The Paul File

[Big Chiller]

It changes nothing I have said.

Did you read my comment about ectopic pregnancies? A womb is not a requirement, the large intestine, or any other organ that has a sufficiently large blood flow will suffice.

The point isn't whether the uterus is required rather the uterus is there to develop a parasitic fetus.

As for the rest of your post the fetus has to suppress the mother's immune system if it is to survive.

The simple fact of the matter is that from the maternal perspective, the fetus is a foreign organism/body, with foreign proteins, that draws upon its hosts resources, and provides no tangible return to the host.

Fair enough but it's there to contribute to the species.

 

[786]

It changes nothing I have said.

Did you read my comment about ectopic pregnancies? A womb is not a requirement, the large intestine, or any other organ that has a sufficiently large blood flow will suffice.

Meanwhile, if the blastocyst can not suppress the immune system adequately it can lead to anaphylaxis, and that immune respones to the blastocyst and developing fetus are believed to be the main cause of natural miscrriages.

The leading theory of Pre-eclampsia, a condition that can threaten both the mother and the baby, and can occur anywhere from 20 weeks gestation, to 6 months post natal, is that it is triggered by hypoxia in the placenta, which releases proteins into the mothers bloodstream, which in turn triggers an immune response. But the irony, if it can be called that, in this scenario, is that the hypoxia is beliveed to be caused by shallow implantation of the placenta, which in turn is believed to be cause by the mothers immune response to its implantation - essentially, it's the body rejecting the foreign organism, or at least trying to unsuccessfully.

The simple fact of the matter is that from the maternal perspective, the fetus is a foreign organism/body, with foreign proteins, that draws upon its hosts resources, and provides no tangible return to the host.

Evolutionarily speaking an offspring is a 'return' in it self. Reproduction is a natural system, part of the body. The female body develops certain characteristics that allows her to follow through with it.

The 'fetus' is only foreign because of the mixture of the father and mother, but when it was simply an 'ovule' it was not foreign. The system of fertilization is quite specialized. The protection of the egg and the match with the sperm. Try fertilizing a human egg with a mouse's sperm. Why are eggs produced? Do you know of any benefit of the production of ovules themselves? Does the woman get to eat those ovules alive, I mean are they some fruit waiting to be digested?

All of this 'process' itself is a system developed by the body and is in place. If the fetus is a 'foreign' object other features such as mammary glands and the production of milk make no sense. Have you seen a woman sucking her own milk? It is developed for the forthcoming offspring, and even it if is not, how does it serve the mammals in other ways that they have not lost the mammary glands which basically are used by 'foreign' objects and sucking on them gives no 'return' to the mammal herself.

I'll also recommend reading this for some context about the immune system response, its not that one-sided of a story that the parasitic fetus is doing everything, if the maternal immune system isn't there, than the parasite dies:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_4_116/ai_n19187208/

Reproducing is a benefit according to evolution. If you don't see a 'return' in that its really taking the whole thing out of natural context.

To be honest, those of us who think that fetus is a foreign object and don't give a shit about it are worst than animals at least they care for their offspring and don't consider them some sort of fucking parasite that sucked the shit out of them.

The woman needs to stop producing eggs, its her body why doesn't she tell it to stop creating those fruits she can't eat and the only use of them is to become some 'foreign' object that gives them no return.

Why the hell are eggs produced in a place like that? Why can sperm reach that egg. What the hell is the point of a male producing sperm?

Hell think of it this way, the 'mother' produces eggs so that it can live on. And come to think of it, why are we giving this 'woman' any sort of 'specialty' when if fact she's just a glob of chemical reactions of multi-cells.

What qualifies her of 'rights'? Its that she is recognized as as individual. She may think that fetus is 'foreign' but natural history tells us that it is a part of her waiting to come out. If you recognize that as life its an individual with those same rights, and it not in some foreign shit-hole. That 'egg' was never foreign, and this is the fate of the egg in any useful manner. So naturally its not 'foreign' to the observer. If you want to leave that aside I think then we can agree that we don't need to give a shit about the climate because science is not relevant to individuals. Why should we give a shit about some 'future generation' of foreign fetuses.

Protection of Environment is a deliberate attempt at stealing people's rights to choose, and is FAVORING the foreign object that we call a fetus. Why should we protect this world for THEM. Where is the equality?

Now peace out

 

[Trippy]

The point isn't whether the uterus is required rather the uterus is there to develop a parasitic fetus.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Besides which, the Uterus also serves to protect the body from the fetus.

It doesn't counter the parasitic nature of the fetus.

As for the rest of your post the fetus has to suppress the mother's immune system if it is to survive.

Which, I believe, I pointed out in the first place..?

Fair enough but it's there to contribute to the species.

Irrelevant - this is an argument for altruism on the mothers part, it hasn't contributed to the species until it has reached sexual maturity and successfully reproduced in and of itself.

During it's time in-utero the fetus draws heavily on maternal resources, suppresses the immune system (making the mother more prone to diseases), disposes of its waste within the mothers body, and puts the mothers life in jepordy, but provides no return for any of this.

Oh, it occurs to me that there's one exception, but that's more of a side effect really - if you suffer from an autoimmune disease such as arthritis, or multiple sclerosis, fetal immuno suppression can provide some relief of symptoms, however, there is a risk of a post natal relapse/flare up.

 

[Trippy]

Evolutionarily speaking an offspring is a 'return' in it self. Reproduction is a natural system, part of the body. The female body develops certain characteristics that allows her to follow through with it.

:Yawn:
I don't recall suggesting anything else - only that the fetus, in utero, provides no actual benefit for the mother, all it does is use the mothers body in the same way a virus, bacterium, or protozoa does.

The 'fetus' is only foreign because of the mixture of the father and mother...

Wow? Really? No shit sherlock!

That hadn't occured to me when I characterized the fetus and the blastocyst as a foreign body, and talked about foreign proteins.

I was wondering where those came from .

...but when it was simply an 'ovule' it was not foreign.

So now what, life begins at ovulation? But wouldn't that make oral contraceptives immoral, and murder?

The system of fertilization is quite specialized. The protection of the egg and the match with the sperm. Try fertilizing a human egg with a mouse's sperm. Why are eggs produced? Do you know of any benefit of the production of ovules themselves? Does the woman get to eat those ovules alive, I mean are they some fruit waiting to be digested?

All of this 'process' itself is a system developed by the body and is in place. If the fetus is a 'foreign' object other features such as mammary glands and the production of milk make no sense. Have you seen a woman sucking her own milk? It is developed for the forthcoming offspring, and even it if is not, how does it serve the mammals in other ways that they have not lost the mammary glands which basically are used by 'foreign' objects and sucking on them gives no 'return' to the mammal herself.

This argument is at best disingenous, surely you can do better than that?

I'll also recommend reading this for some context about the immune system response, its not that one-sided of a story that the parasitic fetus is doing everything, if the maternal immune system isn't there, than the parasite dies:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_4_116/ai_n19187208/

Did you link to the right article? Because that one supports everything I've just said.

Reproducing is a benefit according to evolution. If you don't see a 'return' in that its really taking the whole thing out of natural context.

To be honest, those of us who think that fetus is a foreign object and don't give a shit about it are worst than animals at least they care for their offspring and don't consider them some sort of fucking parasite that sucked the shit out of them.

The woman needs to stop producing eggs, its her body why doesn't she tell it to stop creating those fruits she can't eat and the only use of them is to become some 'foreign' object that gives them no return.

Why the hell are eggs produced in a place like that? Why can sperm reach that egg. What the hell is the point of a male producing sperm?

Now peace out

Oh I get it, you've lost the argument, so now you're just trolling ^_^

 

[786]

Why should we protect this environment for some foreign objects? Where is the equality in that? Why should my choices be limited for THEIR sake?

If my choices should be limited, then whatever makes THEM for who's sake this planet should be protected, should then be recognized as holders of rights and be deemed individuals.

Its not trolling: you used science- the fact there is maternal suppression, etc... then I am using science to tell you that its not a foreign object. Its meant to be there, and its part of the MATERNAL reproduction system. You can't be selective about science here

How do you know if it is a 'foreign' object without science. If you're going to bring in science, then I would like to take you out of that narrow minded shit-hole argument, developed to respond to this argument, that the vast world of science which tells us that it is part of th maternal reproduction system.

