Stem Cell Breakthrough: Embryos Needn't Be Killed

Once again, the purveyors of embryonic death have been dealt a blow by researchers developing multiple, unrelated techniques to use adult bone marrow and fat cells to regenerate and repair a variety of damaged body tissue types.

"This technique is a significant advance on many of the current unproven stem cell therapies, which have shown little or no objective evidence they contribute directly to new tissue formation."
-- John Pimanda, Associate Professor, University of New South Wales (UNSW)

Thus, countering scientists who proclaim: Embryo-killing is Essential for Life

For background, read Stem Cell Science Advances WithOUT Killing Embryos

-- From "Study Finds Stem Cells Can Help to Heal Damaged Hearts" posted at KMOX-AM1120 (St. Louis, MO) CBS News 4/5/16

The findings of this new study were just presented at a major cardiology conference in Chicago. SLU Care cardiologist Dr. Michael Lim at SSM Health SLU Hospital was there.

Stem cells from a patient’s own bone marrow were harvested, treated and then directly re-injected back into the muscle.

Lim says when they find that less people are dead with one therapy versus those who did not get the therapy, it is strong evidence. He adds that it is really great news.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Stem Cell Therapy Promising Against Heart Failure" by Robert Preidt, HealthDay News Reporter, posted at WebMD News 4/4/16

The clinical trial found that end-stage heart failure patients treated with stem cells harvested from their own bone marrow had 37 percent fewer cardiac events than those who received a "dummy" placebo.

If further studies are successful, stem cell therapy may one day offer an alternative to current treatments for end-stage heart failure, such as heart transplantation and left ventricular assist device therapy, the researchers said.

The study was published online April 4 in The Lancet journal and presented simultaneously at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) in Chicago.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Cell therapy could help slow decline in heart failure patients, study suggests" by Carina Storrs, Special to CNN 4/4/16

"This would be considered a huge success because this much of a reduction has not been shown with any other (cell) therapy," said Dr. Amit N. Patel, director of the clinical regenerative medicine program in the University of Utah Department of Surgery.

Here's how the therapy, which is called Ixmyelocel-T, is carried out: The researchers remove about three tablespoons of bone marrow from the hip bone while the patient is lightly sedated. The cells in the bone marrow then grow in an instrument called a bioreactor for two weeks, producing a "soup" of cells containing certain types of stem cells and immune cells that can help remodel tissue and reduce inflammation, Patel said. Finally the researchers use special catheters to identify the weakest parts of the heart and inject the soup into these areas.

In the year after the injection, 20.3% of the patients in the cell therapy group experienced an adverse event such as infection or stroke, compared with 41.8% of the placebo group. "It was surprising that the (placebo) patients did significantly worse," Patel said. This could have been because they underwent the same invasive procedures as the treatment group, but did not receive the same potentially beneficial cell therapy, which could have anti-inflammatory effects that decreased adverse events, he said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "New stem cell therapy which mimics how salamanders grow new limbs raises hopes of new regenerative treatments" by John von Radowitz, UK Independent 4/4/16

Therapies based on "induced multipotent stem" (iMS) cells could be tested in human trials as early as next year, according to Australian researchers.

While ES [embryonic stem] cells are natural, obtained from early-stage embryos, iPS cells are made by reprogramming adult cells. But both run the risk of generating cancerous tumours, and iPS cells are created using genes injected by viruses, which is clinically unacceptable.

The iMS cells which are the focus of the new research reported in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences have a more limited capacity but claimed to be safer than ES or iPS cells.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scientists develop 'game changing' stem cell repair system" posted at Phys.org Science X network 4/4/16

Stem cell therapies capable of regenerating any human tissue damaged by injury, disease or ageing could be available within a few years, following landmark research led by UNSW Australia researchers.

The repair system, similar to the method used by salamanders to regenerate limbs, could be used to repair everything from spinal discs to bone fractures, and has the potential to transform current treatment approaches to regenerative medicine.

Study lead author, haematologist and UNSW Associate Professor John Pimanda, said the new technique, which reprograms bone and fat cells into induced multipotent stem cells (iMS), has been successfully demonstrated in mice.

The technique developed by UNSW researchers involves extracting adult human fat cells and treating them with the compound 5-Azacytidine (AZA), along with platelet-derived growth factor-AB (PDGF-AB) for approximately two days. The cells are then treated with the growth factor alone for a further two-three weeks.

AZA is known to induce cell plasticity, which is crucial for reprogramming cells. The AZA compound relaxes the hard-wiring of the cell, which is expanded by the growth factor, transforming the bone and fat cells into iMS cells. When the stem cells are inserted into the damaged tissue site, they multiply, promoting growth and healing.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Gov't Wants 'Defective Babies' to Harvest Organs

Due to a shortage of human organs, the UK National Health Service (NHS) is reportedly pressuring expectant mothers suspected of carrying offspring with serious abnormalities to fully gestate while offering their babies as non-consenting organ donors upon delivery in return for remuneration.  Responding to media uproar, the NHS admitted to the financial support and said that such donation is solely a parental decision.

For background, read Implanting Harvested Aborted Organs in Animals for Human Transplant

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Boy 'Created' Artificially to Cure Sister's Disease

Harvesting Blood of Children for Fountain of Youth

Planned Parenthood Caught Selling Aborted Babies on Video

Also read 'Humanized Mice' Created from Organs Harvested via Abortion

-- From "Babies’ organs ‘could save 100 lives a year’" by Elizabeth Beynon, UK Sunday Times 3/6/16

Some defects or disorders, which mean a child cannot survive after birth, can be detected early in pregnancy. One defect, anencephaly, in which the child’s brain fails to develop, can be spotted by a scan as early as 12 weeks.

Under the proposals, pregnant women discovered to be carrying such babies would be supported through the remainder of their pregnancy, allowing the child’s organs to develop fully. They would give birth as normal and key organs would be removed from the baby once it had been certified dead.

About 230 babies with anencephaly are aborted every year in Britain. Only a dozen are born alive.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Organ Harvesting: Are UK Women Going To Be Pressurized To Have Babies?" posted at HealthAim 3/7/16

A shortage of donated organs poses a problem for health authorities across the world who fail to save the lives of the patients who need them. Organ harvesting has always been surrounded by an ethical debate, however, it has largely become an accepted medical practice in the recent times.

The issue became highlighted following the annual meeting of the British Transplantation Society in Glasgow. Participating parties discussed and suggested ways to increase organ donations, wherein the NHS considered “proposals that would see mothers ‘supported’ to go ahead with the birth of children with non-survivable conditions,” reports The Independent.

However, the claim has been completely ridiculed by the NHS authorities. According to an NHS spokesperson, the organization has no way to figure out who is pregnant with a baby affected by non-survivable conditions. They can only get to know about such babies if the pregnant mother expresses her wish to donate the organs of the baby.

The spokesperson further said that organ donation of the baby under non-survivable conditions will only be considered if the potential parents express their own wish to explore the option of organ donation. The organization further claims that while supporting such families, it makes sure to explain to them that the procedure is complex and it is not always possible to go ahead with organ harvesting.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "NHS denies reports women will be pressurised to have babies so their organs can be harvested" by Adam Withnall, UK Independent 3/6/16

Until recently, transplants were banned in children under the age of two months, but the rules were changed after it was proven that the organs of new-borns can make the difference between life and death – even for adults.

