Dec 16 2006
Meat Processing Of Babies
The human race is at a critical crossroads right now. We are going to decide what kinds of creatures we will be for all time. And key to that decision is whether we kill young humans so that old and ill humans can pretend they are extending their life. The Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) fakery has tried to argue that humans do not come from humans, but from non-human intermediary form. In this way they have convinced a lot of smart people (but uneducated in the ways of biological fact) that it is OK to destroy these mythical non-humans. The peddlers of this mythical fountain of youth that flows from these non-humans do so to make a lot of money selling their snake oil remedies.
Problem is, there comes a time when there are not enough disposable humans to meet the needs of a massive aging popoulation willing to do anything to stay alive. And that time has now come, apparently as new born babies may have been ‘harvested’ in order to process their bodies for the supposed elixir of life:
Healthy new-born babies may have been killed in Ukraine to feed a flourishing international trade in stem cells, evidence obtained by the BBC suggests.
Disturbing video footage of post-mortem examinations on dismembered tiny bodies raises serious questions about what happened to them.
Ukraine has become the self-styled stem cell capital of the world.
There is a trade in stem cells from aborted foetuses, amid unproven claims they can help fight many diseases.
But now there are claims that stem cells are also being harvested from live babies.
There is a thriving industry out there peddling this fake miracle. You can find ESCR clinics all over the US which sell ESC injections. They won’t do anything for you and your body will simply destroy these invading cells. But they are hawked as a cure by the most disreputable kinds of greedy bastards you can ever imagine. Embryo’s are human beings. Scientific fact. If you think scientific fact is a matter of opinion only then jump off a 100 story building and we will debate the matter gravity. The average person does not understand the difference between fact and research. For example, we know the earth orbits the sun. We don’t know how the earth was formed. We know embryo’s of any species are of that species and not part of either parent (DNA tests will prove this without any doubt).
We don’t know how or even if ESCR will produce a cure for anything. We do know the ESCR has never produced a cure for anything. The killing of these innocent, unprotected human beings is the sign of things to come if we continue to let desparation and greed drive the debate of who we are as a species. How the world reacts to this is a matter of the ages.
“Here is something I’ve wondered about. If a person has a heart transplant. Does the heart continue to test orig DNA or is it gradually replaced with new cells with the person’s DNA? Would all the cells eventually be replaced by the persons’s DNA? Never heard this discussed.”
They try to get hearts, livers, etc… that are tissue matched to lower rejection, and the patients also take immune suppresant drugs. I’m not an MD but I can’t imagine the patient’s cells eventually replacing a large organ… interesting idea though, if ASCs originate in the bone marrow, say, and travel through the blood stream to populate the various organs – there’s be a transplanted heart with the patient’s ASCs potentially regenerating muscle.
Jerry,
I find your comment about the DNA of a transplanted heart interesting. Why would you need to be an MD to know a heart has the DNA of the donor, where it was built (from ESC’s of course).?
Jerry, it’s just ‘for enforcement’
Your tone on that post was nearly 180 from the earlier one. I never did take you to be “for” ESCR” but as I said, most that do support it tend to just say” stem cell research” which seems to be their way of trying to insinuate that they aren’t for killing babies, just doing innocent research.
I’m a chem e from the 70s and they had excellent starting salaries back then but those with lower grades tended to get adv degrees to help their employability. I’m retired now and don’t really keep up with conditions now.
Growing a hand may be science fiction this week, but next?
I’m for using ASC for anything they can be used for.
You said:
I’m trying to show that pro-life groups want to ban all cloning, not just when eggs are used. If you doubt this try getting a pro-life person, leader or follower, to support cloning.
I don’t agree, I’m pro-life and like most, I believe, am for cloning cells, but not people but not using embryos (as distinct from eggs, an egg being ‘unfertilized’)
You said:
†It isn’t faulty reasoning, I’m saying that the pro-life groups would prohibit all SCNT because it is “cloning.
I’ve gone thru that and restate that def of cloning should be clear. As to whether you are talking of cells or people.
You said:
it isn’t an accident that Mr. Merrill ( I don’t know who he is, but don’t support his views if you quoted him accurately) talks this way. If SCNT could be used with someone else’s ASCs the transplant problems I discussed could be avoided, but pro-life authoritarians (Don’t know what a pro-life authoritarian is, but don’t believe there is such a creature) want to ban all cloning because embryo-like (here again, this term is for confusion only, there is not any such thing as an embryo-like life form except an embryo) life forms would be produced.
