Dead Baby Parts Have NEVER Cured Disease: Congress

While Planned Parenthood insists that their baby-killing business furthers medical science, the Congressional Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has found no such benefits.

“Fetal tissue has been used in biomedical research for over 90 years. In this time, not a single medical cure has resulted from this research.”
-- Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

UPDATE 8/27/16: Congressional Panel Finds Criminality — High Schoolers Dissected Aborted Baby Brains

For background, read Planned Parenthood Sells Aborted Baby Parts for Research

Also read Stem Cell Breakthrough: Embryos Needn't Be Killed

-- From "Congressional Report: ‘Fetal Tissue Has Not Been Directly Linked to a Single Medical Cure’" by Jeannette Richard, CNSNews.com 7/19/16

“While it is commonly claimed that fetal tissue was used to produce the polio vaccine, this is largely false. The polio vaccine was developed by Jonas Salk in 1955 using a monkey cell line, and is still produced using monkey cells.

“Some might object that while fetal tissue research has not directly resulted in medical cures, it has helped advance the overall body of scientific knowledge and thereby assisted in producing cures. It is impossible to determine whether this claim is true, and if so to what extent. Yet the fact is that no one can point to a single medical advancement that critically depended on the use of fetal tissue.”

“In fact, vaccines against eight diseases (Rabies, Diphtheria, Typhoid, Cholera, Plague, Tetanus, Pertussis and Bacille-Calmette-Guerin disease) were all developed in the 1800s and early 1900s, well before the first use of fetal tissue in research,” according to the report.

The panel examined the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) list of approved vaccines which prevent 26 different diseases, and found only three (Varicella, Hepatitis A, and Zoster) for which vaccines were developed using fetal tissue. However, these vaccines rely on fetal cell lines only for “economic, not scientific reasons,” the panel reported.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "How fetal tissue is used in medical research" by The Week Staff 10/24/15

How do scientists use fetal tissue?

It's used to find potential treatments for a wide range of common diseases and afflictions, including cancer, diabetes, birth defects, HIV, multiple sclerosis, ALS, and Alzheimer's. Unlike adult tissue cells, fetal tissue cells can be manipulated into almost any kind of tissue, are less likely to be rejected by a host, and have the capacity to replicate rapidly — making them perfect for analysis into how diseases work. They are also being tried as actual treatments for Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes, with researchers injecting fetal cells directly into organs in hopes of regenerating them. Fetal tissue was also a vital component in the development of vaccines for polio, chicken pox, rubella, and shingles. The polio vaccine alone saves 550,000 lives a year. Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, says fetal tissue research has benefited "virtually every person in this country."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The Transfer of Fetal Tissue and Related Matters" a report to Select Investigative Panel of the U. S. House of Representatives 7/14/16

Fetal Cell Research is Outdated Technology - Beginning in the 1930s, viruses were propagated using fetal tissue and some laboratories continued to this method until the 1970s. During that time, scientists did not yet know how to work with more mature human cells, and fetal tissue was easier to grow in the laboratory. Science has now advanced beyond these earlier approaches. In short, human fetal tissue is outdated technology that is not necessary for modern vaccine research. For example, current vaccine research for HIV/AIDS, Cancer, Malaria and Ebola does not rely on fetal tissue.

Fetal Tissue is not Mainstream Science - In 2014, the most recent year for which data is available,200 NIH funded a total of 76,081 research grants, only 160 of which (less than 1%) involved the use of human fetal tissue. In contrast, in the same year, NIH funded 1,136 grants using adult stem cells. The fact that fetal research is such a tiny fraction of all scientific research calls into serious question the claim that fetal research is vital and that science will not advance without it. In reality, use of human fetal tissue is increasingly an outdated and unnecessary scientific technology, used only by a handful of scientists.

To read the entire report above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Mutant Human-pigs Created for Organs in U.S.

Unborn Must Die so Others Can Live, Scientists Say

An international group of scientists, ethicists and policy experts claim it is "essential" that experimentation on human beings, using "genetic modified (GM) embryos," be legalized to cure diseases and improve IVF and human reproduction.  However, critics say that too little is understood about the process, and furthermore, it will eventually lead to "designer babies."

