Haleigh Poutre Second Opinion

It appears that Haleigh, the 11-year-old girl who was beaten nearly to death and then deprived of the right to fight for life by court-sanctioned removal of her feeding tube, may have a second chance. She will be reexamined to measure her current apparent responsiveness.

But be warned: Just because she may be conscious, that does not mean she won't be dehydrated to death. Conscious cognitively disabled patients are dehydrated all over the country. I will have more on this soon. But it is important to understand that removing tube-supplied food and water is not limited to those diagnosed as permanently unconscious.

Adult Stem Cells Treating Arthritis in Animals

This is potential good news for people with arthritis. In animal studies, muscle stem cells have been converted into cartilage and used to treat arthritis. As the person who sent this item to me put it only slightly tongue in cheek: "Perhaps the NYT should be notified. But then, they would 'neutrally' report a 'stem cell success', followed by a Bush-bashing statement about how 'stem cell research' is not being funded." Too true. Too true.

Doubts About Transhumanism Transcend Political Ideology

This article from The Guardian (a leftist UK newspaper) is an intelligent, if relatively shallow, discussion of transhumanism. The author discusses issues such as drugs to enhance cognition and what it might mean if parents gave such medicines to their children to aid in learning.

I don't have principled objections to such medicines, assuming safety and proper use; for example, to treat dementia. However, it would seem to be potential child abuse to give such strong medicines that could have unknown impact on the brain to children when we could not possibly know their potential long term side effects.

That issue aside, the biggest problem I have with transhumanism is its hubristic conceit that we have the wisdom to decide which human attributes are better than other human attributes, and that we should design in the former and eradicate the latter. More arrogantly, transhumanists believe we should "seize control of human evolution" and change our progeny at the genetic level so that the parental dictated "enhancements" pass down the generations. This is nothing less than the resurrection of a new eugenics and the emergence of scientism as a new religion, complete with an eschatology akin to a corporeal New Jerusalem.

I have written in some detail about this, and discussed the eugenics potential of transhumanism in Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World.

Free the Finned 50,000!

Animal rights activists are suspected of having "liberated" 50,000 farmed fish in the UK. What a pathetic joke. With all the human misery in the world, one would think these fanatics would have something more important to care about than fish being raised for release into a resevoir where many would eventually be caught and fried up for dinner. This is a small, but telling, illustration of how truly twisted many in the animal liberation movement have become.

More Cloning Gibberish in the Media

The Associated Press continues the junk reporting that is endemic in the mainstream media about human cloning. This time, in referring to a legal dispute in Missouri about the title of a planned initiative that would legalize human cloning for biomedical research, but which contends in its title that it actually bans human cloning, the AP reported:

"At issue is a research procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, in which the nucleus of an unfertilized human egg is replaced with the nucleus from a skin or nerve cell, then is stimulated to grow in a lab dish. The microscopic cluster of cells [more accurately, an embryo] is not implanted into a woman's uterus, but opponents say it still amounts to human cloning."

The highlighted sentence comes to you direct from pro-cloning spin central. It strongly implies that the act of cloning is implantation. But that is nonsensical. Cloning is a word, that in this context, refers to the creation of a new human organism through asexual means, e.g., somatic cell nuclear transfer. Implantation merely permits an existing embryo to be sustained further into development. Thus, that act cannot in any way be construed to be cloning.

But the political campaign to legalize human cloning in Missouri has redefined the term to win a political campaign and the compliant media merely parrots the pro-cloning party line. This is the same media, by the way, which wails and moans so loudly about the supposed destruction of science in America. Yet, in this story, it could care less about scientific accuracy in reporting.

(Full disclosure: I have informally and without charge consulted with Missourians Against Human Cloning and their attorneys in the litigation mentioned above.)

Researching for Dollars

More evidence that science is becoming a special interest: Governor Matt Blunt of Missouri wants to spend $300 million of taxpayer's money on biotechnology. But this is the same Governor Blunt who cut Medicaid so deeply that feeding tubes may not be covered in some cases. Priorities, Governor, Please!

