What with wars, rumors of wars, the Social Security crisis, and border security, to name just a few issues our elected officials should be pondering, how instead are they spending their time?

By recycling a bill President Bush has already promised to veto which would federally fund embryo experimentation.

Today the House passed S. 5, the embryo destructive research bill, by a vote of 247-176, albeit with two more pro-life votes than in January, when the tally was 253-174.

However, the change appeared due to absentees and deaths, not of heart.

The bill has now cleared both chambers and will be sent to the President to veto. An override attempt in the House would fail. Only 146 votes are needed to uphold a veto, which we already have.

Meanwhile, the front pages of the LA Times, NY Times, USA Today, and Washington Post all featured stories today about a research breakthrough that may render embryonic stem cells needless. Explained the LAT....

Scientists have succeeded in reprogramming ordinary cells from the tips of mouse tails and rewinding their developmental clocks so they are virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells, according to studies published today....

"This is truly the Holy Grail - to be able to take a few cells from a patient, say a cheek swab or some skin cells, and turn them into stem cells in the laboratory," said Dr. Robert Lanza, an embryonic stem cell researcher and head of scientific development at Advanced Cell Technology Inc. in Worcester, MA, who was not involved in the research. "It would be like turning lead into gold."

Newsbusters [hat tip: jasper] was pleasantly surprised by the prominence MSM gave this research, although it noted MSM's curbed enthusiasm, always strangely undaunted when reporting the "hope" and "promise" of embryo experimentation.

Also new news since January but ignored by this liberal-controlled Congress bent on ideology over science, as reported by the Associated Press:

Thirteen young diabetics in Brazil have ditched their insulin shots and need no other medication thanks to a risky, but promising treatment with their own stem cells - apparently the first time such a feat has been accomplished.

Though too early to call it a cure, the procedure has enabled the young people, who have type 1 diabetes, to live insulin-free so far, some as long as three years. The treatment involves stem cell transplants from the patients' own blood.

"It's the first time in the history of type 1 diabetes where people have gone with no treatment whatsoever... no medications at all, with normal blood sugars," said study co-author Dr. Richard Burt of Northwestern University’s medical school in Chicago.

[Photo, courtesy of the AP, shows researchers flanking a young type 1 diabetic, who wishes to remain unidentified, who no longer needs insulin, thanks to his own adult stem cells.]

That's fantastic news...the diabetes thing I mean. Imagine that just a few decades ago, nobody thought that this could ever happen.

For the record, I think embryonic stem cells are overrated, and I'm quite pleased in hearing the news about that embryonic-like stem cells could be made from adult mice tails.

In the words of Bill Nye the Science Guy, "Science Rules."

Gotta love the useless idiots in Washington...sometimes there are more important things than trying to poke a stick in George Bush's eye. US health care and education ought to be of more concern than stem cell research.

I think, so long as you bend and twist and frame everything such that you are certain you'll be annoying liberals, you are not likely to sell anything or acquire converts to your cause.

That is GREAT news (about the diabetes)!! My grandmother had type 1 and my uncle does now (all of the "$hitty" genes run rampant in my family it seems). I've got to get tested twice year to make sure I haven't inherited the disease. Tye 1 Diabetes is/was a huge contributor to my Nana's early death @ 56 (that and her CVD). Now we need to figure a way to fix that and I don't have any more worries :-) !!

That is GREAT news (about the diabetes)!! My grandmother had type 1 and my uncle does now (all of the "$hitty" genes run rampant in my family it seems). I've got to get tested twice year to make sure I haven't inherited the disease. Tye 1 Diabetes is/was a huge contributor to my Nana's early death @ 56 (that and her CVD). Now we need to figure a way to fix that and I don't have any more worries :-) !!

OOPS, Sorry for the double post..

Rae, glad you see escr is "overrated."

Midnite, keep supporting adult stem cell research and you'll stand a much more likely chance of seeing diabetes overcome.

Cam, it's easy to throw mud. Name where I've twisted.

Was the AP article incorrect on its report that adult stem cells may cure type 1 diabetes, perhaps?

Or was the LAT, NYT, WP, and USA Today incorrect on their reporting of the new research that potentially renders embryo experimentation moot?

Were my links off?

Was my report on the House vote tally or the President's promise to veto their bill incorrect?

Tell me where I was off, Cameron.

