Could we get Hilary Swank from Million Dollar Baby help us reach the masses?
Her character chose death over living with the devastation of paralysis.
Imagine how different her character's choice would have been....., given the expectation of a Cure with stem cell research.......

As Michael J. Fox has said: Stem Cell Research is Pro-Living!!

Stem cells are a sharp knife so be careful how you handle it because you're going to cut yourselves to pieces! Patients and doctor offices are designed privately so that millions will be destroyed by stem cells. Wouldn't it be a better world if doctors had a list of patient recommendations for a certain drug? I took phen-fen during it's last year on the market imagine what I would've found out had patients been allowed to communicate with one another? Double trouble; I've also been using asthma drugs to an extreme for 15 years and my legs are swollen and blistered. I've made my recommendations at rip-off.com for Advair and GlaxoSmithKline to help guide others. I hope everyone else will do the same as we venture down this road of uncertainy using the sharpest of tools. Waiting for the market to catch up with medical results just doesn't work.

How can we watch the ad? How exciting...

I thought all the evil people were in jail, and all the good people had security clearance. Guess I was misled again. Senator Bill Frist is the worst living human being on the planet of all time. Not even Hitler could've imagined killing so many for so little. GlaxoSmithKline must be feeding that miserable example of living tissue quarters.

Um, I think "Hitler" is a bit strong.

Yes, be careful, saying stuff like that is going too far, and will only hurt our attempts to win this debate.

We have right on our side -- let's stick with the facts.

I thought this was a very pleasant exchange. TY

Why don't you wait for senator frist to make a statement on stem cells. He could help

The (Frist) stalling tactics are so obvious that Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter last week threatened to attach the stem-cell bill to an appropriations bill and get it a hearing.

Once more, America lets politics and religion trump science.

Once more, sick and dying people pay the price.

"Bill Frist is running for president," DeGette said. "He's trying to cater to the far right," which considers embryonic stem-cell research abortion.

Frist is also trying to protect George Bush from having to make good on a veto threat that will placate the flat- Earth forces in his conservative base. Such a presidential veto will alienate mainstream Americans who appreciate and rely on scientific research.

"This is an issue that isn't going away," DeGette said. "It's an issue with growing public support."

Incorporating stem-cell research into an unrelated, "must-pass" Senate bill is clearly a parliamentary maneuver.

"That's essentially what we had to do in the House to get a hearing," DeGette said. "We told (the leadership) we'd attach the stem-cell bill to any moving piece of legislation."

From: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_2887952?rss

Perhaps it would be helpful if you specified in the ad (and in general) that you are seeking to promote *embryonic* stem cell research, since that's what HR 810 is all about.

If your interest is in SCR in general, then there are tons of cures & "winning" stories from adult stem cell therapy that you should be posting and using in your ads. ASCR, after all, avoids the problem with ESCR of killing embryonic human beings to harvest their stem cells. Or, you could mention the alternative ESCR proposals like Altered Nuclear Transfter - Oocyte Assisted Reprograming which would allow for ESCR without killing any embryonic humans in the process.

We are in favor of *all* types of stem cell research, including adult, cord blood, and embryonic.

Adult stem cell research shows promise, and that is great, but it is an addition to embryonic stem cell research, not a substitute.

If you want to maximize hope for cures & treatments, embryonic stem cell research has to be part of the equation.

Thanks for the reply, John. But I think most Americans oppose ESCR when they are told that it involves killing the embryo first.

The fact is, ASCR has been used to successfully treat numerous diseases. ESCR has not. Given the moral problems surrounding the latter, why not focus on the former?

The reason to support ESCR is that it offers promise in areas that adult stem cell research doesn't. This is what scientist after scientist who works in this field says. It's simply not a matter of debate -- if you want to maximize hope for curing diseases more quickly, you need ESCR. Otherwise, this wouldn't even be a debate.

And I disagree that most Americans oppose ESCR when they're told the full story. In fact, quite the opposite -- when they're made aware that these are "embryos" the size of the period at the end of this sentence, and when they're made aware that these are fertilized eggs that will be thrown away anyway -- support actually goes up.

If you oppose it on moral grounds, I understand that. But you've got to acknowledge that cutting back on ESCR means that cures and treatments will almost certainly take longer -- and more people will suffer and die in the meantime. There are no guarantees in life, we can't say anything for certain, but... the scientists who know this area best would agree that that is the most likely scenario.