Trump Board Rejects 13 of 14 Proposals For Fetal Tissue Research

downloadDuring the Bush Administration I wrote in opposition to the ban of federally supported research using fetal tissue stem cells. At the time, my father was dying for Parkinson’s — just one of millions of people who were suffering from conditions and diseases that could be cured or relieved with the help of such research. Now, The Human Fetal Tissue Research Ethics Advisory Board, appointed by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar, has blocked virtually every application for fetal tissue research to the HHS on ethical grounds. The result is the same. It is an effective ban disguised as an ethics review and the result is the lost of vital time and research for millions who are suffering in this country. It also places a political chokehold on academic work that will put our country at a disadvantage with virtually every other country pursuing new cures and treatments based on fetal tissue research.

Of the 15 members on the board, 10 reported have pronounced opposition to abortion fetal tissue research, and stem cell research.  The board is chaired by Paige Comstock Cunningham, the interim president of Taylor University, an evangelical Christian university in Upland, Indiana.

Only one is a clear advocate for fetal tissue research.  It is therefore not surprising that the board yesterday recommended barring all but one in a group of applications to do medical research using human fetal tissue donated after elective abortions. It is important to note that all of these applications from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), were already approved on a scientific basis as promising and well based in science.

The only proposal that passed by a nine-to-six vote was an attempt to develop an alternative to human fetal tissue.

I understand the deep-seated opposition to abortion by many in the country. It is a national debate that continues to rage. However, abortion is legal and protected in this country. Women do not get abortions in order to donate fetal tissue.  This science uses donated material to try to save others rather than discarding the material. If you oppose abortion, we have a political system to oppose it and fight for change. This is using science as a surrogate for politics. The fact is that we have this material which will be discarded at hospitals but can be used to help others with debilitating and lethal conditions. At a time when we are losing so many to Covit-19, we do not need our government closing avenues for valuable new treatment and cures for a wide variety of illnesses.

Congress should act to prevent medical science from becoming “politics by other means” at the HHS.

248 thoughts on “Trump Board Rejects 13 of 14 Proposals For Fetal Tissue Research”

  1. Many years ago I was the circulating nurse for the first legal abortion in a Massachusetts hospital. At the time I was pro-abortion. While waiting for the surgeon I tried to ease the patient. She was very nervous and I wasn’t able to calm her. The patient was awake during the surgery. The surgery was flawless but the lady was very nervous throughout the operation.

    After the surgery I assisted her to a gurney and waited with her for transport to move her to the recovery room. That was my first and last abortion. I realized I had assisted in killing a baby.

    Never again.

    I realized that life begins when the sperm and ovum connect — a magical process that should not be interrupted without solid reasons. Parenthetically I met a surgeon who after vaginal surgeries would take specimen and anoint with water. He then said these words: “I baptize you In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen”

    One never knows.

  2. 318 retractions for untruthful statements made against Project Veritas. The latest is the 8th retraction from the Washington Post which demonstrates it is not a reliable news outlet.

    Also has to do with Facebook censorship of the right and Zukerberg’s false statement to Congress with a subsequent referral of Zuckerberg to DOJ for potential perjury to Congress.

    Video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQrdU6225tw&feature=youtu.be

      1. Everything you needed to know was in the text.

        1) As a news source the Washington Post is terrible. 8 retractions for one small organization. Had to settle with Sandmann. Can’t get things right on its front page headlines.

        2) Matt Gaetz referred CEO of Facebook Zuckerman to DOJ for perjury charges, lying to Congress shown in an earlier video.

        This video isn’t interesting like the one’s that demonstrate democrat cheating and voter fraud. I posted the video more for you than anyone else.

    1. That makes my blood boil. Given where the radicals have been permitted to go, this undeclared civil war will escalate regardless of the outcome in November. Be ready.

      1. Olly, I agree. This is the violence and shenanigans of the left. We have seen this where governments have been overthrown or tremendous violene has broken out. The actions of the leftist violent groups are similar to what the Naz’s and Stalin did.

  3. Ethics Board Was Chosen In Secret.

    Members Had No Idea Who Fellow Members Were

    Board Chair Is Former President Of Anti-Abortion Group

    According to NIH, the new board reviewed 14 grant and contract applications, all of which qualified for funding based on the institutes’ regular scientific reviews. Agency officials declined to answer questions about how the board voted on the ethics of the applications. The board is expected to send a report containing its recommendations within two weeks to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and a pair of congressional committees.

    The Trump administration has handled the board with such secrecy that even members were not informed of the identities of their fellow members until two hours before their virtual meeting, according to two individuals familiar with these events who spoke on the condition of anonymity about private interactions. And members were required to sign strict nondisclosure agreements about their work.