“Restricting research because of concerns that reproductive application is premature and unsafe will ensure that it remains forever premature and risky, for want of better knowledge.”
-- Sarah Chan, Hinxton Group Steering Committee, University of Edinburgh

For background, read Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Planned Parenthood Sells Aborted Baby Parts for Research

Harvesting Blood of Children for Fountain of Youth

Type 1 Diabetics' Hope Rests in Dead Human Embryos

'Humanized Mice' Created via Abortion: Gay Agenda

-- From "Genetic Modification of Human Embryos of 'Tremendous Value,' Say Scientists" by Conor Gaffey, Newsweek 9/10/15

The Hinxton Group, which describes itself as an international consortium on stem cells and bioethics, also said in a statement released on Wednesday that the engineering of GM babies—a concept commonly called designer babies—could be "morally acceptable" in the future, although it said it was not in favour of the procedure at present.

Modern gene-editing tools such as CRISPR/Cas9—a technique which can reportedly edit the genomic sequence in a highly targeted way—are "not only very precise, but also easy, inexpensive, and, critically, very efficient," the group said.

Earlier this year, Chinese scientists reportedly edited the genomes of human embryos in what was described as "a world first" by the journal Nature.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Call for research into genetically modified human embryos" by Newsmedia posted at Dispatch Times 9/10/15

However, Debra Mathews, assistant director of science programs at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and a member of the Hinxton Group, said, in the statement, that despite “controversy and deep moral disagreement” over the issue, the solution was “not to stop all discussion, debate and research, but rather to engage with the public, policymakers and the broader scientific community”.

A group of experts on Wednesday said that human embryo genetic modification should be allowed, as it will help in understanding early embryos’ biology. However they said they would not support the birth of genetically modified human babies, for the time being.

Professor Emmanuelle Charpentier is of opinion that the human germline should not be manipulated just with the objective of changing some of the genetic traits.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "GM embryos 'essential', says report" by James Gallagher, Health editor, BBC News 9/10/15

A meeting of the influential Hinxton Group, in Manchester, acknowledged that the rate of progress meant there was a "pressure to make decisions" and argued embryo editing should be allowed.

In a statement, it said: "We believe that while this technology has tremendous value to basic research and enormous potential... it is not sufficiently developed to consider human genome editing for clinical reproductive purposes at this time."

This is in stark contrast to the US National Institutes of Health, which has already refused to fund any gene editing of embryos.

Its director, Dr Francis Collins, who was also a key player in the Human Genome Project, said: "The concept of altering the human germline [inherited DNA] in embryos for clinical purposes has been debated over many years from many different perspectives, and has been viewed almost universally as a line that should not be crossed."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Research on gene editing in embryos is justified, group says" by Gretchen Vogel, Science Magazine (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 9/10/15

At a meeting on 3 and 4 September, 22 Hinxton Group members from Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, Germany, Mexico, Israel, and the Netherlands met to discuss the scientific and ethical issues surrounding the use of gene-editing techniques in human cells, especially embryos, stem cells, and cells that can give rise to sperm or eggs. They concluded in a consensus statement released today that any use of the technologies for reproduction is premature. But scientists will need to test them on human embryos in the lab to find out whether the techniques ever could be safe and effective enough to use, they say. Lab-based experiments can also help answer important questions about early human development and the development of sperm and eggs cells, says Robin Lovell-Badge, a developmental biologist at the Francis Crick Institute in London and a member of the Hinxton Group steering committee.

The statement urges scientists who want to use genome editing in human embryos to “consider carefully the category of embryo used.” Using embryos left over from in vitro fertilization treatments might not provide the best data, the statement says, since those embryos already contain multiple cells. The editing techniques would likely affect each cell differently, so that the resulting embryo would be a mosaic of cells with different genetic alterations. The statement concludes that certain experiments will require researchers to create new embryos specifically for research, a practice that is controversial and prohibited in some countries.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scientists push for serious debates over 'essential' human embryo testing" posted at Irish Examiner 9/10/15

Genetic modification of human embryos has officially been deemed as “essential” and should be allowed so scientists can better understand basic biology, according to a report.

However, scientists can’t get too excited yet as the group added that the technology is not yet advanced enough to be used in the reproduction process, and there is still the ongoing issue that some find the concept of genetically modified babies “morally troubling”.

