Mutant Human-pigs Created for Organs in U.S.

American researchers are using human stem cells and modified pig embryos to create a new life form dubbed "chimera" in order to cultivate a variety of human organs suitable for subsequent transplantation to humans.

“Our hope is that this pig embryo will develop normally but the pancreas will be made almost exclusively out of human cells and could be compatible for transplantation.”
-- Pablo J. Ross, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, University of California, Davis

“The organ would be an exact genetic copy of your liver but a much younger and healthier version . . .  With every organ we will look at what's happening in the [pig's] brain and if we find that it's too human like, then we won't let those foetuses be born.”
-- Walter Low, Department of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota

“Chimeras will be seen to be what they are which is a saviour, given that they will provide, life-saving, sustaining organs for our patients.”
-- Scott Fahrenkrug, Recombinetics (a Minnesota-based company)

For background, read U.S. Government Creates 'Humanized Mice' via Abortion to Advance Gay Agenda

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Human 'Lab Rats' Tortured for Weeks, Then Killed

Creation of Synthetic Humans Planned at Secret Harvard Meeting

UK Government OKs Frankenstein Designer Babies

Genetic Scientists Worshiped as Creators of Life

Government Wants 'Defective Babies' to Harvest Organs

Also read Implanting Harvested Aborted Organs in Animals for Human Transplant

-- From "Scientists growing human pancreas inside 'mutant' pig in bid to solve transplant shortage" by Patrick Gysin, The Sun 6/5/16

The chimera embryos have been implanted in living sows and allowed to grow for 28 days before being tested and destroyed.

Pigs are thought to be an ideal biological incubator for growing human organs and could potentially be used to create hearts, livers, kidneys, lungs and corneas.

Critics say the experiment is “offensive to human dignity”.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "US bid to grow human organs for transplant inside pigs" by Fergus Walsh, Medical Correspondent, BBC News 6/5/16

The team from University of California, Davis says they should look and behave like normal pigs except that one organ will be composed of human cells.

Creating the chimeric embryos takes two stages. First, a technique known as CRISPR gene editing is used to remove DNA from a newly fertilised pig embryo that would enable the resulting foetus to grow a pancreas.

This creates a genetic "niche" or void. Then, human induced pluripotent (iPS) stem cells are injected into the embryo. The iPS cells were derived from adult cells and "dialled back" to become stem cells capable of developing into any tissue in the body.

But the work is controversial. . . . The main concern is that the human cells might migrate to the developing pig's brain and make it, in some way, more human.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scientists attempting to harvest human organs in pigs create human-pig embryo" by Nicola Davis and Kevin Rawlinson, UK Guardian 6/6/16

It was reported earlier this year that scientists had begun attempts to create the embryos, but there has been opposition from authorities. In September last year, the US National Institutes of Health said it would not back research into “chimeras” until it knew more about the implications.

Concerns have been raised about whether the transplantation of an organ from an animal into a human could risk introducing animal viruses into a patient. Researchers from Harvard Medical School, however, revealed last year that it was possible to use gene-editing technology to inactivate more than 60 retrovirus genes in pigs in a step towards such organ transplantation.

Prof George Church, who has led similar research into the possible use of chimeras, [said] “It opens up the possibility of not just transplantation from pigs to humans but the whole idea that a pig organ is perfectible.

“Gene editing could ensure the organs are very clean, available on demand and healthy, so they could be superior to human donor organs.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Creating Synthetic Humans: Secret Harvard Meeting

On Tuesday, well over a hundred elite scientists were invited to discuss synthesizing the human genome — creating life from basic chemicals without biological parents, thus advancing beyond designer babies to creatures such as a synthetic Einstein (or Frankenstein).  Although the ethics of such advancement is controversial, what upset the greater scientific community and the media was their exclusion from the meeting.

“. . . would it be OK to sequence and then synthesize Einstein’s genome? If so how many Einstein genomes would it be OK to make and install in cells, and who could get to make and control these cells?”
-- Drew Endy, Stanford scientist & Laurie Zoloth, Northwestern University bioethicist

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Genetic Scientists Worshiped as Creators of Life

Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm

Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science

Human 'Lab Rats' Tortured for Weeks, Then Killed

Embryo-killing Essential for Life, Scientists Say

3-Parent Babies are Ethical: Experts to Obama FDA

-- From "Secret Harvard meeting on synthetic human genomes incites ethics debate" by Joel Achenbach, Washington Post 5/13/16

Drew Endy, associate professor of bioengineering at Stanford University, and Laurie Zoloth, a professor of medical ethics and humanities at Northwestern University, published an essay this week raising questions about whether the gathering at Harvard had gone too far. After citing the beneficial possibilities of such research, they raised the thornier ethical questions . . .

