FACT CHECK: Significant Number Of Recent Medical Breakthroughs Have Involved Embryonic Stem Cells
FACT CHECK: Significant Number Of Recent Medical Breakthroughs Have Involved Embryonic Stem Cells
In Monday’s White House press briefing, Press Secretary Tony Snow said, “The vast majority of breakthroughs right now, virtually all, have involved those other than embryonic stem cells.”
In fact, however, over the last year there have been a large number of medical breakthroughs involving embryonic stem (ES) cells:
– June 20, 2006 — CBS reports that ES cells have been used to help paralyzed rats walk.
– July 5, 2006 — Science Daily reports that ES cells have been used to create T-cells, which could lead to a cure for AIDS.
– July 11, 2006 — The Guardian reports that ES cells have been used to create sperm that successfully fertilize mouse eggs, which could aid those with infertility.
– Sept. 21, 2006 — The Washington Post reports that ES cells have been used to slow vision loss in rats.
– Oct. 23, 2006 — The Washington Post reports that ES cells have been used to reduce the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease in rats.
– Oct. 31, 2006 — The New Scientist reports that ES cells have been used to create insulin-secreting cells, which could be used to treat diabetes.
– Nov. 10, 2006 — Nature reports that ES cells have been used to make a vaccine that protects mice from lung cancer.
– Nov. 22, 2006 — The New Scientist reports that ES cells have been used to create cardiovascular “precursor” cells, which could be used to treat heart disease.
Embryonic stem cells remain the most promising type of stem cell due to their ability to become any type of cell in the human body.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
112 Responses to “FACT CHECK: Significant Number Of Recent Medical Breakthroughs Have Involved Embryonic Stem Cells”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Apparently, Tony was able to get a new set of hands because of it.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:27 amDon’t let the truth get in the way of the Bush agenda.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:31 amTony Snow lied again today.
In other news, water is still wet.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:34 amLet’s satisfy Tony’s scientific criteria and declare that any line of research in any medical field, or any new medication being tested, will be thrown away if it has not produced results by next Teusday.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:38 amOy. Caption contest:
See my fingers? This is the minimum number of times I will lie to you everyday. Got it?
January 10th, 2007 at 11:39 amTo be fair to Snowjob, his statement is based on medical breakthroughs reported on Fox “News”
January 10th, 2007 at 11:40 amThis guy is one big hemorrhage…
January 10th, 2007 at 11:41 amA couple of days ago, our San Diego newspaper ran a story on the significant value of stem cells from amniotic fluid.
“Scientists reported Sunday they had found a plentiful source of stem cells in the fluid that cushions babies in the womb and produced a variety of tissue types from these cells —- sidestepping the controversy over destroying embryos for research.
Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells.” - Paul Elias, Associated Press
I didn’t see too much on that in the “progressive” press. Why am I not surprised? Hmmm…..
January 10th, 2007 at 11:44 amPlease note the wristband on my right wrist.
If it flashes red, and white it means that I’m telling the truth.
At all other times, it means that I’m lying.
Also, Dick Cheney has a button. When I say the wrong thing, he hits me with 1,000 volts.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:44 amSnow & Bush; real life examples of why we must keep abortion legal.
In other news today, ‘Invaders Escalate War!’…Fox News
January 10th, 2007 at 11:45 amIt’s one thing for this administration to say they aren’t going to fund ES cell research. That’s there stance. It’s another to lie about the evidence (read facts) that show there are advances due to ES cell research.
Tony Snow lies.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:47 amI didn’t see too much on that in the “progressive†press. Why am I not surprised? Hmmm…..
Comment by mighty aphrodite
This may be optimistic to a ridiculous degree, but here goes….
Hagette, we’ve all heard that before and there are limits to those types of stem cells. Is this more recent research?
Here’s the silly part…. Gotta link?
January 10th, 2007 at 11:50 amThis is where I draw the line .
Not in my lifetime .
