Replies to post #46481 on Ocata Therapeutics Inc fka OCAT

[chuckanutman]

It has made ACTC stronger, it has not killed ACTC. The struggle to help the blind is making the company stronger. Never help a bird from it's egg or a butterfly from a cocoon because it will keep it in a weak'nd condition. Compasionate use should not be held up by a "socalled" legal system. Your statement says, "Yes, ACT does not destroy the embryo, but the NIH policy, if you understood the case law related to the Sherley vs Sebelius case, does not currently make any such distinction." I'm impressed with ACTC's launch to success.

[dave4119]

Maybe one should consider Scandal in this light: What he believes on Tuesday, is what he believes on Thursday...despite whatever he may learn on Wednesday.(to paraphrase Steven Colbert)

[Fern Wood]

Regarding the NIH decision, "hopefully soon." Any guidance on a timeline or scheduled meeting date at which time the decision to include the ACT method would be approved?

[scandal]

The degree to which you are grasping at straws, and at this point completely making things up (coupled with conflation of unrelated variables) is unbelievable. I have no idea what is motivating you to mislead the readership here, but I'm not going to sit by and let you do it.

<First of all, the embryos from fertility clinics were not created for research, and second of all, the lines derived from the stem cells, are not derived from embryos created for research>

COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The text of the Dickey Wicker Amendment has an OR in it:

SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for--
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
(b) For purposes of this section, the term `human embryo or embryos' includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

< the lines themselves are not embryos, so funding research using the stem cell lines, is not technically funding the creation of embryos for research. >

No one claimed the lines are embryos

<So the guidelines do not prohibit new stem cell lines from being created through methods that destoy the embryo.>

THEY NEVER DID. At no point was the creation of new stem cell lines PROHIBITED. The 2-1 panel at no point in their opinion argues that federal funding can be used to fund research that generates new lines if the embryo is destroyed. Therefore, as I have stated several times, Dickey Wicker is STILL applicable, and STILL restrains federal funding on this matter.

You seem to be under the misconception that NIH policy is the same as law. My contention was not that ACTC's technique comports with NIH policy, my contention is, and is accurate, that it comports with the LAW, which is the Dickey Wicker Amendment.

Now, all law is subject to interpretation, but for you to pretend that the matter is settled and the interpretation has been made, is completely ridiculous. The court heard the case again, and the opinion is expected later this month or early next.