tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post5908657956002633114..comments2024-02-29T02:10:56.878-08:00Comments on J O S H U A P U N D I T: Obama Reverses Himself On Embryonic Stem cells..After Two Days!Freedom Fighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-28517931449583055742009-03-17T15:47:00.000-07:002009-03-17T15:47:00.000-07:00What a troll that Cynic clown is.Obviously he has...What a troll that Cynic clown is.Obviously he has the same ethics as Obama. <BR/><BR/>Embryonic stem cell research has been nothing but a gold mine for certain people, who don't care about the ethics of manufacturing and using innocent life for research even though it's not working and never has. <BR/><BR/>That sounds pretty close to Brave New World and the Nazis to me.All the gains I've ever read about have come from adult stem cells.<BR/><BR/>Ray LayneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-55689730806934552272009-03-16T09:34:00.000-07:002009-03-16T09:34:00.000-07:00Fascinating.First of all, the failures involved wi...Fascinating.<BR/><BR/>First of all, the failures involved with embryonic stem cells have been pretty well documented.<BR/><BR/>Try <A HREF="http://www.lifenews.com/bio2553.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>,<A HREF="http://www.lifenews.com/bio1052.html" REL="nofollow">here,</A> <A HREF="http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures_failures.html" REL="nofollow">here,<BR/></A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/bradsarticle.html" REL="nofollow"><BR/>here...</A> as a matter of fact, when you google 'failure of embryonic stem cell research' you get about 350,000 hits.<BR/><BR/>The link <I> you </I> provided is an article of yet another experiment, which might succeed..or fail like the others have. On the other hand, the use of ADULT stem cells has a fairly good track record of success.<BR/><BR/>And obviously the scientist quoted in the article hated Bush and loves Obama..because the money tap has been turned back on!<BR/><BR/>We have a saying here in Joshua's Army...don't BS the blog.It never works.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, your expounding on Dickey-Wicker, which clearly disallows the use of federal funds for the destruction of embryos. Click on the link in the article, read it carefully and take notes.<BR/><BR/>As for the possibilities of why the Chosen One reversed himself undercover, I think my three possibilites are perfectly valid based on common sense and the way this administration has conducted itself so far. Hey, it's the Chicago way..on a national level.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and look up the definition of libel sometime. Unfortunately, your legal knowledge is apparently on a par with your scientific knowledge.<BR/><BR/>Based on a quick look at your profile, your blog and your comment, we know a couple of things..you hate Christians and the Bible, are an Obamabot, suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome (admittedly, not my favorite president, but I never got foaming-at-the-mouth about it), are retired and so bored that your self-confessed hobby is trolling blogs you deem to be 'Christian' and 'Right wing.'<BR/><BR/>Seems pathetic to me, especially if this is the best you can do.<BR/><BR/>I suggest you find another blog to troll for your enjoyment. Joshuapundit might actually challenge your deeply held beliefs and I have a feeling that might be uncomfortable for you.<BR/><BR/>And if you wish to be taken seriously , I'd suggest you avoid the name calling and bitchery in the future. It just makes you look like an idiot without any class whatsoever. And who wants that, eh?<BR/><BR/>Oh, and one last thing BTW..in spite of the fact we disagree and your attempt to troll the board is pretty rank, thanks for your service to our beloved Republic.<BR/>( I assume your telling the truth about that)<BR/><BR/>We're all able to mouth off because guys like you were willing to pick up the rifle, and I respect that, if nothing else.It's why I spent the time and electrons responding to you that I did.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>RobFreedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-70227340773627769882009-03-16T08:26:00.000-07:002009-03-16T08:26:00.000-07:00Well, I guess it's good to see that you have manag...Well, I guess it's good to see that you have managed to be <I>completely</I> ignorant on the subject that you are expounding on. I suppose that's a good thing.<BR/><BR/>The Dickey-Wicker amendment has been in every budget since 1996, and has no effect on stem-cell research.<BR/><BR/>To start with, Dickey-Wicker banned funding only on reseach <I>conducted on embryos themselves</I>. While this includes the process of creating stem cell lines for further research (since the stem cells are taken out of an unused, non-implanted IVF embryo), but it does not prohibit the use of stem cells themselves, only the embryos they were taken from.<BR/><BR/>See, what you remain blithely ignorant of is the fact that a stem-cell "line" is a continuously-maintained collection of cells in laboratory flasks, which are transfered to new flasks as they divide and grow. One of the unique properties of stem cells is that they can be grown permanently in this way, unlike most other body tissues. <BR/><BR/>The line is created by taking stem cells out of an embryo, but that only has to be done once for each new line; after that, it's just the individual cells themselves that are grown - they do not form embryos, and could not be implanted to create a pregnancy, while they are growing in the culture medium. "Stem-cell research" uses these separated cells, not developing embryos.<BR/><BR/>Dickey-Wicker has always been interpreted as permitting funding for stem-cell research, but not for the creation of new lines of cells. Scientists accommodated this by using private funding to generate cell lines, and federal funding for research on the cells. Bush not only banned that, but imposed restrictions on the usage of existing cell lines that choked off vast amounts of ongoing research.<BR/><BR/>We'll ignore your potentially libelous statements regarding allowing "well-connected 'friends of Obama' to dump some stock they held (or short it) in companies specializing in embryonic stem cell research at a profit" - see, research companies aren't set up, and their stock made public, overnight. But we can tell that you aren't a fan of Barack Obama, so we'll assume that God will judge you for your lies, and we won't.<BR/><BR/>Instead, let's look at the following fascinating paragraph:<BR/><BR/><I>For the record, embryonic stem cell research has been almost entirely a waste of time, although a great deal of significant and valuable discoveries have been made using ADULT stem cells. The embryonic stem cells tend to mutate quickly and be unstable, which is why this research has mainly been a means to funnel government grants and taxpayer funds at certain scientists and companies specializing in the area."</I><BR/><BR/>Wow. I didn't know that you could be <I>that</I> wrong, <I>that</I> many times, in only 50 words.<BR/><BR/>Let's see - <I>"embryonic stem cell research has been almost entirely a waste of time"</I> - gee, I dunno, since Bush banned research except in 22 lines (many of which are played out, and sometimes contaminated), do you think <I>that</I> might have had an effect on the amount of research that's been done successfully? <BR/><BR/>(On the other hand, three days after Obama was sworn in, On January 23, 2009, <A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/23/stem.cell/" REL="nofollow">phase I clinical trials</A> for transplantation of an embryonic-derived cell population into spinal cord-injured individuals received FDA approval, making it <B>the world's first human-embryonic-stem-cell human trial</B>. The results of initial experiments suggest an improvement in locomotor recovery in spinal cord injuries after a 7-day delayed transplantation of human embryonic stem cells that were pushed towards an oligodendrocytic lineage. So, despite the anti-science attitudes of the former Bush White House, science marches on.)<BR/><BR/><I>"The embryonic stem cells tend to mutate quickly and be unstable</I> - well, no, not so much. Look at my description above, regarding stem cell lines. The fact that they <I>don't</I> mutate and become unstable is the very reason that the research is viable, you moron.<BR/><BR/>So, let's see. You have no idea about the federal budget process, <I>and</I> you don't know anything about stem-cell research that you don't read in biased pamphlets cranked out by medical Luddites. But here you are, expounding on both subjects, as if you had a clue (which, clearly, you don't).<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work, OK?Nameless Cynichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17963921060024737712noreply@blogger.com