Speaking to the Mail on Sunday, transplant surgeon Niaz Ahmad said the NHS was looking at options for “rolling out [new-born transplants] as a viable source of organ transplantation nationally”.

And raising the prospect of discussing the option with pregnant women directly, he was quoted as saying: “There is a real potential for using these organs [and] we are going to discuss whether it is an option, somehow, to tell women in this situation, that organ donation is an option.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Obama Administration OKs Aborted Baby Brain Experiments

Fed. Judge Censors Pro-life Ads on Indiana Buses

Women's Health Link is appealing a federal district court decision that allows the Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corp. to deny the women's health organization from advertising on Citilink public buses because the ads "express or advocate opinions or positions upon political, religious, or moral issues."

"Women's Health Link hasn't shown that Citilink's advertising policy was anything other than reasonable and viewpoint neutral."
-- Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.

For background, read how governments and schools discriminate against pro-lifers, but also read how courts have ruled against such discrimination.

And for ads on buses in Des Moines, Iowa: It's OK to Denigrate God, but NOT OK to Advocate God

And read Jesus Advertisement Censored by Texas School, Says Lawsuit

-- From "Women's Health Link appeals Citilink ad decision" By Sheryl Krieg, The News-Sentinel (Fort Wayne, IN) 2/5/16

Women's Health Link filed the lawsuit in September 2014, alleging Citilink violated its constitutional rights, specifically the First and 14th amendments, by refusing to display an advertisement/public service announcement for its free referral service for women seeking "life-affirming health care related services."

[Judge] Miller also said, "Citilink has a detailed advertising policy limiting advertising in its buses to commercial advertisements and public service announcements that comply with the restrictions set out in section 1 of that policy and don't 'express or advocate opinions or positions upon political, religious, or moral issues,' and so far as this record shows, Citilink has consistently enforced that policy."

Kevin Theriot, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel, said, "City officials can't run ads from non-profit groups, such as the United Way, and then single out Women's Health Link's nearly identical ad for censorship. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech for all people, regardless of their political or religious views. Because government has a responsibility to ensure equal access to community advertising, we have filed this appeal and hope the 7th Circuit [Court of Appeals in Chicago] will reverse District Court's decision."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pregnancy Center Fights Back After City Censors Ad for Helping Women Find Abortion Alternatives" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 2/5/16

The case began in 2013 when Women’s Health Link asked to place advertising cards in the interior of the city public transportation company Citilink’s buses, LifeNews previously reported. Citilink denied the request twice, saying that Women’s Health Link is associated with Allen County Right to Life, a pro-life organization, and that the Women’s Health Link website discusses “controversial issues.”

Citilink reportedly has permitted many non-profit and government organizations to place public service announcements with various messages in the interior of their buses, including the state of Indiana, Parkview Health and the United Way.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Women's health group appeals decision in Citilink case" Rebecca S. Green, Fort Wayne Journal Gazette 2/4/16

According to court documents, the 11-by-17-inch ad would cost $524 for three months and says "You are not alone" and "Free resources for women seeking health care" on either side of the smiling face of a young woman, with the organization's website and telephone number on a banner below.

Citilink officials rejected the proposed ad on two occasions, saying their attorneys believed that the organization's website dealt with "controversial issues," according to court documents.

The woman who submitted the advertisement on behalf of Women's Health Link [Beck Rogness] was on the organization's board of directors and also was communications manager for Allen County Right to Life, according to court documents.

Women's Health Link and Allen County Right to Life share email addresses and a physical address.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "1 simple statement gets health ad banned" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 2/7/16

The Women’s Health Link site promotes itself as a referral resource “for women seeking physical, emotional, spiritual or mental health care.”

. . . [Citilink’s assistant manager, Betsy] Kachmar notified Rogness that the ad failed to meet the “commercial requirement” of the agency.

So the request was resubmitted under the agency’s provision for “public service announcements by government entities, academic institutions, or nonprofit organizations.”

[However, under that provision, the] agency contended the women’s health care ad was not neutral.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Office Depot Refuses Pro-life Customer in Illinois

Oregon Woman Fired for Being Pro-life Leader

Maine Sues Pastor: Preaching Too Loud on Abortion

California Law Forces Abortion Business on Pro-lifers

Breast Cancer Solution Includes Breast-feeding

Once again, God's design of women has been proven . . .

"The evidence outlined in the series, contributed by some of the leading experts in the field, leaves no doubt that the decision not to breast-feed has major long-term negative effects on the health, nutrition and development of children and on women's health."
-- Cesar Victora, The Lancet series author, of Federal University of Pelotas in Brazil

"We want to encourage breastfeeding but I've also seen patients in tears who can't do it. This article makes it seem like developed countries, rich women, they should all be breastfeeding. But for working women, it's harder for them to breastfeed."
-- Dr. Jennifer Wu, obstetrician-gynecologist, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York

For background, read God Created Woman to Give Birth and Breast-feed

Also read Women Who Birth More Children Live Longer, Study Finds

-- From "Breastfeeding could Save 800,000 Infant Deaths and 20,000 Breast Cancer Deaths Worldwide: Study" by Sandra Hicks, The California Post 1/29/16

As per the study article published online Jan. 28 in The Lancet, the decrease in children's deaths is equivalent to 13% of all deaths in children younger than 2 years of age. The report finds that the current breast-feeding practices cost the world's economy hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Cesar Victora, of Federal University of Pelotas in Brazil, said there is a widespread misconception that the benefits of breast-feeding only relate to poor countries. Nothing could be further from the truth. Victora added that the new study highlights the fact that breast-feeding saves lives and money in all countries, rich and poor alike.

. . . researchers said that breastfeeding increases children's intelligence and may protect them against obesity and diabetes later in life. For mothers, long-term breast-feeding reduces the risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Researchers estimated that poorer thinking skills among children who aren't breast-fed cost the global economy about $302 billion in 2012. The loss in high-income countries alone was $231 billion. Increasing breast-feeding rates for infants younger than 6 months to 90% in the United States, China and Brazil, and to 45% in the United Kingdom, would lower treatment costs of common childhood illnesses.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Worldwide Boost in Breast-Feeding Could Save 800,000 Lives: Study" posted at HealthDay News 1/28/16

Only one in five children in high-income countries is breast-fed for 12 months, the researchers said. And, only one in three children in low- and middle-income countries is exclusively breast-fed for the first 6 months.

Increasing breast-feeding rates for infants younger than 6 months to 90 percent in the United States, China and Brazil, and to 45 percent in the United Kingdom, would lower treatment costs of common childhood illnesses -- such as pneumonia, diarrhea and asthma. This could save health care systems about $2.5 billion in the United States, $29.5 million in the United Kingdom, $224 million in China and $6 million in Brazil, according to the study.