    The board’s chair is Paige Comstock Cunningham, a former president of Americans United for Life, an antiabortion group, who is interim president of Taylor University, an evangelical Christian college. She has testified before Congress against fetal tissue research.

    Of the 15-person board, 10 have records of opposition to abortion, fetal tissue research or both, with five of them affiliated with the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List.

    One board member, Lawrence Goldstein, a senior researcher at the University of California at San Diego, has used fetal tissue in his work.

    The board’s creation and recommendations are the latest stage of an effort by the Trump administration starting last year to restrict the use of biomedical research that uses human tissue from elective abortions. Social conservatives, crucial to President Trump’s political base, regard such research as unethical and have long contended taxpayer money should not support it.

    Many scientists counter that fetal tissue is an important research tool that has led to advances in understanding and treatment of major diseases, from AIDS to Zika, and could be helpful in the race to develop cures and vaccines for the novel coronavirus. There is no data to suggest that women’s decision whether to seek abortions is influenced by the possibility that the tissue could be devoted to research.

    Edited From: “Fetal Tissue Research Advisory Board Convenes, With A Strong Anti-Abortion Tilt”

    Washington Post, 8/4/20

      1. Absurd, The Research is a scientific endeavor. Why should politics get in the way? Why should scientists have to toe a political line pushed anti-science extremists?

        Should Evangelicals who believe in Creationism be allowed to edit Science text books? We have had that debate. The so-called ‘Intelligent Design’ movement made a very concerted effort to shoe-horn their unscientific theory into text books. However a Federal Court in Pennsylvania actually ruled that ‘Intelligent Design’ was Creationist Science by another name.

        1. The Research is a scientific endeavor. Why should politics get in the way?

          Your question should read, Why should ethics get in the way? That would be a more accurate representation of what you’re asking. Come on Shill, if the name of the board didn’t clue you in to their purpose, then read their charter. I’ve highlighted a word you apparently aren’t familiar with:

          Recommendations will address whether the Secretary should withhold funds or not withhold funds from a proposed project because of ethical considerations. In providing advice and recommendations on these matters, the Ethics Board will consider the use of alternative models, and review and verify the core ethical principles and procedures used in the process to obtain written voluntary informed consent for the donation of the tissue. The ethical considerations the Ethics Board should consider are those related to whether the nature of the research involved is such that it is unethical to conduct or support the research.

          Try again.

          1. Olly, they’re not seriously considering ‘any’ research projects that use fetal tissue. For that reason alone the board is a sham commission. They have no intention of green-lighting any research.

            1. they’re not seriously considering ‘any’ research projects that use fetal tissue.

              Prove your opinion true. What they are not considering is approving your ethical worldview. As I told you yesterday, if you want a different ethical worldview on that board, then elect a president that shares your worldview.

        2. Absurd, The Research is a scientific endeavor. Why should politics get in the way? Why should scientists have to toe a political line pushed anti-science extremists?

          You are bound and determined to be obtuse. Any human endeavour is subject to ethical considerations and no professional guild is properly left only to self-regulation.

          You’re going to get someone who is in favor or opposed to restrictions on abortion. You’re just knocking about trying to say it’s illegitimate to have an antagonist of yours making arguments on an advisory commission. Piss off.

      1. Witherspoon: What’s your investment here? If indeed you really are the person in that photo, one gathers you’re a White man, over 55, in a small Wisconsin town. What interest do you have in jailing young Black mothers for the ‘crime’ of abortion???

        And that’s what it comes down to here. If abortion is criminalized women of color, more than Whites, will be prosecuted and jailed. And while they’re serving time, their children could wind up in Foster Homes.

        So why would an older White guy like you be pushing for that outcome?? It sounds like mean, racist politics disguised as ‘religious beliefs’.

        On the other hand, if abortion remains legal, why shouldn’t fetal tissue be used for medical breakthroughs?? No one in your family ever had diabetes? No one with Parkinson’s?? ..Or do you simply lack empathy for people suffering those conditions..?

        1. What interest do you have in jailing young Black mothers for the ‘crime’ of abortion???

          No one of sense cares how old they are or what race they are. Abortion is properly punished as a crime and that means incarceration. A child’s life is not hers to dispose of, or yours.

          1. “Abortion is properly punished as a crime”

            The vast majority of abortions aren’t crimes.

            You may want them to be crimes, but your personal preferences don’t determine our laws.

