garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (06/18/85)
I am continuing the series on the disposition of aborted fetuses,
supplying, as promised, references for the statements made in the
orginal article by Dr. Fairfax. This one deals with the charges
that fetal material is used in the manufacture of cosmetics.
From an article by Ray DiBlasio, in _Update_, April, 1982.
This ghoulish business first came to light last April
when a truckload of frozen human fetuses from central
Europe was intercepted by horrified guards at the Swiss-
French border. Finding nothing in their handbook of
regulations that applied to such a cargo, the guards
had to allow the shipment to continue on to its
cosmetic factory destination.
In a followup article by the same writer (I think the citation
says "October" -- this is one of the blurred parts of my copies):
...many were calling or writing [in response to the above]
to reaffirm their support of ACCL while registering polite
disbelief ... Was there any proof that French cosmetics
firms used human fetuses in their products? ...
Clearly it was time to recheck our source, journalist Nick
Thimmesch, whose syndicated column first alerted us to the
French cosmetics conncetion. ... Although the manuscripts
included commentary from Gazette du Palais, a leading French
legal journal, what most commanded our attention was a little
brochure issued by Madame Renee Ibry of the Centre Henri
Chenot, a beauty parlor in Cannes, promoting the miraculous
regenerative powers of Californie Esthetique. The cosmetic
preparation, to sample the detailed and extravagant claims
made in the brochure, is made from fresh cells taken
exclusively from fetuses, flash frozen and preserved in a
frozen state until used... Color coding identifies cosmetic
sticks fashioned from various fetal organs and recommended
for different applications...
From the above-mentioned brochure ('???' indicates places in my copy
which are illegible):
Ces cellules sont d'autant efficaces qu'elles sont vivantes...
Exclusivement pre'leve'es sur des foetus, ces cel???
non encore autonomes n'engendrent en ??? cas d'anticorps; ceci
reduit au maxi??? les risques d'allergie:
-- Absolument naturel ce produit ce presente
pour l'usage `a domicile.
-- Stick rouge: placenta de foetus, rate, foie,
et thymus.
-- Stick blanc: liquide polyvalent mesenchrymateux
A translation is provided for those (like me) who do not speak French:
These cells are the more effective if they are living...
Exclusively taken from fetuses, these cells, no longer
independent, do not carry antibodies under any circumstances;
this reduces to a minimum any risk of allergic reaction.
-- Absolutely natural, this product is made for use
at home.
-- Red stick: placenta of the fetus, spleen, liver,
and thymus.
-- White stick: liquid polyvalent mesenchry matic
[whatever that is -- GMS] (drawn from intestinal
membranes).
What about American cosmetics? I have copies of letters from three
companies, which I will excerpt:
From Hask Inc./Toiletries, makers of Hask TiaZolin Products:
The placenta we use is derived from umbilical cords [sic!]
which are accumulated as a part of human afterbirth from
normal births only. Please be assured that the placenta
we use is obtained only after the birth and we never use
placenta from any but perfectly normal births (never
from abortions or miscarriages).
From Mary Kay Cosmetics:
...the collagen used in our Mary Kay Products (Mary Kay
Moisturizer and Mr K Moisture Lotion) is an animal product
and certainly has nothing to do with human fetuses. It is
true that some cosmetic manufacturers in the United States
use proteins prepared from human placenta, but our Company
does not use any such ingredients...
Collagen is derived from the hides of animals and obtained
during the normal meat processing cycle. No animals are
sacrificed for the specific purpose of obtaining collagen.
From Revlon:
Collagen in our products is generally of bovine origin, and
is a by-product of the food industry.
Generally? Do I detect a slight evasion?
Quoting from the cover letter that accompanied the material I have:
...the cosmetics industry works under its own set of
definitions [as opposed to standard reference diction-
aries -- GMS] obtained from several sources approved by
the Food and Drug Administration. One of these sources
is the dictionary of the Cosmetics, Toiletries, and
Fragrances Association (CTFA), the trade group for cosmetics
producers. According to a spokesman for CTFA, _their_
definition of collagen and/or animal collagen would exclude
that which has a human source.
Further complicating the question is the limited authority
of the FDA over cosmetic products. Essentially, while the
FDA can investigate complaints, it does not require cosmetics
producers to obtain advance approval of contents or labelling
as it does with drugs.
In fact, one FDA official conceded that under current
regulations, there would be little, if anything, FDA
could do to stop the inclusion of human source collagen
in cosmetics -- even if it had proof that this was
occurring!
