http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatecrises/

PLEASE visit to learn, teach what your doing to help...
& encourages others in hew phase of our lives!

Even if your not a believer~ come to LEARN!!!!!!  Lisanne

--- In stempac@yahoogroups.com, "David W.Kelley" <MrProWrestling@...> wrote:
>
> I know that Pres.Barack H.Obama signed the EMBRO stem cell bill that George
W.Bush refuse to sign.has anyone heard anymore on this since President.Obama
signed it.David
>



03/09/09     "Obama REVERSES stemcell ban"
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/09/1828874.aspx

I know that Pres.Barack H.Obama signed the EMBRO stem cell bill that George
W.Bush refuse to sign.has anyone heard anymore on this since President.Obama
signed it.David

http://www.singlepayercentral.com/

I posted this two years ago to show how rediculous the government and the
charges against this physician are.  However and as usual, the government wins,
because they know they can outspend you and wear you down.  Also (in this case)
they used fear tactics and were successful.  She was a great doctor but she was
naive to think that she could win without standing up for herself in court.  If
you are going to fight these people you need to put it all on the line,
including your own life.
If you are interested in the truth, go to www.drccdemarco.org.  Also
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEMYDOC/


--- In stempac@yahoogroups.com, "R" <hesposto@...> wrote:
>
> Posted on Fri, Mar. 31, 2006
>
> http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/14229315.htm?
> source=rss&channel=inquirer_local
>
> Doctor is charged with therapy scam
> The Atlantic County physician allegedly bilked patients by offering a
> bogus stem-cell treatment.
> By Troy Graham
> Inquirer Staff Writer
>
> An Atlantic County doctor was charged yesterday with bilking patients
> by offering them a bogus stem-cell therapy for Lou Gehrig's disease.
>
> Charlene DeMarco, 44, and codefendant Elizabeth Lerner, 38, were
> charged in an 11-count indictment with mail and wire fraud,
> conspiracy, and money laundering.
>
> Both said little during their initial federal court appearance in
> Camden yesterday.
>
> The magistrate judge released them under house arrest. They live
> together in Egg Harbor City, where DeMarco has an osteopathic
> practice.
>
> The indictment identifies four patients who paid as much as $35,000
> for stem-cell therapy DeMarco promised. Authorities said she had told
> the patients she had Food and Drug Administration approval for the
> therapy when, in fact, the agency had rebuffed her requests to test
> it.
>
> In 2001, DeMarco told the agency she wanted to inject stem cells into
> the base of a patient's brain, and later she proposed placing stem
> cells on a layer of gel that would be injected onto the brain,
> according to the indictment.
>
> DeMarco, a specialist in Lyme disease, withdrew the first request
> after the FDA sought more information, and the FDA placed the second
> on hold. Nonetheless, in August 2002, DeMarco offered the treatment
> to a patient who died a short time later, the indictment said.
>
> From 2002 to '04, it said, DeMarco promised the therapy to four more
> patients, who paid a total of more than $75,000. None ever received
> treatment from DeMarco, authorities said.
>
> DeMarco and Lerner, who is accused of using an alias and posing as
> DeMarco's associate, were charged with laundering the patients' money
> through banks, a Merrill Lynch account, and a company they
> established and called Innovative Cellular Technology.
>
> Both said they planned to hire lawyers. The federal public defender
> representing them yesterday said they would plead not guilty.
>
> In a statement, U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie said, "The conduct
> alleged in the indictment is contemptible and represents a shocking
> example of greed and a total disregard for historic principles of
> humane medical treatment."
>
>
> http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/14229315.htm?
> source=rss&channel=inquirer_local
>

www.planetebook.com



Without stemcells, I cannot hold books to learn OR be entertained~
I MISS THAT ;)*

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/06/obama.stem.cell/index.html
EOs are too easily overturned by a future president. Let congress pass
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act like last time and Obama signs
it. That would be harder for a future president to overturn.

Fred.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MVtE7C-YVc

http://www.opednews.com/articles/An-Executive-Order-On-Stem-by-Rice-University-P\
r-090218-87.html

Fred.

By Chris Mooney
Posted Thursday, Jan. 15, 2009, at 2:55 PM ET


The "war on science" is over. Or at least it is in the sense that I
originally meant the phrase: We're at the close of the Bush
administration's years of attacks on the integrity of scientific
information—its biased editing of technical documents, muzzling of
government researchers, and shameless dispersa! l of faulty ideas
about issues like global warming.