Despite the many benefits of breast-feeding, rates are low, especially in high-income countries, the study showed.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Study: Breastfeeding could save more than 800,000 lives a year" by Mary Brophy Marcus, CBS News 1/28/16

[Speaking about high-income countries, such as the United States, Dr. Jennifer Wu] said a six-week maternity leave from work makes it difficult to continue nursing for a full year.

"At six weeks, you barely have gotten breastfeeding on track. When you go back to work, breast milk goes down because you're away from the baby and can't breastfeed every two or three hours," said Wu.

She said some professions are particularly demanding. "If you're a teacher, it's really hard to find 30 minutes." There's not just time pumping, but setting up and cleaning breast pump equipment.

"There aren't many jobs where you can walk away from your job and do every few hours," Wu said. "In New York and elsewhere here in the U.S., we work very long workdays, maybe 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. at night and with a commute that may extend the day from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m."

She said waking up every few hours at night to breastfeed is difficult and women become sleep-deprived. "It's virtually impossible to breastfeed all night long and then work all the next day."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "New Research Shows That Breastfeeding Matters Everywhere and Could Save Millions of Lives and Dollars" by Werner Schultink, Chief of Nutrition, UNICEF (Huffington Post) 1/28/16

The leading medical journal The Lancet just released a new Series on Breastfeeding with remarkable new evidence on the health and economic benefits of breastfeeding. . . .

Now more than ever we know what needs to be done to support and enable mothers to breastfeed. With such compelling evidence, all of us, including governments, donors, development agencies, the research community, the private sector and civil society need to step up. Breastfeeding can be dramatically improved in a short period of time.

Low and middle income countries such as Burkina Faso, India, Malawi, Peru and Zambia, and high income countries such as Norway, Sweden and Finland, have shown that it is possible to maintain high breastfeeding rates or increase rates in a short period of time provided political commitment, strong policies and programs are in place.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Breastfeeding saves lives, boosts economies in rich and poor countries" by Catharine Paddock PhD, Medical News Today 1/29/16

The two-part [Lancet] series is the most detailed analysis of levels, trends and benefits of breastfeeding around the world.

In a podcast interview for the series, Prof. Victora says while we are only "beginning to scratch the surface," a lot of evidence is emerging about the biology of breastfeeding and the components and properties of breast milk.

He quotes a colleague who likens breast milk to "very exquisite personalized medicine" because it reflects the biological interaction between the mother and her child, "something that formula will never be able to imitate," he notes.

He says we are also beginning to understand that breast milk has epigenetic effects - that is, it influences the expression of genes that control cell activity and development. And, another recent discovery is that breast milk contains stem cells.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Breastfeeding Could Add $300 Billion Into The Global Economy" by News Staff, Science 2.0 1/29/16

The depth and breadth of the Breastfeeding Series included 28 systematic reviews and meta-analyses--22 commissioned specifically for the Series. In total, more than 1,300 studies were reviewed to provide the most exhaustive look at the benefits, determinants, and trends in breastfeeding to date.

According to Series co-lead, Dr. Nigel Rollins with the Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health at the World Health Organization, "This new research demonstrates that breastfeeding results in improved child development, with huge economics gains for individuals, families, as well as at the national level."

For each of the first two years a mother breastfeeds over her lifetime, she decreases her risk of developing invasive breast cancer by six percent. She also benefits from reduced ovarian cancer risk.

Approximately 20,000 breast cancer deaths are prevented each year by breastfeeding; improved rates could prevent another 20,000 deaths each year.

Limited or nonexistent maternity leave. Short maternity leave (up to six weeks) increases the odds of not breastfeeding or stopping early by 400 percent;

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Doctors Say Abortion Causes Breast Cancer — Media Silent

Abortionist Rips Off Taxpayer, Says Okla. Gov.

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has ordered the Oklahoma Health Care Authority to terminate further payments to the state's Planned Parenthood clinics because their "consistent submission of improper billings should disqualify these Planned Parenthood providers from participation in the Oklahoma Medicaid program."

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Taxpayers' $Billions to Abortionists: Government Report

Federal Government Probes Planned Parenthood for Fraud

Planned Parenthood's Goal is to Defraud Taxpayers

Planned Parenthood Faces $5.5 Billion (with a "B") Fine for Fraud

Also read Planned Parenthood Reports its Abortions & Profits Increased Last Year

And read Planned Parenthood Caught Selling Aborted Babies on Video



-- From "Oklahoma Governor Seeks End of Planned Parenthood Contracts" by Tim Talley, Associated Press 11/19/15

The governor announced Thursday that she's asking the Oklahoma Health Care Authority to terminate contracts with Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma in Oklahoma City and Planned Parenthood of the Heartland in Tulsa.

Fallin said the authority reviewed payments to the two affiliates and found billing error rates of about 20 percent for Oklahoma City and 14 percent for Tulsa, though no improper use of state Medicaid funds was discovered.

"These results are alarming," the two-term Republican governor said in a letter to Nico Gomez, CEO of the authority. "More than one in every seven bills submitted for payment to your agency by these providers are inaccurately coded or insufficiently documented. These errors result in overbilling to the Oklahoma taxpayer."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Oklahoma looks to defund Planned Parenthood for 'billing errors'" by Sarah Ferris, The Hill 11/19/15

Fallin asked Oklahoma's health department on Thursday to terminate its contracts with the group after an official review of the state’s two affiliates found billing error rates of 20 and 14 percent.

Oklahoma reimbursed Planned Parenthood for about $100,000 worth of claims in 2015, totaling about 20,000 patient visits. In 2014, the state paid $200,000 for about 36,000 patient visits.

The move would impact six clinics in and around Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

Fallin argued that ending the Medicaid contracts — which would force the clinics to accept fewer patients if not close altogether — would not impact a woman’s ability to choose her own provider, citing 120 other healthcare providers in the state.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "De-Funding Planned Parenthood After It’s Caught Engaging in Fraud" by Micaiah Bilger, LifeNews.com 11/20/15

“There are only two Planned Parenthood affiliates in the state operating in about six metropolitan locations in Oklahoma City and Tulsa,” according to [Fallin's] letter. “However, there are more than 120 other metropolitan and rural providers available … all of whom provide a broader spectrum of health care services than Planned Parenthood’s limited metropolitan locations.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which has been involved in several lawsuits alleging that Planned Parenthood affiliates overbilled Medicaid, praised Fallin’s actions Thursday in a press release.

“Governor Fallin is right to recognize that taxpayer money should go to fund local community health centers, not to subsidize a scandal-ridden, billion-dollar abortion business,” said ADF Legal Counsel Kellie Fiedorek. “Oklahomans shouldn’t be forced to give their money to Planned Parenthood, which has a long track record of abusive and potentially fraudulent billing practices, not to mention that it has also been caught in authenticated undercover videos trafficking aborted babies’ body parts and has repeatedly failed to report the sexual abuse of girls. That tax money should be redirected to trusted health care providers.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gov. Mary Fallin requests termination of Planned Parenthood contracts in Oklahoma" posted at KOCO-TV5 (Oklahoma City, OK) 11/19/15

[Gov. Fallin] also requested ending contracts with similar providers found to have a high billing error rate, have had past findings of over-billing or associate with other providers who do not adhere to the standards that are required to be granted access to public funds.

