Religious Right Cited False Report to Combat Embryonic Stem Cell Legislation
One of the religious right’s central talking points when they take to the airwaves in opposition of embryonic stem cell research is that adult stem cells hold as much promise for cures as their pluripotent counterpart.
From Focus on the Family:
As research with adult stem cells progresses, scientists are learning that these cells may be almost as versatile as embryonic ones and capable of converting into various cell types for healing the body—without destroying innocent human life.
Unfortunately for the religious right, this isn’t true. And now a key report they used to support this notion has been exposed as flawed.
A scientific panel says a 2002 study that suggested adult stem cells might be as useful as embryonic ones was flawed and its conclusions may be wrong, a finding that raises questions about the promise of a less controversial source for stem cells.
The research by Catherine Verfaillie at the University of Minnesota concluded that adult stem cells taken from the bone marrow of mice could grow into an array of biological tissues, including brain, heart, lung and liver.
So far only embryonic stem cells, which are commonly retrieved by destroying embryos at an early stage of development, are known to hold such regenerative promise. Many scientists believe they might one day be used to treat certain diseases and other conditions.
So, do you think the religious right will issue a retraction today, or wait until tomorrow morning?
Who knows if they are even going to respond?
They won’t respond. They know that these distortions take on a life of their own in “that” community. That is, after all, why they do it.
So, do you think the religious right will issue a retraction today, or wait until tomorrow morning? = Sarcasm
Clark, you silly. We knew that. We were merely countersarcasming.
Touche
Focus on the Family uses a false report to advance its agenda? What’s “news” about that? FotF NEVER uses credible science to advance its points.
Yeah, I make it a point to always look at anything from FOF and always know that the truth is exactly opposite of what they say. This approach hasn’t failed me yet, where they are concerned.
Lynne,
I have to disagree. The RR and FOF use legitimate science when it suits them. This is actually worse than simply always discarding valid science, or always being dishonest. It shows a deceitful inconsistency which demands careful scrutiny when skeptically considering their claims.
I think it can be safely said that in terms of science, they reject anything that can’t fit into their pre-conceived notions of how the universe works. For instance, the only reason they argue against the ideas of evolution is because they don’t want them to be true, not because they have empirical data that suggests that they aren’t true.
Here’s an example of good xtian love of children:
http://www.kget.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=f290458b-dd7d-4a20-ac99-525e48365b08
Alex,
Well stated. thanks. Good link.
Alex,
Your link story is soooo touching. Lesson - If you want to look like a freak, it just might cost you.
That’s right mj. Your myth-fantasy has a habit of punishing children for their parent’s transgressions.
And thank you for defining just what “looking like a freak” means. Outstanding!
Yeah, Alex, cardigans and chinos for all the guys, and matching homemade dresses for the “gals”, and you’re good to go.
Jesus loves you, MJ.
Alex,
Go ahead, get three stars tattoed on your neck. You could probably stand some improvements. Get a lip ring too.
Alex,
People who follow Jesus Christ, feed, house and cloth more children around the world, on a daily basis, than you want to admit.
Why don’t you just go ahead and get a large “L” tattoed on the center of your forehead. It would describe you perfectly.
MJ, more people who claim to follow Jesus Christ have tatoos ontheir body, than you’d care to admit. Having a tatoo really shouldn’t intefere with fulfilling your duty to God, should it?
As for Alex’s post about the Dr. - I don’t think they are fulfilling their Hypoocratic oath or their so-called duty to God to disciminate based on someones appearance. That’s taking hatred to a new level in the name of God.
Hatred?
Excersing your rights as a private practicioner is hatred?
You really like using buzzwords don’t you?
Mj, you’re so adolescent. I’ll pray for you, you weak, feeble, child of a man. I’ll pray that some day you will learn to not be afraid of what you may encounter when you truly learn to think independently.
If that had been my child, who had an ear infection and was in pain, and that so-called “christian” doctor refused to see her, and their were no other alternatives available for me to find medical care for my child, that jackass would have needed medical attention for himself by the time I got through with him.
Jumper wrote: “People who follow Jesus Christ, feed, house and cloth more children around the world, on a daily basis, than you want to admit.”
They just don’t provide medical attention to children because they disapprove of the parent’s appearance. Yep, real christian of him.
Hate to spoil all the fun, but if this website were taken seriously enough the term “false report” would be libelous. Aspects of the report were called into question, nothing more. Nature magazine has not requested that it be retracted and it will not be retracted. Moreover, since Verfaillie’s study came out in 2002 numerous other labs using other types of non-embryonic stem cells have reached similar results: They can in fact be differentiated into all three germ layers that make up all the cells of the body just as embryonic cells can. The latest such finding was reported by Dr. Anthony Atala in Nature Biotechnology in January using amniotic stem cells. Amniotic stem cells are also identical to placenta stem cells. The New England Journal of Medicine has reported on two clinical trials using these stem cells, one in 1996 and the other in 1998. Indeed, there are almost 1,300 human clinical trials using non-embryonic stem cells whereas there has yet to be a single trial using embryonic ones. Meanwhile James Thompson, who developed the first human line of embryonic stem cell in 1998, recently said it may be “decades” before we have ESC therapies. You can try to have fun at the expense of the religious right, but if the science of stem cells truly interests you I’d suggest an attitude other than “If FOTF says it, it must be mocked.”
Tony,
Why don’t you just ask Lynne to cast a spell on him?
Alex,
What a laugh!!!!!!!!! You wouldn’t know what it is to be independent if your life depended on it.
No, I don’t think the Religious Reich will retract its bullshit - not when they can get some other bullshit from the Flat Earth Society or the Discovery Institute or whatever to back them up when the legitimate scientists won’t. Furthermore, I find this just another example of how these idiots never take their logic to its ultimate conclusion. If adult stem cells could differentiate into all the organs of a human being, then wouldn’t they also be potential human beings? And wouldn’t it be just as “wrong” to use them as it’s supposed to be to use embryonic stem cells?
Good posts Alex and Tony.
Hatred is a “buzz word,” MJ? Since when?
Private practioner’s are Dr.’s - not God - “I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.”
Seems to me, he forgot that that little girl was a fellow human being because he didn’t like the way the mother looked. So, I can see he’d be a real good samaritan in the case of the homeless person who might not look nice, or smell too good. This is what you’d defend, Mark? As Christianity? Get bent. This is not an example of a “good Christian,” and even you know it, but you’d prefer to be adversarial and holier-than-thou here?
“Hippocratic Oath—Modern Version
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.
I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.
MJ, what little I have learned about Wiccan from some friends of mine says that they don’t “cast bad spells.” There is the idea that it would come to you three-fold or something like that, but your ignorance in making statements such as that to Tony is really revealing once again. You choose not to know anything about any other religion besides your own, live with some kind of delusionary superiority complex, and end up appearing foolish because your ignorance is so painfully obvious.
