell unproven cures to the desperate people who are suffering from disease like Cancer and AIDS.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. That seems to be what the Reagans believe.

And you want to know something? If this topic wasn't so volatile with the Christian Right AND there was even a hint of improving someone's quality of life, the Republicans would have approved it with lightning speed. To those who are dying, it brings hope.

[Barney Rocks]

20. really? As far as I know, 3 members of Raygun's family

have spoken out on this issue (Nancy,Michael and Ron). None of them are scientifically educated--and none of them agree. They all have widely divergent views!

I have heard Nancy Reagan speak on the subject (I recently attended a benefit where she spoke very eloquently--this was a few months before Raygun's death.) Nancy is actually a quite smart woman--and she did not exaggerate the case one bit. She was very balanced in her view--and agreed with the scientists (and what I said above). She would like to fund the science--and is extremely enthusiastic about cures in the future, but she is realistic and knows that diseases like Alzheimer's are a real long shot. She also is very aware that it is unlikely she will see cures in her lifetime.

I have heard the sons (Michael and Reagan) give their views (not in person--just through the media). Neither one has a balanced and educated approach. Both of them are extremists using the situation for their political gain. Michael does not want any research at all, and Ron presents it in a way that is way too rosy and optimistic. Both of them come off as quite foolish. Nancy seemed reasonable and more in the middle.

To sum it up--None of these three people are on the same page at all regarding stem cell research and their public statements prove that. Ron represents the view that SCE will be easily curing every disease you can think of and probably as quickly and easily as blinking an eye! Michael says it is straight up murder--we can't even look into it or we will be killing life! Nancy would like to work toward cures, but she is very aware that Alzheimers is unlikely to benefit and she knows that actually cures are not likely and if they are found would be generations in the future.

Even if they WERE on the same page--why does that mean that I should agree with them? Why in the world would anyone care what "The Reagans" think? I am not a republican--I do not idolize them. I really don't care what "The Reagans" think.

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. Not quite sure what you're on about.

I was agreeing with you -- pointing out that it if weren't for the Christian Right, we would all be on the same page.

[Barney Rocks]

28. I'm sorry if it came out wrong--

I do not mean any criticism of your postition, I am just trying to clarify my position. I do not mean any offense to you.

I was trying to point out that within the Reagan family there are 3 people and 3 positions--the extreme RW rhetoric--of don't do it at all--the extreme left wing--SCR is best thing since sliced bread--cures will be easy and right around the corner--and the sensible scientifically based middle--we need to fund it--look into it and hope that someday it results in cures--if not for us--or even our children--then hopefully our grandchildren.

I have plenty of anger against the RWers who do not want to fund the research at all, but I have an equal amount of anger toward the people who are over hyping it and building false hope. I am a cancer survivor--so I have seen a lot of people get desperate and pay huge amounts of money for non-effective "cures" I have also seen friends with HIV do the same thing. On the issue, the left makes me just as angry as the right--because I do not want to build false hope.

I support the research--but I always tell people--it is very difficult to come up with a cure. Typically thousands of paths are followed and then a good lead comes. It can take years, it can take generations. And typically getting an FDA approval takes 7-10 years! These things do not happen overnight.

SCR may eventually yield many cures--it may yield none. I still want scientists to have plenty of money to look into it regardless of results, because it is an interesting area. But, I know going into it that we may not ever see results as far as cures go. (Out of hundreds of thousands of leads that are followed--perhaps one ends up in something therapeutically useful). Cures may come in the lifetimes of my children, or my grandchilren--or they may never come--there is no guanrantee. But I still want to follow and fund knowledge.

What I dislike is when we build the hopes of someone who is suffering NOW and spin it to sound like--oh if we just spent enough money you would be cured!! It is not money that cures people--it is solving the problems of disease. Money helps scientists solve problems but scientists are limited by technology, the current knowledge, and their own imagination as well as other things.

Sometimes we can spend many many millions and not solve a problem at all. Allocating money will not cure anyone. It just means that we will be spending more on one particular area of SCR. That is a good start --but not nearly what it is sometimes hyped to be.

[Barney Rocks]

29. I'm sorry if it came out wrong--

I do not mean any criticism of your postition, I am just trying to clarify my position. I do not mean any offense to you.

I was trying to point out that within the Reagan family there are 3 people and 3 positions--the extreme RW rhetoric--of don't do it at all--the extreme left wing--SCR is best thing since sliced bread--cures will be easy and right around the corner--and the sensible scientifically based middle--we need to fund it--look into it and hope that someday it results in cures--if not for us--or even our children--then hopefully our grandchildren.

