^ It doesn't say.
I imagine it's as hard to kill as right wing propaganda, too. Remember Reagan's trickle-down theory?
Only you lefties remember that. Us more moderate types have been calling that Voodoo economics since spring of 1980 when who would become Bush 41 named it such.
Meh, it's been back for a while now... only they came up with better sounding names, like "death tax" and "class warfare" to justify why the top 1% should pay a disproportionately light burden. Now instead of saying the money "trickles down", they claim "job creation" will be the result of cutting taxes on the wealthy. Same argument, different wording.
(The fatal flaw to the argument still being that the economy works, and jobs are created, when people spend money on goods and services. If you give a billionaire $100 million extra back on April 15, it doesn't "trickle down" - it goes into the bank or stock market, and both of those are much more about shuffling money around than they are the sale of goods and services. If you give someone from the middle or lower class $1000 back, they immediately spend it. )
Things that are not truly alive are the hardest to kill. Just like trying to kill off leftist propaganda. HA! Remember Stalin's Big Lie theory?
But will it work on the common cold, another infamous virus?
I am not going to your link, but were them adult stem cells, or ones form aborted fetuses, "embryonic stem cells"? Been hearing good things about adult stem cells every so often.
but were them adult stem cells, or ones form aborted fetuses, "embryonic stem cells"? Been hearing good things about adult stem cells every so often.
I've heard that nose cartilage (or something like that) has been proven to work on various things whereas the fetuses have yet to be proven. I saw this thing where a girl had stem cells taken from her nose somewhere and were used for her operation, and it showed stats on organizations trying to make stem cells work, finding that one's own body worked as a better source than that of stem cells from aborted fetuses. (Now I wish that I could remember where this was from).
Just saying as a matter of logic,
not forum rules... it's not really fair to cast emotive aspersions on what she's talking about without being willing to look at her link or provide a contradictory one in return. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if it were a matter of formal debate, I believe doing so would be scored as unrefuted and unproven assertions, respectively.