It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: retiredTxn
originally posted by: Indigo5
His paper specified aborted fetuses.
No..with research publications you do not get to be a top-line author unless you drove and participated in the research.
So, their is only one way for fetuses to be classified as "aborted"?
A research publication can't be a collaboration of several people? They all must be in there "slicing and dicing", or they don't get top billing?
Naivete is cute on you.
originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5
See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5
See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.
What reply reply is necessary. Amongst all his semantics he admits that his role was surgical..he denies "researching" fetal tissue...cuz according to him his role was Operation and delivery of the tissue to researchers..he dissected aborted fetuses..specifically the brain tissue to remove and deliver part of the brain..He explains it in your post...what are you missing?
originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5
See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.
originally posted by: IAMTAT
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5
See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.
What reply reply is necessary. Amongst all his semantics he admits that his role was surgical..he denies "researching" fetal tissue...cuz according to him his role was Operation and delivery of the tissue to researchers..he dissected aborted fetuses..specifically the brain tissue to remove and deliver part of the brain..He explains it in your post...what are you missing?
NEWSFLASH: Dr. Carson is a Pediatric BRAIN surgeon.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5
See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.
uhhh..How do you read this?
"You know, my part is to do the operation and supply the tissue. At that point, I move on to the next operation."
In this case it was fetal brain tissue of aborted fetuses..
He said it..It's in his paper...what are you missing?
His defense is that he did not "research" that material...only did the operation for the researchers..
Strange the manner of denial folks employ..
originally posted by: IAMTAT
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5
See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.
uhhh..How do you read this?
"You know, my part is to do the operation and supply the tissue. At that point, I move on to the next operation."
In this case it was fetal brain tissue of aborted fetuses..
He said it..It's in his paper...what are you missing?
His defense is that he did not "research" that material...only did the operation for the researchers..
Strange the manner of denial folks employ..
IN HIS OWN WORDS: It was tissue from brain surgery not from an aborted fetus.
AND...it was NOT HIS paper (again...stated in his own words).
Watch the video and listen please.
Then please admit your title is incorrect.
originally posted by: Indigo5
His paper specified aborted fetuses.
No..with research publications you do not get to be a top-line author unless you drove and participated in the research.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: IAMTAT
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5
See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.
uhhh..How do you read this?
"You know, my part is to do the operation and supply the tissue. At that point, I move on to the next operation."
In this case it was fetal brain tissue of aborted fetuses..
He said it..It's in his paper...what are you missing?
His defense is that he did not "research" that material...only did the operation for the researchers..
Strange the manner of denial folks employ..
IN HIS OWN WORDS: It was tissue from brain surgery not from an aborted fetus.
AND...it was NOT HIS paper (again...stated in his own words).
Watch the video and listen please.
Then please admit your title is incorrect.
Please show me a quote?..His words..not yours...cuz the quotes from Briebart and other places from this interview directly contradict what you are claiming.
Transcript or quote and link please.
originally posted by: retiredTxn
His part was to obtain the fetus, however it had been aborted, and provide it to the other researchers. you are confusing the dissection done by the other researchers, with him doing an operation to retrieve the fetus. It's not hard.
ETA: If Dr. Carson was operating on a live patient, and removal of some tissue was necessary, could he have delivered this to the pathologist? There are too many variables to accept just your understanding. I would really like to see a quote from "his paper" concerning him actually doing dissection of fetal brain tissue in the research for this paper.
In 1988, the Reagan administration began a moratorium on fetal tissue from elective abortions being used in scientific research. But Congress lifted that ban in 1993 when it passed the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, which allowed research on human fetal tissue regardless of whether the tissue came from a voluntary abortion. McConnell voted for that bill, as did Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.), all of whom have condemned Planned Parenthood in the past two weeks for its involvement in the practice. “What we saw was very, very disturbing," McConnell said of the video on Monday.
originally posted by: jimmyx
ben carson?....who cares.....he has zero chance of getting the nomination...
originally posted by: Indigo5
By the way, I'm not calling his previous research a misstep
..here, let me refresh your memory from 5 minutes ago..
originally posted by: yeahright
No kidding. If people can't be 100% pure without the slightest misstep or apparent contradiction over a 25 year period, how DARE they presume to run for president.
originally posted by: yeahright
originally posted by: Indigo5
By the way, I'm not calling his previous research a misstep
..here, let me refresh your memory from 5 minutes ago..
originally posted by: yeahright
No kidding. If people can't be 100% pure without the slightest misstep or apparent contradiction over a 25 year period, how DARE they presume to run for president.
I've already grown bored with this, but this is the problem. I didn't and haven't called his previous research a misstep. You can see what I said, because you quoted it. Now let me clarify it. If we're going to parse over the granular aspects of ANYONE'S history going back 10, 20, 30 years, NO ONE is going to come out the other side pure enough for anyone looking for a reason to slap them around in public.
So have fun with that.
originally posted by: IAMTAT
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Indigo5
See my last post please.
I'll wait for your reply.
uhhh..How do you read this?
"You know, my part is to do the operation and supply the tissue. At that point, I move on to the next operation."
In this case it was fetal brain tissue of aborted fetuses..
He said it..It's in his paper...what are you missing?
His defense is that he did not "research" that material...only did the operation for the researchers..
Strange the manner of denial folks employ..
IN HIS OWN WORDS: It was tissue from brain surgery not from an aborted fetus.
AND...it was NOT HIS paper (again...stated in his own words).
Watch the video and listen please.
Then please admit your title is incorrect.
originally posted by: retiredTxn
a reply to: Indigo5
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.
Can you assure all the folks buying from PP are following this same practice? I doubt the NIH and NCBI are buying from PP.