[Pflienews] PharmFacts E-News Update: So You Think That “Reproductive Cloning” Isn’t Done Yet? Guess Again

[PFLI PharmAid Center]

*PharmFacts E-News Update -- 18 Jul 2008 AD

PFLI comment:  ...Time for the pro-life movement to accept, affirm, and 
deal with the disasters caused by acceptance of defective definitions, 
compromise and fake science from within and without....all kinds of 
artificial life creation abounds, and was helped along from within our 
own ranks for decades for those who value more the praise and acceptance 
of men rather than doing what is Godly and right...

*
 

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

copyright July 18, 2008 (in process of being published)

 

[Note:  This article is copyrighted and thus must be acknowledged when 
using its original ideas and resources or quoting from it.]

 

 

*So You Think That “Reproductive Cloning” Isn’t Done Yet?  Guess Again*

 

*I.  Introduction*

 

In the article, “The future of fertility” [Jeremy Laurance, 
Indepoendent.co.uk, July 17, 2008] -- copied in full below -- the 
researchers and IVF specialists claim that “reproductive cloning” is an 
exciting if not still a far off possibility – implying that it has yet 
to be done.

 

Wrong.  Guess again.

 

But don’t take my word for it.  Check it out for yourself.   All one has 
to do to realize this is scan the list of references provided here below 
(the tip of the iceberg) that document the fact that all sorts of 
reproductive cloning has been going on for a long time.  Hello – anybody 
out there?

 

*II.  “Abortion” now involves asexually reproduced human embryos*

 

In case it hasn’t occurred to people, once cloned and other asexually 
reproduced human embryos are implanted into a woman’s uterus, then the 
“abortion” issue looms large, especially given that such “infertility 
treatments” are still rather experimental (not sure what will happen, 
either to the embryo or later fetus or the woman).  “Prolife” no longer 
has the luxury of considering and protecting only sexually reproduced 
human beings /in vivo/.

 

For starters, extensive human cloning, and other forms of human genetic 
engineering -- *all of which can asexually reproduce new living 
single-cell human organisms (human beings)* -- are already being done in 
IVF clinics, for both "research" and for "reproductive" purposes.   One 
of the most common IVF techniques is called “twinning” – and twinning is 
one of many different kinds of /cloning techniques/.  The procedure 
mimics the kind of identical twinning that takes place naturally inside 
the fallopian tube of a women, resulting in the asexually reproduction 
of an identical twin, triplet, etc.  This long-used “infertility 
treatment” involves implanting the resulting twins/triplets into a 
woman’s uterus, and bringing them to birth.  Along with using the 
“twinning” cloning technique, IVF centers also use several other human 
cloning techniques to asexually reproduce new living human embryos which 
are likewise implanted and brought to birth.

 

Below are just two published research studies documenting (1) the 
various kinds of human cloning techniques available to IVF "clinics", 
and (2) an example of how it is already being done:

 

#1.  Note that various cloning techniques have already been developed in 
animal work for over 25 years, and are applicable to cloning human 
beings.  Here *several human cloning techniques* are mentioned, 
including "hemicloning", "nuclear transfer", and "embryo splitting" 
(twinning – also called “blastomere separation, blastocyst splitting, 
embryo multiplication, etc.):

 

*New techniques on embryo manipulation**.*   Escriba MJ, Valbuena D, 
Remohi J, Pellicer A, Simon C.  (Spain)
For many years, experience has been accumulated on embryo and gamete 
manipulation in livestock animals. *The present work is a review of 
these techniques and their possible application in human embryology** in 
specific cases*. It is possible to *manipulate gametes* at different 
levels, producing *paternal or maternal haploid embryos (hemicloning)*, 
using different techniques including *nuclear transfer.*  At the 
embryonic stage, considering practical, ethical and legal issues, 
*techniques will be reviewed that include cloning and embryo splitting 
at the cleavage stage, morula, or blastocyst stage*.  [PubMed 
Reference:  PMID: 12062830]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12062830

 

