PJC Journal – Original

How the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) manipulates “consultation” , ignores it, and then proceeds how IVF industry and Government wants.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) statement subsequent to their Meeting held at 2pm on Wednesday 5 September 2007.

The papers and this statement can be read at their website..

They acknowledge that the licensing of human – animal hybrids and chimaera research has presented a particular challenge as this research is so novel in legal, scientific and ethical terms.

1.They established such research would legally fall within the HFEA's remit to license.

2. They then assessed whether such research would, in principle, be necessary and desirable in both scientific and ethical terms.

They claim this involved, ” detailed and comprehensive consultation gathering evidence from scientists and the wider public about the issues raised by this research.”

An 11 page PDF document is available explaining what this involved. – “3.10 Some countries, including a number in Europe, have decided to prohibit all kinds of embryo research or, at least, the creation of embryos for research purposes.” – In Australia “research involving the creation of all kinds of hybrid and chimera embryos, including cytoplasmic hybrid embryos, was banned following the tabling of a last-minute amendment during the parliamentary debates.” In Canada the Assisted Human Reproduction Act 2004 came into force, …. the Act prohibits the creation of human chimera embryos for research “

810 people responded to the “consultation” 91% of which were individuals, the rest were organisations.
All the details can be see in Appendix D HFEA 396 – i.e whilst public they are well hidden from public and the idle press.

They were asked ;

A. Do you approve Research using human embryos donated by IVF patients ?
Result : 70% against 30% for

B. Research using human embryos created specifically for research using donated egg and sperm ?

and

C. Research using cloned human embryos created specifically for research through cell nuclear replacement (CNR) received the same results – 75% against 25% for

D. No research using human embryos is acceptable – 65% agree 35% don't agree

On the most critical question.

Do you think that the HFEA should in future issue licences to allow research using chimera embryos?

Out of 810 individuals 500 voted against, 89 voted for, 38 not sure and 109 no response
Out of 74 organisations 33 voted against, 22 voted for, 7 not sure and 12 no response

The House of Commons Select Science and Technology Committee 5th report published on 28th March remarked inter alia … “The Government received 535 responses, from a range of stakeholders and individuals. According to the Department of Health, the “overall tenor of responses to the consultation was opposed to the creation of hybrids and chimeras” However, as we have discussed previously, much of this opposition appears to stem from the belief that all research using human embryos should be prohibited and it is thus difficult to extrapolate from this information to give a clear representation of specific objection to the creation of human-animal chimera and hybrid embryos for research.

3. Having looked at all the evidence the Authority has decided that there is no fundamental reason to prevent cytoplasmic hybrid research.

4. They will now look at the details of the two specific research applications that were submitted earlier this year. We would hope to have a decision on both applications in November.

The HFEA simply represents the views of the IVF industry, It is packed with their parctioners and representatives – the Bishop of Oxford Harries is the sole representative of a church or religious body , and there is a sprinkling of the not very great and the good.

The results are totally unsurprising – the consultation is a nonsense – and it is derided and ignored. ” much of this opposition appears to stem from the belief that all research using human embryos should be prohibited and it is thus difficult to extrapolate ” – well it is perfectly possible to determine what people think about their views on Labour / Conservative / Liberal policies – why is a wider survey respectable public survey by an independent and third party body not undertaken ?

Simply, the result of any respectably run survey would be an overwhelming rejection of any further production of fertilised embryos, of any sort for experimentation .

Briefly HFEA asked ..

Do you think that the HFEA should in future issue licences to allow research using chimera embryos?

Out of 810 individuals 500 voted against, 89 voted for, 38 not sure and 109 no response
Out of 74 organisations 33 voted against, 22 voted for, 7 not sure and 12 no response

Not a difficult set of results to interpret , unwanted …. so … they simply ignored the results.

That is NuLab Democracy …apparently. …

NuLab – Destroying Britain from the inside out.

HatTip Postman Patel

Cranmer writes:

While demands for a referendum
gather apace, which Gordon Brown’s government intends to resist at all
costs, the analysis of the implications of the Reform Treaty have
focused on three main areas. Firstly, the Treaty gives the EU legal
personality and distinct corporate existence; secondly, the EU acquires
its own political President and Foreign Minister, to be complemented by
its own diplomatic corps and Public Prosecutor; and thirdly, it
abolishes the ‘two pillars’ distinction between the supranational
‘Community’ bodies and the intergovernmental ‘National’ bodies. That
these are the attributes of statehood are undeniable and undenied. In
fact, all that remains is for the EU to acquire the power to impose
taxes and declare war.

But perhaps the most significant aspect
the Reform Treaty is that it renders all British subjects real citizens
of the new EU state. Certainly, the notion of citizenship was
introduced in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, but it was notional and
attached to membership of one of the nation states that constitute the
Union. It has had no supranational dimension because the EU did not
exist as a corporate legal entity.

The Reform Treaty, however,
is a constitution which is separate from and superior to the
constitutions of each member state. It codifies a body of law to which
each EU citizen shall be subject, and this citizenship shall be imposed
and may not be renounced. Yet the treasonable nature of this Treaty has
received no scrutiny at all, for it undermines the constitutional
position of the Monarch, and renders her impotent to the new suzerain
power.

Treason is defined as ‘violation by a subject of
allegiance to the sovereign or to the state’. Section Three of the
Treason Felony Act of 1848 asserts that condemnation is incurred ‘If
any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without,
compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend to deprive or depose our
most gracious Lady the Queen…from the style, honour, or royal name of
the imperial crown of the United Kingdom.’

By endowing the EU
with legal personality, the Reform Treaty renders Her Majesty subject
to a foreign political entity, arraignable in foreign courts, and
obliged to obey all past and future judgements. Her role as a
constitutional monarch has thereby been annulled: her new status as a
citizen of the EU has rendered her, like the rest of the British
people, ‘subject to the duties imposed thereby’.

Queen
Elizabeth I stated: ‘To no power whatsoever is my crown subject save to
that of Christ the King of Kings.’ Queen Elizabeth II may not boast the
same, for the EU supplants even Christ in its laws and declarations.

Yet
Gordon Brown is a Privy Counsellor, and swore an oath ‘To bear faith
and allegiance to the Crown and to defend its jurisdiction and powers
against all foreign…persons…or states.’

Is not the Prime Minister, and any other MP who supports this treaty guilty of treason?

When this treaty comes before parliament it will be known to the people as

The Act of Treason

As a discussion point, this now leaves our Police and Armed Forces with a predicament. It is that they have sworn allegiance to the Crown (the State), not the government. At what point are the Armed Forces going to be asked to renounce that allegiance?.

Is this why Brown's government is making sure that our Police and Armed Forces are overstretched, under manned, under equipped, and in the case of the Armed Forces fully tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of at home.