            1. You may want them to be crimes, but your personal preferences don’t determine our laws.

              Again, your handlers at Correct-the-Record are having you respond to other posts promiscuously. It takes time and makes you look like a lunkhead

              1. Again, your choice to lie about me having “handlers” and to post insults says more about you than me.

                1. Commit, you’re identifying a curious quirk with the Trumpers on this blog. They dwell in a bubble where all ‘normal’ Americans are arch conservatives. From that perspective anyone who takes the time to express liberal viewpoints on a public forum is almost certainly a ‘paid shill’.

                  When I first started commenting here I was continually accused of being an employee of David Brock. I had to actually google Brock to find out who he is. I had once been a reader of Media Matters but Brock’s name was not familiar. But in the rightwing bubble Brock is a super villain just a few notches down from George Soros and Hillary Clinton.

                  1. From that perspective anyone who takes the time to express liberal viewpoints on a public forum is almost certainly a ‘paid shill’.

                    No reasonable person would conclude your commentary was worth paying for.

              2. Someone needs to repeat this: You may want them to be crimes, but your personal preferences don’t determine our laws.

            2. See that, Commit?

              Absurd is not too shy about saying he wants to put mothers in jail and send their kids to foster homes.

              What a cave man he is!

        2. Anonymous wrote,
          “What interest do you have in jailing young Black mothers for the ‘crime’ of abortion???

          And that’s what it comes down to here. If abortion is criminalized women of color, more than Whites, will be prosecuted and jailed. And while they’re serving time, their children could wind up in Foster Homes.

          So why would an older White guy like you be pushing for that outcome?? It sounds like mean, racist politics disguised as ‘religious beliefs’.

          On the other hand, if abortion remains legal, why shouldn’t fetal tissue be used for medical breakthroughs?? No one in your family ever had diabetes? No one with Parkinson’s?? ..Or do you simply lack empathy for people suffering those conditions..?”

          I categorically reject all the implications in this entire comment.

          Either you didn’t read the posts that I shared or your comprehension skills are not up to understanding what was contained in the posts.

          The posts are focusing on the morality and the actual definition of some of the associated words in the abortion arguments not the legality.

          Now you have a choice; either you go and actually read the posts so you can come back and discuss with a better understand of what the posts were about or you can prove that you’re a fool by doubling down on your absurd implications or lastly you could remain silent so others just think your a fool.

          Choose.

          1. This Anonymous also used the name Seth Warner earlier in the thread. He’s used other ID’s in his time on this blog. He has proven to lack the capacity for critical-thinking and has earned the dubious title of Paint Chips as a way to consolidate his many ID’s and obvious dysfunction of the left-half of his brain. The choice you’ve offered him will have absolutely zero impact as a result.

            1. Olly, that’s ironic. Professor Turley’s main topic is Free Speech (for conservatives). And you are essentially on record as saying liberals should have ‘no equal voice’ on this blog.

              1. And you are essentially on record as saying liberals should have ‘no equal voice’ on this blog.

                Cite the comment I made on the record that essentially says that.

                Ready. Go.

                1. Maybe Peter fancies he and Gainesville are debating one person who uses a mess of sock-puppets, so they should get three handles each.

                  #projection

                  1. I’ve never understood the different handles thing, especially the use of Anonymous. My guess is it has something to do with self-loathing.

                    1. Olly, you’re about as disingenuous as they come. You know damn well that a creepy loser of a troll keeps stalking me on this blog. Yet you pretend you ‘can’t understand’ why I keep changing handles. Like I have an obligation to let the troll harass me! What a hateful person you are.

                    2. Has it ever occurred to you to ignore trolls? It’s not as though someone is camping outside your home with a bullhorn and club. The only thing anyone knows about you on this blog is by your own comments. The nanosecond you allow trolls inside your head, they’re going to take up residency until you ignore them. What’s silly is the fact your aliases may change, but your commentary reads exactly the same. So in essence, you’re hiding from the trolls in plain sight.

                    3. “The nanosecond you allow trolls inside your head, they’re going to take up residency ”

                      Olly, PaintChip’s empty spaces are spaces waiting to be filled up.

                    4. PaintChips, you have created doubt over your name and icon because you change both so frequently. That is the only way another can impersonate you. However, look at the good side. Your impersonater is far more intelligent than you so over all the sum total of your postings rise from abysmal to abysmal+.

                      Don’t hate yourself so much. Maintain one alias and one icon.

                    5. Olly, Alan, I dislike you guys as much as that troll hates me. But I’m not about to keep constantly harassing you with malicious smears. I don’t even have time for that! No crazy liberal trolls have stalked this blog during the year and a half I’ve been commenting here. You two have never come close to having to change your handles.