According to the news  release, the state paid the two Planned Parenthood affiliates $100,145 for almost 20,000 claims in 2015, with the total payment being slightly more than $1 million because the majority of Planned Parenthood services qualify for a 90 percent federal match. Last year, Oklahoma paid $204,631 for more than 35,000 claims, making the federal matching funds slightly more than $2 million.

“We have a joint responsibility to the citizens in Oklahoma to hold providers to high standards that are imposed to allow an entity to receive taxpayer dollars,” Fallin wrote. “The recent behavior of the Planned Parenthood affiliates clearly demonstrates that these providers do not value the opportunity to serve their fellow Oklahomans with taxpayer funds.  Indeed whether willful or simply negligent, the consistent submission of improper billings should disqualify these Planned Parenthood providers from participation in the Oklahoma Medicaid program.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read how Planned Parenthood teams up with schools by providing "kinky sex trainers" for kids.

Gov. Fallin calls for an end to Planned Parenthood contracts

Creators of Life Worshiped — Prizes to Scientists

Disappointed after decades of searching in vain for life beyond Earth, science journalists have turned their focus to proven success in creating life here on Earth through genetic manipulation known as CRISPR-Cas9.  Not only are Nobel prizes in the offing, but funding sources have opened up, including from billionaire Bill Gates.  Although scientists envision endless possibilities for the potential good, they equally fear the inevitable devastating evil uses of such breakthroughs.

"The gene drive immediately makes the organisms that carry it have the characteristic, and then secondly it causes them to have all their children have the same characteristic."
-- Ethan Bier, Biologist, University of California, San Diego

"If any group or country wanted to develop germ warfare agents, they could use techniques like this.  It would be quite straightforward to make new pathogens this way."
-- Stuart Newman, Biologist, New York Medical College

For background, read Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science and also read Unborn Must Die so Others Can Live, Scientists Say



-- From "Gene editing: Research spurs debate over promise vs. ethics" Lauran Neergaard, Medical Writer, Associated Press 10/11/15

Should we change people’s genes in a way that passes traits to future generations? Beyond medicine, what about the environmental effects if, say, altered mosquitoes escape before we know how to use them?

“We need to try to get the balance right,” said University of California, Berkeley, biochemist Jennifer Doudna. She helped develop new gene-editing technology and hears from desperate families, but urges caution in how it’s eventually used in people.

Laboratories worldwide are embracing a technology to precisely edit genes inside living cells — turning them off or on, repairing or modifying them — like a biological version of cut-and-paste software. . . .

“It’s transforming almost every aspect of biology right now,” said National Institutes of Health genomics specialist Shawn Burgess.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Powerful 'Gene Drive' Can Quickly Change An Entire Species" by Rob Stein, WBEZ-NPR (National Public Radio) 11/5/15

[Biologist Ethan] Bier was stunned by what he saw. . . . His student, Valentino Gantz, had found a way to get brown fruit flies to produce blond-looking offspring most of the time.

Turning fruit flies from brown to yellow might not sound like a major achievement. But it was. It showed that scientists had a very fast and easy way to permanently change an entire species.

The drive is a sequence of DNA that can cause a mutation to be inherited by the offspring of an organism with nearly 100 percent efficiency, regardless of whether it's beneficial for that organism's survival.

By combining it with new genetic editing techniques, scientists are able to drive changes they make quickly through an entire species.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Bill Gates on Revolutionary Tech: CRISPR" by Carlos Watson, Yahoo News 11/9/15

The technology Bill Gates is most excited about: Say hello to gene editing!

. . . CRISPR technology, which is changing how we think about genetics and health. CRISPR technology basically allows for gene editing — it’s like a scapel that can cut out harmful mutations and turn genes on and off. The potential applications range from fighting hereditary disease in people to boosting crop yields to engineering cows without horns, so as to obviate a painful dehorning procedure. The ethical implications have barely been sussed out.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Nobel speculation kicks into high gear" by Chris Cesare, Nature 9/24/15

Nobel prize season is approaching, and scientists and other pundits have begun the annual ritual of speculating — with varying degrees of seriousness — about who will win this year’s awards.

The annual predictions by Thomson Reuters, released this year on 24 September, name more women than ever before: four in total. Among the potential laureates for the chemistry prize are Emmanuelle Charpentier of the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research in Braunschweig, Germany, and Jennifer Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley, who would share the prize for helping to create the CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technique.

If Doudna and Charpentier won, it would be just three years after they published their seminal paper.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The Gene Hackers" by Michael Specter, The New Yorker 11/9/15 (November 16, 2015 Issue)

CRISPR has two components. The first is essentially a cellular scalpel that cuts DNA. The other consists of RNA, the molecule most often used to transmit biological information throughout the genome. It serves as a guide, leading the scalpel on a search past thousands of genes until it finds and fixes itself to the precise string of nucleotides it needs to cut. . . .

With CRISPR, scientists can change, delete, and replace genes in any animal, including us. . . .

Inevitably, the technology will also permit scientists to correct genetic flaws in human embryos. Any such change, though, would infiltrate the entire genome and eventually be passed down to children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and every subsequent generation. That raises the possibility, more realistically than ever before, that scientists will be able to rewrite the fundamental code of life, with consequences for future generations that we may never be able to anticipate. Vague fears of a dystopian world, full of manufactured humans, long ago became a standard part of any debate about scientific progress. . . .

Developing any technology as complex and widely used as CRISPR invariably involves contributions from many scientists. Patent fights over claims of discovery and licensing rights are common. [Feng] Zhang, the Broad Institute, and M.I.T. are now embroiled in such a dispute with Jennifer Doudna and the University of California; she is a professor of chemistry and of molecular biology at Berkeley. By 2012, Doudna, along with Emmanuelle Charpentier, a medical microbiologist who studies pathogens at the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, in Germany, and their lab teams, demonstrated, for the first time, that CRISPR could edit purified DNA. Their paper was published that June. In January of 2013, though, Zhang and George Church, a professor of genetics at both Harvard Medical School and M.I.T., published the first studies demonstrating that CRISPR could be used to edit human cells. Today, patents are generally awarded to the first people to file—in this case, Doudna and Charpentier. But Zhang and the Broad argued that the earlier success with CRISPR had no bearing on whether the technique would work in the complex organisms that matter most to scientists looking for ways to treat and prevent diseases. . . .

CRISPR research is becoming big business: venture-capital firms are competing with one another to invest millions, and any patent holder would have the right to impose licensing fees. Whoever wins stands to make a fortune. Other achievements are also at stake, possibly including a Nobel Prize. . . .

From the moment that manipulating genes became possible, many people, including some of those involved in the experiments, were horrified by the idea of scientists in lab coats rearranging the basic elements of life. . . .

Normally, it takes years for genetic changes to spread through a population. That is because, during sexual reproduction, each of the two versions of any gene has only a fifty per cent chance of being inherited. But a “gene drive”—which is named for its ability to propel genes through populations over many generations—manages to override the traditional rules of genetics. A mutation made by CRISPR on one chromosome can copy itself in every generation, so that nearly all descendants would inherit the change. . . .