Haleigh Poutre Moved to Rehab Center

Rather than being dehydrated to death, 11-year-old Haleigh Poutre is being moved to a rehabilitation center where she will receive care to maximize her capacities. Haleigh was beaten nearly to death by her mother and step father last September, suffering a catastrophic brain injury. The state guardian got the Massachusetts Supreme Court to order both her respirator and tube-supplied food and fluids terminated. But Haleigh unexpectedly breathed on her own and seemed to react. She now has a chance for life.

I will say it again: We need to reconsider the issue of food and fluids as just another medical treatment. Removing nutrition will result in death. As Haleigh proved, this is not always true of other forms of care. Therefore, we should be loath to remove medically appropriate "artificial nutrition and hydration," barring a written advanced directive or clear and convincing evidence that it would be in the patient's best medical interest. In other words, we should never decide that someone else's "quality of life" is such that we won't even permit them to have food and water.

Ralph Nader's Mother has Died

My good friend Ralph Nader is grieving the loss of his mother, Rose Nader, who died of congestive heart failure just days short of her 100th birthday.

Mrs. Nader was a pure delight. She always had smile on her face and a kind word on her lips. Her deep love for family was clearly evident to all who saw her interact with her children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. It was even more clear from the intensity of love they all gave back to her.

Mrs. Nader's life and accomplishments are worth pausing to remember. A high school teacher, she immigrated to the United States from Lebanon in 1925 after marrying Nathra Nader. The couple eventually settled in Winsted, Connecticut where they ran a successful restaurant and raised their four children: Shafeek, Claire, Laura, and Ralph.

The Naders instilled in their children a deep love of country and a sense of duty to participate in civic affairs. Shafeek Nader (who died in 1986) was the principal founder of Northwestern Connecticut Community College. Claire Nader is a Ph.D. In addition to being Mrs. Nader's primary care giver in recent years, she has been deeply involved in foundation and educational work, including heading the anti-human cloning organization, The Council for Responsible Genetics. Laura Nader is an internationally renowned anthropologist and professor at UC Berkeley. Ralph Nader founded the consumer movement and is a former presidential candidate.

Rose Nader lived a great life. The world is better for her having been among us. She epitomized the American Dream.

More on Weakening of Hippocratic Oath

This is the AMA's Declaration of Professional Responsibility. It too has removed crucial and specific patient protections and replaced them with platitudes and vague terms, the meaning of which can vary from physician to physcian. I plan to write a more extended piece on the undermining of the Oath and what it might portend. Stay tuned.

Media Bias? What Media Bias?

This on-line headline in The Telegraph for a woman who traveled to Switzerland to kill herself takes the cake. "Doctor Dies With Dignity." Swallowing poison pills is "dignity," meaning I guess, that dying naturally is something else. This is really an insidious message that undermines the value of human life.

Loma Linda University Also Has Weakened the Hippocratic Oath

I received a strong reaction to the post about Cornell Medical School weakening the Hippocratic Oath. Today, I heard from a LLU alumnus, concerned about the LLU Medical School's weakening of the Oath. It purports to be a Christian version (no swearing to Apollo, etc., which is appropriate). Unfortunately, the LLU Physician's Oath doesn't just contain pabulum, but could also turn out to be applied in an anti-patient manner in some cases:

This is the provision I have the most concern about: "Acting as a good steward of the resources of society and of the talents granted me, I will endeavor to reflect God's mercy and compassion by caring for the lonely, the poor, the suffering, and those who are dying."

This provision does away entirely with the doctor having his or her sole duty to the wellbeing and health of the patient. It seems to place a dual mandate on doctors, to husband resources first, as he or she cares for patients. Indeed, this statement would seem to justify health care rationing, thereby placing the swearing doctor into a potential conflict of interest with his/her most ill, elderly, or disabled (most expensive) patients.

This is not to say, of course, that it is wrong for physicians to be concerned about proper use of resources. They should be. But not at the expense of the proper care of the individual patient, to whom physician should owe the highest duty of loyalty as an individual. Dual mandates, if you will, are dangerous precisely because resource management could easily come to trump the patient. The clause would also justify imposition of Futile Care Theory, (aka, medical futility).

"I will maintain the utmost respect for human life. I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity. I will respect the rights and decision of my patients."