Meanwhile there are apparently authoritative reports coming
from Europe attesting to a growing traffic in human fetal
remains, at least some of which is allegedly destined for
cosmetic products. Our researchers note that many of our
major domestic cosmetics producers are truly multi-national
companies with research, production, and marketing facilities
abroad. And, many U.S.-marketed products claim, or infer,
European origin.
In summary, it is not clear whether any cosmetics manufactured in the
U.S. contain human collagen. Two companies denied explicitly that
they use human collagen -- and I do not have reason to doubt their
statements -- but the third hedged on the question. And at least one
French firm goes so far as to boast about the fact that they use
fetal organs -- not just collagen -- in their products. Cosmetics
imported to the U.S. from Europe may or may not contain products
from fetal remains.
Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garyssophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/20/85)
> brochure issued by Madame Renee Ibry of the Centre Henri > Chenot, a beauty parlor in Cannes, promoting the miraculous > regenerative powers of Californie Esthetique. The cosmetic > preparation, to sample the detailed and extravagant claims > made in the brochure, is made from fresh cells taken > exclusively from fetuses, flash frozen and preserved in a > frozen state until used... Color coding identifies cosmetic > sticks fashioned from various fetal organs and recommended > for different applications... > > From the above-mentioned brochure ('???' indicates places in my copy > which are illegible): > (french text ommitted) > > These cells are the more effective if they are living... > Exclusively taken from fetuses, these cells, no longer > independent, do not carry antibodies under any circumstances; > this reduces to a minimum any risk of allergic reaction. > > -- Absolutely natural, this product is made for use > at home. > -- Red stick: placenta of the fetus, spleen, liver, > and thymus. > -- White stick: liquid polyvalent mesenchry matic > [whatever that is -- GMS] (drawn from intestinal > membranes). > I do not see any indication in there that the fetal parts used are human. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (06/28/85)
> > [Quotes from cosmetics brochure deleted] > I do not see any indication in there that the fetal parts used are human. > Sophie Quigley > {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie You are correct; the brochure itself does not specify what type of fetal parts are used in the product; I had not noticed that before. However, please note the report of the shipment of a "truckload of frozen human fetuses ... intercepted at the Swiss-French border ... [en route to] its cosmetic factory destination." Ray DiBlasio reported that news of this shipment is what led to the investigation of the use of human fetuses in cosmetics. Let me supplement the references with a quote from Nick Thimmesch's column (The Seattle Times, June 27, 1982) [emphasis mine -- GMS]: Fetal materials have value. Last April, guards at the Swiss-French border intercepted a truck loaded with frozen HUMAN fetuses destined for French cosmetic laboratories. This was reported in Gazette du Palais, a reputable legal journal, which explained that there was a busy trade in fetal remains for "beauty products used in rejuvenating the skin, sold in France at high prices." I do not think it farfetched to conclude that the human fetuses being shipped to the cosmetics lab were the ones used in the product. Hope this clarifies things. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/01/85)
In article <883@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >> I do not see any indication in there that the fetal parts used are human. >> Sophie Quigley >You are correct; the brochure itself does not specify what type >of fetal parts are used in the product; I had not noticed that. [Bogacity about French cosmetics deleted] >I do not think it farfetched to conclude that the human fetuses >being shipped to the cosmetics lab were the ones used in the >product. > >Hope this clarifies things. > >Gary Samuelson Thankyou for this bit of sensationalism. You were trying to make us believe that abortion clinics were raking in the dough selling fetal remains to cosmetic manufacturers. What proof? Well, it is known that they use fetal remains. How do we know they're human? Well, because ONCE a shipment was intercepted at a custom stop. Customs officers stop lots and lots of trucks, Gary. I think if there were lots and lots of shipments of human fetuses, we'd hear more about it. You are hiding behind ONE report. This kind of volume does not consitute a financial opportunity for most doctors. The truck could have been carrying the products from only ONE clinic. There are a lot of OTHER clinics that wouldn't think of doing that. It's still horrible. It should be stopped, but it DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION! Too many stupid stereotypes are generated by people who make decisions on skimpy data! One black steals, therefore all blacks steal, right? One woman is a bad driver, so the term "woman driver" is invented. I think you get my point. Show me some more articles and conclusive proof. Tell me about how doctors are getting rich and show me evidence. Don't believe everything you read, Gary. I don't. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (07/02/85)