While CRISPR will clearly make it possible to alter our DNA, serious risks remain. Jennifer Doudna has been among the most vocal of those calling for caution on what she sees as the inevitable march toward editing human genes. “It’s going to happen,” she told me the first time we met, in her office at Berkeley. “As a research tool, CRISPR could hardly be more valuable—but we are far from the day when it should be used in a clinical setting.” . . .

Until April, the ethical debate over the uses of CRISPR technology in humans was largely theoretical. Then a group at Sun Yat-sen University, in southern China, attempted to repair, in eighty-six human embryos, the gene responsible for betathalassemia, a rare but often fatal blood disorder. If those disease genes, and genes that cause conditions like cystic fibrosis, could be modified successfully in a fertilized egg, the alteration could not only protect a single individual but eventually eliminate the malady from that person’s hereditary lineage. Given enough time, the changes would affect all of humanity. The response to the experiment was largely one of fear and outrage. The Times carried the story under the headline “Chinese Scientists Edit Genes of Human Embryos, Raising Concerns.” . . .

[Doudna] told me that she was constantly amazed by [CRISPR] potential, but when I asked if she had ever wondered whether the powerful new tool might do more harm than good she looked uncomfortable. “I lie in bed almost every night and ask myself that question,” she said. “When I’m ninety, will I look back and be glad about what we have accomplished with this technology? Or will I wish I’d never discovered how it works?”

Her eyes narrowed, and she lowered her voice almost to a whisper. “I have never said this in public, but it will show you where my psyche is,” she said. “I had a dream recently, and in my dream”—she mentioned the name of a leading scientific researcher—“had come to see me and said, ‘I have somebody very powerful with me who I want you to meet, and I want you to explain to him how this technology functions.’ So I said, Sure, who is it? It was Adolf Hitler. I was really horrified, but I went into a room and there was Hitler. He had a pig face and I could only see him from behind and he was taking notes and he said, ‘I want to understand the uses and implications of this amazing technology.’ I woke up in a cold sweat. And that dream has haunted me from that day. Because suppose somebody like Hitler had access to this—we can only imagine the kind of horrible uses he could put it to.”

To read all of the extremely long article above, CLICK HERE.

Kill Baby to Save Mother? No! — Gov. Scott Walker

As the mainstream media set traps to ensnare pro-lifers in the 2016 presidential quest, most conservative candidates bite their tongues to avoid another 2012 "Todd Akin moment."  However, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker boldly answered the "gotcha question" in Thursday's GOP debate:

". . . I’ve got a position I think is consistent with many Americans out there in that I believe that that is an unborn child in need of protection out there, and I’ve said many a time that that unborn child can be protected and there are many other alternatives that will also protect the life of that mother.  That’s been consistently proven."

For background, read Christians Favor Missouri Candidate Todd Akin over GOP and also read Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Ignores Atheists' Demands re: Bible as well as Wisconsin Shifts Money Away from Planned Parenthood

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Gallup Poll: Americans Want Abortion Laws Changed

Abortionists Lament Ever-greater State Limits

Pro-life Laws Sweep America; Liberals Battle Back

Abortion Rate Declines, Democrats Want More Access

Abortion Clinic Closings Set Record; Abortionists Admit Defeat

Also read Families are Greatest Enemy of Democrats at Polls



-- From "GOP candidates: Ban abortion, no exceptions" by Irin Carmon, MSNBC 8/7/15

[FOX News debate] Moderator Megyn Kelly asked Scott Walker how he could justify opposing an exception to an abortion ban in cases where a woman’s life was in danger, though he did sign a bill with such an exception.

. . . Kelly’s question to Walker pointedly played from the left: “Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion, and with 83% of the American public in favor of a life exception, are you too out of the mainstream on this issue to win the general election?”

. . . Even for the party long aligned in opposition to the procedure, the issue of exceptions has been politically challenging. Though the Republican party platform calls for a ban without exceptions, previous GOP presidential nominees Mitt Romney, John McCain and George W. Bush generally said they favored such exceptions. The politics around rape and the specter of a woman dying are considered too toxic for a general election.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "As campaign heats up, Republican candidates are rushing to the right" by Sean Sullivan, Washington Post 8/7/15

Moderate Republicans said Friday they are concerned about the potential for Democrats to revive their “war on women” line of attack from 2012, when they successfully portrayed presidential nominee Mitt Romney and other Republicans as out of touch with or even hostile to the concerns of women.

“Republicans have to be careful not to fall into the trap laid by Democrats so successfully in the 2010 election into the 2012 election cycle,” said Steve Schmidt, a former top presidential campaign adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Democratic National Committee Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Friday compared the crop of Republican hopefuls to Todd Akin, whose 2012 Senate bid was derailed when he said “legitimate rape” rarely causes pregnancy.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scott Walker calls abortion to save a woman's life a 'false choice'" by Mary Spicuzza of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 8/8/15

Abortion rights activists say that in some cases, the only option to protect a woman's life is to end her pregnancy.

"It's a false choice. There is always a better option out there," Walker told Fox News' Sean Hannity on Thursday night.

"I've said for years, medically there's always a better choice than choosing between the life of an unborn baby and the life of the mother," he added. "Medically that's just a nonissue."

Walker answered that he has a position on the issue "that's in line with everyday America."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scott Walker signs Wisconsin abortion bill" by Eliza Collins, Politico 7/20/15

The legislation makes performing an abortion a felony punishable by up to three and a half years in prison and $10,000 in fines. The only way abortions after 20 weeks are allowed is if the mother is likely to die or be severely injured.

Late on Monday, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton attacked Walker on Twitter for the new law, writing, “Gov. Walker signed dangerous abortion restrictions into law in WI - without exceptions for rape or incest. Extreme and unacceptable. -H.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signs abortion ban bill" by The Associated Press 7/20/15

While Walker has a long history of opposing abortions . . . Walker's record includes defunding Planned Parenthood; requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, a law currently blocked by a federal court judge; and requiring women to have ultrasounds and be shown images of the fetus before having an abortion.

The governor's signature makes Wisconsin the 15th state to pass similar bans. There is no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

"For people, regardless of where they might stand, when an unborn child can feel pain I think most people feel it's appropriate to protect that child," Walker said.

Bans on abortion after 20 weeks are popular, at least on the surface. A Quinnipiac University poll conducted in November of 2014 found that 6 in 10 Americans support banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of rape or incest.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scott Walker informs Megyn Kelly: Abortion is not necessary to save a mother’s life" by Amanda Read, Live Action News 8/7/15

In 2012, a panel of obstetric and gynecological experts signed the Dublin Declaration, which states that “direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman… there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.”

When the mother’s life is at stake, medical actions are taken with the intent to save the woman, not to dispose of the child.

Abortion proponents like to remind us that we’re not living in the 19th century or even the 1950s, but they conveniently forget that means we can handle medically challenging pregnancies and deliveries better than ever before. In a 2004 study from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, only 4% of women cited “physical problem with my health” as reason for getting an abortion. But never has literal abortion actually been necessary to save the life of the mother, and no woman should be made to believe otherwise. This is where definition comes into play, and where media figures like Kelly get it wrong.