The attacks generated dramatic outrage and considerable activism from
the traditionally staid science community and the sympathy of
politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. So it's no great
surprise to find the president-elect setting out to restore dignity
to the role of science in government. George W. Bush didn't even
bother to name his White House science adviser until well into his
first term, and his appointee (physicist John Marburger) didn't win
Senate confirmation until October 2001. In contrast, Obama has
already named a Nobel laureate physicist (Steven Chu) to head the
Energy Department and a climate specialist and prominent leader of
the scientific community, Harvard's John Holdren, as his Cabinet-
level science adviser.

Scientists are ! ecstatic about these developments and about Obama's
recent promise to listen to them "even when it's inconvenient—
especially when it's inconvenient." But it would be the gravest of
errors for researchers to simply return victorious to their labs and
fall back on a time-honored stance of political detachment. If the
war on science is over, we're now entering the postwar phase of
reconstruction—the scientific equivalent of nation-building. The Bush
science controversies were just one manifestation of a deeper and
long-standing gulf between the science community and the broader
American public, one with roots stretching back to our indigenous
tradition of anti-intellectualism (as so famously described by
historian Richard Hofstadter in his classic work from 1963) and
Yankee distrust of expertise and authority. So this is certainly no
time for complacency. Scientists, with the s! upport of the
administration, should now be setting out to win over th e hearts and
minds of the American public, creating a stronger edifice of trust
and understanding to help ensure that conflict doesn't come raging
back again.

Consider: While scientists may be resurgent in Washington, their
world as a whole remains distant and bizarre to most Americans. Only
18 percent of us know a scientist personally, according to a 2005
survey (subscription required), and when asked in 2007 to name
scientific "role models," the results were dismal. Forty-four percent
of Americans couldn't come up with a name at all, and among those few
who did, their top answers were either not scientists or not alive:
Bill Gates, Al Gore, Albert Einstein.

This bad news comes at a time when we need an appreciation of science—
an understanding of its fundamental role in sound poli! cymaking and
the future of the economy—more than ever: to help solve our
intertwined climate and energy problems, to bolster our long-term
technological competitiveness, and to prepare our society for the
coming controversies that research in fields like genetics and
neuroscience stands ready to unleash. Instead, the communication gap
between scientists and ordinary Americans has brought about (or
helped to perpetuate) a number of home-grown anti-science
pathologies. A seemingly immovable core of Americans don't believe in
evolution and think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, nearly
half of us, according to polling data. Americans are also more likely
to reject the Big Bang theory than are people from other countries.
Indeed, the public has become polarized about the nature of re! ality
itself: College-educated Democrats are now more than twice as likely
as college-educated Republicans to believe that global warming is
real and human-caused.

To help heal such disconnects, the president-elect—as "communicator
in chief"—will surely be saying as much about science as he can. But
as we all know, he has a few other minor matters to worry about.
Scientists and those who care about science—journalists, policy
analysts, and concerned citizens—must do the rest.

The problems they face are difficult and deeply rooted but not
necessarily unfixable. Fortunately, most Americans aren't actively
anti-science; the problem, rather, is that the science world is
either alien to them or something they rarely think about. (Most
people derive their image of scientists from popular culture: nerdy,
socially awkward, and often responsible for nearly destroying the
world.) To succeed in the postwar landscape, science! communicators
must find better ways of talking to people on their own terms and
making research meaningful in their lives.

There will be hurdles along the way. Americans are repeatedly being
told that science represents an assault on their core beliefs and
values. Battles over the relationship between science and religion
are newly resurgent, driven in part by the "New Atheism" of Sam
Harris, Richard Dawkins, and others, and in part by culture warriors
on the other side of the aisle who continue to see evolution as a
stalking horse for irreligion. If science is ordinarily distant from
the lives of ordinary Americans, unending science-religion conflicts
can make it seem hostile.

Another hurdle involves not the message but the medium: Newspaper
science sections have shrunken or vanished across the nation; on
television, real science news has long been struggling, and CNN has
let go of its entire science and technology unit. The scie nce
blogosphere is, of course, booming—but as media scholars like Matthew
Nisbet of American University have observed, the blogs are unlikely
to reach very many citizens who aren't already science lovers. And
what would be the effect if the blogs did get to a wider audience?
The semi-finalists in the recent "Best Science Blog" of 2008 contest
were a site that questions the reality of global warming and PZ
Myers' Pharyngula—ground zero for a potent mix of pro-evolution
advocacy and uncompromising criticism of religion.

And so we find ourselves in a paradoxical situation. Science is more
important than ever—something our new president fully recognizes. Yet
for most Americans, science is probably becoming more distant, not
less; it's harder to loca! te and identify, and it's often more
aggressive toward their core beliefs. In this context, scientists
certainly shouldn't retreat to their labs. Rather, they should reach
out to the public like never before. There's a lot of work to do.

Chris Mooney is the author of The Republican War on Science and co-
author (with Sheril Kirshenbaum) of the forthcoming Unscientific
America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2208789/
Copyright 2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

Fergus Walsh explains why the trial is significant

US regulators have cleared the way for the world's first study on
human embryonic stem cell therapy.