> However, please note the report of the shipment of a "truckload of > frozen human fetuses ... intercepted at the Swiss-French border ... > [en route to] its cosmetic factory destination." Ray DiBlasio > reported that news of this shipment is what led to the investigation > of the use of human fetuses in cosmetics. Let me supplement the > references with a quote from Nick Thimmesch's column (The Seattle > Times, June 27, 1982) [emphasis mine -- GMS]: > > Fetal materials have value. Last April, guards at the > Swiss-French border intercepted a truck loaded with > frozen HUMAN fetuses destined for French cosmetic > laboratories. This was reported in Gazette du Palais, > a reputable legal journal, which explained that there > was a busy trade in fetal remains for "beauty products > used in rejuvenating the skin, sold in France at high > prices." > > I do not think it farfetched to conclude that the human fetuses > being shipped to the cosmetics lab were the ones used in the > product. > Gary Samuelson > ittvax!bunker!garys I really hate to nit-pick, but an assertion in a column in a newspaper I have never seen is not very persuasive. The column doesn't name any sources that I can calibrate either. Did Nick Thimmesch actually get a copy of the Gazette du Palais, or just hear from someone that it exists, is a reputable legal journal, and has this article? If you could find something like an original article in WSJ or NYT reporting such things, THAT would be more convincing. They almost always check carefully, and usually doublecheck. Mike Gray
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (07/02/85)
> In article <883@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: > >> I do not see any indication in there that the fetal parts used are human. > >> Sophie Quigley > > >You are correct; the brochure itself does not specify what type > >of fetal parts are used in the product; I had not noticed that. > > [Bogacity about French cosmetics deleted] > > >I do not think it farfetched to conclude that the human fetuses > >being shipped to the cosmetics lab were the ones used in the > >product. > > > >Hope this clarifies things. > > > >Gary Samuelson > > Thank you for this bit of sensationalism. You're welcome. It didn't look like sensationalism until you replaced the evidence and reasoning with the phrase beginning with "bogacity." The paragraph beginning, "I do not think it farfetched," is a deliberate understatement, which is not clear, now that you have deleted everything up to it. I do not object to summarizing; but you have not summarized. You have dismissed what I said with a little handwaving, calling it "bogacity" without explaining what is bogus. > You were trying to make us > believe that abortion clinics were raking in the dough selling fetal > remains to cosmetic manufacturers. When did I say that? Abortion clinics do rake in a lot of money, mostly by performing abortions. Selling fetal remains (to anyone) is a way of making additional money. > What proof? Well, it is known that > they use fetal remains. How do we know they're human? Well, because ONCE > a shipment was intercepted at a custom stop. How many should be intercepted before you think that there is proof? > Customs officers stop lots and lots of trucks, Gary. Do they stop all of them? > I think if there > were lots and lots of shipments of human fetuses, we'd hear more about > it. You are hiding behind ONE report. This kind of volume does not > consitute a financial opportunity for most doctors. The truck could have > been carrying the products from only ONE clinic. There are a lot of > OTHER clinics that wouldn't think of doing that. So we should wait until everybody is doing it before trying to stop it? How do you know what people will or will not do or consider doing? > It's still horrible. It should be stopped... I'm glad you agree. What are you going to do to help? > but it DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION! I.e., you don't want to hear about it. Go ahead, close your eyes. Maybe if enough people ignore the problem, it will go away. Or maybe the problem will get so big that no one can do anything about it at all. I would like the practice stopped altogether; in the meantime, I would like to help prevent it from spreading. It seems like one way to do that is to let others know about it. Why do you say it doesn't have anything to do with abortion? (Other than the fact that you don't want to hear about an unpleasant subject)? Do you think I should post these articles in some other group? How many flaming replies do you think I would get saying, "Take it to net.abortion!" ? > Too many stupid stereotypes are generated by people > who make decisions on skimpy data! What stereotype? What decision do you think I made on skimpy data? > One black steals, therefore all blacks steal, right? > One woman is a bad driver, so the term "woman > driver" is invented. I think you get my point. Your point is not valid; I have not made the generalization that you think I have made. You are attacking a position I do not hold. > Show me some more articles and conclusive proof. How many would you like to see? What would you do if I did show you the number you require? Probably just re-iterate the claim that it has nothing to do with abortion. > Tell me about how doctors are getting rich and show me evidence. I suppose if I mentioned the fact that over 1.5 million abortions are performed in this country each year, you would want a list. > Don't believe everything you read, Gary. I don't. What did you read in my articles you didn't believe? > Charles Forsythe Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/03/85)
