Weapons of Mass Discussion, the lead blog of the State of Ohio Blogger Alliance, started up on August 27, 2003 with a post that began with comments on media reports that post-Iraq invasion deaths of American soldiers (64) had surpassed those that occurred during the invasion.

Mark had the honor of the very first remark: “This whole thing of saying more killed at end of hostilities than during war is nothing more than an attempt by the left to make Bush sound like a moron. It does not matter that the casualties are tens of thousands less than the democrats thought there would be, because they do not want us to remember how they hoped and prayed Iraq would be another Vietnam.”

Matt and Mark have been going at it impressively ever since, and have expanded into broadcasting with their Sunday night Wide Awakes Radio show. It’s also great to see that they’re cross-posting at the Wide Awakes blog.

Heartiest congratulations on reaching the 3-year milestone, guys.

August 28 Follow-up post –
An Across-the-Board Chorus Blasts Advanced Cell Technology’s Claims

____________________________________________

NOTE: The post below, which originally went up at 4 PM on Saturday, has been carried forward, and will stay near the top for the rest of Sunday.

____________________________________________

Was Advanced Cell Technology Inc.’s Embryonic Stem-Cell Announcement
a Political Ploy, a Financing Gambit, or “Pump and Dump”?

OVERVIEW: Advanced Cell Technology’s Wednesday announcement that it had generated human embryonic stem cells without harming embryos appears to be suspect, and to fit the company’s historical pattern of overhyping things that turn out to be minor developments or non-developments. This time, though, as a publicly-traded company, its announcement, if debunked or deeply discounted (there are many signs that is indeed taking place), may not only impact the ongoing debate over the relative merits of embryonic vs. adult stem cell research, but may put the company in financial jeopardy.

_______________________________________

This brief news item was posted yesterday in the San Francisco Bay Area’s weekly business paper, The East Bay News Business Times (bolds are mine throughout this post):

Advanced Cell Technology raises money after stem cell news
East Bay Business Times - 1:55 PM PDT Friday

Just two days after reporting it had developed a new way to generate human embryonic stem cells, Advanced Cell Technology Inc. said it had commitments to raise about $13.5 million.

The Alameda company (OTCBB: ACTC) said most holders of debentures and warrants to buy its stock agreed to exercise their options to buy more. Advanced Cell Technology will raise about $8.5 million that way.

The company will also exercise some of its outstanding warrants to raise another $5 million.

Because of the new agreements, Advanced Cell Technology canceled a proposed private placement through which it had hoped to raise about $11.3 million.

The company said Wednesday that its scientists generated human embryonic stem cells without harming embryos.

Earlier this week, Advanced Cell Technology Inc. (ACTC) announced that:

“….. company scientists have successfully generated human embryonic stem cells (hES cells) using an approach that does not harm embryos.”

….. “Until now, embryonic stem cell research has been synonymous with the destruction of human embryos,” stated Robert Lanza, M.D., Vice President of Research & Scientific Development at ACT, and the study’s senior author. “We have demonstrated, for the first time, that human embryonic stem cells can be generated without interfering with the embryo’s potential for life. Overnight culture of a single cell obtained through biopsy allows both PGD and the development of stem-cell lines without affecting the subsequent chances of having a child. To date, over 1,500 healthy children have been born following the use of PGD.”

Current technology derives hES cells from the inner cell mass of later-stage embryos known as blastocysts, destroying their potential for further development. ACT’s approach generates human embryonic stem cells from a single cell obtained from an 8-cell-stage embryo.

If those making the financing commitments haven’t finished their due diligence yet and still have time and the ability to back out, they might consider reading what Wesley Smith (bio here; blog here), a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture, found and reported in his most recent Weekly Standard column (HT Life News):

Science by Press Release
More hype from stem cell entrepreneurs

“NEW STEM CELL METHOD avoids destroying embryos,” the New York Times headline blared. “Stem cell breakthrough may end political logjam,” chimed in the Los Angeles Times. “Embryos spared in stem cell creation,” affirmed USA Today. Reporting the same supposed scientific achievement by Advanced Cell Technology (ACT), the Washington Post quoted the company’s bioethics adviser Ronald Green: “You can honestly say this cell line is from an embryo that was in no way harmed or destroyed.”

