Death for dollars? Ukrainian infants likely killed to harvest stem cells
Rebecca Grace - AFA Journal OneNewsNow.com February 17, 2007
Evidence from a video obtained by the BBC points to the stomach-churning possibility that healthy babies born in a Ukrainian maternity hospital were taken their mothers and then murdered so that large amounts of stem cells could be harvested from their brains and bone marrow. A spokesman for the hospital denies it is connected in any way with the use of stem cells -- but one Ukrainian couple never saw their newborn daughter again after being told all was well and then told later she had died.
advertisement
In the Ukraine, investigators are exploring the possibility that healthy infants and preborns were killed for stem-cell experimentation. It is speculated that the babies' organs were extracted after allegedly being stolen from mothers by staff at Maternity Hospital Number Six in the eastern city of Kharkov.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) claims to have a video showing the autopsy examination of 30 infants and fetuses that were exhumed from a cemetery used by the Ukrainian maternity hospital. The video was also turned over to the Council of Europe who is now carrying out its own investigation as a response to about 300 families who are coming forward with charges against the hospital for allegedly taking and killing their newborns.
Pictures from the autopsies reveal tiny dismembered bodies with missing organs and brains. Since dismemberment of bodies is not a standard post-mortem practice, it is likely the babies were harvested for the high amounts of stem cells in their brains and bone marrow.
It is a recognized practice in the Ukraine, the stem-cell capital of the world, to take stem cells from aborted fetuses with the mothers' consent. Due to the increasing worldwide demand for stem cells, it is possible healthy newborns are now being used to feed this demand. These healthy babies mysteriously "die" following a successful birth.
Such is likely the case for Ukrainian couple Dimitry and Olena Stulnev who had their baby at Maternity Hospital Number Six. "I gave birth to a healthy girl," Olena told the Daily Mail. "She was crying and moving her hands and legs. I was shown the baby. After that the girl was taken away. They told me everything was OK, and I could see her the next day."
Olena never saw her baby again. She was told the next day that her baby was dead and given conflicting stories as to the reason for the child's death. The couple began investigating the death of their child but got nowhere. The more they pried, the less information they got.
Even today, Ukrainian authorities and hospital staff remain tight-lipped about the suspected use of newborns for stem-cell research.
According to BBC investigative reporter Matthew Hill, "The Ukrainian authorities deny any conspiracy and refute claims that there is a trade in stem cells taken from stolen babies."
"No work in this hospital is connected with the use of cells," Dr. Larysa Nazarenko told Hill. Nazarenko is the chief doctor at Maternity Hospital Number Six.
Although speculations are being disputed by those accused of committing these atrocities, Hill thinks the silence will be broken in February when the Council of Europe returns to Kharkov to continue its investigation of what has already become a horrifying insight into the stem-cell controversy.
"One of the things that we have been concerned about for years is the fact that, by pushing embryonic stem-cell research, we're looking at a situation that is bound to use human beings as fodder for the experiments," said Dr. Janice Crouse, director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute at Concerned Women for America (CWA).
Bioethicist Wesley Smith believes the demand for hundreds of millions of eggs and stem cells will lead to fetal farming.
"In order to get the millions and millions of eggs that would be required, poor women in Bangladesh, in Congo, in other destitute nations would be seen by biotechnologists as so many egg farms ripe for the harvest," Smith explained. "This commoditization of human life is pernicious ...."
Sadly, it appears to be motivated by big business and financial gain.
For example, the allegations of the stolen Ukrainian babies come only months after Family News in Focus reported women in the Ukraine were being paid $200 to abort their babies for the acquisition of stem cells. More specifically, according to Smith, the women were paid to get pregnant for the sole purpose of aborting the babies at eight weeks gestation so the stem cells could be used for an anti-aging beauty treatment.