In article <890@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >You're welcome. It didn't look like sensationalism until you >replaced the evidence and reasoning with the phrase beginning >with "bogacity." >You have dismissed what I said with a little handwaving, calling >it "bogacity" without explaining what is bogus. Ok, here: The article is bogus. What?! You mean a reliable news source is wrong? Not possibly but I am not the only one that has pointed out that quoting *one* article no one else heard about is somewhat flimsy. Perhaps when the story makes it to the cover of Time... >> You were trying to make us >> believe that abortion clinics were raking in the dough selling fetal >> remains to cosmetic manufacturers. > >When did I say that? Abortion clinics do rake in a lot of money, >mostly by performing abortions. Selling fetal remains (to anyone) >is a way of making additional money. You said that when you opened this whole can of worms. You were, if you remember, trying to show us all of the financial opportunities that abortion clinics have. >> What proof? Well, it is known that >> they use fetal remains. How do we know they're human? Well, because ONCE >> a shipment was intercepted at a custom stop. > >How many should be intercepted before you think that there is proof? How about two? >> Customs officers stop lots and lots of trucks, Gary. > >Do they stop all of them? Trucks have to declare what they're carrying across boders. If people are not declaring at least "fetal remains", they are lying and breaking the law. >So we should wait until everybody is doing it before trying to stop it? >How do you know what people will or will not do or consider doing? No, we should stop those who are guilty. So far these discussions have been about things in general. If you want to stop someone, go to France, find the clinic, and have it closed, but leave honest American clinics alone. >> It's still horrible. It should be stopped... > >I'm glad you agree. What are you going to do to help? I live in America. If the FDA doesn't forbid human fetal remains being used in consumer poroduct, I will happily cast my vote to change that. That way, the guilty will be punished (when they are caught with their truckloads going into France.) >> but it DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION! > >I.e., you don't want to hear about it. Go ahead, close your eyes. Rather than insulting myt intelligence, why don't you apply yours and explain to me the connection? First, abortion is a source of human fetuses, but so is miscarriage. Second, such use of the fetuses is illegal (or could be quickly). Third, you haven't demonsstrated that this is particularly widespread. Please explain why stopping abortion will solve this problem? Why not solve it by illegalizing this practice internationally? Why not solve it by finding the sources and stopping THEM? I have very good evidence that people who are NOT aborted often end up unhappy and kill themselves. Should I use this as a pro-abortion stance (ie why bother putting them and their loved ones through all that misery.)? >maybe the problem will get so big that no one can do anything about >it at all. I would like the practice stopped altogether; in the >meantime, I would like to help prevent it from spreading. It seems >like one way to do that is to let others know about it. Okay, now we know. When "Oil of Baby" starts appearing in the supermarket, we'll write our senetors. >> Too many stupid stereotypes are generated by people >> who make decisions on skimpy data! > >What stereotype? What decision do you think I made on skimpy >data? How about this steroetype: Abortion Clinics are murder factories that ENJOY selling fetal remains for profit. If you are going post horror stories, you owe it to the innocent to leave them alone. Why is it so difficult to say "this doesn't happen in America, in fact I've only heard one report but..."? Perhaps it would undermine your scare tactics. >Your point is not valid; I have not made the generalization >that you think I have made. You are attacking a position I >do not hold. Its implicit. >> Show me some more articles and conclusive proof. > >How many would you like to see? What would you do if I did show >you the number you require? Probably just re-iterate the claim >that it has nothing to do with abortion. Again, you insult my intellegence. Send me the media blitz. Show me the abortion clinic jackpot and I'll write my senetor. Until then, I think this is an isolated incident on the other side of the Atlantic. It is you who has failed to make the connection to abortion clinics per se. If you are trying to say that "any clinic could be a supplier" you are making the unfair generalization that you claim not to. >> Tell me about how doctors are getting rich and show me evidence. > >I suppose if I mentioned the fact that over 1.5 million abortions >are performed in this country each year, you would want a list. No, I believe you. I believe they get rich. I don't believe any fraction of their income comes from selling fetuses to cosmetic companies. >> Don't believe everything you read, Gary. I don't. > >What did you read in my articles you didn't believe? "Abortion is murder for profit." (it's between the lines, if it isn't make that clear!) -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep