dd well argued reponse - had zzz made the argument I might have been less emphatic. But for you a little dramatization sounds like a bunch of crap to me. Nevetheless as far the facts on this issure are concrned -- I have not seen anyone give the counter to ms. davenports argument.
__________________________________________________ Not a counter to Ms. Davenport, but the one central issue in her argument, to me at least, is the issue of rejection. Having studied this type of treatment for over a year in the hopes of having a stem cell treatment done, the bottom line is potential rejection or the decrease in lifestyle due to anti-rejection drug effects. The treatment I am studying uses my own blood, therefore clears the rejection hurdle. In presenting this treatment to my specialists, who hadn't even heard of the treatment, as soon as I relayed to them that it used my own blood they became very supportive and started checking it out on their own to see if the foreign or US doctors performing the procedure overseas were credible. The deciding factor for them and me is rejection which would include embryonic cells if they even treated the condition, which they don't.
Actually, many OB/GYN's are also Reproductive Endocrinologists. I am pretty sure though that somebody who can get to the status of an OB/GYN has the brains to read the research and decipher enough to form a valid position. All doctors have advanced knowledge in biology. What I don't know is how you are qualified to judge an actual doctor's position, Dr. Zhivodka.
What argument? Oh, this argument... That's a complete strawman, no one including Michael J. Fox has ever claimed that federally-funded research is more promising than state/privately funded research. No one has ever claimed that embryonic stem cell research is more promising than adult stem cell research either. Both types of research are scientifically valid, all possible avenues of funding are extremely important. Oh really? I wonder why medical researchers disagree: "Contrarily, medical researchers in the field argue that it is necessary to pursue embryonic stem cell research because the resultant technologies are expected to have significant medical potential" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell Typical republican bullshit, they cut/refuse funding for a research and than when the research stops (due to lack of funding) they have the gall to claim that the research has not produced results. Duh!!! Then again what can be expected from a person who "strictly follows the teachings of the Catholic Church in her practice of medicine."
You mean people who have dedicated their studies to the field believe it needs continued financing? You could have knocked me over with a feather. Let me ask you something, how much should be given? At what point do we stop funding the project if it nets zero results? Do we just keep dishing more money into the project if absolutely nothing is seen after 5, 10, or 20 years? Or do we just keep spending no matter what?
Is the scientific consensus so strong right now that no scientist even wants to use embryonic cells? Are you sure that you might not be afraid that there may be a breakthrough, which would increase interest in using more embryonic cells?
If Michael J. Fox had made a public service ad arguing for emryoinic stem cell research funding, I don't think anyone would be objecting. In fact, I believe he made that argument to the Senate, although I am not sure how an actor has much to add on a scientific issue. The issue however is that he chose to inject himself into several political races in a highly exploitive manner, and used misleading arguments at that. That takes him out of the category of "disease spokesman" and puts him into the political hit man category. His usefulness as a spokesman for parkinson's research has been cut by half, as he is now a partisan.