Apparently something from Reeve himself...
 

I'm not big on like-posting, but I came across this, and found it
interesting:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=40887

While it sounds legit and somewhat objective, I don't offer it as
accurate, true, or anything else - IMO, it should be taken, as anything
on the 'net, in at least a contextual view and even taken with a grain
of salt.

R

Apparently something from Reeve himself...
 

Actually, embryonic stem cell research shows very little positive promise.
Adult stem cell research, OTOH, could perhaps produce some positive results.
KE

Apparently something from Reeve himself...
 

Kerry Evans wrote:
Actually, embryonic stem cell research shows very little positive promise.
Adult stem cell research, OTOH, could perhaps produce some positive results.
KE

You obviously don't have a clue about the current scientific opinion.
The jury is still very much OUT regarding the usefulness of adult stem
cells vs. embryonic stem cells, and it doesn't look especially promising
for adult stem cells. Why don't you educate yourself instead of merely
parroting the party line?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Apparently something from Reeve himself...
 

Kerry Evans wrote:
Actually, embryonic stem cell research shows very little positive promise.
Adult stem cell research, OTOH, could perhaps produce some positive results.
KE

You obviously don't have a clue about the current scientific opinion.
The jury is still very much OUT regarding the usefulness of adult stem
cells vs. embryonic stem cells, and it doesn't look especially promising
for adult stem cells. Why don't you educate yourself instead of merely
parroting the party line?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Apparently something from Reeve himself...
 

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:41:06 -0600, "Kerry Evans"
wrote:

Actually, embryonic stem cell research shows very little positive promise.
Adult stem cell research, OTOH, could perhaps produce some positive results.
KE


OK, but I'm not sure that's correct, and certainly not what I was trying
to convey. From what I know about it (which, admittedly, is pretty
limited), both types show promise for certain and differing things, but
the embryonic cells are, at least in theory, more versatile because they
are what would, in nature, develop into everything. Frankly, I think
the whole thing has become more political than scientific, including for
the scientists themselves, and none of the cells show short-term promise
as cure-alls, ala Edwards' campaigning.

But again, most importantly IMO, the only real question is should the
Fed fund embryonic cell research or not. Also IMO, given the complete
overview and current knowledge to this point, the Fed should stay
_completely_ out of it as far as funding or beyond anything other than a
limited control as to methodology.

TC,
R

Apparently something from Reeve himself...
 

Apparently something from Reeve himself...
 

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:07:14 -0600, rw
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:41:06 -0600, "Kerry Evans"
wrote:


Actually, embryonic stem cell research shows very little positive promise.
Adult stem cell research, OTOH, could perhaps produce some positive results.
KE



OK, but I'm not sure that's correct, and certainly not what I was trying
to convey. From what I know about it (which, admittedly, is pretty
limited),

... and which, of course, doesn't stop you from stating an uninformed
opinion.

Er, nope, wrong yet again...whatsamatter - have you been snorting
potatoes again or something - a _limited_ amount of knowledge is not
the same as "uninformed," and moreover, when you get down to it, by
definition, your knowledge is limited, as well and as such, your opinion
of my opinion would be based on your own limited knowledge...

HTH,
R
....and I bet I'll be able to smell the smoke from here...

Apparently something from Reeve himself...
 

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:07:14 -0600, rw
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:41:06 -0600, "Kerry Evans"
wrote:


Actually, embryonic stem cell research shows very little positive promise.
Adult stem cell research, OTOH, could perhaps produce some positive results.
KE



OK, but I'm not sure that's correct, and certainly not what I was trying
to convey. From what I know about it (which, admittedly, is pretty
limited),

... and which, of course, doesn't stop you from stating an uninformed
opinion.

Er, nope, wrong yet again...whatsamatter - have you been snorting
potatoes again or something - a _limited_ amount of knowledge is not
the same as "uninformed," and moreover, when you get down to it, by
definition, your knowledge is limited, as well and as such, your opinion
of my opinion would be based on your own limited knowledge...

HTH,
R
....and I bet I'll be able to smell the smoke from here...

Apparently something from Reeve himself...
 

Apparently something from Reeve himself...
 

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:41:06 -0600, "Kerry Evans"
wrote:

Actually, embryonic stem cell research shows very little positive promise.
Adult stem cell research, OTOH, could perhaps produce some positive results.
KE


It's totally up in the air whether either one will ever produce
anything useful, but people who spend most of their time on
this are pretty certain that the embryonic is more promising
than the adult.