To read the entire opinion above, CLICK HERE.

From "The case of 10-year-old Paraguayan pregnant girl and why killing is not the answer" by Lila Rose, Live Action 7/10/15

And that’s the reality: abortion is never medically necessary to save a mother’s life. . . . This is reinforced by the testimony of Dr. Anthony Levatino, a reformed abortionist, who described a typical “life of the mother” case as he saw it:

“During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by ‘terminating’ pregnancies [via live delivery by C-section] to save mothers' lives. In all those hundreds of cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.”

In other words, when a life-in-danger medical condition arises, the solution is not to kill the baby, but to address what’s wrong with the woman. Granted, if we’re talking before viability, this may not always result in the preborn child surviving.

To read the entire opinion above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Chicken Cruelty Exposed by Court, Baby Slaughter Concealed by Court

Doctors: Abortion Causes Breast Cancer—Media Silent

As liberal media continue to tout abortion industry claims to the contrary, the American College of Pediatricians is repeating its conclusive warning of the causal link of abortion to breast cancer, especially for adolescents. A 2013 study by Dr. Rebecca Johnson, Seattle Children’s Hospital cancer specialist, demonstrates “an increasing risk of breast cancer with each subsequent abortion,” but finds no evidence of increased breast cancer risk from miscarriage.

For background, read Breast Cancer Soars Worldwide, Main Cause Censored and also read Study of Chinese Women Shows Abortion-Breast Link as well as Breast Cancer Soars, Obvious Abortion Cause Hushed

In addition, read Women Who Give Birth Live Longer and Healthier

-- From "Induced abortion linked to breast cancer risk" posted at FoodConsumer.org 4/19/15

The [pediatricians group's] press release claims that "the medical community has been reluctant to acknowledge the link, induced abortion prior to a full term delivery, and prior to 32 weeks of gestation, increases the likelihood that a woman will develop breast cancer."

A study led by Dr. Johnson and her colleagues and published in Feb 2013 shows that incidence of metastatic breast cancer in young women aged 25 to 39 years has been increased in the U.S., according to the release.  Studies in China, India and Romania show that abortion is associated with risk of breast cancer in a “dose” responsive manner.

In the United States, about one third of pregnancies are terminated or aborted.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Know Your ABCs: The Abortion Breast Cancer Link" Press Release by The American College of Pediatricians 4/7/15

In February 2013, Dr. Johnson and her colleagues made national news when they reported an increased incidence of metastatic breast cancer in young women in the U.S. aged 25 – 39 years.  Other epidemiological studies from China, India, and Romania demonstrate an increasing incidence of breast cancer as abortions increased – with a “dose effect” showing an increasing risk of breast cancer with each subsequent abortion. President Den Trumbull states, “When one considers the normal anatomy and physiology of the breast it becomes clear that this link is causal not merely correlational.”

The College looks to the day when the lives and health of all children from conception to natural death will be respected and protected. In the mean time, the College urges all health care providers to educate women on the risks associated with induced abortion, including the increased risk of breast cancer.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion and the Risk of Breast Cancer: Information for the Adolescent Woman and Her Parents" by American College of Pediatricians – December 2013

Induced abortion (IA) prior to 32 weeks gestation appears to increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. This association is largely ignored by the mainstream medical community, not included in sex education programs, and even disputed by some. For example, the Guttmacher Institute claims, “Exhaustive reviews by panels convened by the U.S. and British governments have concluded that there is no association between abortion and breast cancer. There is also no indication that abortion is a risk factor for other cancers.” However, as documented by the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, the vast majority of studies (57 of 73 worldwide) do show a strong association between IA and an increased risk of breast cancer. This discrepancy exists for many reasons, including bias in the selection of articles chosen for “exhaustive review,” as well as flaws in methodology (e.g. including spontaneous abortions along with IAs) of some studies that discount the association. As with any medical treatment or recommendation, a lack of 100 percent certainty and the need for constant re-evaluation is not a legitimate rationale for withholding potentially life-threatening information concerning an elective procedure.

To read the entire report above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Stubborn Link Returns" by Joel Brind, National Review 3/10/15

Prominent abortion practitioner and promoter David Grimes bemoans that bumper stickers still warn that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, even though, he asserts, that “theory . . . was debunked long ago.” So begins Grimes’s recent piece on the Huffington Post’s blog Healthy Living. “Long ago” was, though Grimes doesn’t say so, 1997 to 2008, when there flowed a stream of “debunking” publications — largely studies that were methodologically flawed — reporting that no abortion–breast cancer (ABC) link existed. They were effective in fading the ABC link from public consciousness. But now the ABC link has returned, stubbornly, provoking renewed efforts to debunk it.

Being real, the ABC link is showing up, conspicuously, as millions of women worldwide who have had abortions over the past several decades are coming down with breast cancer at alarmingly increased rates. Dozens of papers are being published that show the trend. Grimes does not acknowledge the recent studies, however, relying rather on the discredited arguments of “long ago” — and some clever sleight of hand — in his shoddy attempt to disprove the link.

. . . Contrary to Grimes’s claim that the ABC link was long ago “debunked,” the epidemiological evidence has grown tremendously stronger. The inference of a causal association between abortion and breast cancer has become all the more compelling, with our advancing knowledge of the hormonal changes during pregnancy and of how such changes during interrupted pregnancies dovetail with the susceptibility of cells in the breast to become cancerous.

But Grimes makes mention of no data from this century at all, only of data from “long ago.”

With over a billion women in China and India alone, a very conservative prediction would be that in the coming decades, millions there will die of breast cancer that can be attributed to abortion. No wonder Grimes is not interested in the recent data: It’s devastating to his “safe abortion” agenda.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The breast cancer epidemic: 10 facts" by A. Patrick Schneider II, Christine M. Zainer, Christopher Kevin Kubat, Nancy K. Mullen and Amberly K. Windisch, published in The Linacre Quarterly 81 (3) 2014, 244–277

Affecting one in eight U.S. women, breast cancer is a modern American epidemic. This review contains 10 facts that summarize the emerging epidemiology of this tragic development. . . . The incidence of breast cancer has risen dramatically during the last four decades. Moreover, a growing international acceptance of Western style sexual and reproductive practices has been associated with an increase in worldwide breast cancer rates. A number of breast cancer risk factors that are potentially preventable are now established. An early epidemiological insight was that a delay (or avoidance) of childbearing raises the risk of breast cancer. Similarly, a reduced duration (or avoidance) of breastfeeding, is a loss of a natural breast cancer preventive. A greater understanding of the cancer-protective physiological mechanisms that occur during the first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) has resulted in an enhanced understanding of the breast cancer “susceptibility window” that occurs between puberty and the FFTP.

. . . Many reports from the United States and other Western countries have also linked induced abortion (IA) to breast cancer (the abortion–breast cancer (ABC) link). Recently, there has been a surge in the number of reports from multiple, non-Western nations, associating abortion with breast cancer. Consequently, there is now sufficient evidence to conclude that IA is causally linked to breast cancer.

