From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:13:08 -0500 Archived: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 06:44:14 -0500 Subject: Refuting The Hopkins Jacobs Mack Synthesis Hi Tyler, I liked your response so much I thought it worthy of a new subject line and a separate discussion thread. >From: Tyler Kokjohn <TKOKJO.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 06:22:38 -0700 >Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins >>From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:26:20 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins <snip> >>How do [Ms. Rainey's] claims benefit resolving the question of what >>so-called abduction phenomena is all about? >Mr. Gelinas - >You have posed some seminal questions. It is time to focus on >getting somewhere. >One of the benefits of Ms. Rainey's article is that it exposed >the methods of one investigator to scrutiny. In that specific >case, it raised serious concerns about methods. [On human subject ethics in science research and whether Jacobs may have violated basic ethical standards in his work] I don't think UFO UpDates is the right place to resolve that issue. Those subjects who have a complaint about Jacobs' practices ought to contact a lawyer and file a complaint with his university ethics board. Let the institution, or, if necessary, a court of law decide this issue. But laying this out in the press and on e-mail Lists is not a remedy for relief for those who claim to have been harmed by his practices. And it may expose those who make these claims yet can't prove wrongdoing to a defamation lawsuit. >As it stands, neither investigator is meeting the challenge to >produce corroborating data. One effort that could be undertaken >is to obtain genetic evidence for human-alien hybrids using the >newer methods of cloning and DNA analyses. If things are as >these investigators hypothesize, samples from once-pregnant >abductees or touchDNA analysis of items contacted by hybrid >entities might reveal the truth. It is time for them to employ >these tools. This portion of your comment really caught my attention. I'm not a biologist, or even a scientist, but I am currently taking a class on bioethics. I suppose that gives me just enough knowledge to be dangerous in drawing poor conclusions. However, much of the assigned content is of recent studies published in Cell and other biotechnology journals, right now specifically related to stem cells. Recent findings from the early 2000s to late 2010 in published studies make a strong argument _against_ the alien hybridization claims of Jacobs, et all. For example, at the time of Jacobs' publication of _The Threat_ the only means for creating a totipotent or pluripotent stem cell was Somatic Nuclear Transfer (typically called cloning). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer The process involves destroying a blastocyst (pre-embryo) and removing a certain cell type from the embryoblast layer that is already totipotent. Next, the biologist removes the entire genome from the target cell nucleus and reinserts a new genome from a host cell, which had been part of some terminally differentiated tissue from part of the organism to be cloned (say, skin). A small portion of these cloned cells will divide and then form an entirely new organism with the target genes. Thus, at the time Jacobs published _The Threat_ and other books on aliend abduction, the only way known to genetically modify and/or clone an organism _required_ the use of embryonic stem cells as a precursor step to the cloning process. I would argue that this formed the basis of his and others' claims that aliens were abducting humans as part of an advanced hybridization program, because at the time harvesting embryos were a necessary component to genetic modification and cloning. If my reading of these assigned studies is correct, then SNT is not the only means for stem cell generation any longer. I point to these studies as backing evidence: Human Ebryonic Stem Cell Lines Generated Without Embryo Destruction, Young Chung et all in Cell Press, 2007: http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909%2807%2900330-X "Here we report the derivation of five hESC lines without embryo destruction, including one without hESC coculture. ... Here we clearly show that hESC lines can be derived without embryo destruction embryo destruction and that the biopsy procedure did not appear to interfere with subsequent good blastocyst development of the parent embryo. These results were achieved without culturing multiple blastomeres together, and at an efficiency substantially higher (20% or 50% versus 2%) than in our previous report. The success rate is siilar to that of conventional hESC derivation techniques using blastocysts." Thus, destroying an embryo is now not a necessary component of creating a pluripotent stem cell. _Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Human Fibroblasts by Defined Factors_, Kazutoshi Takahashi et all, Cell Press 2007: http://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674%2807%2901471-7 "In this study, we showed that iPS cells (induced pluripotent stem