Showing posts sorted by relevance for query zygote. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query zygote. Sort by date Show all posts

Sunday, May 10, 2020

Happy Corporate Maternal Rights Day! Meet James Cottrell - Daddy Of Medicaid Fraud In Child Welfare

Meet James Cottrell.

James Cotrell seems to be the progenitor for the creation of the Lockean conjugal production of what is known as the Public Private Partnership where the paternal right of the U.S. impregnates, through the consent of congress, the appropriational semen funding of research grants its maternal NGO host, to gestate and birth an offspring of a fake ass authority, to go around to those god-foresaken "Third Worlds" (said with a hint of disdain), training those para-medical salvific saviors, to anesthetize tiny humans for those biogenetic lab rat experiments, and other nasty stuff, for the purposes of funding political campaigns, in order to generate the third generation of fake ass Corporate Shape Shifters, so they can continue to procure and purvey the trafficking of tiny humans, better recognized as the complex fraud scheme of modern day gerrymandering, otherwise, more readily understood as stealin' the children, land & vote, in the name of the tax exempt god, to maintain revenue maximization levels by warehousing more tiny humans goods, produced either by more tiny human girls or a petri dish, because, as a legally recognized corporate parent, with pseudo-animated spiritual rights of a functioning belief system, you do not need consent for personal inurement of a non-profit or for-profit, because your oath of fealty is to the Vatican, a foreign nation state, under the Queen Mother.

Whew! That was a mouthful!

Working on my 30 second elevator pitch.

His son is Paul Cottrell, but I like to call him Mr. Wannabe Tiny Human Mad Scientist because it seems that is what he wants to be when he grows up and gets his MD sheepskin.

Mr. Wannabe Tiny Human Mad Scientist used to live in Cass Corridor going to Wayne State University, but is really from Belleville.

He used to live in Iceland.



Welcome to your first peek behind the Iron Curtain of Foster Care and Adoption.

Enjoy.



Maybe Mr. Wannabe Tiny Human Mad Scientist wants to grow up to own tiny human somatic cell nuclear transfer research companies like Peter Nygard

 I wonder if Mr. Wannabe Tiny Human Mad Scientist wants to be like James Taylor. 

Paul Cottrell is a researcher in chaos theory and has interests in modeling financial markets. Some have considered him a polymath of sorts. Born in Detroit, Michigan he has extensive professional experience in engineering and design. After retiring…See More

He went to Wayne State University where I went. He is a Predictive Modeling Crapper and it looks to me like it is Econometrics. He worked with Catholic Charities in New York, where my Pretty Preet has been all over for a long time.

SHIELD INVESTMENTS INC. | ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database

We must definitely add Mr. Wannabe Tiny Human Mad Scientist to the list! 

Will I find you or your daddy here, Mr. Wannabe Tiny Human Mad Scientist?




I found patents!

This is fun.

Well, lookie here, a Rothschild law firm. I wonder if they have any kin over there at Fox Rothschild, but I am quite sure there is no relation....ship.....with the Vatican. 

I bet they are stealin' patents.

Oh boy! Oh boy! More predictive modeling crapper databases! I feel like a pretty princess right about now! 

Please tell me these are not the same people

How cute, they made a second generation tiny human offspring fund.
Frederick Gardner Cottrell Foundation Frederick Gardner Cottrell Foundation Research Corporation Technologies established the Frederick Gardner Cottrell Foundation in December 1998 to provide financial support for scientific research and educational programs at qualified nonprofit organizations. RCT named the foundation in honor of the university professor and inventor who championed the transfer of academic innovation to public use. The Cottrell Foundation receives its support from donations made by RCT and is a private, non-operating entity. Since its formation, the foundation has provided nearly $13 million in support of selected scientific and educational programs throughout the United States. The Foundation does not accept unsolicited grant requests. For a copy of recent financial statements of the foundation, please contact Rebecca Buescher, Secretary, Frederick Gardner Cottrell Foundation, 6440 N. Swan Road, Suite 200, Tucson, AZ 85718.
This is what these people really mean when it comes to Families First!

He was adopted at 10, studied journalism then rocket fuel.

He researched the effects of anesthetics on lungs with humans.

Infant nuerosurgery, Belleview New York.

The architect of Medicaid fraud in child welfare.

Politicians and movie stars to come to his meetings in research. Tucker Carlson and Hillary Clinton, of whom I do so adoringly call "Skankels" (A merging of the concepts - a skank and an older woman with gravity expansive wine loaded ankles.)

"She sells transposable models."

Happy Corporate Maternal Rights Day!

Awards, the entire kit and caboodle in research, including Nobel Prize winners.

He was known as the Kosher Hot Dog President.

 It seems he conjured up what is known and the university box lunch consortia for recruitment.

Perinstsl Research Corporate Risk Mitigation hitmen for hire to identify irresponsible testimony to discredit expert witnesses in court by providing their own manufactured witnesses, verified with their own accreditation networks.

Africa research.

Pediatric with the whoops babies

Fake ass jack legged doctors human resource network.

Each time a prolifer screams bloody murder of a tiny human, another zygote is dissected to discover another children's trust fund mutational modern day human trafficking scheme, in the name of the lord.

Praise the lord and save the Queen, for this residual of the peculiar institution has been in full force for quite some time, and it started in Detroit


#maytheheavensfall.


https://www.c-span.org/video/?187996-2/house-session&event=187996&playEvent&show=0


BARTLETT: MR. SPEAKER, I WAS IN MY OFFICE LAST EVENING ABOUT 11:00, AS WAS ALL THE REST OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WAITING FOR A RESOLUTION OF SOME OF THE CONCERNS ON THE TRANSPORTATION BILL SO THAT WE COULD VOTE ON IT, WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE DRUDGE REPORT ON OUR SCREEN AND WE SAW THERE A HEADLINE THAT I COULD HARDLY BELIEVE.

THAT SENATOR FRIST HAD REVERSED HIS POSITION ON EMBRYONIC SELLS -- STEM CELLS. WAS NOW ADVOCATING THE PASSAGE OF THE SENATE VERSION OF H.R. 810. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TODAY WITH STEM CELLS, EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS BEING SO MUCH IN THE NEWS IF WE COULD SPEND A FEW MINUTES LOOKING AT WHAT STEM CELLS ARE AND WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.

WHAT WAS SENATOR FRIST TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT IS THE ISSUE HERE?

I HAVE HERE ON THE EASEL A CHART THAT SHOWS THE DEVELOPMENT, NOT ALL OF THE STAGES, BUT IT SHOWS THE DEVELOPMENT THE HUMAN EMBRYO.

IT STARTS WITH A ZYGOTE. THE ZYGOTE IS THE FERTILIZED EGG THAT NOW HAS CHROMOSOMES, GENES FROM THE SPERM AND GENES FROM THE EGG, HAVING WHAT WE CALL THE DIPLOID NUMBER OF CHROMOSOMES.

THAT DEVELOPS THROUGH SEVERAL STAGES, THROUGH THE BLASTOCYST STAGE AND TO THE GASTRULA STAGE. BY THE TIME YOU GET TO THE GAST LA -- GAST RUE LA STAGE, THE EMBRYO HAS DEVELOPED INTO A LARGE NUMBER OF CELLS.

AND WHAT'S SHOWN HERE IS THE EMBRYO AND THE PART OF THE WALL OF THE UTERUS TO WHICH IT IS ATTACHED.

BY THIS STAGE IN ITS DEVELOPMENT, THE EMBRYO HAS ALREADY NOW DEVELOPED FOUR VERY SPECIFIC STEM CELLS THAT WILL GO ON TO PRODUCE A VARIETY OF TISSUES AND ORGANS IN THE BODY, ALL OF THE TISSUES AND THE ORGANS IN THE BODY.

WE SEE THOSE DOWN HERE AT THE BOTTOM. SOME OF THEM DEVELOPMENT INTO ECTODERM THE EXTERNAL LAYER.

THE ECTODERM BECOMES TWO THINGS IN THE DEVELOPING BABY AND THE ADULT.

IT BECOMES THE SKIN AND THE NERVOUS SYSTEM AND SOME OF THE PIGMENT CELLS.

MOST OF WHAT WE ARE IN TERMS OF MASS IS ALL DEVELOPED FROM THE MIDDLE LAYER OR FROM THE MESODERM, FROM THAT DEVELOPS ALL OF YOUR SKELETAL MUSCLE, ALL OF YOUR BONES, ALL OF YOUR HEART MUSCLE. THE RED BLOOD CELLS, THE SMOOTH MUSCLE IN YOUR SBESTENS AND STOMACH SBSHSBEST -- AND YOUR INTES TIRKS NES.

THE ENTODERM IS THE LINING OF THE LUNG, THE THYROID GLAND, PANCREATIC CELLS, NOWHERE NEAR THE PASS PRODUCED BY THE MESODERM, BUT VERY IMPORTANT TISSUES NEVERTHELESS. THERE ARE SOME VERY UNIQUE CELLS DIFFERENT IN THE MALE AND THE FEMALE. THE GERM CELLS.

IN THE MALE THEY PRODUCE THE SPERM AND IN THE FEMALE THEY PRODUCE THE EGG.

SOME OF THESE STEM CELLS PERSIST EVEN INTO THE ADULT. IN THE BONE MARROW OF EVERY ADULT ARE STEM CELLS WHICH WILL PRODUCE YOUR RED BLOOD CELLS AND SOME OF YOUR WHITE BLOOD CELLS, WILL PRODUCE THOSE CELLS IN CLOTTING, THE THROMBOCYTE.

THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF RESEARCH FOR MORE THAN THREE DECADES NOW ON USING THESE STEM CELLS TO SEE IF WE CAN'T CURE -- HELP PATIENTS WITH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT DISEASES. THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF GOOD APPLICATIONS OF ADULT STEM CELLS.