Comment by rachel b
Well. That just settles it, doesn’t it?
January 10th, 2007 at 11:53 amCaptions:
“See, nothing up my sleeve.”
January 10th, 2007 at 11:56 am“Like I’ve said before, I’m this many old.”
“Throw that softball question right here.”
“This is my patented ‘Dancing With the Stars’ move.”
“Patty-cake, patty-cake, President’s Man, spinning lies as fast as I can.”
MA is right for once!
There should have been more news on this breakthrough, but wait…
Did FAUX NEWS say anything about it? Nope! So much for the reich wing news sources…
But I did find it on YAHOO, MSN, CNN.com, etc…
The mere fact that it was an I TOLD YOU SO moment would not have been worth it, because you would have found a way to distort the facts anyway!
Hopefully, we can get the LIES that Tony is spitting out, trashed…so that we can finally help people! But remember when this issue came up, BUSH trumped out a kid to defend his policy choice…PATHETIC!!!
January 10th, 2007 at 11:58 amI support stem cell research, but this particular point better not be too top of a priority compared to the others!
Can’t have kids? Adopt.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:58 am“I didn’t see too much on that in the “progressive†press. ”
This story was heavily covered in a number of news venues. These new stem cells are a wonderful medical breakthrough, but don’t replace embryonic stem cells. To read more about why, see here! and here!
January 10th, 2007 at 11:59 amrachel b
If you don’t think you should vote, then you don’t need an opinion. Have a nice life-time with your 24-hour bra.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:00 pmI didn’t see too much on that in the “progressive†press. Why am I not surprised? Hmmm…..
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 10, 2007 @ 11:44 am
The story was well-covered in the MSM, and it wasn’t a bunch of lies. Here at TP the focus is on those stories that aren’t being reported in the MSM, or are being reported wrongly, through critical omissions and outright lies.
But your feeble mind doesn’t grasp this point. Why am I not surprised?
January 10th, 2007 at 12:00 pmFrom the article MA references:
“But Dr. Anthony Atala, head of Wake Forest’s regenerative medicine institute and the senior researcher on the project, said the scientists still don’t know exactly how many different cell types can be made from the stem cells found in amniotic fluid. The scientists said preliminary tests in patients are years away.
The cells from amniotic fluid “can clearly generate a broad range of important cell types, but they may not do as many tricks as embryonic stem cells,” said Dr. Robert Lanza, chief scientist at the stem cell company Advanced Cell Technology. “Either way, I think this work represents a giant step forward for stem cell research.”
Dr. George Daley, a Harvard University stem cell researcher, said the finding raises the possibility that someday expectant parents can freeze amnio stem cells for future tissue replacement in a sick child without fear of immune rejection.
Nonetheless, Daley said, the discovery shouldn’t be used as a replacement for human embryonic stem cell research.
“While they are fascinating subjects of study in their own right, they are not a substitute for human embryonic stem cells, which allow scientists to address a host of other interesting questions in early human development,” said Daley, who began work last year to clone human embryos to produce stem cells. -AP
January 10th, 2007 at 12:01 pmMy wife still wears bras. Does that mean that before she has the right to do with her body as she please, she must burn one?
January 10th, 2007 at 12:01 pmSweet, rachel b. Hurry up! There’s work to be done.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:02 pmZooooo - I know Google can be confounding. Here you go:
http://www.nctimes.com/ article/ 2007/ 01/ 08/ news/ state/ 1707190456.txt
You’re welcome…..
January 10th, 2007 at 12:02 pmNote the clever wording of “much the same” but not “exactly the same.” Either way, how does the use of ES cells that are being thrown in the garbage in any way prevent other scientists from doing research on cells from amniotic fluid?
January 10th, 2007 at 12:03 pmBluefish seems to have forgotten this paragraph in his/her cut and paste:
“However, the scientists noted they still don’t know exactly how many different cell types can be made from the stem cells found in amniotic fluid. They also said that even preliminary tests in patients are years away.”