Well, this is a complete cop out. Why not explicitly promise not to kill patients, regardless of what the "laws of humanity" might state? In the Netherlands, the law will soon permit the active infanticide of disabled and terminally ill infants. Under this oath, a doctor could comply and not be in violation. After all, the Dutch doctors who commit infanticide state they do so because they respect the humanity of the patients they kill, who they claim, do not have "livable lives."

"I will lead my life and practice my art with purity, and honor; abstaining from immorality myself, I will not lead others into moral wrong doing."

This replaces the promise not to have sexual relations with patients. Since it comes from a presumably conservative Christian context, it may pass muster. But absent that, it is entirely vague. Why be coy?

I would be interested in other examples of modern medical oaths. This trend to do away with robust patient protection is alarming, to say the least.

It Looks Like Arnold Would Not Sign a Bill Legalizing Assisted Suicide in California

These quotes from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger about assisted suicide, according to Reuters:

"I personally think that this is a decision probably that should go to the people, like the death penalty, or other big issues. I don't think that we -- 120 legislators and I -- should make the decision.."

And:

"It's irrelevant what I think about this because I would never want to force my opinion on something like that."

California had an initiative to legalize euthanasia/assisted suicide in 1992. It began with 70% or so support in the polls and lost 54-46%.

Investigating Decision to Remove Feeding Tube

Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts intends to investigate the decision by the MA Supreme Court to permit the public guardian to remove the feeding tube from a 12-year-old abuse victim named Haleigh Poutre. She is now, apparently, reacting to her environment (not that I believe reactivity should be a requirement to receive food and water).

And let there be no complaints by those who believe cognitively disabled people should be dehydrated, about the "state" imposing its views on family. This was a decision pushed by the state through a public guardian, and approved by a court.

By all means: Investigate. And let us hope that the conclusion is reached that food and water should not be removed from people based solely on "quality" of life considerations in the wake of a catastrophic brain injury.

Combating Cloning Lies in Iowa

I don't claim a monopoly on wisdom about the issues about which I advocate (some would say, obsess). But I can't stand it when advocates just lie in support of their position. I have blogged on Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's false assertions that advances in cloning medical treatments require a change in Iowa's ban on all human cloning. But I thought it needed further analysis. Here it is, from today's Daily Standard.

Cornell Medical School Turns Hippocratic Oath to (Mostly) Pabulum

Cornell Medical School has rewritten the Hippocratic Oath. Gone is the proscription against abortion. No surprise there: Foreswearing that particular act was discarded from the Oath decades ago (although it is interesting how recent newspaper stories report that few doctors today are willing to perform abortions).

Now, Cornell has also erased the prohibition against assisted suicide ("I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.) Killing is not a medical act. Hippocrates understood that. Moreover, putting that power in the hand of a doctor is to give the doctor too much power, given the reliance patients place in their physicians. Hippocrates understood that, too.

The new oath doesn't even require doctors to foreswear sexual relations with patients, another form of potential abuse and imposition. Illustrating the difference between the rich patient-protecting orientation of the original and the mostly non-specific pablum of the Cornell version, compare Hippocrates with Cornell:

Hippocrates: "Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves." The clear call here is active, requiring doctors never to act in a way that would take advantage of patients, with one specific example, e.g. sexual relations.

Cornell: "That into whatever house I shall enter, it shall be for the good of the sick. [Forget for the moment that most doctors don't make house calls.] That I will maintain this sacred trust, holding myself far aloof from wrong, from corrupting, from the tempting of others to vice." This is a far more passive and vague approach. What does holding oneself "aloof from wrong" mean, anyway? Indeed, what does "tempting others to vice" mean in the context of today's anything goes society?

I do appreciate this addition to the Oath, however: "That I will not withdraw from my patients in their time of need." Never abandoning patients is an important part of being a professional.

Cornell's oath is a pale comparison to the great original. It contains few specifics. It is wide-open to any interpretation any doctor may wish to place upon it.

What a shame. The Oath is seen by patients as a significant protection of their interests. When I tell audiences that few physicians take the Oath anymore, but instead recite watery facimiles, primarily as a "rite of passage" (as described in the Cornell press office story), they always gasp in unhappy shock.

This latest rewrite continues this sad decline.

Assisted Suicide: Consider the Deadly Context

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Oregon, I have a piece in today's San Francisco Chronicle addressing the context in which assisted suicide would be conducted. Context can be everything, and in a regime of legalized assisted suicide, it would be deadly.