The US Food and Drug Administration have been considering the 21,000
page application for months.

The decision by the FDA to give the go-ahead comes at a symbolic
moment, just days after the inauguration of President Barack Obama.

Since 2001 there have been limits on federal funding for embryonic
stem cell research.

The decision of the FDA is independent of White House control, but
the new president is widely expected to adopt a more pragmatic and
science-oriented approach to stem cell research.

   The knowledge that will be gained in this first clinical trial
deploying embryonic stem cell derived material will accelerate the
development of all future stem cell therapies

Professor Chris Mason, University College London

Under President Bush, federal funding had been limited to around 60
stem cell lines created from embryos destroyed prior to August 2001.

Scientists had warned that only 20 eligible cell lines remained
useful for research and many of these were problematic.

Researchers had told the BBC that the restrictions had slowed down
their work.

Controversy

Geron Corp, the company behind the research, plans to initiate a
clinical trial in a handful of patients paralysed due to spinal cord
injury.

Interest in use of embryonic stem cells is due to their ability to
turn into any of the body's 200 cell types.

Using embryos donated through IVF treatment scientists have coaxed
the stem cells inside into many types of tissue. One embryo can
provide a limitless supply because the cell lines can be grown
indefinitely.

But the use of human embryonic stem cells in research is
controversial with some campaigners saying it is unethical.

Geron, a biotech company based in "silicon valley" south of San
Francisco, has spent $170m on developing a stem cell treatment for
spinal cord injury.

The research will use cells coaxed to become nerve cells which are
injected into the spinal cord.

In animal trials of the treatment, paralysed rats regained some
movement.

Company chief Dr Tom Okarma said: "What stem cells promise for a
heart attack or spinal cord injury or diabetes is that you go to the
hospital, you receive these cells and you go home with a repaired
organ, that has been repaired by new heart cells or new new nerve
cells or new islet cells that have been made from embryonic stem
cells."

'Pivotal decision'

Professor Chris Mason, an expert in regenerative medicine at
University College London, described the FSA decision as "historic"
and a "pivotal milestone in the development of embryonic stem cell
therapies.

He said: "The knowledge that will be gained in this first clinical
trial deploying embryonic stem cell derived material will accelerate
the development of all future stem cell therapies."

Professor Pete Coffey, director of the London Project to cure
blindness, said: "It's great news for the field.

"This strengthens our recent call for regulators in the UK to help
provide a clear process for researchers to take this forward.

"It's also exciting for me because it brings our own moves towards
clinical trials with embryonic stem cells for age-related macular
degeneration a step forward."

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, head the MRC National Institute for
Medical Research, said it often took 15 to 20 years to develop a
therapy.

"It takes a long time and much work to derive processes that will
efficiently and reproducibly give an appropriate cell type for
grafting and many animal experiments to test efficacy and safety.

"An appropriate set of patients have to be identified for the first
tests and clinicians willing to participate in trials.

"And the regulatory hurdle is, understandably, a huge one - in this
case it required 21,000 pages of documents."

He added that for those patients desperate for treatment, and for
their families, the news showed the research is moving in the right
direction.

But Josephine Quintavalle, director of Comment on Reproductive Ethics
(Core), which opposes embryonic stem cell therapies, dismissed the
research as "highly speculative".

"The work is at a highly experimental stage and there's still a
question mark over the capacity of these cells to form tumours," she
said.

"What worries me is that patients will really believe this is going
to cure their spinal injury."

She pointed out that other research teams in Australia and Portugal
were developing spinal therapies using adult stem cells.

"We've never changed our point of view, which is that embryonic stem
cell treatments cannot ever be justified," she said.

BY KRISTA CONGER
Ralph Alswang copyright

Scientists and policymakers have high hopes that President-elect
Barack Obama will move swiftly to lift the funding restrictions on
embryonic stem cell research.

Nancy Pelosi

Philip Pizzo

Michael Longaker

Irving Weissman
Within days of the Jan. 20 inauguration, President Barack Obama could
set a new stage for stem cell research: he is widely expected to
issue an executive order reversing President George W. Bush's
restrictions on federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research.

Such a step would not only channel more money to stem cell work, but
also lead to increased availability of human embryonic stem cell
lines for study—and eliminate a complex bureaucracy that has arisen
to enforce the Bush provision. What's more, it could cement
California's standing as an epicenter for stem cell research, which
was made possible by the $3 billion in state funds allocated to this
burgeoning field by Proposition 71. Perhaps most important, it would
signal the new administration's commitment to advancing medical
research.