THEY HAVE PRODUCED IN SOME CATIONS WHAT LOOKS LIKE ACTUAL CURES. BUT THESE ZULT STEM CELLS ARE LIMITED IN THEIR -- BUT THESE ADULT STEM CELLS ARE LIMBED IN THEIR CAPABILITY.

THEY ARE DIFFERENTIATED. THEY HAVE SPLIT AND ARE NOW DESTENED TO PRODUCE ONLY CERTAIN KINDS OF CELLS.

WHAT THE RESEARCHER TRIES TO DO AT TIMES IS TO TAKE THESE ADULT STEM CELLS AND PUT THEM IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT CONVINCES THEM THEY ARE NOT AN ADULT STELL -- STEM CELL BUT BACK TO AN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL.

THE ULTIMATE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL IS THE ZYGOTE, ONE CELL WHICH WILL DIVIDE AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND DIFFERENTIATE AND FINALLY PRODUCE ALL OF THE CELLS OF THE BODY.

BUT HERE IN THE BLASTULA STAGE THE CELLS ARE DIFFERENTIATED IN TWO CATEGORIES. THOSE CELLS THAT WILL PRODUCE THE EMBRYO SHOWN HERE IN THE INNER CELL MASS AND THOSE CELLS WHICH WILL PRODUCE THE DECIDUA, THE CELLS AROUND THIS WHICH WILL BECOME AMNION AND CORION, PARTS OF THE PLACENTA. IN THE STAGE JUST BEFORE THIS ARE THE CELLS THAT CAN PRODUCE THE FULL EMBRYO.

I WOULD LIKE NOW TO LOOK AT OUR NEXT CHART HERE BECAUSE THIS SHOWS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EMBRYO AND IT HAS ALL OF THE STAGES THERE.

IT STARTS WITH THE ZYGOTE. HERE WE HAVE THE FERTILIZED EGG OR THE ZYGOTE. OF COURSE, THIS ALL BEGINS WITH AN OVARY.

THIS IS ONLY HALF OF THE REPRODUCTION SYSTEM OF THE FEMALE. AN OVARY WHICH, EVERY MONTH, ROUTINELY DURING THE CHILD BEARING YEARS, WILL PRODUCE AN OVUM.

HERE IS IS THE FOLLICLE RUPTURING AND THE OVUM COMING OUT.

HERE IS THE OOCYTE.

IT MAKES ITS WAY INTO THE FLOPIAN TUBE.

SOMETIMES THEY GET INTO THE ABDOMINAL CAVITY.

SOMETIMES THIS EGG IS NOT PICKED UP BY THIS FUNNEL SHAPED END AND SOMETIMES THAT CELL DOESN'T GET OUT THERE AND GET PICKED UP BY THE FALLOPIAN TUBE AND CARRIED DOWN WITH THE BEATING OF A NUMBER OF CYLIA AND GOES INTO THE BODY CAVITY.

THE SPERM GET OUT THERE TO.

THEY CAN BE FERTILIZED AND WE CALL THAT AN ECTOPIC PREGNANCY.

THE BABY CAN'T DEVELOP THERE AND WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR THE MOTHER. SO THIS ECTOPIC PREGNANCY NEEDS TO BE TERMINATED BECAUSE IT WILL RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE MOTHER IF IT CONTINUES.

AFTER FERTILIZATION THE EGG BEGINS ITS JOURNEY, TAKING SEVERAL DAYS, MAYBE AS MANY AS EIGHT, NINE, 10 DAYS UNTIL IT FINALLY REACHES THE END OF THE JOURNEY AND IMPLANTED INTO THE WALL OF THE UTERUS.

IT DIVIDES, FIRST TWO CELLS, THEN FOUR CELLS, AND THEN EIGHT CELLS. I WOULD LIKE TO PAUSE FOR JUST A MOMENT AT THAT EIGHT-CELL STAGE AND IMAGINE NOW WE ARE NOT IN THE REPRODUCTIVE TRACT OF THE FEMALE BUT IN A PETRI DISH IN THE LABORATORY.

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IN VITRO FERTILIZATION MEANS. THEY HAVE TAKEN THE EGG FROM THE MOTHER AND SPERM FROM THE FATHER AND COMBINED THESE TWO AND PRODUCED THE ZYGOTE.

IT DIVIDES AND DIVIDES UNTIL IT COMES TO THE EIGHT-CELL STAGE. AT THIS STAGE MORE THAN 1,000 TIMES WORLDWIDE IN ONE CLINIC IN ENGLAND MORE THAN 600 TIMES, THEY'VE TAKEN IN THE LABORATORY UNDER THE MICROSCOPE, A CELL AND SOMETIMES THEY GET TWO FROM THAT EIGHT-CELL STAGE AND THEY'VE DONE WHAT THEY CALL A PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC DIAGNOSIS.

THEY LOOK AT THE GENES AND YOU CAN DO THAT.

WE NOW KNOW WHAT THEY OUGHT TO LOOK LIKE AND THEY CAN DETERMINE IF THERE IS ANY GENETIC DEFECT.

WINSTON CUP DEFECT IS CALLED TRISOMI 21, MONGOLISM. IF THERE IS AN EXTRA CHROMOSOME YOU GET MONGOLISM.

IF THERE IS NO DEFECT IN THE CELL THEY ANALYZE, WHICH WILL BE LIKE ALL THE OTHER CELLS, THEN THEY IMPLANT WHAT IS REMAINING, THAT IS THE SIX OR SEVEN CELLS THAT ARE REMAINING AND NOW MORE THAN 1,000 TIMES WORLDWIDE WE'VE HAD WHAT LOOKS LIKE A PERFECTLY NORMAL BABY BORN FROM THIS PROCESS.

THIS TECHNIQUE, WHICH HAS BEEN WIDELY USED IN ENGLAND, IS NOW USED IN THIS COUNTRY.

JUST OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON IN VIRGINIA IS A CLINIC THAT IS DOING THIS. THEY HAVE DONE IT MORE THAN 300 TIMES.

SEVERAL WEEKS AGO I TALKED FOR PERHAPS A HALF-HOUR WITH TWO OF THEIR DOCTORS ABOUT THE PROCEDURE. LET'S NOW TAKE A LOOK AT HOW THEY GET EMBRYONIC STEM CELL LINES. THEY TAKE AN EMBRYO IN THE LABORATORY, WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE FERTILIZATION OF AN EGG, AND THEY LET IT DEVELOP, NOT TO THE EIGHT-CELL STAGE, THEY GO JUST A LITTLE BEYOND THAT.

THEY GO TO THE INNER CELL MASS AND THEN THEY DESTROY THE EMBRYO AND THERE ARE NOW A LOT OF CELLS, NOT JUST EIGHT.

AND THEY TAKE A NUMBER OF THE CELLS FROM THE INNER CELL MASS WHICH I INDICATED PREVIOUSLY HAVE ALL THE GENETIC POTENTIAL TO PRODUCE THE BODY OF THE BABY, BUT NONE OF THE GENETIC DETAIL TO PRODUCE THE DECIDUA. THE DECIDUA, THE FINGERS LIKE THAT ARE GROWING INTO THE LINING OF THE UTERUS.

WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ALL ABOUT, MR. SPEAKER, IS ABOUT THE MORALITY, REALLY, THE ETHICS OF TAKING THIS LITTLE EMBRYO, WHICH IS A BABY IN MINIATURE BECAUSE IF YOU SEE IF IT GOES ON JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER AND IMPLANTS IN THE UTERUS, IT WILL BECOME A BABY.

IT IS NOW IN THE PETRI DISH, BUT IT CAN BE IMPLANTED INTO THE UTERUS. TO TAKE THIS EMBRYO AND DESTROY IT AND TAKE THE CELLS FROM TINNER CELL MASS TO PRODUCE A STEM CELL LINE.

UP TO THIS TIME, THAT'S BEEN THE ONLY TECHNIQUE THAT HAS BEEN AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPING THESE STEM CELL LINES. AND THE PRESIDENT HAD A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION TO MAKE FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN THERE WAS AN INTEREST OF USING FEDERAL MONEY.

MAYBE WE SHOULD PAUSE TO SEE WHY WE ARE SO MUCH INTERESTED IN STEM CELL RESEARCH .

BECAUSE THESE STEM CELLS AS THE EARLIER SLIDE SHOWED, CAN PRODUCE ALL OF THE TISSUES IN THE BODY, THERE IS THE HOPE, THE PROMISE, AND, IN FACT, THE REALIZATION OF SOME OF THE WORK WE HAVE DONE WITH ADULT STEM CELLS THAT WE CAN USE THESE STEM CELLS TO REPLACE TISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN DAMAGED BY DISEASE OR SOME OTHER TRAUMA IN THE BODY.

WE CAN REPLACE THOSE SO AS TO RESTORE HEALTH. NOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF APPLICATIONS FROM ADULT STEM CELLS AND NO APPLICATIONS FROM EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS.

WHY SHOULD WE HAVE THIS DEBATE ABOUT EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS WHEN ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FROM ADULT STEM CELLS.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH ADULT STEM CELLS FOR MORE THAN THREE DECADES.

WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE APPLICATIONS THERE.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS FOR ONLY ABOUT SIX YEARS AND THERE JUST HASN'T BEEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE MEDICAL APPLICATION FROM EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE FROM ADULT STEM CELLS. BUT BECAUSE OF WHAT EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS ARE, BECAUSE EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS STILL HAVE ALL OF THE CAPABILITY TO PRODUCE ANY AND EVERY TISSUE IN THE BODY, DOCTORS AND RESEARCHERS BELIEVE INTUITIVELY FROM WHAT THEY KNOW OF EMB RYOLOGY THERE OUGHT TO BE MORE AND BETTER APPLICATIONS FROM EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS THAN ADULT STEM CELLS.

WE DON'T KNOW.

IT MAY BE THESE EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS MAY BE LIKE UNRULEY TEENAGERS, VERY DIFFICULT TO CONTROL.

YOU SEE, THEIR DESTINY IN LIFE IS TO TWIDE AND DIVIDE AND DIVIDE. WE WANT THEM TO DO THAT, BUT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL HOW THEY DIVIDE AND WHAT THEY PRODUCE.

IF IT'S A LIVER THAT YOUR PATIENT NEEDS, YOU NEED NOW TO CONVINCE THE EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS THAT'S WHAT THEY OUGHT TO BE PRODUCING. WHEN THEY HAVE DONE ENOUGH, THEY HAVE DONE ENOUGH AND THEY NEED TO QUIT. IT MAY BE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO CONTROL, LIKE THE UNRULEY TEENAGER, THEY MAY KEEP ON DIVIDING, WHEN YOU PUT THEM IN THE BODY THEY MAY END UP FORMING TUMORS. WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL WE DO THAT RESEARCH.

BECAUSE OF WHAT EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS ARE AND BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO PRODUCE ANY AND EVERY CELL IN THE BODY, MANY AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT THERE MAY BE REALLY IMPORTANT APPLICATIONS FROM EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS TO MEDICINE.

WE DESERVE TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITIES SO THAT THAT CAN BE DONE WITHOUT HARMING THE EMBRYO.

UP TO THIS DATE THE ONLY WAY THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN THESE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL LINES STARTED IS BY TAKING SOME OF THE CELLS FROM THIS INNER CELL MASS AND -- WHICH DESTROYS THE EMBRYO.

IN 2001 THE PRESIDENT WAS FACED WITH A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION.

HE NEEDED TO DETERMINE WHETHER FEDERAL FUNDS COULD BE USED IN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH WHEN THE ONLY WAY TO GET EMBRYOS AT THAT TIME WAS BY DESTROYING THE EMBRYO.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT WAS DELIBERATING, MAKING THAT DIFFICULT DECISION, THE SCIENTISTS AT N.I.H. HAD AN OPEN HOUSE FOR MEMBERS OF THE STAFF HERE AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO COME TO N.I.H. TO LEARN ABOUT BRETCH -- EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH AND THE POTENTIALS, AND I WENT THERE, MR. SPEAKER, AND I LISTENED TO THEIR PRESENTATIONS AND BECAUSE IN A FORMER LIFE I WAS PRIVILEGED TO BE ABLE TO GET A PH.D. , A DOCTOR'S DEGREE IN HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY, BECAUSE I TAUGHT MEDICAL SCHOOL, BECAUSE I HAD A COURSE IN ADVANCED EMBRYOLOGY, I KNEW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.

AS THE NEXT CHART SHOWS.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: WILL THE GENTLEMAN SUSPEND FOR A MOMENT. THE CHAIR WILL RECEIVE A MESSAGE.

THE MESSENGER: MR. SPEAKER A. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. THE SECRETARY: MR. SPEAKER. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: MADAM SECRETARY. THE SECRETARY: I HAVE BEEN DIRECTED BY THE SENATE TO INFORM THE HOUSE THAT THE SENATE HAS AGREED TO THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6, AN ACT TO ENSURE JOBS FOR OUR FUTURE WITH SECURE, AFFORDABLE, AND RELIABLE ENERGY.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE GENTLEMAN MAY PROCEED.

MR. BARTLETT: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. AS I MENTIONED WHEN I SAT THERE LISTENING TO THE RESEARCHERS AT N.I.H. EXPLAINING WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND THE DREAMS AND THE HOPES THAT THEY HAD FOR THE APPLICATIONS OF EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH AND WHEN I THOUGHT OF THE DILEMMA THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS IN IN TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER IT WAS OK TO DESTROY THESE EMBRYOS TO GET A STEM CELL LINE TO GET SOMETHING THAT WOULD COME UP WITH MIRACULOUS CURES, I THOUGHT BACK TO MY STUDIES AND TO A COURSE THAT I HAD IN ADVANCED EMBRYOLOGY -- YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE THE COURSE TO UNDERSTAND THIS. EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND THIS. IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT NATURE HAD BEEN DOING FOR A VERY LONG TIME WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO, AND THAT WAS TO TAKE CELLS FROM THE EARLY EMBRYO WITHOUT HURTING THE EMBRYO.

HOW DID NATURE DO THIS?

NATURE HAD BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME BY PRODUCING IDENTICAL TWINS.

YOU SEE, AN IDENTICAL TWIN HALF OF THE CELLS ARE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE EMBRYO, AND EACH HALF GOES ON TO PRODUCE A PERFECTLY NORMAL BABY.

BY THE WAY, MR. SPEAKER, ONE OF THOSE IDENTICAL TWINS IS A CLONE.

YOU DECIDE WHICH ONE IT IS, AND YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, MR. SPEAKER, AND DEE DECIDE HOW THIS RELATES TO THE DIALOGUE THAT WE ARE HAVING ON CLONING.

THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT TIMES DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EMBRYO, AT LEAST TWO, MAYBE MORE, BUT AT LEAST TWO DIFFERENT TIMES DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EMBRYO THAT IT CAN SPLIT TO PRODUCE IDENTICAL TWINS. ONE IS AT THE TWO-CELL STAGE WHEN, THERE ARE TWO CELLS THERE AND INSTEAD OF JUST DIVIDING TO MAKE FOUR CELLS, IT SPLITS SO THAT THERE IS NOW TWO ONE-CELL EMBRYOS, AND EACH GOES ON TO DIVIDE AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, FINALLY TO PRODUCE A BABY.

OR IT CAN WAIT UNTIL THE INNER CELL MASS STAGE, AT WHICH TIME IN SOME EMBRYOS ONCE IN A WHILE THERE ARE TWO INNER CELL MASSES , AND THAT CAN NOW SPLIT TO PERFORM IDENTICAL TWINS.

AS YOU KNOW, MR. SPEAKER, SOMETIMES THIS ISN'T PERFECT.

AND THEY DON'T SPLIT TOTALLY.

WE HAVE WHAT WE CALL SIAMESE TWINS.

THIS IS THE ORIGIN OF SIAMESE TWINS WHEN THE SPLIT HAS OCCURRED PROBABLY AT THE INNER CELL MASS STAGE AND IT HASN'T BEEN COMPLETE AND THEY REMAIN CLOSE ENOUGH TOGETHER THAT SOME PARTS OF THE BODY GROW TOGETHER.

NOW, WE KNOW THAT THE EGGS ARE CAPABLE, THE EMBRYO IS CAPABLE OF SPLITTING AT THESE TWO DIFFERENT STAGES BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE BABIES PRESENT THEMSELVES AT BIRTH. IF THEY ARE BOTH INSIDE THE SAME EMANYONIC SACK, THEY ARE SPLIT AT THE TWO CELLS STAGE. IF THEY EACH HAVE THEIR OWN EMBRYO, THEY PROBABLY SPLIT LATER ON, PROBABLY AT THE INNER CELL MASS STAGE.

IT OCCURRED TO ME SINCE NATURE MANY TIMES TAKES HALF OF THE CELLS AWAY FROM THE EARLY EMBRYO, AND THEY GO ON TO PRODUCE TWO PERFECTLY NORMAL BABIES, THAT WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A CELL OR TWO FROM AN EARLY EMBRYO WITHOUT HURTING THE EARLY EMBRYO, AND I ASKED THE SCIENTISTS AT N.I.H., SHOULDN'T WE BE ABLE TO DO THIS?

THEY SAID, WELL, NATURE'S BEEN DOING IT FOR A LONG TIME.

WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO DO IT.

WE HAVE NOT DONE IT.

BUT WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO DO IT.

A LITTLE BIT AFTER THAT I WAS AT AN EVENT WHEN THE PRESIDENT WAS THERE AND I MENTIONED THIS PONLT TO THE PRESIDENT, HE -- POSSIBILITY TO THE PRESIDENT, AND HE HADN'T COME OUT WITH THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.

HE ASKED KARL ROVE TO FOLLOW UP.

AND A FEW DAYS LATER I GOT A CALL SAYING THAT THE WHITE HOUSE TOLD HIM WHAT I WAS PROPOSING WASN'T DOABLE.

I SAID, KARL, EITHER THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION OR THERE'S SOME CONFUSION BECAUSE THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT CAN TAKE A SINGLE CELL AND TAKE THE NUCLEUS OUT OF THAT CELL AND PUT ANOTHER IN IT.

OF COURSE THEY CAN TAKE A CELL OUT OF AN EARLY EMBRYO.

SO WE WENT BACK AND ASKED HIM AGAIN HE CAME BACK AND SAID HE GOT THE SAME ANSWER FROM THEM.

THAT THEY COULDN'T DO THIS. SO THE PRESIDENT CAME DOWN WITH HIS EXECUTIVE ORDER. A COUPLE YEARS AFTER THAT, NOT VERY MANY MONTHS AGO, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE PEOPLE AT N.I.H. WERE SITTING IN MY OFFICE AND I ASKED THEM HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED?

WHAT APPARENTLY HAPPENED, WHAT SO OFTEN HAPPENS IN COMMUNICATIONS, THERE IS A MISCOMMUNICATION. WHAT THEY HAD TOLD KARL ROVE WAS THAT THEY WEREN'T SURE THEY COULD PRODUCE AN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL LINE FROM AN EMBRYO THAT EARLY.

BECAUSE THEY HAD NEVER DONE IT. NOT THAT IT WASN'T DOABLE. JUST THEY HAD NEVER DONE IT. HE INTERPRETED THIS AS SAYING, GEE, THEY COULDN'T TAKE THIS CELL AND THEREFORE THE RESEARCH COULDN'T BE DONE.

I'D LIKE TO SPEND JUST A MOMENT, MR. SPEAKER, LOOKING AT SOME OF THE REASONS THAT PEOPLE ARE SO CONCERNED AND WHY THIS WAS SUCH AN IMPORTANT DECISION ON THE PART OF THE PARENT OF THE PRESIDENT -- OF THE PRESIDENT AND WHY SENATOR FRIST'S DECISION LAST NIGHT HAS STIRRED UP SO MUCH CONTROVERSY.

IT'S BECAUSE THERE ARE A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF DISEASES THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF BEING CURED ULTIMATELY WITH APPLICATION OF STEM CELLS.

LET ME GIVE YOU ONE OF THOSE WHICH IS THE MOST EXPENSIVE DISEASE IN OUR WHOLE COUNTRY, AND THAT'S DIABETES.

AND I HAVE BEEN IN MY OFFICE SEVERAL TIMES WHEN THE CHILDREN COME THROUGH WITH JUVENILE DIABETES -- IF YOU WANT A HEARTRENDING EXPERIENCE, MR. SPEAKER, THIS IS IT.

THESE KIDS COME IN WITH THIS HOCKEY PUCK LIKE THING UNDER THEIR SKIN, WHICH IS AN INSULIN PUMP BECAUSE THEY ARE SO BRITTLE THEY HAVE TO BE BRICKING THEIR FINGER OR THEIR THUMB OR EAR LOBE OR SOMETHING A NUMBER OF TIMES A DAY TO GET A GLUCOSE LEVEL SO THEY CAN SET THE PUMP SO THEY ARE GETTING THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF INSULIN IN, THEY ARE SO BRITTLE THEY CAN'T DO IT A FEW TIMES A DAY, IT HAS TO BE PUMPED IN REGULARLY ALONG.

THIS IS THE MOST EXPENSIVE DISEASE IN OUR COUNTRY.

AND IT IS POTENTIALLY TOTALLY CURABLE WITH STEM CELL APPLICATIONS. ALL YOU NEED TO DO, MR. SPEAKER, IS TO PRODUCE SOME IDENTIFYLET OF LONGER HAN CELLS.

THESE ARE THE CELLS THAT JUST HAPPEN TO BE EMBEDDED IN THE PANCREAS. I HAVE NO REASON WHY THEY NEED TO BE IN THE PANCREAS, THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FUNCTION OF THE PANCREAS BECAUSE THE PANCREAS IS A BIG DIE JESSIVE GLAND AT THE TOP OF THE INTESTINE THAT PRODUCE ENZYMES THAT DIE JESS FATS, AND CARBOHYDRATES.

EMBEDED IN THE ISSUE ARE WHAT LOOK LIKE THESE LITTLE ISLANDS, THE GERMAN, AS HE LOOKED UNDER THE MICROSCOPE, SO WE CALL THEM THE ILETS OF LONGERHAN. INSULIN DOESN'T CURE DIABETES.

AS ANY PERSON WHO HAS DIABETES KNOWS.

IT SIMPLY DELAYS THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE, STILL THERE MAY ULTIMATELY BE PROBLEMS WITH THE EYES, PROBLEMS WITH CIRCULATION.

YOU LOSE SOME TOES. GANG GREEN SETS IN. -- GANGRENE SETS IN.

IF WE COULD CREATISLET -- CREATE ILET OF LONGERHAHN CELLS. ANYWHERE THE BLOOD CAN GET TO THEM SOT SOW THE KIRK LATION CAN PICK UP THE HORMONE PRODUCED BY THIS, THIS SHOULD CURE THE DISEASE.

PARTICULARLY THE MANY AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES, THERE ARE 63 AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES.

THESE ARE DISEASES WHAT THE BODY GETS CONFUSED WHAT'S REALLY BODY.

WHAT'S INTERESTING WITH THESE EARLY EMBRYOS, OBVIOUSLIEE WEE NEED TO KNOW WHAT'S US SO WHAT'S FOREIGN TO US IS GOING TO BE REJECTED WHEN IT COMES IN.

WHEN YOU GET INSIDE YOUR BODY, THERE ARE NO BACTERIA IN THERE. THAT'S A PRISTINE WORLD. WE HAVE A BIG ARMY OF WHITE CELLS IN THERE THAT MAKE SURE THAT IT KEEPS IT PRISTINE.

THESE WHITE CELLS ARE TOLD BY WHAT WE CALL T CELLS AS TO WHAT'S YOU AND WHAT'S NOT YOU SO THAT THEY ATTACK WHAT'S NOT YOU.

SOMETIMES, AND IN MORE PEOPLE THAN WE'D LIKE TO HAVE IT OCCUR, SOMETIMES THE BODY GETS CONFUSED AS TO WHAT'S REALLY YOU.

I HAVE A LITTLE PROBLEM, RULE TORREY ARTRY TIES. THAT'S AN AUTO IMMUNE DISEASE WHERE THE BODY HAS -- IT'S CONFUSED SO IT STARTED ATTACKING IT SELF.

THERE ARE 63 OF THOSE DISEASES. POTENTIALLY ALL OF THEM COULD BE ADDRESSED WITH STEM CELL RESEARCH.

ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, VERY TRAGIC DISEASE, CENTRAL NERVE INJURY, YOU INJURE YOUR SPINAL CORD THEY DON'T GROW BACK, THERE IS THE POTENTIAL YOU COULD PUT NEW CELLS IN THERE AND PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE WHEELCHAIR COULD WALK NEN GWEN. THERE IS THAT POTENTIAL.

WHICH IS EIGHTY GREAT INTEREST IN EMBRYONIC AND IN GENERAL STEM CELL RESEARCH, PARTICULARLY IN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH BECAUSE OF THE ENORMOUS POTENTIAL THEY OUGHT TO HAVE BECAUSE THEY ARE SO TOTALLY UNDIFFERENTIATED BECAUSE THEY CAN PRODUCE ANY AND EVERY CELL IN THE BODY.

I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE WHITE HOUSE, WITH THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, WITH THE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, WITH THE PRO-LIFE COMMUNITY IN DEVELOPING A BILL THAT IS H.R. 3144, WHICH WOULD PERMIT RESEARCH ON NOT JUST THE PROCEDURE WHICH I RECOMMENDED MORE THAN FOUR YEARS AGO NOW, BUT SEVERAL OTHER PROCEDURES THAT ARE OUTLINED IN A BILL LOOK WHICH I HAVE HERE, CALLED "ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS, A WHITE PAPER, PRODUCED BY THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS. " THEY TALK HERE ABOUT FOUR DIFFERENT KINDS OF RESEARCH THAT -- FOUR DIFFERENT KINDS OF WAYS OF PROCURING EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS THAT MIGHT BE ETHICALLY ACCEPTABLE TO THE PRO-LIFE COMMUNITY.

THE FIRST OF THESE IS PLURIPOTENT, BY PLURIPOTENT THEY MEAN CELLS THAT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO PRODUCE ALL OF THE TISSUES OF THE EMBRYO BUT NOT THE DECIDUA.

PLURIPOTENT SELLS DERIVE FROM EMBRYOS THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY MORIBUND, DEAD.

THE EQUIVALENT, IF YOU WILL, OF AN ADULT THAT IS BRAIN-DEAD.

IT'S PERFECTLY ETHICAL, MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE, TO TAKE ORGANS, THAT'S HOW WE GET ORGANS FOR TRANSPLANT, FROM ADULTS THAT ARE BRAIN-DEAD.

IF YOU HAVE AN EMBRYO WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO DEVELOP BUT IT STILL IS ALIVE ENOUGH YOU MIGHT TAKE CELLS FROM IT TO PRODUCE A STEM CELL LINE, IF YOU KNEW IT WAS DEAD, IT COULD NEVER PRODUCE A BABY, ETHICALLY IT WOULD APPEAR TO MANY PEOPLE TO BE OK TO TAKE THAT -- CELLS FROM THAT TO ESTABLISH THE STEM CELL LINE.

YOU MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE CONCERN THAT AN EMBRYO THAT SAT THERE A DAY OR TWO AND NEVER DIVIDED, BECAUSE IT WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT, THAT THE CELL YOU TOOK FROM IT TO PRODUCE THE STEM CELL LINE MIGHT NOT PRODUCE JUST THE HIGH QUALITY STEM CELL LINE THAT YOU MIGHT LIKE FOR RESEARCH, BUT AT LEAST IT'S WORTH EXPLORING AND IT GETS BY THE ETHICAL ARGUMENTS.

THE SECOND ONE OF THEIR PROPOSALS, I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT THE NEXT CHART AS WE DO THAT, THE NEXT CHART BECAUSE LET ME LOOK AT THIS CHART FOR A MOMENT HERE WITH YOU, THIS COMES FROM A WHITE PAPER ON THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON BIO ETHICS, AND LET ME LOOK AT THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION, IT MAY BE SOME TIME BEFORE STEM CELLS CAN BE RELIABLY DERESERVED FROM SINGLE CELLS EXTRACTED FROM EARLY EMBRYO, A PROCEDURE THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT OCCURRED TO ME WHEN I WAS AT N.I.H. TALKING TO THE INVESTIGATORS THERE. AND IN WAYS THAT DO NO HARM TO THE EMBRYO, THUS BIOPSIED. THE INITIAL SUCCESS OF THE VERLINSKY.

VERLINSKY SAYS HE HAS DONE WHAT N.I.H. HAS SAID THEY ARE NOT SURE THEY COULD CAN, SPRUCE AN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL STEM CELL LINE FROM ONE EMBRYO.

 RAISING THE POSSIBILITY THAT PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS CAN BE TAKEN FROM A BLASTOMERE, REMOVED FROM EARLY HUMAN EMBRYOS WITHOUT HARMING THEM. THE ASTERISK THERE.

