From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Stem cells are a vote for life

February 13, 2006 5:43 PM

Leslie Stahl from 60 Minutes did a segment last night on embryonic stem cell research and thoroughly trashed Bush's policy as hypocritical and showed how Bush's federal funding ban on new embryos is stalling research progress.

A few months ago, researchers were able to grow lung cells from stem cells -- a key breakthrough in developing replacement organs for people like me. It happened in London.

The woman who spearheaded this research is herself a recipient of a heart/lung transplant in 1995. One of the longest survivors.

This is personal, and it's powerful. I'm a ticking clock. Maybe I get the transplant and am able to hold on with those lungs long enough to where stem cell therapy can keep me around longer. And maybe if Bush gets out of the way I'll have a better shot. Maybe.

40% of America opposes federal funding. They're wrong. There are millions like me who could benefit from this research.

Vote for life.

More from the archive in Health.

Stem cells are a vote for life (02.13.2006)

Next Entry: Schwarzenegger vows to raise $120 MILLION (02.17.2006)
Previous Entry: Bone marrow transplants change lung cells (02.13.2006)

Read the 14 comments.


Mr. Gilliam

-My wife is from Peru; since we have Satellite TV we watch a lot of programs from there.
-There’s an investigative type show (a la A Current Affair/60 Minutes the show is called “Cuarto Poder”), that had a story about Stem Cells (celulas madres). Apparently a certain doctor in Lima has taken stem cell research into actual practice, he showed a few patients he has treated, and one in particular was an older man (in his 50s/60s) that has had more then 10 heart bypass operations. The show stated that he would not survive another procedure; hence he was treated by injecting stem cells (taken from his own Iliac Crest) into his damaged/dead heart tissue.
-The patient is now on an exercise regimen and living a more active life style his wife claims that he has done a 180 as to his health.
-The show also interviewed two or three diabetics under this doctor’s care, one claims that he only needs 1/5 his insulin dose and is continuing his treatments, similar stories from the rest of the people interviewed.
-I hope this information can help you and anyone else who reads this.

Tue Feb 14 2006 9:29 AM


Mr. Gilliam

(HINT) It's summer in Peru this time of year.

Tue Feb 14 2006 9:32 AM



This doctor claimes to have REGENERATED the dead/damaged heart muscle of the heart patient.

He claims that everything from Alopecia to Diabetes to Heart Disease can be treated/cured using this.

The show aires daily on Direct TV channel (I think 429 - to be sure channel surf between 426-430 during prime time) the network is called SUR.

Tue Feb 14 2006 9:51 AM

Tom from Madison:

President Bush's war on science is having many casualties. The opportunity costs of not doing stem cell research are huge.

What if some of the billions of $ floating around Iraq had gone into research to prevent Alzheimers, cure cancer, or advance many other avenues of basic medical research?

Not-so-curious George has a bad case of misplaced priorities. We are all paying for Bush's debt to the religious right.

Wed Feb 15 2006 11:29 AM



I wonder who you would blame if George Bush didn’t exist.

Government is not meant to be the be-all & end-all of the American people’s existence.

My youngest son has an Autistic spectrum disorder do you think if the government did not support certain types of treatments/procedures/medicines I would sit on my hands? If I found something that could help me son out of this nations borders do you think I wouldn’t???

My (1st born) daughter has Alopecia and though it not a life endangering condition, for her it’s a societal barrier in her teens. I’m actually actively trying to find out more info on the doctor I talked about for my daughter.

And guess what Tom, George Bush isn’t going to stop me.

Wed Feb 15 2006 1:24 PM


It's really very simple. Place blame where blame is due, give credit where credit is due. Bush's priorities are out of whack. The country and the world are worse off for it. Certainly Bush isn't the source of all evil. However his misplaced priorities have prevented much good from being done.

His opposition to stem cell research is politics pure and simple. As a result of his deal with the religious right, we're all worse off. Don't blame me for saying it.

The fact that Bush is both dishonest and secretive invites criticism. Those who ignore his record aren't doing the due dilligence we need to make our form of government work. Billions of $ have been wasted in Iraq with new scandals out daily. Loyalty to this buffoon is costing us all now. The cost to future generations continues to rise when people who can make this world a better place don't.

Wed Feb 15 2006 6:47 PM

Tom from Madison:

Last is mine.

Wed Feb 15 2006 6:50 PM



The only people that are making this political are those that share your opinion.

Thanks to him this country is safer (although he could do more), he has a conscience.

You're right "Place blame where blame is due, give credit where credit is due." Senators & congress people have obstructed him at every turn and to spite their best efforts they have been (for the most part) unable to stop him - not for any moral issues just because the left hates him and every day it's proven over and over. Thank you: Ted (HIC) Kennedy, Pelosi, Howard (DR. Demento) Dean, Kerry and all the other usual suspects I have yet to mention.

The president decided no stem cell research, well then no stem cell research, (when one of yours becomes President then change the ruling) that does not mean that people cant get treated go out of the country (Bush cant stop you – Read my last post).

I posted that information (above) in an effort to help Mr. Gilliam, leave it to you to make it political, at least I made the effort to make it human.

Thu Feb 16 2006 7:24 AM

Tom from Madison:

Only a fool believes Bush has made this country safer. It's a Republican myth.

Money has literally been wasted by the wheel-barrow full in Iraq. The war on terror has simply been an excuse for graft and corruption.

Ideology has stolen the reason of the hard right, but not of the American people. There has been a sea change since the Iraqi invasion. People realize they were lied to. Support for the war has evaporated as the truth has come out.