I have plenty of anger against the RWers who do not want to fund the research at all, but I have an equal amount of anger toward the people who are over hyping it and building false hope. I am a cancer survivor--so I have seen a lot of people get desperate and pay huge amounts of money for non-effective "cures" I have also seen friends with HIV do the same thing. On the issue, the left makes me just as angry as the right--because I do not want to build false hope.

I support the research--but I always tell people--it is very difficult to come up with a cure. Typically thousands of paths are followed and then a good lead comes. It can take years, it can take generations. And typically getting an FDA approval takes 7-10 years! These things do not happen overnight.

SCR may eventually yield many cures--it may yield none. I still want scientists to have plenty of money to look into it regardless of results, because it is an interesting area. But, I know going into it that we may not ever see results as far as cures go. (Out of hundreds of thousands of leads that are followed--perhaps one ends up in something therapeutically useful). Cures may come in the lifetimes of my children, or my grandchilren--or they may never come--there is no guanrantee. But I still want to follow and fund knowledge.

What I dislike is when we build the hopes of someone who is suffering NOW and spin it to sound like--oh if we just spent enough money you would be cured!! It is not money that cures people--it is solving the problems of disease. Money helps scientists solve problems but scientists are limited by technology, the current knowledge, and their own imagination as well as other things.

Sometimes we can spend many many millions and not solve a problem at all. Allocating money will not cure anyone. It just means that we will be spending more on one particular area of SCR. That is a good start --but not nearly what it is sometimes hyped to be.

[Barney Rocks]

30. I'm sorry if it came out wrong--

I do not mean any criticism of your postition, I am just trying to clarify my position. I do not mean any offense to you.

I was trying to point out that within the Reagan family there are 3 people and 3 positions--the extreme RW rhetoric--of don't do it at all--the extreme left wing--SCR is best thing since sliced bread--cures will be easy and right around the corner--and the sensible scientifically based middle--we need to fund it--look into it and hope that someday it results in cures--if not for us--or even our children--then hopefully our grandchildren.

I have plenty of anger against the RWers who do not want to fund the research at all, but I have an equal amount of anger toward the people who are over hyping it and building false hope. I am a cancer survivor--so I have seen a lot of people get desperate and pay huge amounts of money for non-effective "cures" I have also seen friends with HIV do the same thing. On the issue, the left makes me just as angry as the right--because I do not want to build false hope.

I support the research--but I always tell people--it is very difficult to come up with a cure. Typically thousands of paths are followed and then a good lead comes. It can take years, it can take generations. And typically getting an FDA approval takes 7-10 years! These things do not happen overnight.

SCR may eventually yield many cures--it may yield none. I still want scientists to have plenty of money to look into it regardless of results, because it is an interesting area. But, I know going into it that we may not ever see results as far as cures go. (Out of hundreds of thousands of leads that are followed--perhaps one ends up in something therapeutically useful). Cures may come in the lifetimes of my children, or my grandchilren--or they may never come--there is no guanrantee. But I still want to follow and fund knowledge.

What I dislike is when we build the hopes of someone who is suffering NOW and spin it to sound like--oh if we just spent enough money you would be cured!! It is not money that cures people--it is solving the problems of disease. Money helps scientists solve problems but scientists are limited by technology, the current knowledge, and their own imagination as well as other things.

Sometimes we can spend many many millions and not solve a problem at all. Allocating money will not cure anyone. It just means that we will be spending more on one particular area of SCR. That is a good start --but not nearly what it is sometimes hyped to be.

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. Good post.

I'm all for the balanced view. That's why I'm Independent. Well, "No Party," actually. Though I do lean towards the left, because frankly, that's what feels right for someone who grew up believing in a benevolent society.

[grace0418]

22. I don't disagree with you, however

I do want to quibble with one point. He may not have been immune to bacterial infection. But if the research had been successful and his injury had been reversed, he wouldn't have fallen ill due to the kind of infection he got: an infection from a pressure wound common in people who are paralyzed or bed-ridden.

Like I said, I agree that it is a stretch to assert that Chris Reeve would be alive today, but it's not quite as preposterous as you make it sound.

[Barney Rocks]

23. It is preposterous because of the

time line. And if you read up on this, you would know that they are no where near treating people--it will be many many years before they treat people--and that is if everything goes well in the research.

It is way out there to think that a complete cure would be developed, approved by the FDA, used to cure a person in less than three years! I can only assume that the people who say things like this are quite uneducated scientifically (a la the little Ron Reagan).

[eileen from OH]

2. Sorry, but that's ridiculous

and I think, waaaay over the top. Stem cell research is promising, yes, but probably decades away from producing anything that could have helped Mr. Reeve or others like him. It is not a miracle cure, but a means to an end, and an end that is by no means certain. To suggest that, but for the lack of funding for stem cell research, Christopher Reeve "might be alive" is unbelievably naive and simplistic.

