Simple Math - Stem Cells + Cures = Less $ for Drug Companies

[heidiho]

The Hypocrite in Chief doesn't believe in MURDER. Then why is he killing over 100 Iraqi civilians a day with his lying war?

The answer to his veto is simple - he is in the pockets of the drug companies and if stem cells cure diseases like Parkinsons, Diabetes, etc., there will be less profit for drug companies.

Bush always always comes out on the side of big business.Making money for his cronies has always been his priority = he doesn't give a shit how many people have to die and suffer.

[Dirty Hippie]

1. Amen Sister

My son has diabetes. Blood glucose test strips cost almost a dollar a piece and the average diabetic used 4 a day.

I firmly believe this is why we do not have a totally non-invasive blood glucose testing system.

They have been able to determine the glucose level of fruit for years using laser light.

I first heard a laser system for testing glucose in blood was right around the corner about 15 years ago.

Strangely, every time one gets close to market it somehow never makes it.

I firmly believe the pharmaceuticals do want want arthritis, diabetes, heart disease etc. cured.

[deminks]

2. Just like 300 mpg cars, or electric cars do not help the oil barons

embryonic stem cell research does not help the drug barons. Can you imagine what would happen to the have mores if there was a cure for diabetes?
I would like to imagine that.

[Straight Shooter]

3. I posted exactly the same thing just a few minutes before you. GMTA.

It isn't about life. It's about high stakes for Big Pharma in critically ill people.

If all those people with lingering disease are cured, then how is Big Pharma going to pay its stockholders and its CEOs? Just think of the millions and millions of dollars in prescription meds that are ingested every day in America by people who are living with some kind of disease or another. You think Big Pharma is going to willingly let that golden goose die on the altar of ethical or compassionate behavior? Ha!

This stem cell veto has absolutely nothing to do with his base of fundies. That's just the icing on the cake, or, in bush's case, the barbecue sauce on the roasted pig. The true reason for the veto is to protect Big Pharma and their greedy investment in the long, lingering, painful futures of those cursed with debilitating diseases that require long-term medical care and most especially long-term medication regimens.

FUGWB.

I think we all need to point this out to people. Just cut the crap about "murder" and all that hogwash Tony Snow spews as to bush's reasons for the veto. It's about $$$$ for his cronies.

[neoblues]

4. What a Sorry Comment..

What a sorry comment on humanity--that there are such people out there who do actively suppress "Cures" for disease, simply because if people get cured, they won't be spending thousands of dollars every month on lucrative "Drugs". If there has to be a "Death Penalty", I think it ought to apply to anyone convicted of such a thing--and by extension to the CEO's of the particular Drug Corporation responsible. In any case, these situations really need to be investigated (by the press, by the government/Congress, by individuals, by anyone who can).

Alas, most people don't know the kind of suffering that accompanies many diseases (indeed, in most cases, to be brutally honest, people cannot fully understand the suffering unless they've actually experienced it. Just knowing someone--even being very close to someone--who is suffering is but a very, very distant second to actually understanding/knowing what it's like; most people barely have a clue about the lives of people who are chronically ill or handicapped. Of course, they know (or ought to) that they surely don't want to "go there"/experience such things first hand.

Medical discovery, disease treatments and prevention really should be a fairly high priority, but it isn't. Globally, there are problems that may kill more people--such as plain old starvation (but if food is supplied from outside, their populations will simply promptly increase just that much farther beyond their environment's ability to support them; very difficult problem). Nevertheless, considering that there really are no other countries that could begin to challenge us militarily, if we merely didn't choose to bully the world and get involved unnecessarily in foreign entanglements, our military budget cannot be defended. Consider that the United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending. Our military budget by itself is 2/5th of the entire world'd military spending! Our priorities most certainly have nothing to do with the best interests of our own people! Imagine some of that vast amount of money applied to obscure, tiny, ignored little subjects such as Education or Poverty (or any of a long list of things such as national infrastructure, public transportation/trains, alternate energy research, environmental protection). Imagine some of that applied to Medical Research and affordable Medical Care/Insurance for all Americans?

Our national priorities really should be changed by expressing the will of all Americans in concert.

[Telly Savalas]

5. Nah, this is just pandering to bible-thumpers.

If government-funded research led to promising results towards curing something like Parkinsons, a company like Pfizer would buy the intellectual property at a huge discount, develop the drug, and make billions.

Pharamceutical R&D is a big gamble. For every bit of research that leads to a new product, the are dozens if not hundreds that go nowhere. Hence Big Pharma is more than happy to have exploratory research done on the government's dime.