Unfortunately, you can’t “honestly” say that. The above headlines–like Green’s statement and innumerable similar press accounts around the world–are just plain wrong. While ACT did indeed issue a press release heralding its embryonic stem cell experiment as having “successfully generated human embryonic stem cells using an approach that does not harm embryos,” the actual report of the research led by ACT chief scientist Robert Lanza, published in Nature (abstract is here; page also contains link to report, which costs $30, and which I did not purchase — Ed.; Aug. 30 update — Just to be clear, SMITH DID read the Nature report, and I’m relying on his work and considerable reputation), tells a very different story. In fact, Lanza destroyed all 16 of the embryos he used, just as in conventional embryonic stem cell research.

And that’s not the only facet of Lanza’s work that the press got wrong. The ACT team did do something new: It worked with very early embryos, of 8 to 10 cells each, rather than the 100- to 200-cell blastocysts usually used in such research. From each of these early embryos, the scientists removed not one cell–as several press accounts reported–but 4 to 7 cells. This misreporting is important because it creates a materially false impression.

During in vitro fertilization of an egg, a single cell can be removed from a very early embryo like those Lanza used in his research. Usually this is done for genetic testing, before the embryo is implanted in the mother, and the embryo remains viable–unlike Lanza’s embryos. Lanza did, however, derive two lines of embryonic stem cells from some of the early cells he had removed. Maybe one day someone will succeed in making stem cell lines from an early embryo that survives, but Lanza didn’t. ACT and the media–in their desire to boost popular support for embryonic stem cell research–simply took a leap of faith and portrayed an experiment showing that something might be possible as if the feat had already been accomplished.

….. Lanza’s experiment does demonstrate that stem cell lines can be obtained earlier than previously thought. But that wasn’t good enough for ACT’s publicity office or the lazy reporters who regurgitated the press release. The failure to report this story accurately amounts to massive journalistic malpractice–and once again ACT is laughing all the way to the bank.

Elsewhere in his column, Smith chronicles ACT’s sordid history of faux breakthroughs:

• A December 3, 2001 cover story by US News that ACT had cloned human embryos, when all it had done was to divide a human egg a few times without getting it to the point of being a viable embryo.

• A mid-2002 story in Atlantic Monthly about ACT’s attempts to “create a cloned embryo of a young boy named Trevor,” in the hopes of curing a rare disease in the boy. Says Smith: “In reality, of course, there was never any hope of treating Trevor with cloned embryonic stem cells.”

• In January 2004, Wired Magazine reported that led readers to believe that ACT’s Dr. Lanza “had successfully grown cloned human embryos to the 16-cell stage.” Says Smith: “This would have been big news–if it had been verified. But it never was. To my knowledge, Lanza never subjected his work to peer review or published a report of it in a respected science journal.”

Additionally, I located this CNN story from November 25, 2001, published shortly after “cloned human embryos” announcement (the “December 3″ issue of US News would actually have been published about two weeks earlier). Among other things, it chronicles a four-year history of press releases and announcements that, in retrospect, look more than a little dubious.

Let’s say that ACT is indeed conducting overhyped (and worse) “Science by Press Release,” as Smith alleges and as it appears to have done in the past. There are three big potential problems with what it is doing; one of them appears to be old hat to the company, but the other two represent problems that, because it is now a publicly-traded company, may threaten its very existence.

First, ACT, as it has been for many years, is feeding into what Smith, myself, and many others believe is the myth that life-destroying embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) has potential for curing disease that non-life-destroying adult stem cell research (ASCR) won’t achieve. The contention that ESCR will in the long run accomplish more than ASCR is being proven more tenuous almost with each passing day. In fact, it can fairly be argued, based on this report from last year (”Adult cells found in mice can transform like embryonic ones”) and this one from just a couple of days ago (”Researchers create adult stem cells with embryonic cell features”) that ASCR is moving out of what I referred to in late 2005 as “blocking-and-tackling,” or addressing diseases one at a time, to something with every bit of the potential that ESCR cheerleaders, without substance, still try to claim as their own. By feeding what I believe are the false hopes for ESCR, ACT and other boosters are causing companies, politicians, and voters (see California) to misallocate money to the “Hail Mary pass” that ESCR represents that could have been more productively spent achieving speedier and genuine results with ASCR. It’s not too much of a stretch to say that some people may die needlessly and/or prematurely if funds continue to be misallocated; just because we can’t find the specific bodies doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening, or might not happen.