But the group warns it would be “dangerous” to prevent research in the area, and member and academic Sarah Chan said: “Genome editing technologies hold huge potential for advancing basic research and improving human health. The prospect that genome editing may one day be used to create genetically modified humans should not in itself be cause for concern, particularly where what is at stake is curing or preventing serious disease.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Donor Eggs & IVF 'Creates' Life, but Causes More Death as Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm, whereas Human Eggs are Best When Fresh, NOT Frozen - DAH!

And read Toddler to 'Own' 11 Future Children: An IVF Wonder

'Humanized Mice' Created via Abortion: Gay Agenda

President Obama's National Institutes of Health (NIH) have documented their construction of hybrid beings they call “humanized mice” using harvested livers and thymuses from babies killed by abortionists.  The end goal is to eliminate the health risks associated with male homosexual behavior. (Studies show that anal sex is the main cause of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.)

“We also use ‘humanized’ mice, mice that contain human immune systems, as a model to study immune responses to HIV infection and to help us determine the basic mechanisms of vaccine protection against acute and chronic retroviral infections. The goal of these studies is to develop new ideas for HIV vaccines and therapies.”
-- Laboratory of Persistent Viral Diseases, Rocky Mountain Laboratories, NIAID, NIH

For background, read Planned Parenthood Caught Selling Aborted Babies on Video while the Media, Obama and Democrats Conspire With Abortionists to Counter Videos

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Implanting Harvested Aborted Organs in Animals for Human Transplant

Federal Government Says HIV/AIDS is Mostly a Gay Disease

Anal Sex Pill Pushed in Gay Men Study to Stop HIV

Carefree Sex NOT Possible: Federal CDC Admits Failure

Also read Physicians Force New York Times to Admit 22-week Fetus is a Baby!

-- From "U.S. Government Made ‘Humanized’ Mice With Tissue from Babies 17- to 22-Weeks Gestational Age" by Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com 8/5/15

This story starts on April 24, 2014, when the Journal of Immunological Methods published an article with a technically worded title. It was: “Production of bone marrow, liver, thymus (BLT) humanized mice on the C57BL/6 Rag2-/-?c-/-CD47-/- background.”

The “humanized” rodent that these government researchers describe making is called the TKO-BLT mouse—with TKO standing for triple knockout (representing changes in the mouse’s system) and BLT standing for bone marrow, liver and thymus.

They indicated that the human tissue donors [a.k.a BABIES!] were at 17 to 22 weeks gestational age and that their tissue was provided to the researchers by Advanced Bioscience Resources, which is a non-profit organization located in Alameda, Calif.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read HIV Cure: False Hope to Victims, Money to Others

Type 1 Diabetics' Hope Rests in Dead Human Embryos

Once again, media propaganda is hyping a medical miracle cure resulting from embryonic stem cell research — this time it's type 1 diabetes.  However, as usual, a close study of the announced breakthrough reveals that it's adult stem cells (which don't requiring killing anyone), that may lead to the cure, rather than stem cells derived from the destruction of embryos.

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Human Embryos Cloned, Killed to Harvest Stem Cells

Stem Cell Science Advances WithOUT Killing Embryos

Court OKs Obama Killing Embryos with Tax Dollars

Harvesting Blood of Children for Fountain of Youth



-- From "Stem Cell Success Raises Hopes of Type 1 Diabetes Cure" by Alan Mozes, HealthDay Reporter 10/9/14

In what may be a step toward a cure for type 1 diabetes, researchers say they've developed a large-scale method for turning human embryonic stem cells into fully functioning beta cells capable of producing insulin.

[Dr. Douglas] Melton, co-director of the Stem Cell Institute at Harvard [University], described his work as a "personal quest," given that he has two children with type 1 diabetes.

Stem cells are essentially undifferentiated cells that can be induced into becoming specialized cells that are tissue- or organ-specific, according to the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

In some cases, such cells are sourced from embryonic tissue. Alternatively, it's possible to derive stem cells from prespecialized adult cells that are then reprogrammed to morph into an undifferentiated state. These are called induced pluripotent stem cells [hiPSC].

