[Pflienews] PharmFacts E-News Update: Chemist in Oz won't sell Emergency Abortion pills; Irving on AMA's narrow definitions of cloning; more...
PFLI PharmAid Center
pfli at pfli.org
Mon Oct 12 14:40:29 MDT 2009
*PharmFacts E-News Update -- 12 Oct 2009 AD -- Columbus Day
**This daily e-newsletter is only possible through the generous gifts of
our readers and supporters. Please help us continue to fight for the
defense of babies by donating today!** **Click here*
<http://www.pfli.org/shop/index1.html>*
<http://www.pfli.org/shop/index1.html>to help.*
Catholic, a chemist but he won't sell the abortifacient pill
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.smh.com.au/national/catholic-a-chemist-but-he-wont-sell-the-pill-20091010-grka.html&ct=ga&cd=rUtXK4DA5Tk&usg=AFQjCNFqHHSZYQPkWjbo-OElXGyb7wSG2g>
Sydney Morning Herald
He removed condoms from his East Griffith Pharmacy several weeks ago and
has banned the sale of *so-called emergency contraception (emergency
abortion)* morning-after pills. *...*
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=http://www.smh.com.au/national/catholic-a-chemist-but-he-wont-sell-the-pill-20091010-grka.html&hl=en>
*Top Researcher Who Worked on Cervical Cancer Vaccine Warns About its
Dangers*
http://www.naturalnews.com/027196_cancer_cervical_cancer_cancer_vaccine.html
<http://ss.all.org/link.php?M=18096&N=429&L=3017&F=H>
Natural News
One of the key researchers involved in the clinical trials for both
Gardasil and Cevarix cervical cancer vaccines has gone public with
warnings about their safety and effectiveness. This highly unusual
warning against these vaccines by one of Big Pharma's own researchers
surfaced in an exclusive interview with the Sunday Express in the UK
over the last few days. There, Dr. Diane Harper openly admitted the
vaccine doesn't even prevent cervical cancer, stating, "[The vaccine]
will not decrease cervical cancer rates at all."
*U.S. Bishops Will "Vigorously" Oppose Health Care if Abortion Concerns
Not Addressed*
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09100807.html
<http://ss.all.org/link.php?M=18096&N=429&L=3018&F=H>
Life Site News
Three U.S. bishops have written to Congress expressing their
"disappointment" that the health care bills currently being considered
in Congress have not addressed the issue of federal funding of abortion,
and warning that unless their concerns are addressed, the U.S. bishops
will have to oppose "vigorously" the health care reform legislation.
*Abortionist Arrested After Punching Woman in Face*
http://www.ajc.com/news/north-fulton/marietta-doctor-arrested-in-157626.html
<http://ss.all.org/link.php?M=18096&N=429&L=3024&F=H>
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Sandy Springs police have arrested a Marietta doctor suspected of
punching a woman in the face during a Monday afternoon road rage
incident. Daniel E. McBrayer, 58, was arrested following an
investigation into an assault reported by a woman who told police that
McBrayer, following a traffic altercation, got out of his car at the
intersection of Roswell and Abernathy roads, walked up to her car and
struck her in the face, Sandy Springs police Lt. Steve Rose said.
McBrayer is an ob-gyn who, according to the Composite State Board of
Medical Examiners, was disciplined in 2001 for performing
second-trimester abortions in his Marietta office. Performance of
abortions after the first-trimester in a non-hospital setting or in an
unlicensed abortion facility is a violation of Georgia law.
JUDIE BROWN: OBAMA NOBEL PRIZE 'SLAP IN THE FACE' TO BLESSED MOTHER TERESA
*Washington, DC (09 October 2009)* -- The following is a statement from
Judie Brown, president of American Life League, on the announcement that
President Barack Obama is the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
"Bestowing the Nobel Prize on the most rabid pro-abortion president in
history is a direct slap in the face to past recipient, [Blessed] Mother
Teresa of Calcutta who said, upon receiving her Nobel Peace Prize:
<http://www.motherteresacause.info/>"the greatest destroyer of peace
today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing - direct
murder by the mother herself."
"In awarding the prize to Obama, the Nobel Committee is announcing that
abortion is the cornerstone of a hellish "peace" - the damning silence
of 51 million aborted children in the United States alone.
"The Nobel Committee has bestowed the "Peace Prize" on a man dedicated
to war in the womb."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama1.html
*American Medical Association's "Narrow Definitions", Legal
"Redefinitions" ... and Reproductive Cloning*
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
© October 2009
Reproduced with Permission
"If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look
for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and
wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair." -C. S. Lewis
"Nature never deceives us; it is we who deceive ourselves."
-Rousseau, Emile (1762)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Introduction:
It is no shocking news that many physicians and researchers have been
purposefully "doctoring" the real objective scientific facts of human
embryology and related sciences for decades now in order to achieve
their various goals. Perhaps it is done to "justify" human and fetal
research, human embryonic stem cell research, human cloning research,
OAR, ANT, iPS and similar cell "reprogramming" research, "regenerative
medicine", or patient "therapies", etc. Perhaps it is done to "justify"
the use of abortifacients, prenatal genetic diagnosis, the production of
vaccines, abortion and related medical issues, etc. Whatever their
reasons, it is clear that no one, and no professional organization,
intends to admit the truth about what they are doing. At this point, the
only rational thing to do is to sit back and watch the latest funny show.
Particularly amusing, at this stage in the decades-long "debate", is the
recent performance of the American Medical Association's official
endorsement of the use of "pre-embryo splitting" for infertility
treatments.1
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a1>Now,
certainly everyone knows by this time that there is no such thing as a
"pre-embryo", so why is the AMA continuing to use that fake scientific
term? And what exactly is "splitting"? It couldn't possibly involve
"reproductive cloning" -- could it? Horrors! Unfortunately, the AMA's
latest official report appears to be rather opaque on both "pre-embryos"
and on "splitting".