"Science is a gift from God to all of us," U.S. House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an interview for this story. "Scientists
have been given an almost biblical power to cure through advances in
embryonic stem cell research. A repeal of the ban is critical so that
we may take advantage of the opportunity to save lives, find cures
and give hope to those suffering. It is an opportunity that we cannot
miss."

President Bush, early in his first term, prohibited federal funding
of research conducted on any human embryonic stem cell lines created
after Aug. 9, 2001. Although representatives of Obama's transition
team declined to comment on his plans, Pelosi and other policymakers
expect him to quickly issue an executive order repealing the ban.
Congress would also be working to pass legislation that would enhance
support for stem cell research and ensure that future presidents
couldn't unilaterally change the policy without congressional
approval. "It is one of our top priorities," Pelosi said. Legislation
removing the ban has been passed twice during the last few years, and
Bush vetoed it both times.

Researchers cautioned that in the current economic climate, no one
should be expecting a windfall of new grants. Yet even a modest
increase would help scientists—in both spirit and substance. "Lifting
the ban on the use of federal funding for human embryonic stem cell
research will end a sorry chapter in federal research policies and
usher in a new era in this promising field of medicine," said Philip
Pizzo, MD, dean of the School of Medicine and a member of the board
overseeing California's stem cell agency. "It would provide
scientists with much-needed resources to speed discoveries and devise
new treatments for some of the most vexing diseases and severe
injuries."

Bush's prohibition has meant that researchers who wished to proceed
with new human embryonic stem cell lines needed to have separate
funding not just for the reagents in their experiments, but also for
the equipment and laboratory space used to conduct the research. At
the urging of the National Research Council and the Institute of
Medicine, many institutions, including Stanford, organized Stem Cell
Research Oversight, or SCRO, committees to grapple with the legal,
ethical and scientific issues of human embryonic stem cell research.

"It's very expensive to adopt this kind of a Noah's ark mentality,"
said Michael Longaker, MD, deputy director of Stanford's Stem Cell
Biology and Regenerative Medicine Institute. "When we first formed
our SCRO, we went through laboratories trying to decide whether
individual pieces of equipment and laboratory glassware should have a
green sticker (OK to use) or a red sticker (don't use). Could you
talk about your stem cell research on a common phone in the
laboratory, or use a shared computer to e-mail research results? We
just didn't know." A lifting of the ban would make research on
previously unapproved human embryonic stem cell lines much less
logistically challenging.

It could also increase the availability of these stem cells for
research. When Bush barred the use of federal funds to finance the
creation of or research on any new cell lines—he considers it immoral
to destroy embryos for research purposes—he claimed that more than 60
previously established human embryonic stem cell lines already
existed for research purposes. Unfortunately, nearly all of these
lines were grown in an environment that likely makes them unsafe for
use in humans. Because of other complications, only 21 eligible cell
lines remain available today for research worldwide, according to the
National Institutes of Health. It can be extremely difficult to grow
some of these lines in laboratories, and scientists complain about
the lack of genetic diversity in this limited pool.

Even with an executive order from Obama and legislation from Congress
ending the ban on research funding (such as the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act), the government would still be prohibited from
funding the creation of new lines. The Dickey-Wicker amendment, first
passed in 1995, prohibits the use of federal funds for the creation
of human embryos for research purposes or the destruction or injury
of human embryos. Although a repeal of the amendment is not
absolutely necessary—as it neither prohibits the derivation of new
lines with private money nor bars federal funding for research on
these lines—many researchers feel the government shouldn't impose
moral or ethical restrictions on the advancement of science.

"I believe that, in the big picture, the introduction of political,
religious and moral ideologies to restrict medical and scientific
research is the most dangerous part of Bush's policy," said Irving
Weissman, MD, the Virginia & D.K. Ludwig Professor for Clinical
Investigation in Cancer Research and director of Stanford's Institute
for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. "The most important
action the Obama administration can take is to erase ideology from
the oversight and funding of all aspects of stem cell research and
medicine."

Pelosi added: "Personally, I believe it would be wise to repeal the
Dickey-Wicker amendment in order to remove the barriers for America's
scientists to pursue the science they believe has the most promise to
cure. However, the passage of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act
to allow for increased federal funding of stem cell research is a
higher priority, and repeal of Dickey-Wicker will be considerably
more difficult."

Scientists in California have a particular interest in what Obama and
Congress decide to do. Already, the California Institute of
Regenerative Medicine, which was established as a result of Prop. 71
in 2004, has given out more than $600 million in state grants, with
Stanford receiving more than any other institution—about $95
million. "Any federal funds would not be a replacement for CIRM
support, but in addition to its resources," Longaker added. "Being
able to apply for a mixture of federal and state funding for research
projects would be a huge positive."