 

[Big Chiller]

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Besides which, the Uterus also serves to protect the body from the fetus.

It doesn't counter the parasitic nature of the fetus.

Yet the uterus is there for the development of the fetus.

Which, I believe, I pointed out in the first place..?

Apparently you think that only supports your argument.

Irrelevant - this is an argument for altruism on the mothers part, it hasn't contributed to the species until it has reached sexual maturity and successfully reproduced in and of itself.

During it's time in-utero the fetus draws heavily on maternal resources, suppresses the immune system (making the mother more prone to diseases), disposes of its waste within the mothers body, and puts the mothers life in jepordy, but provides no return for any of this.

Though it's allegedly altruistic on the mother's part the mother was once a fetus developing in it's own mother's uterus, do you not see the cycle? How on earth is the fetus supposed to contribute to the species if it's never given the chance to do so?

 

[The Esotericist]

I thought this thread was about Paul running for Prez.?

 

[786]

I thought this thread was about Paul running for Prez.?

It went from he's a racist--- I defended with individual choice-- went to the choice of the women in abortion --- and now you have this.:shrug:

Although one thing to note is that Ron Paul doesn't support any anti-abortion legislation on the federal level he'd like the States to handle it, so in a sense you're right, this should be a non-topic.

 

[Trippy]

See this:

Its not trolling: you used science- the fact there is maternal suppression, etc... then I am using science to tell you that its not a foreign object. Its meant to be there, and its part of the MATERNAL reproduction system. You can't be selective about science here

How do you know if it is a 'foreign' object without science. If you're going to bring in science, then I would like to take you out of that narrow minded shit-hole argument, developed to respond to this argument, that the vast world of science which tells us that it is part of th maternal reproduction system.

Tells me that you don't actually understand the argument you're being presented with.

It's not the presence of immuno-suppression that makes a blastocyst a foreign object to the maternal system.

It's the present of foreign proteins, and foreign DNA in the blastocyst that make it a foreign object from the bodies perspective.

And it's not just developed to counter this argument - that's just your simple minded interpretation of it. It's the simple fact of the truth, because the blastocyst contains foreign proteins, and foreign DNA, the body responds to it as a foreign object, triggering all the usual immune and allergic responses that normally get triggered when the body encounters foreign proteins - to the point where in order for reproduction to be successful, the blastocyst, and later the embryo have employed all manner of biological trickery to prevent the mothers body from rejecting the foreign proteins and the foreign DNA, as well as adaptations on the part of the mothers body to stop it from rejecting what it sees as a foreign object.

And there in lies a point you missed in your bullish response. If the Blastocyst is not a foreign object, why would the mothers body need to make any adaptions to accomodate it in the first place?

 

[Trippy]

Though it's allegedly altruistic on the mother's part the mother was once a fetus developing in it's own mother's uterus, do you not see the cycle? How on earth is the fetus supposed to contribute to the species if it's never given the chance to do so?

Irrelevant to the point that was being addressed.

 

[Big Chiller]

The point that was being addressed was that the fetus is parasitic? Fair enough.

 

[786]

See this:

Tells me that you don't actually understand the argument you're being presented with.

It's not the presence of immuno-suppression that makes a blastocyst a foreign object to the maternal system.

It's the present of foreign proteins, and foreign DNA in the blastocyst that make it a foreign object from the bodies perspective.

And it's not just developed to counter this argument - that's just your simple minded interpretation of it. It's the simple fact of the truth, because the blastocyst contains foreign proteins, and foreign DNA, the body responds to it as a foreign object, triggering all the usual immune and allergic responses that normally get triggered when the body encounters foreign proteins - to the point where in order for reproduction to be successful, the blastocyst, and later the embryo have employed all manner of biological trickery to prevent the mothers body from rejecting the foreign proteins and the foreign DNA, as well as adaptations on the part of the mothers body to stop it from rejecting what it sees as a foreign object.

And there in lies a point you missed in your bullish response. If the Blastocyst is not a foreign object, why would the mothers body need to make any adaptions to accomodate it in the first place?

Foreign proteins and foreign DNA? I guess you should go back and learn a little about Mitochondria. Since its 'foreign', we should be able to remove it and the person should survive. Since its part of the system, for all purposes the mitochondria is 'part' of the system as the very survival depends on the energy from it.

