"Embryonic stem cells haven't caused cancer in lots of folks, as I first claimed, but in clinical tests in rats and other lab animals."

So you were lying to your readers, not only when you made the original claim, but when you asserted that the articles you linked to supported your claim. Glad we have that settled.

You were asked other questions about your claims, Justin. Can you now dredge up the intestinal fortitude to answer those?

• How do the costs of embryonic stem cell research compare to the costs of research on non-embryonic stem cells?

• What are the specific ethical dangers of embryonic stem cell research?

And given that we now know that you lied about the human cancers, this next question has to be asked:

• What is the evidence that embryonic stem cells have caused cancers in clinical tests in rats and other lab animals?

An example is, in the one article it mentions that cells that duplicate quickly can cause cancer, and in another, it talks about how quickly embryonic stem cells duplicate. God forbid something take some comprehension. You're AFRAID TO READ.

...because several of them do. God forbid a liberal learns something.

Read this one about the guy at MIT making stem cells from adult cells, which mentions the cancer perspective.
And I'm sure you're going to throw this out because of where it's written, but this is written by a doctor.
And then this gives you some background on various OTHER stem cell lines causing cancer, because they duplicate uncontrollably. Embryonic stem cells duplicate more uncontrollably than specialized adult cells, which are pluripotent.
And plenty of articles on this page have info on this line of science.

Why go down a moral slippery slope when the other line of advance (adult stem cells) are actually producing results, quickly, and efficiently. Transplanting embryonic stem cells has resulted in cancer in a lot of folks, and it's costly and ethically dangerous research. I'm just saying, if something else is working, and working easily and without controversy, why not pursue that?

That's right! Absolutely! Everybody knows that every single other medical advance in the history of mankind was producing useful and innovative results within nine years of its initial discovery. Embryonic human stem cells have clearly failed the nine year test. They'll never amount to anything! Pour them all down the drain and forget them! Seventeen-year-old right-wing bloggers are ALWAYS ALWAYS RIGHT when they opine on the usefulness of medical research! NIH should always consult bloggers with no medical or scientific training before funding any medical research -- ALWAYS!

So I'm confused...

"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical", but then again "the U.S. military knew there were children at the compound but considered the target of such high value it was worth the risk of potential collateral damage."

Honestly, there does seem to be a double standard here.

Hat tip to meatbrain via FireDogLake.

But then again (from Wikipedia): On May 10, 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions. Not challenging this figure, she infamously replied "we think the price is worth it", though she later rued the comment as "stupid.".

For one very pl;ain simple reason.

EST doesn't work. No results, no cures, no progress.

Zilch.

Zip.

Nada.

Less luck than trying to encourage one of meatbrains two brain cells to try and reproduce.And even those need a good kick in the ass.

So, good on you, Mr President.

Now about those wetbacks....