I read the puff piece you're quoting from.
Both the puff piece and the attack article have limitations, but at least mine had some solid refs which I'm checking back on.
There is a limited amount of objective data available: genetically (documentable even if you don't believe in evolution) chimps are closer to humans than baboons, he used a baboon.
The puff piece provides no explanation for this. It does not document an unsuccessful search for a human heart either.
Doctor Bailey may be a fine surgeon and a good person, but he goofed up badly on Baby Fae. My guess is that he learned from experience. Nevertheless, the Baby Fae procedure was not justified according to any information currently available.
So? Your attack piece is as worthless as the puff piece you imagine the Loma Linda article to be.
First, though chimps are genetically closer to humans than pigs are, we use pig valves in heart operations, not chimp valves. Though chimps are genetically closer to humans than pigs are, we used pig and cow insulin rather than chimp insulin.
Second, as I mentioned previously, the decision was not just up to Dr. Bailey, it was a group decision. Finally, Put up. You assert that current information has determined that the Baby Fae procedure was not justified. Well, besides being Monday morning quarterbacking, you have not provided such information other than that some people didn't like it. And you have slipped far afield from the accusation that somehow the procedure was destined to failure because the Dr. did not believe in evolution. It failed because the child was very sick. The operation was performed 12 days after her birth. She lasted 20 or 21 days after the operation. That was longer that the first human to human heart transplant.And yes, the team learned from the experience. We all do.