IF YOU LOOK DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE A SIMILAR IDEA WAS PROPOSED BY REPRESENTATIVE ROSCOE BARTLETT OR MARYLAND AS FAR BACK AS 2001.

WHAT THEY ARE REFERRING TO IS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT I MADE TO THE PRESIDENT THAT RERELAYED ON TO KARL ROVE.

SO THIS IS RECOGNIZED IN THIS FAIRLY RECENTLY PUBLISHED WHITE PAPER. ALTERNIVE SOURCES OF PURRY POTENT STEM CELLS. -- PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS.

THEY TAKE CELLS FROM AN EMBRYO THAT IS GOING TO DIE, LIKE THE PERSON IS BRAIN DEAD, WHY NOT GET SOME BENEFIT. WE DO THAT WITH ORGAN TRANSPLANTS ALL THE TIME. THE THIRD ONE IS VERY INTERESTING.

THAT IS TO PRODUCE PLURI POTENT STEM CELLS DERIVED FROM BIOLOGICAL ARTIFACTS.

ONE OF THOSE GOES BACK TO THIS LITTLE EMBRYO IN THE PETRI DISH. THEY WANT TO GO IN THE EARLY EMBRYO AND TURN OFF SOME OF THE GENES. SO THAT IT CAN NEVER PRODUCE A BABY.

IT CAN GO ON DIVIDING AND PRODUCING A MASS OF CELLS. THIS IS CALLED AN ARTIFACT.

IF IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A BABY, IT IS JUST A MASS OF CELLS, MAYBE IT IS OK TO TAKE A CELL TO PRODUCE AN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL LINE.

SOME PEOPLE MAY HAVE CONCERN, MR. SPEAKER, THAT YOU HAVE GONE IN EARLY AND MESSED UP WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN A NORMAL BABY.

NOW YOU HAVE CREATED KIND OF A FREAK THAT YOU CAN TAKE SOME CELLS FROM. IF IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A BABY, YOU CAN TAKE THE CELLS.

AT LEAST IT IS A WAY OF GETTING EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS WITHOUT DESTROYING WHAT, AT THAT POINT, IS A STEM CELL. THERE IS A UNION WITHOUT SEX CELLS.

THE FOURTH TECHNIQUE IS INTERESTING, TAKING PLURI POTENT. TAKE A BODY CELL FROM ANYWHERE IN THE BODY, SKIN, MUSCLE, LUNGS AND DIFFERENTIATE IT. TRYING TO PRODUCE A CELL IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS CONFUSED AS TO WHAT IT IS.

IT THINKS AND BEHAVES LIKE AN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL.

IF WE CAN DO THIS, THAT IS GREAT BECAUSE ETHICALLY THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY PROBLEM WITH DOING THIS. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE.

THERE ARE BIG TECHNICAL CHALLENGES TO DOING THIS. 

THIS WHITE PAPER GIVES A VERY GOOD DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSAL THAT WE MADE. 

THAT IS OF GETTING CELLS VIA BLASTOMERE EXTRACTION.

SOMETIMES CALLED BIOPSY. YOU ARE TAKING A CELL OR TWO. THEY EVEN TALK ABOUT PRODUCING THE REPAIR IT CAN WHICH WOULD BE REALLIED A VAN TAI JOUSE FOR THE -- ADVANTAGEOUS. IF IT NEEDS A NEW LIVER, NEW ISLET OF LANGERHANS CELLS. HOPEFULLY QUESTION PRODUCE THIS FROM A REPAIR IT CAN. 

IT ALMOST LOOKS TO ME LIKE TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS WROTE THE BODY OF THIS TEXT WHERE THEY TALK ABOUT THIS TECHNIQUE AND WHERE THEY MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS. 

IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEY SAY THE SECOND PROPOSAL, WE FIND THIS PROPOSAL TO BE ETHICALLY UNACCEPTABLE IN HUMANS OWING TO THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE ETHICAL ANALYSIS, WE SHOULD NOT IMPOSE RISKS ON OLIVING EMBRYOS DESTENED TO BECOME CHILDREN FOR THE STAKE OF GETTING STEM CELLS. 

I AGREE. THAT IS NOT THE REASON STEM CELLS ARE TAKEN FROM THIS BABY. CELLS ARE TAKEN WITH NO THOUGHT THEY ARE STEM CELLS TSM CELLS ARE TAKEN BY THE PARENTS TO PRODUCE A REPAIR IT CAN FOR THE BABY. I THINK MOST AMERICANS DON'T HAVE AN ETHICAL PROBLEM, MR. SPEAKER, WITH IN VITRO FERTILIZATION. 

I THINK MOST AMERICANS DON'T HAVE AN ETHICAL PROBLEM WITH DECIDING YOUR BABY IS NOT GOING TO HAVE A GENETIC DEFECT. I DON'T THINK HARDLY ANY AMERICANS COULD EVER HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ESTABLISHING A REPAIR IT CAN FOR YOUR BABY. 

AND WHAT IS ENVISIONED IS THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY THE PARENTS WOULD HAVE MADE AT LEAST TWO ETHICAL DECISIONS, THAT IS, TO HAVE THEIR OWN BABY -- THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN DO IT IS IN VITRO, AND ESTABLISH A REPAIR IT CAN FOR THEIR BABY AND ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO GET ANOTHER STEM CELL LINE IS TO ASK THEM, COULDN'T WE HAVE SURPLUS CELLS FROM THE REPAIR IT CAN YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED. 

THERE'S A BIG DISCUSSION GOING ON IN OUR COUNTRY NOW, MR. SPEAKER, ABOUT EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS. 

THEY VOTED HOW MANY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN CALIFORNIA TO PURSUE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH BECAUSE A BIG PERCENT OF OUR POPULATION BELIEVES THERE COULD BE MAJOR MEDICAL APPLICATION THERE, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE MIRACULOUS CURES FOR MANY OF OUR DISEASES. 

THEN WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THE PRO-LIFE COMMUNITY, THAT HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH TAKING THESE EMBRYOS, ANY ONE OF WHICH COULD BECOME A BABY. 

WE HAD MORE THAN 100 OF THEM CALLED THE SNOW FLAKE BABIES THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED AND PLANTED IN THE RECEPTIVE WOMB OF A MOTHER AND HAVE BECOME A BABY.

TO TAKE THIS HUMAN LIFE, AND IT IS A LIFE AND IT IS HUMAN, TO DESTROY IT TO PRODUCE A STEM CELL LINE. NOW, MOST OF THIS DEBATE IGNORES THE FACT, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE DEBATERS DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS POSSIBLE, MR. SPEAKER, TO GET EMBRYONIC STEM CELL LINES WITHOUT HARMING EMBRYOS. I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE SECOND CHART I SHOWED, THE HALF OF THE REPRODUCTIVE TRACT OF A FEMALE SO WE CAN LOOK AT THIS AGAIN TOGETHER SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND CLEARLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. 

AND WE'LL IMAGINE NOW THAT THIS IS HAPPENING IN THE LABORATORY AND IT IS IN A PETRI DISH, IN GLASS, IN VITRO IS WHAT WE CALL IT. BECAUSE THE PARENTS COULDN'T HAVE A BABY ANY OH WAY, THEY DECIDED TO HAVE -- IN ANY OTHER WAY, THEY DECIDED TO HAVE IN VITRO FERTILIZATION AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO ONE THING, THAT IS ESTABLISH A REPAIR IT CAN FOR THEIR BABY. THEY MIGHT WANT TO DO A PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC DIAGNOSIS.

SO NOW THE PHYSICIAN IN THE CLINIC WILL WAIT UNTIL THE CELLS DIVIDE AND PRODUCE SEVERAL EMBRYOS. AND BY THE WAY, THEY DON'T ALL PRODUCE GOOD-LOOKING EMBRYOS.

SO THEY FERTILIZE MORE THAN ONE EGG. THEY WILL TAKE THE BEST OF THEM.

GENERALLY MORE THAN ONE OF THEM, ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, MR. ROHRABACHER OF CALIFORNIA, HIS WIFE HAS THREE BEAUTIFUL BABIES FROM IN VITRO FERTILIZATION. 

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY THE DOCTOR IMPLANTED, BUT THREE GREW AND SHE HAD TRIPLETS. I SAW A RECENT PICTURE OF THEM IN THEIR LIFE VESTS OUT IN THE SURF IN CALIFORNIA. 

THERE IS A POTENTIAL ETHICAL ARGUMENT EVEN IF WE LET THE PARENTS MAKE THE DECISION WE ARE GOING TO DO THE IN VITRO FERTILIZATION.

IF THE PARENTS ESTABLISH THEY ARE GOING MAKE A REPAIR IT CAN AND ALL WE ASK FOR IS A FEW CELLS FROM THAT REPAIR IT CAN. 

YOU SEE, IF THE CELL IS TAKEN FROM THE EIGHT-CELL STAGE, THEN YOU COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT MAYBE THE CELL YOU TOOK COULD BECOME ANOTHER EMBRYO. SO THEN YOU START ALL OVER AGAIN WITH THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT. YOU NOW HAVE ANOTHER EMBRYO. 

AND SO YOU NOW, ETHICALLY, SHOULDN'T DESTROY THAT EMBRYO WITH THE HOPE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME APPLICATIONS TO HEALTH CARE FOR SOMEBODY ELSE. THERE IS, MR. SPEAKER, ONE WAY TO AVOID THIS. IT IS ONE OF THE THINGS OUR RESEARCH, H.R. 3144, WOULD PURSUE, THAT IS WAITING A LITTLE LATER TO TAKE THIS CELL. I'M NOT SURE FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT THEY TAKE THE CELL AT THE EIGHT-CELL STAGE, BUT THAT IS THE CONVENTION.