If its not a 'foreign object' why it would need to adjust? You say it is a foreign object, do you know THAT is why it 'adjusted'? Like I shared the link with you. If the maternal immune system's 'response' is taken away the fetus dies!!!! Maybe it took that action because it was alerted that 'fertilization and the process of development has started' we need to RESPOND.

You're using your own 'narrative'. How do you know the response is because its foreign not because it a response to the maternal development process built into the system? Did you care to read the article I linked? The author argues that in fact it may be likely that the 'response' is triggered to PROTECT the embryo, removal of the maternal responses is FATAL for the embryo. Thus the response would be in order to protect from OTHER FOREIGN PATHOGENS. The mother PROTECTED the EMBRYO from OTHER FOREIGN PATHOGENS FROM ATTACKING THE EMBRYO. Did you ever thought of that? Read the link! Maybe that was the 'response' built into the system.

If the maternal system was really trying to 'purge' the fetus, why would the fetus die when the maternal response was taken away?

Your 'narrative' is based on the idea that antibodies are ONLY developed for 'foreign' objects. Have you ever considered that in the case of development, that that 'mechanism' was being used for a DIFFERENT reason? Can 1 mechanism not be used for other reasons by evolution? Or are we to simply accept your narrative because it agrees with your argument? Could it be that the foreign object that being attacked were other pathogens from harming the embryo. It wouldn't be 'bad' evolution to protect the offspring.

Whatever you said doesn't only support your argument, as Big Chiller pointed out. If you cared to 'open your head' a little bit, there are other ways to interpret the data, as was done in the LINK provided. And I know you didn't read the whole thing because you practically responded within a few minutes of me posting it.

And one interesting thing from the article:

But in 2002, Tufts investigators demonstrated that the fetal cells may play a critical role in repairing a mother's damaged tissue. In one case, a woman suffering from hepatitis, a serious liver disease, stopped her treatment against medical advice. Surprisingly, she recovered. Her own body could not regenerate healthy liver cells, so the investigators were baffled. When they tested a specimen of her liver, though, they discovered it incorporated thousands of male cells still left in her circulation from a pregnancy nearly two decades before her illness. Those leftover fetal cells had generated new liver cells, and thereby saved the mother's life. What a nice way for a child to repay its mother's dedication! So much for the impermeable-barrier theory.

1. Why were the cells not killed by her immune system.
2. How did they incorporate themselves into the mother's system and actually repaired her tissues
3. There WERE benefits to the mother AFTERALL.

 

[The Esotericist]

The whole discussion is probably moot anyhow. It would most likely be in America's best interest if Ron Paul were never elected, because my research indicates that the criminal Zionists are setting the U.S. up to be the bad guys in a WWIII, as they did Germany in the two previous World Wars. If Paul were elected, it would probably be guaranteed that this would happen.

Hitler and the Banksters: The Abolition of Interest-Servitude

 

[Trippy]

The point that was being addressed was that the fetus is parasitic? Fair enough.

That was my assertion, yes, and that, combined with the point that the body treats it as a foreign object were the only two points that I was making.

 

[Trippy]

Foreign proteins and foreign DNA? I guess you should go back and learn a little about Mitochondria. Since its 'foreign', we should be able to remove it and the person should survive. Since its part of the system, for all purposes the mitochondria is 'part' of the system as the very survival depends on the energy from it.

:Rollseyes:
A naive and simpleminded response.

If its not a 'foreign object' why it would need to adjust? You say it is a foreign object, do you know THAT is why it 'adjusted'? Like I shared the link with you. If the maternal immune system's 'response' is taken away the fetus dies!!!! Maybe it took that action because it was alerted that 'fertilization and the process of development has started' we need to RESPOND.

You're using your own 'narrative'. How do you know the response is because its foreign not because it a response to the maternal development process built into the system? Did you care to read the article I linked? The author argues that in fact it may be likely that the 'response' is triggered to PROTECT the embryo, removal of the maternal responses is FATAL for the embryo.

If the maternal system was really trying to 'purge' the fetus, why would the fetus die when the maternal response was taken away?