You’re welcome….
January 10th, 2007 at 12:07 pm#24, that link doesn’t work. I know the internets can be confounding.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:07 pmNice link Haggette:
No wonder you resort to lying!
January 10th, 2007 at 12:13 pmZooooo - I know Google can be confounding. Here you go:
http://www.nctimes.com/ article/ 2007/ 01/ 08/ news/ state/ 1707190456.txt
You’re welcome…..
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Boy, I bet you’re red-faced, Hagette.
Linkee no workee.
D’oh!!
January 10th, 2007 at 12:14 pmAny one who opposes the use of stem cells for medical research should, the next time they get seriously ill, tell their doctors, “Whatever course of treatment you prescribe, it can’t have been derived in any way from stem cell research.” The rest of us will be happy to benefit from it, and those who oppose it can go back to praying for a cure.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:16 pmSorry MA, I read BlueFish’s post, and that paragraph was in there. Was wondering if you were planning post birth abortions on your children in case they grow up progressives?
January 10th, 2007 at 12:17 pmrachel b,
Yes, you have done it now. You have stung RUCerious with your rapier wit. Ouch.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:19 pmFine, do this research with Human Stem Cells. But you all would be up in arms it it were done on animals.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:22 pmI wonder if stem cell research can cure death? We have around 3/4 million Iraqis that can be used as lab/cadaver subjects.
Or, I wonder if it can restore lost limbs and appendages. There are tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis that we can test that on.
Better yet, I wonder if it can cure “muslimism”. Seems our (USA’s) current cure of a bullet-to-the-head doesn’t work.
Yes, we are a nation so pre-occupied with searching out someone to kill that I find it entirely unreasonable to expect us to divert our attention to matters that could actually “save” lives.
Get your priorities straight.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:22 pmWas wondering if you were planning post birth abortions on your children in case they grow up progressives?
Comment by Krazny
At least one of them will never do, cuz he died…funny, right, MA?
January 10th, 2007 at 12:25 pm#33 ?? Huh? Did I miss something??
January 10th, 2007 at 12:26 pmThe thing is. Stem cell research is not banned. Embryonic stem cell research is not banned. It may or may not lead to wonderful advancements in medicine. Now that comes at the cost of an unborn baby. You can argue that it would have been aborted anyway or that the mother had the right to give up the material, but you have to understand why people would have a problem with sacrificing an unborn baby for research that may or may not work.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:28 pmNow, I don’t want to ban the research. If a cure or advancement can be made with this, then so be it. I don’t think my tax dollars need to pay for it. Pharmaceutical companies will make a mint off the research if it works. Let them do it. Let them take the risk. Let them reap the rewards. Oh wait. Progressives don’t think anyone should make a profit.
Animal (other than human) embryos are being thrown in the garbage and the cells contained therein could, instead, be used to save lives (human or otherwise)?
Where? I’m all for it! Me and my flock of parrots will work on thawing out the zygotes ourselves!
Oh… Woops. You were trying to be clever, weren’t you? You were implying that liberals do not care for the “sanctity” of human life, but go above and beyond to protect all other species. Sort of like how all the deaths in Iraq (Iraqi, American, and all other), not too mention all the children being scarred for life IS caring for the sanctity of life.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:28 pmDie, Zoo - Maybe you should try “the Google”…You are smarter than GWB, right?
January 10th, 2007 at 12:30 pmMA: “I didn’t see too much on that in the “progressive†press. Why am I not surprised? Hmmm…..”
Easy, MA. Relax. It was on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle. Everyone thinks this is promising news. There are no arguments here. Five or six years from now, I’m sure we’ll see results. Right now, though, they’re throwing embryos away at fertility clinics. I would rather science continue to figure out ways of using these disgarded blasticysts for the good of humanity than throw them down the toilet.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:31 pmPeople still think this? I didn’t know a frozen test tube being tossed into a landfill or incinerated was a better alternative for your so-called “unborn baby.” Abortions are NOT feeding embryonic stem cell research. Get your facts straight.