Classic Version of the Hippocratic Oath
I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
Dr.’s of old sound like a bunch of rotten pagans, huh, MJ? Swearing to all those gods and goddesses to be good practioners of medicine. Then in the modern version, they only recognize that they mustn’t “play God.”
Seems to me that good “christian” doctor violated his oath.
Some “christian”.
So typical.
As Kant told us, “sapere aude”:
I like Dorris’ corrected name for the Christian Right - the Christian Reich is very accurate.
To not treat a sick child and call it christian? Isn’t another one of medicine’s unwritten laws “First do no harm?” I wouldn’t be able to look myself in the face if I had turned away a sick, hurting child. How can these people call themselves Christian? Another case of twisting religion to suit one’s own ends.
As for Alex’s question - will the post a reply - can you say “When hell freezes over?” They will never admit they are wrong because they know they aren’t and we are all pagan unbelievers.
Mj, regarding your 11:28 response to me:
Coming from someone who puts supreme authority in a collection of ancient writings authored by bronze age mentalities, it’s quite clear how much a free-thinker you are.
Alex,
People like Mark are afraid of the truth. They are not emotionally equipped to handle life without their comforting myths. Kinda like a kid with his “bankie.”
Mark- “sapere aude”
barbara: A term many here have adopted is Rabid Religious Reich(RRR as in KKK)!
use …at your will…
Mark Jumper, in your 11:25 post, you prove just how “knowledgeable” you are. Wicca doesn’t work that way, because our only “rule” is “harm none”. If I were to cast some sort of spell on a doctor that refused to perform medical service on a child based upon his prejudice, I would be in violation of the Wiccan Rede, which is something I take every bit as seriously as you take your “holy scriptures”. Unlike Focus on the Family, I do my best NOT to be a hypocrite.
Michael Fumento wrote: “The latest such finding was reported by Dr. Anthony Atala in Nature Biotechnology in January using amniotic stem cells. Amniotic stem cells are also identical to placenta stem cells.”
This early January 2007 report from Medical News Today provides a very good summary of the research done by Dr. Atala using Amniotic Fluid Derived Stem Cells along with some of the advantages that this research has. However, during the recent debate regarding Congress seeking to lift the ban against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, the SF Gate reported the following:
It is interesting that so many of the opponents of embryonic stem cell research, who so much like to champion other areas of stem cell research, ignored these comments from Dr. Atala.
Although I strongly favor having the federal government help fund all types of stem cell research, including embryonic, I am not in favor of backing any one particular horse in this particular race over all the others. Frankly, if medical researchers using adult stem cells or amniotic fluid derived stem cells can be the first ones to find effective therapies for diseases such as heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, juvenile diabetes, or other such diseases or ailments, and make such therapies available to the human population at-large, then I would be just as satisfied.
However, I don’t think that we should be handicapping this research based solely upon religious objections. Embryonic stem cell research is one tool that is available to medical researcher, and those researchers should have every tool available to them. While I agree that, from a moral perspective, we may be putting our toe very close to a potentially-questionable ethical line, we should not be completely slamming the door shut without fully vetting the issue, because embryonic stem cells do hold great potential for new medical therapies that could end the suffering that so many people have to endure from some of the diseases that I mentioned. Strict ethical guidelines could be established to regulate against unethical use of human embryos for research – such as only allowing research on embryonic stem cells from embryos that were being discarded by fertility clinics as biological waste (as was in the recent House Bill).
The alleged christian Mark Jumper wrote:“Tony, Why don’t you just ask Lynne to cast a spell on him [the phony christian doctor who refused to treat a sick child because he did not approve of the mother’s appearance]?
Why don’t you go open your precious little bible and re-read Luke 10:27-37 and tell me what you think what that passage means. There is no way that doctor can call himself a Christian, and I hope that he gets a ton of bad press and publicity out of this story.
Wonder what mark would say if the article instead posted would be referring to a Muslim doctor refusing to offer care for the same exact reason. I feel as though the answer is already a given…
The only thiing I cant grasp is the fact that if I were in the place of a doctor and looking the child in the eyes and thinking I wouldnt help him ease the suffering just because I didnt like what his/her parents were like, or what they stood for.
If a white-power nazi wannabe came in asking to help his child, wouldnt you still help? Afterall, its not the childs fault.
…I’m repeating pretty much the samething here, but im just trying to understand ;p
And speaking of the bible, I dont think i’ve met a single christian/catholic etc, person who actually read it. Though im an atheist, I do believe they’re are plenty of “good” guidelines you can go by, mark just seems to dodge every single one of them, just like so many others.
Michael Fumento is a “journalist” with very strong ties to the right wing political advocacy group the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which publishes anti-global warming propaganda and receives a nice dose of funding from Exxon-Mobil, in fact more than $2 million from 1998 - 2005 has been given to CEI from Exxon-Mobil.
This branch of Exxon-Mobil’s anti-global warming marketing is another echo chamber for all the same old global warming “skeptics” that keeps publishing the same stuff over and over and referencing each other to appear as if there were more of them. Fumento is one of these “echo points.”
You can find the complete list of articles this hack has published here.
If you scan the ones dealing with global warming you will find him referencing such known global warming “skeptics” as Patrick Michaels or Richard Lindzen. I found at least 3 refs to Michaels and 2 to Lindzen, but none to any other climatologist, you know all the hundreds if not thousands who actually say global warming is real, but these two oil funded hacks are referenced with zeal.
Another great example is here where he references the mystical petition where supposedly 17,000 scientists where supposedly more than half were “trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry” saying there is no convincing evidence global warming is caused by CO2 from humans and will cause drastic problems in the future. This is the Seitz petition, which was dressed up to look like a PNAS paper (The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) which contained huge numbers of fictional names and less than 1% of actual names with a PhD in anything related to climate science. Seitz by the way worked also for RJ Reynolds to try and pass off the propaganda that the science behind tobacco causing cancer wasn’t sound science either.
If you read over his environmental section you’ll find his articles pretty amusing as defends everything big business from pesticides to CO2 emissions to wetland destruction.
You can view his stem cell articles (rhetoric) here.
This guy is a right wing political pundit carrying water for by various right wing big business groups. Another cog in the machine of misinformation that the big oil industry namely Exxon-Mobil is trying to push on us. Remember their stated goal was to put in the public’s mind that global warming isn’t “sound science” to create enough doubt. Its the same goal RJ Reynolds used trying to keep the public confused about tobacco and cancer. BTW “sound science” is one of their buzz words.
You can read the details about this group of characters, their links to big oil, their tactics, etc. here
Yeah the fun is over Mikey, propagandists such as yourself are pretty pathetic all around, and we are just as well read up on the stem cell debate as well and know quite well that none of the other stem cell sources offer nearly as much pluripotency as embryonic stem cells. We also know that Geron is planning on the first clinical trials of embryonic stem cells for spinal tissue this year. How long before amniotic go to clinical trial?
Interesting. Over 500 words on my “very strong ties” to a group I worked for during the year 1994, a group that has no position on stem cells.