Meanwhile, Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Berkeley, Calif.-based Center for Genetics and Society, a politically progressive organization that has had a skeptical view of biotechnology, issued a statement Friday criticizing the Harvard gathering: "If these reports are accurate, the meeting looks like a move to privatize the current conversation about heritable genetic modification."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Critics attack Harvard’s secret meeting on human genome synthesis" by Lisa M. Krieger, Santa Cruz Sentinel 5/14/16

The goal of the project — discussed Tuesday by an invitation-only group of about 130 scientists, lawyers, entrepreneurs and government officials from five continents — “would be to synthesize a complete human genome in a cell line within a period of 10 years,” according to the invitation.

Organizers included Harvard Medical School genetics Professor George Church and San Francisco-based Andrew Hessel of Autodesk’s Bio/Nano Research Group.

It portends a future with sci-fi implications, when a human genome — the complete set of genetic instructions for a human being — could be assembled like a Tinkertoy.

“Genomics is in the middle of four revolutions: sequencing, editing, synthesizing and understanding,” said Hank Greely, director of Stanford’s Center for Law and the Biosciences. “The first is well-advanced, the second coming on strong, the third just starting and the fourth — and most important — still scratching the surface.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scientists Talk Privately About Creating a Synthetic Human Genome" by Andrew Pollack, New York Times 5/13/16

Organizers said the project could have a big scientific payoff and would be a follow-up to the original Human Genome Project, which was aimed at reading the sequence of the three billion chemical letters in the DNA blueprint of human life. The new project, by contrast, would involve not reading, but rather writing the human genome — synthesizing all three billion units from chemicals.

But such an attempt would raise numerous ethical issues. Could scientists create humans with certain kinds of traits, perhaps people born and bred to be soldiers? Or might it be possible to make copies of specific people?

The project does not yet have funding, Dr. Church said, though various companies and foundations would be invited to contribute, and some have indicated interest. The federal government will also be asked. A spokeswoman for the National Institutes of Health declined to comment, saying the project was in too early a stage.

Right now, synthesizing DNA is difficult and error-prone. . . . But the cost and capabilities are rapidly improving. Dr. Endy of Stanford, who is a co-founder of a DNA synthesis company called Gen9, said the cost of synthesizing genes has plummeted from $4 per base pair in 2003 to 3 cents now. But even at that rate, the cost for three billion letters would be $90 million. He said if costs continued to decline at the same pace, that figure could reach $100,000 in 20 years.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Top scientists hold closed meeting to discuss building a human genome from scratch" by Ike Swetlitz, STAT 5/13/16

Synthesizing genomes involves building them from the ground up — chemically combining molecules to create DNA. Similar work by Craig Venter in 2010 created what was hailed as the first synthetic cell, a bacterium with a comparatively small genome.

In recent months, Church has been vocal in saying that the much-hyped genome-editing technology called CRISPR, which is only a few years old and which he helped develop, would soon be obsolete. Instead of changing existing genomes through CRISPR, Church has said, scientists could build exactly the genomes they want from scratch, by stringing together off-the-shelf DNA letters.

The topic is a heavy one, touching on fundamental philosophical questions of meaning and being. If we can build a synthetic genome — and eventually, a creature — from the ground up, then what does it mean to be human?

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "How Close Are We To An Entirely Synthetic Human?" by James Maynard, Tech Times 5/15/16

Human genomes are normally passed on from parent to child, transferring inheritable traits. Creating such a genome may be possible in as little as a decade, organizers of the meeting contend. However, even if the creation of such a genetic code transpired in the coming years, these sequences could only be placed within a cell to test the genome. This would still be a far cry from the creation of an entire synthetically-formed human being.

Once the technology is available to easily and inexpensively synthesize human genomes, a bevy of ethical dilemmas will present themselves. First, if it is possible to sequence and produce genomes of the best and brightest people in the world, how many copies of the same sequence should be produced, and who would be able to obtain them? Will parents who wish to raise a scientist be allowed to utilize genes patterned after famed physicist Albert Einstein? What about sports-minded parents who want a child with the baseball-related skills of Red Sox slugger David Ortiz?

