If you are so sure Smith is wrong, then you must know something we don't.
Therefore I know you will post links to any peer-reviewed and duplicated 'research' that shows significant and lasting benefit to patients with implanted embryonic stem cells.
And you will also post links to peer-reviewed and duplicated 'research' showing that ONLY embryonic stem cells show any promise, compared to, say, umbilical cord stem cells.
Won't you?
Therefore I know you will post links to any peer-reviewed and duplicated 'research' that shows significant and lasting benefit to patients with implanted embryonic stem cells.
And you will also post links to peer-reviewed and duplicated 'research' showing that ONLY embryonic stem cells show any promise, compared to, say, umbilical cord stem cells.
Zarf didn't claim there were currently "significant and lasting benefits to patients with implanted embryonics stem cells." He was saying Smith's statement that embryonic stem cells have "not shown any promise in developing treatments for Alzheimer's or any other disease or condition" was BS. And saying embryonic stem cell have not shown "any promise" is a BS statement.
With research, eventually there may very well be "significant and lasting benefits to patients with implanted embryonics stem cells." The field has great promise and it will continue with or without the government's funding.