The poisoning of the stem-cell debate with false hopes for ESCR is bad enough. But the second problem goes back to the beginning of this post, to that $8.5 million the company just announced that it will raise from holders of its debentures and warrants. If those holders are putting in their money based on the company’s press releases and the subsequent hyped-up reports in the press that are not supported, there would seem to be three parties with the potential to take legal action. The holders themselves could claim deception, though presumably, as accredited investors, they’re supposed to be big boys and girls and have the responsibility to do all the necessary digging before investing. Existing public shareholders who are being diluted could take also action if they feel that the company’s hype falsely induced the debenture and warrant holders to dilute shareholders’ interests. Finally, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) might decide that the entire matter requires investigation for all the reasons I just described.

Speaking of the SEC — The third potential problem is one that, if there is reason to suspect it, you would normally expect the Commission to take a very keen interest in — namely, whether ACT’s announcement, if debunked, represents a PR- and news-driven example of “pump and dump” designed to benefit insiders and perhaps others “in the know.”

On the surface, the evidence looks, to put it delicately, less than pristine:

The last few day of the graph are tough to read, so let’s look at the numbers (you can click on the graph at the link to see this at NASDAQ’s site):

The press release was issued on August 23. The stock went up over 50% the day before and volume doubled, indicating that a number of people may have been given the scoop about the pending announcement. The stock went up over 350% ($1.43) on the 23rd, opened another 57 cents higher ($2.30) on the 24th, peaked slightly above that opening, and fell with a thud to $1.60 by the end of the day. The free-fall continued on Friday, to the point where by Friday’s close the stock was down 59% from its Thursday intraday peak. I don’t have a crystal ball, but given the snowballing skepticism, I’d say the chances that the slide will continue on Monday are pretty high.

What about those huge trading volumes on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday? Keep in mind that the company has, according to NASDAQ’s web site, only about 27.7 million outstanding shares. Even considering that some shares probably changed hands multiple times during those three days, the share volumes as a percentage of outstanding shares are extraordinary, especially when you see who owned most of the shares as of October 31, 2005 (link is to the Proxy Statement filed December 5, 2005; info pictured below is at Page 5; I did not see evidence that ownership has significantly changed since then, but I am not certain of that; I’d appreciate an e-mail from anyone who can point me to more current information):

Add the 22.1% of the company owned by officers and directors to the 51% owned by the the four investment funds, and you see that together they own almost 3/4 of the company. Trading volumes for ACT stock on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday were 32%, 56%, and 36% of the total shares outstanding, respectively.

If you think there’s more than a little reason to suspect that the investment funds, the officers, and/or the directors of ATC may have made a financial killing as a result of manufactured (and if Smith is right, now thoroughly punctured) hype at the possible expense of unjustifiably overexcited individual investors — well, so do I.

I will politely suggest that if the SEC isn’t curious about all of this, they’re not doing their job.

____________________________

UPDATE 1: Here’s another great example of adult stem cell progress.

UPDATE 2: There may be even more machinations involved than the body of the post indicates. First, ACT earlier this year opened a California R&D facility, because they hope to get some grant or venture funding from the $3 billion kitty California voters approved in 2004. Don’t ask me why, but an announcement like ACT’s, even if disproven, could still give the company visibility and credibility with those who are divvying up the money. Second, most of ACT’s principal executive officers have a large number of stock options, which, if exercisable (many appear to be) and actually excercised during the stock runup, could have personally benefitted them in very substantial amounts. There certainly may be other angles I’m not considering but don’t have the ability to investigate because of the company’s complex capital and financing structure.

UPDATE 3: The paragraph below the “daily details graphic” was added at about 5:30 PM on Saturday, and the percentages owned by the funds and all insiders were changed at that time to correct math errors.

UPDATE 4: In an article about the company after the markets closed on Friday, Steve Johnson at the San Jose Mercury News did not address any of the matters noted above, even though doubts had already emerged about the credibility of ATC’s announcement.

UPDATE 5: Yoo-hoo? SEC? — The Washington Post is reporting (HT Instapundit) on several objections from Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and that Nature Magazine “corrected wording in a lay-language news release it had distributed in advance and posted clarifying data it had asked the scientists to provide.”