 IF YOU WAITED TO TAKE THAT CELL FROM THE INNER CELL MASS STAGE, WHICH IS A LITTLE LATER, A FEW DAYS LATER, THEN THE DIFFERENTIATION IS HAS ALREADY OCCURRED TO THE POINT THAT THE CELLS IN THE INNER CELL MASS WHICH CAN PRODUCE THE WHOLE BABY, BUT THEY CAN'T PRODUCE A BABY BY IMPLANTATION BECAUSE THEY HAVE LOST THE ABILITY TO PRODUCE DECIDUA. 

SO YOU HAVE NOW REMOVED THAT POSSIBLE ETHICAL ARGUMENT. 

ALTHOUGH THOSE WHO WROTE THE WHITE PAPER ON THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN DO THIS. IF THERE IS ANY POSSIBILITY YOU CAN DO THIS, THOSE WHOSE SENSITIVITIES WOULD BE OFFENDED BY THIS, IF YOU COULD DEMONSTRATE YOU TAKE IT FROM THE INNER CELL MASS STAGE NOW YOU HAVE BYPASSED EVEN THAT. OUR BILL, H.R. 3144, IS A BILL THAT LOOKS, FOR THE MOMENT, ONLY AT ANIMAL EXPERMENTATION. 

WE BELIEVE BEFORE YOU GO TO HUMANS YOU OUGHT TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS GOING TO WORK AND THAT IT HAS WORKED AND THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS GO TO ANIMALS AND NONHUMAN PRIMATES, THE BIG APES, WHICH GENETICALLY, BY THE WAY, ARE REMARKABLY CLOSE TO HUMANS. IT MAY BE EMBARRASSING TO LOOK AT THE GENETIC COMPLEMENT OF THE GREAT APES. 

THERE ISN'T ALL THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE. ONCE WE DEMONSTRATE IT THERE WE COULD HAVE MORE CERTAINTY IT IS GOING TO WORK IN HUMANS. 

WHAT WE DON'T NEED, MR. SPEAKER, IS FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS FEEL THEIR LAST BEST HOPE FOR A CURE FOR A RELATIVE HAS BEEN REMOVED WHEN THE PRESIDENT VETOS H.R. 810 AND ITS SENATE COMPLEMENT WHICH HE HAS SAID HE WILL DO AND I HOPE HE DOES, IT IS THE ETHICAL THING TO DO. WE NEED HAVE THIS BILL ON THE PRESIDENT'S DESK SO THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THERE IS A POTENTIALLY A LOT OF APPLICATIONS IN HEALTH CARE WILL KNOW THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BELIEVES WITH THEM THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE, THAT WE ARE GOING TO SUPPORT RESPONSIBLE, ETHICAL, RESEARCH. USING CELLS TAKEN FROM EARLY EMBRYOS THAT DO NOT KILL THE EMBRYO, DON'T HARM THE EMBRYO. 

AS A MATTER OF FACT, IF, MR. SPEAKER, WE GET THOSE SURPLUS CELLS FROM THE REPAIR IT CAN, THE PARENTS HAVE MADE TWO DECISIONS WHICH I THINK AND I BELIEVE MOST AMERICANS WILL THINK ARE ETHICAL. 

ONE IS TO HAVE THEIR OWN BABY THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT IS IN VITRO. SECONDLY, TO ESTABLISH A REPAIR IT CAN SO ANY TIME DURING ITS LIFE THEIR CHILD IS GOING TO HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR NEW TISSUES, NEW ORGANS, NEW CELLS. IT IS GOING TO BE THEM SO THERE WILL BE NO REJECTION. 

MR. SPEAKER, WHAT WE SAW LAST NIGHT I HOPE RESULTS IN A VERY POSITIVE EVENTUALITY. 

I HOPE H.R. 810 AND ITS SENATE COMPLEMENT GETS TO THE PRESIDENT'S DESK THAT ALSO ON HIS DESK IS H.R. 3144 SO THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN SAY, TODAY I PROUDLY SIGN A BILL WHICH PROVIDES FOR RESEARCH THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL OF PRODUCING EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS FOR ALL THE MIRACULOUS APPLICATIONS TO HEALTH CARE THAT CITIZENS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY BELIEVE. BECAUSE IN STATE AFTER STATE NOW THEY ARE VOTING IN REF RENDA, SOMETIMES IN THE LEGISLATURE, SOMETIMES WITH JUST THE PEOPLE TO PROVIDE LARGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY STATEWIDE BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOING IT AND THEY BELIEVE THERE IS BIG POTENTIAL THERE. I HOPE IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE WE WILL BE USING FEDERAL FUNDS TO SUPPORT RESPONSIBLE, ETH COOL, EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH. H.R. 3144 WILL DO IT. 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY

 Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Abortion Bills Create Jobs


Ok, I have a few questions over here.

First, just how are these sex determinations to be made?  When a zygote, that is the scientific term for a fertilized egg in its initial stages before it is considered a fetus, the only way to make a so-called sexual determination is through genetic testing in the default stage of the 46 allels. This would mean genetic matter, or to keep it simple, snatching a chunk off the zygote, would have to be harvested and tested to make an arbitrary determination of the sex of the child.

At this early stage of the first trimester, there is no guarantee that the determination would be proper as all zygotes are female as they later mature to take on the phenotypical characteristics of the sexual organs for visual determination.

So let's say we are dealing with a level where a doctor can do an ultrasound and pretty much identify the sex of the, at this stage we shall call fetus.  Well, there are categories where a fetus may positively present distinct phenotypes for sex identification but genetically be the opposite.

Yes, there are women who carry the Y chromosome and give birth.  Are they a man or a woman?

Then, I have to call out the lunacy of assigning the archaic bodily fluid category of race.  I describe race in this manner as it was known as the four humors: phlegm, urine, blood, bile.  So the assumption of the so-called race of the child is going to be left to scientific deduction on the race of the mother?  There is no legitimate test to determine race in vitro.  This is just outlandish.

 One reason the abortion clinics are in "minority" neighborhoods is because it is the only place they are accepted.  As for "minority" babies being aborted, sometimes it is better than having your child snatched for being poor, to live a life of hell in foster care. A "minority" child is five times more likely to be put in foster care because the term is "Targeted Population" funded through Title XIX.

Title XIX is Medicaid and it creates jobs in the child welfare industry, hence, anti-abortion bills are job creation bills.  Absolutely brilliant twist on human trafficking.

Perhaps if the "majority" start re-investing in human capital you will find dissipation in the logic behind having an abortion.

I find it aberrant that these federal policy makers have limited knowledge of basic biology.  

How about penalizing lawmakers based on scientific and economic ignorance.

House to Vote on Bill Penalizing Abortion Based on Sex of Child


pregnancy
The House will vote this week on legislation imposing criminal penalties on anyone performing an abortion based on the sex of the child, but the measure runs the risk of failing on the floor because of how the GOP is calling it up.
Republican leaders have scheduled a vote on H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), under a suspension of House rules, which will require a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Suspension votes are usually reserved for non-controversial bills, but Republican leaders have occasionally used the process for bills that Democrats oppose, and the PRENDA bill appears to be one of those.
Democratic opposition to the bill began with its original name, the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Non-discrimination Act. Democrats argued in February that while the bill was named after these civil rights heroes, it has nothing to do with protecting civil rights. "It is offensive that the sponsors of this bill would invoke the names of two of our nation's historic civil rights pioneers," House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said. The original name reflected that the bill also sought to ban abortions based on the race of the child, but took out that language in committee. Republicans agreed to strike that language in the Judiciary committee, and also changed the name of the bill. 
Still, the bill was voted out of committee with only Republican support. That partisan vote, and Democrats' ongoing opposition to the bill, could make it difficult for the bill to be approved by a two-thirds vote on the floor. Roughly 50 Democrats would need to join Republicans to pass the bill under suspension of the rules. Democrats point out that the suspension vote violates the Republicans' own rules, which say they will not schedule bills for consideration under a suspension of the rules if they are opposed by more than one-third of committee members. The Judiciary Committee approved the bill 20-13, with all Democrats voting against.
Despite the changes in committee, Democrats argue that the bill looks to erect new hurdles to women's right to abortion. The legislation looks to ensure there are no gender-based abortions by authorizing fines and prison terms of up to five years against doctors who perform these abortions, and requires health professionals to report suspected violations of the law. "This legislation violates a woman's right to privacy as affirmed by the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade," Conyers said after the committee approved the legislation. "The bill would require doctors to police their patients, undermining patient-doctor privilege. It limits a woman's right to choose and jeopardizes her access to safe, legal medical care."
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said when he introduced the bill that his aim is to ensure equal rights for unborn children. In December, his office put out a statement saying, "A minority baby is currently five times more likely to be aborted than a white baby, and nearly half of all black babies are aborted, with over 70 percent of abortion clinics being located in predominantly minority neighborhoods. "Our innate sense of human fairness should make it abundantly clear that aborting a little baby because he or she happens to be black or because he or she has been arbitrarily deemed 'lesser' is fundamentally wrong," Franks said.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, July 9, 2019

Just Another Error In Bio-Genetic Research Of Trafficking Tiny Humans - "Who Owns The Parental Rights?"

I feel for the parents.

Ok, I am done.

Now, let us proceed into the spectacularly formatted queries of logic pertaining to the question of citizenship of these two little baby boys in a fun little legal diddy:

If a legally married couple, under the common laws of their province in China, are citizens of China, and come to the U.S. to deposit their eggs and sperm into a bank of a foreign corporation registered to do business in the State of New York, as the legal guardians and custodians of these zygotes, created by the corporate parent, where, the corporate parent is listed and traded on international financial platforms, transfers said corporate parental rights as a 9-month legal custody agreement to such zygote, where the biological host, being the gestating mother, gives birth to the child on U.S. soil, what is the citizenship of the infant and who is the legal parent?
(I did not thrown in the reparations variable for fear of someone having an untimely nervous breakdown.  I want to be there to witness the breakdowns, myself.)