#2.  Note that *human cloning can be used for both "research" and for 
"reproductive" purposes, e.g., for "infertility treatments"**.*  In the 
study below, the human *oocytes** *from *infertility patients in private 
IVF clinics* were *cloned** *using "nuclear transfer".  Since the 
transfer was not done using a "somatic" cell, it is not properly defined 
as "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT), but rather as "germ line cell 
nuclear transfer" (GLCNT).  Both somatic cells and germ line cells 
(e.g., oocytes) are *diploid*, therefore nuclear transfer (cloning) can 
be accomplished using either type of cell.  The "product" is referred to 
below as a "reconstructed oocyte", and it is "activated".  That means 
that upon activation *a new genetically unique living human being -- a 
single-cell human embryo -- has been reproduced by means of human 
cloning using the GLCNT technique**.*  The term "reconstructed oocyte" 
is a euphemism, or "pre-embryo substitute" for the single-cell *human 
organism* formed by cloning.  It is not just an "oocyte" any more.  It 
is a single-cell human being.  I question how the *"informed consent"* 
forms phrased it so that these infertility patients understood clearly 
and unambiguously that their diploid oocytes had been used to asexually 
reproduce their own cloned children?

 

Fertil Steril. 2003 Mar;79 Suppl 1:677-81

*Microfilament disruption is required for enucleation and nuclear 
transfer in germinal vesicle but not metaphase II human oocytes**.**
*Tesarik J, Martinez F, Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Iacobelli M, Mendoza C, 
Greco E. (Spain)
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of microfilament disruption 
*before enucleation and nuclear transfer in human oocytes at different 
stages of maturation*. DESIGN: Prospective experimental study. SETTING: 
*Private clinics. PATIENT(S): Infertile couples undergoing assisted 
reproduction attempts.* INTERVENTION(S): Oocyte enucleation and nuclear 
transfer, *activation of reconstructed oocytes.* CONCLUSION(S): 
Microfilament disruption before enucleation is required for germinal 
vesicle oocytes but not for metaphase II oocytes.  [PubMed Reference:  
PMID: 12620476]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12620476

 

Indeed infertility researchers are eager to use any and all cloning 
techniques for infertility “therapies”, and thus they attempt to limit 
the damage of any pending cloning legislation by narrowing the 
definition of “cloning” to just SCNT.  As admitted recently by Dr. Jamie 
Grifo, a leading infertility researcher at New York University:

 

“Infertility researchers take pains to define cloning in the narrowest 
terms, as a process that would use the nucleus from a single mature cell 
and place it in a woman's egg from which the nucleus had been removed - 
then jolting that hybrid cell to life with electricity.  No sperm need 
be involved, so the baby's genetic material would all come from just one 
person.  While many infertility specialists recoil at the prospect of 
such ‘solo’ cloning, there are critical aspects of the process that 
could help infertile couples. A number of infertility programs across 
the country are working on treatments that might be called ‘near-cloning’.

 

[Doctor Jamie Grifo, a leading infertility researcher at New York 
University, as quoted in Stephen Smith,  “Cloning bans could have impact 
on infertility treatments”, Jan. 9, 1998, at 
http://www.geometry.net/detail/basic_i/infertility_family_science_page_no_3.html.]

 

Thus as Weissman redefines SCNT as just “stem cell research”, many 
infertility researchers /redefine all cloning techniques as just 
“infertility treatments”/ involving “near-cloning”!  We are /clearly/ 
talking about /“reproductive cloning”/ here, not just “infertility 
treatments”.  Hello?

 

For a 31-page list of similar experiments already published and recorded 
on PubMed, please see:  Irving, “Scientific References, Human Genetic 
Engineering (Including Cloning):  Artificial Human Embryos, Oocytes, 
Sperms, Chromosomes and Genes”* *(May 25, 2004), at: 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_25scientificrefer1.html.

 

*III.  /Partial/ list of IVF researchers doing reproductive cloning, and 
examples of organizations whose policies support them*

 

Take a long hard look:

 

--  M.J. Escribá, D. Valbuena, J. Remohí, et al., “New Techniques on 
Embryo Manipulation,” /American Journal of Reproductive Immunology/ 55, 
no 1 (May–June 2002): 149–161, available from 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12062830.