UPDATE 6: Newsweek didn’t let concerns about the ATC announcement’s validity keep it from polling on the matter, including whether the President should “change his position given the new method.” Zheesh — Bush’s position, not specifically explained by Newsweek, is that federal funds should not be used to fund ESCR. The writing is typically ignorant and biased. The sub-headline is “NEWSWEEK Poll: A possibly revolutionary innovation in stem-cell research hasn’t changed American opinions on the topic.” As usual, no distinction between embryonic and adult. The word “embryonic” appears once. The word “adult” to describe stem cells or stem cell research does not appear at all. A less-than informed reader would concude that ESCR is the only kind.

UPDATE 7, August 28 afternoon: Mona Charen has a short post at The Corner on an e-mail she received from one Robert P. (Robby) George (July 6 WaPo co-authored op-ed here; HT Mirror of Justice), who she quotes thusly — “Unfortunately, just about none of this is true. First, the study did not involve the removal of one cell from an embryo that then continued to develop. Instead, researchers disaggregated 16 living embryos, killing them all, and took an average of six cells from each. The 91 resulting embryonic cells were then placed near one another in dishes and allowed to divide. Some divided, while others died, and from the cells that divided researchers were able to produce two lines of embryonic stem cells. In other words, this study does essentially nothing to prove the point that Advanced Cell Technology (the company that carried out the experiments) has argued in the press: that single cells removed from an early embryo and cultured by themselves can produce lines of embryonic stem cells.” Mr. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, a Professor of Politics, and Director of the James Madison Program at Princeton University.

UPDATE 8, August 28, 1AM: Life News — “Company Making Millions on Fake Embryonic Stem Cell Research Announcement”; also, here is a detailed, unfiltered report from Catholic News Agency of exactly what Doerflinger (mentioned in Update 5) said about ACT’s work. August 28, 2PM — Here is the USCCB’s official press release.

Answer: I don’t know. Opinions vary. It is nearly conventional wisdom that Hezbollah came out better than Israel, but this writer and others disagree. But I know who lost, and lost big.

____________________________________________________

The rout of the WORMs (Worn-Out Reactionary Media, known to most as the formerly Mainstream Media) over the disgraceful and dishonest coverage that came out of Lebanon and Israel during the past month has been so complete that I can’t even hope to get to all of the examples. I’ll concentrate on the lowest of the lowlights:

• First, there was the Reutersgate photoshopping, which was eventually found to be common enough that in roughly 48 hours a new term was coined: Fauxtography.
• There were what I call the Mr. Clean photos, where a guy who had been walking around perfectly healthy in early New York Times photographs was lying down as if killed by Israeli bombing in a later one (and described as such by The Times). The Times issued a correction (go to Update 4 at Gateway Pundit’s post).
• There was the blatant staging of events by the forever-to-be famous Green Helmet Guy, and the Associated Press’s pitiful attempts to defend him.
• And who will ever forget the incredible work Zombietime did to expose the Red Cross Ambulance Incident, and the charge that Israel bombed a clearly visible ambulance, as a hoax that, because of the delay in discovering and reporting the fraud, may very well have unfairly turned world opinion against Israel and weakened its standing in negotiations.

There’s SOOO much more. EU Referendum has what is as close to a complete chronology and analysis of many of these events, especially the non-existent “Qana massacre,” as there will probably ever be. This part of his series conclusion post bears repeating:

Firstly, were many of the scenes during the rescue/recovery effort at Khuraybah on 30 July 2006, staged? The answer has to be yes.

Secondly, were journalists (with or without cameras) aware of the staging and complicit in it? Again, the answer has to be yes.

Third, did the media (the western media in particular) accept the images uncritically, without in any way inquiring as to their authenticity - even though there were good grounds for suspicion? Here, the answer almost certainly has to be yes.

Finally, has there since been a cover-up by the agencies and other media organisations which produced or used the material, and a sustained campaign by them either to ignore the issue or neutralise criticism? Once again, the answer has to be yes.

In defence of the media, if it can be considered thus, one can only postulate that staging scenes such as these is so common a practice, and so deeply embedded in the whole fabric of photo-journalism, that no one at the incident saw anything wrong with what transpired.

