UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Feb > Feb 12

Refuting The Hopkins Jacobs Mack Synthesis

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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com