Diabetes Education and Research Center
Back Chats
On Mon May 28 17:36:25 2001 () said:
Thanks to all the fallen soldiers who
fought and died so that we may be the most free country in the world, and have
the rights that we do, in spite of idiots like CB.
On Mon May 28 16:06:20 2001 () said:
thats OK Herb...we feel sorry for
you....
On Mon May 28 11:58:32 2001 Herb (Bear) (hjs38@swbell.net) said:
CB: Don't
you find it amusing that when a deficient intellect cannot refute your opinion
with fact or logic they will always resort to personal attacks. I noticed that
you were a jew before you were a catholic. And I wonder what percentage of
evangelicals play with snakes or drink poison. Oh well!! Herb (Bear)
On Mon May 28 07:33:23 2001 () said:
gee CB...is that one of those churches
where you handle snakes, drink poison and flop on the floor for jesus ?
On Mon May 28 07:31:15 2001 () said:
best to never let up because thr
religious nuts like CB would stop all research involving stem cells and would
also come into your house,burn your books and put your children in religious
schools....
On Mon May 28 03:30:34 2001 CB () said:
Catholic logic??? Funny, I am an
evangelical and fellowship at a Calvary Chapel.
On Mon May 28 01:28:28 2001 http://www.stemcellresearch.org/statement.htm ()
said:
On Human Embryos and Stem Cell Research: An Appeal for Legally and
Ethically Responsible Science and Public Policy Recent scientific advances in
human stem cell research have brought into fresh focus the dignity and status of
the human embryo. These advances have prompted a decision by the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to
fund stem cell research which is dependent upon the destruction of human
embryos. Moreover, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) is calling
for a modification of the current ban against federally funded human embryo
research in order to permit direct federal funding for the destructive
harvesting of stem cells from human embryos. These developments require that the
legal, ethical, and scientific issues associated with this research be
critically addressed and articulated. Our careful consideration of these issues
leads to the conclusion that human stem cell research requiring the destruction
of human embryos is objectionable on legal, ethical, and scientific grounds.
Moreover, destruction of human embryonic life is unnecessary for medical
progress, as alternative methods of obtaining human stem cells and of repairing
and regenerating human tissue exist and continue to be developed. Human
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Violates Existing Law & Policy In November
1998, two independent teams of U.S. scientists reported that they had succeeded
in isolating and culturing stem cells obtained from human embryos and fetuses.
Stem cells are the cells from which all 210 different kinds of tissue in the
human body originate. Because many diseases result from the death or dysfunction
of a single cell type, scientists believe that the introduction of healthy cells
of this type into a patient may restore lost or compromised function. Now that
human embryonic stem cells can be isolated and multiplied in the laboratory,
some scientists believe that treatments for a variety of diseases-such as
diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's-may be within reach. While
we in no way dispute the fact that the ability to treat or heal suffering
persons is a great good, we also recognize that not all methods of achieving a
desired good are morally or legally justifiable. If this were not so, the
medically accepted and legally required practices of informed consent and of
seeking to do no harm to the patient could be ignored whenever some "greater
good" seems achievable. One of the great hallmarks of American law has been its
solicitous protection of the lives of individuals, especially the vulnerable.
