Ben Carson Conducted Research on Aborted Fetuses

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
a reply to: Indigo5

I think folks "get it"...

Apparently not judging by your post?

You want to ferment outrage on a low tier candidate who just happens to be in the field of medicine that happens to deal with tissues, fetal included...

You forgot..happens to have repeatedly and loudly condemned fetal tissue research?

Not sure what you mean by low-tier candidate? He ranks #2 in the polls to Donald Trump.

Go for it, it doesn't in anyway soften what planned parenthood folks have been doing...

What you believe Planned Parenthood has been doing is not relevant? Plenty of threads where you can try and support your claims about planned parenthoods practices.

This Op is about Dr. Ben Carson and what HE has done and said and his inability to publicly reconcile those two things.

Would appreciate you being thoughtful not to derail into a PP Video debate.

I am not here to say that they should lose funding, but I do want heads to roll, I want accountability...

Derail...

If PP does so much more that is beneficial for our society, I would think that their proponents would want this "brushing up against the law" mentality, using their paid legal department, out on their collective asses...

How again does this speak to Dr. Ben Carson having performed Fetal Tissue Research while loudly condemning the same??

skipped a few more lines of off-topic...

What Dr Carson did in the 90's.. in no way equates to what PP is dealing with...

What Dr. Carson did in the 90's...dissecting fetal tissue of aborted 9 and 17 week old fetuses...for a better understanding of disease...is exactly what PP is dealing with.

It is just not what apparently yourself and some ideological youtube video propagandists have claimed...

It would be nice to see Dr. Carson explain the difference...and his apparent inability to do so speaks to the propagandist nature of those videos.

It is a truly remarkable hypocrisy he is struggling with, knowing his own recent rhetoric and his own personal experience don't comport and now under the bright public scrutiny he is forced to explain the gap in honesty while trying to maintain the vitriolic BS that the right wing demands in regards to PP.

a reply to: Indigo5

You actually watched the video...so 'kudos' for that, but you're still being clearly obtuse in your responses...

Let's try this:

Is THIS your OP title?
"Ben Carson Conducted Research on Aborted Fetuses"
Yes it is. Agreed?

Does Carson say the tissue he removed was from an "Aborted" fetus/baby (take your pick)?
No, he does not.
IN FACT, he specifically states in the video (which you admit to watching)...that the tissue he removed was from an operation he was performing at the time (you'll remember we discussed that Dr. Carson in a pediatric BRAIN surgeon---in fact, he also is famous for successfully performing surgery on babies still in the womb (a fact touted in the debates, as you may recall).

In the video...Dr. Carson clearly and succinctly states that he was NOT operating on an ABORTED fetus.
You watched the video...so you know this is true.

Ergo, the title of your thread...and it's assertion...is completely false and misleading.
It's a simple fact.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Can you prove that any aren't? Because that's the real question here. You need to stop assuming guilt before evidence, which is what your request above does. We PROVE guilt and assume innocence in this country.

I asked a simple question, did not assume guilt or innocence. Assure does not mean prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Geez, can't even ask a question anymore.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5

You actually watched the video...so 'kudos' for that, but you're still being clearly obtuse in your responses...

Let's try this:

Is THIS your OP title?
"Ben Carson Conducted Research on Aborted Fetuses"
Yes it is. Agreed?

Does Carson say the tissue he removed was from an "Aborted" fetus/baby (take your pick)?
No, he does not.
IN FACT, he specifically states in the video (which you admit to watching)...that the tissue he removed was from an operation he was performing at the time (you'll remember we discussed that Dr. Carson in a pediatric BRAIN surgeon---in fact, he also is famous for successfully performing surgery on babies still in the womb (a fact touted in the debates, as you may recall).

In the video...Dr. Carson clearly and succinctly states that he was NOT operating on an ABORTED fetus.
You watched the video...so you know this is true.

Ergo, the title of your thread...and it's assertion...is completely false and misleading.
It's a simple fact.

No...You need to provide precise quotes...rather than express your opinion. He said no such thing.

For the LOVE OF GOD...HERE IS THE PAPER...HE ADMITTED BEING THE SURGEON ON REMOVING THESE TISSUES..

a reply to: Indigo5

AND...for the love of God, Carson stated that it wasn't HIS paper...or his words. It was written by another doctor who WAS using aborted tissue...who was comparing his results to tissue Dr. Carson removed during operations.

AGAIN...Carson explains that fact very clearly in the video you say you actually watched.

Try to see beyond your politics and pride.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5

AND...for the love of God, Carson stated that it wasn't HIS paper...or his words

Yes, it was.....

Carson also issued a statement, saying, "There is absolutely no contradiction between the research I worked on in 1992 and my pro-life views. The issue of fetal tissue has everything to do with how the tissue is acquired. My primary responsibility in that research was operating on people to obtain diseased tissue for comparison to banked tissue samples.

