Comment hammers David Kranz and David Volks "pure manipulation"

On occasion I pull out something from the comment string here that is worthy of it's own post.  This is one of those times and you'll want to read this carefully.  In response to David Kranz article in the Argus last week about Dave Volk and his cancer, and his leading role in trying to amend out the language prohibiting experimenting on unwanted human lives, a reader here named Publius reponds with this:

* Kranz is Tom Daschle's old homie. He obviously feels no need to get an opposing view into his column. I want to know where Daschle comes into this effort too.

* The column is an absolutely textbook example of the appeal to pity fallacy,the "I have a sad story, therefore I'm right" fallacy. The entire column is pure manipulation, conspicuously avoiding any substantive discussion of the real issues. Note well the invocation of Ronald Reagan and Volk's status as a veteran, an attempt to manipulate conservatives, when in fact Reagan was the most consistent opponent of all attacks on tiny human life we have ever had as president, even publishing a book on the subject while in office.

* So what kind of cancer does Mr. Volk have. Seems I remember seeing him smoking cigarettes around town like a chimney for years. Or maybe while he was playing poker with the boys and getting in trouble with the law. What we know for certain is that since there are no existing embryonic stem-cell research cures, and indeed that those efforts still have tremendous challenges, that there is no chance this research is of any current benefit to him, and likely it's not of any short-term benefit either. If you assume any actual cures from this research are at least a decade out - which is a number that sticks in my mind, not something I can give you a cite for this minute, and it might be outdated - how will that affect Volk's life expectancy? Do the math. But of course then he will switch gears and claim it's for others.

* One of the outrageous pieces of dishonesty in the piece is the implication that banning embryonic stem-cell research is like, or in any way related to, preventing Volk from getting the "new drugs" that have helped him. That's an incredibly sleazy rhetorical tactic. Banning a specific kind of research for specific ethical reasons is obviously not the same as banning all new research. Following the column's implication to its logical conclusion leads us in a terrible direction. One must ask if all ethical restrictions on new research are offensive to Kranz/Volk. If not, then where are their demands for human experimentation with more mature human subjects, which undoubtedly also could produce important medical advances? Yet I doubt they are going to announce their support for Nazi-style experiments, such as the mentally disabled, or for the old American-style equivalent in the last eugenics era of experimenting on African Americans. But if they will draw the line there, it follows that ethical restrictions on new medical research are not per se wrong, and the proponents of this research are obligated in justice to engage the ethical arguments against this particular research on the merits, without hiding behind emotional manipulation and distorted, one-sided and sometimes false presentations of the state of the science.

* This piece is so astonishingly behind the current science that one wonders about its honesty. Embryonic stem-cell research, even independent of its ethical failures, is so far a medical flop. It has yet to produce a single cure, despite being propped up by public funding. It has significant scientific hurdles to overcome and may not even be viable, being overtaken by ethical alternatives. See this must-watch video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDFJOzu9SyM. Meanwhile, as the video hints at, research with adult stem cells has had tremendous success and promises new victories. Up until a short time ago, the advocates for ESCR have claimed it is needed because embryonic cells could be "pluripotent" - more powerful and flexible. But recent discoveries have enabled researchers to reprogram adult stem-cells into pluripotent equivalents of embryonic cells. I want to know why the reporter failed to include these critical facts. I would want to know from proponents of this research what medical benefit they believe will be derived from using embryos now that the equivalent kind of cell can be derived from other sources. I would also want to see these crucial facts omitted in Kranz's column widely disseminated.

* I would be extremely suspicious of the contention that this will strengthen the state's cloning bill. This claim is almost always a lie. Embryonic stem-cell research practically presupposes cloning for the reason the doctor in the video identified: in order to avoid rejection, it's extremely helpful to have the stem cells match the patient's DNA. The standard lie you will want to investigate is this: They redefine cloning to mean only so-called "reproductive cloning." That's what they did in the infamous Missouri ballot initiative, spearheaded by the same Michael J. Fox being schooled in that priceless video. Meanwhile, the "cloning ban" law expanded and, if I recall correctly, actually funded human cloning. To cover this, you may see the term "therapeutic cloning," another horrific euphemism of the Culture of Death. Far from being therapeutic for the embryonic human being, what it means is that you can clone so long as you kill the clone and use him or her for the stem cells. More commonly, to avoid mentioning the word cloning, what will be proposed is "somatic cell nuclear transfer." But that's simply the scientific name for the cloning process. The identical process would be used for "reproductive cloning," the only difference being that you let the new person live. They tried the same stuff in Minnesota. Kranz states directly that only unwanted embryos from IVF would be used. I would want to see the fine print and find out if that's true, since so much of the rest of the column is boilerplate Just more of the same "Culture of Death" propaganda.

* Either the group and the columnist are ignorant, or they are being dishonest about Alzheimer's. That line of research is not at all promising. See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29561-2004Jun9.html

* As regards the funding, let's get the information on donations and so on. Wouldn't it be great if one could expect the biggest daily newspaper in the state to research a thing like that, but …. Unfortunately, it is a lagging measurement, because that data usually only has to be filed at certain intervals.

* Roger Hunt was lashed to the whipping post mercilessly for his "Future Generations" ballot initiative corporation. We MUST KNOW who is really behind the bankrolling of this effort.