Because the current effort was launched before the innovation of induced pluripotent stem cells [hiPSC], Melton said his team conducted its work using embryonic stem cells. Nevertheless, he said the newfound ability to generate large supplies of beta cells will work using either type.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Stem cell research offers hope on type 1 diabetes" by Carolyn Y. Johnson, Boston Globe Staff 10/9/14

In a paper published in the journal Cell on Thursday, [Melton] reported a step-by-step procedure that starts with stem cells and results in hundreds of millions of the precious pancreatic cells that secrete the hormone insulin, keeping blood sugar levels in balance. It is the lack of insulin produced by those cells, called beta cells, that lies at the root of type 1 diabetes.

Melton cautions that the work is still years from being tested in patients and many challenges, scientific and practical, remain. . . .

“We’re tired of curing mice,” Melton said in an interview. “Most patients are sick of hearing that something’s just around the corner; I’m sick of thinking things are just around the corner. But I do believe in the big picture.”

Earlier this year, [Dieter Egli, assistant professor in the pediatrics department at Columbia University Medical Center] was able to create embryonic stem cells from a person with type 1 diabetes, through a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer. He now plans to use Melton’s procedure to create the beta cells that are affected by the disease.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Giant leap against diabetes" by B. D. Colen, Harvard Gazette Staff Writer 10/9/14

With human embryonic stem cells as a starting point, the scientists were for the first time able to produce, in the kind of massive quantities needed for cell transplantation and pharmaceutical purposes, human insulin-producing beta cells equivalent in most every way to normally functioning beta cells.

Richard A. Insel, chief scientific officer at JDRF (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation), which helps fund Melton’s work, said “JDRF is thrilled with this advancement toward large-scale production of mature, functional human beta cells by Dr. Melton and his team. . . .”

Eliot Brenner, program director of the Helmsley Charitable Trust’s type 1 diabetes program, said, “The trust is pleased to have supported Dr. Melton and his team in this breakthrough. . . .”

In addition to the institutions and individual cited above, the work was funded by the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, the National Institutes of Health, and the JPB Foundation.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "More Embryonic Stem Cell Hype, Less Reality and Ethics" by Dr. David Prentice, National Right to Life News Today 10/9/14

A paper from the lab of Dr. Doug Melton, published in the journal Cell, in fact, shows only an incremental improvement in deriving functional beta cells–the insulin secreting cells found in the pancreas.

Melton’s lab generated millions of insulin-secreting cells from human embryonic stem cells (hESC, which require the destruction of a young human being) and from human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSC, the stem cells created from normal skin cells, without using embryos).

The authors tested batches of what it called SC-ß cells made from hESC as well as from hiPSC.  The results were equivalent no matter the starting cell type.  So for any future production of SC-ß cells, the authors have shown that no embryonic stem cells are necessary.

This is essential to reiterate. The paper itself makes the case that embryonic stem cells are not needed for even this incremental advance or for any subsequent work. However, as is always the case when embryonic stem cells are involved, the hype drowns out the more complex truth.

In the past, the obsession with human embryonic stem cells has led to some questionable claims about their abilities to treat diabetes.  Their ability to make authentic insulin, in quantities that would be useful, were first trumpeted and then shown to be incorrect and even fake.  In fact, teratoma formation (tumors) was often the result or even the inducer of insulin secretion from ESC. Artifact = not real, fake

The obsession with ESC continues to make headlines, but that does not help patients. . . .

To read the entire technical explanation in the article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read President Obama Wins Ruling: Embryos WILL be Destroyed

And read Hollywood Actor Recants Embryonic Stem Cells for Parkinson's Cure

Obese Lesbians Hold Attraction of Obama Admin.

So far, President Obama has spent over $3 million of taxpayer funds trying to figure out why the vast majority of lesbians are extremely overweight, and the spending will continue to the end of the Obama presidency to determine if lesbians struggle with weight gain, or prefer it.

“It's not true that all butch women are fat and ugly. Although the butch women who I personally am most attracted to are the fat and ugly ones.”
-- Cassandra Urquhart, lesbian

UPDATE 2/8/15: President Obama Floods Gay Agenda with Taxpayers' Money

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

President Obama: Increase Homosexual Program Spending

President Obama Shifts Defense Funds to Homosexuals

President Obama Grants 'Reparations' to Homosexuals via Military

President Obama Tells Generals: Back My Gay Military, or Resign

President Obama Shifts VA Money to Homosexuals, Breaking Law

President Obama Funds Homosexualists' School Training

University Gay Agenda Wastes Money, Says Congressman

And read how ObamaCare covers Gay Agenda elective treatment as well as health issues unique to homosexuals.