Geron, or more specifically Hans Keirstead, has been saying he’s going to begin human trials on his stem cells “next year” since 2002. Check the calendar. Meanwhile, as I wrote and as you ignored, there are about 1,300 clinical trials using non-embryonic stem cells. By what measure does a promise to start a trial outweigh 1,300 already underway?
How long before amniotic go to clinical trial? If you had bothered to read my comment it stated, “The latest such finding was reported by Dr. Anthony Atala in Nature Biotechnology in January using amniotic stem cells. Amniotic stem cells are also identical to placenta stem cells. The New England Journal of Medicine has reported on two clinical trials using these stem cells, one in 1996 and the other in 1998.” How long is 11 years ago and 9 years ago. There is also a trial currently underway that’s been open since 2001 for sickle cell anemia. But to you, 1,300 in hand is worth less than a potential in the bush. How pathetic.
As Stephanie would say,
“shots fired !”
Convince us…….
Mikey…you’ve been busted.
Mikey,
I have to say I love your logic. Let’s see we have over 1300 clinical trials and as you claim treatment for over 70 diseases using adult stem cells, but none with embryonic. What you fail to tell the reader, and its always the case with the propagandists that its more important what they don’t tell you as opposed to what they are telling you, is that adult stem cell research with humans has been going on now for over 40 years, but human embryo stem cells were not isolated until 1998. So we have 4+ decades vs. less than one decade and you are amazed there are no clinical trials yet?
You want to pretend ASC is all we need and its an either or case, when it is obviously a best of both worlds case. If ASC’s provide the best treatment great, if ESC’s provide a better treatment great.
The sad part of all this Mikey, is that you are lying through your teeth about the “70 diseases”, as you can read here, turns out its only about 9 diseases.
Sadly, those responsible for compiling and distributing the list of more than 65 diseases have misrepresented existing adult stem cell treatments and distorted the nature and content of many references cited in support of including diseases on the list,” said Dr. Neaves. “Our first obligation in the debate over stem cell research is to tell the truth, and the truth is that the scientific community is united in the belief that research with both adult and early stem cells must continue. The misrepresentation of adult stem cell treatments is not only bad science, it’s bad ethics.”
You can read the original Science Express letter referred to in the above article here.
“In fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested in all
required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine
of the conditions on the Prentice list, not 65″
We can also see why Mikey ran here to defend FotF and Dobson, his bogus claim about 70 diseases is actually sourced from David Prentice of the Family Research Council, another Dobson creation.
More from the letter,
“The references Prentice cites as the basis for his list
include various case reports, a meeting abstract, a newspaper
article, and anecdotal testimony before a Congressional
committee. A review of those references reveals that Prentice
not only misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments but
also frequently distorts the nature and content of the
references he cites (5)”
Now the question, is why is Mikey pedaling this bogus claim of “70 diseases”
Here is what is pathetic, “By promoting the falsehood that adult stem cell treatments
are already in general use for 65 diseases and injuries,
Prentice and those who repeat his claims mislead laypeople
and cruelly deceive patients.” and Mikey is pedaling these wares.
Tell me Mikey, I know being a propagandists puts food on the table, but doesn’t passing off this crap and misinforming the public rub your conscience wrong in any way? Don’t you wish when you decided your path in life that an honest job would have appeared that would have as paid as much?
Folks here again, just like with my global warming example, we can see the affect of the propaganda echo chamber. Prentice publishes bogus claims, Mikey repeats them in article after article, in his book(s) and on blogs around the web. Why before long I might actually start thinking there are cures for 70 diseases from adult stem cells.
BTW the 1300 clinical trial claim is a Prentice creation as well, the actual number he claims is 1,238. Is that number valid or is it on the same shaky ground as his ~65 diseases? Hard to tell.
Also of note is how these propagandist echo chambers work, notice Mikey posts this info everywhere, but never really mentions Prentice as his source, or the reader may just happen to key on to the fact that only one guy is saying this against a backdrop of 100’s if not 1000’s of scientists saying just the opposite.
Create confusion, misinform, and mislead. Its the same tactics Mikey tries with global warming where he quotes and references the same skeptics over and over to push his propaganda, the facts be damned.
Classic! Great posts, John.
This tactic of simply parroting studies without proper accreditation is widely used in every area the RR has positioned their political arm/talking heads - social science studies on marriage, abstinence, evolution/creation, etc. Makes them actually look like they’ve done some research.
Very well stated, John.. Guys like this are accustomed to talking to the head shakers, you know, when you watch these preachers on TV spouting their garbage and the people in the audience are shaking their heads in the affirmative as if they actually know what the hell the preacher is talking about.
There is know doubt that Fumento is a talented guy.
He got dropped at Scripps Howard for conflict of interest but he has published a rebuttal that could make some sense.
What is obvious is that he has a personal agenda that allows him to take great liberties with the facts and is totally unobjective in his arguments.
John,
As time goes by the more it becomes obvious that writers, by design, chose to write about controversial subjects merely to sell books. OK. But where they lose it is when they see that they must pick a side, and of course they pick the side of some fringe segment and appeal to them. That brings in the opposing side who must read the book to respond to arguments.
It gets ugly when it becomes obvious that an author is squandering their integrity just to sell a book. Why don’t they just go write fiction?
Dale, I’ll say that you’re partially correct with the statement of writing a book that the opposing side must read in order to successfully argue, but I will say that I think the RR does not do this. Do you honestly think that anyone of them has read a book about global warming? Or that any one of them has watched Al Gore’s movie? No. They have their arguments preplanned. It’s us reading their garbage in order to prove their lies. It’s merely a hindrance to progress, as far as I am concerned. Like you have said before “red herrings.” Unfortunately, there are those who must prove that their arguments are flawed if not blatant lies.
To bring up the Al Gore thing of not conserving energy while urging the rest of us to, is one example. To suggest that we would see NO difference if every one looked at their “carbon footprint” is absurdity, IMO.
Good points, Alba.
The biggest problem, as I see it, with them accusing Gore of not conserving energy based upon the size of his power bill is that they overlook two important facts:
1) Gore’s house has 20 rooms, which makes it far larger than the home owned by “Joe Public”
2) Gore’s power comes from renewable sources (ie wind and solar) that are, at the moment, more costly than “regular” power sources
These two facts combined makes the size of the power bill much more logical, which may be the main reason they avoid bringing these facts up.
Somehow, I knew that John was not going to let that last post by Fumento go unanswered.
John McGinn: “What you fail to tell the reader, and its always the case with the propagandists that its more important what they don’t tell you as opposed to what they are telling you, is that adult stem cell research with humans has been going on now for over 40 years, but human embryo stem cells were not isolated until 1998. So we have 4+ decades vs. less than one decade and you are amazed there are no clinical trials yet?”