 

--  J.W. Gordon and F.H. Ruddle, “Integration and Stable Germ Line 
Transmission of Genes Injected Into Mouse Pronuclei,” /Science / 214, 
no. 4526 (December 11, 1981): 1244–1246.

 

--  J. Hao, J. Pareja, N. Zaninovic, “P–1022: Derivation of Embryonic 
Stem Cells >From Individual 2-Cell Mouse Embryos: Model for Blastomere 
Totipotency and Embryo Splitting,” /Fertility and Sterility/ 86, no. 3 
(September 2006): S513.

 

--  Erik Parens and Lori P. Knowles, “Reprogenetics and Public Policy: 
Reflections and Recommendations,” /The Hastings Center Report /(HCR) 
Special supplement (July 1, 2003), available from 
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/research/reprogenetics-public-policy.asp.

 

--  Karl Illmensee, Khalied Kaskar, and Panayiotis M. Zavos, “/In Vitro/ 
Blastocyst Development From Serially Split Mouse Embryos and Future 
Implications for Human Assisted Reproductive Technologies,” /Fertility 
and Sterility/, 86, no. 4 (September 7, 2006a): 1112–1120, available 
from http://www.fertstert.org/article/PIIS0015028206010776/abstract.

 

--  Karl Illmensee, Mike Levanduski, and Panayiotis M. Zavos, 
“Evaluation of the Embryonic Preimplantation Potential of Human Adult 
Somatic Cells Via an Embryo Interspecies Bioassay Using Bovine Oocytes,” 
Fertility and Sterility 85 (April 2006b): 1248–1260, available from 
http://www.fertstert.org/article/PIIS0015028205042032/abstract.

 

--  Y. Katagiri, T. Takeuchi, Q.V. Neri, et al., “Imprinted Gene 
Expression in Cloned Blastocysts,” /Fertility and Sterility/ 82 
(September 2004): S10.

 

--  Yoko Kato, W.M. Rideout, K. Hilton, et al., “Developmental Potential 
of Mouse Primordial Germ Cells,” /Development /126, no. 9 (January 5, 
1999): 1823–1832.

 

--  A. Liu, “Human Embryo Cloning Prohibited in Hong Kong,” /Journal of 
Assisted Reproductive Genetics /22, no. 11–12 (December 2005): 369–378, 
available from PubMed #16331533.

 

--  H.C.C. Liu, Z.Y. He, and Z. Rosenwaks, “Ovarian Tissue 
Cryopreservation Did Not Compromise Its Potential to Produce Competent 
Oocytes for Nuclear Transfer,” /Fertility and Sterility/ 82 (September 
2004): S308.

 

--  H. Liu, Z. He, W. Wang, et al., “Demiembryo Viability Can Be 
Improved by Symmetric Embryo Splitting,” /Fertility and Sterility/ 84 
(September 2005a): S368.

 

--  H. Liu, Z. He, W. Wang, and Z. Rosenwaks, “Strategies for 
Monozygotic Twinning by Embryo Splitting,” /Fertility and Sterility/ 84 
(September 2005b): S370.

 

 

--  Q.V. Neri et al., “Genomic Expressions in the Cloned Blastocyst,” 
/Fertility and Sterility/ 82 (September 2004): S281.

 

--  Q.V. Neri et al., “Devising a Method to Reprogram Somatic Nuclei for 
Nuclear Transplantation Procedures,” /Fertility and Sterility/ 84 
(September 2005): S400–401.

 

--  Q.V. Neri et al., “Gene Expression in ESCs Derived from Cloned 
Blastocytes,” /Fertility and Sterility/ 84 (September 2005): S384.

 

--  Laura A. Schieve, Sonja A. Rasmussen, Germaine M. Buck, et al., “Are 
Children Born after Assisted Reproductive Technology at Increased Risk 
for Adverse Health Outcomes?” /Obstetrics and Gynecology/ 103, no. 6, 
(June 2004): 1154–1163, available from PubMed #15172847.