The Institute for Regenerative Medicine (IRM) in Barbados uses such a treatment that supposedly improves one's fitness, sex life, mental capacity, and sleeping patterns. IRM buys its stem cells used in the treatment from the Ukraine. The treatment involves injecting clients with stem cells from seven- to ten-week-old aborted babies. But now there is reason to question a possible link between this or other treatments and the missing Ukrainian babies.
Whether the stem cells are taken from aborted or birthed babies, "Destroying innocent life to meet a business demand for stem cells is an unconscionable bioethical breach," said Wendy Wright, CWA president. "The entire concept of the human being as a product is coming into vogue," Smith added, "and it should be a great concern to everyone."
Rebecca Grace, a regular contributor to OneNewsNow, is staff writer for AFA Journal, a monthly publication of the American Family Association. This article, printed with permission, appears in the February 2007 issue.
Mr. Blatchford has summed up all that is important in his whole position in three sentences. They are perfectly honest and clear. Nor are they any the less honest and clear because the first two of them are falsehoods and the third is a fallacy. He says "The Christian denies the miracles of the Mahommedan. The Mahommedan denies the miracles of the Christian. The Rationalist denies all miracles alike."
The historical error in the first two remarks I will deal with shortly. I confine myself for the moment to the courageous admission of Mr. Blatchford that the Rationalist denies all miracles alike. He does not question them. He does not pretend to be agnostic about them. He does not suspend his judgment until they shall be proved. He denies them.
Faced with this astounding dogma I asked Mr. Blatchford why he thought miracles would not occur. He replied that the Universe was governed by laws. Obviously this answer is of no use whatever. For we cannot call a thing impossible because the world is governed by laws, unless we know what laws. Does Mr. Blatchford know all about all the laws in the Universe? And if he does not know about the laws how can he possibly know anything about the exceptions?
For, obviously, the mere fact that a thing happens seldom, under odd circumstances and with no explanation within our knowledge, is no proof that it is against natural law. That would apply to the Siamese twins, or to a new comet, or to radium three years ago.
The philosophical case against miracles is somewhat easily dealt with. There is no philosophical case against miracles. There are such things as the laws of Nature rationally speaking. What everybodyknows is this only. That there is repetition in nature. What everybody knows is that pumpkins produce pumpkins. What nobody knows is why they should not produce elephants and giraffes.
There is one philosophical question about miracles and only one. Many able modern Rationalists cannot apparently even get it into their heads. The poorest lad at Oxford in the Middle Ages would have understood it. (Note. As the last sentence will seem strange in our "enlightened" age I may explain that under "the cruel reign of mediaeval superstition," poor lads were educated at Oxford to a most reckless extent. Thank God, we live in better days.)
The question of miracles is merely this. Do you know why a pumpkin goes on being a pumpkin? If you do not, you cannot possibly tell whether a pumpkin could turn into a coach or couldn't. That is all.
All the other scientific expressions you are in the habit of using at breakfast are words and winds. You say "It is a law of nature that pumpkins should remain pumpkins." That only means that pumpkins generally do remain pumpkins, which is obvious; it does not say why. You say "Experience is against it." That only means, "I have known many pumpkins intimately and none of them turned into coaches."
There was a great Irish Rationalist of this school (possibly related to Mr. Lecky), who when he was told that a witness had seen him commit murder said that he could bring a hundred witnesses who had not seen him commit it.
You say "The modern world is against it." That means that a mob of men in London and Birmingham, and Chicago, in a thoroughly pumpkiny state of mind, cannot work miracles by faith.
You say "Science is against it." That means that so long as pumpkins are pumpkins their conduct is pumpkiny, and bears no resemblance to the conduct of a coach. That is fairly obvious.
What Christianity says is merely this. That this repetition in Nature has its origin not in a thing resembling a law but a thing resembling a will. Of course its phase of a Heavenly Father is drawn from an earthly father. Quite equally Mr. Blatchford's phase of a universal law is a metaphor from an Act of Parliament. But Christianity holds that the world and its repetition came by will or Love as children are begotten by a father, and therefore that other and different things might come by it. Briefly, it believes that a God who could do anything so extraordinary as making pumpkins go on being pumpkins, is like the prophet, Habbakuk, <Capable de tout>. If you do not think it extraordinary that a pumpkin is always a pumpkin, think again. You have not yet even begun philosophy. You have not even seen a pumpkin.
