| 
			  
			
  
			by Russ Kick 
			Excerpted from "You 
			Are Being Lied To" 
			It’s now routine to see news stories about various mammals being 
			cloned. Almost always, these reports mention that this “brings us 
			one step closer to cloning humans,” “human clones are right around 
			the corner,” and other clichés. What every last one of these 
			insightful stories fails to mention is this: Humans have already 
			been cloned.
 
			I’m not talking about the “artificial twinning” experiments 
			performed in 1993 at the Washington University Medical Center.1 
			Although newspapers were quick to trumpet this as human cloning, it 
			was soon revealed that in reality this was a relatively primitive 
			procedure in which an already-fertilized egg was split into two 
			fertilized eggs. A nice party trick, but Mother Nature already does 
			it thousand of times a day when she creates twins, triplets, etc.
 
			The real cloning took place two years later, in 1995, although it 
			wasn’t revealed until mid-November 1998.2 
			Unbelievably, only a few small newspaper stories weakly revealed one 
			of the most important biotechnology developments of all time. In 
			fact, it’s probably one of the most important developments in the 
			history of science and technology, period.
 
			Working under the auspices of the private company 
			
			Advanced Cell 
			Technology and using the facilities of the University of 
			Massachusetts at Amherst, scientists James Robl and Jose Cibelli
			created a human clone. They took cells from Cibelli’s leg and cheek, 
			put them alongside a cow’s ovum with the genetic material stripped 
			out, and added a jolt of electricity. One of Cibelli’s cells fused 
			with the cow’s ovum, which acted as though it had been fertilized, 
			and the cells began dividing. This is the same process used to 
			create Dolly, the famous cloned sheep from Scotland, only this was 
			done before Dolly was created.
 
			A small story in the Boston Globe reported the following 
			about this achievement:
 
				
				The experiments were privately 
				funded, and therefore aren’t bound by government regulations on 
				embryo research....The researchers fused a human skin cell with a cow egg stripped 
				of its nucleus because that avoided using a scarce human egg to 
				nurture the genetic program of the new embryo, they said.3
 
			So what happened to the clone?  
			  
			The 
			scientists destroyed it when it reached the 32-cell stage. In other 
			words, the zygote had already gone through five divisions and was on 
			its way to becoming a human being. Scientists aren’t completely 
			certain what would’ve happened if the zygote had been allowed to 
			develop in a womb or in vitro, since such a thing has never been 
			attempted (as far as we know), but Dr. Patrick Dixon has an educated 
			guess: 
				
				If the clone had been allowed to 
				continue beyond implantation it would have developed as Dr. 
				Cibelli’s identical twin. Technically 1% of the human clone 
				genes would have belonged to the cow—the mitochondria genes.
				   
				Mitochondria are power generators in 
				the cytoplasm of the cell. They grow and divide inside cells and 
				are passed on from one generation to another. They are present 
				in sperm and eggs. 
				Judging by the successful growth of the combined human-cow clone 
				creation, it appears that cow mitochondria may well be 
				compatible with human embryonic development.4
 
			Dixon is the author of ten books, 
			including The Genetic Revolution, which in 1993 predicted many of 
			the cutting-edge advances in biotech that have since come to pass. 
			He was also responsible for catapulting Dolly to international 
			stardom, convincing the first two newspapers that ran the story that 
			this was indeed a newsworthy development. 
			As for why the experiment was performed, CEO Michael West 
			said that it was strictly to harvest stem cells, not to create a 
			human being.
 
			As the Boston Globe article explained:
 
				
				The embryos would be allowed to 
				develop for only a few days, at which time they would be 
				stripped of their “embryonic stem cells” that would be grown in 
				laboratory dishes. These stem cells, the primordial cells in 
				every human embryo from which all of the hundreds of different 
				types of cells are descended, would be kept in their 
				undifferentiated state for as long as needed.    
				Then, presumably, they could be 
				directed to develop into one or more of a long list of tissues 
				and organs to treat human illnesses, among them diabetes, heart 
				failure and Alzheimer’s disease. However, the means to order 
				stem cells down particular developmental paths are in their 
				infancy. 
				Each patient’s own cells—scraped from a cheek or a piece of 
				skin—would be used to make the human-cow embryo. The resulting 
				donor tissues could then be transplanted back into the patient 
				without the body’s immune system rejecting them, because they 
				would be genetically identical.5
 