Truth in Advertising

The old photo posted on the site was about 6 years old, so I have updated it with one taken about 2 months ago. I am so middle aged! How did that happen?

Another Fraudulent Scientific Paper

This time, in the Lancet. It would seem that the current methods of peer review definitely need reviewing.

Comments about Gonzales v. Oregon from Dr. Eric Chevlen

My co-author of Power Over Pain wrote me an interesting note about the recent SCOTUS opinion on assisted suicide: "I began to read the Gonzales decision last night. I noticed something very interesting in the first few paragraphs of the majority opinion. It refers to Oregon as being "the first" state to legalize PAS. I would have written "the only" rather than "the first." The latter formulation carries a tacit expectation that more will follow...I think that that choice of words revealed the heart's desire in Justice Kennedy's heart. He also refers to the CSA controlled substances in question as being used, in lower doses, to treat pain. The fact is that nearly 100% of the people who die via PAS die from an overdose of barbiturates, not of opioids. Barbiturates are not analgesic. Thus is another myth perpetuated."

This would substantiate my suspicion that the decision was somewhat result-oriented. It also demonstrates that the courts (and media) are often wrong on basic facts.

Another Case of Bad Reportage

I am quoted in this Christian Science Monitor story about the Supreme Court assisted suicide decision. What irritates is that I pointed out this Pew Poll result to the reporter who interviewed me, noting that to support and opposition to assisted suicide was evenly divided 46-45%. (I blogged this poll a few days ago.) Instead of citing the poll question about assisted suicide, which would have been accurate, the reporters instead cited a different question about the "right to die," which was defined in the poll as the right to remove unwanted life support--a completely different issue. They noted 84% support.

But this question is irrelevant to the subject of the story, and seemed designed to rebut my assertion that the assisted suicide movement has been moribund. In other words, they cited the wrong poll number, making it appear that assisted suicide is far more popular than it actually is.

Clueless or biased? You decide.

It's Not Over 'Till It's Over

This story demonstrates why we should be very wary of removing feeding tubes. An eleven year-old little girl named Denise Monteiro was apparently beaten by her step-father. She was diagnosed as PVS. Doctors said she would never improve. The court ordered her removed from respirator and tube feeding. She breathed on her own and apparently is beginning to respond. New tests have been ordered.

Whether or not Denise improves, it seems to me she should not be removed from food and water, based solely on her cognitive capacity. Nutritional termination can only have one result: Death. As a consequence, I believe the decision to withdraw or withhold such care should be treated differently than other such decisions. Benefits of doubt should go to providing nutritional sustenance. Indeed, in my view, absent clear written instructions by the patient or the presence of other urgent medical issues, dehydration should never be done based on the decisions of others, particularly if they are steeped in quality of life considerations about the lack of a life worth living.

More Bad News From Korea: This Time About Umb. Cord Blood Experiment

The woman who was paralyzed for 19 years and had partial movement and feeling restored through umbilical cord blood stem cells has had a terrible setback. The story says it was an infection, but it also appears that she may be the victim of unethical human experimentation. The bottom line: Today she is worse off than she was before receiving the experimental treatments.

This brings up an important point I try to adhere to: I always point out that one apparent successful treatment does not a cure make. I have said this about Dennis Turner, who apparently received a substantial remission from Parkinson's with his own brain cells. I said so about this woman. These are early experiments. The promise seems real. But we must not hype adult stem cells in the way proponents of cloning and ESCR have too often hyped those approaches.

The First Calls Are Heard for Robert Klein's Head

Robert Klein, the primary mover behind Proposition 71, made a big mistake by becoming the head of the California Center for Regenerative Medicine. Now, he is in growing political trouble. The Center is beset with problems, including lawsuits and a distinct tendency toward arrogance and hubris. Now, the Center for Genetics and Society, a liberal group involved with biotechnology, is calling on Klein to step down. The Center is right. But he won't. And that will be to the benefit of those who oppose Proposition 71.

