Gautam Mukunda wrote: > --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> So........are you also going to slam a significant >> portion of the >> medical community who are making the same kinds of >> claims and more? >> In the context of promoting stem cell research, the >> statement is >> perfectly reasonable and any claim to the contrary >> is just a partisan >> wonkfest. >> >> Gautam, you are much too smart a guy to be falling >> for this simplistic >> crap. >> >> xponent >> Way Way Too Smart Maru >> rob > > If I thought there were doctors with any credibility > saying that stem cells would cure paralysis in eight > years if and only if John Kerry were elected, I would.
Ahhhh....ok....But I have not seen anywhere where anyone has said it will happen in eight years. The product of such research will happen when it happens, but only after it is prodded to start. > But I don't think there are, actually, and I do think > that much of the promise of stem cells has been vastly > exaggerated by people looking for funding. That's how > science politics works, and it's no different from any > other science. All of this coming, Rob, from someone > who is _in favor_ of federal funding of more lines of > stem cells. I thought that i had recalled you as being in favor. > Note that this is very different from > "lifting the ban on stem cell research" - _every > single time_ Edwards or Kerry says that, they are > lying, and they know that they are lying. There is no > ban. Eh?.....then Bush did not make a ban regarding stem cells? That is new to me since I read articles complaining about this ban fairly often. And it isn't just about paralysis, remember. > But this is nothing more than simple demagoguery > on the part of two people who, quite obviously, will > say and do _anything_ to get re-elected. See Charles > Krauthammer's column in the Washington Post today. > He's a doctor. He's also paralyzed. You think he > might support this sort of research if he thought it > could get those kind of benefits in eight years? It > may not get them in 80. The URL is: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34167-2004Oct14.html > Sheesh.....that article is cheesy in its use of misdirection. I have no doubt that one can find partisan doctors who are afflicted with this or that, but I tend to read science articles as having more creedence. xponent Scientific American Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
