Henrietta Lacks’s family reaches settlement in extracted cell lawsuit

[Politesse]

Tom, out of curiosity: do you believe that "it was technically legal at the time" is a robust ethical argument?

We aren't trying to address right and wrong, but rather the reality that nobody would have been asked. It's not racism!

Ah yes, of course.

Because nothing is ever racism.

Why, I could call some people I don't know "dumb black people" right now, and it would be completely inappropriate to accuse me of racism. Why, what if there's some sort of context, like pretending to only be paraphrasing the unspoken thoughts I for some reason presume the family's black lawyer has about them? No one could call that racist, right? If that was the context?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Given the times, I feel pretty confident that Mrs. Lacks’ status as a black person and as a women would have made it even less likely that they would have considered it necessary to obtain consent.

Do you think Ms Lacks was different in that regard than anyone else at the time? I don't.

I'd guess that if a wealthy male titan of industry had cancer surgery at the time, it wouldn't have occurred to anyone to ask permission for a tissue sample of diseased tissue.
Tom

I think that she was poor, black and female and had cancer. I think she had very few rights compared with a wealthy white male.

Which doesn't address the point at all. We are saying they wouldn't have sought consent from the wealthy white male cancer patient, either.

Something we will never know. Just like we will never know if they had used cells ftom a wealthy white man without his permission, if his family would have tried to get payment.

The point is that these were voluntary settlements which suggests that these institutions thought they had compelling reasons to settle. No one forced them to pay a dime.

Presumably, the argument is that the politically correct social forces have placed these companies under duress lest they be chased out of town by the hordes carrying pitchforks calling them racists. So, while they may be technically voluntary they couldn’t risk their futures being branded as being racist. This is supposedly why black pekoe are granted such high privileges in receiving settlements like these. At least that’s how I’m interpreting Derec’s argument. He can correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Toni]

Nobody had any reason to think those cancerous cells were worth anything.

This claim is just is absurd. This is 1951 we're talking about, not the Medieval Era. The value of the HeLa line was recognized almost immediately, and was well known by the time Thermo-Fisher came into the picture.

IIRC, the researchers realized the value of the cells, and the possibilities they represented, while Lacks was still alive. It wasn't like they sat on a shelf for five years until someone noticed they were still kicking around.

Henrietta Lacks died from the cancer that provided the cells that have helped save countless lives.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you had bothered to read Toni’s response with careful consideration, you’d have seen the phrase “I believe that Mrs Lacks’ opinions were of even less consideration than a wealthy white man’s” and not drawn your conclusion.

His conclusion was that nobody's opinions on the subject mattered in 1951.

His opinion is irrelevant because he is making a logical conclusion to Toni’s argument.

As far as I'm concerned Toni is trying to argue that somehow zero is greater than zero.

Got a reason to believe differently? Or is this just another episode of Wokester clinging to the culture of victimhood and entitlement? That's what it looks like to me.
Tom

I see no reason to answer your questions when you ignore questions posed to you.

He was spot on in understanding my position.

 

[laughing dog]

If you had bothered to read Toni’s response with careful consideration, you’d have seen the phrase “I believe that Mrs Lacks’ opinions were of even less consideration than a wealthy white man’s” and not drawn your conclusion.

His conclusion was that nobody's opinions on the subject mattered in 1951.

His opinion is irrelevant because he is making a logical conclusion to Toni’s argument.

As far as I'm concerned Toni is trying to argue that somehow zero is greater than zero.

Irrelevant to your claim that she was contradicting yourself.

[

 

[Gospel]

Nobody had any reason to think those cancerous cells were worth anything.

Oh, what a coincidence! A scientist (Alexis Carrel) casually drops a paper in 1950 hinting that, you know, maybe cancerous cells could grow new organs. A tad controversial back then, just a smidge. Fast forward to 1951, and voilà, we've got Lacks' cells on deck. Oh, and wouldn't you know it? By the 1970s, the scientific world suddenly has this eureka moment about the whole cancerous cell potential. And, of course, Lacks' cells? Well, they've just been lounging around for two decades, not because someone saw potential or anything, but because... reasons. All just serendipity, right?

 

[Toni]

If you had bothered to read Toni’s response with careful consideration, you’d have seen the phrase “I believe that Mrs Lacks’ opinions were of even less consideration than a wealthy white man’s” and not drawn your conclusion.

