[Lunatic Fringe]

there is nothing in the scientific research to indicate a single area where embryonic stem cell research is going to assist in a cure of any disease.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Embryonic stem cell research has only been going on for 7 years. Given the interminable amount of time for the FDA to approve therapies, it is not surprising that so far there have been zero approved treatments. But to say there is "nothing in the scientific research" that shows promise for this type of therapy is wrong.

Just this morning, a story was published showing that ESS-based vaccines prevented lung cancer in mice with an 80-100% success rate. "Researchers believe that it will be possible to produce cancer vaccines in humans from embryonic stem cells."

[Brad from Tennessee]

If science is given enough decades and enough tax dollars they can find a way to cure cancer with gasoline. However, there are easier paths to follow. Embryonic stem cell research is a political issue, promoted to desensitize the public to embryo harvest and destruction, hence abortion and euthanasia.

[BufordP]

Well, in that case, let the destruction of human life begin!</sarcasm>

[60Gunner]

"Embryonic stem cell research has only been going on for 7 years."

Precisely.

"Just this morning, a story was published showing that ESS-based vaccines prevented lung cancer in mice with an 80-100% success rate. "Researchers believe that it will be possible to produce cancer vaccines in humans from embryonic stem cells."

Here I would beg to disagree with your premise, and I invite the reader to step back and think critically about this information. It's one thing to claim that embryonic stem cell therapy can prevent cancer in rats in a laboratory under controlled conditions. It's entirely another to infer from limited data that cancer can be prevented in humans.

John Eaton has left an awful lot to the imagination here. Going to the press before presenting your findings to your peers for scrutiny and review is very poor science. It's meant to get the public behind a practice that has not been peer-reviewed yet in order to put pressure on agencies who are responsible for approving therapies for human use.

Now, if my memory serves me correctly, this is the exact practice for which Merck was hammered, wasn't it? Why is it now suddenly acceptable for stem cell researchers to practice the same sensationalism?

Think about it: why else would this person go to the press? To offer hope? Why not wait until his peers have reviewed his data and given their agreement that the results are valid? Having the added weight of successful peer review would have given teeth to Eaton's claims. Right now, Eaton's claim has no validity.

And then you have to acknowledge that stem cell researchers have not practiced scientific methods, and one of their most notable figures turned out to be a fraud.

Do not allow your desire for something to be possible override your ability to think critically. We all want answers to the problems. But junk science will not get us there. Neither will politicization of the research. There is a lot of pressure from activist groups to sway scientific opinion, and any time that happens, research sails swiftly into torpedo water.