 

--  J. Tesarik, F. Martinez, L. Rienzi, et al., “Microfilament 
Disruption Is Required for Enucleation and Nuclear Transfer in Germinal 
Vesicle But Not Metaphase II Human Oocytes,” /Fertility and Sterility/ 
79, Supplement 1 (March 2003): 677–681, available from PubMed # 12620476.

 

--  M.C. Valiotis, O. Lacham-Kaplan and A.O. Trounson, “Pronuclei 
Formation and Embryo Cleavage Following Electrofusion of Round 
Spermatids with Oocytes from the Mouse,” /Proceedings of the Australian 
Society for Reproductive Biology/ 25, (1993): 48.

 

--  Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, Committee on 
the Basic Science Foundations of Medically Assisted Conception, /Report 
of a Study and Workshop Papers, “Medically Assisted Conception: An 
Agenda for Research,”/ (1989), available from 
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1433.

 

--  National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and 
Public Policy, /Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive 
Cloning: How Is Reproductive Cloning Done?/ (2002b), available from 
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309076374/html/25.html.

 

-- American Fertility Society, Ethics Committee, “Ethical Considerations 
of the New Reproductive Technologies,” /Fertility and Sterility/ 46, 
Supplement 1 (September1986): 27S, (name changed to American Society of 
Reproductive Medicine in 1990s; still publish their scientific journal, 
/Fertility and Sterility/; chairs of ethics committees included Richard 
McCormick, S.J. and Clifford Grobstein).

 

--  American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial 
Affairs, /CEJA Report /1–I–94, “Pre–Embryo Splitting” (1994), available 
from 
http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/E-2.145.HTM; 
Endorses “pre-embryo splittting” as infertility treatment.

 

--  American Society of Reproductive Medicine, Ethics Committee Report, 
“Human Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer,” /Fertility and Sterility/ 74, no. 
5 (November 2000): 873–876, available from 
http://www.asrm.org/Media/Ethics/cloning.pdf.

 

--  American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Ethics Committee, 
“Embryo Splitting for Infertility Treatment,” /Fertility and Sterility/ 
82, Supplement 1 (September 2004): S256–7, available from PubMed #15363746.

 

--  German National Ethics Council, /Cloning for Reproductive Purposes 
and Cloning for the Purposes of Biomedical Research/ (Berlin 2004), 
available from 
http://www.ethikrat.org/_english/publications/Opinion_Cloning.pdf.

 

--  Tremane Barr, “Analysis of the New Zealand Government’s Proposals to 
Amend the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill” (2003), available 
from http://www.gefree.org.nz/cloning.htm.

 

 

 *************************************************************

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/the-future-of-fertility-869729.html

 

Independent.co.uk

July 17, 2008

See www.nature.com

 

*The future of fertility*

 

100-year-old women giving birth; IVF cycles available for £50; gestation 
in artificial wombs... it will all be possible in the next 30 years, say 
the world's leading fertility experts

 

By Jeremy Laurance
Thursday, 17 July 2008

 

Thirty years ago the birth of Louise Brown, the world's first test-tube 
baby, marked a genuine medical breakthrough – one of the few that 
deserves the title. Until then, the limited treatments on offer – 
surgery and hormone therapy – could help only some of the millions of 
infertile couples devastated by the discovery that they were unable to 
create a family.

 

On 25 July 1978 they learnt they had another option that could deliver a 
baby – and a future. Early fears about the safety and morality of the 
procedure were swept aside in the rush to take advantage of it. Today, 
some four million babies have been born by IVF worldwide. In Britain it 
is estimated that every primary school has at least one IVF child.

 

Yet as quickly as it has solved problems, the new science of fertility 
has created them. No area of medicine has seen more spectacular 
advances, but no area has thrown up more ethical conundrums.

 

At the time of Louise Brown's birth, doctors were able to treat barely 
half of the infertile couples – one in seven of the population – who 
came to them for help. Surgery for blocked fallopian tubes and hormone 
treatment to stimulate egg production were the only available treatments 
for women. There was nothing available for men.