His conclusion was that nobody's opinions on the subject mattered in 1951.

His opinion is irrelevant because he is making a logical conclusion to Toni’s argument.

As far as I'm concerned Toni is trying to argue that somehow zero is greater than zero.

Got a reason to believe differently? Or is this just another episode of Wokester clinging to the culture of victimhood and entitlement? That's what it looks like to me.
Tom

I see no reason to answer your questions when you ignore questions posed to you.

He was spot on in understanding my position.

My opinion is that your opinion is not only ill-informed but is willfully uninformed because you have steadfastly refused to read any links that describe the issues involved and, like always, go with the first thought that comes to your head which generally seems to be that black people deserve anything that happens to them unless it is good and especially if it involves monetary compensation, in which case it is simply woke nonsense, undeserved and to blame affirmative action.

 

[TomC]

My opinion is that your opinion is not only ill-informed but is willfully uninformed because you have steadfastly refused to read any links that describe the issues involved

That's really your best argument.
Respond to a disagreement with a mischaracterization and a slur.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

My opinion is that your opinion is not only ill-informed but is willfully uninformed because you have steadfastly refused to read any links that describe the issues involved

That's really your best argument.
Respond to a disagreement with a mischaracterization and a slur.
Tom

That's your best argument - respond with a mischaracterization?

 

[Toni]

My opinion is that your opinion is not only ill-informed but is willfully uninformed because you have steadfastly refused to read any links that describe the issues involved

That's really your best argument.
Respond to a disagreement with a mischaracterization and a slur.
Tom

My apologies if you’ve actually read the links I’ve provided. Your views expressed do not seem to reflect any such efforts nor any understanding of the facts contained in those links, but I’ll take your word for it.

 

[Toni]

Nobody had any reason to think those cancerous cells were worth anything.

Oh, what a coincidence! A scientist (Alexis Carrel) casually drops a paper in 1950 hinting that, you know, maybe cancerous cells could grow new organs. A tad controversial back then, just a smidge. Fast forward to 1951, and voilà, we've got Lacks' cells on deck. Oh, and wouldn't you know it? By the 1970s, the scientific world suddenly has this eureka moment about the whole cancerous cell potential. And, of course, Lacks' cells? Well, they've just been lounging around for two decades, not because someone saw potential or anything, but because... reasons. All just serendipity, right?

Yeah, cause that’s how science works. If you’ve never actually done any science.

 

[TomC]

My opinion is that your opinion is not only ill-informed but is willfully uninformed because you have steadfastly refused to read any links that describe the issues involved

That's really your best argument.
Respond to a disagreement with a mischaracterization and a slur.
Tom

My apologies if you’ve actually read the links I’ve provided. Your views expressed do not seem to reflect any such efforts nor any understanding of the facts contained in those links, but I’ll take your word for it.

I don't find you credible enough to read your links.
No, I don't recall clicking one of your links.

You've made yourself very clear to me. And Loren, I presume.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Given the times, I feel pretty confident that Mrs. Lacks’ status as a black person and as a women would have made it even less likely that they would have considered it necessary to obtain consent.

Do you think Ms Lacks was different in that regard than anyone else at the time? I don't.

I'd guess that if a wealthy male titan of industry had cancer surgery at the time, it wouldn't have occurred to anyone to ask permission for a tissue sample of diseased tissue.
Tom

I think that she was poor, black and female and had cancer. I think she had very few rights compared with a wealthy white male.

Do you think any cancer patients were asked for consent concerning samples of diseased tissue in the early 50s?
Tom

I’ve stated repeatedly that I don’t think it was standard to as permission to use tissues taken as part of diagnosis and treatment. It is now. It always should have been but it wasn’t. As a poor, black woman with little education, I believe that Mrs. Lacks’ opinions were of even less consideration than a wealthy white male’s.

You're contradicting yourself here.

If it wasn't standard to ask permission then the fact that she was poor, black and female is irrelevant.

No, it simply adds to the weight of the injustice. If it had been standard to get permission from white male patient ts, it does not follow that they would have considered it important to ask permission of a black woman—both because of the color of her skin and because she was female. Neither women nor black people had read gets equal to those enjoyed by white men. Still don’t.

More importantly than the standards of 1951 is that decades later, when standards had changed, Mrs.Lacks was named as the source of the HeLa cell lines. And they published her genome, and identified it as hers, using her name, without consent from the family—Mrs.Lacks having died in 1951. This happened long after informed consent was the standard of the day.