I am all for the research, and I want to see Kerry elected because he's not afraid of science - be it stem cell research, or global warming or any of the other various sciences that have replaced facts with faith-based hooey. But we do our side no favors by trying to take serious scientific research and putting it into the same kind of black-and-white "if you ain't for us, you're agin us" rhetoric that we so despise on the other side.

eileen from OH

[kokomo]

3. We have enough death to hang on Bush, legitmately, we don't need this!

We need an intelligent man like Kerry who respects science and knows the difference between science and religion.

[LiberalAndProud]

4. Excuse me, but our prez does know

the difference between science and religion.

He believes that science is heresy. Science is only good if it supports his agenda, ergo, science is bad. Scientists are heretics.

God speaks to our Prez directly. Ask him. He'll tell you. He don't need no damn scientists telling him nuthin.

[MsUnderstood]

5. He died? When?

[PretzelWarrior]

6. or that damn horse. reminds me of South Park

when Christopher Reeve is snapping fetuses in half and drinking their blood so he can make progress walking. Disturbing. but still hard not to laugh at the whole issue.

[w4rma]

7. Bush has definitely signed the death warrant for alot of folks like Reeve.

For the past 4 years, Bush has set up every roadblock he could to stem cell research. For the past 4 years, funding for this research dropped when it could have been embraced. A cure most likely wouldn't have been found in time to save Mr. Reeve, but each day the cure is delayed by politicians like Bush results in more and more deaths in the future.

[DemBones DemBones]

8. No proof of that, either, and I speak as someone with a chronic,

debilitating, potentially fatal, disease that has dramatically altered my life. Would I like to be well? Damn straight I would. Would it happen if Bush* suddenly funded all the medical research proposed? Not likely. It's just not that easy for science to overcome diseases.

Stem cell research has gotten a lot of hype and, IMO, raised a lot of unfounded hope. I doubt that the benefits will be as great as the claims.

[Barney Rocks]

9. I am sorry to hear

that you have a chronic illness, and I hope that something comes along to help you.

I support the research--but I also like realistic hopes. Sometimes the potential of Stem Cell Research seems WAY overblown here. We need to stay realistic--and of course keep funding the science (and not just SCR), research is the only hope for many many people. But I always try to impress realistic expectations on people--the "pie in the sky" stuff is what snake oil salesman will try to sell you. And unfortunately too many people try to take advantage of people who are sick or hurting.

[genius]

21. I know people who will probably die if Bush gets four more years

Their lives depend on this election because their conditions are serious enough that they need help as quickly as possible.

[DemBones DemBones]

37. But will they live if he doesn't? Will stem cell research somehow

save their lives? If so, I would like to see proof of what new treatment will immediaely become available that will save lives.

[genius]

43. According to the people at Johns Hopkins University, it will

These people are being told by their doctors that their only hope is stem cell research.

[Barney Rocks]

45. My brother is a surgical

resident at Johns Hopkins University. I would very much like more details about which researchers have told people (obviously people in grave condition) that they can be cured quickly (within the next presidential term) if we get more funding for embryonic stem cell research? This is very interesting to me--especially since the most promising preliminary results have not even been obtained in embryonic lines--so it would be very interesting to know which researchers have been saying unfounded things like this.

Please provide their names--I am sure the entire scientific community will be interested in hearing more about their opinions. I am not a scientist myself, but I worked for several years for the Rockefeller Foundation, I was involved in gifting grant money to scientists for research purposes. Currently the Rockefeller Foundation is not funding the embryonic cell lines because the preliminary results are not there. They are funding other more promising types of SCR (such as umbilical cord stem cells and stuff).

[DemBones DemBones]

38. How will their lives be saved if Kerry wins? Be specific.

What diseases do they have? What new drug or technique will cure them?

Spreading false hope is cruel.

[theoceansnerves]

10. um

i would consider myself to be a #1 supporter of stem cell research but didn't christopher reeve die of a heart attack? i don't see how he would still be alive if stem cell policies were different.

[Guaranteed]

11. An infection killed Reeve.

Yeah, it would have helped him to have had some stem cell research working for him because he might have avoided the pressure sore, but, come on.

Let's not be saying Bush killed Christopher Reeve. It's just not true.

[genius]

17. Refusal to help the injured does kill and people need to realize this

I have seen doctors over and over again decide who should live and who should die because of policy decisions. Chris Reeve is not walking and was in a position to have these sores because Bush cut the funding for his cure.

[Radio-Active]

13. when did Christopher Reeve die????

?

[Fluffdaddy]

15. Last Night

[LisaL]

34. This Sunday, I believe.

[Fluffdaddy]

14. Blaming Bush is un-Fair. Lets be Fair at all times. this what set us...

a part from the right-wingnuts

[genius]

16. If Bush had not cut funds to SCR, Reeve would be walking.

His death is directly related to his paralysis.

