Do you want an ideologue in office with the power to make medical, scientific, and health decisions-- including on stem cell research? No?
Then maybe you would not want to vote for Dan Lungren, Republican of California.
DAN LUNGREN, KARL ROVE, AND THE POLITICS OF PARKINSON’S DISEASE
By Don C. Reed
Question: which is more important to Dan Lungren: the health and well-being of his constituents, or the ideology of the Religious Right?
Let’s look, using the resources of the non-partisan website, votesmart.org.
In 2007-2008, Lungren supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 per cent.
In 2009, he supported the interests of the American Public Health Association only 11 per cent.
Ideology? 100 per cent. Health? 11 per cent.
Http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=16730
If you want an ideologue, this is your man.
The Republican incumbent and career politician, (California district 3) is also one of the very few Golden State politicians heavily backed by Karl Rove, whose organizations fund vicious attack adds benefiting their chosen anti-tax candidate. (Carly Fiorina* is another.) Lungren does not often mention that Mr. Rove is funneling money his way, through shadow groups. (http://www.beraforcongress.com/press_releases/entry/what-karl-rove-and-dan-lungren-dont-want-you-to
-know/)
What bothers me about Lungren is that he puts ideology over everything, not only his constituents (see above) but even his own family.
His brother has Parkinson’s disease, a horrible condition which grows progressively worse.
What is it like?
Here is a description by my friend Greg Wasson**, describing in Congressional testimony what Parkinson’s is like, for himself and his wife Ann, who also has the disease:
"... I take 25 pills per day yet have increasing difficulty controlling my symptoms. These medications... do nothing to slow the progress of the disease. What you see when you look at me today is an illusion - a "chemical costume" I put on every 3 hours... (to slow the shaking as well as prevent freezing into immobility—DR)
"For both Ann and myself, the time will come when our medications fail us permanently and we will be totally functionally disabled. We will ... enter a twilight world of immobility, encased in our bodies as if in tombs, able to think but not speak, understand but not communicate. Death will inevitably follow, and by then it may not be unwelcome."
Despite these horrors, Lungren opposes the use of embryonic stem cell research, even for his suffering brother.
He definitely has the courage of his convictions. Unfortunately, sincerity of belief is not enough.
His ideology is not for his family alone—they are imposed upon the rest of us when he wins.
Lungren votes against embryonic stem cell research whenever he can.
He also spreads the poisonous myth of "72 adult stem cell treatments" for disease and disability.
This last is the infamous and discredited list of "treatments" invented by David Prentice, employee of the Family Research Council, one of the most powerful Religious Right lobbying groups in the country.
www.huffingtonpost.com/don-c-reed/eric-prince-and-david-pre_b_446709.html -
It is an insidious list, because if you do not really know what is going on, you could easily believe all these diseases are being successfully treated, so we don’t need to allow embryonic stem cell research to go forward—which is of course exactly the purpose of the list.
The list of treatments (often referred to as cures) was made by David Prentice, Ph.D, employee of a Religious Right lobbying group called the Family Research Council, one of the most conservative groups in the nation. Every year they put on a Values Voters Convention, and Republican Presidential candidate hurry there in hopes in winning its endorsement.
When Lungren talks about "72 treatments", that is his source of "information".
Adult stem cells have their uses. But virtually no scientist wants to limit his/her research to adult stem cells alone. (Adult stem cells are like little repair kits for the body; they make scars, for example. But there is no comparing their slow growth properties with the explosion of power from embryonic stem cells, made from sperm-egg blastocysts which would otherwise be thrown away In Vitro Fertility procedures.)
But a treatment can be just about anything—prescribing aspiring for cancer could be called a treatment.
One of the diseases listed as having an adult stem cell treatment is Parkinsons....
Now that is just plain wrong.
Here is the truth.
About the only serious treatment (other than the constant pills, which only help mask the symptoms) is Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) where a needle is poked into the brain. This is surprisingly effective, and on many occasions results in two to three years symptom-free.
Wonderful—but the disease is only put on hold.
The adult stem cell treatment for Parkinson’s? One doctor did a deep brain stimulation with one patient, and put some adult stem cells in the brain, along with the needle-poking and some electrical stimulation.
The patient had three symptom-free years, and then the shaking and everything else returned.
Should we call one temporary patient improvement a "treatment" , on the basis of which we deny further research as unnecessary? That is not right. It is rather the politics of cruelty...
Another injury supposedly with a "treatment" on the list is spinal cord injury. This is my field of interest, because my son Roman Reed is paralyzed from the shoulders down. (He had a college football accident, in which his neck was broken.)
If there was a good treatment out there, I would know about it, and I would mortgage the house to get it for my son.
But the best treatment for spinal cord injury that I know of right now is the embryonic stem cell treatment Geron developed—which research received initial funding from a California law named after my son, the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act of 1999. It is a great beginning, for new injuries only, but it will hopefully will lead to further advances.
My point is simple.
Whoever we send to Washington to represent us will be voting on whether or not to fund embryonic stem cell research.
I want someone there who understands the issues beyond a blank check ideological opinion.
Dr. Ami Bera has a degree in biological science. Understanding the research and its importance is not difficult for him. I agree with him on a lot of other issues as well, like the importance of not privatizing Social Security, but stem cell research is my main concern.
Every cure we bring about means billions in savings from reduced medical costs—not to mention the reduction in suffering, which is uncalculable.
Which is why, for what it’s worth, I am giving Ami Bera my endorsement—and a gigantic twenty-five dollar campaign contribution.
I know, I know, big spender—but I am on Social Security now—again, a reason to vote for Bera!
Please check out his website: http://www.beraforcongress.com/
* Carly Fiorina is currently benefiting from a new THREE MILLION DOLLARS worth of additional attack ads on Barbara Boxer—in the last hours of campaigning, when there is no time to respond.
**Greg’s description of Parkinson’s is the most moving I have ever read, which is why I quoted it. But I have no idea what his personal politics are—all opinions expressed here are solely my own.