cells) can be generated from adult HDF (human development factors) and other somatic cells by retroviral transduction of the same four transcription factors with mouse iPS cells, namely Oct3/4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc. The four retroviruses are strongly silenced in human iPS cells, indicating that these cells areefficiently reprogrammed and do not depend on continuous expression of the transgenes for self renewal." Thus, it is now possible to take a terminally differentiated cell (say a skin cell) and _convert it back to pluripotency_ without even needing an embryo or embryoblast cells for Somatic Nuclear Transfer. Current technologies rely on a retrovirus carrier to conduct the reprogramming. But as seen in another study, it's may well be possible to do away with genome modification to induce pluripotency by using a bath of the right development factors in the correct density and order. "Extreme Makeover: Converting one Cell into Another", Qiao Zhou and Douglas Melton, Cell Press, 2008: http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909%2808%2900485-2 "A primary goal of regenerative medicine is to produce new cells to repair or replace diseased and damaged tissues. Among the many innovative ideas proposed to achieve this goal, a particularly interesting one involves remaking existing adult cells into new ones by converting them from one cell type to another. For example, abundant human cells such as dermal fibroblasts and adipocytes could be harvested and converted into other, medically important cells such as neurons, cardiomyocytes, or pancreatic B cells. These new cells may then be transplanted back into the same patient. Remaking adult cells in this way has the advantage of providing a fully immunologically matched gradt; the patient would be getting his or her own cells back." Thus, it is now possible to take terminally differentiated cells from one tissue type and reprogram them such that they turn into multipotent stem cells for the same specific tissue type. This technique essentially uses a bath of human development factors to signal cells to change their programming. It is currently limited to converting terminally differentiated cells into stem cells of the same tissue type. For example, the creation of stem cells from that would generate daughter B pancreatic cells suitable for outputting insulin from other cell types in the pancreas. Unfortunately, right now this technique would not be able to create B cells from, say, heart tissue. Still, the presumption is that it _may_ be possible to walk all the way up the differentiation ladder back to an iPSC (induced pluripotent stem cell), or even a totipotent stem cell using the right combination and density of human development factors over time. If that's true, it brings into doubt the entire technical rationale that Dr. Jacobs (among others) presented as to why so- called interstellar aliens might need to abduct humans for their genetic experiments. If humanity can do already better than aliens supposedly far more technically advanced than us, only a decade to a decade and a half after Jacobs et all made their arguments, then IMO the entire 'abduction hybridization program' as depicted by the 'alien abduction' hypothesizers is simply not supported by the evidence. It is not just that Jacobs' data collection and analysis methodology were poorly conducted, but that those conclusions are a priori _REFUTED_ by recent research showing that their initial technical assumptions about the need for human embryos for cloning are simply false. Therefore, whatever is going on WRT the claims about abduction phenomena, it is not an alien genetic modification program. I don't know what is the root cause of abductees' claimed experiences. I'm sure thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - of people claim to have had this experience in all honestly and sincerity. Refuting Jacobs and the standard alien abduction narrative need not diminish the importance of this experience to those who have had it. One can fairly say that they're experiencing _something_ meaningful, even if it's not part of some alien genetic engineering program. What those other hypotheses might be I don't know. To summarize: Jacobs' assertions in _The Threat_, and in other works, then relied on the limits of what biologists knew about cloning from that period. However, I think it can be strenuously argued that the discovery of new genetic engineering methods outside the scope of reported alien conduct during claimed abduction events means that common assumptions about the necessity for genetically modifying and reimplanting so-called 'hybrids' into human hosts no longer follows. What does that say about the rest of those conclusions from the Hopkins-Jacobs-Mac synthesis? I would argue that the entire logic chain is damaged by recent biotechnological findings. Now, I repeat that I'm not a scientist and I'm not a molecular biologist, I'm just an interested layperson. So, please consider my argument from that perspective. And I look forward to corrections from better informed readers. Best, --M Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp