Conservative hypocrisy in action: Carson published a paper on fetal tissue research

[Splits]

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/20...-fetal-tissue/

Ben Carson did research on 17 week fetal tissue

POSTED BY DR. JEN GUNTER⋅ AUGUST 12, 2015

Dr. Ben Carson, GOP nominee hopeful, told Fox’s Megyn Kelly that “There’s nothing that can’t be done without fetal tissue” and that the benefits of fetal tissue have been “over promised” and the results have “very much under-delivered.”

Carson also said, “At 17 weeks, you’ve got a nice little nose and little fingers and hands and the heart’s beating. It can respond to environmental stimulus. How can you believe that that’s just a[n] irrelevant mass of cells? That’s what they want you to believe, when in fact it is a human being.”

Dr. Carson, like everyone, is en led to an opinion no matter how wrong, What he says doesn’t change the fact that fetal tissue plays a vital role in medical research. For example it is being used to develop a vaccine against Ebola. Many researchers depend on fetal tissue to understand and hopefully develop treatment for a myriad of conditions from blindness to HIV. Without fetal tissue neurosciences research, something essential for the development of neurosurgical techniques, would be far less developed. Dr. Carson should be intimately aware of this fact.

While opining on the uselessness of fetal tissue research to Megyn Kelly Dr. Carson neglected to mention his own paper Colloid Cysts of the Third Ventricle: Immunohistochemical evidence for nonneuropithelial differentiation published in Hum Pathol 23:811-816 in 1992. The materials and methods describe using “human choroid plexus ependyma and nasal mucosa from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation.”





Yes, Dr. Ben Carson has done research on fetal tissue and published his findings. His name is on the paper so that means he had a substantive role in the research and supports the methods and findings.

How does one explain this given Carson’s stand on fetal tissue research?

Perhaps Dr. Carson feels that only his work delivered the goods and all other researchers have produced inconsequential work, an Ebola vaccine clearly not of merit by Carson’s logic.

Could he think his own research was useless? However, if it was non contributory to the field why was it published?

Maybe he forgot that he’d done the research on fetal tissue? Convenient I suppose if you are a Presidential hopeful and want to use your doctor credentials to get prime Fox and Brietbart space and there is a fetal-tissue-for-research issue.

It could have been some resident research paper that just needed a faculty member and he was sympathetic so got stuck with the job, but then again if you are running for President shouldn’t you know your own CV? And there is still that sticky issue of why add your name if you find fetal tissue research so unnecessary?

Might he feel that fetal tissue research was ok then, but not now? Using that logic we must have learned everything about medicine by 1992 and now we’re just working out the kinks while waiting for the cure for Alzheimer’s, HIV, and Parkinson’s to drop from the heavens.

As a neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson knows full well that fetal tissue is essential for medical research. His discipline would have a hard time being were it is today without that kind of work. What is even more egregious than dismissing the mul ude of researchers whose work allowed him to become a neurosurgeon is the hypocrisy of actually having done that research himself while spouting off about its supposed worthlessness.

[boutons_deux]

Republicans Repeatedly Voted To Use Aborted Fetuses For Scientific Research


just a few years ago, the practice of donating fetal tissue for research purposes enjoyed broad bipartisan support — including from some of the Republicans who are currently calling to crack down on Planned Parenthood.

In 1988, during the Reagan administration, a panel of experts from the National Ins utes of Health overwhelmingly voted in favor of allowing scientists to study biological material obtained from legal abortions. By a 19 to 0 vote, the group concluded that the practice should be considered morally acceptable because aborted fetal tissue is analogous to cadaver tissue, which is often used in scientific research.
And in 1993, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle voted to legalize fetal tissue research, even in cases when the samples were obtained from legal abortion procedures, when they approved the National Ins utes of Health Revitalization Act.

Spurred by pressure from groups looking for cures for degenerative diseases, that legislation lifted a previous ban on using fetal tissue in scientific research put in place during the Reagan administration. McConnell voted in favor — along with several other staunchly pro-life Republican lawmakers, like John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Fred Upton, and Lamar Smith.