I do not know all the details in this case, but I thought this to be a great item to talk about in SCOTUS or in the gaggles of "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).

Yes, designer humans are all the latest rage, and as such, there will always be errors.

Errors in child welfare are typically rapes, torture, suicides, murders, but I digress.

I bet the corporation has insurance indemnification because you can sell parental rights, even on the NYSE.

Just thought I would toss this out there as we proceed to SCOTUS on the question of citizenship, DACA, DAPA, trust funds, parental rights, human trafficking, and all that chattel jazz.

Selling tiny humans is and has always been legal.

If a fetus has laws, how come zygotes do not?

What about an embryo?

That is zygote discrimination!

Couple says wrong embryos implanted by IVF clinic in "unimaginable mishap"



A recently filed lawsuit claims a New York couple gave birth to other peoples' children, after a fertility clinic impregnated them with the wrong embryos. The couple had been expecting female twins, but instead gave birth to two male babies — who they then had to give up to their biological parents.

The couple alleges CHA Fertility Clinic knew about the embryo mix-up and tried to conceal it. On the clinic's website, it claims to have "fulfilled the dreams of tens of thousands of aspiring parents" in more than 22 countries. This couple says it shattered theirs.

After spending more than $100,000 on in vitro fertilization services to become pregnant, an unidentified New York couple say they finally succeeded. But when they gave birth in March, the Asian-American parents claim they were "shocked" to find neither baby was of Asian descent.

Tens of thousands of embryos are stuck in limbo in fertility clinics
The lawsuit claims genetic testing confirmed the babies belonged to two other couples, forcing them to give the babies up to their biological parents. They still don't know what happened to their two embryos that should have been implanted. The lawsuit names co-owners of CHA Fertility Center, Dr. Joshua Berger and Simon Hong, as responsible for the "unimaginable mishap."

Human error, however, is not uncommon at IVF facilities, according to expert Jake Anderson.

"It's this agonizing process to grow embryos. And it involves almost over 200 different steps and when you assume this happens to thousands of patients every year within that laboratory, all of a sudden you've got a lot of moving parts," Anderson said.

More than one million babies have been born in the U.S. through IVF or similar technologies. But Anderson says recent headlines about clinics destroying or mixing up embryos raise valid questions about the painstaking process.

"Have we become reckless and too careless with people's most important genetic material and their future happiness?" Anderson said.

In 2009, Carolyn and Sean Savage experienced similar loss upon learning the baby they had just conceived through IVF was not theirs.

"You're so excited, and you feel like, 'finally,' and then to have the rug pulled out from under you in this kind of manner is – it's so painful," Carolyn said.

The Savages carried the baby to term, before giving him to his biological parents. They say hearing the news of another IVF mix-up was heartbreaking.

"I cannot express how utterly unacceptable this situation is," Carolyn said. "It is preventable, protocols need to be followed, and they need to be taken seriously."

The couple in this latest lawsuit accuses the fertility clinic of medical malpractice, negligence, and 14 other counts. The lawsuit also says the couple has suffered significant emotional distress.

A lawyer for CHA Fertility clinic declined to comment.

In a statement to CBS News, a lawyer representing the unidentified couple said they "sustained traumatic emotional injuries and financial losses" and that they are filing the lawsuit both for compensation and "to ensure that this tragedy never happens again."


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Sunday, June 30, 2019

CRISPR & Christian Pro Life Propaganda Campaign For Corporate Parental Rights

Denis Rebrikov: "My position is that I don't want to do it silently. I want to do it publicly, with publicity so that we can talk about it."
"No more birds and bees because we only need hosts."
(I bet some may not even be human hosts - they're here...)
Before you were a fetus, you were a zygote, but do not tell that to the christian pro life advocates.

That would mean they would have to drop everything and re-engineer their entire personhood laws being rammed through the States.

Yes, science should matter when making law, but, alas, it does not.

CRISPR research uses zygotes.

Zygotes can be made in a test tube.

So, where do they get those zygotes?

These zygotes come from Snowflakes and the pro life movement.
Collecting zygotesZygotes with an abnormal number of pronuclei were obtained from patients undergoing IVF from September 2017 to April 2018 at the NMITS AHP them. V.I. Kulakova. From 11 pairs, 21 abnormal zygotes were obtained (16 were injected with CRISPR-Cas9 and 5 served as controls).
TRANSLATION: ABORTION
The National Institute of Health funds CRISPR research in food production.

Infant mortality is the product of the pro life movement.

Preterm births is just another method of getting those zygotes.

This gives birth to just another facet in the arguments of parental rights, because these zygotes were procured by corporations.

This takes chattel law to nanolevel of analysis because it is legal to sell tiny humans.

Russian Biologist Welcomes Backlash Over His Plan For Gene-Edited Babies

A human embryo, 11 days old
Before you are a fetus, you are a zygote
A Russian biologist has thrust himself to the forefront one of the world's most urgent medical-science debates by declaring his intention to use CRISPR gene-editing techniques to modify the genomes of human embryos and implant them in women.

Denis Rebrikov, a DNA-technology specialist who heads a genome-editing lab at a Moscow fertility clinic, vowed this month to seek Russian authorities' approval to disable a gene, known as CCR5, in carefully selected embryos of would-be mothers who are HIV-positive or who suffer from specific genetic disorders.
The aim would be to block the transmission of the condition and at least boost resistance in the lab-altered newborns, beginning as soon as this year.

"I don't like to use the term genetically modified," Rebrikov told RFE/RL, in English, on June 27. "It's just a correction of a mutation we have in [some] babies."

The plan has raised an international outcry over the fate of such "CRISPR babies" and the ethical and technological implications, amplifying fears that arose when Chinese scientist He Jiankui made a shock announcement last year that he'd modified the genomes of recently born twin girls.

Scientists and ethicists have grappled for decades with the practical and moral obstacles to genetic engineering in plants and animals. Genome editing in human embryos that are then transferred into a woman is seen as a thick red line for many.

Rebrikov said he welcomed the controversy since the influential scientific journal Nature quoted him two weeks ago vowing to go forward as soon as he had suitable volunteers and local approval. "My position is that I don't want to do it silently," he told RFE/RL. "I want to do it publicly, with publicity so that we can talk about it."

'Crazy,' Slippery Slope,' 'Designer Babies'

The debate over lab-directed gene mutations intensified when biologist He told the world in November he had edited the same CCR5 gene in "Lulu" and "Nana," twin month-old girls who he said appeared to be healthy.

The revelation embarrassed Chinese authorities, who quickly suspended He's activities, and added to the chorus of calls for a global moratorium on such work.

The 43-year-old Rebrikov works at the Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology as well as the Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University. Unlike the controversial Chinese scientist, Rebrikov said, "I didn't show any babies -- just work."
The World Health Organization (WHO) has formed an expert advisory committeeto develop "global standards for governance and oversight of human-genome editing," but its conclusions appear to be at least a year off.

A number of the WHO committee's members have already condemned Rebrikov's eagerness to proceed, using terms like "irresponsible" and "cowboy."

Other scientists and geneticists have called his plan "crazy" or a "slippery slope." Another cited familiar fears of "designer babies."

But WHO committee co-chairwoman and former U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) director Margaret Hamburg acknowledged to the medical news site STAT that they don't have "the teeth to do some of what may ultimately need to be done" in the face of such pioneering efforts.

Russian Advantage?

Rebrikov must still find suitable cases and volunteer subjects from among a small subset of HIV-infected women or parents who share the mutation for a condition like deafness or dwarfism, and then convince at least three Russian regulatory bodies to green-light the plan.

"Russia now, I think, is a good country to do this type of experiment," Rebrikov told ScienceInsider recently. "It's not very free in politics, but it's very free in science."

Rebrikov expanded on that notion to RFE/RL, saying it was a reference to Russia's regulatory environment. "In Russia, we have a very good system of idea centers," he said. "The point is not the technology. It's mostly all the same technology everywhere. It's a regulatory point, and I think that the specificity of Russia is that we can make a decision to use some technology or clinical methods...on the level of a ministry or a local body."

Nature published an editorial that acknowledged Rebrikov's "skills, tools, and position" and praised his willingness to publicly discuss plans for his gene-altering work. But it urged the scientific community to "act now on CRISPR babies" and insisted "Rebrikov must listen to the concerns and the critics, and not move forward until the dangers are assessed."

Almost overnight, the high-profile effort at a breakthrough by Rebrikov and his team has boosted Russia's profile in genetic sciences and gene editing -- a field that was revolutionized with the emergence in 2015 of the so-called CRISPR technique that employs molecular "scissors" to find and replace functional bits of DNA.

Technical Challenges

CRISPR's appeal is that it helps modify genes -- in theory, to remove unwanted characteristics for more desirable ones -- without introducing outside DNA, for instance from a bacterial carrier agent.
But experts warn there could be unforeseen effects on "CRISPR babies" because of changes to the gene in question ("on-target" mutation) or a CRISPR mistake that alters the wrong snippet of a genome ("off-target" mutation).

Some of those consequences might only appear later in life, they say, and could include susceptibility to other diseases, shortened life spans, or other tragic outcomes.

They stress the tradeoff between the risk of error and the benefits of gene-editing to combat conditions that might be rare and otherwise mitigable.

Rebrikov said his lab had a system -- "I think unique" -- that allowed careful checking for "off-target" effects of a genome editor.

A bigger obstacle, he acknowledged, was ensuring that all the cells in a blastocyst that will develop into the embryo are free of problems, rather than just the five-to-seven cells that can be inspected in the lab.

...And Ethical

Beyond scientific and ethical challenges, Rebnikov's plans could invite objections on religious grounds. "The attempts of human beings to put themselves in the place of God by changing and 'improving' His creation at their will may bring to humanity new burdens and suffering," the Russian Orthodox Church stated in a chapter on bioethics in its Basis Of The Social Concept.

The leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church wields considerable influence and boasts 90 million or so adherents.

"I think it's a good situation that we're talking about it, because the population should be ready for a [new] technology, and now they're not ready," Rebrikov told RFE/RL. "To make society ready, we should be talking about it -- a lot. We need to discuss it over and over, until a majority [of] society says, 'OK, the research is safe and researchers will do everything correctly,' and society will accept it."

He and his colleagues first hinted at his intentions in a research paper in the Biomedical Journal of Pirogov RNRMU in October. In it, they said preclinical work suggested that a CRISPR-Cas9 modification should "protect the fetus from HIV infection in utero and at childbirth" and provide "a potential lifelong immunity to HIV."

"Importantly, the edited genome will be passed on to subsequent generations," the paper predicted.
HIV/AIDS remains a growing epidemic in Russia, with nearly 1 million infections by official estimates but more than twice that number according to some.

Rebrikov has said his target group would be women who are resistant to antiretroviral (ARV) treatments to purge their blood of the HIV virus that can lead to AIDS but who nevertheless want to have children.

He conceded that statistics suggest the number of such women is only around 30 in all of Russia, out of a population of around 145 million people.

But because HIV is not always transferred "vertically" from a parent, Rebrikov would prefer to target cases where both parents suffer from a genetic disorder that is more likely to be passed. "I don't like the HIV case because we couldn't say 100 percent that the baby would be infected," he told RFE/RL.

In plants and animals, genetic modification has been used for decades under evolving regulatory climates to boost crop resistance to disease or pestilence, to bring meatier cattle or fish to the table sooner, or to simplify the delivery of vaccines, among other things.

But scientists have warned about the threat genetically modified organisms pose to biodiversity, the mixing of modified stocks with wild animals, and more unforeseen problems.
And the public has been wary of the effects on consumers, the food chain, and the environment.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Sunday, August 30, 2020

Tales Of The New Crown: From DARPA To DHHS - Brett Giroir Has A Prolife Moderna Trafficking Tiny Humans Dilemma - Humanized Mice v. Tiny Human Lab Rat

The national rate of neonatal abstinence syndrome nearly tripled between 2008 and 2015 (Q1-Q3), according to data from AHRQ’s Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Graph of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Rates per 1,000 births: 2008 2.2, 2009 2.8, 2010 3.4, 2011 4.0, 2012 4.7, 2013 5.5, 2014 6.1, 2015(Q1-Q3) 6.4, Source: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, State Inpatient Databases, 43-47 States, 2008-2015 (Q1-Q3). Note: For 2015 calendar year, only the 1st three quarters of data were used.
"Hey Brett! We need more tiny human lab rats."
Brett Giroir from DARPA to DHHS has a modern day trafficking tiny humans dilemma on his hands.

Does he refer to his acquired goods as humanized mice or tiny human lab rats?

I prefer tiny human lab rats just because I have adopted the term over 25 years ago.

This is what the prolifers like to cloak with their religious fervor of demonizing mothers who are losing their children in miscarriages due to ills of poverty.

The entire abortion argument promulgated through the halls of congress, which was created in the invasion of the Michigan Republican National Committee, is nothing but a false claim generated to garner more Faith Based Funding to continue the trafficking tiny humans through the Child Welfare System.

Using "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth) as human lab rats is nothing new because no one cares.

You can order, from any mobile device, sperm and eggs, and grow them in your very own Corporate Shape Shifting Host, because they own the final product for commercial use.

That is fancy legal speak for trafficking tiny humans because you can not just sell them, you can financially leverage them and use them for all types of cooties testing.

The opioid crises was intentionally manufactured to maximize revenues, by and through public office, which is nothing more than an emolument, ,but if you swear an oath to another foreign nation, like the Vatican, that indelible seal will follow you, unless the chain of fidelity is broken.

Meet The Perfidious Sister Dede Byrne & Her Trafficking Tiny Humans Lab Rat RNC Convention Speech - Of Parental Rights & The Archdiocese Of Detroit Indelible Seal Situation


Moderna, as well as just about every other big pharma uses zygotes, which they will involuntarily induce labor through more lab rat human experiments on mothers."

No one wants to talk about the gestating mother.

Researchers mostly use Africa and other poor nations of war because there is no such thing as parental consent or parental rights.

Starvation, born of an U.S. invasion into a foreign land, will typically cause miscarriages.

Miscarriage is a form of abortion, as, abortion is not even a medical term; it is a legal term.

There are christian missionaries that conduct research on behalf of the universities and pharmaceutical corporations, to see how old a host, the latest term for a mother, can procreate.

I know of girls as young as 12 years of age giving birth in Guatemala, then having the child ripped from her arms to be adopted by good, christian, American parents.

Praise the lord and the Vatican orpha.net.

I know of medical research institutions in Detroit and Ukraine that love to collect the involuntarily induced miscarriages (a.k.a. abortion) where there is a surge in building more neonatal units because a mother does not have to carry full term, for a fetus of 5 weeks will do just fine in children's medical research training facilities.

They like to do things like dope up the water, which is why Detroit is #1 in infant mortality, a fetal good to be cherished in a CRISPR research event.

They ran similar tiny human lab rat operations in Flint.

Unfortunately, in case of Moderna, I shall go out there as say, once again, that they use children as lab rats, but in this case, the term tiny human lab rats, is a term most appropriately applied.

This is nothing more than another tale of modern day trafficking of tiny humans because no one cares....or do they?

https://beverlytran.blogspot.com/search?q=zygote

Market Summary > Moderna Inc
NASDAQ: MRNA
67.49 USD −0.54 (0.79%)
Closed: Aug 28, 7:59 PM EDT · Disclaimer
After hours 67.47 −0.020 (0.030%)

#maytheheavensfall

Moderna's Patents Probed by U.S. Defense Department, FT Says

Moderna Inc.’s patents that were filed or awarded are being probed by the U.S. Department of Defense’s research arm, the Financial Times reported, saying the company failed to disclose government funding as required by federal law.

Knowledge Ecology International, a patient advocacy group, said in a report this week that researchers didn’t disclose in vaccine patents where they got about $25 million in grants from the department’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or Darpa, for its vaccine technology, the newspaper said.

“The company believes it has complied with applicable patent reporting requirements regarding patent filings, including as they relate to the Darpa program,” Ray Jordan, a spokesman for Moderna, said Saturday. The company estimates that Darpa funding was about $50 million, or 1% of its $5.1 billion total private funding.

The newspaper cited Darpa spokesman Jared Adams as saying that all awards to Moderna included the need to report the role of government funding, adding that “Darpa is actively researching agency awards to Moderna to identify which patents and pending patents, if any at all, may be associated with Darpa support.”

At least one Darpa-linked patent shows government support was disclosed.

The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based company said earlier this week it’s in talks with Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare to potentially supply the country with 40 million or more doses of its vaccine candidate against Covid-19. It also unveiled new findings relating to its trial.

Summary of Humanized Mouse Model Workshop

On December 18, 2018, NIAID, in coordination with the NIH Office of the Director and HHS, organized a workshop to assess recent advances and opportunities in the development and use of humanized immune system (HIS) mouse models, in which the immune system of the mouse is partially replaced with human immune cells and tissues. Participants included leading scientists in the fields of immune system development and function, transplant immunology, autoimmunity, and infectious disease research. Adm Brett Giroir, Assistant Secretary of HHS, welcomed the participants and described HHS interest in this area, including a clearer understanding of the limitations and adequacy of existing HIS models, and the possibility of developing scientifically validated alternatives to the use of human fetal tissue. Dr. Daniel Rotrosen, Director of the Division of Allergy, Immunology and Transplantation at NIAID, provided an overview of the workshop goals and expected outcomes, including: evaluation of the features, strengths and limitations of current HIS mouse models; procedures to compare HIS models made from fetal and non-fetal tissue sources; and studies that would be required to fully characterize and standardize these models. Dr. Lawrence Tabak, NIH Principal Deputy Director, provided brief introductory comments on behalf of NIH.

Dr. Leonard Shultz provided a comprehensive summary of HIS mouse model development and usage from 1988 to the present. In following breakout sessions, participants discussed the strengths and limitations of various HIS mouse models and provided opinions on ways to optimize HIS models for the development of vaccines and therapeutics for infectious and immune-mediated diseases and cancer. The meeting participants reconvened for reports from the two breakout groups and a final discussion, that resulted in the following summary points:

Major scientific advances have been made in understanding infectious disease pathogenesis and development of therapeutics using HIS mouse models made with human fetal tissues.
No single humanized immune system model is universally appropriate or optimal for all applications.
Various models can recapitulate key aspects of human T cell immunity; existing models are less able to recapitulate human innate immunity and antibody responses regardless of tissue source. Improvements in modeling antibody responses should be a focus of future work and may be particularly important for advances in vaccinology; and in modeling infectious, autoimmune, and allergic diseases.
Few direct comparisons have been conducted of HIS mice derived using fetal vs. non-fetal human tissue sources.
Meeting participants included investigators working on fetal tissue-derived and non-fetal tissue-derived HIS models. Considering published data and other information shared at this meeting, participants expressed the opinion that fetal tissue-derived HIS models remain the “gold standard” to which other model systems should be compared. This preference is based on the preponderance of data indicating superior engraftment, differentiation, survival and function of the adaptive immune cells (particularly T cells) in fetal tissue-derived models.
Following the breakout sessions, there was strong opinion that work should proceed on a variety of models derived with fetal tissues or from alternative sources.









https://www.ahrq.gov/data/infographics/babies-dependent-opioids.html?utm_source=ahrq&utm_medium=en-2&utm_term=NNA&utm_content=2&utm_campaign=ahrq_en12_4_2018









Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©