Researchers are still a long way from the development of an entire synthetic human genome, however. The first man-made species, JCVI-syn1.0, was created in 2010.

Those people who worry about the development of this technology have a long time to wait before their fears may be realized, but that day is coming.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Virgin Births: IVF Eliminating Fatherhood

And read Government Wants 'Defective Babies' to Harvest Organs

3-Parent Babies are Ethical: Experts to Obama FDA

Experts from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine are advising President Obama's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve mitochondrial DNA replacement techniques (MRTs) to help about a hundred Americans give birth to creatures fabricated in a laboratory using genetic material from three unrelated people.  The experts promise that no scientists in the future will misuse the techniques to "play god" and create any Frankenstein babies.

For background, read President Obama's FDA Pushes 3-parent Babies

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

UK Government OKs Frankenstein Designer Babies

Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science

Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm

Genetic Scientists Worshiped as Creators of Life

Also read Unborn Must Die so Others Can Live, Scientists Say

-- From "Three-parent babies are ok, experts say" by NBC News 2/4/16

Such "three-parent" babies could be a way for people with a high risk of rare, devastating genetic diseases to have healthy children that are genetically their own, the National Academy of Medicine panel said.

And at first, the panel advised, only male embryos should be made this way until it's clear that dangerous mutations would not be passed down to future generations.

The FDA asked the academy, formerly known as the Institute of Medicine, to look at the three-person embryo processes, called mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT). These are variations of in vitro fertilization, or IVF — the method that creates so-called "test-tube babies."

MRT adds a step [to IVF]: The mother's nuclear DNA would be removed and placed into the egg cell of another woman. The father's sperm would then be used to fertilize that hybrid egg.

The new techniques would be used to prevent the transmission of certain types of diseases that occur at the mitochondrial DNA level, the experts said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Babies With Genes From 3 People Could Be Ethical, Panel Says" by Rob Stein, WBEZ-FM91.5 NPR (Chicago, IL) 2/3/16

Critics of the research, meanwhile, say the number of women who could benefit from the experiments is so small that it's not worth crossing a line that's long been considered off-limits — making genetic changes that could be passed down for generations.

"The possibility of what you could call 'mission creep' is very real," says Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, a watchdog group based in Berkeley, Calif. "People are talking about going forward not just with this but with the kind of genetic engineering that will produce outright genetically modified human beings."

Once that happens, Darnovsky says, "I think you get into a situation of where some people are genetically enhanced and other people are the regular old variety of human being. And I don't think that's a world we want to live in."

. . . The FDA email praised the "thoughtful work" of the panel and said the agency would be "reviewing" the recommendations. But it noted that the latest federal budget "prevents the FDA from using funds to review applications in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include" changes that could be passed down to future generations. As a result, the email says, any such research "cannot be performed in the United States" at this time.

"I think it's a great step in the right direction," Mark Sauer, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University who is a member of one of the teams . . . "Politics as usual often gets in way of progress," Sauer said in a subsequent email. While the FDA statement would cause "undue delays" in his research, he added that he hoped it wouldn't permanently "necessarily halt the efforts."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Should scientists be allowed to change DNA to prevent genetic disease?" by Daphne Chen, Deseret News 2/3/16

"I think the field has come together to say, 'Let’s think about this together and go forward carefully,'" said Dr. Jeffrey Botkin, a professor of pediatrics and chief of medical ethics and humanities at the University of Utah.

Botkin sat on the 12-person committee that included top bioethics experts from Johns Hopkins, Caltech and Harvard.

"There's not a bright line between where this kicks over into unethical," [University of Utah, Department of Biochemistry Dr. Jared] Rutter said. "The technology that we have is expanding … more rapidly than our sophistication with thinking about how to use it."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Ethicists approve ‘3 parent’ embryos to stop diseases, but congressional ban remains" by Joel Achenbach, Washington Post 2/3/16

The committee, which was convened last year at the request of the Food and Drug Administration, concluded that it is ethically permissible to “go forward, but with caution” with mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT), said the chairman, Jeffrey Kahn, a bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University.

But the advisory panel’s conclusions have slammed into a congressional ban: The omnibus fiscal 2016 budget bill passed by Congress late last year contained language prohibiting the government from using any funds to handle applications for experiments that genetically alter human embryos.

