Stem cells, real cures, and the media

I have been trying to find the most eloquent way to discuss this stem cell topic, but am finding it difficult to do. "Perhaps I can just not comment," I tell myself. But that isn't possible...the topic is too important and so many involved are twisting the truth for their own ends.

First off, here is a series of well written, and easy to read articles about the issue:
James P. Kelly #1
James P. Kelly #2
James P. Kelly #3
James P. Kelly #4

James P. Kelly is a man paralyzed man who at first supported stem cell research. However as he looked into the subject, found that the media and scientists have not been presenting the truth as to the potential of stem cells.

Here is how I see the big debate, and how different layers of assumptions got us here:

1) Scientists discover that stem cells can become any tissue in the human body
2) Scientists theorize that these stem cells could be implanted into people, and grow to replace damaged tissue
3) Media hears this and presents it as a possible cure (for cures are what sells papers)
4) People, especially ones with terminal diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and spinal cord injuries, hear about a cure and push to get funding
5) Politicians get pressured by the people, give in to their demands, and allocate funds for more research
6) Scientists see funds for research, and change their focus so they can get said funds
7) Research finds that an easy source of stem cells is embryos
8) Pro-Life people say no to research on embryos

Enter the current debate

9) Common public gets involved in the big debate: embryos vs. "curing" people
10) Celebrity spokespeople like Christopher Reeves and Michael J. Fox enter the picture, putting a bigger face on the issue
11) Politicians that stand up for the embryos get ridiculed and told that they don't care about the people. Many politicians cave.
12) Media eats it up, sells more papers
13) Scientists get more and more permissions to do research on stem cells
14) Even though scientists begin to find great limitations to using embryonic stem cells, they use their saleman techniques and still claim that the answer is right around the corner.
15) When a recent report comes out that embryonic stem cells can be harvested WITHOUT hurting the embryo, stem cell scientists poo-poo the idea saying that distroying the embryo is easier.

Interesting chain of events, but nothing spectacular. Well, I have left two important details out (you may have noticed this if you have read the above articles):
1) Embryonic stem cells (ESC) curing people is a theory, but has never actually worked in real life. There are many reasons, but a few are:

ESC are not programmed to live in an adult

ESC create tumors, not healthy tissue, in adults (cancer and stem cells grow rapidly for the same reasons)

ESC create tissue rejection within adults

2) Adult stem cells are available (within the nose) without killing anyone

These stem cells ARE programmed to live in an adult

These stem cells can be controlled

These stems cells ARE YOUR CELLS, and so your body won't reject them

These stem cells can be harvested easily, even from older people, without damaging (let alone KILLING) anyone.

I personally am angered that the media has manipulated the public by not telling the whole story. I am angered at Pro-choice people for using this misinformation to further their cause. I am angered at people with terminal illnesses for pushing so hard to have hope that they are harming others (embryos). I am angered at the media and the self-interest groups for giving people with illnesses false hope just to further their agenda. I am angered at politicians for not looking into the subject, but instead caving in for fear that they would look heartless.

Someone has really played the whole system.

Mel's Mistake

Explain this to me, please. Everywhere I turn there are people putting down the Christian faith, be in around town, on the television or radio, in our government, and even in the movies. It seems like the thing to do these days. However, after Mel Gibson let his mouth run afoul, saying some disparaging remarks regarding Jews, it seems like the thing to do now is to slam Mel. And no amount of remorse or apology is enough to satisfy many of his critics.

Now don't get me wrong: Mel should not have been saying those things, and I sure hope he doesn't believe them. But even if he did, why is it alright to put down Christians, blaming them for everything under the sun, but then demand that people of another faith be left untouched? Thinking of other religions of the world, I have observed that it is more socially acceptable to put down the muslim faith, and possibly the hindu faith and the atheistic faith (because it has become a form of religion these days), but not Jewish people. Why is that? I support people of all faiths, including Jews. My issue is how there is such a protection for one religion but not others. Where is the line between "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Religion"? Are Mel's critics slamming him now because they were unsuccessful at getting him when he made "The Passion of the Christ"?

Another blogger wrote a very well-written blog about this incident, that I recommend reading. It is level-headed and pulls no punches. One interesting point he makes is that there are many people in Hollywood that have put down Jews much more violently and much more consistently, than this incident with Mel. However these individuals are rarely, if ever, called on their words. It makes me feel that much more that Mel's critics have been lying in wait for him to make a mistake, wanting to find fault with him, and that they are much less concerned over his putting down Jews.

And relatively speaking, what all did Mel actually say against the Jews? He blamed them for being responsible for all the wars in the world...a bit extreme, but a personal opinion not much worse than people saying that the U.S. is responsible for all the wars in the world. He used an expletive followed by the word Jew...people say that expletive ALL THE TIME with other things, and it is pretty much ignored. What else did he say? We don't know. So, there really isn't much ammo against the guy right now, and yet the critics are really getting their moneys worth out of it.