In addition, read President Obama Focuses Government on the One Percenters of America -- the Homosexuals

-- From "Why the federal government spent $3 million to study lesbian obesity" by Josh Hicks, Washington Post 9/2/14

The ongoing National Institutes of Health study, now in its fourth year and scheduled to last another two, has cost about $3 million to date, the Washington Free Beacon revealed in a recent article.

A summary of the research project said that nearly three-quarters of lesbians are overweight or obese. The rate is 25 percent higher than heterosexual females and almost “double the obesity risk of gay men,” the summary said.

Researchers have also determined that gay and bisexual males had a “greater desire for toned muscles” than straight men. This supposedly helps explain why gay men are generally more fit than lesbians.

By now, you’re probably wondering why the government is funding a study that, so far, has largely reinforced stereotypes of gays and lesbians. The project summary says that “racial and socioeconomic disparities are receiving increasing attention” and lesbian obesity is “of high public-health significance.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Feds Still Studying Why Lesbians Are Obese" by Elizabeth Harrington, Washington Free Beacon 8/29/14

In just two years the project’s budget has nearly doubled, growing from $1.5 million to nearly $3 million today, despite fears that sequestration could jeopardize the project and other NIH funding.

The study, which is being led by S. Bryn Austin, an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, operates on the premise that there is a “striking interplay of gender and sexual orientation in obesity disparities.”

The project now claims that lesbians have lower “athletic-self esteem” that may lead to higher rates of obesity. Another research paper found that lesbians are more likely to see themselves at a healthy weight, even though they are not.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Yes, Some Lesbians and Bi Women Really Do Prefer Butches" by Vanessa Vitiello Urquhart, Slate 8/11/14

. . . Do lesbians really find butch women attractive? As a butch woman, it is impossible to ignore the implication that, for certain people, women like me are the least attractive creatures on the planet. Umbrage-taking aside, however, the question raises the issue of whose standards of beauty apply in a queer female context. And sorry, hetero guys, but they're not yours.

. . . I myself have felt a strong attraction to some of my fellow butch dykes.

The reason it seems so unlikely that many lesbian and bi women find butches attractive is that the commonly understood meaning of “attractive” is nearly synonymous with “gender-conforming,” especially for women. . . . Queer culture has always recognized, and celebrated, people who deviate from the gender norms imposed in the dominant heterosexual culture.

To read the entire opinion above, CLICK HERE.

Also read ObamaNation: Homosexualists Declare Victory in 'Pride Parades'

In addition, read about President Obama's latest unilateral Gay Agenda action, which is considered insufficient by homosexualists.

Court OKs Obama Killing Embryos with Tax Dollars

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the dismissal of a challenge to President Obama's adamant directive to his National Institutes of Health to use human embryos for research. The challengers claimed the president violated the 1996 Dickey-Wicker law prohibiting use of tax dollars to destroy human life.

President Obama supporters say IVF fertility clinics simply provide researchers with unwanted human embryos already designated for destruction.
For background, read Obama Wins Ruling: Embryos will be Destroyed and also read Stem Cell Science Advances Without Embryos as well as Actor Recants Embryonic Stem Cells for Parkinson's Cure

-- From "Federal Stem-Cell Funding Upheld by Court" by The Associated Press 8/24/12

"Dickey-Wicker permits federal funding of research projects that utilize already-derived ESCs—which are not themselves embryos—because no 'human embryo or embryos are destroyed' in such projects," Chief Judge David B. Sentelle said in the ruling, adding that the plaintiffs made the same argument the last the time the court reviewed the issue. "Therefore, unless they have established some 'extraordinary circumstance,' the law of the case is established and we will not revisit the issue."

The lawsuit was filed in 2009 by two scientists who argued that President Barack Obama's expansion jeopardized their ability to win government funding for research using adult stem cells—ones that have already matured to create specific types of tissues—because it will mean extra competition.

President George W. Bush also permitted stem-cell research, but limited the availability of taxpayer funds to embryonic stem-cell lines that were already in existence and "where the life and death decision has already been made."