Another point that Fumento fails to mention is Bush’s August 2001 executive order that barred federal funding of all embryonic stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001. This restriction has both seriously handicapped and unnecessarily complicated the day to day operations of universities and other research facilities that are carrying out all stem cell research that includes embryonic sources. The National Institutes for Health has a FAQ section with some brief answers regarding how research may be done under the current federal restrictions.
Thus, all researchers conducting embryonic stem cell research using both federally-approved and non-federally-approved funding must keep both the direct research costs and the F&A (Facilities and Administrative) costs separate. See Funding FAQ Number 4. Similar instructions are directed towards the administrators at research institutions. See Funding FAQ Number 6.
These F&A restrictions include everything, to include all jointly-used research equipment (such as microscopes, centrifuges, etc.) along with the buildings themselves. This is from the White House OMB Circular A-21, which defines F&A facilities.
What these restrictions have essentially mandated to the universities and other independent research organizations is that if they wish to conduct embryonic stem cell research, these institutions must provide separate equipment and resources, and must essentially isolate this equipment and resources (along with the researchers) within their own separate building facilities. These are costly and wasteful restrictions that use up valuable research dollars that could otherwise go towards actual research itself.
This is coming from a so-called “conservative” Bush Administration that has caused the federal debt to increase to over 8.5 trillion dollars.
For example, I came across a special operating procedure written by Stanford University for its embryonic stem cell research program, and how its researchers and staff must pay particular attention to complying with these ridiculous federal restrictions.
For example, Part IV, Section B details the research restrictions regarding the usage of the buildings and facilities on campus.
Also, Part IV, Section C details the restrictions regarding use of laboratory equipment purchased with federal research funding.
These represent only a small portion of Stanford’s Standard Operating Procedures for this type of research. A full read will provide you with some understanding of the red tape and hoops that researchers conducting embryonic stem cell research must go through that their counterparts in other areas of stem cell research do not have to go through. I would imagine that other universities and research institutions have had to craft similar policies. When you add these obstacles, along with the need to find non-federal funding sources, coupled with the fact that human embryo stem cells had not even been isolated until 1998, you can begin to see why propagandists such as Fumento can so easily portray embryonic stem cell research as having less potential than other stem cell research.
Great points Tony, excellent highlights on the stupidity that Universities have to jump through even to the point of not using certain buildings to get around these silly requirements.
Let’s also not forget that federal funding of embryonic stem cell research was forbidden long before Bush’s executive order, going back to Clinton’s 1994 executive order and Congress’ 1996 legislation. Clinton during this time directed the NIH to draft ethical guidelines for this research which was published in 1999 I think. This actually goes back even further to a moratorium on government funding for embryo research in 1973.
You can read a nice overview of the history here.
More history details here
Of course none of these restrictions have been levied against adult stem cells which were first discovered in bone marrow in the early 1900’s and have been instrumental in things like bone marrow transplants. Despite no restrictions it still took decades before the treatments were becoming mainstream, and really not until the late 70’s or early 80’s. But Mikey would have us to believe ESC’s are all hype because they haven’t produced the same results in a mere 9 years since discovery? And with federal restrictions and all sorts of ethical debates in place?
Me thinks I smell a weasel.
The real question is can we expect to have treatments for a mere 9 diseases in 40 years if federal funding restrictions were lifted off of ESC research? Hell I’ll even spot them the first 9 years and go out on a limb and predict more disease treatments than 9 in 31 years with ESC’s if the restrictions were lifted today. Heck with the rapid pace of new developments I bet ESC treatments would be pressing to beat Mkey’s trumped up claim of “70″ in that amount of time.
Mikey doesn’t understand when you try and compare apples and oranges you end up with lemons.
Great points, John.
It is a well established fact that one of the top killers of men is heart disease. Even if someone maintains a lifestyle of healthy eating, healthy living, and exercise, if heart disease runs in your family there is little you can do about it.
Some of the literature I’ve been reading talks about the potential that stem cell research (both adult and embryonic stem cell sources) could lead to new therapies to treat heart disease. If the research restrictions were lifted, and supposing that embryonic stem cell researchers beat out the adult stem cell researchers in producing new therapies to treat heart disease and help the heart rebuild damaged tissue, I would wager that Fumento (assuming that he needed such treatments) would not hesitate to demand that he receive said medical treatment created as a result of the embryonic stem cell research that he lobbied so hard against. What a hypocrite.
To Tony and John McGinn,
That was a very productive excahnge in your recent posts. Very insightful.
THANKS.
Hmm, I wonder if Mikey has slithered back to the shadows, maybe our little exposé hit a little too close to the wallet for comfort.
I have to thank him though for the living example he so clearly provided. I’ve been harping now for quite a while about these propagandists, their methods, the echo chambers they create to create the illusion of great support for the propaganda and so on and Mikey shows up and provides an example of an actual living professional propagandists. I mean come on, this “scientific journalists” has his fingers in so many of the pies its amazing and he references all the key players I keep mentioning and has ties to Dobson and the religious right to boot. Wow its almost miraculous in nature, maybe divine intervention sent Mikey on over to our doorstep.
John,
I agree, it was kinda like a class taking a field trip.
Besides, It was a lot of fun watching you guys smacking him down.
Indeed.
Thanks for the compliments. However, I must concede that John definitely did more of the heavy lifting. I’m glad that I was able to contribute something.
In a way, it was fun to be challenged; it makes us all better at both researching and defending our points of view, and it helps us present better arguments that hopefully may give pause to anyone lurking on these threads to consider the points that we make here.
John M. naturally be-smells the weasel, for the weasel du jour is he.
ESC apologists are always jibber-jabbering that ASCs have had some kind of momentous “head start” because the first human line of ESCs wasn’t “established until 1998.”
Not exactly: What they don’t say is that this is because, while ESCs were actually discovered in the 1950s back when mom and dad were watching black and white TV with tinfoil on the rabbit ears,(at the same time as ASCs), ESCs are STILL more complicated to work with it that took almost half a century to establish that line. Sorry, Johnny-boy—they remain hard to work with. But certainly they were NOT discovered MERELY “9 years” ago. That is false. Their existence was known all the way back to the Greaser days, Chico. Even is the Weasel were correct about this numbers game, it begs a vast, cavernous gaping question about why science failures are always making up excuses for their lackluster performance and blaming others (or lack of money) for their shortfalls. It seems ASCs march merrily along on something less than pork feeding.
That’s why despite all the cures and treatments we have with ASCs and the clinical trials Fumento mentioned using them, there have been no ESC clinical trials. Nor will there be until, ESC researchers work out “minor” difficulties or use the magic ESC fairy godmother to zap them into compliance. The issue is not the lines available (and private research funding is NOT banned, you chimps; are you under the impression that only Federal funding should mean something in what is putatively still a capitalist society? Is there such a thing as government cars and pizzas and shoes?)
Another issue His Majesty, John the Dunce, forgot to mention in all his Mobile/Exxon Evil Hobgoblins and Oil Nabob Touretting: ESCs tend to be rejected by the recipient. Whoopsy!