Killing babies and harvesting tissue for sale is very different than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it, which is exactly the source of the tissue used in OUR research."
www.cnn.com...

He used aborted babies for his research! That can not be denied.

Further, Carson is off base in opposing using aborted fetal donations because there is a stock available for research. That stock is devoid of live stem cells!

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5

AND...for the love of God, Carson stated that it wasn't HIS paper...or his words. It was written by another doctor who WAS using aborted tissue...who was comparing his results to tissue Dr. Carson removed during operations.

I watched your video...I have read the transcripts...he has said nothing of the sort you are claiming.

If fact the O'Reilly video you are citing contradicts your claim.

Since you appear incapable of quoting it...

The left has put information that I have done research on fetal tissues because my name appears on an article in which the pathologists compared specimens that I deliver from the operating room to fetal tissues," Carson explained. "My part is to do the operation and supply the tissue. At that point, I move on the next operations. To suggest that I am in the laboratory actually doing the research or retrieving fetal tissue is nothing but propaganda."

THAT is how he explained his role in the paper..."do the operation"...

What operation??? Look at the paper...


The defense that he is employing is that since he did not look at the tissue he removed from two fetuses brains under a microscope and analyze it...he did not "research"...

Read the above...You are just saying things without evidence....about done with that nonsense.

originally posted by: retiredTxn

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Can you prove that any aren't? Because that's the real question here. You need to stop assuming guilt before evidence, which is what your request above does. We PROVE guilt and assume innocence in this country.

I asked a simple question, did not assume guilt or innocence. Assure does not mean prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Geez, can't even ask a question anymore.

Well I asked a question too, which you just completely ignored.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5

IN FACT, he specifically states in the video (which you admit to watching)...that the tissue he removed was from an operation he was performing at the time (you'll remember we discussed that Dr. Carson in a pediatric BRAIN surgeon---in fact, he also is famous for successfully performing surgery on babies still in the womb (a fact touted in the debates, as you may recall).

Reading this again...Do you realize that what you are proposing is that Dr. Carson removed brain material...positioned in the center of the brain...(Choriod Plexus) on live fetuses at 9 and 17 weeks in the womb??



You do realize that his paper...yes he is a co-author and he referred to it as his paper...cites "aborted fetuses"?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Well I asked a question too, which you just completely ignored.

I didn't ignore it. But just to set your heart at ease, no, I can't.

Since that question was not brought up in previous posts, it's moot.
I asked a simple question, and YOU assumed I was asking for proof, and began
telling me what I had done, and how I should conduct myself. Again, I asked a question.

Here is what I was responding to.

Also...Fetal Tissue is not something you just take off the shelf...you apply for it, make your case for research etc. before being granted that tissue.

Indigo set the parameters, I asked a question.

originally posted by: retiredTxn

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Well I asked a question too, which you just completely ignored.

I didn't ignore it. But just to set your heart at ease, no, I can't.

Since that question was not brought up in previous posts, it's moot.
I asked a simple question, and YOU assumed I was asking for proof, and began
telling me what I had done, and how I should conduct myself. Again, I asked a question.

Here is what I was responding to.

Also...Fetal Tissue is not something you just take off the shelf...you apply for it, make your case for research etc. before being granted that tissue.

Indigo set the parameters, I asked a question.

So scientific reading is a hobby of mine. I also work with researchers of various disciplines.

Can I assure you that every single researcher must apply for fetal tissue vs. just taking it off the shelf?

No..My knowledge is not that absolute.

I can tell you that fetal tissue is a scarce resource for medical researchers and organizations do not simply make it available for anyone's pet research project. No research organization could survive under that careless of a protocol and would quickly have no tissue for research. It's scarcity means a high bar for granting that tissue...and certainly for a published research paper, their is oversight and approval.

Back to you question...do I know this protocol to be 100% absolute...no...unlike folks just sayin stuff...honest scientific minds rarely if ever deal in absolutes...and it is that nth percent of a percent that non-scientific minds try and see how much BS they can inject into that small space.

a reply to: retiredTxn

Actually, if you would just stop and think about what I was saying to you, you'd realize that what I was doing was showing you that asking that question as you did isn't something that one normally does.

If I owned a gun shop, it's not like I have to assure any third parties that everyone who buys a gun from me won't commit a crime with it. Yet you appear to be asking for a double standard here in this ONE situation. Why does a supplier related to abortion have to account for this, yet NO other industry ever forces the supplier to account for the actions of the buyer?

a reply to: IAMTAT

On the campaign trail in Manchester, New Hampshire, Carson told CNN his research simply used the tissue from aborted fetuses that was made available to him. "We have banked material in the pathology lab from people from every age -- from day 1 of concept to 120 years told. Those specimens are available for people who want to do comparisons," Carson said. "To not use the tissue that is in a tissue bank, regardless of where it comes from, would be foolish. Why would anybody not do that?"

www.wdbj7.com...