There is also evidence of a compounding of breast cancer risk factors in girls and young women. Recent epidemiological research found a large increase in this malignancy in young women that is metastatic (to bone, brain, and lungs) at the time of diagnosis. This ominous development has “no recommended screening practice” and a dismal prognosis. This sobering trend mandates the need for disclosure of breast cancer risk factors. A medical, legal, and ethical duty for full and accurate informed consent exists for all females. This is especially imperative for a girl (with her parent or guardian), or a young woman, who is considering the choice of an oral contraceptive (OC), including so-called “emergency contraception (EC),” IA (or both) during her “susceptibility window.”

To read the entire report above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Media Embrace Science Lies, Reject Science Truth

UPDATE 1/29/16: Breast Cancer Solution Includes Breast-feeding, Study Shows

Univ. Recruits Teens for Experimental Abortions

Much research is being done on oxytocin, the hormone that increases during pregnancy and causes a strong impulse for a mother to care for her baby.  Now the University of Hawaii and the University of Washington are conducting studies on mothers as young as fourteen who abort their babies to observe various effects of oxytocin, or lack thereof (possibly death of the teen girl).

Also read Babies Can Hear the Abortionist Coming, Study Shows

And read Planned Parenthood President Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?

-- From "Oxytocin may influence maternal social behavior, study finds" posted at Medical News Today 4/16/15

Oxytocin is often referred to as the "love hormone," hailed for its role in sexual attraction and maternal bonding. But according to new research, the hormone may also influence maternal social behavior.

The study, recently published in the journal Nature, reveals how oxytocin increases the processing of social information in the left auditory cortex of the brain, prompting female mice to respond to distress calls from their pups.

Next, the team plans to gain a better understanding of the way oxytocin is released in the brain under natural conditions after childbirth.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Hormone oxytocin jump-starts maternal behavior" by Melissa Healy, Los Angeles Times 4/15/15

[Oxytocin] surges each time a mother's milk becomes available to nourish and comfort her baby. It spikes when she gazes at her infant, or hears its cry from another room.

“We found that oxytocin turns up the volume of social information processed in the brain," said Robert Froemke, the study's senior author and an assistant professor at New York University's Langone School of Medicine and its Skirball Institute of Biomolecular Medicine.

That makes oxytocin both more powerful and less powerful than many have believed, said Froemke. The hormone should be understood not as a fast-acting love potion, but rather as a well-timed neural nudge toward more social behavior.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "University Recruits Teens to Abort Their Babies in Name of 'Scientific Research'" by Kristan Hawkins, LifeNews.com 4/15/15

Researchers in Hawaii are recruiting girls as young as 14 to participate in second trimester abortions, where the preborn baby is 18-24 weeks gestation, in order to test whether or not oxytocin can reduce bleeding in mothers during and after abortion.

The clinical study in Hawaii is seeking 166 participants and supposedly started in October of last year and is expected to finish in July of this year. . . .

This study at the University of Hawaii is seeking to abort babies 18-24 weeks gestation, putting mothers at a high risk of complications and even death.

The study is currently under way at the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, led by Bliss Kaneshiro and Kate Whitehouse. The center does not mention they do abortions on their website nor does it mention they are housing this study and aborting possibly viable babies.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Late-Term Abortion Bleeding Experiment" by Mark Stricherz, Aleteia 4/9/15

Aborting a pregnancy in the second trimester carries risks, physicians say. Irregular bleeding is common for two weeks after the procedure and nine American women who have abortions after 20 weeks gestation die every year, according to figures from medical and abortion-provider groups.

In the randomized trial, researchers experiment by either providing or denying intravenous oxytocin to abortion patients. Oxytocin is commonly used to minimize blood loss and decrease the risk of hemorrhage. However, some doctors are concerned that denying oxytocin during surgery may put patients, especially teen girls, at risk.

Researchers will follow patients until they leave the clinic and gauge their "satisfaction, pain score, and postoperative bleeding," according to the study.

Culturally progressive news sites have not reported on the trial. But Planned Parenthood cites two studies to show that women who abort their pregnancy in the second term are still less likely to die than women who give birth.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Abortionist Kills Chicago Mother in Second Trimester

Woman Dies from Abortion in Maryland, Media Silent

Near-death Abortion Settled for $1.9 Million

Planned Parenthood Pays $2M to Hide Wrongful Death

New Mexico Ignores Deadly Botched Abortions

More Abortionists Admit Killing Kids After Birth

Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science

Despite worldwide near-unanimity of its illegality, scientists have covertly, for the first time, genetically modified the DNA of human egg cells such that human embryos could be created of a specific pre-determined design, such as superhumans, by governments or wealthy individuals.

“Genome editing in human embryos using current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future generations. This makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable.”
-- Geneticist Fyodor Urnov (Sangamo BioSciences, Richmond, CA), et. al.

UPDATE 2/1/16 - UK's Frankenstein: Designer Babies OK'd by Government

For background, read President Obama's Food and Drug Administration considers lab science that 'Creates' Designer Baby with 3 Biological Parents

Also read Toddler to 'Own' 11 Future Children: An IVF Wonder

In addition, read how science is creating and destroying human life to advance "health care."

UPDATE 9/10/15: Unborn Must Die so Others Can Live, Scientists Say

-- From "American scientists are trying to genetically modify human eggs" by Steve Connor, Science editor, UK Independent 3/13/15

The research was carried out on ovary cells taken from a woman with inherited ovarian cancer to investigate the possibility of eventually using gene-editing to produce IVF embryos free of the familial disease. The results are yet to be published.

Editing the chromosomes of human eggs or sperm to create genetically modified IVF embryos is illegal in Britain and many other countries because of concerns about safety and the possibility of the technique being used to create genetically enhanced “designer babies”.

Several teams of researchers around the world are believed to be working on ways of modifying the chromosomes of human egg cells with a view to moving towards “germ-line” gene therapy, as the process is called. Germ-line refers to the “germ” cells – sperm and eggs – that pass on genes to future generations.

The work was carried out last year by Luhan Yang, a researcher working in the lab of the veteran Harvard geneticist George Church. But the study has not been published in a scientific journal and Dr Yang was unavailable for comment.

Professor Church emphasised that the work was purely experimental. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Alarm over genetic editing of human embryos that opens door to designer babies and superhumans" by Jayalakshmi K, International Business Times  3/13/15

Amidst rumours that precise gene-editing techniques have been used to create designer human embryos, researchers have called for a moratorium on the use of the technology.

Geneticist Xingxu Huang of ShanghaiTech University in China has sought permission from his institution's ethics committee to genetically modify discarded human embryos.

Precise gene-editing techniques in recent years use enzymes called nucleases to snip DNA at specific points and then delete or rewrite the genetic information at those locations. Methods like the CRISPR are simple enough to be done in a fertility clinic.

Geneticist Dana Carroll of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City says, "Germline genome alterations are permanent and heritable, so very, very careful consideration needs to be taken in advance of such applications."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scientists want experiments of DNA editing in human embryos to stop" by Ravi Mandalia, Techie News 3/14/15

Rumours about such experiments have been circulating the web for quite some time now and critics of the work say that such experiments could be used to try to alter the genetic quality of humans, a practice and belief known as eugenics.

