Posted on 09/10/2015 9:31:19 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
I’m not going to vet the CNN article. There was a claim made in it and I had some questions, that was all. Why should I do the work CNN should have done. They were pretty simple questions, really.
I’m not sure we are communicating.
Hope this drops him from the #2 spot.
Well, I’ve been known to be a dumbass, especially here. I’m just an idiot if you can believe what my wife always says. The truth is that I got one answer to my questions so I’ll be moving on off. Thanks, :0)
The interesting thing from several weeks ago when Carson said he worked with murdered babies (my words), he said it was not his concern where they came from, who paid for them, or how much. Mengele probably said the same.
Read the research paper.Yes, he did.
Its a simple yes. All people have to do is read the research paper. Forget Cnn.
Performing “research” on aborted babies?
If Carson did that, he is finished. Period.
Seriously, we JUST covered this, and defended him here against the MSM.
And for the record, I dont particularly care for him, he is not in the top 5, but I refuse to get stupid in defending my guy.
Carson claims that he did not do the comparison of the fetal tissue to the tumor tissue he provided for the study. All of the tissues used in the study were from the tissue bank on file at the hospital, he did not source fetal tissue, he sourced tumorous cell tissue that was compared to tissues of other sorts. By the by, if the fetal tissue samples were already there on file, is it still abhorrent to use them, or should they just be thrown out because we find that abhorrent?
Provide a proper link to the study and I’ll see for myself what is in it (if I haven’t already done so), and I will gladly state that Carson is being untruthful about his claims if that is the case.
Just because his name is on the study doesn’t mean that he did all of the work or necessarily condoned all of the methodology therein. It means he collaborated with others to reach a scientific conclusion.
Also, you do realize that abortion (the medical term) can refer to a naturally terminated pregnancy as well right?
Never mind, I found it myself.
Carson’s name appears exactly twice in the study - once as listed as the third author at in the heading (which can mean just about anything in 1992 med studies) and once in a citation. I see nowhere in the entire paper where it stated who did exactly what portion of the research.
Here’s the relevant section about the tissue samples used:
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Tissue
Four patients underwent surgical resection of CCs of the
third ventricle between 1980 and 1989 at The Johns Hopkins
Hospital. Resected tissue was fixed in 10% phosphate-buffered formalin and embedded in paraffin. In two of the four cases, normal choroid plexus tissue was attached to the CC. For purposes of comparison, normal choroid plexus and normal ependyma were obtained from tissue resected from patients with intractable epilepsy. Nasal mucosa was obtained from transsphenoidal hypophysectomies. Human choroid plexus, ependyma, and nasal mucosa were obtained from two fetuses aborted at the ninth and 17th week of gestation. Positive control tissues for GST-n, GST-p, and GFAP included human placenta, human liver, and normal human cerebral cortex, respectively. All tissues were sectioned at a thickness of 5 mp.
I’ll take Carson’s word over that of a blogger with an obvious bias / agenda.
Couple of articles he says he does not thing making laws is the way to go...so does he want abortion to be illegal, unclear?
How is his position any different than Donald Trump?
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.