Either way…
Do you call human sperm and egg cells “unborn babies” too? If so, I guess I have committed the ultimate sin since I’ve had a vas! They all just get reabsorbed into my body on a daily basis. None ever have a chance to become a baby. I guess my body is mass-murdering millions of unborn babies per year!
January 10th, 2007 at 12:32 pm– Nov. 22, 2006 — The New Scientist reports that ES cells have been used to create cardiovascular “precursor†cells, which could be used to treat heart disease.
Don Ho is LIVING PROOF that this is good. Don Ho had heart disease if not minimal heart failure, got a stem-cell transplant into his heart and as far as I know he’s doing very well.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:34 pmNow that comes at the cost of an unborn baby.
You just make me feel bad about my daily masturbation. /sarcasm (just the bad part…)
Progressives don’t think anyone should make a profit.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:40 pmComment by Kevin
Could you support that with a link to a fact? Or you will talk out of your ass?
#38-Kevin,
I like your idea. You don’t want to pay for the research with your tax dollars. Great. Let’s invent a governmental system where we elect representatives to go to, uh, let’s call it a “congress” and vote on our behalf where our tax dollars get spent. I like that concept. Because then we can use that same structure to ensure that our tax dollars are not spent on an asinine war waged by a petulant child and supported by inbred bigots.
Oh, and being a successful “progressive” businessperson, I can assure you that progressives believe in profits. However, not when they are attained through the exploitation of other fellow human beings. In other words, I will never profit off of war and suffering. That is the domain of the neo-cons, those that you appear to kneel and worship to. Good luck to you on that.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:40 pmKevin: “I don’t think my tax dollars need to pay for it. Pharmaceutical companies will make a mint off the research if it works. Let them do it. Let them take the risk. Let them reap the rewards. Oh wait. Progressives don’t think anyone should make a profit.”
Kevin, are you aware of the fact that taxpayers give pharmaceutical companies millions of dollars every year and millions of dollars in tax credits every year for research? Are you advocating that government stop giving big pharma money for research of is it just this particular research that you’re opposed to? Millions of dollars for boners and anti-depressants but not a cent for curing Parkinsons or Diabetes with stem cell research — is that your position?
January 10th, 2007 at 12:41 pmGood. You really shouldn’t reproduce.
I’m not talking about sin. I hate to have to tell you about the birds and the bees, but after you combine sperm from a man, and eggs from a woman, you get a new life. And it can grow into a full grown adult.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:42 pm#45, tuber
January 10th, 2007 at 12:43 pmI like your post
:)
Bluefish seems to have forgotten this paragraph in his/her cut and paste:
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 10, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Or, it was the first paragraph I posted. Whichever.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:44 pmPharmaceutical companies make money from successful meds. Do you really need a website to tell you that?
January 10th, 2007 at 12:45 pmWARNING: pathetic straw man to follow:
Progressives don’t think anyone should make a profit.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:49 pmComment by Kevin — January 10, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
Read again, Kevin boy:
Progressives don’t think anyone should make a profit.
Comment by Kevin
Could you support that with a link to a fact? Or you will talk out of your ass?
Comment by Juan C
Clear now?
January 10th, 2007 at 12:49 pmPharmaceutical companies make money from successful meds. Do you really need a website to tell you that?
Comment by Kevin — January 10, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Kevin, how does your response answer the question about your ridiculous straw man claim that progressives don’t think anyone should make a profit?
You pull one thing out of your ass, and when asked you pull another, non-related thing out of your ass.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:51 pmClear now?
Comment by Juan C — January 10, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Juan, I’m sure it isn’t clear to Kevin yet, he still has one more thing to pull out of his ass: his head.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:52 pm#50-Kevin,
Actually, Juan C called you to the mat on your comment about progressives not believing in profits. You then ran like a coward and threw out some unrelated nonsense not at all addressing Mr. C’s challenge.
