Posted on 11/07/2006 10:12:42 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan
Tellingly, liberals' one example of the The Republican War on Science, as one book title puts it, is the Christian objection to Nazi experimentation on human embryos. As with other "sciences" admired by liberals, their enthusiasm for embryonic stem-cell research is based on lies. Liberals lie about the science on stem-cell research because they warm to the idea of destroying human embryos. If they can desensitize Americans to the idea of harvesting human embryos for imaginary medical cures, liberals believe it will advance the cause of killing the unborn. As columnist Anna Quidlen said, the "pro-choicers" were always "at a loss" when faced with moral arguments in defense of an unborn baby. But with embryonic stem-cell research, Quidlen said, the "battle of personification will assume a different and more sympathetic visage in the years to come"--taking the form of Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeve, Ronald Reagan, and other beloved public figures for whom embryonic stem-cell researchers promise miracle cures they are not close to producing.
Although there has been research on both adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells since the fifties, only adult stem-cell research has produced any cures--and lots of'em. Adult stem cells have been used for decades to treat dozens of diseases, including Type 1 diabetes, liver disease, and spinal cord injuries. Curently, adult stem cells are used to treat more than eighty different diseases.
Harvard medical researcher Denise Faustman has used adult stem cells to cure diabetes in mice. Other cures from adult stem cells are being tested in hundreds of clinical trials. Adult stem-cell researchers in Switzerlatake a few strands of hair from burn victims and use the follicular stem cells on the tips to create entire disks of new skin, a vast improvement on ugly skin grafts. Recently, patients with damaged livers have been helped by injections of bone marrow adult stem cells collected not directly from their marrow (an extremely painful procedure) but simply cultivated from their blood.
By contrast, the embryonic stem-cell researchers have produced nothing. They have treated nothing. They have not begun one human clinical trial. They've successfully treated a few rodents, but they keep running into two problems: First, the cells tend to be rejected by the immune system. Second, they tend to cause malignancies called teratomas--meaning "monster tumors."
The idea that embryonic stem cells are on the verge of curing anything is absurd. It's possible embryonic stem-cell research could find a cure for Alzheimer's disease someday only in the sense that it is possible that a biologist's toenail clippings could be used to find a cure for Alzheimer's someday. Liberals aren't demanding that taxpayer money be used for research on toenail clippings; that would not advance their governing principle, which is to always kill human life (unless the human life being killed is likely to fly a plane into American skyscrapers, in which case, it is wrong to kill it).
The only advantage embryonic stem cells once had over adult stem cells was their ability to transform into any type of cell. But fast-advancing research on adult stem cells has stripped away even that theoretical advantage. As of 2002, adult stem cells were being converted into all three types of cells the body produces during early embryonic development. And adult stem cells were already curing people!
Embryonic stem-cell researchers were in trouble. It was as if thirty years after the invention of electricity, they were still trying to get someone to fund their research on candles. Results tend to draw more research dollars than pie-in-the-sky claims to maybe, possibly someday find a cure for Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, paralysis, Parkinson's disease, PMS, balding, and hemorrhodial itch. No one is going to buy a drawing of a potential cure when somebody else is already selling the cure.
Embryonic stem-cell researchers had only one choice: Accuse anyone opposed to taxpayer funding of embryonic stem-cell research of being "anti-science." As Michael Fumento says, it was the very success of adult stem-cell research compared with the abject failure of embryonic stem-cell research that led to the all-out PR campaign: "Savvy venture capitalists have poured their money into ASCs, leaving ESC researchers desperate to feed at the federal (or state) trough."
While adult stem-cell researchers were in their labs quietly discovering cures, embryonic stem-cell researchers were mounting a massive public relations assault that not only promised cures for every known human malady but also viciously attacked adult stem-cell research as useless. This is perhaps not surprising, since--in contrast to researchers on adult stem cells--embryonic stem-cell researchers are virtually never doctors. They're biologists. They don't care about healing people, they just want to be paid to push petri dishes around the lab, cut up a living human embryo, and sell it for parts like a stolen Toyota at a chop shop.