Thus the green light from the scientists and ethicists won't translate anytime soon into clinical applications that could potentially help families that want healthy babies, said Shoukhrat Mitalipov, a pioneer of the new technique at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Ore.

“It seems like the FDA is disabled in this case by Congress," Mitalipov said. “At this point we’re still not clear how to proceed."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Report: It's ethical to test embryos from DNA of 3 people" by Lauran Neergaard, Medical Xpress 2/3/16

The genes that give us our hair and eye color, our height and other family traits—and some common diseases such as cancer—come from DNA in the nucleus of cells, the kind we inherit from both mom and dad.

But only mothers pass on mitochondrial DNA, to both daughters and sons. It encodes a mere 37 genes, but defects can leave cells without enough energy and can lead to blindness, seizures, muscle degeneration, developmental disorders, even death. Severity varies widely, and researchers estimate 1 in 5,000 children may inherit some degree of mitochondrial disease.

Critics have argued that the first such births would have to be tracked for decades to be sure they're really healthy, and that families could try adoption or standard IVF with a donated egg instead. And they say it crosses a fundamental scientific boundary by altering what's called the germline—eggs, sperm or embryos—in a way that could affect future generations.

"It is reckless to proceed with this form of germline modification," said Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society, an advocacy group.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UK's Frankenstein: Designer Babies OK'd by Gov't

Today, the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) announced it authorized a private research firm to use abandoned babies, a.k.a. "leftover" embryos, to perform human genetic code editing.  Bioethicists have warned for years that such research will certainly lead to so-called "designer babies."

"This is the first step on a path that scientists have carefully mapped out towards the legalization of (genetically modified) babies."
-- David King, Human Genetics Alert

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

UPDATE 2/4/16: 3-Parent Babies ARE Ethical, Experts Tell President Obama's FDA

Also read Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm

And read Genetic Scientists Worshiped as Creators of Life

-- From "Britain Okays Gene Editing Experiment on Human Embryos" by The Associated Press 2/1/16

Scientists say gene-editing techniques could one day lead to treatments for conditions like HIV, which causes AIDS, and inherited diseases like muscular dystrophy and sickle cell disease.

Peter Braude, an emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at King's College London, said the mechanisms being investigated by [Dr. Kathy] Niakan and colleagues "are crucial in ensuring healthy, normal development and implantation" and could help doctors understand how to improve in vitro fertilization rates and prevent miscarriages.

The gene-editing technique was developed partly in the U.S. and scientists there have experimented with the method in animals and in human cells in the laboratory. Gene editing has not been used for any kinds of patient therapies yet.

Around the world, laws and guidelines vary widely about what kind of research is allowed on embryos, since it could change the genes of future generations. In the U.S., the National Institutes of Health cannot fund research on human embryos but private funding is allowed.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Britain gives scientists permission to genetically modify human embryos" by Rachel Feltman, Washington Post 2/1/16

The news comes less than a year after the first reports of human-gene editing — published by Chinese scientists in the journal Protein and Cell — using the fantastic and at times troubling technology known as CRISPR. By harnessing an ancient defense mechanism built into bacteria, CRISPR allows scientists to target, delete and replace specific genes. It has been used extensively in other organisms, but research in humans has been slow.

The Chinese experiments reported last year were largely unsuccessful. Few of the embryos in the experiment were successfully modified, and even fewer had the changes that scientists intended to make. None of the embryos were gestated, and the authors of the study readily admitted that their error rate was too high for use on viable embryos.

. . . Britain now has become the first country to approve the use of public funding for such research. In the United States, labs have to find private funding for any research that creates or destroys human embryos, and some lawmakers seek to ban it altogether. Even in China, where the first "successful" editing occurred, the guidelines are murky.

The University of Kent's Darren Griffin called the [HFEA] ruling "a triumph for common sense" in a statement, and Sarah Norcross, director of Progress Educational Trust, lauded the decision as "a victory for level-headed regulation over moral panic."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "UK scientists given go-ahead to genetically modify human embryos" by Sheena McKenzie, for CNN 2/1/16

Scientists will be focusing on the first seven days of a fertilized egg's growth. In these early days, a fertilized egg evolves from a single cell to around 250 cells.

The research, which will be led by Dr. Kathy Niakan, will take place at the Francis Crick Institute in London and has been hailed as a "triumph for common sense" by leading figures of the British science community.