Most of the nation have abandoned Bush and the foolish war based on the following reasons:
1) The original reasons for war were lies.
2) Bush and company had a pre-existing plan to invade. 9/11 was not a justification to invade Iraq, only a pretext connected to a myth.
3) Bush still refuses to level with the American people-especially with those really responsible for 9/11.
4) Costs of this war are escalating with no end in sight.
5) The objective of establishing a sustainable democracy in Iraq has proved to be a curious one.

The will of most Iraqis may be to establish an Islamic Republic a la Iran. Is that worth American lives? If we are trying to establish democracy in Iraq, why don't we raze Abu Ghraib?

Speaking of prisons and torture, why is the US maintaining a worldwide network of secret prisons and proclaiming that there are areas where no human rights exist?

Bush has proven himself to be an enemy of human rights and democratic principles. Torture is absolutely wrong everywhere at all times. No claim of US or Republican exceptionalism exonerates him. He has brought great shame to this country and to America. For that he deserves to be impeached.

Bush himself is an immoral President who refuses to recognize the universality of human rights. If you don't recognize that, you need to get your head out of the sand. The rest of the world has contempt for Bush and for good reason.

Republicans are in the minority in support of Bush having lied us into a weak position. No tax cut or tough talk can justify the reality his administration has taken us to.

Thu Feb 16 2006 7:48 AM



Don’t you get tired of rehashing the same old rhetoric???
OK here we go again.

-Bush didn’t lie
-Are you also going to say that Roosevelt also new that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked in 1941 and he let it happen?
-“those really responsible for 9/11.” - Are Terrorists plain and simple, it doesn’t matter where they come from it what they do that makes them terrorists not where they’re from.
-Defense of the nation is worth any price - “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” – JFK
-How many middle-eastern nations have had elections since 2003 that have not had them before, unfortunately democracies are born in blood read our own history if you don’t believe it. If the Iraqis want an Iran like government - so be it at least we gave them the choice but I don’t think that’s happening, for one thing women are assuming positions of power, little girls are going to school and that means something. This is where democracy begins.

History will judge Bush as one of this nations greatest Presidents – you don’t have to like it but you are going to have to live with it.

Thu Feb 16 2006 2:39 PM

Tom from Madison:

I don't get tired of telling the truth. I'm glad to set the record straight for those of you who can't accept that we were lied into attacking Iraq.

Saudi terrorists attacked the US on 9/11. They were not united to Iraq in any way. Everybody knew it, Bush included.

How about some historic context that neocons invariably leave out? Previous unrelated deals Between 1) the US and Bin Laden and 2) the US and Saddam Hussein had gone sour after both were mightily peeved that the US had exploited them in different, unrelated situations: 1) Bin Laden was hired to be OUR fundamentalist terrorist in Afghanistan against the USSR; 2) Osama was OUR SECULAR terrorist in Iraq fighting the Iranian revolution after our dictator there [the Shah] fell. Reagan helped both these terrorists and along with Bush 41 created much of the "terrorism" we face today.

Your "defense is worth it" only applies when the US is in real danger. How afraid must you be to figure the US has to fight a continual war in Iraq to be safe. This is pure foolishness.

Americans, other than the terminally afraid, don't believe it any more. The period of temporary insanity is over.

Having elections don't justify causing the death of innocent Iraqis. Iran has had meaningless elections for years. Now Iraq has them.

Bush has established a failed state under new management in Iraq. If he wanted to be credible he would have immediately shut down Abu Ghraib. He would also put an end to the abject corruption and illegitimate profiteering resulting from how he has chosen to wage the war in Iraq. Iraqis can't believe we are on their side when billions of $ are being made due to the war the US has deliberately chosen to have in their country.

The Iraq war isn't popular because it's based on lies, is not worth the cost, and ultimately isn't serving even the interests of Iraqis or Americans.

Thu Feb 16 2006 10:16 PM


Tom - for number 2, I believe you meant Saddam not Osama.

NJ Guardsman - you say "If the Iraqis want an Iran like government - so be it at least we gave them the choice but I don’t think that’s happening, for one thing women are assuming positions of power, little girls are going to school and that means something. This is where democracy begins."

When Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq, there were women in positions of power and little girls (and grown women) went to school. Saddam and the Baath party never blocked women from getting an education. You are confusing Iraq and the Baath party with Afghanistan and the Taliban.

Also, Iran also allows and encourages girls and women to get an education, and it is still an hardline Islamic regime.

Both Iran and Iraq have many womean as doctors, teachers, engineers, etc. Education of women does not automatically equate to democracy.

Fri Feb 17 2006 1:17 PM

Tom from Madison:


thanks for the correction. Yes Saddam.

Fri Feb 17 2006 2:52 PM

Tom from Madison:

Tricia brings up a very good point concerning keeping distinctions straight between the Baath party and the Taliban.

It is in the best interest of the US and the world to not have Islamic Secularists and Fundamentalists united against a common enemy--namely us! Yet, that is exactly what George Bush has done--repeatedly. Painting all "terrorists" with the same brush is both intellectually lazy and stategically disasterous. It makes zero sense to have a single strategy against every single enemy that gets labelled a terrorist by our xenophobic ruling cabal.

Cultural awareness and sensitivity don't seem to be in this incurious President's repertoire. Perhaps he was doing drugs that day, getting drunk, or never cared. In any event, this is NOT the stuff greatness is made of.

I'm looking forward to having a President who behaves more like the leader of the free world and less like a power-hungry war-lord.

Fri Feb 17 2006 3:04 PM

Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam


Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Weekly Artists Chart