This is unfortunate. Aside from the serious ethical issues of artificial
reproductive technologies in general, not to mention the serious ethical
issue of the destruction of living human embryos used in this and
related research, isn't a woman legally entitled to be provided with the
truth, /all /the facts, including the accurate /scientific /facts, of
such infertility treatments before giving her legally valid "informed
consent"? Isn't that her choice? Or are informed consent forms just
supposed to be rather "selective" with their "information", and leave
out all that messy "science"?
But with all the "fudging" of critical scientific facts, how can a woman
really be certain of exactly /what /is being implanted into her womb,
and therefore exercise her choice? Is it "just a bunch of cells", just a
"pre-embryo", maybe a frog? And how did it get here - by
"fertilization", or genetic engineering, or maybe magic? If it is
"genetic engineering", shouldn't they call this "therapeutic /research/"
in "reproductive /genetic engineering/" rather than just infertility
"treatments"? If this is really /research/, rather than standard medical
treatment, then how are these IVF and ART facilities conforming to the
international ethical imperatives such as the Nuremberg Code, the
Declaration of Helsinki, etc.?2
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a2>To whom are
they accountable? Where's the regulation of such medical procedures?
....... Well, lots of dumb questions.
Besides, if the good doctors at the American Medical Association tell me
that what they are implanting in my body is just a "/pre/-embryo", and
that it was simply reproduced by just a silly kind of "splitting", then
why shouldn't I trust and believe them? And besides, they /assure /me
that it definitely /isn't /"reproductive cloning". Wishful thinking?
How comforting.
II. The AMA's "Pre-embryos", "Pre-embryo stages", and "cloning"
Since 1994 the American Medical Association has formally endorsed
a-sexual human reproductive techniques (e.g., human reproduction without
the immediate use of sperm and oocyte) for use as "infertility
treatments" in /in vitro /fertilization (IVF) and other artificial
reproductive technique (ART) facilities.3
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a3>Such
endorsements include "pre-embryo splitting" (also known as "twinning",
"blastomere separation", "blastocyst splitting", "embryo
multiplication", etc.). Apparently, many bioethicists4
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a4>see no
ethical problems, and infertility specialists are ready, willing and
able to use such a-sexual reproductive techniques in reproductive
cloning and 'related techniques" for their patients:
ART practitioners were surveyed concerning their views on human
*reproductive cloning and related techniques. A few had considered
using or had used embryo splitting or germ cell nuclear transfer.
*Although they expressed some concerns about the present risk of
reproductive cloning, most indicated that it did not violate their
religious beliefs. *More than three-quarters of ART practitioners
responding indicated that they would be willing to provide human
reproductive cloning in indicated cases if it were legally
permissible to do so. A significant percentage of the group also
indicated that they currently have the ability to provide this
service.*5
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a5>(emphasis
added)
Note the language here of "/or had used/" - really? Where have they used
these reproductive cloning techniques, and on whom, etc.?
Again, this year (2009) the AMA continues its formal support for
"pre-embryo splitting" in their recent "Opinion 2.145", which states in
part:
The technique of splitting in vitro *fertilized pre-embryos *may
result in multiple genetically identical siblings. The procedure of
pre-embryo splitting should be available so long as both gamete
providers agree. This procedure may greatly increase the chances of
conception for an infertile couple or for a couple whose future
reproductive capacity will likely be diminished. Pre-embryo
splitting also can reduce the number of invasive procedures
necessary for egg retrieval and the necessity for hormonal
stimulants to generate multiple eggs. The use and disposition of any
*pre-embryos *that are frozen for future use should be consistent
with the Council's opinion on frozen *pre-embryos *(Opinion 2.141,
"Frozen *Pre-embryos*"). ... To the extent possible, discussion of
these issues should be had with gamete providers prior to
*pre-embryo *splitting and freezing so as *to inform the prospective
parents *of possible future ethical dilemmas. (I, III, IV, V)6
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a6>(emphasis
added)
What immediately stands out is the AMA's profuse use of the
long-rejected term "pre-embryo".7
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a7>Why would a
prestigious medical organization such as the AMA continue to currently
mis-inform and thus mislead the public, and especially "gamete
providers", by using such a scientifically erroneous term that has been
proven false for so long?
The term "pre-embryo" was officially rejected years ago by the Nomina
Embryologica Committee (the international nomenclature committee on
human embryology), and rejected in prominent human embryology textbooks,
e.g., those of Swiss scientists Ronan O'Reilly and Fabiola *Muller*:
The term *'pre-embryo' *is not used here for the following reasons:
(1) *it is ill-defined *because it is said to end with the
appearance of the primitive streak or to include neurulation; (2)
*it is inaccurate *because purely embryonic cells can already be
distinguished after a few days, as can also the embryonic (not
pre-embryonic!) disc; (3) *it is /unjustified /*because the accepted
meaning of the word embryo includes all of the first 8 weeks; (4)
*it is equivocal *because it may convey the erroneous idea that a
new human organism is formed at only some considerable time after
fertilization; and (5) it was introduced in 1986 'largely *for
public policy reasons*' (Biggers)." ... Just as postnatal age begins
at birth, *prenatal age begins at fertilization*." (p. 88) ...