			West explained why the zygote was 
			destroyed at the 32-cell stage: 
				
				“‘We wanted to take a timeout,’ said 
				Michael West, chief executive officer of Advanced Cell 
				Technology Inc., ‘and get input from ethicists and public 
				policy-makers’ before committing more time and money to the 
				project.” 6
				 
			One month after this startling 
			development, scientists in South Korea said that they, too, had 
			cloned a human: 
				
				Researchers at the infertility 
				clinic of Kyunghee University Hospital in Seoul said they had 
				grown an early human embryo using an unfertilized egg and a cell 
				donated by a woman in her 30s.... 
			Lee Bo-yon, a researcher with the 
			hospital’s infertility clinic, told Reuters that the human embryo in 
			the Kyunghee University experiment divided into four cells before 
			the operation was aborted.  
				
				“If implanted into a uterine wall of 
				a carrier, we can assume that a human child would be formed and 
				that it would have the same gene characteristics as that of the 
				donor.” 7 
				 
			Unlike the Advanced Cell Technology 
			experiment, all cells involved in the Kyunghee experiment were 
			human, and they all came from the same woman. 
			These stories would’ve probably created more of a stir if the 
			embryos had been allowed to mature into full-fledged babies. It 
			would make “great television” to show a gurgling baby while a 
			voiceover explains that it’s a clone. Still, the silence is 
			inexplicable. If the budding embryos hadn’t been destroyed at the 
			32-cell and 4-cell stages, they certainly had a good chance of 
			becoming humans. Naturally, lots of embryos self-abort (i.e. 
			miscarriages), and cloned animals have a higher-than-average rate of 
			lethal mutations, so there are certainly no guarantees that the 
			babies would’ve made it to term.
 
			  
			Despite that, though, the cloning of a 
			human has already been accomplished. The ova were fertilized for all 
			intents and purposes, and they were going through the normal 
			divisions and growth that every one of us went through in the womb. 
			Yet these red-letter days in science have been forgotten. Articles 
			since then have utterly ignored these accomplishments.  
			  
			For example, 
			on August 5, 2000, an article in the Washington Post noted: 
				
				“Since the 1997 birth of Dolly—the 
				first animal cloned from an adult cell—scientists around the 
				world have announced successful clonings of mice, cows and most 
				recently pigs.” 8
				 
			My heart skipped a beat when I saw this 
			Associated Press headline on August 13, 2000: “Research on Human 
			Cloning Hushed.” I thought that perhaps the media had remembered 
			their own tiny reports in late 1998. No such luck. Amazingly, the 
			article talks only about the possibility that humans probably could 
			be cloned sometime in the indeterminate future, neglecting to 
			mention that it’s already happened.  
			  
			Here are some representative 
			excerpts: 
				
				Dolly’s creators at Scotland’s 
				Roslin Institute boasted she embodied the promise of animals 
				that could produce drugs and organs for humans. But from the 
				moment her birth was announced February 23, 1997, many 
				interpreted her arrival as confirmation that cloning of humans 
				lurked around the corner—despite the institute’s careful attempt 
				to downplay that prospect. 
				“I’d be absolutely flabbergasted if we saw it in my lifetime,” 
				Grahame Bulfield, Roslin’s chief executive, reiterates more than 
				three years later. “It’s a nonsensical bit of hype.” Still, 
				scientists say some of their colleagues are undoubtedly working 
				on it, encouraged by further success with cloning animals such 
				as cows and pigs.
 ....
 [Dr. Severino Antinori, the head of the International 
				Associated Research Institute in Rome] said many fertility 
				clinics are beginning to take more seriously the idea of cloning 
				babies.
 ....
 Biologist Brigitte Boiselier, the Montreal-based scientific 
				director of Clonaid, a company set up the month after Dolly’s 
				birth was heralded with banner headlines worldwide, said her lab 
				is trying to perfect cloning in humans.
 ....
 Eric Schon, a molecular biologist at New York’s Columbia 
				University, believes the creation of cloned babies could be two 
				to five years away.
   