Your 'narrative' is based on the idea that antibodies are ONLY developed for 'foreign' objects. Have you ever considered that in the case of development, that that 'mechanism' was being used for a DIFFERENT reason? Can 1 mechanism not be used for other reasons by evolution? Or are we to simply accept your narrative because it agrees with your argument?

From your own source:

At the same time, cytokines from trophoblast cells signal T regulatory cells to suppress the normal actions of natural killer cells and cytolytic T cells. By suppressing those cells, the trophoblast avoids being attacked by the mother's immune system. Macrophages "educated" by the trophoblast, on encountering an antigen, signal the T regulatory cells to suppress the natural killer cells for the same reason.
​

Now, go back and re-read what I originally said:

hence the fetal suppression of the maternal immune system, and there are all manner of ante-, peri-, and post-natal complications that can arise when the suppresion is ineffective, and many of those can be fatal to both the mother and the child.​

Those mechanisms also include mechanisms by which the maternal immune system desensitizes itself to the presence of the foreign DNA and foreign protein - an educational mechanism like that described in your link, but failure of those mechanisms, as I have previously said, can lead to anaphylaxis.

Also note that even the model proposed in the link you provided (which I think I may have come across in late 2007 when I first became interested in fetal/maternal immunological interactions and responses) starts with the suppression of the mothers immune system by the blastocyst - exactly as I said it did, to prevent the destruction of the blastocyst by the maternal immune system.

Whatever you said doesn't only support your argument, as Big Chiller pointed out. If you cared to 'open your head' a little bit, there are other ways to interpret the data, as was done in the LINK provided. And I know you didn't read the whole thing because you practically responded within a few minutes of me posting it.

Yes I did, thankyou - I simply have an, in general above average reading speed.

Or are you claimin Omniscience again?

And it does, you just fail to recognize how it does so.

 

[786]

Also note that even the model proposed in the link you provided (which I think I may have come across in late 2007 when I first became interested in fetal/maternal immunological interactions and responses) starts with the suppression of the mothers immune system by the blastocyst - exactly as I said it did, to prevent the destruction of the blastocyst by the maternal immune system.

But the story is different

You were trying to prove that it was a 'foreign object' and all the responses were to that, and that in fact the suppression of the mother's immune system was an 'attack' almost. That is what parasites do.

the link provides the thesis:

"My research suggests that the trophoblast and the mother's immune system join forces to fight their common enemies: infectious microorganisms. When the trophoblast cells "call for help," the mother's immune system responds with coordinated actions. In short, the mother's immune system becomes active in the early stages of her pregnancy to protect, not to harm, the embryo, to promote implantation and subsequent embryonic growth."

This story doesn't support the idea that its just a 'foreign object' it almost shows a symbiotic relationship, a system of MATERNAL REPRODUCTION.

Was this response to 'invasion' or was it of protection. If it was of 'protection' then it is established that the mother's body didn't recognize it as 'attack' but rather something to be protected as part of a maternal reproductive system. The response was part of a internalized process.

Secondly you were concerned about benefits:

But in 2002, Tufts investigators demonstrated that the fetal cells may play a critical role in repairing a mother's damaged tissue. In one case, a woman suffering from hepatitis, a serious liver disease, stopped her treatment against medical advice. Surprisingly, she recovered. Her own body could not regenerate healthy liver cells, so the investigators were baffled. When they tested a specimen of her liver, though, they discovered it incorporated thousands of male cells still left in her circulation from a pregnancy nearly two decades before her illness. Those leftover fetal cells had generated new liver cells, and thereby saved the mother's life. What a nice way for a child to repay its mother's dedication! So much for the impermeable-barrier theory.

Now of course his wording is emotional, but the point shows that there is was return a benefit. You'll have to figure out how they escaped getting killed for all that time by the mothers immune system, and get incorporated into the system.

More importantly it shows how much we don't know..

Your narrative that it is simply a 'foreign object' is your own. His narrative of planned, protected, and a system of reproduction make it a coordinated effort not a 'foreign' object where the bodies responded due to some 'attack'. It is likely that the response was a systematic process internalized by the evolutionary system of reproduction. You might think its because of 'foreign object' when in fact the evolutionary process simply uses it as a 'protective' process.

The conclusions are drastically different, even if you quote the same 'data'.