Edward Lanphier, president and chief executive officer of California-based Sangamo BioSciences Inc, and senior author of the commentary published in the science journal Nature call for a self-imposed research moratorium as the work crosses an ethical line. “Humans are not rats or other (experimental) organisms, and this is not something we want to do,” Lanphier said in an interview with Reuters quotes Zee News. “The research should stop.”

According to Lanphier, who is also the chairman of the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine in Washington DC, “Such research could be exploited for non-therapeutic modifications” and a “public outcry about such an ethical breach could hinder a promising area of therapeutic development.”

Lanphier added that genome-editing can itself introduce DNA errors and “the precise effects of genetic modification to an embryo may be impossible to know until after birth. Even then, potential problems may not surface for years.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scientists sound alarm over DNA editing of human embryos" by David Cyranoski, Nature 3/12/15

Known as germline modification, edits to embryos, eggs or sperm are of particular concern because a person created using such cells would have had their genetic make-up changed without consent, and would permanently pass down that change to future generations.

Germline gene editing is already banned by law in many countries — a 2014 review by Tetsuya Ishii, a bioethicist at Hokkaido University in Sapporo, Japan, found that of 39 countries, 29 have laws or guidelines that ban the practice. But the development of precise gene-editing techniques in recent years has brought fresh urgency to the issue. These techniques use enzymes called nucleases to snip DNA at specific points and then delete or rewrite the genetic information at those locations. The methods are simple enough to be used in a fertility clinic, raising fears that they might be applied in humans before safety concerns have been addressed.

Ishii worries about countries such as the United States: there, germline editing is not banned but requires government approval, but such restrictions have a history of being circumvented, as in the case of unproven stem-cell treatments. He is also concerned about China, which prohibits gene-editing of embryos but does not strictly enforce similar rules, as shown by failed attempts to curb the use of ultrasound for sex selection and to stamp out unauthorized stem-cell clinics. China is also where gene-editing techniques in primates have developed fastest. “There are already a lot of dodgy fertility clinics around the world,” he says.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm

And read Gay Skin Cells Can Create Babies, Scientists Say

Harvesting Aborted Organs for Human Transplant

While organ transplantations have more than doubled in the past 20 years, and available organ donations have increased at an even greater rate, the number of patients on waiting lists has more than quintupled.  Now a new company is publishing research with a solution to the organ shortage: grow aborted fetus organs in living animals for eventual transplantation to humans.

"If the [fetal] organs are available, it is better to use them to save somebody's life rather than throw them into the trash bin."
-- Eugene Gu, CEO of Ganogen, Inc., Redwood City, CA

UPDATE 8/6/15: 'Humanized Mice' Created with Aborted Babies for Gay Agenda (using taxpayer$$)

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Harvesting Blood of Children for Fountain of Youth

Type 1 Diabetics' Hope Rests in Dead Human Embryos

Human Embryos Cloned, Killed to Harvest Stem Cells

Boy 'Created' Artificially to Cure Sister's Disease

-- From "Coming age of Xenotransplantation: Would you accept an organ from a pig to save your life?" by David Warmflash, Genetic Literacy Project 2/12/15

A shortage of organs means a shortage of organs from human donors, and in the years to come, non-human organs may be used to fill the gap. Known as xenotransplantation, the idea of grafting organs from non-human animals to human patients is not new, but historically, it’s been essentially a surgical research tool.

As the technology has advanced, researchers have begun developing a technique that could get more kidneys to people who need transplants. But the method is controversial: It is now feasible to remove a kidney from an aborted human fetus and implant the organ into a rat, where the kidney can grow to a larger size. It’s possible that further work could find a way to grow kidneys large enough that they could be transplanted into a person, the researchers said, although much more research is needed to determine whether this could be done.

“Our long-term goal is to grow human organs in animals, to end the human donor shortage,” said study co-author Eugene Gu, a medical student at Duke University and the founder and CEO of Ganogen, Inc., a biotech company in Redwood City, California.

As for how people feel about xenotransplanation, a poll conducted at the turn of the century found 71 percent of the public saying that they would consider xenotransplantation for a family member, if no human organ match were available. But there is also the animal rights objection.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Kidney Harvested From Aborted Human Fetus Grown In Rat: An End To Organ Donor Shortage, Scientists Say" by Susan Scutti, Medical Daily 1/23/15

“We feel that our research is more palatable than all the other researchers who use taxpayer money to fund their research involving aborted human fetal tissues, which is the vast majority of major biomedical research labs,” Gu tells Medical Daily. In fact, Gu and his research team acquired the fetal kidneys used in their experiments from Stem Express, a self-described “multi-million dollar company that supplies human blood, tissue products, primary cells, and other clinical specimens to biomedical researchers around the world.”

“We did this study in rats as proof-of-concept to show that human fetal organs can indeed survive in an animal host, can function to keep the animal alive, and can grow larger over time,” Gu says. Indeed: the rats survived roughly four months after the transplant, and one even lived for 10 months.

Among the ethical questions raised by Gu's work is whether the use of human fetal organs in research should be permissible and whether it is right to transplant human organs into animals. The Ganogen website argues that, as personalized medicine advances and becomes increasingly prevalent, “the differences between mice and men can no longer be ignored.” The reason? Simple animal testing of new drugs, which increasingly target highly specific proteins or genetic variations, cannot sufficiently safeguard our human health. The drug Herceptin is their case in point. This commonly prescribed breast cancer drug caused heart failure in some patients after extensive animal testing proved it safe.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Aborted baby organs to be used to grow transplants for medical patients" by Ethan A. Huff, Staff Writer, Natural News 3/3/15

Set to be published in the American Journal of Transplantation, a study on the process shows that it is entirely possible to cultivate living organs inside the bodies of animals. Whether these synthetically derived organs will be accepted by the bodies of actual human donors is still unknown, but researchers believe that the concept is promising for achieving their goals.

After obtaining human fetal kidneys from Stem Express, a California-based company that supplies researchers with various tissues harvested from both dead babies and adults, Gu and his colleagues implanted them into rats deliberately bred without immune systems. If the rats had had immune systems, their bodies likely would have rejected the foreign organs.

Earlier research has attempted to grow immature human kidneys in the abdomens of mice, but this latest study represents the first time that whole organs have been successfully sown inside animals. If the process proves to be successful on a larger scale, it forebodes a future in which aborted human babies become a commercial commodity for companies to capitalize on artificial organ development.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scientists grow kidneys of aborted babies in animals" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 3/3/15

A video by Ganogen glosses over the source of the organs by euphemistically calling them “discarded.” But obtaining viable human organs requires working in concert with abortion businesses.

Ganogen says it already is working on the processes for kidney transplants as well as human fetal heart transplantation.

Jim Sedlak, spokesman for the American Life League, the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life movement in the U.S., called the transplant program “totally immoral” and “another outlandish use of aborted babies to produce results that humans think are good.”

“We are totally opposed to any use of aborted cells from human beings to grow organs or for any other purpose,” he said. “Someone died in order for these organs to be grown.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Obama Administration OKs Aborted Baby Brain Experiments

And read President Obama's FDA: Why not Three Biological Parents?