However, the research has also raised concerns that it could pave the way for "designer babies" -- going beyond health improvements and modifying everything from a child's eye color to intelligence.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "British scientists granted permission to genetically modify human embryos" by Sarah Knapton, Science Editor, UK Telegraph 2/1/16

Currently around 50 per cent of fertilised eggs do not develop properly and experts believe that faulty genetic code could be responsible.

If scientists knew which genes were crucial for healthy cell division, then they could screen out embryos where their DNA was not working properly, potentially preventing miscarriages and aiding fertility.

The team at Francis Crick are already in talks with fertility clinics across the country to use their spare embryos.

Dr Calum MacKellar, Director of Research of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics said: “Allowing the gene editing of embryos opens the road to genetically modifying all the descendants of a person as well as full blown eugenics which was condemned by all civilised societies after the Second World War.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Britain grants first licence for genetic modification of embryos" posted at Medical Xpress 2/1/16

[Dr. Kathy] Niakan has said she is planning to modify the embryos using a technique known as CRISPR-Cas9, which allows scientists to insert, remove and correct DNA within a cell.

The embryos will not become children as they must be destroyed within 14 days and can only be used for basic research.

She plans to find the genes at play in the first few days of fertilisation when an embryo develops a coating of cells that later become the placenta.

The embryos to be used in the research are ones that would have been destroyed, donated by couples receiving In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) treatment who do not need them.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "British researchers get green light to genetically modify human embryos" by Haroon Siddique, UK Guardian 2/1/16

Prof Robin Lovell-Badge, group leader at the Francis Crick Institute . . . said it would also provide invaluable information about the accuracy and efficiency of the technique, helping to inform the debate about whether genome editing could be used in future to correct faulty genes that cause devastating diseases.

That prospect remains a long way off but is already a subject of concern. There are also fears that changes to an embryo’s DNA could have unknown harmful consequences throughout a person’s body and be passed on down the generations.

Last year, leading UK funders called for a national debate on whether editing human embryos could ever be justified in the clinic. Some fear that a public backlash could derail less controversial uses of genome editing, which could lead to radical new treatments for disease.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pro-life charity criticises decision to allow UK scientists to genetically modify human embryos" by Staff Reporter, Catholic Herald 2/1/16

After the announcement Anne Scanlan, the education director of Life, said . . . “[HFEA] has ignored the warnings of over a hundred scientists worldwide and given permission for a procedure, which could have damaging far-reaching implications for human beings. We do not know what long term side effects the tampering with some strands of DNA could have on other strands. However once genetic changes have been made they will be irreversible and handed down to future generations.”

Miss Scanlan added: “We are also concerned that such controversial intervention in the human germline opens up the very real possibility of eugenics where the existence of human beings becomes conditional on the possession of certain physical characteristics.

“Whilst we note the HFEA restriction on the implantation of genetically modified embryos, it is sending the wrong signals by allowing scientists the ability to develop and possibly perfect the technology here in the UK. To mitigate any advancement on the potentially dangerous work being undertaken by these British scientists, we believe that an international ban on human DNA editing is urgently needed to protect the future of the human species.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

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

And read IVF Eliminating Fatherhood via Virgin Births

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.

Unborn Must Die so Others Can Live, Scientists Say

An international group of scientists, ethicists and policy experts claim it is "essential" that experimentation on human beings, using "genetic modified (GM) embryos," be legalized to cure diseases and improve IVF and human reproduction.  However, critics say that too little is understood about the process, and furthermore, it will eventually lead to "designer babies."

“Restricting research because of concerns that reproductive application is premature and unsafe will ensure that it remains forever premature and risky, for want of better knowledge.”
-- Sarah Chan, Hinxton Group Steering Committee, University of Edinburgh

For background, read Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Planned Parenthood Sells Aborted Baby Parts for Research

Harvesting Blood of Children for Fountain of Youth

Type 1 Diabetics' Hope Rests in Dead Human Embryos

'Humanized Mice' Created via Abortion: Gay Agenda

-- From "Genetic Modification of Human Embryos of 'Tremendous Value,' Say Scientists" by Conor Gaffey, Newsweek 9/10/15

The Hinxton Group, which describes itself as an international consortium on stem cells and bioethics, also said in a statement released on Wednesday that the engineering of GM babies—a concept commonly called designer babies—could be "morally acceptable" in the future, although it said it was not in favour of the procedure at present.