You do recognize 'foreign' is a word that WE apply to it. Why its doing something is only a story. It seems the story that the shifts were done to protect the embryo is just as valid a narrative.

 

[Trippy]

Oh - and just incidentally. reproductive success (a live birth) although an evolutionary benefit is, by definition, a post natal benefit, not an in-utero benefit The (maternal) cost of maintaining live offspring in utero full term is one of the evolutionary pressures that I have seen hypothesized as explaining the dominance of marsupials over placentals in Australia.

 

[786]

Oh - and just incidentally. reproductive success (a live birth) although an evolutionary benefit is, by definition, a post natal benefit, not an in-utero benefit The (maternal) cost of maintaining live offspring in utero full term is one of the evolutionary pressures that I have seen hypothesized as explaining the dominance of marsupials over placentals in Australia.

Read this over and over again:

But in 2002, Tufts investigators demonstrated that the fetal cells may play a critical role in repairing a mother's damaged tissue. In one case, a woman suffering from hepatitis, a serious liver disease, stopped her treatment against medical advice. Surprisingly, she recovered. Her own body could not regenerate healthy liver cells, so the investigators were baffled. When they tested a specimen of her liver, though, they discovered it incorporated thousands of male cells still left in her circulation from a pregnancy nearly two decades before her illness. Those leftover fetal cells had generated new liver cells, and thereby saved the mother's life. What a nice way for a child to repay its mother's dedication! So much for the impermeable-barrier theory.

We don't know everything.. so keep your shit to yourself that there is no benefit. Maybe there is. Do you know that there isn't? Perhaps we should end science now :shrug:

As for the suppression you should have kept reading :

That raises another conundrum about immunity and pregnancy. Inflammation from infection often complicates a pregnancy, jeopardizing the well-being of the mother and her developing embryo. Nature's solution is harsh: to save the mother, the infection not only causes inflammation, but also triggers early delivery, or miscarriage. The conundrum is that inflammation is also necessary for normal implantation. How can such diametrically opposing outcomes both originate from an inflammatory response?

To our surprise, my research group discovered that the signals triggering miscarriage may be initiated by the same guest Conductor, the trophoblast. If a virus, say, is infecting the uterus, the trophoblast recognizes the virus through its TLRs, just as in normal implantation the trophoblast recognizes dead cells from the mother's uterus. With the virus, however, the trophoblast's response is different. Its cells signal the mother's immune-system cells to mount an aggressive immune response. Instead of suppressing her cytolytic T cells and natural killer cells, she activates them. Not only do they attack the infection, but they attack the trophoblast as well. The battered embryonic tissue is then expelled; the mother miscarries.

So although it was to protect the embryo in case of infection the EMBRYO initiates the mother to respond- saving the mother most likely and putting the embryo at risk! Isn't that just coordination- that is what the suppression would be called in the scheme of things. Cells don't 'know shit, they simply react to stimulus' so it makes sense to suppress the maternal immune system- but that is part of the internalized process. In the overall scheme of things it was never 'foreign' (as in a parasite) it was 'foreign' only in the technical terms that it not the same cell as the mother. But its 'development' being coordinated by other can't be labeled 'foreign'-

If embryo was just a parasite, initiating the mother's immune system in a virus would be self-destruction. Not a parasitic activity

 

[Trippy]

But the story is different

You were trying to prove that it was a 'foreign object' and all the responses were to that, and that in fact the suppression of the mother's immune system was an 'attack' almost. That is what parasites do.

the link provides the thesis:

"My research suggests that the trophoblast and the mother's immune system join forces to fight their common enemies: infectious microorganisms. When the trophoblast cells "call for help," the mother's immune system responds with coordinated actions. In short, the mother's immune system becomes active in the early stages of her pregnancy to protect, not to harm, the embryo, to promote implantation and subsequent embryonic growth."

This story doesn't support the idea that its just a 'foreign object' it almost shows a symbiotic relationship, a system of MATERNAL REPRODUCTION.

Was this response to 'invasion' or was it of protection. If it was of 'protection' then it is established that the mother's body didn't recognize it as 'attack' but rather something to be protected as part of a maternal reproductive system. The response was part of a internalized process.

Go back and re-read what has to occur before this can happen, and try some basic honesty, just once in this conversation instead of this obfuscatory bullshit.

