re: #10 Obdicut

Just the obvious one: the restrictions on stem-cell experimentation and use have come from religious objections from the GOP.

Which I believe I pointed out in my original post. This was adult stem cell procedure, not embryonic.

FDA approval of therapies can only begin when the therapies actually are submitted for testing. The delay that is caused by the obviously-necessary process of approval by the FDA is nothing compared to the manacles that the GOP has put on scientific advancement.

And yes, when people don’t actually understand science, they’re more likely to abuse it, misuse it, or misunderstand it— as the kerfluffle with the cloud formation work at CERN showed. The scientifically illiterate misunderstood the study and made fatuous, asinine claims about how it would require the climate models to be substantially rewritten. Anyone who actually had the slightest grasp of the science understood they were studying a very small corner of a small branch of the totality of climate— and that, since cosmic rays haven’t increased during the past thirty years,
it obviously isn’t the cause of global warming.

The idea that only the state through it’s mass bureaucracy has the ability, or the right, to make medical decisions for individuals is a typical statist response. It’s not up to the state to protect people from knowingly taking risks that only affect themselves. The FDA has said it’s not proven and possibly unsafe that’s all they need to do. If people have the information and decide on their own that the risk is worth it then why do you think the rest of us have the right to tell them “no”? It isn’t up to us to protect people from “their own stupidity”. The system we have now is only the wealthy have access to these procedures since they can afford to fly off to europe (where amazingly they’ve been tested and legal) while the poor are stuck waiting for the bureaucracy to catch up with the times.

But back to the original article. Do you agree that the people who elect to get procedures that aren’t approved by the FDA (most of which can’t be done in the US) are basing their decisions on their religious beliefs? The article argued that the belief in creationism keeps people from believing in cancer, do you really think that’s a valid and honest argument?