"Undesirable terms in Human Embryology": *"Pre-embryo"; ill-defined
and inaccurate; use "embryo."*8
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a8>(emphasis
added)
As Dr. C. Ward Kischer, Emeritus Professor of Anatomy and Specialist in
Human Embryology at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, has
argued for decades now, "The term 'preembryo' is a fraudulent term and
is not certified by any human embryologist. ... There is no /bona fide
/contemporary textbook of Human Embryology which uses this term."9
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a9>Even Lee
Silver, not known for his conservative views on these issues, notes the
purposeful deceit inherent in the use of the term "pre-embryo":
I'll let you in on a little secret. The *term pre-embryo has been
embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are
political, not scientific*.... The term pre-embryo is useful in the
political arena where decisions are made about whether to allow early
embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation as well as in the
confines of a doctor's office where it can be used to *allay moral
concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients*.10
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a10>(emphasis
added)
Ahhh - IVF patients might have "moral concerns" if they were told the
truth? Now why is that, I wonder? I presume that physicians and
researchers would have no such moral qualms.
The AMA does attempt to justify their use of the false term "pre-embryo"
in their background 1994 Report on "Pre-Embryo Splitting" with the
following amazing claim:
The term "pre-embryo" is used in this discussion because it most
accurately describes the *stage of development *at which splitting
can occur. The *pre-embryonic stage *lasts approximately 14-days
after the initial penetration of the ovum by a sperm. The
*pre-embryonic stage *ends when the primitive streak first appears,
signaling the point at which only a single biological individual may
result.
Perhaps the AMA isn't up to date, but not only is there no such thing as
a "pre-embryo", there is no such "stage" in early human embryonic
development as a "pre-embryo stage". Rather, what you are witnessing is
a major effort to linguistically make the early human embryo disappear.
In *Dr. Kischer's *words:
This arbitrary period of human development, /preembryo/, was
conceived and has been promoted without the sanction or sponsorship
of a single human embryologist. ... The *so-called preembryo is a
false stage (period) of human development invented by an amphibian
embryologist for political reasons, only*. *It has no credible
scientific justification*. Thus, the inclusion of this term into the
language of Human Embryology has become a hoax of gigantic
proportion.11
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a11>(emphasis
added)
Perhaps the *AMA *and its infertility specialists couldn't care less
what to call the earliest human embryo - human being -- or what they do
with it, as long as the term gets them what they want. But wouldn't you
think that at least some women would want to know the facts, all the
facts, including the accurate scientific facts -- and then, and then
only, make a choice as to whether or not to use such "infertility
treatments"? By definition (excuse the pun), this choice has been taken
away from them.
III. The Accurate Science
In the real world, the /sexually /reproduced human embryo really begins
to exist at the beginning of the process of fertilization, when the
sperm makes first contact with the oocyte. The science that establishes
this is not new. For example, back in the mid-1880's Wilhelm His'
documentation that the immediate product of human sexual reproduction is
a new human being, a new single-cell human organism was scientifically
acknowledged worldwide.12
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a12>Similarly,
since 1942 the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development have
internationally acknowledged, documented and continuously affirmed the
same thing, even categorizing the growth and development of the early
human embryo during the first 8 weeks of development into proper and
technically articulated "embryonic stages". Note that these
internationally accepted stages never mention such a stage as a
"pre-embryo" or the "pre-embryo stage" at all; nor are there any
academically credentialed Ph.D. human embryologists who would
acknowledge such nonsense either.
Rather, the Carnegie Stage One documents that a sexually reproduced
human being, a new human /embryo/, begins to exist at the /beginning /of
the process of fertilization, when the sperm makes first contact with
the oocyte - /not /at 14-days post-fertilization (and /not /at the end
of the process of fertilization with the formation of the zygote):
*_Embryonic _*life commences with fertilization, and hence *the
beginning of that process may be taken as the /point de depart /of
stage 1*. Despite the small size (ca. 0.1 mm) and weight (ca. 0.004
mg) of the organism at fertilization, the embryo is "/schon ein
individual-spezifischer Mensch/" (Blechschmidt, 1972). ...
Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a
spermatozoon makes contact with an oocyte or its investments and
ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at
metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote (Brackett et
al., 1972). Fertilization /sensu stricto /involves the union of
developmentally competent gametes realized in an appropriate
environment to result in the formation of a viable *embryo
*(Tesarik, 1986) ... . Fertilization requires probably slightly
longer than 24 hours in primates (Brackett et al., 1972). In the
case of human oocytes fertilized /in vitro/, pronuclei were formed
within 11 hours of insemination (Edwards, 1972). ... Fertilization,
*which takes place normally in the ampulla of the uterine tube*,
includes (a) contact of spermatozoa with the zona pellucida of an
oocyte, penetration of one or more spermatozoa through the zona
pellucida and the ooplasm, swelling of the spermatozoal head and
extrusion of the second polar body, (b) the formation of the male
and female pronuclei, and (c) the beginning of the first mitotic
division, or cleavage, of the zygote. ... *The three phases (a, b,
and c) referred to above will be included here under stage 1, the
characteristic feature of which is unicellularity. *... *(c) Zygote:
*The cell that characterizes the last phase of fertilization is
elusive. The first cleavage spindle forms rapidly and has been used
in identification. ... *Pronuclear fusion does not occur. *Rather,
the two pronuclear envelopes break down (post-apposition envelope
vesiculation," (Szabo and O'Day, 1983), and the two groups of
chromosomes move together and assume positions on the first cleavage
spindle. *Thus the zygote lacks a nucleus. *... In the human, the
initial cleavage that heralds the onset of stage 2 *occurs in the
uterine tube *"some time between twenty-four and thirty hours after
[the beginning of] fertilization" (Hertig, 1968).13
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a13>(emphasis
added)
Yet, despite the fact that there is no such thing as a "pre-embryo", and
no such thing as a "pre-embryonic stage", the AMA formal Report goes on
to describe various "pre-embryo multiplication" procedures such as
"pre-embryo splitting" and "cloning":
The first two techniques involve the procedure of *"splitting" or
"twinning" embryos. "Blastomere separation" *involves the division
of a four-cell or eight-cell pre-embryo into the individual
totipotent cells (blastomeres), or groups of such cells, which
comprise it. A two-cell pre-embryo can be divided into two
blastomeres, a four-cell pre-embryo into four blastomeres and an
eight-cell pre-embryo into eight blastomeres.