In addition to the National Ins utes of Health Revitalization Act, the Senate had several other opportunities to vote on the issue of fetal tissue donation during the 1990s. Each time, a bipartisan majority indicated support for the practice. In 1992, for instance, most Republicans — including McConnell — voted against a proposal to limit fetal tissue research to samples procured from miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. In 1997, the Senate voted down an amendment to the Udall Parkinson’s Research Act that would have prohibited funding for research on aborted fetal tissue.

Although some Democratic lawmakers have started to point out the apparent hypocrisy at play here, most of the politicians speaking out against Planned Parenthood have not addressed the 1993 vote on the NIH reauthorization bill.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015...ssue-donation/

[TeyshaBlue]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...ssue-research/

Ben Carson defended the use of fetal tissue for medical research Thursday, after a blog published excerpts of a 1992 paper describing work the neurosurgeon-turned-presidential candidate carried out using aborted fetuses. In an interview with The Washington Post, Carson called the revelation "desperate," and ignorant of the way*medical research was carried out.

"You have to look at the intent," Carson said before beginning a campaign swing through New Hampshire. "To willfully ignore evidence that you have for some ideological reason is wrong.*If you’re killing babies and taking the tissue, that’s a very different thing than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it."

Carson, who has risen in primary polls since last week's debate, is among the Republicans who've condemned Planned Parenthood after undercover videos revealed executives in the organization coldly discussing the extraction and distribution of tissue from aborted fetuses. In a July interview on Fox News, after the first videos broke, Carson said that there was “nothing that can’t be done without fetal tissue" and that babies aborted at 17 weeks were clearly human beings.

That inspired Jen Gunter to excavate a 1992 paper, co-authored by Carson, in which doctors described how they applied "human choroid plexus ependyma and nasal mucosa from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation." That, wrote Gunter, was quite the contrast from Carson's 2015 denunciation of fetal tissue research.

"Could he think his own research was useless?" Gunter asked. "If it was non-contributory to the field why was it published?*Maybe he forgot that he’d done the research on fetal tissue?"

What you need to know about Planned Parenthood(1:39)
(Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)
Carson had not forgotten and considered the type of research he did to be useful. "When we obtain tissue like that, we want to know what the origin of that tissue is developmentally," he said. "Knowing that helps us determine which patients are likely to develop a problem. It’s one of the reasons why at the turn of the last century, the average age of death was 47. Now, the average age of death is 80. Using the information that you have is a smart thing, not a dumb thing."

Asked if fetal tissue research should be banned, or if it was immoral, Carson said no.

"Bear this in mind about pathologists," said Carson. "Regardless of what their ideology is, when they receive tissue, they prepare the tissue. They label it. They mark how it got there. Regardless of whether it’s from a fetus or someone who’s 150 years old, they bank them in tissue blocks. Other people doing comparative research need to have a basis.*When pathologists receive specimen, their job is to prepare the specimen. They have no job opining on where*the tissue came from."

There was no contradiction between this science and Carson's pro-life views, he said. "My primary responsibility in that research was when I operated on people and obtained the tissue," said Carson, who noted that he has not used fetal tissue samples since then. "This*has everything to do with how it’s acquired. If you’re killing babies and taking the tissue, that’s a very different thing than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it."

Asked if Planned Parenthood should cease its fetal tissue distribution, Carson demurred. He still favored defunding the group, but would not call for the end of fetal tissue research so long as the fetal tissue was available.

"I may not be completely objective about Planned Parenthood, because I know how they started with Margaret Sanger who believed in eugenics," he said. "But it would be good for the public to understand this whole aspect of medical research."

[DarrinS]

Good try, good effort

[TheSanityAnnex]

Splits with a swing and a miss.

[boutons_deux]

"I know how they started with Margaret Sanger who believed in eugenics"

wow, his "intelligence" certainly doesn't extend beyond his practice of medicine.

[TeyshaBlue]

"I know how they started with Margaret Sanger who believed in eugenics"

wow, his "intelligence" certainly doesn't extend beyond his practice of medicine.

Excerpted from:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/pe..._eugenics.html

Eugenics and Birth Control
Margaret Sanger's birth control movement and quest for the Pill intersected the rise of the eugenics movement in America. At a time when birth control was still not publicly accepted in American society, some eugenicists believed birth control was a useful tool for curbing procreation among the "weak." In the 1920s and 30s, Sanger calculated that the success of the eugenics idea gave her own movement legitimacy, and tried to ally her cause with the movement. Eugenics was a dominant theme at her birth control conferences, and Sanger spoke publicly of the need to put an end to breeding by the unfit. In 1920 Sanger publicly stated that "birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Excerpted from:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/pe..._eugenics.html

Eugenics and Birth Control
Margaret Sanger's birth control movement and quest for the Pill intersected the rise of the eugenics movement in America. At a time when birth control was still not publicly accepted in American society, some eugenicists believed birth control was a useful tool for curbing procreation among the "weak." In the 1920s and 30s, Sanger calculated that the success of the eugenics idea gave her own movement legitimacy, and tried to ally her cause with the movement. Eugenics was a dominant theme at her birth control conferences, and Sanger spoke publicly of the need to put an end to breeding by the unfit. In 1920 Sanger publicly stated that "birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives."

It can be that but it doesn't have to be.

[TeyshaBlue]

The quotes are what they are.

[boutons_deux]

http://m.snopes.com/margaret-sanger-weeds/

Misattributed[edit]

• Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.
  
  • Misquoting Ernst Rudin, "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need", Birth Control Review, April 1933. [22]
  • Actual quote by Rudin: "Not only is it our task to prevent the multiplication of bad stocks, it is also to preserve the well-endowed stocks and to increase the birth-rate of the sound average population."

• More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief issue in birth control.
  
  • Editors of American Medicine in a review of Sanger's article "Why Not Birth Control Clinics in America?" published in Birth Control Review, May 1919

• (We) are seeking to assist the white race toward the elimination of the unfit (blacks).
  
  • Falsely attributed to "Birth Control and Racial Betterment", Birth Control Review, February 1919 [23], by Steve Deace, "Planned Parenthood: The next relic from our racist past that must be purged", Midwest Conservative (The Washington Times),2015-07-13
  • Actual quote: "Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenicists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."

• The mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than the increase among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.
  
  • W.E.B. DuBois, Birth Control Review, June 1932. Quoted by Sanger in her proposal for the "Negro Project."

• We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
  
  • Misquoted by Diane S. Dew (2001)
  • Omits words from a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble Sanger proposing the "Negro Project", where Sanger wrote: "And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
  • The quote was similarly misused in "Women, Race, & Class" (12 February 1983) by Angela Davis, where it is implied that that Sanger was organizing an etermination campaign and the minister would be the main propaganda milling machine.

• Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a menace to the race.
  
  • Unknown source. Often falsely cited as Birth Control Review, April 1933 [24], as in William D. Gairdner, The War Against the Family (1992), p. 464. No letters or articles by Sanger appear in that issue.
  • John George, in American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists & Others (1992), p. 415, describes this quote as "evidently concocted in the late 1980s".

• Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.
  
  • Unknown source, attributed by Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN) [25] and by Roger L. Roberson, Jr, The Bible & the Black Man: Breaking the Chains of Prejudice (2007), p. 18.
  • Seems to take "human weeds" from "a garden of children instead of a disorderly back lot overrun with human weeds" or from "the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks– those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization" and "exterminated" from "we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea" (see above).

• The marriage-bed is the most degenerating influence of the social order.
  
  • Alice Groff, "The Marriage Bed", The Woman Rebel, V.I No. 5, p. 39 (edited by Margaret Sanger)

• Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity no less than Capitalism.
  