The historic case against miracles is also rather simple. It consists of calling miracles impossible, then saying that no one but a fool believes impossibilities: then declaring that there is no wise evidence on behalf of the miraculous. The whole trick is done by means of leaning alternately on the philosophical and historical objection. If we say miracles are theoretically possible, they say, "Yes, but there is no evidence for them." When we take all the records of the human race and say, "Here is your evidence," they say, "But these people were superstitious, they believed in impossible things."
The real question is whether our little Oxford Street civilisation is certain to be right and the rest of the world certain to be wrong. Mr. Blatchford thinks that the materialism of nineteenth century Westerns is one of their noble discoveries. I think it is as dull as their coats, as dirty as their streets, as ugly as their trousers, and as stupid as their industrial system.
Mr. Blatchford himself, however, has summed up perfectly his pathetic faith in modern civilisation. He has written a very amusing description of how difficult it would be to persuade an English judge in a modern law court of the truth of the Resurrection. Of course he is quite right; it would be impossible. But it does not seem to occur to him that we Christians may not have such an extravagant reverence for English judges as is felt by Mr. Blatchford himself.
The experiences of the Founder of Christianity have perhaps left us in a vague doubt of the infallibility of courts of law. I know quite well that nothing would induce a British judge to believe that a man had risen from the dead. But then I know quite as well that a very little while ago nothing would have induced a British judge to believe that a Socialist could be a good man. A judge would refuse to believe in new spiritual wonders. But this would not be because he was a judge, but because he was, besides being a judge, an English gentleman, a modern Rationalist, and something of an old fool.
And Mr. Blatchford is quite wrong in supposing that the Christian and the Moslem deny each other's miracles. No religion that thinks itself true bothers about the miracles of another religion. It denies the doctrines of the religion; it denies its morals; but it never thinks it worth while to deny its signs and wonders.
And why not? Because these things some men have always thought possible. Because any wandering gipsy may have Psychical powers. Because the general existence of a world of spirits and of strange mental powers is a part of the common sense of all mankind. The Pharisees did not dispute the miracles of Christ; they said they were worked by devilry. The Christians did not dispute the miracles of Mahomed. They said they were worked by devilry. The Roman world did not deny the possibility that Christ was a God. It was far too enlightened for that.
In so far as the Church did (chiefly during the corrupt and sceptical eighteenth century) urge miracles as a reason for belief, her fault is evident: but it is not what Mr. Blatchford supposes. It is not that she asked men to believe anything so incredible; it is that she asked men to be converted by anything so commonplace.
What matters about a religion is not whether it can work marvels like any ragged Indian conjurer, but whether it has a true philosophy of the Universe. The Romans were quite willing to admit that Christ was a God. What they denied was the He was the God - the highest truth of the cosmos. And this is the only point worth discussing about Christianity.
On a college campus, where diversity is touted as "an indispensable element of academic excellence," diversity of ideology is being squelched. Not wanting to reveal her identity for fear of endangering her job, Dr. Miriam Grossman anonymously wrote Unprotected, a book which provides an unpopular explanation to the epidemic of suicide, depression, eating disorders and sexually transmitted diseases on America's college campuses.
A psychiatrist at UCLA Student Psychological Services, Dr. Grossman says that she was "outed" on Dr. Laura Schlessinger's popular radio program. She is now speaking to organizations and on radio programs that recognize the value of her unpopular analysis of the consequences of the sexual revolution. The Family Research Council recently hosted Dr. Grossman as part of its lecture series to answer questions about her work.
Dr. Grossman speaks - as she describes it - from her experience in the "trenches of the college campus environment." Popular explanations for widespread depression and suicide among college students include parental expectations, bad national leadership, rising tuition and lack of sleep. While psychiatrists are searching for victims to diagnose, Dr. Grossman explains that the majority of her profession is overlooking the "casualties of a radical social agenda."