 

Today, in a special report published by the journal Nature, scientists 
make some extraordinary predictions about the future of fertility 
treatment. They forecast an end to infertility with the potential for 
any person of any age from one to 100 to have children. In place of a 
normal pregnancy, gestation might take place in an artificial womb, with 
embryos selected and genetically manipulated to ensure they were free of 
disease.

 

Low-cost IVF might be made available at £50 a cycle, putting it in reach 
of some parts of the developing world. Cloned babies, though banned in 
this country and many others, are likely to become a reality, scientists 
say.

 

Thirty years ago these claims would have been treated as science 
fiction. Today they seem entirely realistic, beside the advances we have 
already seen. Who would have predicted in 1978 that male infertility 
would be successfully treated by injecting individual sperm directly 
into the egg? The technique, known as intra cytoplasmic sperm injection 
(ICSI), first introduced in 1992, is now used in more than half of all 
IVF treatments in the UK.

 

Who would have predicted that embryos would be selected, by sex or by 
genetic markers for almost 200 diseases using the technique of 
pre-implantation diagnosis, so that only healthy ones were replaced in 
the womb?

 

Today we have saviour siblings (babies created to provide a sick older 
sibling with matching tissue) and animal-human hybrids (created by 
placing human cell nuclei into the eggs of cows or rabbits to create 
embryos that are 99 per cent human and are used for research up to 14 
days – because of the shortage of human eggs).

 

The most exciting area is stem-cell research using embryos – and 
ordinary adult skin cells treated to behave like embryonic stem cells, 
called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) – from which it is hoped new 
tissue can be grown for the treatment of conditions including 
Alzheimer's , Parkinson's and similar conditions.

 

This is the new scientific frontier on which, 30 years on from Louise 
Brown's birth, researchers now stand. Work on embryos which was 
exclusively focused on developing new treatments for infertility has now 
expanded to include the search for cures for disease. With an updated 
Bill due to be passed into law later this year, which gives legal 
sanction to these techniques, the stage is set for further advance – and 
further controversy.

 

(See www.nature.com)

 

*Looking ahead: how the news may be made*

 

*100-year-old gives birth*

 

Davor Solter, a developmental biologist at the Institute of Medical 
Biology in Singapore

 

I think IVF has gone about as far as it can. Next I expect that germ 
cells – sperm and eggs – will be derived from induced pluripotent stem 
(iPS) cells [cells that have the potential to develop into any of the 
body's cell types]. It will be possible to make iPS cells from skin 
cells, to make germ cells from these, and then combine them to make 
human embryos. It means every person, regardless of age, will be able to 
have children: newborn children could have children and 100-year-olds 
could have children. It could easily happen in the next 30 years. I have 
no idea if the technique will be used, but it means you could have 
millions of gametes that could be combined at will. I have no idea what 
kind of moral value or rights we would give to those embryos. We'll 
probably go through the same agonising we did with IVF. It could be 
terrible to begin with, but then it'll become a fact of life. Maybe 20 
to 30 years from now we'll read that someone made 20,000 embryos and 
studied their development, and we'll decide it's OK.

 

*Cost of IVF falls to £50*

 

Alan Trounson, an IVF pioneer and director of the California Institute 
for Regenerative Medicine in San Francisco

 

IVF was a gigantic step. We didn't realise it at the time; people didn't 
think it would work that well. We never envisaged that it would expand 
so dramatically around the world. Ethics keeps moving. What was once 
seen as dangerous goes on to be seen as within the confines of 
acceptable risk. Probably the major development in the field will come 
from something we've never thought about. I think there will be a 
further expansion of low-cost IVF, especially for women in developing 
countries who experience social discrimination with infertility. If you 
remove all the expensive stuff and use low-cost drugs (such as 
clomiphene) and remove just one or two eggs, and only transfer one 
embryo, it can be done for less than US$100 (£50).