Why don't you start by naming any embryo experimentation that has netted therapies?

Jill,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't adult stem cells, from the patient's own body, showing promise in the treatment of paralysis? I believe the countries were Portugal and South Korea.
Also, the late entertainer Don Ho went to Thailand a few years back for adult stem cell treatment for his failing heart. He was able to return from almost total diability to entertaining. I know he recently died, but if the treatment gave him only a few more years, its more than what he otherwise would have had.
Adult stem cells have also been used to treat genetic disorders.

@Mary: You are correct about the Don Ho procedure, he did use his own adult stem cells to help his heart.

Rae,

I have to wonder why we remain stuck in this embryonic stem cell time warp when other countries, some of whom are looked down on as "third world", are leaving us in the dust with their adult stem cell research and successes.

@Mary: I don't get it either, I mean there has been absolutely nothing conclusive coming from the scientific community about the benefits of embryonic stem cells. From what I've gathered, there has been more success using adult ones and so it would make sense if people would actually use the adult ones or at least focus on researching those instead of wasting time and money trying to do embryonic ones.

The problem with ASCR, as I understand it, is that the adult stem cells are not pluripotent, and therefore have limited use. Correct, Cameron? I'm not a bio-whiz.

"Why don't you start by naming any embryo experimentation that has netted therapies?"

Jill, I bet he will come up with a few studies sourced from www.cameronsworld.com

LOL!

Jill,

"Name where I've twisted."

How about these two...

"the embryo destructive research bill"

I'm pretty sure that's not what it's called, and your intent was to be inflamitory.

"Only 146 votes are needed to uphold a veto,"

Uphold a veto?? Kind of weird, unless of course you like to say there are 24 hours in a night instead of a day. In reality... they only need a two thirds majority of THOSE ACTUALLY VOTING.

Either you are a dingbat, or you deliberately misrepresented with that twisted portrayal because you don't want to concede the reality--you all are looooooooosers. I prefer to think of you as dingbat, but i know better.

"What with wars, rumors of wars, the Social Security crisis, and border security, to name just a few issues our elected officials should be pondering, how instead are they spending their time?"

So, how many times did the GOP-run congress try to ban homosexuality, recycling the same old bills, that didn't have a snowball's chance in hell, every election year. At least the Dems are close to overriding the veto, and this aint over yet. They could pull it off and it's not just an election year "we're-finaly-going-to-do-what-we'd-promised-you-we'd-try-to-do-despite-how-foolish-you-all-are-to-beleive-we-could-actually-do-it"... a la banning gay marriage. They need forty votes, and

It's one thing to critically evaluate the oposition and make a point, it's quite another thing to go so clearly out of your way to attempt to portray them as unfairly as possible... THAT is what's not going to appeal to someone waffling or unsure, let alone convert someone. You're whining to the chior, as ussual.

If god has any sense of humor, you'll be choking on your dishonesty for eternity.

Erin,

All the successes have been with ASCs. These cells can be obtained from various sites on and in the body and have successfully treated genetic disorders, paralysis, leukemia, diabetes, and heart failure. And this is only the beginning. Why is time and money being wasted on ESCs when so far they have shown no successes and ASCs have?
One possible problem with ESCs is rejection, not a problem when your own ASCs are used.

Just in case math may not be the strong point of some people here. In todays house vote, the embryo destruction research bill had a 2/3 majority.

I thought that I had recently read an article about many of the ASC 'cures' being based on some unreliable experiments that haven't been able to be reproduced?

Erin,

From what I've read these treatments have had successes. A paralyzed South Korean woman stood for the first time after being treated with ASCs and Portugal reported similar successes with paralysis. The point is, there are no successes reported with ESCs. We've also seen what was done in Brazil and Don Ho was successfully treated in Thailand. ASCs are showing promise.

"The problem with ASCR, as I understand it, is that the adult stem cells are not pluripotent, and therefore have limited use. Correct, Cameron? I'm not a bio-whiz."

Not really my area of expertise. As far as I know... they've come pretty close to making adult derived stem-cells pluripotent (most of the major tissue types have been generate)... however mostly with animal cell lines such as mouse. Also, the odds really suck...sometimes only 1 out 20 attempts (or something like that) will produce an expected result. These are not the kinds of odds we like to see when approaching testing therapies on people. The most promising results (consistent, broad application, and ease) have been from embryonic stem cells.