... The *splitting of blastocysts *(multi-layered pre-embryos at the
last stage before implantation) is referred to as "*embryo
splitting*". In this technique, a blastocyst is bisected into two
multicellular groups of non-totipotent cells, each of which is
nurtured to encourage further development. Since cattle blastocysts
can be easily obtained by /uterine flushing/, embryo splitting is
the preferred means of embryo multiplication in the cattle industry.
... *Nuclear transplantation, the most technically advanced form of
embryo multiplication, involves the transfer of the nuclear material
of a cell of the pre-embryo *to an unfertilized oocyte which has its
maternal chromosomes removed. For example, in one such nuclear
transfer technique, *a blastomere is extracted from a pre-embryo
*and transferred to an enucleated recipient oocyte. The
blastomere-oocyte complex is then chemically treated to induce
fusion, *generating a cloned pre-embryo *which may undergo further
development.14
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a14>(emphasis
added)
So, according to the *AMA*, the techniques of "pre-embryo splitting" or
"twinning" ("blastomere separation" and "blastocyst splitting") and
"blastomere nuclear transplantation" are acceptable "infertility
treatments". (One wonders why they don't use the notation of
"pre-blastomere separation" and "pre-blastocyst splitting" - just to be
more consistent). But what is even stranger is the claim that
"pre-embryo splitting" is /not /a "cloning" technique. As stated in the
1994 Report:
*The term "splitting" is preferred over "cloning" *for several
reasons. The term *cloning *is typically used popularly to refer to
the *technologically infeasible technique of taking a single cell
from a human already born or from a deceased person and using it to
reproduce a genetically identical human being*. In addition, when
used to refer to existing methods for amplifying pre-embryos, *the
term cloning covers several different techniques of embryo
multiplication*.15
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a15>(emphasis
added)
Thus the *AMA*'s "justification" that "*pre-embryo splitting*" is /not
/cloning seems to be that (1) "nuclear transplantation" is not yet
"feasible", and (2) the term "cloning" covers more than one technique of
"embryo multiplication". I'm looking hard - but I don't see the
connections. In fact, this is no "justification" at all, but rather pure
obfuscation. Well, at least they admit that there is more than one
cloning technique.
But since "cloning" is defined as the duplication of genetically
identical cells and organisms, and if "pre-embryo splitting" results in
the duplication of genetically identical cells and organisms, then
"pre-embryo splitting" is, indeed, a form of cloning. This fact has been
recognized around the world, and for a very, very long time now,16
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a16>and actually
mimics /in vitro /the natural process of human monozygotic identical
twinning within a woman's body (/in vivo/).17
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a17>"Pre-embryo
splitting" is what it is -- and what it is is "cloning". Besides,
regardless of the label used, what is at stake with the use of such
"narrow definitions" and manipulated language is the certain destruction
of new living human embryos, the high risk of damage to already
infertile women, and the impossibility of either "gamete donors" or
women giving legally valid "informed consent". Such linguistic
manipulations are clearly unethical, if not unprofessional, and should
be illegal as well.
Given all of this, one has to wonder why the American Medical
Association, one of the most prestigious medical organizations in the
world, continues to use such nonsense "language" like "pre-embryo
splitting" and "pre-embryo stage" -- and even deny that "pre-embryo
splitting" is a form of reproductive cloning?
III. "Narrow Definitions" and Reproductive Cloning
Perhaps the following words of wisdom of a well-established and widely
published IVF/ART "infertility" expert could shed some much-needed light
on the AMA's obvious obfuscations. According to Dr. Jamie Grifo, a
leading infertility researcher at New York University:
*Infertility researchers take pains to define cloning in the
narrowest terms*, as a process that would use the nucleus from a
single mature cell and place it in a woman's egg from which the
nucleus had been removed - then jolting that hybrid cell to life
with electricity. No sperm need be involved, so the baby's genetic
material would all come from just one person. ... *A number of
infertility programs across the country are working on treatments
that might be called 'near-cloning'.*18
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a18>(emphasis
added)
Thus, the well-designed strategy is and has been to "define cloning in
the narrowest terms", to simply call "cloning" something else, give it a
different name, /make it up/, do whatever one has to do to hide the
reality -- and no one will notice what is really going on. That way no
one can object. In fact, even if one wanted to find out, they probably
wouldn't have the correct "key words" (aka, false scientific terms) in
order to do a search on PubMed or other search engines. (Note how very
carefully those research studies are written).
Just as stem cell researchers, e.g., Irving Weissman, Michael West et al
simply redefine some "therapeutic" nuclear transfer cloning as just
"/stem cell research/",19
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a19>many
infertility researchers redefine reproductive human cloning techniques
as just "/infertility treatments/" involving only "near-cloning" - and
"pre-embryo splitting", etc. They are very careful not to call it what
it really is: reproductive cloning -- or reproductive genetic engineering.