Prop. 71 requires CIRM to allocate a total of $3 billion over a 10-
year period. Because of the initiative, California has laid a
foundation for stem cell research that surpasses what is in place
elsewhere in the nation. The money has led a number of the nation's
leading stem cell researchers to move to California, including two
who came to Stanford—Michael Clarke, MD, from the University of
Michigan, and Philip Beachy, PhD, from Johns Hopkins. And the CIRM
money has attracted private matching funds that have enabled the
building of new stem cell centers, such as the Lorry I. Lokey Stem
Cell Research Building at Stanford, projected to be the largest stem
cell research facility in the nation.

"Essentially, California has had the advantage of SEED grants,
research grants and facilities grants from the institute that have
been unavailable to the rest of the country," said Robert Klein,
chair of CIRM's governing body. "We've built up the intellectual
infrastructure to have a significant advantage when competing for
newly available NIH funds."

Klein and others said it's possible that existing NIH funds may be
reallocated to more strongly favor human embryonic stem cell research
over other types of endeavors. Yet federal money is unlikely to
supplant what CIRM is doing.

"On a real dollar level," said Klein, "any additional funding will
not even come close to what is needed. It's not even in the same
ballpark. Furthermore, the type of funding is important. The NIH does
not typically fund the early-phase human trials that are so important
to driving therapy forward."

CIRM's new loan program for biotechnology companies, for instance, is
meant to provide a revolving source of support for institutions
testing the safety and efficacy of possible human embryonic stem-cell-
based therapies. Those sorts of ventures may not qualify for federal
funding even if the ban is lifted.

The Obama administration would need to establish its own guidelines
for stem cell research, Rick Weiss, a senior fellow at the Center for
American Progress, recently wrote. It would need to spell out how
stem cell lines were derived and embryos acquired in order to be
eligible for federal research support. The Bush administration's
policy, he wrote, had the unintended consequence of providing no
federal rules for much of the embryonic stem cell research conducted
since 2001.

"The current Bush policy harms U.S. interests not just because it
severely restricts the use of federal funds for a potentially life-
saving new branch of medical science," Weiss wrote. "It also hurts
the nation because, to the extent it allows such research to go
forward, it demands almost nothing in the way of ethical
constraints." In other words, Bush's attempt to claim the moral high
ground on a contentious issue stranded the very research he was
trying to regulate in murky ethical waters.

The new president could change that, but Congress has a role to play
as well. "By passing bipartisan federal legislation," Pelosi
noted, "we would bring embryonic stem cell research under the strict
controls and ethical guidelines of the National Institutes of
Health."

Weissman encourages the NIH to adopt the principles and practices
approved by the National Academies and CIRM to guide such research.
Regardless, he said, "it is important that any new NIH guidelines do
not replace one set of ideologies with another. Banning certain types
of research for religious or ideological reasons is not the American
way."


Related Information
Philip Pizzo
Michael Longaker
Irving Weissman
Stanford Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine Institute
California Institute of Regenerative Medicine
Stanford building nation's largest stem cell center
Young scientists get $10.7 million in state stem cell grants
The great stem cell divide

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Click on photo(s) to enlarge.

Contact Directories Maps & Directions

© Stanford University. All Rights Reserved. Stanford, CA 94305. (650)
723-2300.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

--- In stempac@yahoogroups.com, "John Hlinko" <john@...> wrote:
>
> Welcome to the StemPAC Yahoo group, folks.   I'm going to blast this
> out to the StemPAC list tonight, so we should be getting a fair
amount
> of new members pretty soon.
>
> Please welcome them -- and then put them (and us) to work.   :)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ONward & UPward

Stanford Report, January 14, 2009
New policy would boost stem cell research in state and nationwide

BY KRISTA CONGER
Ralph Alswang copyright

Scientists and policymakers have high hopes that President-elect
Barack Obama will move swiftly to lift the funding restrictions on
embryonic stem cell research.

Nancy Pelosi

Philip Pizzo

Michael Longaker

Irving Weissman
Within days of the Jan. 20 inauguration, President Barack Obama could
set a new stage for stem cell research: he is widely expected to
issue an executive order reversing President George W. Bush's
restrictions on federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research.

Such a step would not only channel more money to stem cell work, but
also lead to increased availability of human embryonic stem cell
lines for study—and eliminate a complex bureaucracy that has arisen
to enforce the Bush provision. What's more, it could cement
California's standing as an epicenter for stem cell research, which
was made possible by the $3 billion in state funds allocated to this
burgeoning field by Proposition 71. Perhaps most important, it would
signal the new administration's commitment to advancing medical
research.

"Science is a gift from God to all of us," U.S. House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an interview for this story. "Scientists
have been given an almost biblical power to cure through advances in
embryonic stem cell research. A repeal of the ban is critical so that
we may take advantage of the opportunity to save lives, find cures
and give hope to those suffering. It is an opportunity that we cannot
miss."