It must suck when the facts work against you so clearly.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:53 pmDon’t worry. I’m one of those “child-free” freaks and also very worried about overpopulation of the planet and destruction of natural resources. Same to you. Please don’t procreate.
Birds I know about. Hello!? My handle is “Parrotlover!” Got one right now “preggers” and about ready to lay an egg. Bees? Not so much…
So bee sperm and bee eggs mix together and become an abortion? I’m so confused…
January 10th, 2007 at 12:54 pmKevin: “I hate to have to tell you about the birds and the bees, but after you combine sperm from a man, and eggs from a woman, you get a new life. And it can grow into a full grown adult.”
Kevin, 40 to 50% of all embryos fail to attach to the uterine wall and are naturally aborted. The disguarded blasticysts from fertility clinic are in an earlier state than these millions of aborted embryos. If using these cells is tantamount to abortion, then your god is the biggest abortionist of all time.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:55 pmKevin,
a great deal of the government grants go to University level research, not big pharma companies. Frankly Pharma only looks at things that may bring a profit, ED, Restless leg syndrom, sleeping pills, etc. University level research covers cancer, auto-immune disorders, and a million other things, that won’t necesarily make money, but may improve life for millions of peopel. I also agree with Tuber about the idea of people before profits. My wife has epilepsy, it would cost us without insurance $800 a month for the medication that keeps it under control. A pharma company that denys medication, because the person cannot pay is in effect causing them a low quality of life, or perhaps even death. How does that square up with the “culture of life” mentality you suppposedly have? Which is it profits or people?
January 10th, 2007 at 12:56 pmKevin: “I’m not talking about sin.”
Kevin, some of us think that it’s a sin to not use the resources we have to alleviate the suffering and death of millions of our fellow humans.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:57 pmVerbal, Tuber.
Kevin´s next post will be: After 9/11…
January 10th, 2007 at 1:02 pmHeh.
I don’t have a problem with the government spending money on research. Or better yet, tax cuts for companies willing to take the risk. But in the case of Embryonic stem cell research the government should not pay for material unless it can be extracted without killing the baby. All other stem cell research, have at it. Just because you don’t want the government to pay for embryonic stem cell research does not mean I want to ban it. And I don’t want people to get horrible medical problems and never have a cure.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:02 pmAnd I don’t want people to get horrible medical problems and never have a cure.
Comment by Kevin
You probably should talk with the man in charge of providing horrible medical problems in Iraq.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:08 pmProgressives want to raise taxes and raise the minimum wedge. You don’t need a link. Look around on this site.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:08 pmBluedog49
Amen! Like, say, our brains.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:09 pm#61-Kevin,
Excellent. So, you have your opinions and would like for your representative to vote one way. Others here have other opinions and would like for their representatives to vote another way. Let the reps vote and then (shazam!) democracy happens.
You will, of course, accept the democratic resolution and not immediately cry “foul” or start whining about your offended sense of morality. Right?
January 10th, 2007 at 1:09 pm#63-Kevin,
I see that we are playing the “outrageous generalizations” game. Goody, this is fun. I have one for you:
Conservatives want to rape young boys, steal your money, and kill people for profit.
Want links?
January 10th, 2007 at 1:13 pmOr better yet, tax cuts for companies willing to take the risk. But in the case of Embryonic stem cell research the government should not pay for material unless it can be extracted without killing the baby.
Comment by Kevin
Two questions.
1. Why would a company need tax cuts if the company is run correctly? If a private company is started and there no private investors willing to take the financial risk then maybe it is a bad idea. Why should taxpayers fron the risk when intelligent investors stay away?
2. Should the government subsidise any research or insitution that deals in fertility research and implantation? Because they kill more blastocysts than you can imagine.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:14 pmYou don’t need a link. Look around on this site.