Despite strong denials to the contrary (to the press), what we are
clearly talking about here is "reproductive cloning" - the use of
a-sexual methods of human reproduction as "infertility treatments, where
/experimental /a-sexually reproduced human embryos, who are genetically
identical, are implanted into women's wombs. Indeed, "twinning" is the
most perfect form of cloning used to reproduce human monozygotic
identical twins:
*The term 'clones' indicates genetic identity and so can describe
genetically identical molecules (DNA clones), genetically identical
cells or genetically identical _organisms_. Animal clones occur
naturally ... . For example, _genetically identical twins are clones
_who happened to have received _exactly the same set of genetic
instructions _from two donor individuals, a mother and a father. *A
*form of animal cloning *can also occur as a result of artificial
manipulation to bring about a type of *asexual reproduction*. The
genetic manipulation in this case uses *nuclear transfer
technology*: a nucleus is removed from a donor cell then
transplanted into an oocyte whose own nucleus has previously been
removed. The resulting 'renucleated' oocyte can give rise to an
individual who will carry the nuclear genome of only one donor
individual, unlike genetically identical twins. *The individual
providing the donor nucleus and the individual that develops from
the 'renucleated' oocyte are usually described as "clones", but it
should be noted that they share only the same nuclear DNA; _they do
not share the same mitochondrial DNA, unlike genetically identical
twins_. *... Nuclear transfer technology was first employed in
embryo cloning, in which the donor cell is derived from an early
embryo, and has been long established in the case of amphibia. ...
Wilmut et al (1997) reported successful cloning of an adult sheep.
For the first time, *an adult nucleus had been reprogrammed to
become totipotent once more, just like the genetic material in the
fertilized oocyte from which the donor cell had ultimately
developed*. ... Successful cloning of adult animals has forced us to
accept that genome modifications once considered irreversible can be
reversed and that *the genomes of adult cells can be reprogrammed by
factors in the oocyte to make them totipotent once again*.20
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a20>(emphasis
added)
That is, while the cloning technique of "nuclear transfer" results in a
cloned embryo containing "foreign" genes from the oocyte's mitochondria,
the cloning technique of "twinning" results in a cloned embryo whose
nuclear /and /mitochondrial genetic material is as close to that of the
original embryo as possible.
Although the accurate science has been available for many decades to
anyone who wants to know the truth, a veritable plethora of false
scientific terminology concerning the early human embryo and its
manipulation has been proliferating exponentially throughout many
professional organizations and even national bodies for years.21
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a21>The entire
medical and scientific enterprises are rapidly losing their credibility.
But not to fear. Any physical, legal, ethical or social disasters that
could result from this "great deception" would fortunately be foreclosed
by a total ban on human cloning - such as the current Stupak cloning
"ban" - right? That's comforting.
III. "Narrow Definitions" and the current Stupak-Wamp Human Cloning
"Ban"
The new Stupak-Wamp human cloning "ban" currently sits in a U.S. House
of Representatives Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security (interestingly enough).22
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a22>An identical
bill, H.R. 110 sponsored by Rep. Fortenberry also awaits consideration.
Both bills are almost carbon copies of the failed Weldon/Brownback total
human cloning "bans" attempted in 2001 that were replete with legal
loopholes forged by "narrow definitions", the effect of which would have
been to allow all human cloning to proceed - including the use of the
somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) cloning technique itself.23
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a23>
All of these "total human cloning bans" scientifically mis-define
cloning "narrowly" as /only /somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)
cloning technique, including the current Stupak-Wamp bill:
(1) HUMAN CLONING- The term *'human cloning' *means human asexual
reproduction, accomplished by *introducing the nuclear material of a
human somatic cell into a fertilized or unfertilized oocyte *whose
nucleus has been removed or inactivated to produce a living organism
(at any stage of development) with a human or predominantly human
genetic constitution.24
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a24>(emphasis
added)
The fact is, as already noted, that there are actually many different
kinds of human cloning techniques; *SCNT *as described here is only one
of them. Indeed, it is /only one kind of *SCNT */cloning techniques. And
a quick search in scientific journals using PubMed or Medline will
document that *SCNT *is hardly "the most common" cloning technique used
or desired by researchers these days. As noted earlier in this article,
many other human cloning techniques are now more "interesting" to
researchers, e.g., twinning, germ line cell nuclear transfer (*GLCNT*),
pronuclei transfer, mitochondria transfer, parthenogenesis,
"hemi-cloning", the use of "artificially constructed" sperm, oocytes and
embryos, "egg reconstruction", the use of iPS cells -- to name just a
few.25 <http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a25>Since
the courts will usually interpret such legal language as "exclusionary",
the result of this "narrow definition" of "human cloning" in the
Stupak-Wamp bill is that all other forms of human cloning would still be
allowed -- including other forms of *SCNT *cloning.
Note as well that the definition of "cloning" in the Stupak-Wamp cloning
bill as "introducing the nuclear material of a *human somatic cell into
a fertilized or unfertilized oocyte *..." is very different from the
definition of "cloning" in the *AMA*'s position on "nuclear
transplantation" discussed above, i.e., the *transfer of the nuclear
material of a cell of the pre-embryo to an unfertilized oocyte*.
Clearly, even the type of "infertility treatment" described by the *AMA
*as "nuclear transplantation" would not be covered by this human cloning
"ban" - nor would "twinning", "blastomere separation", "blastocyst
splitting", "embryo multiplication", "germ line cell nuclear transfer"
(*GLCNT*) -- or any of the other kinds of reproductive cloning -- or
reproductive genetic engineering. It is often said by some that at least
the Stupak-Wamp cloning "ban" will "save some of the babies". Some?
Wishful thinking.
This also means that "reproductive cloning" - by any name you wish to
call it - will have the blessings of both the *AMA *and the U.S. Congress.