Our nation's traditional protection of human life and human rights derives from
an affirmation of the essential dignity of every human being. Likewise, the
international structure of human rights law-one of the great achievements of the
modern world-is founded on the conviction that when the dignity of one human
being is assaulted, all of us are threatened. The duty to protect human life is
specifically reflected in the homicide laws of all 50 states. Furthermore,
federal law and the laws of many states specifically protect vulnerable human
embryos from harmful experimentation. Yet in recently publicized experiments,
stem cells have been harvested from human embryos in ways which destroy the
embryos. Despite an existing congressional ban on federally-funded human embryo
research, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined on
January 15, 1999 that the government may fund human embryonic stem cell
research. The stated rationales behind this decision are that stem cells are not
embryos (which itself may be a debatable point) and that research using cells
obtained by destroying human embryos can be divorced from the destruction
itself. However, even NBAC denies this latter claim, as is evident by the
following statement in its May 6, 1999 Draft Report on Stem Cell Research:
Whereas researchers using fetal tissue are not responsible for the death of the
fetus, researchers using stem cells derived from embryos will typically be
implicated in the destruction of the embryo. This is true whether or not
researchers participate in the derivation of embryonic stem cells. As long as
embryos are destroyed as part of the research enterprise, researchers using
embryonic stem cells (and those who fund them) will be complicit in the death of
embryos. If the flawed rationales of HHS are accepted, federally-funded
researchers may soon be able to experiment on stem cells obtained by destroying
embryonic human beings, so long as the act of destruction does not itself
receive federal funds. However, the very language of the existing ban prohibits
the use of federal funds to support "research in which a human embryo or embryos
are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death...."
Obviously, Congress' intent here was not merely to prohibit the use of federal
funds for embryo destruction, but to prohibit the use of such funds for research
dependent in any way upon such destruction. Therefore, the opinion of HHS that
human embryonic stem cell research may receive federal funding clearly violates
both the language of and intention behind the existing law. Congress and the
courts should ensure that the law is properly interpreted and enforced to ban
federal funding for research which harms, destroys, or is dependent upon the
destruction of human embryos. It is important to recognize also that research
involving human embryos outside the womb-such as embryos produced in the
laboratory by in vitro fertilization (IVF) or cloning-has never received federal
funding. Initially, this was because a federal regulation of 1975 prevented
government funding of IVF experiments unless such experiments were deemed
acceptable by an Ethics Advisory Board. Following the failure of the first
advisory board to reach a consensus on the matter, no administration chose to
appoint a new board. After this regulation was rescinded by Congress in 1993,
the Human Embryo Research Panel recommended to the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) that certain kinds of harmful nontherapeutic experiments using human
embryos receive federal funding. However, these recommendations were rejected in
part by President Clinton and then rejected in their entirety by Congress.
Further, it is instructive to note that the existing law which permits
researchers to use fetal tissue obtained from elective abortions requires that
the abortions are performed for reasons which are entirely unrelated to the
research objectives. This law thus prohibits HHS from promoting the destruction
of human life in the name of medical progress, yet medical progress is precisely
the motivation and justification offered for the destruction of human life that
occurs when stem cells are obtained from human embryos. Current law against
funding research in which human embryos are harmed and destroyed reflects
well-established national and international legal and ethical norms against the
misuse of any human being for research purposes. Since 1975, those norms have
been applied to unborn children at every stage of development in the womb, and
since 1995 they have been applied to the human embryo outside the womb as well.
The existing law on human embryonic research is a reflection of universally
accepted principles governing experiments on human subjects-principles reflected
in the Nuremberg Code, the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki,
the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and many other statements.
Accordingly, members of the human species who cannot give informed consent for
research should not be the subjects of an experiment unless they personally may
benefit from it or the experiment carries no significant risk of harming them.
Only by upholding such research principles do we prevent treating people as
things-as mere means to obtaining knowledge or benefits for others. It may
strike some as surprising that legal protection of embryonic human beings can
co-exist with the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 legalization of abortion. However,
the Supreme Court has never prevented the government from protecting prenatal
life outside the abortion context, and public sentiment also seems even more
opposed to government funding of embryo experimentation than to the funding of
abortion. The laws of a number of states-including Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
Utah-specifically protect embryonic human beings outside the womb. Most of these
provisions prohibit experiments on embryos outside the womb. We believe that the
above legally acknowledged protections against assaults on human dignity must be
extended to all human beings-irrespective of gender, race, religion, health,
disability, or age. Consequently, the human embryo must not be subject to
willful destruction even if the stated motivation is to help others. Therefore,
on existing legal grounds alone, research using stem cells derived from the
destruction of early human embryos is proscribed. Human Embryonic Stem Cell
Research Is Unethical The HHS decision and the recommendations of NBAC to
federally fund research involving the destruction of human embryos would be
profoundly disturbing even if this research could result in great scientific and
medical gain. The prospect of government-sponsored experiments to manipulate and
destroy human embryos should make us all lie awake at night. That some
individuals would be destroyed in the name of medical science constitutes a
threat to us all. Recent statements claiming that human embryonic stem cell
research is too promising to be slowed or prohibited underscore the sort of
utopianism and hubris that could blind us to the truth of what we are doing and
the harm we could cause to ourselves and others. Human embryos are not mere
biological tissues or clusters of cells; they are the tiniest of human beings.