Comment by Kevin
So you dont have a link or a fact to support your baseless claim. Personal interpretation is not a fact. By saying that raising taxes is disliking profit you are interpreting. Its your opinion, but hardly a fact.
Progressives want to raise taxes and raise the minimum wedge.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:17 pmand?
I will and I have.
I’m not going to cry like a progressive after the 04 election.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:21 pmPersonally as long as the stem cells come from aborted babies of republicans at least some good will have come from them on this planet… hahahahhaha
Kevin you’re the dumbest motherf’er I’ve ran across in years. No wonder the USA is so far behind other countries in science, math, and technology, idiots like Kevin still living in the 16th century.
I wish you right wing a$$wipes would move to a country where theocratic rule is appreciated, you know one like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia….
January 10th, 2007 at 1:25 pmI’m getting frustrated with the deletion police here.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:26 pmSo Kevin simply doesn’t want his tax money to be used to pay for embryonic stem cell reseacrh because he views it as killing unborn babies. If we accept that line of reasoning, then I don’t want my tax money used to kill already-born people in the Middle East. Obviously it doesn’t work that way. And if he doesn’t have a problem with private companies doing the research, then he can’t be all that concerned about whether or not unborn babies are being killed.
Now, the reason we want the federal government to fund the reasearch is so that the results are available to EVERYONE, not just a private company that discovers something.
Healthcare should be driven by altruism, not capitalism.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:26 pmKevin: “Progressives want to raise taxes and raise the minimum wedge.”
Kevin, I don’t think the government should get involved in the design of my sand wedge.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:28 pm#69-Kevin,
There you go with the generalizations again, but you are not very good at the game. The trick is to use generalizations that at least have some factual basis.
For instance, saying that “Conservatives are horrible economic managers” is very broad but at the same time there is ample evidence that supports such an assertion.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:28 pmKevin sez:
Given the amount of election fraud perpetrated by the neocons in ‘04, I’d say that crying ‘foul’ was the sensible thing to do. Funny how you try to conflate a democratic resolution with a stolen election.
Of course, now is the point when your ilk usually point their fingers and chant ‘crybaby! get over it!’ over and over until the conversation is thoroughly derailed. Go ahead…get it out of your system. We know you can’t help yourself.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:30 pm“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
John Adams
I’m sure you can believe President Adams on this, Kevin. He did, after all, have a part in writing our constitution.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:32 pm#76-Bluedog49
Obviously Mr. Adams is stuck in a “pre 9/11″ mindset.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:41 pmYes, but can you quote any reputable scientists? Like maybe VerbalKint he is this website’s self proclaimed “Real Scientistâ€
ROTFL
January 10th, 2007 at 1:44 pmCaption Contest;
January 10th, 2007 at 1:45 pmSee my fingers? My Odor Lingers.
See my thumbs? Gee I’m Dumb.
Cry cry cry.
Maybe should should stop crying about it.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:45 pmYes, Tuber. Most of the founders are hopelessly out of touch.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:46 pmWhy do you folks assume I’m a Christain? I’m not.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:46 pmI would think after all the ballyhooing after the GOP asked for a day off you would be out of tears.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:48 pmActually the Dems are mulling middle class tax cuts. The studies that are out there on raising min wage show that it increases local prosperity instead of harming it.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:51 pm[…] stem cell advances (in spite of Bush’s veto): Jump to Comments In spite of Bush’s pandering to a religious minority in America, science has made someprogress; from ThinkProgress: – June 20, 2006 — CBS reports that ES cells have been used to help paralyzed rats walk. […]
January 10th, 2007 at 1:54 pmWas wondering if you were planning post birth abortions on your children in case they grow up progressives?
Comment by Krazny #32
That’s IF they even “GROW UP” Krazny…
…it’s been known to eat its young…
January 10th, 2007 at 1:55 pmKevin: “I’m not a christian. I’m just f*ckin crazy, that’s all.”