                      Yet that creepy loser of a troll keep constantly writing crazy comments on this blog unrelated to me. Some of those comments seem to encourage violence. And still other comments are overtly racist. It’s not unusual for that troll to write 20 comments per day; most of which ‘are’ crazy.

                      So don’t act like that troll is just some juvenile prankster. At the very least he’s like a deluded Alex Jones follower.

                    6. “So don’t act like that troll is just some juvenile prankster.”

                      PaintChips you do this to yourself. You, lie, you distort and you never engage in meaningful dialogue. In the past you made multiple claims that I was using an alias when I never did. Why should anyone protect your ego which is a mess to begin with. You create a bad environment and if this wasn’t a free speech blog I would suggest you be permanently excluded from commenting.

                    7. Seth,
                      I don’t care if you like me. I’m not here to make friends. I do care about this country however and what I believe are my domestic enemies. Some are purposeful in their efforts and some are useful idiots. Fortunately, you don’t even qualify as useful. Well, maybe useful to the likes of Book, CTHD, Holmes, etc. Without you, one of them would have to hold the title of village idiot.

                    8. Olly, again your answer shows you’re nothing but a disingenuous cynic who is generally bellicose. I have difficulty recalling any comments of your’s, at any time, that were ‘not’ disingenuous and cynical. That’s your normal mode.

                    9. olly it is a troll method that has been on the internet a long time, like the sockpuppet

                      it is now a bigger trend because of WUMAO army tactics of the DNC supporters– and those who troll them in turn

                      i recommend everyone try to ignore anonymous remarks and personal baiting

                      I try and reserve my personal negative remarks for people whose only contributions are “orange man bad” .

                      because that is insufferably boring stuff. & life is to short for boring

                      otherwise i think we should aim for civility

                    10. Perhaps your advice would be better suited for your communitarian hoard. I’m going to take the Antifa approach and punch violence (incivility) in the face.

      2. Not a pleasure. For example, the relevant definition of “person” doesn’t come from a standard dictionary but from the law. Legally, personhood begins at birth and ends at the permanent cessation of cardiac function or brain activity. As a simple example, if embryos were legal persons, they’d need to be counted in the Census; they aren’t. Similarly, it’s not a pleasure to deal with a straw man argument that an embryo isn’t alive. Of course it’s alive.

        The ethical question of when abortion is acceptable is actually distinct from the two issues above, though it intersects with them. One can believe that abortion is unethical even though an embryo or fetus isn’t a person. One can believe that many abortions are ethically acceptable even though embryos and fetuses are alive.

        For the record, since you say “I have absolutely no problem with any form of contraceptive that prevents a fertilized egg from properly implanting,” that blastocyst is also alive.

        Personally, I believe that abortion is moral in a variety of circumstances, including:
        * the abortion occurs prior to the development of the sort of brain activity that’s assessed in determining brain death at the end of life,
        * the woman’s life or health are seriously endangered,
        * the fetus has a condition that’s incompatible with continued life after birth,
        * the woman is pregnant with more than one fetus, and there’s significant risk to all of the fetuses if one isn’t aborted (these medical complications are very rare, but sometimes occur).

  4. From Lancet: ‘No’ Alternative Research Models Can Replace All Fetal Tissue Research

    Stem cell therapy research in lung disease is still at early stages, but the research output is increasing and the area is a promising one. However, there are limits to the use of MSC and other adult multipotent stem cells, because substantial numbers are required for therapeutic effects. The cells also have a shorter replicative lifespan and can only make a restricted number of specialised cell types that are specific for their organ of origin. Fetal tissue, by contrast, provides cell lines that grow rapidly, are able to easily differentiate into multiple cell types, and are less likely to be rejected by the body. In the future, fetal tissue might be replaced in certain areas of research with the use of induced pluripotent stem cells and organoids, which are human-cell cultures that can be crafted to replicate an organ. However, in areas such as fetal development, a suitable replacement to fetal tissue is unlikely to be found. Although research into fetal tissue alternatives is worthwhile, it will take time and until then, the use of fetal tissue is essential so that research efforts, which are crucial for the development of new therapeutic treatments in often difficult-to-treat lung diseases, are not severely hampered. And those in the field need to ensure their voices are heard.

    Indeed, the American Thoracic Society released a statement the day after the Trump administration announcement saying that “Scientific research with fetal tissue is vital for the development of new treatments for many deadly diseases and conditions, such as cystic fibrosis and acute lung injury. There are no alternative research models that can replace all fetal tissue research”. Fetal tissue has been a key part of the development of multiple vaccines, treatments for cystic fibrosis, and ongoing research into cancer immunotherapy.