Thus, we have a moral responsibility not to deliberately harm them. An
international scientific consensus now recognizes that human embryos are
biologically human beings beginning at fertilization and acknowledges the
physical continuity of human growth and development from the one-cell stage
forward. In the 1970s and 1980s, some frog and mouse embryologists referred to
the human embryo in its first week or two of development as a "pre-embryo,"
claiming that it deserved less respect than embryos in later stages of
development. However, some embryology textbooks now openly refer to the term
"pre-embryo" as a scientifically invalid and "inaccurate" term which has been
"discarded," and others which once used the term have quietly dropped it from
new editions. Both the Human Embryo Research Panel and the National Bioethics
Advisory Commission have also rejected the term, describing the human embryo
from its earliest stages as a living organism and a "developing form of human
life." The claim that an early human embryo becomes a human being only after 14
days or implantation in the womb is therefore a scientific myth. Finally, the
historic and well-respected 1995 Ramsey Colloquium statement on embryo research
acknowledges that: The [embryo] is human; it will not articulate itself into
some other kind of animal. Any being that is human is a human being. If it is
objected that, at five days or fifteen days, the embryo does not look like a
human being, it must be pointed out that this is precisely what a human being
looks like-and what each of us looked like-at five or fifteen days of
development. Therefore, the term "pre-embryo," and all that it implies, is
scientifically invalid. The last century and a half has been marred by numerous
atrocities against vulnerable human beings in the name of progress and medical
benefit. In the 19th century, vulnerable human beings were bought and sold in
the town square as slaves and bred as though they were animals. In this century,
the vulnerable were executed mercilessly and subjected to demeaning
experimentation at Dachau and Auschwitz. At mid-century, the vulnerable were
subjects of our own government's radiation experiments without their knowledge
or consent. Likewise, vulnerable African-Americans in Tuskegee, Alabama were
victimized as subjects of a government-sponsored research project to study the
effects of syphilis. Currently, we are witness to the gross abuse of mental
patients used as subjects in purely experimental research. These experiments
were and are driven by a crass utilitarian ethos which results in the creation
of a "sub-class" of human beings, allowing the rights of the few to be
sacrificed for the sake of potential benefit to the many. These unspeakably
cruel and inherently wrong acts against human beings have resulted in the
enactment of laws and policies which require the protection of human rights and
liberties, including the right to be protected from the tyranny of the quest for
scientific progress. The painful lessons of the past should have taught us that
human beings must not be conscripted for research without their permission-no
matter what the alleged justification-especially when that research means the
forfeiture of their health or lives. Even if an individual's death is believed
to be otherwise imminent, we still do not have a license to engage in lethal
experimentation-just as we may not experiment on death row prisoners or harvest
their organs without their consent. We are aware that a number of Nobel
scientists endorse human embryonic stem cell research on the basis that it may
offer a great good to those who are suffering. While we acknowledge that the
desire to heal people is certainly a laudable goal and understand that many have
invested their lives in realizing this goal, we also recognize that we are
simply not free to pursue good ends via unethical means. Of all human beings,
embryos are the most defenseless against abuse. A policy promoting the use and
destruction of human embryos would repeat the failures of the past. The
intentional destruction of some human beings for the alleged good of other human
beings is wrong. Therefore, on ethical grounds alone, research using stem cells
obtained by destroying human embryos is ethically proscribed. Human Embryonic
Stem Cell Research Is Scientifically Questionable Integral to the decision to
use federal funds for research on human embryonic stem cells is the distinction
between stem cells and embryos. HHS has stated that federal funds may be used to
support human embryonic stem cell research because stem cells are not embryos. A
statement issued by the Office of the General Counsel of HHS regarding this
decision asserts that "The statutory prohibition on the use of [government]
funds...for human embryo research would not apply to research utilizing human
pluripotent stem cells because such cells are not a human embryo within the
statutory definition. [Moreover, because] pluripotent stem cells do not have the
capacity to develop into a human being, [they] cannot be considered human
embryos consistent with the commonly accepted or scientific understanding of
that term." It is important to note that the materials used in an experiment, as