You said:
I have a hard time thinking IVF couples or doctors would do this.
I think it would be de rigeur.
ASCR is fine, cloning of cells without using embryos is fine, ESCR is murder and is not fine.
If everyone would use correct terminology it would remove a lot of confusion. As I said, a Pepsi is not a Coke and calling it one doesn’t make it true.
Did you notice, for example, in the Michael J Fox ad, he almost exclusively used the term ‘stem cell research’ but what he was talking about was almost exclusively ESCR. His sole intention was to deliberately mislead people. This is mostly true of the abortion supporters.
I think you are generalizing too much about pro-life groups.
Quoting Mr Merrill doesn’t help your case because the quotes you use from him show ignorance and I don’t think pro-life groups are dominated by ignorant people.
Embryos are not like, nor do they look like, soccer balls. They look like …….hmmm………… embryos?
Saying that keeps them human. Soccer balls are inanimate and deliberately misleading.
Common practice when the intent is to deceive or mislead.
I guess I meant that there might be some information about this that might be enlightening and would be known by an MD who works in this area. For instance, I really don’t know what pathologic processes a transplanted heart undergoes following transplantation (I think LBFR was asking about the patient’s DNA being found within the transplanted heart), it just seemed unlikely to me that a large organ like the heart could eventually be replaced by the patient’s cells. I’m not a histologist either, but I think it would be fairly easy to look at heart sections for some enzyme/immunological marker unique to the donor or patient.
AJ, what I was asking, all cells as they die over time are replaced (aren’t they?) I understand that the donor heart came from ESC’s of the donor , but if the cells continue to die over time and are replaced, are you saying the replaced heart cells would still have the donor heart orig. DNA even those replaced from the bone marrow of the recipient? I have never heard an opinion on it and all these deep discussions on Stem cell research got me to thinking about it.
I don’t think you would need to be an MD to answer that question.
In fact, once I get the correct answer, you could ask me, a lowly Chem E and I would know.
I think I’ll just relax within my boundaries for now Enforcer, and recharge my batteries, but it’s been fun debating. BTW, yesterday I was more hot and bothered than I am today.
Also, the article by Thomas Merrill that I linked to was mentioned in David Brooks’ NYTimes column a few days ago – as one of the best magazine article of the year in his opinion, which is why I read it, etc….
Jerry, sounds good, found this abstract on Google, full text wasn’t avail, it ws on the New England Journal of Med. interesting, but it doenst’ answer the question.
o the Editor: Quaini and colleagues (Jan. 3 issue)1 claim that stem cells of host origin are found in transplanted hearts. The authors identified host-derived cells within the transplanted organs on the basis of the detection of Y chromosomes in male recipients of female hearts. To establish the stem-cell nature of these cells, they used immunohistochemical studies to evaluate the expression of three molecules (c-kit, MDR1, and Sca-1) that have previously been used to identify hematopoietic stem cells in mice (Sca-1 and c-kit) and humans (MDR1 and c-kit).2,3,4 As the authors indicate, none of .
Now this is interesting, further reading on Google( I do not take them to be an authority, just convenient)
The article linked says that if you get a whole blood transfusion, NONE of the transfused blood DNA will show up in your blood.
But, if you get a bone marrow transplant, the blood will now contain ONLY the DNA from the transplanted marrow and your blood will not match all the other DNA in your body. Damn, strange if true.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mblood.html
If a person receives a bone marrow transplant, they receive the machinery to produce, literally, someone else’s blood. Now, remember *why* a person needs a bone marrow transplant: because their own bone marrow is failing. So, on the one hand, the patient is not producing his or her own cellular elements, yet, on the other hand, the patient is producing somebody else’s. Such a person would have almost no DNA in their blood matching the DNA from other cells of the body, like spermatozoa (a standard sample in forensic cases involving rape) and saliva (typical in cases where the evidence includes an envelope that was licked sealed). This is especially disturbing, since most reference samples brought to the crime lab are blood. An erroneous conclusion could be reached because everyone assumes that the reference blood contains the person’s DNA.
As time progresses and also the development of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicle) becomes more sophisticated with the combination of central control and autonomists operating systems, developed both in the space program and military. One man will soon be able to control hundreds of flying killing robots.
I ask is the concept behind the 2nd amendment under threat by the development of UAVs.
Are armed UAV ethical?
And misanthropic is ponder what is this Ethics?
He also wonders how much money would be diverted from the important UAV research into this stem cell thingy.