Modern gene-editing tools such as CRISPR/Cas9—a technique which can reportedly edit the genomic sequence in a highly targeted way—are "not only very precise, but also easy, inexpensive, and, critically, very efficient," the group said.

Earlier this year, Chinese scientists reportedly edited the genomes of human embryos in what was described as "a world first" by the journal Nature.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Call for research into genetically modified human embryos" by Newsmedia posted at Dispatch Times 9/10/15

However, Debra Mathews, assistant director of science programs at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and a member of the Hinxton Group, said, in the statement, that despite “controversy and deep moral disagreement” over the issue, the solution was “not to stop all discussion, debate and research, but rather to engage with the public, policymakers and the broader scientific community”.

A group of experts on Wednesday said that human embryo genetic modification should be allowed, as it will help in understanding early embryos’ biology. However they said they would not support the birth of genetically modified human babies, for the time being.

Professor Emmanuelle Charpentier is of opinion that the human germline should not be manipulated just with the objective of changing some of the genetic traits.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "GM embryos 'essential', says report" by James Gallagher, Health editor, BBC News 9/10/15

A meeting of the influential Hinxton Group, in Manchester, acknowledged that the rate of progress meant there was a "pressure to make decisions" and argued embryo editing should be allowed.

In a statement, it said: "We believe that while this technology has tremendous value to basic research and enormous potential... it is not sufficiently developed to consider human genome editing for clinical reproductive purposes at this time."

This is in stark contrast to the US National Institutes of Health, which has already refused to fund any gene editing of embryos.

Its director, Dr Francis Collins, who was also a key player in the Human Genome Project, said: "The concept of altering the human germline [inherited DNA] in embryos for clinical purposes has been debated over many years from many different perspectives, and has been viewed almost universally as a line that should not be crossed."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Research on gene editing in embryos is justified, group says" by Gretchen Vogel, Science Magazine (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 9/10/15

At a meeting on 3 and 4 September, 22 Hinxton Group members from Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, Germany, Mexico, Israel, and the Netherlands met to discuss the scientific and ethical issues surrounding the use of gene-editing techniques in human cells, especially embryos, stem cells, and cells that can give rise to sperm or eggs. They concluded in a consensus statement released today that any use of the technologies for reproduction is premature. But scientists will need to test them on human embryos in the lab to find out whether the techniques ever could be safe and effective enough to use, they say. Lab-based experiments can also help answer important questions about early human development and the development of sperm and eggs cells, says Robin Lovell-Badge, a developmental biologist at the Francis Crick Institute in London and a member of the Hinxton Group steering committee.

The statement urges scientists who want to use genome editing in human embryos to “consider carefully the category of embryo used.” Using embryos left over from in vitro fertilization treatments might not provide the best data, the statement says, since those embryos already contain multiple cells. The editing techniques would likely affect each cell differently, so that the resulting embryo would be a mosaic of cells with different genetic alterations. The statement concludes that certain experiments will require researchers to create new embryos specifically for research, a practice that is controversial and prohibited in some countries.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scientists push for serious debates over 'essential' human embryo testing" posted at Irish Examiner 9/10/15

Genetic modification of human embryos has officially been deemed as “essential” and should be allowed so scientists can better understand basic biology, according to a report.

However, scientists can’t get too excited yet as the group added that the technology is not yet advanced enough to be used in the reproduction process, and there is still the ongoing issue that some find the concept of genetically modified babies “morally troubling”.

But the group warns it would be “dangerous” to prevent research in the area, and member and academic Sarah Chan said: “Genome editing technologies hold huge potential for advancing basic research and improving human health. The prospect that genome editing may one day be used to create genetically modified humans should not in itself be cause for concern, particularly where what is at stake is curing or preventing serious disease.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Donor Eggs & IVF 'Creates' Life, but Causes More Death as Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm, whereas Human Eggs are Best When Fresh, NOT Frozen - DAH!

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

Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm

Having been stumped trying to prove there's life beyond earth, mankind turns its hopes to creating life here on earth by unnatural means.

According to the journal Cell, scientists at the University of Cambridge (UK) and the Weizmann Institute (Israel) claim to have created human germ cells — the essence of human beings — by using embryonic stem cells and adult skin cells.