    The major objection to fetal tissue research is that the source of the fetal tissue is mainly from elective abortions. However, there is no suggestion that the number of abortions will decrease as a result of removing funding for fetal tissue research. Abortion is still legal in all 50 states in the USA and fetal tissue would otherwise be discarded. Fetal tissue research, in fact, holds the potential to save lives through the development of new treatments and vaccines. Politicising scientific research in this way means denying hope to millions of patients with life-limiting diseases.

    Edited from: “Fetal Tissue Research Focus On The Science And Not The Politics”

    The Lancet, 6/24/19

    1. From Lancet: ‘No’ Alternative Research Models Can Replace All Fetal Tissue Research

      It’s an editorial, in a publication that grew wretchedly politicized under it’s current editor.

      1. TRANSLATION OF THE ABOVE:

        “The Lancet is ‘not’ a Trump-Friendly journal.

        Since when would medical journals seek to be Trump-friendly? They’d have no credibility if they were!

        1. No, the editor has appeared on public platforms with George Galloway. No one would do that unless they were a fanatic or grossly arrogant. The publication also promoted dubious epidemiological models that were incredible on their face and that there’s reason to believe were the issue of academic fraud for propaganda purposes. You’re just stupid, Peter.

          1. Absurd, I have no idea who you ‘really’ are or what qualifications your ‘really’ have.

            So for now I’ll believe The Lancet.

            1. You can read the critiques of the epidemiological models they were promoting, one by the Iraq Body Count. You’ve just lived through an epidode of epidemiological modelers doing hinky things. Get a clue.

              1. Lancet’s fake debunking of hcq and the subsequent retraction of the indian infomatics publication was so embarassing to NYT and Wapoo they decided not to tell anyone

                take a look, guys, it’s out there. Lancet used to be the gold standard and now it’s taken a bad hit to its credibility the past year or so just as absurd said
                it is still a very important institution and can be rectified with proper leadership

                1. About 10 years ago Lancet engaged in anti Israel actives and supported BDS. That has nothing to do with medicine. It proves Lancet, formerly a great medical journal, has joined the political toilet and cannot be totally trusted any longer.

  5. So my daughter is one of the 10% (80 – 90% of fetus’ which test positive for “possible” birth defects, like DS are aborted) of Down Syndrome children who have escaped the abortionist’s attack. Parkinson’s is a dastardly disease and, like, cancers, dementia and other diseases is treatable with stem cells. However there are many sources for stem cells, including those harvested from the host, which show much better promise than fetal cells. Considering the recent expose of Planned Parenthood’s selling of aborted bay parts, it is barbaric to consider unborn babies of a lesser value than patients who may benefit from the dead’s cells. I do not know your Dad, but do you think he is the type of man who would get well at the expense of others’ lives?

    1. Darryl: I’ve been reading up on this subject and ‘no’, there are ‘not’ reliable alternatives to fetal tissue with regards to stem cell research.

  6. “Here we learn that Trump is more concerned with support from Evangelicals than developing a vaccine for Covid 19.”

    This quote from a journal is a collaborative effort by Deke Thornton, Captain Lochart and PaintChips. The entire post disappeared because the three of them will not adhere to copyright problems they create. A letter was likely sent to them asking them to stop but being who they are and the type of people they are they don’t care about others and the concern of others including Professor Turley about copyright protection.

    If one notes the vaccines are coming from private industry which is unaffected by the federal ban.

  7. “There are no alternative research models that can replace all fetal tissue research”. Fetal tissue has been a key part of the development of multiple vaccines, treatments for cystic fibrosis, and ongoing research into cancer immunotherapy”.

    This was highlighted by anonymous or PaintChips.

    It demonstrates the total ignoance of reality. Fetal tissue research is not being prevented. Private industry continues to do their research unhindered.

  8. Apparently some backward individuals still believe that murdering babies is wrong and that making the corpses of murdered babies an expensive highly sought-after commodity might lead to an increase in murdered babies. Luckily your buddies on the left believe it’s ok to murder babies even after birth so I’m sure you’ll win in the end.

    1. Allison wrongly notes: “Luckily your buddies on the left believe it’s ok to murder babies even after birth so I’m sure you’ll win in the end.”

      Saying it doesn’t make it true, honey.

      1. Uncharacteristically concise of you, Natacha. Must have caught you as a pizza was being delivered.

  9. What covid vaccine? Flu and cold viruses constantly mutate. Which is why getting a flu shot is useless.

    BTW, ask Fauci how that AIDS vaccine is coming along 35 years later?

Leave a Reply