Finally, and most importantly, at the root of all of this: Special arrangements Arab states have paid extra money for that ensure that news out of the Middle East is slanted in their direction. Here is a partial reminder of what those arrangements are:

While most of the world takes news pictures with minimal interpretation beyond editing, the Arab Gulf States have asked for and receive a different and far more expensive service. These states pay for a complete news report service including full editing and voice overs from known journalists. The news organizations in the Arab countries don’t do anything (beyond verify that they are appropriate for local tastes) before broadcast.

What this means is that while there are around 50 people producing news pictures for the whole world working in Camden (UK) at any time, there are a further 50 Arabic speaking staff producing finished stories exclusively for the Arab states of the gulf. This has a tremendous effect on the whole feel of the building as these two teams feed pictures and people back and forth and sit in adjacent work areas. The slant of the stories required by the Gulf States has a definite effect on which footage is used and discarded. This affects both the Gulf newsroom and the main global newsroom.

….. Without question APTN’s (Associated Press Television Network’s) interesting business model represents a concrete example of an ongoing financial “contribution” to an important communication agency promoting a pro-Arab bias.

Until those arrangements (which because of APTN’s dominance ripple through almost all overseas news coverage) are jettisoned, and until no country or territory can simply buy more favorable news coverage as the Arab states so obviously have, there is absolutely no reason to take any news coming out of the Middle East at face value. None.

Answer: Yes, just this past week, but the news didn’t get very far.
_______________________________

The feelings were mixed when the following news broke last Wednesday:

Property owners received an additional $2.3 million from the state to settle their claims and relocate after a long-fought eminent domain battle against the city of New London that touched off a national firestorm.

The state money is in addition to about $1.7 million that had been held in escrow for the six property owners since their homes and businesses were condemned by the New London Development Corp. in 2000, officials said. The city also agreed to waive about $1.1 million in back rent it claimed it was owed from the time the properties were condemned.

….. New London Mayor Elizabeth Sabilia said she was relieved to have the matter settled.

“The city of New London had been vilified for following the law,” Sabilia said. “On the other hand, it seems to be a very steep premium for following the law.”

The city could have pursued the development without seizing the properties, said Scott Bullock, a spokesman for the Institute for Justice, which represented the homeowners.

“This certainly provides better compensation for them and at least allows them a chance to buy properties comparable to what they have now,” Bullock said.

According to the New London Day, (access to Day links require registration after one day, and a paid subscription one week after article date) which has more detail than the AP link above, the last three settlements were:

The largest settlement payment was to plaintiff William Von Winkle, who owned apartment houses at 27, 31 and 35 Smith St. initially appraised at $638,000. Von Winkle will now be paid $1.5 million for those properties, plus another $300,000 for a building at 216 Howard St., which stood just outside the project boundaries and had never been seized via eminent domain.

Von Winkle’s agreement also forgave what the NLDC calculates as roughly $482,000 in occupancy fees, in part because of rental payments Von Winkle has collected since 2000, when he legally ceased to own the properties.
Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the court case, and one who was rendered an icon by national opponents of eminent domain, accepted an offer totaling $442,155 for her little pink house at 8 East St., more than $319,000 above the appraised value in 2000.

Kelo’s agreement will permit her to move her house off of its current lot to another location, and gives her until June 15, 2007, to do so, or else vacate the premises. Kelo also was permitted to forgo roughly $85,000 in use and occupancy fees as calculated by the NLDC.

City officials said the amount to be paid for Kelo’s house was based on the estimated cost of moving it, though no location has been specified or purchased.

Pasquale Cristofaro and his family — who, with Kelo, were some of the most outspoken opponents of the project and the last to settle — will receive $475,000, including relocation costs, for their house at 53 Goshen St. It was appraised at $150,000 in 2000. The city forgave $105,000 in use and occupancy fees.

The Cristofaros also retain the right to salvage fixtures and property from the house, will have shrubs from the grounds transplanted to their residences at no cost, and will be reimbursed for real estate taxes paid since the date of the taking in 2000. The NLDC also agreed to install a plaque in the finished development in memory of the late matriarch of the family, Margherita Cristofaro, and to issue a statement on behalf of the agency and the city: “We regret any hardship suffered during the course of this case. We understand that the battle was a principled one.”

The forgiveness of the “occupancy fees” was a face-saving device for the city and the NLDC, which tried since late last year to pretend that it was owed the amounts noted above going all the way back to 2000, when the original Kelo v. New London action was filed. The assessments were an embarrassing joke, and any serious attempt to collect those fees could have had awful consequences.