President Bush, early in his first term, prohibited federal funding
of research conducted on any human embryonic stem cell lines created
after Aug. 9, 2001. Although representatives of Obama's transition
team declined to comment on his plans, Pelosi and other policymakers
expect him to quickly issue an executive order repealing the ban.
Congress would also be working to pass legislation that would enhance
support for stem cell research and ensure that future presidents
couldn't unilaterally change the policy without congressional
approval. "It is one of our top priorities," Pelosi said. Legislation
removing the ban has been passed twice during the last few years, and
Bush vetoed it both times.

Researchers cautioned that in the current economic climate, no one
should be expecting a windfall of new grants. Yet even a modest
increase would help scientists—in both spirit and substance. "Lifting
the ban on the use of federal funding for human embryonic stem cell
research will end a sorry chapter in federal research policies and
usher in a new era in this promising field of medicine," said Philip
Pizzo, MD, dean of the School of Medicine and a member of the board
overseeing California's stem cell agency. "It would provide
scientists with much-needed resources to speed discoveries and devise
new treatments for some of the most vexing diseases and severe
injuries."

Bush's prohibition has meant that researchers who wished to proceed
with new human embryonic stem cell lines needed to have separate
funding not just for the reagents in their experiments, but also for
the equipment and laboratory space used to conduct the research. At
the urging of the National Research Council and the Institute of
Medicine, many institutions, including Stanford, organized Stem Cell
Research Oversight, or SCRO, committees to grapple with the legal,
ethical and scientific issues of human embryonic stem cell research.

"It's very expensive to adopt this kind of a Noah's ark mentality,"
said Michael Longaker, MD, deputy director of Stanford's Stem Cell
Biology and Regenerative Medicine Institute. "When we first formed
our SCRO, we went through laboratories trying to decide whether
individual pieces of equipment and laboratory glassware should have a
green sticker (OK to use) or a red sticker (don't use). Could you
talk about your stem cell research on a common phone in the
laboratory, or use a shared computer to e-mail research results? We
just didn't know." A lifting of the ban would make research on
previously unapproved human embryonic stem cell lines much less
logistically challenging.

It could also increase the availability of these stem cells for
research. When Bush barred the use of federal funds to finance the
creation of or research on any new cell lines—he considers it immoral
to destroy embryos for research purposes—he claimed that more than 60
previously established human embryonic stem cell lines already
existed for research purposes. Unfortunately, nearly all of these
lines were grown in an environment that likely makes them unsafe for
use in humans. Because of other complications, only 21 eligible cell
lines remain available today for research worldwide, according to the
National Institutes of Health. It can be extremely difficult to grow
some of these lines in laboratories, and scientists complain about
the lack of genetic diversity in this limited pool.

Even with an executive order from Obama and legislation from Congress
ending the ban on research funding (such as the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act), the government would still be prohibited from
funding the creation of new lines. The Dickey-Wicker amendment, first
passed in 1995, prohibits the use of federal funds for the creation
of human embryos for research purposes or the destruction or injury
of human embryos. Although a repeal of the amendment is not
absolutely necessary—as it neither prohibits the derivation of new
lines with private money nor bars federal funding for research on
these lines—many researchers feel the government shouldn't impose
moral or ethical restrictions on the advancement of science.

"I believe that, in the big picture, the introduction of political,
religious and moral ideologies to restrict medical and scientific
research is the most dangerous part of Bush's policy," said Irving
Weissman, MD, the Virginia & D.K. Ludwig Professor for Clinical
Investigation in Cancer Research and director of Stanford's Institute
for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. "The most important
action the Obama administration can take is to erase ideology from
the oversight and funding of all aspects of stem cell research and
medicine."

Pelosi added: "Personally, I believe it would be wise to repeal the
Dickey-Wicker amendment in order to remove the barriers for America's
scientists to pursue the science they believe has the most promise to
cure. However, the passage of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act
to allow for increased federal funding of stem cell research is a
higher priority, and repeal of Dickey-Wicker will be considerably
more difficult."

Scientists in California have a particular interest in what Obama and
Congress decide to do. Already, the California Institute of
Regenerative Medicine, which was established as a result of Prop. 71
in 2004, has given out more than $600 million in state grants, with
Stanford receiving more than any other institution—about $95
million. "Any federal funds would not be a replacement for CIRM
support, but in addition to its resources," Longaker added. "Being
able to apply for a mixture of federal and state funding for research
projects would be a huge positive."