[Ksec]

19. His policies contributed

[Leilani]

32. That is so untrue

Stem cell research is so important, that we shouldn t throw wild accusations around.

I recently saw an interview with a research doctor working right now, & he said he believes within 10 years people will be treated.

The research is not at the stage where it would have prevented Reeves death.

[Leilani]

33. That is so untrue

Stem cell research is so important, that we shouldn t throw wild accusations around.

I recently saw an interview with a research doctor working right now, & he said he believes within 10 years people will be treated.

The research is not at the stage where it would have prevented Reeves death.

[NightOwwl]

40. You are either to lazy to research the subject,

knowingly lying, or purposely trying to stir up the shit.

Regardless of the reasoning behind it, your comment is offensive.

[DemBones DemBones]

41. There is no proof of that. None whatsoever. nt

[genius]

18. How many Americans will die next year because of the cut in SCR funds?

Children with children's diabetes, adults with Alzheimers, people with MS, etc. You can kill with poverty or by cutting funds by research. You can kill by not providing health care. It is only those who are callous who don't see the connection between opposing medical cures and the deaths these cures can provide.

[Paragon]

24. Ridiculous.

Stem cell research is just that - research. Even if Bush signed full funding into law on his first day of office, the research is not nearly far enough along to have made Chris Reeve move around, much less walk.

Please don't denigrate Chris' memory by turning his death into a lame political argument. He would want you to represent the facts honestly, and pressure Bush's position by telling the truth.

[arwalden]

26. Christopher Reeve's Own Words

<snip>

Reeve himself was vocal on the subject. In 2001, while President Bush considered a decision on stem cell research -- he eventually allowed federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines -- Reeve spoke to CNN's John King about the impact of delaying study.

"That would be a big mistake because you could spend the next five years doing research on the adult stem cells and find that they are not capable of doing what we know that embryonic cells can do now," he said. "And five years of unnecessary research to try to create something that we already have would cause -- well, a lot of people are going to die while we wait."


<snip>

[genius]

44. Was that Larry King or John King that interviewed Reeve?

This is an excellent quote. Also to you have the exact site?

[arwalden]

46. Here's The Link

Reeve was being interviewed by John King.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/11/obit.reeve/index.html

[Cocoa]

25. you're playing right into Bush's hands

Kerry is talking about Reeve, and he will talk about Reeve in the context of the stem-cell research, but it will NOT be anything like what you are saying.

But, to counter the impact of Reeve's death, Rove will try (and fail) to make it look like Kerry is saying what you just wrote. Of course, people will see through it, they know Kerry doesn't utter inanities.

[Orlandodem]

31. Nearly 1100 GIs would be alive but for Bush.*

*

[LisaL]

35. And most likely, thousands of Iraqis.

[BUSHOUT]

36. I liked your title better than the dumb accusation inside your post.

Yes, he "might" be alive if more funding had begun 4 years ago.

To say Bushs policies killed Chris Reeve is just assinine.

If we spent more time attacking the real issues like stem cell research instead of wasting it with stupid earpiece conspiracy theories then the real issues MIGHT get more attention!

[geek tragedy]

39. Ron Reagan said that Bush's decisions had NO impact on Reeve's

death. He said that Reeve would be the first to tell someone that.


Lots of other stuff to hang Bush with.

[Amaya]

42. Ok well...

An infection caused by a pressure ulcer killed Christopher Reeve. It is very common in paralysis patients.
The policies of the bush administration had nothing to do with it.

[complain jane]

47. Chris Reeve

I am SO sad about Christopher Reeve's death. I can't believe it.

<corny> I saw Superman when I was a kid and that was one of those movies where you saw it and you weren't right for three days after because it was just such a great movie. At least that's what I thought when I was a chubby little kid watching it, to have Superman show up and sweep you away and make everything right was something that stayed with me for a long time afterwards. </corny>

So when the poor guy was paralyzed just doing something he loved to do it really affected me, and then after he showed so much hope and strength all these years I never expected this. I am so happy to know that he had such a great family and devoted wife to be there for him throughout this.

I have to admit I'm not at all educated on stem cell research other than the sound bites I hear, but I do know that this just sucks. And justified or not, it does make me hate Chimpy and his administration all the more to have Chris Reeve pass away when maybe there was a chance he could have turned his health around had the Chimp put science before his religious views.

I've been glued to the tv watching the debates so far but I'm so disgusted I don't know if I can even stomach another hour of his smirking asshole mug.

[noonwitch]

49. I wouldn't say that Bush is responsible for Reeve's death

Stem cell research has a long way to go, even if Bush had approved it. It's more the people who will continue to suffer with no relief in sight that Bush is affecting.