As you might expect, government officials (with the exception of Sabilia’s comment above) think the settlements are fair.

The plaintiffs who spoke reminded everyone that their properties should not have been up for grabs in the first place, and that if they’d really had their way they would not have been forced to leave:

Von Winkle, an often acerbic presence throughout the Fort Trumbull fight, has not warmed to the city despite signing the settlement in early June.

“My property was stolen from me,” he said Tuesday, adding that he thought he had received about half of what his property was worth. “I sat at the table and negotiated with these people. They had weapons, they had guns. And I had nothing.”

Kelo struck a similar tone Tuesday: “First and foremost, my home was not for sale,” she said. “It was never for sale. They stole our properties from us.”

Some of those who settled earlier are upset that the final three holdouts got more, and there is concern that there will be a backlash against the final three holdouts. I don’t share that sentiment. People should realize that until almost the end of June, it appeared more likely that the city would have its way and ignore Governor Jodi Rell’s attempts to breach the impasse, and that it would proceed with eviction plans against the three holdouts. They could very well have ended up with the original settlement, and fighting over the bogus occupancy fees.

A Day article published on Thursday and written by Elaine Stoll found a consensus among experts that the final plaintiffs got very good deals, and that the backlash against both the Supreme Court ruling and the way they plaintiffs were treated after the ruling played a role in their ultimate size. To that I have a one-word response: Good.

One attorney quoted in Stoll’s article said, “It was a highly unpopular decision, and there was a lot of pressure on the municipality to do right by these people because they suffered the loss of their homes.” The trouble is that the city and the NLDC did exactly the opposite, and in my view deserved to pay the price for it.

I think a New London Day letter writer put it all in perspective when she wrote:

Have you driven by Susette Kelo’s home? She has a mult-million-dollar view — unobstructed — across the lawn of a state park, on a quiet corner of a nook in New London. The developers will no doubt profit in hundreds of thousands on each “town home” they build, profit in millions from the hotel, and ad infinitum as the real-estate market increases through the years. They came after that property like a pack of wolves with their tongues hanging out, foreseeing the value of the waterview.

Susette Kelo and the other homeowners did not receive half the money their properties are worth to the developers, who will still stand to make quite a profit from their investment.

I would add “….. thanks to the Supreme Court enabling the City of New London to do something it had no constitutional right to do until the Court misinterpreted the Constitution.”

Oh, I forgot to mention ….. the van was upside-down:

2 trapped in submerged van rescued
Friday, August 25, 2006

Trapped for nearly six hours in an upside down van, neck-deep in pitch-black water, Raymond Czarnecki looked at his friend William Harrison Jr., and said, “I don’t think we’re going any further than this.”

It was too dark in the white 1991 Dodge van to find any windows and the doors were locked, Czarnecki said Thursday afternoon from his hospital bed in Delray Medical Center.

Czarnecki said they were heading back to a field where they had been living in the van around 1:30 a.m., when his foot slammed onto the accelerator. The van slid down an embankment and flipped into a canal off West Atlantic Avenue near the entrance to Florida’s Turnpike in suburban Delray Beach.

When they were rescued shortly after 7 a.m., Czarnecki told deputies they had been drinking and were going to buy more beer before the store closed, said Teri Barbera, sheriff’s office spokeswoman. Deputies said the canal was littered with beer cans, though they can’t be sure they came from Czarnecki’s van.

Czarnecki, 64, was issued a citation for driving without a license and careless driving, Barbera said. His license was suspended in August 2005 for failing to show proof of insurance after a car crash, according to state driving records. Harrison, 56, has been arrested twice for driving under the influence, records show.

A construction worker who saw the van’s four wheels sticking out of the water called for help.

The water was within a foot of the floorboard when Palm Beach County Fire-Rescue divers John Kemp and Lee Forshner found the men standing between the van’s front and back bucket seats, according to Battalion Chief Mike Wells.

“The medics got the keys out of the ignition, unlocked the back hatch, pulled out one of the seats and got them out through the back hatch area,” Wells said. “They were very lucky.”

Czarnecki said he and Harrison didn’t realize they had been in the water so long. They suffered some minor bumps and bruises and were “shaky” from the experience, Czarnecki said.