This "radical social agenda" that she speaks of is the combined effort to normalize harmful sexual behavior, equalize all sexual encounters (as long as latex is used), define individuals by their "sexual orientation" and assume that any desire must be fulfilled (except the desire for fatty foods and cigarettes). Health services on campuses warn students to "use protection" and even provide contraceptives free of charge. What they fail to protect against is the inevitable emotional damage, particularly to women, that results from casual sex.
Television shows like "Sex and the City" and movies such as "The Holiday" present women acting like men when it comes to sex: no emotional attachment and no expectation of commitment. Female college students begin to believe that this is the natural way women should treat relationships. Dr. Grossman explains that the biochemistry of the female body rejects this notion entirely.
Oxytocin is a chemical hormone that is released in women during sexual activity and induces bonding: "Neuroscientists have discovered that specific brain cells and chemicals are involved in attachment. . [T]he same chemical that flows through a woman's veins as she nurses her infant, promoting a powerful and selfless devotion, is found in college women 'hooking up' with men whose last intention is to bond," Dr. Grossman states in her book.
The young women that Dr. Grossman treats do not understand what causes their depression because there is no public discussion about the damage sexual promiscuity generates. It is not politically correct to acknowledge differences between men and women and how they are wired. SNAC, UCLA's Student Nutrition Action Committee, provides helpful information to students regarding how to avoid obesity, eating disorders and other health-related issues. However, there is no comparable service telling young women how to avoid the emotional devastation and depression which results from "sexual experimentation."
Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, Senior Fellow of CWA's Beverly LaHaye Institute, states the sad truth in her article "Sex and Consequences":
The nation's 17 million college and university students are being denied truth, while their risky behavior is condoned by the prevalent social agenda on campus. Dispassionate objectivity and compassionate concern for an individual's health and well-being have been replaced by social activism.
Fortunately, Dr. Grossman is countering this agenda with "just the facts".
Британский агент предлагал взровать себя вместе с Гитлером
Британского агента, предлагавшего в разгар войны уничтожить Гитлера, отговорили от этого британские спецслужбы.
Как пишет газета Times, ссылаясь на только что открытые военные архивы британской контрразведки MI5, предложение "убрать" фюрера в результате миссии смертника поступило от некоего Эдди Чэпмена, преступника со стажем и профессионального взломщика сейфов.
Шпионскому ремеслу его обучили нацисты, после чего он стал одним из успешнейших британских двойных агентов, действующим под кодовым именем Агент Зигзаг.
Чэпмен отбывал срок в тюрьме на британском острове Джерси, когда в июне 1940 года остров оккупировали войска нацистской Германии.
Он был завербован Абвером, немецкой военной разведкой, и в декабре 1941 года сброшен на парашюте в Британию.
На допросе в MИ-5 27-летний Чэпмен заявил, что хотел бы вернуться в Германию в качестве двойного агента и уничтожить Гитлера, взорвав бомбу на одном из нацистских митингов.
Как пишет Times, Чэпмен объяснил британцам, что его немецкий шеф, офицер Абвера, известный ему лишь как "доктор Грауманн", пообещал взять его на такой митинг, если он успешно выполнит свою миссию в Британии, и поместить его в "в первый или второй ряд", вблизи трибуны с фюрером, при необходимости одев его в форму старшего офицера вермахта.
Возможно, Лондон посчитал, что бывший вор не достоин столь высокой миссии...
Газета отмечает, что офицер британской разведки, работавший с Чэпменом, был убежден в серьезности его предложения.
Из его рапорта начальству, выдержку из которого приводит Times, следует, что, по мнению офицера, Чэпмен руководствовался желанием искупить свою вину за прошлые преступления и войти в историю.
Как пишет далее Times, британцы все-таки отказались от возможности устранить Гитлера. Скорее всего, пишет газета, главной причиной этого стало то, что Чэпмен - по словам офицера MI5, "пособник воров" - просто был не той личностью, которую британский истеблишмент посчитал бы достойной такой миссии.