Theoretically, we should be able to do it. Theoretically, we should be able to clone an entire being with a single somatic cell and nothing more. Right now however, there is a vast vacuum between simple DNA sequences and what’s going one with a cell. I personally think RNA is doing a hell of lot more than it gets credit for.

Speaking of crappy math... My bad.

That is soooo fricken emberassing.

They do need forty votes to overide veto.... and in today's vote they only needed 141, not 146.

Cameron,

Awwww...humility builds character.

I think Cameron apologized? So I'm no longer a dingbat? Whew. There's so many cicadas around here, I thought I was going to soon get the urge to eat them. I hear they're a delicacy to our winged friends.

As for my #s, before I posted I asked my source in the House, who said, "We only need 146 on our side to be assured the ability to uphold a veto. Technically, the burden is on them though—they have to come up with 2/3rds of those present and voting."

As for my terminology, "the embryo destructive research bill," was I incorrect? Embryos aren't destroyed for this particular research?

This coming election will be in large part a repudiation of the religious right. Democrats are right to draw attention to this issue, which rational americans see as an attempt by the right to impose their dogma on scientific decisions.

Anyway, therapies are not the goal. The goal is to understand HOW the embryonic stem cells specialize. That's basic science, not clinical.

Hillary,

Keep pushing socialized medicine.

Your defeat will be assured.

Anyway, therapies are not the goal. The goal is to understand HOW the embryonic stem cells specialize. That's basic science, not clinical

Someone needs to tell this to Michael J. Fox...

MK,

Remember when the reason for clamoring for FDA approval of RU486 in this country was because it had such potential to treat diseases? The fact it was used to induce abortion was only secondary. Abortion advocates had only the best interests of people with chronic and fatal diseases at heart. To the best of my knowledge, RU486 has only been used to induce abortion, and has killed a few women in the process.
Remember when fetal tissue harvesting would cure all kinds of disease and disability? Again the hopes and fears of the sick and disabled are exploited. Fetal transplants proved a dismal failure.
And now, the only reason for ESC research is to understand how the cells specialize.
So why are the sick and disabled being told that ESCs hold miracle cures? That seems incredibly cruel and exploitive. It also sounds very familiar.
I would think if the abortion advocates truly had the best interests of the sick and disabled at heart, they would be doing backflips over the promise that ASCs are showing.

Right on the money, Mary.

Hisman, Jasper, thank you for your encouragement in the other thread. I wasn't able to post a reply there.

From the Waitress post:

"Face it. These women are using abortion as a birth control method. Period."

That's exactly the kind of BS i'm talking about that encourages women to get abortions. Not exactly oozing with compasion Sandy... what gives?
Posted by: Cameron at June 8, 2007 05:10 PM

Abortion IS birth control. Any form of birth control is used to regulate the point at which pregnancy occurs, and unless Im mistaken, that is exactly what abortion is used for. Cameron, I dont understand why you have called Sandy out on her statement when she is obviously correct...

Yeah SOMG, "rational americans" believe that killing a child for gain is "moral".

Maybe we should all continue here. I cannot post on the first 2.

Bethany, I give you so much credit for working at a pregnancy center. Perhaps that is one of the things God called you do. I'm rather sure of it. I have also tried to talk women out of abortions. I have never succeeded. Sometimes these women have made their minds up, and there won't be much that you can do. However, if one child is saved, it was well worth it. I know that God works through people. He is working through you. The fact that you are even on this blog proves it.

Bethany,

Your work at the CPC also proves you are not just talk, but action as well. You actually give of your time and efforts to assist women facing crisis pregnancies. How often were pro-life people asked what they did for women facing crisis pregnancies besides talk. Fair enough. CPCs were established. Some years ago I was involved in a mentoring program for teenage mothers. Unfortunately it folded. However, after one meeting a young mother approached me and said how reassuring it was to see pro-life people involved in a group such as this. All too often she had said to pro-life people manning booths and passing out literature; "I see what you stand for but what to you DO?" She said she often got blank stares in return. This did not give her a good impression of pro-life people. This young woman conveyed a very important message. Whether or not pro-life people do more than talk does not go unnoticed by the community.
Keep up your great work Bethany.

Mary and Heather, thank you so much for your words of kindness.