Prop. 71 requires CIRM to allocate a total of $3 billion over a 10-
year period. Because of the initiative, California has laid a
foundation for stem cell research that surpasses what is in place
elsewhere in the nation. The money has led a number of the nation's
leading stem cell researchers to move to California, including two
who came to Stanford—Michael Clarke, MD, from the University of
Michigan, and Philip Beachy, PhD, from Johns Hopkins. And the CIRM
money has attracted private matching funds that have enabled the
building of new stem cell centers, such as the Lorry I. Lokey Stem
Cell Research Building at Stanford, projected to be the largest stem
cell research facility in the nation.

"Essentially, California has had the advantage of SEED grants,
research grants and facilities grants from the institute that have
been unavailable to the rest of the country," said Robert Klein,
chair of CIRM's governing body. "We've built up the intellectual
infrastructure to have a significant advantage when competing for
newly available NIH funds."

Klein and others said it's possible that existing NIH funds may be
reallocated to more strongly favor human embryonic stem cell research
over other types of endeavors. Yet federal money is unlikely to
supplant what CIRM is doing.

"On a real dollar level," said Klein, "any additional funding will
not even come close to what is needed. It's not even in the same
ballpark. Furthermore, the type of funding is important. The NIH does
not typically fund the early-phase human trials that are so important
to driving therapy forward."

CIRM's new loan program for biotechnology companies, for instance, is
meant to provide a revolving source of support for institutions
testing the safety and efficacy of possible human embryonic stem-cell-
based therapies. Those sorts of ventures may not qualify for federal
funding even if the ban is lifted.

The Obama administration would need to establish its own guidelines
for stem cell research, Rick Weiss, a senior fellow at the Center for
American Progress, recently wrote. It would need to spell out how
stem cell lines were derived and embryos acquired in order to be
eligible for federal research support. The Bush administration's
policy, he wrote, had the unintended consequence of providing no
federal rules for much of the embryonic stem cell research conducted
since 2001.

"The current Bush policy harms U.S. interests not just because it
severely restricts the use of federal funds for a potentially life-
saving new branch of medical science," Weiss wrote. "It also hurts
the nation because, to the extent it allows such research to go
forward, it demands almost nothing in the way of ethical
constraints." In other words, Bush's attempt to claim the moral high
ground on a contentious issue stranded the very research he was
trying to regulate in murky ethical waters.

The new president could change that, but Congress has a role to play
as well. "By passing bipartisan federal legislation," Pelosi
noted, "we would bring embryonic stem cell research under the strict
controls and ethical guidelines of the National Institutes of
Health."

Weissman encourages the NIH to adopt the principles and practices
approved by the National Academies and CIRM to guide such research.
Regardless, he said, "it is important that any new NIH guidelines do
not replace one set of ideologies with another. Banning certain types
of research for religious or ideological reasons is not the American
way."

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
stempac group:

President.Barrack Obama has made a pledge to sign the stem cell research bill
that would open up fund to help research stem cell.do you think President.will
carry through on this promise.

   o No
   o Yes
   o I don'treally know
   o I could careless
   o maybe


To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stempac/surveys?id=2814951

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

I'am checking to see if
anyone in this group has
tried the Botox leg shots
yet.David

my name is David.I'am
checking to see if anyone in
this group has tried the
stem cell enforcer tablets
ifso let me know

can someone please let me
know if the stem cell
enhancer tablets really work
in this group.David

can someone in this group let me know if the stem enhancer tablets really work
let me know.David

I'am checking to see if
anyone has tried the new
botox leg injection yet.I
hear that some doctors here
are using it for ms & cp &
spinal cord injury etc let
me know if you have heard
anything about this.David

my name is David I'am a 50
yr old male from Alabama.I
have spinal cord injury &
cell damage.I have to use a
walker just toget around yes
it very hard on me as I'am
sure it is on anyone else
with spinal cord injury
etc.each fusion or surgery
that I had keep geting worse
I even thought about succide
but I knew that it wasn't
right.I first heard of stem
cells from the late Chris
Reeves & admired his for his
strong courage & fight for
research.then when President
Bush refused to sign the
stem cell bill that reall
hurt me especially me being
a strong Bush supporter.I
would like to hear from
other people on here who
have spinal cord & cell
damage & let me know what I
can di to help get our new
President Barack Obama to
sign this bill right
away.David

Sunday, 21 December 2008, 4:58 pm
Press Release: Right To Life New Zealand Inc

19 December 2008

Media Release

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Right to Life New Zealand is opposed to the recommendation made to
the Minister of Health, by the Advisory Committee on Assisted
Reproductive Technology, [ACART] that permission be granted for the
use of human embryos for embryonic stem cell research in New Zealand.

It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. At the
moment of conception the human embryo is endowed by its Creator with
human rights, the foundation of these rights is the right to life,
these rights are inalienable and can not be taken away. From
conception the human embryo should be accorded the respect that is
due to the human person. Human embryos are members of the human
family and should be respected and protected.

