Alzheimer patients don’t need stem cell lie

The Democrats are advancing two lies right now.

The first is that President Bush has banned stem cell research. He hasn’t. He has merely limited embryonic research.

The second is that embryonic stem cell research will find a cure for Alzheimer’s disease. It won’t. Alzheimer’s disease is a whole brain disease. Developing new cells for part of the brain won’t fix the problem with the whole brain.

Thankfully, real science is aware of this fact. It looks like scientists actually doing the research are on the right path. Fox News reports on research for a new treatment to fight the plaque in the brain associated with the disease.

  • Beth

    Even Ron Reagan called this out — That Stem Cell advances would likely not have benefitted his dad. And you're right about the technicality of the "ban." But here's my problem. If the cells come from attempts at in-vitro fertilization and those embryos would have been dumped anyway, why not use them for research? By the Republican and Religious Right's definition, IVF itself should be outlawed because it produces unused embryos.

  • Beth

    Even Ron Reagan called this out — That Stem Cell advances would likely not have benefitted his dad. And you're right about the technicality of the "ban." But here's my problem. If the cells come from attempts at in-vitro fertilization and those embryos would have been dumped anyway, why not use them for research? By the Republican and Religious Right's definition, IVF itself should be outlawed because it produces unused embryos.

  • Even Ron Reagan called this out — That Stem Cell advances would likely not have benefitted his dad.

    And you’re right about the technicality of the “ban.” But here’s my problem. If the cells come from attempts at in-vitro fertilization and those embryos would have been dumped anyway, why not use them for research?

    By the Republican and Religious Right’s definition, IVF itself should be outlawed because it produces unused embryos.

  • Even Ron Reagan called this out — That Stem Cell advances would likely not have benefitted his dad.

    And you’re right about the technicality of the “ban.” But here’s my problem. If the cells come from attempts at in-vitro fertilization and those embryos would have been dumped anyway, why not use them for research?

    By the Republican and Religious Right’s definition, IVF itself should be outlawed because it produces unused embryos.

  • Jason

    The problem with using "unused" embryos is that it will be a given for scientists to develop embryos with the intent of creating them only for research but calling them "unused". It is the same with partial-birth abortion. Critics of the ban say there is no exception to save the life of the mother (never mind the AMA says it is never necessary). If the exception was in the law, then partial-birth abortion would continue with every single one being claimed it was saving the mother (even though a c-section would serve the same purpose).

  • Jason

    The problem with using "unused" embryos is that it will be a given for scientists to develop embryos with the intent of creating them only for research but calling them "unused". It is the same with partial-birth abortion. Critics of the ban say there is no exception to save the life of the mother (never mind the AMA says it is never necessary). If the exception was in the law, then partial-birth abortion would continue with every single one being claimed it was saving the mother (even though a c-section would serve the same purpose).

  • The problem with using “unused” embryos is that it will be a given for scientists to develop embryos with the intent of creating them only for research but calling them “unused”.

    It is the same with partial-birth abortion. Critics of the ban say there is no exception to save the life of the mother (never mind the AMA says it is never necessary). If the exception was in the law, then partial-birth abortion would continue with every single one being claimed it was saving the mother (even though a c-section would serve the same purpose).

  • The problem with using “unused” embryos is that it will be a given for scientists to develop embryos with the intent of creating them only for research but calling them “unused”.

    It is the same with partial-birth abortion. Critics of the ban say there is no exception to save the life of the mother (never mind the AMA says it is never necessary). If the exception was in the law, then partial-birth abortion would continue with every single one being claimed it was saving the mother (even though a c-section would serve the same purpose).