well as the methods of experimentation, are considered to be part of scientific
research. When a scientific study is published, the first part of the article
details the methods and materials used to conduct the research. Ethical and
scientific evaluation of an experiment takes into account both the methods and
materials used in the research process. Therefore, the source of stem cells
obtained for research is both a scientifically and ethically relevant
consideration. Research on human embryonic stem cells is objectionable due to
the fact that such research necessitates the prior destruction of human embryos;
however, the HHS's claim that stem cells are not, and cannot develop into,
embryos may itself be subject to dispute. Some evidence suggests that stem cells
cultured in the laboratory may have a tendency to recongregate and form an
aggregate of cells capable of beginning to develop as an embryo. In 1993,
Canadian scientists reported that they successfully produced a live-born mouse
from a cluster of mouse stem cells. While it is true that these stem cells had
to be wrapped in placenta-like cells in order to implant in a female mouse, it
seems that at least some doubt has been cast on the claim that a cluster of stem
cells is not embryonic in nature. If embryonic stem cells do indeed possess the
ability to form or develop as a human embryo (without any process of activation
which affects the transformation of the cell into a human embryo), research on
such stem cells could itself involve the creation and/or destruction of human
life and would thereby certainly fall under the existing ban on federally-funded
embryo research. It would be irresponsible for the HHS to conduct and condone
human embryonic stem cell research without first discerning the status of these
cells. Their use in any research in which they could be converted into human
embryos should likewise be banned. Methods of Repairing & Regenerating Human
Tissue Exist Which Do Not Require the Destruction of Human Embryos While
proponents of human embryonic stem cell research lobby aggressively for
government funding of research requiring the destruction of human embryos,
alternative methods for repairing and regenerating human tissue render such an
approach unnecessary for medical progress. For instance, a promising source of
more mature stem cells for the treatment of disease is hematopoietic (blood
cell-producing) stem cells from bone marrow or even from the placenta or
umbilical cord blood in live births. These cells are already widely used in
cancer treatment and in research on treating leukemia and other diseases. Recent
experiments have indicated that their versatility is even greater than once
thought. For example, given the right environment, bone marrow cells can be used
to regenerate muscle tissue, opening up a whole new avenue of potential
therapies for muscular dystrophies. In April 1999, new advances were announced
in isolating mesenchymal cells from bone marrow and directing them to form fat,
cartilage, and bone tissue. Experts in stem cell research believe that these
cells may allow for tissue replacement in patients suffering from cancer,
osteoporosis, dental disease, or injury. An enormously promising new source of
more mature stem cells is fetal bone marrow, a source which is many times more
effective than adult bone marrow and umbilical cord blood. It appears that fetal
bone marrow cells do not provoke immune reactions to the same degree as adult or
even newborn infant cells. This is true whether the unborn child is the donor or
the recipient-that is, fetal cells can be used to treat adults, or adult bone
marrow cells can be used to treat a child in the womb without the usual risk of
harmful immune reactions. Such cells would not need to be derived from fetuses
who were intentionally aborted, but could instead be obtained from spontaneously
aborted fetuses or stillborn infants. In 1999, unprecedented advances were also
made in isolating and culturing neural stem cells from living human nerve tissue
and even from adult cadavers. Such advances render it quite possible that
treatment of neural diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, as well as
spinal cord injuries, will not depend upon destructive embryo research. Earlier
claims that embryonic stem cells are uniquely capable of "self-renewal" and
indefinite growth can also now be seen as premature. For example, scientists
have isolated an enzyme, telomerase, which may allow human tissues to grow
almost indefinitely. Although this enzyme has been linked to the development of
cancer, researchers have been able to use it in a controlled way to
"immortalize" useful tissue without producing cancerous growths or other harmful
side effects. Thus, cultures of non-embryonic stem cells may be induced to grow
and develop almost indefinitely for clinical use. One of the most exciting new
advances in stem cell research is the January 1999 announcement that Canadian
and Italian researchers succeeded in producing new blood cells from neural stem
cells taken from an adult mouse. Until recently, it was believed that adult stem
cells were capable of producing only a particular type of cell: for example, a
neural stem cell could develop only into cells belonging to the nervous system.
