Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
and it is a worthy one, this is one where i will disagree with the more radical conservative that oppose all spendingMedical research is indeed a charity....
I have had family members suffering from other diseases.. and I gave (and still give) readily to those charities, even though those family members are long gone...
Does not mean I am heartless, does not mean that it is not and should not be a concern...
compare that amount to the billions of dollars spent on research for other diseases!hmmm
[/FONT]
if it "peaked" at $658 MILLION in 2003(Bush POTUS) and is currently at $645 MILLION(still a lot of money) it sure hasnt dropped much
but tanks for try to post some facts, but i finally decided to find for myself since none of your links ACTUALLY told me
http://www.alz.org/publicpolicyforum/08/downloads/Federal_Funding_Alz_%20Research.doc
apples to orangescompare that amount to the billions of dollars spent on research for other diseases!
My point also was that they shouldn't be decreasing funding when the rate of people developing the disease is increasing. People my parents age(baby boomers) rate of developing this disease is going up every year.compare that amount to the billions of dollars spent on research for other diseases!
so, what was its funding level prior to Bush taking office?My point also was that they shouldn't be decreasing funding when the rate of people developing the disease is increasing. People my parents age(baby boomers) rate of developing this disease is going up every year.
I also have worked in a memory care facility and watched the effect it has on people, it isn't like having cancer which is a terrible thing don't get me wrong. You don't know your family anymore or what year it even is. I saw WWII vets thinking that a truck was coming out of someone's foot or that someone was sitting next to him talking to him and might I add he also thought he was in Germany at the time fighting the Nazi's. How would you like living over and over the worst days of your life.
so, what was its funding level prior to Bush taking office?
and i know that t was lower since i posted the proof that it was doubled in 2003It might be lower but Alzheimer's awareness was not high eight years ago and a lot of that funding was put in place by Alzheimer Association lobbying for a change. My point was why is he decreasing funding. Of course funding for every disease has gone up in the last eight years. My question as I stated before why is funding on a decrease. And maybe Clinton dropped the ball on funding and the republican congress at the time. As I stated before why is there a decrease in funding when the disease is on the rise? Plus like I said before look at funding for Alzheimer's research compared to AIDS research when only about 1 to 2 million people in the U.S. have AIDS when 4.5 million have Alzheimer's and that is only one form of dementia.
And I commend Bush for doubling that and congress which was also republican! I am just stating that even though it was doubled it, it is still under funded in my opinion. And another point I and this just off the wall and I have no proof backing this but about 95% of the people where I worked had blue eyes! Alittle scary!Anyways I don't want to beat this death anymore.and i know that t was lower since i posted the proof that it was doubled in 2003
and i also theorised that maybe they had over funded it and there was a small draw back
again, it was doubled in 2003
ok, i think i see why this is a hot button for you, you are really close to itAnd I commend Bush for doubling that and congress which was also republican! I am just stating that even though it was doubled it, it is still under funded in my opinion. And another point I and this just off the wall and I have no proof backing this but about 95% of the people where I worked had blue eyes! Alittle scary!Anyways I don't want to beat this death anymore.
Palin is against stem cell research in a time we need to find a cure for alzheimer's, cancer, childhood diabetes, and many other diseases. YOu think she would change her mind with McCain having a good chance of developing dementia. or maybe not she doesn't seem like the type to take the passenger seat for very long!
SO what should we do elect a women who against Gay marriage and as been rumored to refer to Obama as Sambo!
As for the "Sambo" comment, I refer you to
Palin Rumors | Explorations Its Number 65
This one is pretty typical of the left -when all else fails, claim the opponent used a racial slur of some kind. Considering the fact that I think the left is far more racist than the right, its more likely that someone like Hillary would use it. However, since Palin married a Yup'ik and is also a very skilled politician highly unlikely to use any kind of racial slur and watch her career go down the toilet as a result -this one is obviously a smear of desperation.
Paling does NOT oppose stem cell research -she opposes only EMBRYONIC stem cell research. Maybe this is a real shocker to you -but lots of people believe its wrong to create a new human life only in order to kill it, harvest it like a crop -all so another but older human life can benefit. It is in fact a form of cannibalism. There are many bio-ethicists who oppose embryonic stem cell research too.
However there is NO opposition to other lines of stem cell research. Not just adult and cord blood stem cell research, but no opposition to any research into any of the alternative procedures that can avoid the creation of a new life entirely but result in the same undifferentiated stem cells that is being sought in embryos. If its possible to get the exact same thing desired from a living human embryo without one -then as a society don't you think we are morally obligated to avoid the creation and destruction of human life?
One of four alternative procedures under research is called Altered Nuclear Transfer. A human egg has its nucleus removed -with only half the necessary DNA to create a new life, it is not a human life. The empty cell is then treated and the nucleus of an adult body cell is inserted. The treatment not only stimulates cell reproduction, it is incapable of becoming an embryo. It only forms disconnected, undifferentiated cells called "pleuripotent stem cells" which are the functional equivalent of embryonic stem cells. All the alternative procedures in research are looking to develop the functional equivalent of embryonic stem cells without the need to create and destroy a human embryo which many people find morally repugnant.
But embryonic stem cell research is not the most promising line of research anyway. No one is benefitting from embryonic stem cell research because they can't get rid of the inherent problems by using embryonic stem cells -including tumor formation, unstable gene expression and inability to stimulate the cells to form the desired type of tissue. (A religious person might suggest that perhaps God intended no benefit to humans by creating, and then cannibalizing a human life.)
The claim that embryonic stem cell research has "great" potential to cure all sorts of disease is pure hype. No line of stem cell research will EVER cure Alzheimer's because it is believed to probably involve aberrations in more than just one cell type, none of which are even known much less understood - plus the fact that the disease kills brain cells. Sticking embryonic stem cells into someone's brain is far more likely to produce a tumor than a cure. Even honest researchers in favor of embryonic stem cell research admit that claims it has potential to treat Alzheimer's are just not true and only used by the dishonest hoping it will help build demand for government funding.
Proponents who insist on government funding are often not aware of the fact that this is the ONLY line of stem cell research even looking to government for funding. Because it can't attract private funding. And is the ONLY line of stem cell research that can't because this line is the least promising. Other lines of research have already produced benefit, already in use in human trials for many diseases and conditions right now -like Parkinson's disease, leukemia, autoimmune disease, stroke, anemia, several kinds of cancer, immunodeficiency, corneal damage, blood and liver diseases, heart attack, and diabetes. The most optimistic outlook for when embryonic stem cell research might actually benefit a person -is another couple of decades -if then.
Private investors do their own research in order to put their money in investments with the most promise, not the least. So maybe you can explain for us all that if private investors won't fund embryonic stem cell research because they consider it as a loser investment - why you think taxpayers should be soaked for the bill -but NOT funding the lines of research that are already benefitting people and most likely to find even more benefit?
And SO WHAT that Palin opposes gay marriage? So does the vast majority in this country in case you didn't notice. Want to ram it down their throats against their will anyway? If so, then you do not want a representative democracy. You want tyranny. Most people have no problem allowing gay partners to share in the different financial benefits married couples may receive. But the definition of the word "marriage" is already taken and the notion that we must now redefine the word to mean "any two people who want to shack up" is ludicrous.
here is your link and I signed it!Please do a search for:
Open Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research - The Petition Site & Sign!!!!
Less than 3,000 needed still to reach goal.
Sorry this site will not let me post direct link yet
Thank You!
Taimie
