Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Now it's Korean babies, but the offenders remain the same

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Now it's Korean babies, but the offenders remain the same

    Just read this. At least for the popular press it's somewhat balanced, and somewhat informative. Good for them. And shame on the so-called "celebrities" who should use their visibility to campaign against, not for, circ, especially when there are other sources for growth factor for cosmetics, of all things. Jesus.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0463cdba4a6fa

  • #2
    That's really fucked up but not like we haven't heard it before with oprah's skin cream. Using foreskin stem cells to make these old ugly ass women's faces look slightly less wrinkly is the dumbest waste of that skin.

    This is interesting though-
    "Another small study, which used EGF derived from barley instead of foreskins, found that use of an EGF serum twice daily for three months improved the appearance of brown spots, pore size, wrinkles and even overall skin texture"

    In theory if we use this EGF (but ethically sourced!) since it promotes cell growth we could use it to speed up restoration? It's probably not safe to use on mucus membranes though and I do understand the structures of the skin in the penis are different from the face skin.

    Comment


    • #3
      Yeah, Oprah was the usual celebrity mentioned in the past, but I thought it was worth posting more celebrities who promote the harvesting of human infant parts. That's basically what is happening here. Every time it gets celebrity press, it should get counterpoint, somewhere, by someone. Letters to E DG would be a move.

      Be interesting if she gets a few angry letters. She makes a big noise about being in the vanguard, so to me this is a bit surprising. If the pro intact gay folks (and perhaps the B and T folks) chime in, then maybe she'll find herself in an uncomfortable spot, as she should. Maybe she'll make a comment, or risk looking cold hearted. It's all about image (and the money that comes from image) for celebrities. Givin' free shit to the audience (and dancing really badly ) doesn't make up for anything on a basic human rights issue.

      And I should say, I learned something from the article: I wasn't aware of plant-sourced EGF as an alternative. Can anyone make a strong claim for a "preference" for an unaware, non consented human tissue source when this is available? Just adding to the argument, one small point at a time. This point is one more inroad in the anti circ argument.

      And no, nothing topical will speed up restoration.
      Last edited by Reality; 05-24-2018, 09:07 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        The article states that the serum uses cloned cells, so initially there were foreskins harvested from infants but hypothetically they can just keep reproducing those cells without harvesting any more from infants. In practice I don't know how true this is.

        But it's something I wasn't aware was a possibility. And it's an interesting moral exercise to determine whether the cloned cells are ok to use under the assumption that no more "initial supply" is required.

        Comment


        • #5
          Nope, doesn't work that way.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm pretty sure the vast majority of South Koreans get circumcised around age 12, not as newborns.

            Comment


            • #7
              I notice that there was no comment section beneath the article. Very telling.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by reenigne95 View Post
                I'm pretty sure the vast majority of South Koreans get circumcised around age 12, not as newborns.
                "Late childhood" is an average, hence my use of the word "basically". The physiological results are of course the same, and the subsequent use of tissues is the same, ie as a component of cosmetics. I can take the word "babies" from the title, but it changes nothing.

                Comment


                • #9
                  If anyone needs help protesting a screening of Oceans 8, or any event where Sandra Bullock or Cate Blanchett are celebrated, just contact me.
                  -Ron Low
                  Service@TLCTugger.com
                  847 414-1692 Chicago

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Reality View Post
                    And I should say, I learned something from the article: I wasn't aware of plant-sourced EGF as an alternative. Can anyone make a strong claim for a "preference" for an unaware, non consented human tissue source when this is available? Just adding to the argument, one small point at a time. This point is one more inroad in the anti circ argument.
                    You'd think this method of sourcing would end the use of foreskin tissue, but it's apparently not so simple. My guess is not everyone currently has access to the genetically engineered barley plants that are made to produce epidermal growth factor (which is not uncontroversial in itself - Google it), but tissue banks are easy to find and will probably sell to anybody. If anyone ever decides to market this barley-derived EGF, it most likely won't be cheaper than what's already commercially available.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by z726 View Post

                      You'd think this method of sourcing would end the use of foreskin tissue, but it's apparently not so simple. My guess is not everyone currently has access to the genetically engineered barley plants that are made to produce epidermal growth factor (which is not uncontroversial in itself - Google it), but tissue banks are easy to find and will probably sell to anybody. If anyone ever decides to market this barley-derived EGF, it most likely won't be cheaper than what's already commercially available.
                      Commercial industry (with cosmetics as only one example) will never comply with an ethical mandate. They want money, and fuck anybody who gets in their way. They've always been transgressors, and remain so (which is ironic when so many here try to promote the advertising bullshit take on "health" out there).

                      But Medicine will comply, when the issue (RIC and any non clinical tissue sales) is officially recognized. It has its own ethic which at least supports "doing the right thing" (as powerful as "doing no harm"), when this is defined and accepted. Force that "industry" (and RIC, as well as the tissues market, can certainly be considered an industry) and it will comply. So, break the chain on Medicine's end, and it will truly affect the practice as we know it today, including the alternative sources for a perceived (and f'ing made up) need for, yet again, "health" as the cosmetic industry lies to us about.

                      We work with what we have, and we do this step by step. We don't arrive at a skin tube on anything but the built-in program, step by step, and we don't immediately "get" some sort of all-encompassing solution to RIC (certainly not by the naive approach we've read on this forum and others). A solution is eventually reached by doing what it will take in the real world, rather than some naive understanding of that involves. In other words, alternative sources aren't the problem, and may not be part of the solution (who knows). The intactivist argument doesn't depend on "alternatively sourced" tissue growth factor, although as I've said this is something to keep in mind in a discussion. Our argument depends on definition, ethics, and legality.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X