Researchers believed that only embryonic stem cells retained the capacity to
form all kinds of tissue in the human body. However, if stem cells taken from
adult patients can produce cells and tissues capable of functioning within
entirely different systems, new brain tissue needed to treat a patient with
Parkinson's disease, for example, might be generated from blood stem cells
derived from the patient's bone marrow. Conversely, neural stem cells might be
used to produce needed blood and bone marrow. Use of a patient's own stem cells
would circumvent one of the major obstacles posed by the use of embryonic stem
cells-namely, the danger that tissue taken from another individual would be
rejected when transplanted into a patient. Thus, in commenting on this finding,
the British Medical Journal remarked on January 30, 1999 that the use of
embryonic stem cells "may soon be eclipsed by the more readily available and
less controversial adult stem cells." Given that the function of the adult stem
cells was converted without the cells first having to pass through an embryonic
stage, the use of such cells would not be subject to the ethical and legal
objections raised by the use of human embryonic stem cells. The Director of the
NIH has pointed out that evidence that adult stem cells can take on different
functions has emerged only from studies on mice. However, his own claim that
human embryonic stem cell research can produce treatments for diabetes and other
diseases is also based solely on experimental success in mice. One approach to
tissue regeneration that does not rely on stem cells at all, but on somatic cell
gene therapy, is already in use as an experimental treatment. A gene that
controls production of growth factors can be injected directly into a patient's
own cells, with the result that new blood vessels will develop. In early trials,
this type of therapy saved the legs of patients who would have otherwise
undergone amputation. It was reported in January 1999 that the technique has
generated new blood vessels in the human heart and improved the condition of 19
out of 20 patients with blocked cardiac blood vessels. Such growth factors are
now being explored as a means for growing new organs and tissues of many kinds.
The above recent advances suggest that it is not even necessary to obtain stem
cells by destroying human embryos in order to treat disease. A growing number of
researchers believe that adult stem cells may soon be used to develop treatments
for afflictions such as cancer, immune disorders, orthopedic injuries,
congestive heart failure, and degenerative diseases. Such researchers are
working to further research on adult, rather than embryonic, stem cells. In
light of these promising new scientific advances, we urge Congress to provide
federal funding for the development of methods to repair and regenerate human
tissue which do not require the destruction of embryonic human life. However,
even if such methods do not prove to be as valuable in treating disease as are
human embryonic stem cells, use of the latter in the name of medical progress is
still neither legally nor ethically justifiable for the reasons stated in this
document. Conclusion We believe that an examination of the legal, ethical, and
scientific issues associated with human embryonic stem cell research leads to
the conclusion that the use of federal funds to support any such research that
necessitates the destruction of human embryos is, and should remain, prohibited
by law. Therefore, we call on Congress to (1) maintain the existing ban against
harmful federally-funded human embryo research and make explicit its application
to stem cell research requiring the destruction of human embryos and (2) provide
federal funding for the development of alternative treatments which do not
require the destruction of human embryonic life. If anything is to be gained
from the cruel atrocities committed against human beings in the last century and
a half, it is the lesson that the utilitarian devaluation of one group of human
beings for the alleged benefit of others is a price we simply cannot afford to
pay. (This statement may be republished without permission only if it is
published in its entireity and credit is given to The Center for Bioethics and
Human Dignity and this web site.)