ASCs are rarely rejected and naturally are never so when yanked from the recipient himself. Golly–another advantage right out of the starting gate. ESCs for their part also have a NASTY tendency to form cancerous teratomas (”monster tumors”) in recipients.
Until these problems are solved, ESCs are going nowhere, but are stuck in first gear no matter what kind of money gets yanked from unwitting pockets by force.
Talk about mockery of the Faith-Based. But this time its not the Religious Right, its the SecProg (secular progressives) who have an ideology to push that has more to do with underpinning other social issues (like the A-word) and the putative benefits that accrue if one can pop and pierce life. Thus all other horrors fade by comparison. I was not the first to notice this. Neither are “liberal” journalists writing in such outlets as Newsweek.
Then there is the whole warwhoop over 70 treatments vs. whatever-lowball-figure of the month; what you are not told is that “treatment” is different from “FDA approved” since the standards for such labyrinth Rube-Goldberg approval under any government oversight auspices is difficult and cumbersome, it could be DECADES for such to happen. But this is not the same thing as saying no broad ranging treatments using ASCs exist. They certainly do–and more come on line, it seems, monthly. If you bothered to actually READ what Fumento said and what he references over and over and over and over and over on his site, rather than pitting all your Sith Lightning on mythology about how long each flavor of SC has been around. In any case 7 or 9 treatments for ASCs is more than can be claimed on any day of the week for the ESC version. Or is “zero” really just a bigger number than researchers think?
And, speaking of funny numbers, vested interests, and big money involvement; while Mobile has nothing to do with Stem Cells of any variety, it does seem Heir Docktor Docktor Weisman and Co. have some firm financial investments in ESCs they’d like to see get a little boost on the taxpayer’s dime. I can’t say that for Big Oil. At least they get their dough at the pump and sponsor whiney, lefty shows on PBS once in a while.
Dr. Weisman and other feeders at the Federal trough scratch their collectivist heads (no doubt daily) and wonder why private funds don’t magically flow their way (do most investors see the writing on the wall, eh?) and have produced only open palms.
Oh, for full disclosure, and by my own admission, I also happen to believe in the use of man made chemicals. DDT could very well save hundreds of thousands of lives a year in East Asia alone, and not to worry your heads with what Greenpeace tells you–the mosquito will still not go extinct. But to some, hemophagic creatures trump the use of chemicals that save lives.
Who knows—In all 20 of Al Gore’s carbonated rooms where gas heat has apparently done a better job than solar panels, maybe even he’ll have enough carbon-slurping multi-media center installations to figure out these kinds of things as well. As to the sloppy allegations that some have tried to create a “war” between ASC research and ESC research, this falsehood has only one facet of truth–that is, Fumento and others merely point out what is working and what is not–NOT whether such correspondence takes place among researchers. The warfare is generally one-sided, is media myth driven, and is focused against ASC in negative stories that turn out to be bunk, or in stories of the flaming success of ESCs that also turn out to be bunk. One recent example that comes to mind is the STILL-repeated fiction that a recent experiment found a way to harvest ESCs from 17 or so embryos without destroying them. False, but the story got good press that continues to this day. I have in my hands no less than 47 example of stories about stem cells, this month one from a German paper (yes, translated, ninnies) that makes claims about the value of new treatments for …”stem cells.” Later in the article you find the term Embryonic in a separate paragraph giving the impression this is what the first one might be about. But it was merely a passing glance after all about POSSIBLE future treatments using ESCs. What you DON’T find in the initial read is that the treatment listed is for Adult Stem cells. This took some searching, but nontheless this paper of note could have done a somewhat better job at using tags. But that’s the real trick, isn’t it? And honesty is not the value for some MSM outlets it used to be.
Lastly, there ARE legitimate ethical concerns over popping and piercing human life’s earliest beginnings for some putatively higher cause and (usually) fictions about making people walk again and cure cancer that even if possible, are more likely to be approached with ASC. than ESCs. Should we deny this? After all, why even PRETEND that a method of extracting ESCs without “harm” is possible if one is not even concerned? The irony here is that we as a society have a larger responsibility than to lie about noble intentions and in fact fortuitously have a way around the moral dilemma in the first place.
PS–
The report in question was not a “false” report, it was a report that had some questions that needing answering and some concerns about SOME of the conclusions. But much of the data and/or processes HAVE been duplicated.
–SWT
John and Tony, I want to add my thanks, for your information debunking little Mikey.
It’s liars like Mikey who provide the crap that morons like Dobson use when they appear on Larry King and claim they have “thousand of scientific reports that say…such and such”.
And it’s liars like Mikey who provide the crap that allows morons like Congressman Dana Rohrbach to accuse scientists of lying about the cause of global warming.
Thanks, both of you, for busting Mikey.
S. Wakefield Tolbert wrote: Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah….
Someone has been cutting and pasting garbage that I could have easily read off Rush Limbaugh’s right wing propaganda website.
Wakefield,
First I admit my wording was wrong when i said “discovered”, as I said above in a previous post “but human embryo stem cells were not isolated until 1998.” I’m always happy to correct any mistakes I make in any post I make. The question then is why, isn’t Mikey willing to correct his 70 disease claim? Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
Second, ASC’s were discovered at the latest in the early 1900’s, and actually even back in the 1800’s, now maybe you don’t consider over 50 years a monstrous head start, but its pretty damn big in my opinion. Even if ESC’s were discovered in the 1950’s, ASC’s were still discovered over 50 years before them.
Wakefield continues Mikey’s logic from above, ESC’s are hard, thus they offer no promise and we shouldn’t pursue them despite the fact that every cell biologists worth a damn has written about their potential. Wakefield also leaves out the facts that ACS’s aren’t all golden either, they are 1) hard to extract, 2) small in quantity and 3) don’t reproduce nearly as well as ESC’s.
You see Wakefield, I’m not against ASC’s nor am I against ESC’s, because I see there are benefits in both and both offer great potential. I’ll happily point out the hard parts about ESC’s, but you on the other hand will gloss over ASC difficulties and try and cover up ESC potentials. Why? Well it appears you are a propagandists like Mikey above and a lousy one at that. Anyone with a modicum of reading ability and interest can go and find out the limitations of ASC’s and some its weaknesses. Anyone with a modicum of interest can go and find out the 70 disease claim is false.
As for your claims about tumors and other difficulties, don’t worry scientists are busy researching methods for making sure all ESC’s differentiate like in the following studies and control their self-renewal so they don’t become big old nasty tumors:
Cardiopoietic programming of embryonic stem cells for tumor-free heart repair.
Molecular mechanisms involved in self-renewal and pluripotency of embryonic stem cells.
Shp2-mediated molecular signaling in control of embryonic stem cell self-renewal and differentiation.
Absence of suppressor of cytokine signalling 3 reduces self-renewal and promotes differentiation in murine embryonic stem cells.