I do believe it was an aborted fetus. If you go read the article he attempts to justify using the tissue by saying well, it's there why not use it, after all, I didn't abort it.
well, how did the tissue bank get it?? did it buy if from someplace like stem express, who compensated someplace like planned parenthood who provided it?

originally posted by: Indigo5


So scientific reading is a hobby of mine. I also work with researchers of various disciplines.

Can I assure you that every single researcher must apply for fetal tissue vs. just taking it off the shelf?

No..My knowledge is not that absolute.

My point exactly. None of us can know for sure. From either side of the argument, we might like to assume that
was the process across the board, but we can't be sure.

Back to you question...do I know this protocol to be 100% absolute...no...unlike folks just sayin stuff...honest scientific minds rarely if ever deal in absolutes...and it is that nth percent of a percent that non-scientific minds try and see how much BS they can inject into that small space.

I agree, there are no absolutes. I'm not trying to inject anything, I just feel we should all be playing on a level field here.
You are interpreting what the "paper" says one way, others see it a different way. Just like his statements are seen two different ways.

The left has put information that I have done research on fetal tissues because my name appears on an article in which the pathologists compared specimens that I deliver from the operating room to fetal tissues," Carson explained. "My part is to do the operation and supply the tissue. At that point, I move on the next operations. To suggest that I am in the laboratory actually doing the research or retrieving fetal tissue is nothing but propaganda."

This is Dr. Carson's statement which you quoted. Pay special attention to the underlined section. He is saying that the pathologists are comparing specimens he delivers from the operating room to fetal tissues.

The snip from Dr. Gunters page.



If that little red box had been moved up just a little bit, it would show where the tissue for comparison came from.
"Nasal mucosa was obtained from transsphenoidal hypophysectomies."

Transsphenoidal hypophysectomy is a minimally invasive procedure that is used to treat pituitary tumors. This approach requires entry through the sphenoid sinus, one of the bony air spaces behind the nose.

Further up we find,

For purposes of comparison, normal choroid plexus and normal ependyma were obtained from tissue resected from patients with intractable epilepsy.


Transsphenoidal hypophysectomy is a procedure a brain surgeon would perform.

Would it be fair to say Dr. Carson provided tissue from a surgery to the pathologists and they did the actual comparison to tissue already in the tissue bank?

Regardless, his name is attached to the study. "My part is to do the operation and supply the tissue."

This is open to interpretation, but it appears he provided tissue from his surgery to pathologists during a specific procedure. Just my take on it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: retiredTxn

If I owned a gun shop, it's not like I have to assure any third parties that everyone who buys a gun from me won't commit a crime with it. Yet you appear to be asking for a double standard here in this ONE situation. Why does a supplier related to abortion have to account for this, yet NO other industry ever forces the supplier to account for the actions of the buyer?

The point of the question was to show neither side can "assure", much less prove the guidelines pertain to everyone. I was not asking him to do so, only whether he could. Just as I can't, neither can he. What you think I "appear" to be asking, was not my intent.

a reply to: retiredTxn

Having looked at the video interview and having read Carson's responses, I could see that maybe Carson wasn't actually the person handling the fetal tissue, HOWEVER, it is his paper, so he participated in what the paper discusses. He knew that fetal tissue was being used to compare with the tissue he surgically removed. The point is, he didn't seem to have too much of a problem with the whole process back then, or he wouldn't have done a paper on it. Now, during election season, he has a HUGE problem with it? How convenient.

a reply to: retiredTxn

You are still misunderstanding me. Why is the question even relevant to begin with? Why even ask it? Answering it or considering it doesn't change anything. One can ask the same question about any other industry and they will be no closer to better understanding that industry. All in all, your question is a red herring.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: retiredTxn

You are still misunderstanding me. Why is the question even relevant to begin with? Why even ask it? Answering it or considering it doesn't change anything. One can ask the same question about any other industry and they will be no closer to better understanding that industry. All in all, your question is a red herring.

Indigo made a statement about the procedures required to obtain fetal tissue. We have agreed neither of us could assure that everyone involved follows those guidelines with 100% certainty. Why did Indigo even post the guidelines in the first place, I could ask? It ended up having no bearing on our conversation.

Why did I ask it? Because I am able to ask questions and respond to posts on ATS without having to justify my intent to you or anyone else. I did not try to divert attention from the thread, or mislead anyone. My question was not a red herring, and most definitely didn't require this many posts to clear up.

I'm going outside for a tok...er smoke.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: retiredTxn

You are still misunderstanding me. Why is the question even relevant to begin with? Why even ask it? Answering it or considering it doesn't change anything. One can ask the same question about any other industry and they will be no closer to better understanding that industry. All in all, your question is a red herring.

Then why did you ask me the following?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Can you prove that any aren't? Because that's the real question here. You need to stop assuming guilt before evidence, which is what your request above does. We PROVE guilt and assume innocence in this country.

That is the REAL question here, but my simple question is irrelevant and a red herring.