 

*First cloned baby born*

 

Miodrag Stojkovic, stem-cell biologist at the Prince Philip Centre of 
Investigation in Valencia, Spain

 

Will we see a cloned baby? It could happen any day because of a lack of 
regulation [in some countries]. People are already trying to do 
reproductive cloning. The only problem is getting hold of enough viable 
human oocytes [eggs]. If we can make human oocytes from stem cells, it 
might be easier. There is no medical need to clone a human. The future 
is not about reproductive cloning, that's a very, very detrimental 
technique.

 

*The artificial womb*

 

Scott Gelfand, director of the Ethics Centre at Oklahoma State 
University in Stillwater

 

There is some research aiming to increase embryo survival. There are 
also people who are working on the other end – at the moment babies can 
only survive from about 22 weeks. Someone could join these two advances 
together and we could have complete ectogenesis [in which the foetus 
develops outside the body in an artificial uterus]. I find it 
interesting – and scary. Even in terms of insurance: if it became 
economically competitive with other forms of gestation, insurers might 
compel a person to use it to avoid premature birth or foetal alcohol 
syndrome. It's something that really needs to be talked about. Will it 
happen? Dolly was a complete surprise to everybody...

 

*Parents can choose favourite embryo*

 

Susannah Baruch, director of reproductive genetics at the Genetics and 
Public Policy Centre at Johns Hopkins University in Washington DC

 

There's speculation that people will have designer babies, but I don't 
think the data is there to support that. No single gene predicts 
blondness or thinness or height or whatever the 'perfect baby' looks 
like. You might find genetic contributors, but there are so many 
environmental factors too. More likely is that you'll have a set of 
embryos and you'll know every single thing about every gene in every 
embryo. For example, one embryo will have three genes associated with 
tallness, two for weakness, three for poor vision and some for disease; 
and the second embryo will have some other set. None of us is a perfect 
specimen and none of our embryos will be, either. I think you'll end up 
with a lot of information but it's less obvious how useful that 
information will be and how many parents will want it. Will people 
choose IVF to get that genetic option? The old-fashioned way is cheaper 
and more fun and that won't change in 30 years.

 

*Infertility is history*

 

Zev Rosenwaks, director of the Centre for Reproductive Medicine and 
Infertility in New York

 

I see the technology going towards possible eradication of infertility 
altogether. With nuclear-transfer technology or cell modification, I 
think we'll be able to generate sperm and eggs for anybody.

 


------------------------------------------------------------------------
PFLI PharmAid Center

pfli at pfli.org <mailto:pfli at pfli.org>
PO Box 1281
Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA
800-227-8359
www.pfli.org


PFLI supports pharmacist rights of conscience NOT to be forced to 
dispense or counsel for chemicals which violate their sincerely held 
religious, moral or ethical beliefs.  For more info see:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq

*** PFLI is the only pharmacy association which is exclusively pro-life.
It represents thousands of pharmacists and many lay supporters
in the USA, Canada and all around the globe. For membership info, key
PFLI texts, PFLI archives, late-breaking news, abridged newsletter excerpts
or general information, visit the PFLI web site at http://www.pfli.org.
Or e-mail us at mailto:pfli at pfli.org.

*** We do NOT send out SPAM. To subscribe to PharmFacts E-News, just 
send an e-mail with the word
"subscribe" in the subject area or better yet, just enroll right from 
our main news page at
http://www.pfli.org;  to cease your subscription [although we can't
imagine anyone would!] self-manage your account at: 
http://pfli.org/mailman/listinfo/pflienews_pfli.org

*** You may contact PFLI at any/all of the following: Pharmacists For 
Life International,
PO Box 1281, Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA,  1-800-227-8359 [US & Canada only],
 +1-740-881-5520 [voice] or +1-707-667-2447 [fax]; e-mail us at 
mailto:pfli at pfli.org.

*** You can order our publications as well as begin/renew your 
membership or donate right on our
secure website at http://www.pfli.org/shop <http://www.pfli.org>. Click 
on the "PFLI Store" link on the toolbar and
follow the prompts! There you can also donate to PFLI as well as 
purchase a wide range of publications. 

* *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080719/a7859b31/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 78028 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080719/a7859b31/attachment-0001.jpe 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2923 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080719/a7859b31/attachment-0001.gif