Molecular imaging of human embryonic stem cells: keeping an eye on differentiation, tumorigenicity and immunogenicity.
Same is true for “rejection” worries:
Human embryonic stem cells: potential tool for achieving immunotolerance?
Human embryonic stem cells and their differentiated derivatives are less susceptible to immune rejection than adult cells.
The last one shows that old Wakefield is throwing out crap out of his ass to pass off his propaganda. Turns out ESC’s are less likely to be rejected than ASC’s. These articles highlight Wakefield’s intentions, to attack ESC research as unreliable, not worth while, and so on, well by making up scary stories about it such as the whole rejection problem. As we can see above ESC’s are less likely to be rejected, the exact opposite of what Wakefield claimed above. So as Wakefield spreads his insidious fiction we have to ask why?
So here we have a right wing/religious right blogger/real estate agent trying to lie to us again with ridiculous claims that are so freaking easy to debunk. Come on Wakefield what gives?
For instance his claim that his oily buddies don’t get govt. support is just hilarious, read more here. Subsidies a plenty for Wakefield’s big oil buddies.
Yes me thinks I smell a weasel again. I’ll handle some of his other propaganda later.
It also turns out that Wakefield is a plagarist of none other than good old Mikey. Tell me Wakefield when you copied the following:
“That’s why despite all the cures and treatments we have with ASCs and the clinical trials Fumento mentioned using them, there have been no ESC clinical trials. Nor will there be until, ESC researchers work out “minor” difficulties or use the magic ESC fairy godmother to zap them into compliance.”
From here
and slighty re-worded it did you get permission? Why do you feel the need to copy and paste Mikey’s stuff and pretend it is your own without quote or attribution? Do you not believe in intellectual honesty or just in propganda?
Or this little part you lifted nicely from the same article
“For one, they tend to be rejected by the recipient. ASCs are rarely rejected and naturally are never so when culled from the recipient himself. ESCs also have a nasty tendency to form cancerous teratomas (”monster tumors”) in recipients. “\
Tell me what gives with these propagandists. Do they not realize this is the freaking Internet age and stealing someone else’s work is so easy to find out?
Damn, John, you are a one-man wrecking crew!!
The references that you are providing are making for great reading. When dealing with propagandists, the most important tool that we have is to post the facts from research published through non-biased and peer-reviewed reports.
Most of the reading and research that I’ve occupied my free time with concerned biological evolution, since we have a ton of biblical creationists in the state that I live in and it seems that our local newspapers are continuing to fight the war of words between the advocates of honest science vs. the intellectually-challenged biblical literalists.
I am now in the process of reading and researching all that I can about stem cell research. Do you have any suggested web sites or books that you could recommend?
It seems to be the modus operandi of these folks…”If you can’t argue, plagiarize someone who agrees with you.”
Tony, if you are looking for raw research, I suggest PubMed or your local University library (you should be able to get a library card and any major U. will have online catalogs you can search remotely.
I have found most sites on the web related to stem cells to be lacking or just propaganda, pro or con, if you are looking for cold hard research.
The key to doing good scientific research on these new search engines (new as opposed to how they existed when I was in college LOL) when dealing with an unfamiliar topic is finding either key terms or key articles, esp. “review articles”. Then using the bibliography to trace back through all the articles this key article references. At some point you find what I call a “bedrock” article. Its the article that got the topic started (e.g. the 98 isolation article for stem cells) and almost all new research will reference this article. Once you have this article most search engines will allow you to do a reverse citation lookup and find all articles that cite that article.
Luckily for us, scientists are very picky about citing others and are quite hesitant to plagarize someone’s work, unlike our visiting propagandists.
PubMed also has a great Related Articles search feature, however it has its limitations. For example if you are looking for a more general topic say related to evolution, and you find an article discussing that topic as it was found in a particular species it seems that related articles are more tied to the species instead of the topic
. More metadata and a way to toggle between “categories” would really enhance PubMed’s related articles feature 
As a bonus the links I provide should lead you to a whole bunch more, just by looking at the related articles off to the side and the citations of the article. Also as a bonus sometimes, like for my last article above, you can get the full text for free (see the Full Text icon at the upper right of the abstract). In addition Google Scholar is something I’ve been slowing ramping up using. For instance see these search results.
Over time you build a background of information that speeds things up. For example rebutting Wakefield’s silliness took a little over one hour.
Lynne, its more than that, again we are seeing another live example of the echo chamber in action. I seriously doubt Mikey cares that his tripe gets copied all over the web by his sycophants. In fact that’s what he’s counting on. Creationists pull the same crap. They don’t care their tripe gets copied by church after church without citation, again they are counting on it.
After a plagarists copies the crap and starts spreading it, it loses its source and this also is important. Anonomity is also a benefit these propagandists seek. Anonymous claims floating around apparently from different sources lends a sort of bogus credence to them, almost like its common knowledge. I hardly doubt that Mikey is the source for the immune rejection claim or the tumor claim, probably from some other source. Again here we are seeing the echo chamber at work spreading the exact same claims without any scientific reference to back them up.
Awesome job, John. Like Dale said yesterday, I’m sitting back and enjoying the show. Thanks for all the info.
BTW as I have said before, its not what the propagandists tells us, but what they don’t.
Wakefield is correct when he points out the cancer potential for ESC’s, but of course what Wakefield leaves out is that ASC’s have this same problem. In fact its pretty well documented that normally occuring cancer often comes from our own ASC’s. You can view a long list of articles related to this subject here.
There is a lot going on here and its pretty complicated dealing with gene regulation, cell to cell communication, etc. and even quite a bit of researching pointing out that there are equivalent “cancer stem cells” that can differentiate into different types of cancer cells. It has been shown however that ASC’s are the target for a transcription factor (Oct4) that has been associated with later cancerous cells. So again if we listen to Wakefield we only get part of the story as he spreads his “ASC’s good, ESC’s bad” propaganda. In other words we get misinformed, the very definition of propaganda.
Pointing out a few minor flaws in the methodology of this report in no way negates the entire report, or the fact that adult stem cells are already helping actual human patients in the fight against more than 70 diseases and ailments. This is not a religious-right issue. This is an issue of fact, and, whether you like it or not, adult stem cells, obtained harmlessly, are proving to be far stabler and safer to use than embryonic stem cells, which currently must be derived by destroying human embryos, who we know from basic SCIENCE (not religion) are human beings.
Thanks John - those are great ideas. Also, I did not know about Google Scholar - that is another good resource to know about.
One of the things that I am being to see from the anti-embryonic stem cell propagandists is a pattern that is similar to the way creationists operate. They gather up their thoughts and talking points and then articulate their objections in a manner to confuse and mislead the issue. Also, in order to try and put weight to their arguments, they will selectively provide alleged “facts” supporting their positions (and conveniently omit the facts that debunk their positions) through a combination of very amateurish and questionable scholarly work to outright dishonesty and misrepresentation through the use of both political and theological spin, along with distorting and quote-mining the academically-honest scholastic work of legitimate researchers.