Новые доказательства из только что открытых архивов свидетельствует, что немецкий шеф Чэпмена, настоящее имя которого было Стефан фон Грёнинг, возможно, сознательно хотел подставить агента в качестве смертника.
Подобно многим офицерам Абвера, фон Грёнинг был тайным оппонентом фюрера, и предложение провести Чэпмена на нацистский митинг могло означать его осведомленность о настроениях британского шпиона - и что они могли действовать сообща.
Как пишет Times, Чэпмен все-таки вернулся в Германию в качестве двойного агента, хотя его британское руководство настоятельно упреждало его "не предпринимать никаких кардинальных действий".
Ему даже удалось убедить немцев в успехе его миссии в Британии и получить "железный крест" за заслуги. После этого его снова сбросили на парашюте в Британию, где он принимал участие в успешной операции по отражению новых немецких ракет VI.
Как пишет Times, Чэпмен пережил войну и получил официальное прощение за многочисленные довоенные преступления.
We have gotten in a routine of late, where I turn on Sesame Street right about the time I need to make dinner, so that both Little Big Girl and Baby are entranced and we can actually eat on time.
Because we have Tivo, we can watch Elmo any old time of day.
But we had a little mishap the other day. Or should I say, I made a big Mommy Mistake. And I am mad about it. Mostly I am mad at Disney.
I will say it officially: I HATE THE DISNEY CHANNEL.
This is how it went down: I turned on the TV, and picked up the Tivo clicker.
I was not fast enough, and before I clicked to the Tivo options, Little Big Girl noticed that there was another show on tv, on the “live” tv – "Lilo and Stitch".
And she said: Today, just today, can I watch Lilo & Stitch instead of Sesame Street?
And HERE IS WHERE I WENT WRONG: I said to myself, Well, it’s the Disney Channel. How bad can it be?
Bad. Bad. BAD. It can be *bad*.
While I was making dinner, and not really paying attention (MOMMY PROBLEM NUMBER TWO - PAY ATTENTION TO THE TV. Apparently, especially if it's The Disney Channel)(Better yet, don't turn on The Freaking Disney Channel) (plus I had never seen this Lilo & Stitch show before. MISTAKE NUMBER THREE - do not agree to a show that YOU have never seen), this is what happened to Lilo: some weird creature came along, and wanted to make Lilo (and Stitch) fat, and so fed them lots of food. And they became fat.
Really, really fat. Like blowing up to a big ball fat.
And now Little Big Girl – AGE THREE – is obsessed with not becoming fat.
Now everything we offer her: is this junk food Mommy, or good food?
(Because I told her only junk food can make her fat, since I'm trying to dissipate this fat-fear and yet not make any explanations too complicated. Plus she's THREE.)
Or: Well, chips are junk food Mommy, but we can have a few, that won’t make us too fat.
(Because I told her a few won't hurt us, because I actually like to eat chips now and then, and she was warning me off because it will make me fat.)
Or: No, thank you. That might make me fat.
(This to yogurt and cheese and dinner. Because we have to qualify everything with: it's not junk food, it is good for you, you will not get fat, please eat your dinner.)
SHE IS THREE.
I could just wring the Disney Channel by the neck. The Channel and all their measly executives and mostly their pimply-faced, twenty-four-year-old-but-already-out-of-any-good-story-ideas writers for writing such an asinine story line for small children.
YEAGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!
That was me being angry at the stupid Disney Channel.
And, of course, at me. I'm mad at me for not listening closer. For not realizing how she would take the story. For thinking it might scare her because the creature wanted to eat the fattened Lilo and Stitch – a la Hansel and Gretel – and thinking that wasn’t too scary, right? And for not realizing that was the totally wrong thing to be focused on.
And now – now – how do we get her to not worry about getting fat. To focus on health and wellness rather than body size or caloric intake.