It's always the same thing with liberals. Time and again doctors are just minding their own business trying to cure people and liberal special interest groups swoop in and take all their money. The most valuable people in society are under constant assualt from trial lawyers, biologists, and class-warfare Democrats.
Appropriately, the spokesman for liberal "science" was once again a rich white male Southern lawyer doing a passable impression of Miss Cleo. At an Iowa campaign stop during the 2004 presidential campaign, John Edwards promised, "We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases. . . . When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." Long predicted, it had finally happened: the Democrats had put Elmer Gantry on their presidential ticket. If one wanted to cure the lame, one could reasonably start with John Edwards.
Extravagant promises of miraculous cures turned out to be an extremely effective argument with people who knew nothing about the science involved, such as actors. In a grim irony, Christopher Reeve died waiting for the miracle cure promised by embryonic stem-cell researchers about the same time a South Korean woman who had been paralyzed for nineteen years began to walk again with the help of a walker--thanks to injection of umbilical cord stem cells into the injured part of her spine. Long before Reeve died, two paralyzed American women with spinal cord injuries, Laura Dominguez and Susan Fajt, were treated with adult stem cells in Portugal. Both regained most upper body movement and began to walk with braces.
At a debate in New York before Reeve died, the head of a biotechnology company actually put his hand over the mouth of Reeve's debating partner to prevent Reeve from hearing about the stunning advances being made with adult stem-cell cures. Plan B was to plug up Reeve's earswith his fingers while humming loudly. They're all about the dignity of the disabled, these liberals. Until Michael Fumento wrote about Hwang Mi-soon, the South Korean woman who began to walk again thanks to adult stem cells, there was no mention of it in any document on Nexis.
At least the embryonic stem-cell researchers have a clear financial incentive to lie about adult stem-cell research. Liberals just want to kill human beings. Everyone with a doddering ninety-year-old parent is suddenly gung-ho on experimenting on human embryos--or "blastocysts," as they are affectionately known to the "scientific community." The Worst Generation is so appalled at the idea of having to take care of Mom and Dad, they're lashing out at embryos.
Stem-cell research on embryos is an even worse excuse for the slaughter of life than abortion. No woman is even being spared an inconvenience of time. We don't have to hear the ghastly arguments of mothers against their own children, the travails of girls being sent away to live with their aunt for a few months, or the stories of women carrying babies of rapists--as if that's happened more than twice in the last half century. This is just harvest and slaughter, harvest and slaughter. There's a famous book about this practice. It's called Brave New World.
Nobody ever heard of this incredibly important research on human embryos until ten minutes ago, yet everyone makes believe he's known about the undiscovered bounty of in human embryos forever, and talks about it with real moral indignation. This whole debate is a hoax designed to trick Americans into yielding ground on human experimentation.
What great advances are we to expect from experimentation on human embryos--as opposed to adult stem cells, which have already produced cures? Liberals don't know. It's just a theory. But they definitely need to start slaughtering the unborn. Why not have the government give me a lot of money so I can sit around and think. Who knows what I might come up with? I'm clever. It's possible. Give money to Ann or condemn the world to disease and pestilence! It is simply asserted that scientists need to experiment on human embryos if they are ever going to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease, cancer, AIDS, Parkisons disease, and so on. Maybe. If it's true, but no one has demonstrated that it is true. Liberals are sobbing and groaning that we don't know if the Strategic Defense Initative will work. We shot a missile out of the sky. What's their proof? Decades of research are called for in the case of human embryos. We don't know if this will work or not, but just to be on the safe side we'd better start chopping up as many human embryos as we can get our hands on. Whereas global warming is a closed matter in need of no further study.
The last great advance for human experimentation in this country was the federal government's acquiescence to the scientific community's demands for money to experiment on aborted fetuses. Denouncing the "Christian right" for opposing the needs of science, Anthony Lewis of the New York Times claimed in Feburary 2000 that the experiments were "crucial to potential cures for Parkinson's disease."
Almost exactly a year later, the Times ran a front-page story describing the results of those experiments on Parkinson's patients: Not only was there no positive effect from injecting fetal brain tissue into the recipients, but about 15 percent of the patients had nightmarish side effects. The unfortunate patients "writhe and twist, jerk their heads, fling their arms about." In the words of one of one scientist, "They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their wrists flex and distend." And the worst thing was, the scientists couldn't turn it off.
But the science that is working--adult stem-cell research--gets attacked and lied about in order to elevate the science that has produced nothing. In the August 24, 2004, New York Times, science writer Gina Kolata claimed that no one had succeeded in using adult stem cells "to treat diseases."
A short list of the successful treatments achieved by adult stem cells are these:
Meanwhile, embryonic stem cells have never cured anything in any living creature.
What's so disarming about the Left's pretend interest in "science" is that they have the audacity to shut down debate in the name of "science." Science is the study of the world as it exists, which, to their constant annoyance, is not the world liberals would like it to be. Liberals are personally offended that the AIDS virus seems to discriminate against gays. So they lie about it. They are sad that IQ is not infintely malleable but has a genetic component. So they lie about it (and denounce people who tell the truth as racists). They are angry that men and women have different innate abilities. So they lie about it (also cry and stamp their feet).
Source: Ann Coulter, Godless: The Church of Liberalism; pp. 192-198
bttt
Just this week, we've learned about functional liver cells that form tissue masses about the size of pennies, derived from cells from umbilical cord stem cells, functional lung cells that make surfactant derived from cells from umbilical cord cells, improvement after heart attacks with cells from the patient's own bone marrow.
Have you seen any of these in the MSM? And I wonder why?
Then there's the request from researchers in the UK ( where such is actually regulated, unlike in the US), who want to make embryos from somatic cell nuclear transfer techniques -- only that want to use cow eggs and human nuclear DNA. Now, why would they decide to go and do such a horrible thing? It could be because although NO ONE has been able to clone a human embryo using human eggs and DNA long enough and far enough to produce a blastocyst that might contain human embryonic stem cells, one Chinese lab *did* report that they had done so using rabbit eggs and human DNA. It's not the shortage of eggs - although that would be a big hurdle if cloning ever became possible - it's the fact that human SCNT has not proven possible.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Emergency heart attack patients will be injected with their own stem cells in a dramatic new treatment.
The procedure, being pioneered by British doctors, holds out hope of a 'cure' as the stem cells repair damaged heart muscles.
The low-cost treatment, which involves removing stem cells from the patient's bone marrow, could be given within a few hours of a heart attack.
It is intended to stop patients suffering further attacks and developing heart failure, something existing treatments fail to do in many cases.
If the initial trials in London are successful, the treatment is likely to be extended to NHS hospitals across the country.
Researchers have called the project - the first of its kind in the world - "very exciting" and say it could have a significant impact on the annual toll of deaths from heart disease.
As well as saving lives, it would also reduce the £7billion-a-year burden of heart attacks on the economy through hospital admissions, drug prescriptions and lost working days. Stem cell cure for heart attacks by Julie Wheldon (11-7-06)
If she would have shut her big mouth we would not be sitting here as losers tonight. She did more damage then help , she should be happy . What they will do to her now?It is going to be fun to see. Word of advise .if you want to ever win again , put a mussle on that witch.
LOL! Yeah, Ann Coulter lost Repubs the election...
Not exactly but she sure did help now didn't she.
What a brillant analysis...let's dump Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and every other self-identified conservative because a GOP Congress and White House that outspent Clinton/Gore is losing ground in the House and Senate. I'm with ya! Let's promise tens...no...hundreds of billions in embryonic stem cell research, promise surrender to Islamo-fascism in Iraq, nationalize healthcare, and let's just roll left till we fall off the deep end. Conservatism is so passe and it loses elections...or maybe we can put the blame where it really belongs on clowns running the GOP.
Hey , don't blame me I voted rep. But if the shoe fits wear it. You don't have to dump Hannity and Levin the fairness doctrune will do that for you, I am telling you the only one who will survive will be Rush , just hide behind Annes skirt and watch.
Going to bed now tomorrow is another day!
That and the creeping arrogance that leads to all sorts of bad habits (mainly obscene distribution of PORK).
Ann is one reason I've voted Rep till now.
Bridge to Nowhere Con(gress)-men make me hold my nose while voting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.