Gonzales v. Oregon: Much Less Than Meets the Eye

The media is touting Gonzales v Oregon as some huge victory for assisted suicide. It is a victory for that agenda, I admit, but not a big one. As I noted yesterday, the ruling was quite narrow and all of the puffing and spinning in the world won't change that. Besides, I don't see people marching in the street demanding that doctors be given the right to kill their suicidal patients. My prediction (and I am usually right in such matters, but not always), is that this opinion will only have a mild impact on the debate.

For my extended views, read my article on National Review Online.

The Constitutional Right to Clone

I have been warning anyone who will listen, that the intellectual foundation is being laid to create a constitutional right to conduct scientific research. A new book, Illegal Beings, is touted by its publisher as advocating something akin to that approach. Specifically, the book argues that there is a constitutional right to engage in reproductive cloning.

Science has entered upon a trajectory of anything goes. The primary question thus becomes: Does society have the will to properly regulate science? We had better. Otherwise, science will dominate society.

Gonzales v. Oregon a Very Narrow Ruling

I have now read the majority opinion. It wasn't judicial activism. Indeed, the Supreme Court's majority decision is not a broad endorsement of assisted suicide. In essence, the Court ruled that the Attorney General exceeded his authority in interpreting the Controlled Substances Act. Primarily, the AG is criticized for seeking no outside authorities for his conclusion. I think that is a strong criticism of the Ashcroft approach. I have always stated that the better way would have been to do a formal Notice of Rulemaking and get a wide array of opinions. The Court also seemed to indicate that an interpretation of a purported medical use of controlled substance should come from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, rather than the AG.

The Court also seemed to rule that the Congress would be authorized to create uniform national standards for the medical use of controlled substances. That has been tried with the Pain Relief Promotion Act a few years ago, which failed to surmount a senate filibuster.

The forces supporting assisted suicide will spin this as the Court's imprimatur on doctors hastening death. It is no such thing. It is a narrowly crafted law steeped in the arcania of administrative law.

On Mike Gallagher Show Tomorrow

I usually don't post my media appearances, as many are regional and I don't want to clutter up the site with such notices. But for anyone who might be interested, I will be on the nationally syndicated Mike Gallagher Show tomorrow, at about 8 WST.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Oregon

The vote was 6-3. I haven't read the decision, but it appears from this early news report, that the Court has ruled that the Feds have no right to implement its own public policy against prescribing controlled substances to kill people if those who want to die are very sick. How ironic. The Feds can go after medical marijuana users, when that drug is used to palliate suffering. But it can't go after doctors who prescribe controlled substances to intentionally kill. Here is a link to the majority opinion. Here is a link to Scalia's dissent. And Thomas's dissent.

This is just another way of saying that human life doesn't matter simply because it is human, but that it matters only when the life in question passes quality of life muster. Thus, under this line of thinking, if a state legalized, say, the prescription of controlled substances for suicide based on a suicidal woman's children dying, the feds would not have to go along?

Scalia, in dissent, points out a truth that intentionally causing death is not a medical act.

But don't confuse the majority opinion with truth. What is really happening is the Court, as it often does in cultural issues, is reflecting elite liberal views, and if nothing else, the drive to legalize assisted suicide is an elite liberal political movement.

Media Shore Up Cloning by Underreporting Hwang

I have continued to pay attention to how the media has reported the Hwang fraud, in comparision to how his supposed "breakthrough" was covered, not to mention other important stories. Unsurprisingly, as I predicted when the story first came to light, the media have reported as little as they can get away with, in as low key a fashion. The coverage by Newsweek and Time are the two examples I offer in this piece in today's NRO.

Raelians Offer Hwang a Job

And this news article takes it--and them--seriously.

Media Goes in Tank For Vilsack

As I suspected, the media is just swallowing the tripe served up by Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack about new medical treatments from nuclear transfer requiring a change in the Iowa law. THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW TREATMENTS. THERE HAVE NEVER EVEN BEEN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS TAKEN FROM CLONED EMBRYOS!

You'd think the media would ask the governor to explain. But that would require real journalism instead of merely reporting off of press releases. Example: Des Moines Register. Ditto the Associated Press.

Vilsack: A Stupid Politician? Or Just Disingenuous?