It would also seem that the courts are moving quickly to adopt similar
linguistic machinations. In Spain, there is a legal push to redefine the
early human embryo as "just a group of cells":
The possibility of cloning human beings introduced a lot of issues
in our ethical and legal frameworks. In this paper, we will put the
focus into the *necessary changes in the concept of embryo that our
legal systems will have to implement *in order to face the new
situation. The description of *the embryo as a group of cells able
to develop into a human being *will be defended here as the best way
of doing so.26
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a26>
"A group of /cells/"? "Able to /develop into /a human being"? Where have
we heard this false science before - oh, yes, remember the false
scientific claims of stem cell researchers Irving Weissman and Michael
West?27 <http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a27>Both
have argued before courts and testified before Congress as "experts"
that the immediate product of both sexual and a-sexual human
reproduction is "just a bunch of cells", that "therapeutic" cloning is
just "stem cell research", and that "reproductive cloning" is cloning -
but only once the a-sexually reproduced child /is born/! And they
continue to get away with it.
Indeed, even the legal profession here in the U.S. is taking up the
game. Anne Kiessling's very lengthy article, "What is an embryo?", in
the Connecticut Law Review is an incredible attempt to literally
/deconstruct the entire field of human embryology/. As just an example:
Given that society's view is vastly more generous than nature's view,
the task before us is to come to *a new view of the concept of
"embryo"*. (p. 1044) ... The new view *must incorporate *both the wonder
and respect deserved by the process that unites sperm and egg, with *the
recent advances in harnessing the power of the egg to create replacement
cells with the potential to alleviate multiple human sufferings*. (pg.
1066) ... For most of the centuries after the advent of the microscope
in the mind-1600's, the term "embryo" was applied to that period of
early development before the conceptus took on the appearance of its
species. For the human, this is sometime after implantation and before
all the organs appear. *Human medical embryology texts still refer to
the first two weeks after fertilization as the "ovum period". Therefore,
strictly speaking, the term "embryo" defines the human conceptus during
the rapid growth period after implantation, when the embryonic disk has
become distinct from trophoblast. *Accordingly, applying the term embryo
to any stage of development before the inner cell mass forms is
inaccurate. (p. 1088) ... The appearance of an inner cell mass is a
minimal requirement for embryo status. *Implantation and the development
of an embryonic disk is a more accurate requirement for embryo status.
*(p. 1089) ... "*Zygote*" is a term that has been widely used to
designate *development before the blastocyst stage*. ... *[T]he term
"zygote" clarifies that the early stages are not yet embryos.*28
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a28>(p. 1088).
(emphasis added)
Kiessling goes on to redefine the terms "sperm", "egg", "fertilization",
"cleavage", "morula", "blastocyst", "implantation", "totipotent" and
"pluripotent" cells, "assisted reproductive technologies", "nuclear
transplants", "parthenogenesis", etc. She accomplishes this by quite
selectively dragging the reader through countless decades, even
centuries, of the kind of pre-historic "science" used in the Dark Ages,
laments that "scientists" haven't been much help, and then turns to
society, law and public opinion to rebuild a "new" science of human
embryology - one that would be more amenable, of course, to stem cell
and cloning researchers, infertility experts and the like. Yet none of
these "sources" have any background or academic credentials in the
science of human embryology! So our laws and regulations are to be built
on such a house of cards? Such arrogance is beyond funny -- almost.
Interestingly, a very similar and much earlier article /also /entitled,
"What is an embryo?", was written by famous infertility expert, Howard
Jones.29 <http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a29>It
too was replete with the term "pre-embryo", etc. Dr. C. Ward Kischer
responded back then that the article was "an outrageous affront to the
science of Human Embryology". It is worth listening to him:
Jones manipulates and parses the language of this science into a
very strange entanglement of meaning. This is the Jones who
organized The Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Norfolk,
Virginia. Their current aim is to support therapeutic cloning of
human embryos in order to acquire "stem cells".
... *Jones does not cite a single source from Human Embryology to
back up his claims. This is in concert with the corruption of Human
Embryology which has been taking place for the past 30 years. *The
Journal of Fertility & Sterility has been instrumental in the
revision of the facts concerning Human Embryology. This is manifest
by their embracing *the false term "pre-embryo" *invented by
Clifford Grobstein in 1979, the endorsement of this term by the
Ethics Committee of Fertility and Sterility in 1986, of which
Grobstein was a member, and its use by Jones in his present
editorial. *NO human embryologist endorses or uses this discredited
and fraudulent term, and it is not to be found in a single textbook
of Human Embryology. In fact, the Nomenclature Committee of the
American Association of Anatomists recently rejected the terms:
"pre-embryo," "preembryonic" and "individuation" for inclusion in
Terminologia Embryologica, the official lexicon of scientific
terminology.*
... Jones *infers that prior to implantation an embryo does not
exist*; and, he cites a medical dictionary source for support. *The
inference is that pregnancy does not occur prior to implantation,
and this canard has often been repeated by revisionists. *The
important information is what human embryologists say. Carlson in
his text of Human Embryology and Developmental Biology [1994] states
in his opening sentence: *"Human pregnancy [in natural sexual
reproduction] begins with the fusion of sperm and egg." *This is
because the concern of Human Embryology is the embryo and its
development no matter where it is. *Prior to implantation the embryo
is developing in the fallopian tubes, ectopically, or even in a
Petri dish. *This is what medical students have always been taught.
Is Jones now saying that what we have been teaching, at least for
half a century, is now wrong? *There are so many errors in Jones'
treatise it would take extensive discussion to correct them. *He
justifies using the much vaunted (so-called) "stem cells" from early
embryos by claiming they are obtained from a "non-person," the
*"pre-embryo"*! Tell me this is not *an arbitrary judgment. It
certainly is not science. *30
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a30>
In sum, apparently professional medical, scientific, and infertility
organizations, as well as professional legal and bioethics
organizations, couldn't care less about the objective scientific truth -
or apparently the consequences. This "Great Deception" is one of those
necessary - if ugly - facts of life. "And after all," as one IVF
specialist said to me, "it seems to bring such great comfort to so many
people." Indeed, she said excitedly, wait till you hear about the
/latest /"infertility treatments"!