Interestingly enough, what these propagandists fail to appreciate is that science is not static; rather it is a dynamic, ongoing process that continues to evolve as new discoveries are made, tested, and fully vetted (rather ruthlessly) through the peer-review process. It is so funny to watch creationists still point out their old, worn out silly objections to the theory of evolution (such as how there are no transitional fossils or how it violates the second law of thermodynamics) without ever appreciating that these objections have long ago been thoroughly debunked. Even Michael Behe’s musings and hypothesis of irreducible complexity (which was supposed to be the magical silver bullet that would slay the evolutionary monster) is being ruthlessly debunked. I personally enjoy being able to pull out examples of ongoing research that continually supports and strengthens evolution and then watch the creationists either disappear completely or sputter along in rage and question the legitimacy of my faith.
I am now beginning to see a similar pattern in the objections being raised by the opponents of embryonic stem cell research, and am beginning to note that many of the same accusations and objections are being raised over and over again. However, what these propagandists are failing to grasp is that this field of scientific research is also continuing to evolve and grow. Just because there may be some issues or problems now, it does not mean that those issues or problems will never be solved. I also suspect that similar to the creationists, these anti-ESC propagandist objections will not be able to keep up with the science.
But what I find most dishonest is how these anti-ESC propagandists are throwing up their strawman arguments by attempting to link this research to abortion. Those two issues are wholly unrelated. Embryonic stem cell lines are being created by using excess frozen embryos created in fertility clinics that are being freely donated by the couples that otherwise would never be adopted and are being labeled as biological waste and being destroyed.
“The sad part of all this Mikey, is that you are lying through your teeth about the ‘70 diseases’, as you can read here, turns out its only about 9 diseases.”
No…only nine or so diseases are being fought with ASC treatments THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE FDA. You need to have actual clinical trials before FDA approval can take place; are you not aware of that? And the clinical trials are going very, very well. Would you like me to provide links to actual news items of ASCs treating human patients?
“Sadly, those responsible for compiling and distributing the list of more than 65 diseases have misrepresented existing adult stem cell treatments and distorted the nature and content of many references cited in support of including diseases on the list,” said Dr. Neaves. “Our first obligation in the debate over stem cell research is to tell the truth, and the truth is that the scientific community is united in the belief that research with both adult and early stem cells must continue. The misrepresentation of adult stem cell treatments is not only bad science, it’s bad ethics.”
You’re joking, right? Dr. William Neaves is a staunch supporter of both embryonic stem cell research and research cloning, just having finished fooling the people of Missouri into voting for an amendment ostensibly to “prohibit cloning” when in fact it enshrined cloning into the state Constitution. Neaves has zero credibiilty.
“In fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine of the conditions on the Prentice list, not 65.″
There you go. “Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.” The Neaves letter does not (and can not) address the fact that adult stem cells are actually working, and so it creates a straw-man argument. It’s very easy to refute claims if you’re the one who made them in the first place.
John wrote: “For instance his claim that his oily buddies don’t get govt. support is just hilarious, read more here [and an appropriate link was provided]. Subsidies a plenty for Wakefield’s big oil buddies.”
Not to mention our ongoing military presence in the Middle East (even long before the lastest Iraq war) to ensure that the supply of oil is not interrupted. I wonder if either Fumento or Wakefield ever served in uniform and under arms in this country’s armed forces and were deployed overseas? It is so easy to advocate for the oil industry when you don’t have to have your own ass on the firing line.
Yes Brian it is easy to refute claims when one make them all up. No one is claiming that ASC’s are not working and are not good, that’s your little fictional straw man. It was Prentice followed up by congressional testimony that started the whole “70 disease” myth including some for which there is no known treatments such as Parkisons on that list.
You and your fellow propagandists keep trying to say ASC’s good and ESC’s bad. I’m saying both are good and so does Neaves as you can read here (Word Doc).
Also you can find the list of diseases and the studies referenced and Neaves specific objections to these claims here (PDF)
I’m amazed at how many of these claims really boil down to alleviating the chemotherapy side symptoms, not treating the patient’s real disease in any fashion. While alleviating side effects is important, claiming they are treatments for a disease is dishonest. I could claim Tylenol can treat hundreds of diseases using that same logic. And you and your fellow propagandists are trying to do just that.
“which currently must be derived by destroying human embryos, who we know from basic SCIENCE (not religion) are human beings.”
References?
“…including some for which there is no known treatments such as Parkisons on that list.”
Well, Dennis Turner — I strongly suspect you’ve heard the name if you’re well-versed in the discussion, but use a search engine if you’re not — went as far as to testify to Congress that the adult stem cell treatment he received (using cells taken from his own brain, modified, and then readministered to him) gave him his life back. No one’s claiming that he’s been “cured,” but he did enjoy a reversal of more than 80% of his Parkinson’s symptoms. I’d call that a successful treatment for a human patient, and I’m happy to learn that more patients are being considered candidates for the procedure. But Neaves et al will pooh-pooh it if the procedure can’t yet be performed at your local neighborhood pharmacy.
“And you and your fellow propagandists are trying to do just that.”
It must be rather embarrassing when you accuse others of being propagandists when you fit the bill so nicely yourself.
“which currently must be derived by destroying human embryos, who we know from basic SCIENCE (not religion) are human beings.”
“References?”
Does the public library in your area happen to have THE WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA? I’d wager that it does. If not, I’ll be happy to quote from it (as well as plenty of biology textbooks) directly.
Brian wrote: “than embryonic stem cells, which currently must be derived by destroying human embryos, who we know from basic SCIENCE (not religion) are human beings.”
Brian, a human embryo at this stage is defined as blastocyst, which means that it is a potential human being. Blastocysts have no organs, no brain, no body structure, and no consciousness. Many embryos at this stage never properly implant in the uterus and are naturally aborted during the woman’s menstrual cycle. It is at this stage that embryonic stem cells are obtained from unused and unwanted embryos created in fertility clinics and freely donated by its owners to create stem cell lines for research.
From the National Institutes of Health glossary of terms:
And this, Brian, is SCIENCE, not religion.
Medical science supports the idea that “life” doesn’t begin until implantation which is 5 - 7 days after conception. When life begins is a question that you cannot assert as truth. It is your belief alone, Brian. Various religions have different ideas about what constitutes life and when it actually begins. This isn’t one you can claim as “truth,” as much as you’d like to think otherwise.
Yes, “blastocyst” is a term for an early embryo, not a “pre-embryo,” a term concocted with no medical standing. For you to suggest that the blastocyst has no organs or brain is rather silly; it certainly isn’t as though these are “added” as you will do with a Mr. Potato Head doll. I’m also amused that you pass along that many embryos fail to implant, and therefore die of natural causes, as though you think this will be news to me. Many nations still have horrifically high infant mortality rates. Do you then argue that infants aren’t human beings, and that it’s all right to kill them intentionally, because they, too, often die of natural causes very early on?