Mr. Obama's order removed that limitation, allowing projects that involve stem cells from already destroyed embryos or embryos to be destroyed in the future. To qualify, parents who donate the original embryo must be told of other options, such as donating to another infertile woman.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court Upholds Obama's Embryonic Stem Cell Research Funding" by Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post Contributor 8/25/12

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden . . . said the law's clear intent had been utterly ignored. "Congress designed that law so that Americans don't pay any more precious taxpayer dollars for needless research made irrelevant by adult stem cell and other research. In the current economic climate, it makes even less sense for the Obama administration to use taxpayer money for this illegal and unethical purpose."

In August 2010, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the executive order likely violated the Dickey-Wicker law. But in April 2011, a federal appeals court ruled Obama can use taxpayers' money to fund embryonic stem cell research.

Human embryonic stem cell research, with the present state of technology, involves the creation of a human embryonic stem cell line, which requires the destruction of a human embryo, and raises concerns over the rights and status of the embryo as an early-aged human life

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court: Obama Can Force Taxpayer-Funded Embryonic Stem Cell Research" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 8/24/12

Dr. David Prentice, Family Research Council’s Senior Fellow for Life Sciences, made the following comments to LifeNews concerning today’s ruling:

“We are disappointed that the Appeals Court panel did not agree that the Obama administration is violating the 1996 Dickey-Wicker amendment by providing taxpayer funding for human embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research relies on the destruction of young human embryos, and that destruction is integral to the research.”

“There would be no embryonic stem cells available for federal funding without first harming and destroying a young human embryo, an act that is prohibited by the Dickey-Wicker language which is passed annually. A plain reading of Dickey-Wicker would eliminate all taxpayer funds for embryonic stem cell research. Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is a tragic waste of lives as well as taxpayer money, since despite the promises made to gain the federal funding, there is not a single example of a successful treatment. Only adult stem cells have successfully treated any patient, now helping thousands of people for dozens of conditions.”

Sam Casey, General Counsel of Advocates International’s Law of Life Project, a public interest legal project involved in the case, pointed out that NIH officials have admitted they violated the public comment process by ignoring the majority of comments coming from pro-life advocates opposed to destroying unborn children for their stem cells.

“The majority of the almost 50,000 comments that the NIH received were opposed to funding this research, and by its own admission, NIH totally ignored these comments,” he said. “The so-called spare human embryos being stored in IVF clinics around the United States are not ‘in excess of need,’ as the NIH in its guidelines callously assert. They are human beings in need of biological or adoptive parents.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Obama Administration OKs Aborted Baby Brain Experiments

Feds Study Sex Lives of Truck Drivers

The federal government has spent $550,496 on a project that involved conducting “focus groups and in-depth interviews” with American long-haul truck drivers to learn about their sex lives in order to assess their risk of contracting HIV or other sexually transmitted infections.

-- From "U.S. Spent $550,496 on Study That Did 'Focus Groups and In-Depth Interviews' To Learn About the Sex Lives of Truck Drivers" by Adam Cassandra, CNSNews.com 7/1/10

The NIH Web pages for the grant do not say how much federal money was spent on the study, but NIH spokeswoman Charlotte Armstrong told CNSNews.com that $550,496 has been awarded for the research to date. The grant was made by the National Institute of Mental Health, a division of the NIH. The project began in September 2005 and is scheduled to end in August 2010.

“Overall, we have not found really significant numbers of STDs, and we haven’t found any HIV,” Dr. Laura Bachmann, the principal investigator on the project, told CNSNews.com. “Part of the issue is: I moved in the mean time, so that’s why it’s taking awhile to get it done.”

The research is a “preliminary type study,” Dr. Bachmann said, designed to assess the risk level and prevalence of sexual infections through focus groups and in-depth interviews with truck drivers. Screening of truckers has been “episodic,” not ongoing and continuous, she said, and she and her research team have interviewed around 300 truckers since 2005.

CNSNews.com asked Dr. Bachmann if the study was an appropriate use of taxpayer funds.

“I think that HIV and STDs are significant public health concerns, and there’s been data from, primarily, other countries, but many other countries--and then some domestic studies--that have suggested that it could be a significant problem,” she said.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

CBS Deceptive Stem Cell Research Report

In this news report, CBS begins by referencing Embryonic Stem Cell Research, backed by President Obama, yet the only stem cell research that has yielded solid results uses stem cells NOT from embryos (such as from adult skin cells). Only an astute viewer, listening carefully to every word of this report, would uncover the truth buried in this report.