Now of course his wording is emotional, but the point shows that there is was return a benefit. You'll have to figure out how they escaped getting killed for all that time, and get incorporated into the system. I'm sure they don't have protection like viruses.

That's nothing more than a dam good argument to allow stem cell research

More importantly it shows how much we don't know..

You narrative that it is simply a 'foreign object' is your own. His narrative of planned, protect, and a system of reproduction make it a coordinated effort not a 'foreign' object where the bodies responded due to some 'attack'. It is likely that the response was a systematic process internalized by the evolutionary system. You might think its because of 'foreign object' when in fact the evolutionary process simply uses it as a 'protective' process.

The conclusions are drastically different, even if you quote the same 'data'.

No it isn't, because here's the point that you miss, in amongst your emotional narrative tailored to tug at heart strings.

What, according to your own dam source, is the first thing that must happen before any of these other things can happen?

Suppresion of the maternal immune response, and maternal immuno suppresion, something that emperical evidence demonstrates continues until at least 6 months post natal.

It's right there, in black and white:

When the trophoblast invades the uterus, it sends out signals that program the death of some uterine cells, to make room for the blastocyst. The dead uterine cells need to be removed quickly or disease will result in the mother. The trophoblast cells signal the macrophages to come and clean up the dead-cell mess.

At the same time, cytokines from trophoblast cells signal T regulatory cells to suppress the normal actions of natural killer cells and cytolytic T cells. By suppressing those cells, the trophoblast avoids being attacked by the mother's immune system. Macrophages "educated" by the trophoblast, on encountering an antigen, signal the T regulatory cells to suppress the natural killer cells for the same reason.
​

I mean - look at the title of the article:

Pregnancy reconceived: what keeps a mother's immune system from treating her baby as foreign tissue? A new theory resolves the paradox​

What was his mechanism for why inflamation causes miscarriage? The Trophoblast antagonizes the immune system into attacking it - it antagonizes the bodies natural immune response so that it treats it like a foreign object, which the body is happy to comply with because it is a foreign object with foreign proteins and so on and so forth.

Enough with the vapid obfuscation already. Show some integrity, admit I was right.

 

[786]

What was his mechanism for why inflamation causes miscarriage? The Trophoblast antagonizes the immune system into attacking it - it antagonizes the bodies natural immune response so that it treats it like a foreign object, which the body is happy to comply with because it is a foreign object with foreign proteins and so on and so forth.

Enough with the vapid obfuscation already. Show some integrity, admit I was right.

I just said that 'technically' its a foreign object because of the different dna and its content of course. WDF do you except them to be clones?

BUT In the process itself, it was being protected BY the mother, everything was being coordinated TOGETHER. But when the mother was at risk, the EMBRYO signals to destroy it helping save the mother. A 'foreign object' (parasite) doesn't give a shit about the host. Do you not see the fucking difference?

That embyro the the SYSTEM was ALWAYS TREATED as something to be protected and developed! But EVOLUTION kept a CHECK that if there were a problem, that the mother could be saved! IF it was not in that 'technical sense' 'foreign' BOTH of them would DIE. The fact that it is the EMBRYO that initiates the mother's response to kill it MEANS that it allowed itself to be killed and coordinated that event itself! This is not some fucking parasite. Everything was being coordinated together. This was an INTERNALIZED SYSTEM (not foreign) to develop that embryo. It was PROTECTED from being seen as foreign (you can't fucking tell cells don't go their if they have a signal, so I mean keep that in mind its still 'chemical reactions) so for that suppression to occur SYSTEMICALLY WAS NOT FOREIGN.

If you're saying 'technically its foreign' well DUH!!!! Its has different DNA, but the whole system COORDINATES to PROTECT IT under normal conditions, it was never TREATED as foreign, EXCEPT under SELF-DEFENSE when a VIRUS attacks its- even which is COORDINATED by the embryo itself. How the fuck do you call such a coordinated relationship 'foreign'.

So If I removed all of your mitochondria I haven't removed anything of 'yours'. Cut the bullshit. What matters is the way the system coordinates and the process that make something run its normal course. For all 'normal' conditions that embryo was being developed by an internalized process! By the mother. Not something parasitic.