Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Human Parthenogenesis. The phantom article. Misinterpretations.

Christmas brought to me some “new” articles about one of the hot topics of the days: Parthenogenesis. After some reading and searching I was astounded to find out some sources claiming that parthenogenesis is not only possible for humans but that it has been possibly been observed too (1). (V: by the way, parthenogenesis in animals is extremely COMMON, to a point that it makes you wander: do the atheists which laugh at the birth of Christ believe that humans do not belong in the same category as the animals for which parthenogenesis phenomena are so common?)

After some deeper search, I found a number of interesting articles (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12), which all had the same central point of reference: The old “phantom” article “PARTHENOGENESIS IN HUMAN BEINGS”(by S. Balfour-Lynn, The Lancet, Volume 267, Issue 6931, pages 1071 - 1072, 30 June 1956) from the renowned scientific journal “The Lancet” (13).

This article cannot be found in the internet for free. So one has to rely on what other say about it and its content! The fact that I had to pay $40 (with taxes) to buy a 1956 article and some highly antiphatic/ contradictory reports on its conclusions piqued my curiosity. When I read what the book “The Mysteries of Human Reproduction” (by Raymond W. Bernard) (14) said, in contrast to what other sources said (for the SAME Lancet publication!) I was finally convinced: I had to buy the article to see its contents for myself!

In two sentences: The Lancet article states that parthenogenesis is almost certainly scientifically observed! All the articles claiming that the Lancet article states the opposite are simply lying. (and yes: The Lancet is RIDICULOUS to ask for $40 for a 1,5 pages article from 1956!)

In more than two sentences:
  1. A scientist analyzed 19 alleged cases of human parthenogenesis.
  2. The 18 of the 19 cases were rejected for various reasons.
  3. One case (Mrs. Alpha) passed all the tests, which included blood, saliva, taste and skin-grafting tests. The skin-grafting tests from mother to daughter and vice versa ended up in the almost simultaneous rejection of the transplants (in 4 weeks from the daughter and in 6 weeks from the mother). This result was “by accident” misinterpreted as a negative result, even though the Lancet article does not say such a thing. And actually it is logical for two identical persons to have the same reaction! (this actually increases the probability of the case being a true case of parthenogenesis!) Claims that the skin grafts from a “same” person “must” be accepted are simply not valid, since there are numerous cases of people who rejected skin transplants from their own skin. (15) Others claim (like here) that daughter and mother are different (and, thus, we did not have parthenogenesis), since the daughter rejected the transplant earlier than her mother. But again, this is speculation NOT contained in the Lancet article and easily debatable. Are we ready to denounce a case which passed ALL the tests because of a 2 weeks difference in ONE test which ALSO was (at the end) successful?
  4. The article concluded that “In such a case as this, rigorous proof is impossible, but it remains that all the evidence obtained from serological and special tests is consistent with what would be expected in a case of parthenogenesis” […] “this mother’s claim must not only be considered seriously, but it must also be admitted that we have been unable to disprove it”.
It is time for science to become more courageous so as to pursue more actively the analysis of ambiguous subjects. Hiding problems under the carpet is not good for anyone.

It is time science becomes Science again!

To all the atheists in the world: HAPPY CHRISTMAS!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...