On Mon May 28 00:58:49 2001 () said:
CD and his catholic logic more catholic
babies = more Papel Power...Kiss my ring CB....
On Sun May 27 20:52:47 2001 () said:
SCREW + BALL = MARC...........
On Sun May 27 20:23:10 2001 () said:
is jewishness like being a
shemale..???
On Sun May 27 11:53:04 2001 () said:
MARC,..... MARTYRNESS???????? You are
one pathetic fool and you AP just to keep this crap going......GROW UP AND GET A
LIFE YOU BUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On Sun May 27 10:45:01 2001 Marc W (sdlightningbolts55@yahoo.com) said:
How
funny, when I said do I need to explain the opinion thing was a joke cuz you
wouldn't get it, you still didn't get it when I explained it. John, you just
look for reasons, I am not giving you any, I didn't blast anyone, I downplayed
it. As a matter of fact you are the only one I have really blasted here, other
than CB. If you want to call me names and be an idiot, fine. You do that well. I
have no opinion on what you think of me. I told you once before, your of no
importance whatsoever to me, so fire away with your martyrness, we all know your
stories. Lakers will sweep CYA....Marc
On Sun May 27 10:21:20 2001 () said:
whats Jewishness ?? sounds like a
racist word...
On Sun May 27 07:01:34 2001 A. Lurker (<>) said:
Marc -- you certainly
do get your shorts in a knot over nothing. Why is it that unless someone agrees
with you their opinion is automatically wrong? An opinion is just that -- an
opinion, nothing more. Personally, I find your opinion on stem cell research
wrong. But I don't start blasting people (you) for that. Why don't you grow up
and accept people who disagree with you like an adult? Your responses are like a
little child who can't understand why all the other kids don't like him. Get a
clue, bro ... maybe it's your shoot from the hip, knock this chip off my
shoulder attitude. You should also quite wearing your Jewishness as some sort of
pity symbol. Get over it already - you act like your the one who has suffered
for centuries (which you haven't). There are a lot of people who are much worse
off that you.
On Sun May 27 04:16:58 2001 CB () said:
To 19:39:06, Liberal thought is an
oxymoron because it is contradictory! If liberal politicians thought, they would
not be liberal. Take abortioon, the unborn are human. Therefore, to kill them is
murder. Yes, I am oversimplifying. But the pro=death people will not go there!
Need to hit the sack. Good night all!
On Sun May 27 01:54:42 2001 () said:
are any shemales on here tonight..??
can someone tell me where I can see a picture of one...
On Sat May 26 21:49:59 2001 <> (()) said:
Sat May 26 11:21:20
2001;sick man = sick humor. mental disease is not catching but attacks stemming
from it wreak havoic
On Sat May 26 19:39:06 2001 () said:
..whats a oxymoron...?? something you
can make soup out of ??
On Sat May 26 18:16:15 2001 Marc W (sdlightningbolts55@yahoo.com) said:
Hey
MISTY... I sent you my info and again I had a system failure for delivery. It
must be my end because it's the same e-mail address I sent the other ones to.
Sorry, I would post it here for you but that would not be good. If you run into
any problems and can access a computer I will check this place more than usual
in case you need me. Have a great time and get some of my money back that I keep
leaving there. Enjoy.... Marc P.S. I think Ruth used to comment on this, but I
can't believe how low my sugars have been from planting a few rose trees. Forget
the gym, I am gardening for now on!
On Sat May 26 16:45:27 2001 () said:
Hey CB. WHAT DOYA MEAN POLITICS DON'T
BELONG HERE, YOU APPARENTLY HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH POSTING YOUR RELIGIOUS
RANTS...GET YOURSELF INTO THE REAL WORLD AND SUPPORT STEM CELL RESEARCH...