Tom Vilsack, the Governor of Iowa, wants to overturn the ban on human cloning in that state. To justify the change, he claims there have been many medical advances created using cloning (nuclear transfer), which, of course, is just, plain baloney. Here's the money quote from his state of the state speech:

"A strong community embraces change. New discoveries require new approaches. One area that calls for a new approach is the area of medical research. Several years ago we limited medical research involving nuclear cell transplants at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. At the time we never dreamt that new treatments dependent upon such transplants would be developed so quickly. Well, they have been, and as a result we should revisit our ban on nuclear cell transplants. We should remove the restrictions and allow life saving treatments to be administered to Iowans here in Iowa rather than forcing them to leave our state. A strong community would never do otherwise." (My emphasis.)

There have been no "new treatments" developed with nuclear transfer. None. We now know post Hwang that there haven't even been any cloned embryonic stem cell lines created. Vilsack is either woefully ignorant or utterly disingenuous.

Judging the Secular Shamans

David Oderberg is a friend of mine from the UK and is a philosophy professor at Reading University. In this splendid column published in the San Francisco Chronicle, Oderberg takes on the worrisome trend in which many in society treat scientists as if they were priests. One cause of this phenomenon, as I have written, is that for some, science is morphing into scientism. In other words, science is seen as an ends rather than a means, a belief system rather than a technique for obtaining knowledge. Some people who have rejected religion (and some who haven't)look now to science for Truth (with a capital T), which science is incapable of providing.

Referring to the fraud that has recently come to light, Oderberg writes, "It's all very well having secular shamans, but when they're caught cooking the holy books once too often, the faithful start to get worried."

Oderberg also calls for a "separation from science and state."

"It may be inviting poison e-mails to say it, but I venture to suggest that contemporary science is now so corrupted by the lust for loot and glory that nothing less than root-and-branch reform can save it. For a start, although I distance myself wholly from his anti-rationalism and methodological anarchy, I share the late philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend's demand for a separation of science and state, or at the very least a radical curtailment of public financial sponsorship of scientific research. How could the millions thrown at scientists be anything other than a veritable inducement to misconduct? When you combine it with the innumerable honors and awards that await the next would-be secular savior of humanity, one wonders that fraud is not even more common than it appears to be."

I don't necessarily agree with removing public funding from science. (I do think that when public funding leads to remunerative patents and products, the public should receive some sort of return for their investment.) But, Oderberg is onto something important. Look around at the embryonic stem cell field. Can there be any doubting that the funding issue has sparked an hysteria among the science community and chamber of commerce type advocates?

He closes with a well-deserved slam against the California Center for Regenerative Medicine, the campaign for which (Proposition 71) had its own problems with integrity:

"It would be an act of utter folly and of contempt for honesty and integrity were Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's beloved California Institute for Regenerative Medicine now to go ahead. Were a bishop to be caught doctoring the Gospels, I doubt any scientists would be rushing to approve the Church's latest request for help to build a new cathedral. Why it should be any different for the secular bishops of science is difficult to discern."

Check Oderberg out. His opinion is well worth pondering.

Time for a Government Hearing on Peer Review?

Here is a story about another fraudulent paper published in a prestigious peer reviewed journal, this time involving cancer research. Whatever side one might be on regarding cloning and ESCR, we all have a stake in scientific integrity. We have always relied on the journals to self police. But with fraud seemingly on the increase, and with government policy often relying on peer reviewed journal articles as intellectual foundations, perhaps the time has come to investigate the peer review system to determine; a) its reliability; and, b), whether the system needs reform.

I am not advocating that laws be passed imposing that journal articles meet government mandated criteria. But I do believe we need to get to the bottom of what may be a fundamentally flawed system.

What Is It About Cloning?

So now the human cloners in the UK have had a falling out. One researcher has accused his former partner of trying to steal the credit, or some such thing, and taken a job in Spain. He also accused the team of publishing their cloning findings before full peer review. The Newcastle cloning program is on hold as a new team is assembled. Such disorder in the scientific ranks!

It Isn't Just Koreans Who are Blinded to the "Truth" About Cloning

This Washington Post story summarizes the near hysteria in South Korea over Hwang and his fraud. Even in the face of facts, many of the people just refused to believe the truth that he is a charlatan and had not derived ES cells from cloned embryos.