SEARCH NZ JOBS

Search Businesses FindA

Search Businesses FindA

Gifts to change the world


Embryonic stem cell research entails the destruction of the human
embryo. This is immoral and a violation of the human rights of the
human embryo. The human embryo is not a potential human being but a
unique and unrepeatable miracle of God's loving creation. The
destruction of the human embryo is a violation of the fifth
commandment of God, Thou shalt not kill.

We all have a duty to defend the right to life of every human being.
Embryonic stem cell research is part of a culture of death which has
given us the killing of innocent and defenceless unborn children by
abortion. We should oppose this culture of death and promote a
culture of life by respecting and protecting the right to life of
every human person from conception to natural death.

ACART contends that the use of so called `spare embryo's from IVF
clinics for embryonic research is justified on the grounds that these
embryo's are not required for implantation and well be destroyed. The
end does not justify the means. The destruction of human persons can
never be justified to promote medical research.

We have had more than ten years of research on embryonic stem cell
lines that have produced no medical cures. Right to life applauds
ethical research with  umbilical cord stem cells and adult stem cells
that have produced more than seventy treatments for medical
conditions, many more are anticipated.

Right to Life calls upon the Minister of Health to urgently defend
life by rejecting the recommendation of ACART  to allow for the use
of human embryos for research, and to reject a 18 months moratorium
allowing for more research.

I just signed the "Open Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research"
petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/756174123

You can help make this petition a success - please share this petition
with your friends and family. Petitions will succeed only by word of
mouth, and every signature makes a difference! Forward our sample email
below, or simply send your friends this link:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/756174123

Thank you again for making a difference!
Peace and hugs,
Marsha

Here is the Fox interview with my son's pediatrician who only believes
in FDA approved treatments, telling the reporter my son has made huge
progress http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pa...Y&pageId=3.2.1

The reporter messes up at the end and said they have been following us
for 2 years but it has only been since Feb 2008.

Daniel Faiella
www.recoveringMatthew.blogspot.com

This group has been quiet recently. One of the first things President
Elect Obama is going to do after he is sworn in is issue an executive
order restoring federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Fred.

I am in another group with Bill. As a matter of fact he led me to this
group. This was in that other group.

Fred.


> Anyone that is in any of the groups that Bill was an active poster, could
> you please do a shout out to the group asking if anyone has heard anything
> from/about Bill. His cable email address is no longer valid and his email
> account to the group is bouncing. This is a concern, as it has been over 2
> mos. since he has posted to any groups or to his personal Blogsite. Any of
> our friends in Canada, if anyone has any idea on looking up information on
> someone or how to find someone in the Toronto or Ontario please let us know.
> In the meantime, Bill has been very missed and we are very worried about
> him. Regardless of where our Bill may be, please everyone think smiles for
> Bill  :)
>
>
> Minde'  :)

Projectof the Genetics Policy Institute
Student Society for Stem Cell Research
Humanity - Unity - Service - Vision - HealingHomeAbout
SSSCRChaptersMembershipEducationMediaLibraryOpportunitiesTake Action
SSSCR is an international network dedicated to the advancement of
scientific research for cures.
   "It is very tempting to give up, yet we have to find the will to
keep going. But even when we discover what motivates us, we realize
that we can't go the distance alone." - Christopher ReeveThings to do

Media Clips
Christopher Reeve Vigil: NBC local news, 10/10/04
Dr. Brinkley on Being a Good Citizen Scientist
A Global Perspective on a Human Cause. ISSCR 05. Marion J. Riggs,
SSSCR Founder.
SSSCR Presentation: From One to Many. Marion J. Riggs, SSSCR
Founder.
Christopher Reeve Tribute: 2nd annual Nothing Is Impossible
Candlelight Vigil
  AnnouncementsSSSCR members to receive student awards at The World
Stem Cell Summit 2008, www.worldstemcellsummit.com.
Stem Cell Digest- Issue 2
SSSCR Action Alert- NIH FY09 Funding
SSSCR in ScienceCareers.org. Read more...
Jeff McCaffrey on CNN. View...

Latest Blogsstem cell blog link
Skin Stem Cells: A New Root for Development
Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy in Rat Models of MI.
why stem cell comes to late ?
rqstng papers
More...
Stem Cell NewsNew way to make stem cells reported - Boston Globe
Analysis: Stem cell ad focuses on opposition - MLive.com
Obama Ad Attacks McCain's Position On Stem Cell Research - Medical
News Today (press release)
Stem cell, marijuana proposals lead in Mich. poll - Chicago Tribune
CSHL 2008, Session VII: Stem cells - Methuselah Foundation
More...
Job ListingsFeed currently unavailable.
More...