-- From "Stem Cell Cures Any Closer?" by Jonathan LaPook, CBS News 3/16/10

Twelve years after the discovery of the human embryonic stem cell, research is finally picking up steam. Over the past 7 years, the National Institutes of Health have almost tripled its investment in stem cell research to more than $1 billion.

CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook reports the number of embryonic stem cell lines funded by the government has doubled - from 21 to 44 today. More than 200 U.S. companies are researching stem cells. So the report card on stem cell research is promising -- but incomplete.

Two years ago, scientists found another way to create stem cells from ordinary skin cells. That breakthrough lets researchers study diseases in a dish. For example, skin cells from a patient with ALS have been turned into the kind of nerve cells attacked by the disease. For the first time, those living nerves can be studied - outside the body - to figure out what goes wrong.

. . . Even if everything goes right, [embryonic] stem-cell based treatments are still years away. But this may be one of those rare instances in medicine when the hype is actually deserved.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

On the other hand, embryonic stem-cell based treatments may never, ever materialize; while other (adult) stem-cell based treatments continue to cure many diseases.

Since Embryos Aren't Persons, Court Can't Protect Them

A judge dismissed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the Obama administration's regulations for expanded embryonic stem-cell research funding.

-- From "Judge Rejects Challenge to NIH Stem Cell Guidelines" by Cary O’Reilly, Bloomberg 10/28/09

A U.S. judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by an embryo-adoption agency and the Christian Medical Association that sought to block new National Institutes of Health guidelines for stem-cell research.

The groups, who sued on their own behalf as well as on behalf of all embryos, lacked standing to bring the case, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled today in Washington.

“Embryos lack standing because they are not persons under the law” and the unborn have no right to life protected under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, Lamberth said, citing U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

The case is Sherely v. Sebelius, 09-cv-1575, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Stem-Cell Challenge Turned Away by Judge" posted at CitizenLink.com 10/28/09

Several groups, including Nightlight Christian Adoptions, researchers, potential embryo adoptive parents and the Christian Medical Association, filed the suit.

Ron Stoddart, executive director of Nightlight, said the judge ruled none of them had standing to bring the lawsuit.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Taxpayer Wasteland: Studying Men's Dislike of Condoms

In what government watchdogs are calling a waste of taxpayer money, the National Institutes of Health is spending nearly half a million dollars to determine why men don't like to wear condoms during sex.

-- From "NIH Funds $423,500 Study of Why Men Don't Like to Use Condoms" FOX News 6/19/09

Researchers at Indiana University's Kinsey Institute, with funding from the National Institutes of Health, are investigating why "young, heterosexual adult men" have problems using condoms. The study will include "skill-based intervention" to teach grown men how to use protection.

The first phase of the two-year study called "Barriers to Correct Condom Use" will be a simple Q&A, but doctors say the second phase will plumb uncharted territory.

"The second phase involves a laboratory study, and focuses on penile erection and sensitivity during condom application," reads the abstract from Drs. Erick Janssen and Stephanie Sanders, both of the Kinsey Institute.

"The project aims to understand the relationship between condom application and loss of erections and decreased sensation, including the role of condom skills and performance anxiety, and to find new ways to improve condom use among those who experience such problems."

The NIH spends $29 billion each year to help fund thousands of health studies at home and abroad . . . including a $400,000 study being conducted in bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk; a $2.6 million study dedicated to teaching prostitutes in China to drink less while having sex on the job; and a $178,000 study to better understand why drug-abusing prostitutes in Thailand are at greater risk for HIV infection.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Is AIDS Overfunded? You Decide...

Check out this website of the FAIR Foundation (Fair Allocations in Research) to learn more about the massively disproportionate taxpayer spending on HIV/AIDS: www.fairfoundation.org.

The chart above on federal NIH (National Institutes of Health) spending is put out by the Fair Foundation:

Read "LaBarbera Says Huckabee was Right. AIDS is Over-Funded Compared to Other Diseases" by Peter LaBarbera, posted 12/11/07 at Republicans for Family Values