On Sat May 26 11:21:20 2001 Marc W (sdlightningbolts55@yahoo.com) said:
To
7:10 everyone is entitled to an opinion, just sometimes there wrong! Do I need
to spell out that was a joke? Yeah, with you you wouldn't get that, so yes, that
was a joke. My post yesterday was in my opinion one of a positive nature,
looking back it does contain an emotional and political issue, if there was a
way to have posted that without it I would. I won't comment on the term
Hitleresque because it's inflammotory and is obvious there was a reaction
expected to come from it. Anyway, sometimes it won't matter what I post there
will be an opposing view, which is fine. But sometimes I have more important
things to do then to debate all the time over everything. So CB has a view, and
I asked not to be called Bro, big deal. I could have spent the day debating his
view, which still would have drawn your attention, but instead I chose to make a
lighthearted attempt at humor by the bro thing, and there you are. CYA, I need
to make a Home Depot run before it gets too crowded. So Faith... think you can
win 4 in a row?.....Marc
On Sat May 26 08:56:29 2001 Anita (aeallman@piggott.net) said:
There are
many on this site who are wonderful, special people who have literally helped
save my life. When I first got on internet a couple of years ago, I never
received more help than from this place. Thanks to someone, I heard the first
time about an endocrinologist, (yep, even tho having been a diabetic for over 10
years at that time hadn't even had an HA1C test either) and heard about it first
here. People sent such wonderful caring email and helpful hints. It was
wonderful. I still have, thank God, most and many of those people on my email
list that works both ways. If you haven't heard from me in quite a while, please
email me, I have had some computer crashes and have a new one now and keep
adding old friends back as they contact me. I also heard about humalog first
here, and my little 79 year old Arkansas doctor referred me to an
endocrinologist after admitting that he had never even heard of it. No, I am not
ignorant, nor from the back end of the north forty, in fact, am a retired
secondary teacher and was the Administrator of our Gifted/Talented program from
k - 12 for the last 9 years of my working. (Retired 5 years ago). Migraines and
brittle diabetes caused this. I am mom of 4, grandmom of 7, for some of you
newbees, have deep beliefs founded in God and in in respect for others
preferences, do not push other people just love them. I keep checking and hoping
ever week now to see some of the wonderful, old comradery, and I do see glimmers
here and there. I love yall, hope to hear from some of you soon. Anita, aka
hotpink (my favorite color) ps, hope to go parasailing in New Zealand and
Australia next year, did so in Maui year before last and had a blast
pairasailing with my 17 year old granddaughter. bye for now Have a great
weekend.
On Sat May 26 07:10:06 2001 <> (()) said:
One this occasion I have to
agree with CB's 4:20 post. Why is it ok for Marc to post an opinion on a
hot-button issue and then dismiss and disrepect someone who disagrees? Show some
respect, Marc; after all CB just posted an opinion. Sheesh, seems you are so
very touchy (getting worked up over "bro"?!?!). Anyway, while I think all
diabetics deserve research for a cure, I cannot support stem cell research. You
have to draw the line somewhere.
On Sat May 26 04:22:07 2001 CB () said:
Woops! Ged should be Gov.! Liveral
should be liberal.
On Sat May 26 04:20:27 2001 CB () said:
Is that the best that can be done?
Respond to a constitutional post via a personal attack? I have often said that
liveral thought is an oxymoron, the post about my posting drunk proves it. The
Federal Govt's powers and responsibilities are restricted by the constitution.
An activist Ged is a danger to freedom. Politics don't belong here. But support
for Federal spensing where it ought not demands an answer.
On Sat May 26 03:40:04 2001 grannypj (grannypj@hotmail.com) said:
to SANDIE,
the stomach problems may be caused by the Humalog - not everyone can take this
and it has a nasty reputation for extreme gastric distress for those who
cannot!
Copyright © 2001 Diabetes Education and Research Center