But we also see that here. Despite a lack of scientific verification, scientists and media still assert unequivocally that cloning and ESCR are the "best hope" for regenerative medicine. The treasure trove of peer reviewed articles demonstrating the tremendous optimism we should have about adult/UCB stem cells do not penetrate outside the media screen.

In California, where trauma centers and emergency rooms are shutting down, voters refused a very minor tax on phone bills to keep them open. At the same time they agreed to borrow $7 billion (including interest) to chase the ESCR/cloning rainbow, that even if it works--a big if--is decades away. Today, states around the nation are in an Oklahoma Land Race frenzy to throw money at cloning and ESCR, even though the private sector is generally sitting on its collective wallet in this area of research.

Cloning and ESCR are being sold by Big Biotech and their media and university allies as a veritable fountain of youth. In this hyper-emotional atmosphere, reason and rationality are in short supply.

ES cells Morphed into Islet Cells Apparently Produce Little Insulin

FYI: This has been shown in other studies.

Insulin Secreted by Embryonic Stem Cells Is Derived From External
Sources, Concludes a Study in Cloning and Stem Cells

NEW ROCHELLE, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan 10, 2006 - Cultured
embryonic stem cells induced to form insulin-producing Islet-like
cell clusters--intended to replace the insulin production lost in
diabetes--do not produce detectable amounts of new insulin,
according to a report in the December 2005 (Volume 7, Number 4)
issue of Cloning and Stem Cells, a peer-reviewed journal published
by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. The paper is available free online.

Nothing Matters but the Cloning

Hwang is a fraud and a charlatan. Yet, he apparently was able to create cloned human embryos, although after using more than 2000 eggs, he was not able to derive one cloned ES cell line. He lied. He exploited women on his own research team for their eggs. He blamed others for his fraud. He sure seems to have taken money for cloning research under false pretenses. He caused not one, but two, fraudulent papers to be published in Science, not only causing great damage to that journal but calling into question the adequacy of peer review as currently practiced.

But, apparently none of that matters. According to a UK cloning research, Hwang should be given a "second chance." Nothing should get in the way of human cloning.

Ethics? For some it has little meaning at all.

Hwang Should Become the Forgotten Man: Perhaps in Jail

Now Hwang is blaming his junior researchers for the fraud he committed on the world. What a total creep. The time has come for the media to quit reporting what he has to say, since very little of it is truthful. Let him go play with Snuppy the cloned dog until the prosecutors come to his house with an arrest warrant for defrauding the Korean government and any private investors who relied on his lies when investing in his human cloning research.

Now, Cloning Was Never A "Realistic" Therapy?

The international media continues its effort to minimize the Hwang scandal. Whereas before, we were told therapeutic cloning was going to make embryonic stem cell therapy (the most "promising" stem cell form, they tell us in every story despite the utter lack of scientific proof) doable because it would prevent immune rejection: We are now being told in several stories that it was never a realistic likelihood to be used widely in the clinical settings. Yet, when opponents used to say the same thing, we were branded anti-science and stealers of hope.

Also notice that there have been almost no comments in Hwang stories from opponents of cloning research. The purpose of this, it seems to me, is to keep the parameters of the story relatively narrow and permit continuing boosterism of ES cell research as a central focus of attention in the public's mind despite the continuing cascade of adult/umbilical cord blood stem cell research successes.

Some Wisdom About Hwang

James Kelly is a paralyzed American who is deeply involved in the therapeutic cloning debate, as he fervently wants to walk again. For years now, he has researched journal articles about stem cell research, corresponded with the scientists engaged in it, and become something of a lay expert in the entire field. He began a supporter of embryonic stem cell research. But he changed his mind. In his view, every dime that is poured into ESCR and cloning, is money unavailable for the areas where, based on his concentrated study, he sees his greatest hope for regaining mobility.

He knows of what he writes. This column, published in the Seoul Times makes some important points that the American MSM keep (willfully?) ignoring: Cloning is almost certainly not the best hope for cures for spinal cord injury in the soonest period of time. Well worth your time reading if you are interested in this issue.

The Hwang Media Template

It is amazing how similar every story I have read on the Hwang fraud follows the same template, including this AP report. Ditto this New York Times story that ran on the front page below the fold.

1) Report the facts that Hwang is a fraud, but don't accurately describe the process of cloning;

2) Have scientists assure that the field will go forward, perhaps with even more vigor.