Thanks for clearing that up, Kevin. It is hard to tell the difference sometimes.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:59 pmKevin sez:
God, you’re predictable. You really do make it too easy.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:59 pmToday we can gather stem cells by other means. The basis of the GOP argument that they come from human embryos is history.
“The placenta and umbilical cord appear to be rich sources for stem cells that have real potential to treat disease,” said Russell, who also is an adviser …
January 10th, 2007 at 2:00 pmhttp://www.postgazette.com/pg/05217/549236.stm
So, Kevin, since you’re not a christian, may I assume you’re against using discared blasticysts to cure disease simply because you’re an a-hole?
January 10th, 2007 at 2:01 pmI’ll take that non-answer as a “yes.”
January 10th, 2007 at 2:42 pmInteresting report on the potential of amniotic stem cells as a superior option to es cells
January 10th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
#33 ?? Huh? Did I miss something??
Comment by RUCerious
Nope. Not a thing.
I was being sarcastic. :)
January 10th, 2007 at 3:32 pmI don’t have a problem with that.
January 10th, 2007 at 3:57 pmKevin
January 10th, 2007 at 4:14 pmThe GOP supports stem cell research. However Clinton signed into law the “Dickey Amendment” which prohibits federal funds from being used to create es cells. Bush also supports this approach. The media consistantly blurs the issue by referring only to “stem Cell research” and not specifying the class of stem cells it is refering to.
Has anyone brought up the successful branding of this tecnology with the word Embryo?
These stemcells are actually extracted from a blastocyst. That’s actually before it becomes an embryo. The term “Embryonic stem cell research” came from none other than Frank Luntz. Then it was dutifully picked up by our mainstream media where the term spread like wild fire.
They picked the name to fire up folks like Kevin and rachel b, whose knowledge of science is exceeded by their need to deny reality, and berate anyone who disagrees with their Dear Leader.
I would like to request that Thinkprogress refrain from using the misnomer invented by Frank Luntz as if it were the proper term.
January 10th, 2007 at 4:38 pm.
Greenchile, thank you! That’s exactly right.
January 10th, 2007 at 4:49 pmGreenchile
January 10th, 2007 at 5:07 pmThere is no difference in this respect. In embryonic development the blastocyst contains the embryoblast which is destroyed in the removal of the stem cells.
Comment by greenchilecheeseburger
I did not know that. (I have no reason to doubt it.) It doesn’t surprise me considering the depths that Frank Luntz will go to make a buck. Just out of curiosity, is there a link to some place with more on this? I’ll do a search myself later if you don’t have one handy. I’d like to know if anyone has compiled a list of Luntz’s infractions against all that’s right and decent about our system of government (besides the infamous “Contract With (/On) America”.
January 10th, 2007 at 5:10 pmYES!
January 10th, 2007 at 5:12 pmThe correct term would be blastocystic stem cell research.
I believe the only thing that preceeds a blastocyst is a zygote.
thought, would you prefer a blastocyst be thrown away than to be used in scientific research?
January 10th, 2007 at 5:23 pmIt’s from a talk George Lakoff gave:
…when we started talking about stem cell research, Frank Luntz wrote a memo. Frank Luntz is the conservative language man. And the memo said, “Don’t talk about stem cell research; talk about embryonic stem cell research.†Why? And notice this has spread. The New York Times says embryonic stem cell research. The Democrats say embryonic stem cell research. The bill in California says embryonic stem cell research. What is the mental image of an embryo? Think about it, it’s a little baby. Tom DeLay says stem cell research allows people to tear babies apart. Dismember embryos. How does it really work in stem cell research? Stem cell research is carried out on blastocysts. What’s a blastocyst look like? It’s a hollow sphere, just a few days old. It has in it a small number of stem cells. No hair cells, arm cells, blood cells, heart cells, brain cells, nothing else but undifferentiated stem cells. And if you called it blastocyst stem cell research, who would care? But that’s what it really is.