				“If it can be done, it will be 
				done,” he said. “The moment it could be done in sheep and mice 
				and cows, it was only a matter of time for human cloning.” 
				9  
			I suppose this reporter could’ve missed 
			the brief acknowledgements in the New York Times, the Boston Globe, 
			the Wall Street Journal, Knight Ridder, Reuters, the BBC, and Dr. 
			Dixon’s heavily-trafficked Website that discussed the fact that 
			humans have already been cloned, but how to explain the ignorance of 
			the people quoted in the article?  
			  
			Several theories spring to mind. 
			Since the idea of cloning humans is so controversial, they don’t 
			want to admit that it’s already happened. Given the fact that 
			Advanced Cell Technology didn’t admit its research for three years, 
			this seems quite possible.  
			  
			It also seems that some scientists don’t 
			feel that these accomplishments qualify as their definition of 
			cloning, apparently because the embryos weren’t allowed to mature. 
			They want to see a mewling infant; the fact that the ova were 
			dividing and in the process of creating a human being doesn’t count 
			for some reason. Do I sense professional jealousy? 
			Finally, owners of companies engaged in cloning obviously want to be 
			credited with being the first to clone a human, so they’re not going 
			to let the cat out of the bag. In the above AP article, notice that 
			Brigitte Boiselier of Clonaid “said her lab is trying to perfect 
			cloning in humans.” That’s a very telling word. She’s not trying to 
			develop it, create it, devise it, pioneer it, or anything like 
			that—she’s trying to “perfect” it, which leads me to believe that 
			she knows it’s already been done, and Clonaid may have done it 
			themselves.
 
			  
			Given the secrecy in this area—not only 
			did 
			Advanced Cell Technology keep the lid on for three years, but 
			even the announcement of Dolly was delayed until she was eight 
			months old—you have to wonder what other human cloning news has been 
			kept from us. After all, the Americans created their clone in 1995, 
			and the Koreans in 1998. What’s happened in the years since then? 
			For all we know, there might be babies and toddlers out there who 
			are clones. 
			But that is speculative, while the achievements of the American and 
			Korean scientists are not. The next time some news report 
			breathlessly announces that human clones could possibly be created 
			sometime soon, just remember that you’re being lied to. They already 
			have been.
 
			  
			Endnotes
 
				
				1. Anonymous. (1993). “Embryo 
				experiment succeeds.” New York Times, Oct 24. 2. Saltus, Richard. (1998).
 
					
					“News of human-cow cell raises 
					ruckus.” Boston Globe, November 14; McFarling, Usha Lee. 
					(1998).  
					“Bioethicists warn that human 
					cloning will be difficult to stop,” Knight Ridder, November 
					18;  
					anonymous. (1999).  
					“First cloned 
					human embryo revealed,” BBC News, June 17.  
				3. Op cit., Saltus.  
				4. Dixon, Patrick, Dr. “Human 
				cloning from cow eggs and human cells.”
				
				Global Change Website. 
				 
				5 . Op cit., Saltus.  
				6 . Ibid. 
				7 . Dixon, Patrick, Dr. “Human 
				cloning: First embryo made in Korea or Britain?” From original 
				article by Reuters.
				
				Global Change Website. 
				   
				See also anonymous (1998). 
				 
					
					“Human cloning?: Cloning 
					research in South Korea.” MacLean’s, Dec 28, p 110; 
					anonymous. (1999).  
					“Human cloning research proceeds 
					in South Korea.” The Christian Century, Jan 20, p 48; 
					Schuman, Michael, et al. (1998).  
					“Korean experiment fuels cloning 
					debate; more work is needed to prove a live birth is 
					possible.” Wall Street Journal, Dec 21, p B7; WuDunn, 
					Sheryl. (1998).  
					“Koreans clone human cell.” New 
					York Times, Dec 20.  
				8 . Chea, Terence. (2000). “Going 
				whole hog for cloning.” Washington Post , Aug 5. 9 . Anonymous. (2000). “Research on human cloning hushed.” 
				Associated Press, Aug 13.
 
			  |