3) Describe the dashed hopes of people with degenerative conditions, but do not breathe a word about the adult stem cell research that offers at least as much, if not more, hope to these people--and sooner.

The AP story has an ironic twist. It quotes Australian stem cell researcher Alan Trounson as wondering how a scientist could lie. But as described in detail in Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World, he was forced to apologize himself after testifying before a parliamentary committee that embryonic stem cells had helped mice to walk, when the experiment in question hadn't involved ES cells.

Still no meaningful exploration of the history of hype surrounding cloning and ES cell research, whether the peer review system needs reform, the politicization of science, etc.

Thank goodness we have alternative media.

Hwang Used More Than 2000 Human Eggs!

This is incredible. Not only was the 2004 cloning study faked, but from November of 2002 to November of 2005, Hwang used a total of 2061 eggs from 129 females, and obtained zero cloned embryos. And high school girls were volunteering to donate after he was exposed as a fraud, a charlatan, and probably a criminal since he appears to have gained millions of dollars in research funding based on false research results.

The Hwang fraud illustrates the problems with human cloning in a nutshell: The hype, the wild promises, the exploitation of women for their eggs, the eclipsing of more promising research involving adult or umbilical cord stem cells, the lack of skepticism by the mainstream media, the politicization of science--it is all there.

This is the link to the official report of the Hwang investigation.

Hwang Did Not Clone Embryos in 2004

So, Hwang has apparently never cloned any human embryos nor created cloned embryonic stem cells. But he did clone Snuppy the dog.

The stories about this fiasco are almost all being written as if it were a crushing blow for people with degenerative diseases. I can understand their disappointment, but it could be substantially mitigated if the media would report on the adult stem cell successes that are already beginning to do what cloning only hoped to begin doing in ten or twenty years. Their ongoing refusal to do so is a terrible indictment of the state of contemporary journalism.

Sharon and Quality of Medical Care for Everyone Else

I see that Ariel Sharon might be coming out of his coma after several surgeries to treat a series of strokes. Well, good for him. What strikes me about this is that I recall seeing on several news channels that had he not been the prime minister, doctors would have declared him dead. And they certainly wouldn't have performed the surgeries that may have saved his life.

First, let me say that the news in a 24-hour cycle is notoriously inaccurate. It wasn't the doctor making these statments but a reporter, who could have garbled the whole thing up. And I know that world leaders will get a distinctly different standard of care than the rest of the people. That may be unjust but it is a reality. But what concerns me is that if the reporter had it right, the Israeli doctor was basically saying that he would have let a regular person with a stroke like Sharon's die, rather than try to save him. If more information about this comes out, it will be worth looking into.

Hwang Patent Theft

Gerald Schatten, the University of Pittsburgh researcher who started Woo-suk Hwang's downfall by accusing him of buying women's eggs and lying about it, is now being accused in turn by Korean media of trying to steal Hwang's cloning technique by patenting it here in the United States at a time that he and his now disgraced Korean former partner were still colleagues.

So, the Koreans are mad that Schatten tried to claim ownership of a now discredited technique that apparently didn't work well enough to derive stem cells lines, if it worked at all. And Schatten helped bring down his former colleague after he apparently double-crossed him while the two were still "friends."

Whew. We're not in Kansas anymore, Todo.

LA Times Fails to Offer Hope to Paralyzed Boy After Hwang's False Promise

This Los Angeles Times Story about Woo-suk Hwang promising a 12-year old paralyzed boy that he would walk again even though he knew his research was fraudulent, tells us all we need to know about the world's most infamous scientist. What a creep.

This was a good story worth recounting. But it is maddening that the Times failed to also report that there is growing hope for such boys with umbilical cord blood stem cells and olfactory stem cells-- both of which have been reported to restore some feeling and mobility to spinal cord injury patients. (The umbilical cord blood success has been reported in a peer reviewed journal. Olfactory successes in mice have also been written up, which is far more than we can say about ES cells. Dr. Carlos Lima has helped about three dozen patients with olfactory tissues. I am told this research will be reported this year.)

Is it too much for the mainstream media to report such facts when relevant, as it clearly was to this story? Apparently it is. But if it were embryonic stem cell