The fact that a human life begins at fertilization is awfully inconvenient for you, I am sure, and that’s why you reject it and revert to less scientific, more touchy-feely “definitions” for when life begins. It is your side, not mine, that is forcing religion, superstition, and emotionalism into the debate.
Brian, the “fact that human life begins at fertilization” isn’t necessarily a fact. It is your opinion. I was taught that life began sometime after implantation. Some people do not consider a fetus to be life until it is capable of living independently of the mother’s body.
Sounds like it’s more inconvenient for you - others having different opinions, that is. Do you have any proof of when human life begins aside from your beliefs?
sorry forgot to do the end italic.
Brian, would you prefer that the embryos be thrown out in the medical waste trash?
Because that is what will happen to them if not used in stem cell research.
You keep failing to answer that question.
Yes, another that confuses me is the question of whether they are opposed to IVF. Others here could give me a better understanding, but is this not a similar concept of embryo in a dish?
Albatross, my guess is they are against IVF, because practicing it is in their eyes “playing God”. But I’m surprised they aren’t jumping up and down and screaming about it. I guess they’re too busy with fighting off all the homosexuals.
Or, they’re simply so stupid they haven’t even considered the idea that IVF procedures might be thought of as “playing God”.
If they are THAT stupid, we’re lucky. They’re big enough pains in the ass already.
Brian Brian Brian.
http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=14137
Here is an example of Brian saying the pretty much the same thing before.
I now how you somehow mistakingly think you somehow are more intelligent than most people[like being a sports editor or tutoring for the SAT requires THAT much intelligence lol], but Developmental Biology 101:
The brain or any organ does not exist in a 5 day old embryo. The genetic information[genes] and the apporpriate transcription factors are present for a brain to EVENTUALLY develop!!! That is as ridiculous as saying the 5 day old embryo has arms and legs!
LOL, Brian, did you mom forget to take the Brain Vitamin as well???
“Brian, the ‘fact that human life begins at fertilization’ isn’t necessarily a fact. It is your opinion. I was taught that life began sometime after implantation. Some people do not consider a fetus to be life until it is capable of living independently of the mother’s body.”
Well, somehow that “opinion” of mine made its way into numerous medical textbooks and the WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA. I guess you believe those publications are put out by the Christian Coalition.
“Brian, would you prefer that the embryos be thrown out in the medical waste trash?”
No, each one should be given at least a chance to be born. Those who endorse ESCR cling to the straw-man argument that opponents are fine and dandy with embryonic human beings being thrown away as though they’re stale bags of popcorn. We’re not.
“I guess they’re too busy with fighting off all the homosexuals.”
Who’s fighting off homosexuals? I favor gay rights, including the right to marry as heterosexuals do. Is this stereotyping on your part?
“The brain or any organ does not exist in a 5 day old embryo. The genetic information[genes] and the apporpriate transcription factors are present…”
Yes. In other words, they’re not “added” later. In other words, no third component need be added to turn this alleged non-person into a person. What you mean to say is that the organs and appendages aren’t developed yet. Well, sure, no one will argue against that fact — but that’s certainly a far cry from them not being there AT ALL. They’re there in genetic form. A five-year-old boy doesn’t have hair on his legs yet. Same principle.
“Yes. In other words, they’re not “added” later. In other words, no third component need be added to turn this alleged non-person into a person.”
This has to be one of the more ignorant statements I have seen and the rest of the paragraph shows a complete lack of knowledge of how embryonic development occurs.
First of all a lot of 3rd components are needed for any baby to develop. This includes everything from basic energy from the mother to a whole bath of bio-chemicals and hormones from the mother that are all required for a human baby to develop from a blastocysts. Without these Nth number of components no human baby will form or at least one that is not viable.
But even with all of these components in place still over 30% of all pregnancies end up as a natural miscarriage/abortion, so there is no guarantee with all of the needed resources in place you still will get a fully developed human baby with all of those organs mentioned.
Then once a human baby is born a lot more 3rd components are needed before you end up with a fully developed adult human. Everything from basic care to social conditioning and empathy bonding or else you may well end up with a sociopath. A Sociopath is often called a monster or not human when he/she is finally caught and often eventually executed.
The crux of what I am saying is that being human is a lot more than just a set of genes in a fertilized egg and requires a lot more than just a sperm and an ovary. Saying that a 14 day old or younger blastocysts (a ball of undifferentiated cells) has all it needs or takes to be a human and thus should be treated as a full human is super natural mumbo jumbo with no basis in reality.
Good post, John.
Brian, do you have an explanation as to why so many different people have different ideas about when life begins? If you look to the Catholic church, they used to teach that life began 40 days after implantation. The Jews believe that it is a potential life until it is outside the mother’s body, and able to sustain life independent of her, or any other means. When the fetus is able to do that, it is then a human life. What makes you right, Brian?
Bmmg39 ( who I think is also called Brian) wrote the following, first repeating two things I said and then replying to me.
————————————————————————————————————————————
“Brian, would you prefer that the embryos be thrown out in the medical waste trash?”
No, each one should be given at least a chance to be born. Those who endorse ESCR cling to the straw-man argument that opponents are fine and dandy with embryonic human beings being thrown away as though they’re stale bags of popcorn. We’re not.
“I guess they’re too busy with fighting off all the homosexuals.”
Who’s fighting off homosexuals? I favor gay rights, including the right to marry as heterosexuals do. Is this stereotyping on your part?
———————————————————————————————————————————-
Here are my replies.
Brian, the blastocysts used in embryonic stem cell research come from one source…they are leftovers from the practice of in vitro fertilization. There are always extras. Leftovers. They are only viable for awhile. Then, they get tossed out. Like it or not, that’s where they come from, and that’s what will happen to the extras. Unless they are used for research, in which case they will at least not be wasted.
Regarding your being supportive of gay rights and gay marriage…if you are a fundamentalist Christian, you are highly unique. The vast majority of you are against both. That is why I generalize. Most fundamentalists say gay men are all child molesters. They generalize. I believe in fighting back.
“First of all a lot of 3rd components are needed for any baby to develop. This includes everything from basic energy from the mother to a whole bath of bio-chemicals and hormones from the mother that are all required for a human baby to develop from a blastocysts. Without these Nth number of components no human baby will form or at least one that is not viable….”
As I’ve explained before, nutrition and a hospitable environment do not qualify as “components,” or else it follows that we aren’t human beings, either, as we still require both for survival.
“But even with all of these components in place still over 30% of all pregnancies end up as a natural miscarriage/abortion…”
As I’ve explained before, that means that more than 30% of embryonic human beings die of natural causes. Dying of natural causes doesn’t negate one’s personhood, however.
“Then once a human baby is born a lot more 3rd components are needed before you end up with a fully developed adult human. Everything from basic care to social conditioning and empathy bonding or else you may well end up with a sociopath. A Sociopath is often call