Language matters, framing matters. And framing can distort the truth. It’s very very important, that framing can distort the truth simply by carrying mental imagery. And you know about mental imagery, that’s what you deal with every day.
I’m sorry I can’t lay my hands on the transcript just now, but I’ll try later.
January 10th, 2007 at 5:29 pm.
Link here.
January 10th, 2007 at 5:39 pm.
Thanks, greenchilecheeseburger,
Maybe I can find the speech itself on Lakoff’s website
January 10th, 2007 at 5:41 pmThe Rockridge Institute. Appreciate the info. And I am big on “framing”, so I know what he’s talking about.
Got it, gcc. Thanks! :-)
January 10th, 2007 at 5:42 pm[…] Fact Checking the Bush Administration on Stem Cells Via ThinkProgress: In Monday’s White House press briefing, Press Secretary Tony Snow said, “The vast majority of breakthroughs right now, virtually all, have involved those other than embryonic stem cells.†[…]
January 10th, 2007 at 6:43 pmNow that comes at the cost of an unborn baby.
Comment by Kevin — January 10, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
“unborn baby”: Rightwing-speak with no real meaning devised to emotionally charge the debate, and frame an issue.
The beauty of this type of fallacy is that is carries the judgement and the penalty wrapped in one; if an embryo is a baby, then anyone who is for embryonic stem cell research is a baby-killer.
Of course, the people who spew this tripe don’t stop to think that if we applied the same fallacy to everything we do, we’d have “unborn chickens” for breakfast, and purchase bags of “unborn legumes” at the store. Be careful not to swallow “unborn vines” next time you eat grapes.
January 10th, 2007 at 7:18 pmbluedog
it does not matter what I think. The facts are these.
1) Amniotic stem cells are potentially more useful than embryotic stem cells and their use carry significantly less ethical (and hence political) dillemas.
2) A blastocyst contains a embryoblast. The verbal engineering attempt is fallacious.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:04 pmKevin writes: Of course, the people who spew this tripe don’t stop to think that if we applied the same fallacy to everything we do, we’d have “unborn chickens†for breakfast, and purchase bags of “unborn legumes†at the store. Be careful not to swallow “unborn vines†next time you eat grapes.
How is that a problem? I ate an unborn chicken for breakfast. I ate part of an adult chicken for dinner. I don’t kill adult people. I don’t kill unborn people, either.
This just isn’t that hard to figure out, foks. There are chickens, and there are people. Don’t kill the latter.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:43 pmMisattribution above: “Kevin” should be “Gregor Samsa”.
My apologies.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:52 pmI ate an unborn chicken for breakfast.
Comment by hardy — January 10, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
It’s called an egg, not an “unborn chicken”. They are called peanuts and lentils, not “unborn legumes”. They are called embryos, not “unborn children”. It’s really not that difficult.
You just reached a new level in lack of awareness.
January 10th, 2007 at 10:55 pmHas anyone seen this?
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006072493
The headline reads:
“Scientists Extract Human Stem Cells From Amniotic Fluid While Baby Still In Womb”
So perhaps theres something on the horizon which will satisfy both sides of the debate.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:31 amMA: “I didn’t see too much on that in the “progressive†press. Why am I not surprised? Hmmm…..â€
comment by Mighty Hypocrite
Maybe that’s because you can’t read very well.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:35 am[…] As AP notes, “Zerhouni’s comments appear to be his strongest yet in support of lifting President Bush’s 2001 ban that restricted government funding to research using only embryonic stem cell lines then in existence. There are just 21 such lines now in use.” Story Landis, the NIH official overseeing Bush’s restrictive embryonic stem cell policy, also recently suggested that the President’s approach is delaying life-saving cures. (More on recent medical breakthroughs involving embryonic stem cells HERE.) […]
March 20th, 2007 at 1:03 pm