 

[laughing dog]

My opinion is that your opinion is not only ill-informed but is willfully uninformed because you have steadfastly refused to read any links that describe the issues involved

That's really your best argument.
Respond to a disagreement with a mischaracterization and a slur.
Tom

My apologies if you’ve actually read the links I’ve provided. Your views expressed do not seem to reflect any such efforts nor any understanding of the facts contained in those links, but I’ll take your word for it.

I don't find you credible enough to read your links.
No, I don't recall clicking one of your links.

You've made yourself very clear to me. And Loren, I presume.
Tom

Arguments from admitted ignorance are truly convincing.

 

[Toni]

My opinion is that your opinion is not only ill-informed but is willfully uninformed because you have steadfastly refused to read any links that describe the issues involved

That's really your best argument.
Respond to a disagreement with a mischaracterization and a slur.
Tom

My apologies if you’ve actually read the links I’ve provided. Your views expressed do not seem to reflect any such efforts nor any understanding of the facts contained in those links, but I’ll take your word for it.

I don't find you credible enough to read your links.
No, I don't recall clicking one of your links.

You've made yourself very clear to me. And Loren, I presume.
Tom

Why don’t you find me credible enough to click on my links? I have a degree in cell and molecular biology with a minor in biochemistry. I’m spend many years working in a lab for a very prestigious health care clinic.

I get it: I could be anybody, claiming anything but in post 120, I posted a very well written article that appeared in Nature, an extremely well regarded science publication

Nature (journal) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Nature is a British weekly scientific journalfounded and based in London, England. As a multidisciplinary publication, Nature features peer-reviewed research from a variety of academic disciplines, mainly in science and technology. It has core editorial offices across the United States, continental Europe, and Asia under the international scientific publishing company Springer Nature. Nature was one of the world's most cited scientific journals by the Science Edition of the 2022 Journal Citation Reports (with an ascribed impact factor of 64.8),[1] making it one of the world's most-read and most prestigious academic journals.[2][3][4] As of 2012, it claimed an online readership of about three million unique readers per month.[5]

The article is well written and not too wonky. You should read it. Your personal dislike of me should not stop you from becoming better informed.

 

[TomC]

Why don’t you find me credible enough to click on my links?

Because you consistently argue by mischaracterization. You make up things, attributing them to people you disagree with, and argue against that.
While ignoring what they actually post.

That's most of it.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Why don’t you find me credible enough to click on my links?

Because you consistently argue by mischaracterization. You make up things, attributing them to people you disagree with, and argue against that.
While ignoring what they actually post.

That's most of it.
Tom

I disagree but that has nothing to do with being unwilling to learn something from reading an article in Nature.

 

[TomC]

Why don’t you find me credible enough to click on my links?

Because you consistently argue by mischaracterization. You make up things, attributing them to people you disagree with, and argue against that.
While ignoring what they actually post.

That's most of it.
Tom

I disagree but that has nothing to do with being unwilling to learn something from reading an article in Nature.

I explained why I don't find you credible enough to click your links.

We didn't just meet.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Why don’t you find me credible enough to click on my links?

Because you consistently argue by mischaracterization. You make up things, attributing them to people you disagree with, and argue against that.
While ignoring what they actually post.

That's most of it.
Tom

I disagree but that has nothing to do with being unwilling to learn something from reading an article in Nature.

I explained why I don't find you credible enough to click your links.

We didn't just meet.
Tom

I was giving you the benefit of a doubt. I assumed you’d care enough that know what you’re talking about to overcome a grudge.

We’ve actually never met. We grew up near each other, less than 10 years and less than half a dozen years apart. Chances are, we actually know some of the same people IRL.

 

[ZiprHead]

My opinion is that your opinion is not only ill-informed but is willfully uninformed because you have steadfastly refused to read any links that describe the issues involved

That's really your best argument.
Respond to a disagreement with a mischaracterization and a slur.
Tom

My apologies if you’ve actually read the links I’ve provided. Your views expressed do not seem to reflect any such efforts nor any understanding of the facts contained in those links, but I’ll take your word for it.

I don't find you credible enough to read your links.
No, I don't recall clicking one of your links.

You've made yourself very clear to me. And Loren, I presume.
Tom

Well, that's not fucking stupid. At all.