IV. The Use of Human Embryonic and iPS Cells as "Infertility
Treatments"
Indeed, IVF and ART clinics are very excited by the new iPS research,
since iPS cells have now been proven to be reprogrammed to make human
sperm and oocytes:
Researchers in California for the first time have reprogrammed human
induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells into germ cells that eventually
become eggs and sperm, possibly opening the door for new treatments
for infertility using patient-specific cells. The iPS cells were
coaxed into forming germ line precursor cells that include genetic
material that may be passed on to a child.31
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a31>
Even the leaders of the infertility industry are excited. As Wilmut
stated in a recent interview:
[A]s far as treatment for infertility is concerned, the odds are
that there would be other ways of overcoming the problem. *If IVF
cells *[iPS cells] *are equivalent in their developmental potential
to embryo-derived stem cells*, then it might be possible to produce
gametes. So if you have, let's say, a man who has no sperm, you
produce iPS cells, you produce sperm, and you can then produce
babies through IVF.32
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a32>(emphasis
added)
Note the use of this fascinating new term "IVF cells"! Wow, how
imaginative! That's a new one - although one has to ask what kind of
organism this IVF cell belongs to!
Similarly, Davor Solter, a developmental biologist at the Institute of
Medical Biology in Singapore, remarks:
I think IVF has gone about as far as it can. *Next I expect that
germ cells - sperm and eggs - will be derived from induced
pluripotent stem (iPS) cells *[cells that have the potential to
develop into any of the body's cell types]. It will be possible to
make iPS cells from skin cells, to make germ cells from these, and
*then combine them to make human embryos.*33
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a33>(emphasis
added)
And not to be out-excited, as Zev Rosenwaks, director of the Centre for
Reproductive Medicine and Infertility in New York, puts it, "infertility
is history":
I see the technology going towards possible eradication of
infertility altogether. *With nuclear-transfer technology or cell
modification, I think we'll be able to generate sperm and eggs for
anybody.*34
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama2.html#a34>(emphasis
added)
I can see that there is soon going to be a whole lot of contentment out
there.
V. Conclusions
Make up your own.
Endnotes
Available upon request; also available at:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_170ama1.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of Thousands of Students Will Refuse to Speak on October 20th,
as They Stand in Solidarity with Those Who are Killed Every Day by Abortion
MEDIA ADVISORY, Oct. 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Stand True,
Christ-Centered Pro-life, will hold its sixth annual Pro-life Day of
Silent Solidarity on Tuesday, Oct. 20. Last year students from over
4,700 campuses in 25 countries participated in the event, and Stand True
expects even more this year. Last year Stand True heard back from
participants about 58 girls who canceled their abortions on the day of
the event due to the efforts of the students. These students stand in
solidarity with each other to bring attention to the holocaust that is
killing almost 4,000 babies every day in the United States alone.
"The students are speaking loud and clear; they want an end to legalized
child-killing" said Bryan Kemper, President of Stand True Ministries.
"We are getting thousands of e-mails, comments and internet messages
from students thanking us for giving them a peaceful way to stand up and
be counted."
<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102759085622&s=16890&e=001wi8PwegPfYiciMCqCHBaeku8AcNSO248oCE0MzEz1-hGyM_as8if_0oDxi5hb4kudvinAzkzTtkz1NV1jDeVlvrLiFxon8wF4ETugVj7LEHU6PUVCYCVGtY8xMHFWKz3nCSYIqCSyFOYeqG5H1O7jVfItF5aY3X7>
Here are just a couple of the comments we have received from the students:
"I got one girl to not get an abortion because I took a ZERO in class
for this and she started crying. She pulled me into the bathroom and
told me she was pregnant and was going to have an abortion and she said
because of how much this meant to me she didn't! We both sat in the
bathroom and cried for a few min. and she put the baby up for adoption!"
"She's about a month or so pregnant. I have her for a couple of my
classes. She kept glancing at my shirt all day and she took a flier. But
she didn't say anything. Then today in 6th I was getting up and she came
up to me. And in front of the whole classroom she began weeping and fell
into my arms. She said she didn't want to have an abortion anymore. She
said she wanted to receive Christ right there."
Students will not only remain silent but will also wear red armbands
and/or red duct tape on their mouths, and distribute educational flyers
to anyone who asks why they are silent. Many home-schooled students will
also participate in the event by visiting local malls and other public
areas to distribute flyers.
Participating students are instructed to be respectful to teachers and
other officials and to speak with them when required.
"Thousands of American babies are permanently silenced every day by the
violent act of abortion," said Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director of
Students for Life. "This is a day for pro-life students to honor those
children as they stay silent as an act of solidarity with these innocent
victims."
"This is a way for us to challenge students of all ages to be bold
advocates for the almost 4,000 pre-born who are murdered every day in
our country," said Timmerie Millington of Survivors. "They have an
opportunity to stand with their fellow classmates and an obligation to
be a voice for the voiceless. By standing in united solidarity across
the world, students everywhere can identify with the preborn children,
and our silence will proclaim 'stop killing our generation!' We can and
must be warriors for the preborn!"
Over the past few years many schools have tried to stop students from
participating and have tried to quash their First Amendment rights.
Every year, attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund defend these
students and file lawsuits to protect their rights.
There is no cost to participate in the event. Flyers are available for
download in PDF format at www.silentday.org
<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102759085622&s=16890&e=001wi8PwegPfYhYwzTUdH8e0WYnyKHf89Ho1aBzpxFr8LtTFHIkmIOQWsNmFqQcCWh65Hi1y8FgDOa-X0NwnVKDq0xkkLlhTjD5tRVofK0diyNOJTP0kApUqQ==>
. Students can also follow the event on twitter at
www.twitter.com/prolifeday
<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102759085622&s=16890&e=001wi8PwegPfYgTfmI0Td6gG14CSvFbgxIzbKFWY0V67ajhYJdVEyMO_PGrWs_H68TmHPvCp5qmA5c2DzFwuymTjMji7SIPb0itjQ3JIIwosyaob_PTjAUtaM8Tyqv6yrzM>
Legal help for students involved is available from the Alliance Defense
Fund (www.telladf.org
<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102759085622&s=16890&e=001wi8PwegPfYhIzmJusGNIh7qClKOPPXewzcKEEHNOQ5DNlYU2fO3r9UrTbLtcIgSu8tbFnNabse1-qFCCZEa5JyZlx5hYnG5sE83LihPq0TPjhGIDJXIg_Q==>
or 1- 800- TELL-ADF).
/The Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity is a Project of Stand True -
Christ Centered Pro-life and co- sponsored by Students for Life of
America, Generation Life, Priests for Life, Survivors, Abort73.com and
Lifenews.com./
Editors: Bryan Kemper is available for comment at 937-339-5648 (office)
or 540-538-2581 (mobile).
Christian Newswire
<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102759085622&s=16890&e=001wi8PwegPfYhqbNqEs7gtu6Cw3TlOfo46K5U3ngZ_WRJ4gp2EiK3CGxhrflrz6wtaUnlqzRlpdyG-vOscG-K6JGBxD6vyDwWsPR3LHfb6rO9seNUdhBS6CAG3sgwD5YHR>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 Days on the Pill DVD Video
From$15.00
+Shipping charges <http://www.pfli.org/shop/contents/en-us/d1.html#>
Add to basket <http://www.pfli.org/shop/contents/en-us/d1.html#>
Favorites <http://www.pfli.org/shop/contents/en-us/d1.html#>
AB13
Weight: 1.000 lbs
!
28dayspill
A Raging Controversy You May Know Little or Nothing About...the
abortifacient properties of the so-called oral "contraceptive" also
commonly called just "The Pill". On DVD video.
DVD Video about a Christian worker, his family and a nurse friend
investigate throughout North America to uncover the truth about the
birth control pill. The debate has been raging for over 25 years and yet
so few people know about it.
How could this be? How does the pill really work? Can everyday oral
contraceptives really cause abortions? Why are so many people
uninformed? How does the FDA and other countries' agencies allow these
high powered steroids with significant, serious and, at times, deadly
side effects to remain on the market when drugs that genuine treat
disease are pulled from the market for the slightest wiff of danger or
risk to patients.
Discover how this could be a deadly silence. Find out what has shocked
pharmacists, doctors and nurses. *Be informed! Inform others! Order one
for yourself and another to educate a friend, associate or family member
today!* <http://www.pfli.org/shop>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PFLI PharmAid Center
pfli at pfli.org <mailto:pfli at pfli.org>
PO Box 1281
Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA
800-227-8359
www.pfli.org
<%3Cform%20action=%22https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr%22%20method=%22post%22%3E,%3Cinput%20type=%22hidden%22%20name=%22cmd%22%20value=%22_s-xclick%22%3E,%3Cinput%20type=%22image%22%20src=%22https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/x-click-butcc-donate.gif%22%20border=%220%22%20name=%22submit%22%20alt=%22Make%20payments%20with%20PayPal%20-%20it%27s%20fast,%20free%20and%20secure%21%22%3E,%3Cinput%20type=%22hidden%22%20name=%22encrypted%22%20value=%22-----BEGIN%20PKCS7-----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%0A%0A%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%0AAYD%0AVQQ%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-----END%20PKCS7-----,%22%3E,%3C/form%3E>
PFLI supports pharmacist rights of conscience NOT to be forced to
dispense or counsel for chemicals which violate their sincerely held
religious, moral or ethical beliefs. For more info see:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
*** PFLI is the only pharmacy association which is exclusively pro-life.
It represents thousands of pharmacists and many lay supporters
in the USA, Canada and all around the globe. For membership info, key
PFLI texts, PFLI archives, late-breaking news, abridged newsletter excerpts
or general information, visit the PFLI web site at http://www.pfli.org.
Or e-mail us at mailto:pfli at pfli.org.
*** We do NOT send out SPAM. To subscribe to PharmFacts E-News, just
send an e-mail with the word
"subscribe" in the subject area or better yet, just enroll right from
our main news page at
http://www.pfli.org; to cease your subscription [although we can't
imagine anyone would!] self-manage your account at:
http://pfli.org/mailman/listinfo/pflienews_pfli.org
*** You may contact PFLI at any/all of the following: Pharmacists For
Life International,
PO Box 1281, Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA, 1-800-227-8359 [US & Canada only],
+1-740-881-5520 [voice] or +1-707-667-2447 [fax]; e-mail us at
mailto:pfli at pfli.org.
*** You can order our publications as well as begin/renew your
membership or donate right on our
secure website at http://www.pfli.org/shop <http://www.pfli.org>. Click
on the "PFLI Store" link on the toolbar and
follow the prompts! There you can also donate to PFLI as well as
purchase a wide range of publications.
* *
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091012/ad516c3c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 78028 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091012/ad516c3c/attachment-0004.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11379 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091012/ad516c3c/attachment-0005.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1255300851.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 43317 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091012/ad516c3c/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IAddtobasketButtonImage-<sf_.ID>
Type: image/png
Size: 1166 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091012/ad516c3c/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IFavoritesButtonImage-<sf_ID>
Type: image/png
Size: 1425 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091012/ad516c3c/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IP51
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4410 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091012/ad516c3c/attachment-0006.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2923 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091012/ad516c3c/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11831 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091012/ad516c3c/attachment-0007.jpe>
More information about the PFLIENews
mailing list