Stem cell non-event explained

My theory? No one even considered that anyone would care. Surely, the peer reviewers weren’t in on a conspiracy. At least Lanza, et. al., got their money’s worth from the press release guys!

There is no way to do justice to the blogger’s post and the incredibly informative guest comment by copying and pasting it here. Brendan Mahrer, the blogger, reproduced one of the crucial tables and Katayoun Chamany, the commenter tells me more about the process than anyone else I’ve read (including the original article).

Here’s a couple of excerpts to tempt you to click on the link.
From Mr. Mahrer:

. . . The flurry of numbers and only distant relationship between the ‘corrected’ sentence and the original left us scratching our heads as to what exactly they meant. As if sensing they hadn’t aggravated reporters enough. They issued a second correction at 4pm on a Friday afternoon (long after the UK office had likely packed up and gone home). . .

From the commenter:

. . . So whether this technique will take us any closer to meeting the ideology of the Bush Administration has yet to be seen. Without a viable and robust trophectoderm, implantation will be less likely. So like ANT and the other methods being touted in the name of pro-life, this man-made manipulation reduces the efficiency of embryo implantation and maintenance. . . .

About bnuckols

Conservative Christian Family Doctor, promoting conservative news and views. (Hot Air under the right wing!)


No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

If the post is missing: take the “www.” out of the url

@bnuckols Twitter




%d bloggers like this: