Posted on 08/13/2015 7:29:51 PM PDT by Roos_Girl
I wanted to use our time tonight to directly deal with an attack launched on me today by the left and the media. A couple questions came in on this subject, so I want to address it head on.
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 wont 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 was able to find the research paper (pdf) in full. I don’t speak gibberish (research language)... but since you had a MD in your name perhaps you could confirm where the paper that gave him 3rd billing was for just contributing a sample. Do doctors just give samples out on a whim or do they vet research and researchers for their methods. Do you get 3rd billing in something you didn’t know? The paper has a list of contributors at the end, if you just gave samples wouldn’t you just be listed there?
I don’t know, but not buying that he didn’t know this research used babies in it. I can buy that he can claim that baby tissue is not any better than other tissue since if he researched this he has a working knowledge that one is not better than the other.
I am not a doctor nor have I ever claimed to be one. The MD in my screen name refers to Maryland where I was from before moving to PA = Pennsylvania. I am however very interested in science and medicine and once seriously considered a career in veterinary medicine, although that was a long, long time ago. I read over the paper to which you linked and I can follow the general gist although not all the terminology, but that you call it gibberish is rather telling.
Do doctors just give samples out on a whim or do they vet research and researchers for their methods. Do you get 3rd billing in something you didnt know? The paper has a list of contributors at the end, if you just gave samples wouldnt you just be listed there?
I do not know the answer to that. However since Dr. Carson is a neurosurgeon and has written many papers on brain tumors, I would image that he shares his findings and shares brain tumor samples with other researchers doing similar research as they do with him and to one extent or another collaborated in the study to be listed. He is also was the head of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins were the research was done. But I do agree that the extent of Dr. Carsons involvement and contributions to the final paper are not clear.
I dont know, but not buying that he didnt know this research used babies in it. I can buy that he can claim that baby tissue is not any better than other tissue since if he researched this he has a working knowledge that one is not better than the other.
The fetal tissue that was viewed in this study by others was not collected for this study.
I agree it is a fine line, however while the paper states Human choroid plexus, ependyma, and nasal mucosa were obtained from two fetuses aborted at the ninth and 17th week of gestation for one, it doesnt say whether the fetal samples were obtained from elective abortions or from spontaneous abortions, i.e. miscarriages as the medical terminology doesnt always make that distinction clear. Likely they came from elective abortions but the second point is that the tissues used were not collected specifically for this study. In other words, they didnt order them out of a StemExpress catalogue or get them from PP. Most likely they came from the hospitals Johns Hopkins tissue lab.
Fetal tissue from what I understand is helpful in some types of medical research as a control when used to compare healthy tissues to diseased tissues.
"We have banked material in the pathology lab from people from every age -- from day 1 of concept to 120 years told. Those specimens are available for people who want to do comparisons," Carson said. "To not use the tissue that is in a tissue bank, regardless of where it comes from, would be foolish. Why would anybody not do that?"
Carson also issued a statement, saying, "There is absolutely no contradiction between the research I worked on in 1992 and my pro-life views. The issue of fetal tissue has everything to do with how the tissue is acquired. My primary responsibility in that research was operating on people to obtain diseased tissue for comparison to banked tissue samples. Killing babies and harvesting tissue for sale is very different than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it, which is exactly the source of the tissue used in our research."
Great response by Carson. He is an honorable man being smeared wonder if it is RINO’s or Dimrats.
Exactly! As I’ve stated before on FR, it’s a damned shame that the Obama experience is likely to ruin any chance for another black candidate - even an exceptional one - for a long time to come. I, for one, would vote for Allen West tomorrow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.