The embryonic stem cell research supporters continue to ignore the increasing evidence that undermines their case.
Highlights:
"Again and again, advocates for relaxing the ethical standards on funding make assertions and arguments with no basis in fact. Again and again they refuse to acknowledge the increasing evidence that genuine alternatives to embryo-destructive research may be possible."
"But the leaders of the effort to overturn the president’s policy have opted to ignore the facts and turn down a potential solution. They would prefer a political rallying point over a scientific way forward. Let us hope the Congress as a whole does not make the same choice."
It's pretty obvious who is providing the muscle necessary to propagate this campaign of intellectual dishonesty.
This issue is just another transparent effort by the Dems to get money and power, which are the only things they care about.
ReplyDeleteDem support of this research opens the door for hundreds of millions of government tax dollars to be funneled to drug companies, who repay the Dems with kickbacks, bribes, and campaign contributions.
Follow the money, this issue is about nothing but the eternal Democratic lust and greed for money and power.
Bubba, you should at least link to some of the original reporting, considering the research was headed at Wake Forest Medical School.
ReplyDeleteBut then you might run into the opinion of the actual researcher involved: "Stem cells harvested from amniotic fluid should not be considered a replacement for embryonic stem cells, Dr. Anthony Atala, a researcher at Wake Forest University, told Congress in a letter this week."
And how does the "actual researcher" address the points made in the WSJ article?
ReplyDeleteAnswer: He doesn't.
He just says that "Stem cells harvested from amniotic fluid should not be considered a replacement for embryonic stem cells..." without response to the other facts mentioned in my link.
Here's the real point about all this:
"But advocates of looser funding rules will not take 'yes' for an answer. Rather than jump at the chance to promote a common-ground way forward on stem cells, they have chosen to ignore the emerging alternatives, and insist that embryo-destructive research must be funded."
There's a political/social agenda at work here.
Is this one of those "scientific consensus" points starting here?
If so, it won't be any more successful than the one about "global warming".
THAT particular tactic has been exposed for the intellectual fraud it is.
Will embryonic stem cell advocacy also fall into that same category?
When considering whether to pursue research, and what research is important and worthy of funding, and given the option of listenting to a political scientist, Levin, or a MD scientist, Atala, I'm going to listen to the MD.
ReplyDeleteFrom Dr. Atala's letter:"Your legislation, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, H.R. 3, would update the current federal embryonic stem cell policy and allo federaly funded researchers to conduct research on an expanded set of embryonic stem cells within an ethical framework. I believe this legislation would speed science in the regenerative medicine field, and I support its passage."
What is Atala's agenda? Atala is ignoring the alternatives? That is patently insulting.
Levin claims that those supporting the stem cell bill would then "likely move to endorse these radical steps next, but for the moment they claim they do not support the creation of embryos specifically for research, and in any case their bill would not fund it."
Why bring up that topic, something that I do not support, and most people do not support? Because moving your opponent's position makes it easier to attack.
"Because moving your opponent's position makes it easier to attack."
ReplyDeletePay attention, Jim.
Opponents are not moving the position. They are opposed to Federal funding for embryonic stem cells for research.
That's been the whole point all along. There is no change.
Let me repeat the excerpts from the original post:
"Again and again, advocates for relaxing the ethical standards on funding make assertions and arguments with no basis in fact.
Again and again they refuse to acknowledge the increasing evidence that genuine alternatives to embryo-destructive research may be possible."
"But advocates of looser funding rules will not take “yes” for an answer. Rather than jump at the chance to promote a common-ground way forward on stem cells, they have chosen to ignore the emerging alternatives, and insist that embryo-destructive research must be funded."
Bringing up the other topic is a logical conclusion based upon previous experience with people that support embryonic stem cell research, and the intellectually dishonest tactics they sometimes use.
Tell me some facts that make more sense than what Levin states.
I've seen nothing of the sort from supporters.
And we have yet to even start addressing the point that jaycee made about the money and the power for it's own sake.
You're on shaky ground here, Jim.
OK, I'll make it simple for you. 1. Atala supports the legislation.
ReplyDelete2. From this "Again and again they refuse to acknowledge the increasing evidence that genuine alternatives to embryo-destructive research may be possible."
3. Atala is A BIG source of such alternative evidence.
4. How can a source of the evidence ignore the result of his research?
It is not a logical step to claim that I, while supporting the legislation as written, would even consider supporting creating embryos for research. That's putting words in my mouth. The embryos to be used will be destroyed by the parents that created them. IVF in the past had created >>10 embryos per couple, and would implant up to 5 or 10, because there was a very low rate success for each embryo. Is there a law preventing couples from discarding "extra" embryos? Isn't it better to use the embryo for some good than to just let it die?
Here's another scenario. You have a newborn who is not going to survive. Do you donate their organs that do work?
The doctors and researchers are all in it for the money is a truly ignorant statement, coming from someone who probably knows very few MD's personally.
"It certainly doesn't make sense to claim that supporters of this legislation are "ignoring" possible alternatives when some of the supporters such as Atala are actually reasearching and discovering those potential alternatives."
ReplyDeleteIt makes plenty of sense because there's plenty of evidence that is the case.
To repeat, there is a political/social agenda item at work here. There is also a question of the perpetuation of funding to be channeled to political uses.
Sorry.
The rest of us refuse to cooperate.