  • Unknown source, often attributed to The Woman Rebel.

• Throughout the 200+ pages of this book Sanger called for the elimination of "human weeds," for the cessation of charity, for the segregation of "morons, misfits, and maladjusted," and for the sterilization of "genetically inferior races."
  
  • "Who Was Margaret Sanger?", brochure published by the American Life League, regarding The Pivot of Civilization.
  • None of those quoted phrases actually appear in the book.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger


Anti-abortionists/pro-birthers have been raping Sanger's words for decades.

[ddjeffries]

Solid answer from Carson.

[TeyshaBlue]

So NP ingR was raping Sanger's words?

[Splits]

Good try, good effort

Splits with a swing and a miss.

What happened, what did I miss? It was a different Ben Carson?

[TeyshaBlue]

Who ties your shoes for you?

[Splits]

Who ties your shoes for you?

Who provides Ben Carson fetuses for research?

[DarrinS]

Who provides Ben Carson fetuses for research?

Not PP

[TeyshaBlue]

Who provides Ben Carson fetuses for research?

Asinine strawman.

So very difficult to discover.

Today I was accused by the press as having done research on fetal tissue. It simply is not true. The study they distributed by an anonymous source was done in 1992. The study was about tumors. I won’t bore you with the science. There were four doctors' names on the study. One was mine. I spent my life studying brain tumors and removing them. My only involvement in this study was supplying tumors that I had removed from my patients. Those tissue samples were compared to other tissue samples under a microscope. Pathologists do this work to gain clues about tumors.
I, nor any of the doctors involved with this study, had anything to do with abortion or what Planned Parenthood has been doing. Research hospitals across the country have microscope slides of all kinds of tissue to compare and contrast. The fetal tissue that was viewed in this study by others was not collected for this study.
I am sickened by the attack that I, after having spent my entire life caring for children, had something to do with aborting a child and harvesting organs. My medical specialty is the human brain and even I am amazed at what it is capable of doing. Please know these attacks are pathetic attempts to blunt our progress.

[Splits]

Asinine strawman.

So very difficult to discover.

Today I was accused by the press as having done research on fetal tissue. It simply is not true. The study they distributed by an anonymous source was done in 1992. The study was about tumors. I won’t bore you with the science. There were four doctors' names on the study. One was mine. I spent my life studying brain tumors and removing them. My only involvement in this study was supplying tumors that I had removed from my patients. Those tissue samples were compared to other tissue samples under a microscope. Pathologists do this work to gain clues about tumors.
I, nor any of the doctors involved with this study, had anything to do with abortion or what Planned Parenthood has been doing. Research hospitals across the country have microscope slides of all kinds of tissue to compare and contrast. The fetal tissue that was viewed in this study by others was not collected for this study.
I am sickened by the attack that I, after having spent my entire life caring for children, had something to do with aborting a child and harvesting organs. My medical specialty is the human brain and even I am amazed at what it is capable of doing. Please know these attacks are pathetic attempts to blunt our progress.

I got caught doing research on aborted fetuses and now I'm deflecting to pretend I didn't

That's the weakest "defense" I've ever heard. He signed his name to a research paper that used 9 week and 17 week abortion fetuses. And now he's

"Conservative" hypocrisy at its finest.

[Splits]

Not PP

Are you sure? He got his fetuses from somewhere. And he was so involved in the fetus research that he published a paper about it.

[TeyshaBlue]

So, for those of you keeping score at home:

1. There is no hypocrisy.
2. He did not publish a paper on fetal research.

[DarrinS]

Splits getting arse split per par

[Splits]

[TeyshaBlue]

He used slides that were already prepared. He had nothing to do with procuring them.
The paper was not about fetal research.
Keep doubling down tho. It makes me giggle.

[Splits]

Which bothers you more, that he used a 9 week fetus or a 17 week fetus in his research?

[TeyshaBlue]

Neither. Thanks for the straw.