For background, read God Replaced? Scientists Create Life

And read Human Embryos Cloned, Killed to Harvest Stem Cells as well as Harvesting Blood of Children for Fountain of Youth

Also read Scientists Create Sperm and thus, The Feminist's Dream: A Civilization Without Men

In addition, read President Obama's FDA: Why not Three Biological Parents?

-- From "Scientists create artificial human eggs and sperm" by Jessica Firger, CBS News 12/26/14

"Germ cells are 'immortal' in the sense that they provide an enduring link between all generations, carrying genetic information from one generation to the next," Azim Surani, PhD, professor of physiology and reproduction [of the Gurdon Institute] at the University of Cambridge, said in a press release.

. . . some cells in the fetus become primordial germ cells (PGCs) and eventually evolve into the cells of either sperm or eggs, which will allow this offspring to pass their genes on to a future generation.

In the study, the researchers identified a single gene known as SOX17, which is directly responsible for ordering human stem cells to become the cells that will turn into sperm and eggs. . . .

Many experts say that studying epigenetics may lead to a clearer understanding of age-related diseases such as cancer, since the changes lie not in the DNA itself, but rather the surrounding chemicals that make proteins and even facilitate new cell growth, including the cells that make up sperm and eggs.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Researchers create egg and sperm precursors using human embryonic stem cells" by Honor Whiteman, Medical News Today 12/29/14

"The creation of PGCs is one of the earliest events during early mammalian development," says first study author Dr. Naoko Irie, also of the Gurdon Institute at the University of Cambridge. "It's a stage we've managed to recreate using stem cells from mice and rats, but until now few researchers have done this systematically using human stem cells."

In their study, Prof. Surani and his team discovered that a gene called SOX17 plays an important role in a process called "specification" - transforming human stem cells into PGCs. Past research has found that SOX17 is involved in changing human stem cells into endodermal cells, but the gene has never before been linked to PGC specification.

The researchers found they were also able to create PGCs using reprogrammed adult cells, including skin cells. They say this process may open the door to research on patient-specific cells, which may increase understanding of infertility, the human germline and germ cell tumors.

In addition, the team says their findings may increase knowledge of how environmental factors that may affect gene activity - such as smoking or diet - can be inherited.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
 
From "Infertility Treatment May Soon Include Artificial Sperm, Egg Cells Derived From Stem Cells" by Anthony Rivas, Medical Daily 12/28/14

Infertility affects more people than you might have expected. After a year of timing menstrual cycles, taking steps to boost sperm quality and count, and countless doctor’s visits, about 15 percent of couples still aren’t able to get pregnant. There are treatments, but those don’t always work either, and they sometimes end in multiple pregnancies. A new treatment for infertility may be on the horizon . . .

It’s unclear whether SOX17 can be manipulated to change these cells into sperm or egg as a fertility treatment, as more research is needed. Nevertheless, the scientists said the current findings were enough to take the research in various directions, not only with regard to infertility but also cancer and epigenetics — a field of research that investigates the effects of environmental chemicals on our genes’ expressions. In doing so, the researchers may shed light on “age-related disease, which in part might be due to cumulative epigenetic mutations,” Surani said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Artificial wombs: The coming era of motherless births" by David Warmflash (astrobiologist, physician and science writer), Genetic Literacy Project 1/4/15

A comprehensive review published by the New York Academy of Sciences three years ago highlights a series of achievements by various research groups using ex vivo (out of the body) uterus environments to support mammalian fetuses early in pregnancy. Essentially, two areas of biotechnology are developing rapidly that potentially can enable ectogenesis in humans, and, along the way, what the authors of the Academy review call partial ectogenesis.

. . . the capability to push back the limit is around the corner. One of the two developing key technologies is the artificial amniotic fluid filled environment that has continued to develop with laboratory animal models since the work with goats in the 1990s. The other area is embryo transfer. Not only can a developing mammal be transferred from the uterus of its own mother to that of a surrogate, but gradually investigators are reproducing the endometrium–the cell layer of the uterus that contains and nourishes the pregnancy–as a cell culture, or an in vitro model. The convergence of these technologies will make it possible to transfer a developing human into a system that includes the placenta and umbilical cord and supplies all consumables (oxygen and food), and removes all waste, directly through the blood.

. . . While social conservatives might be receptive about what an artificial uterus might do to the abortion paradigm, make no mistake they’d probably not be happy that the technology also stands to make it much easier for male gay couples to have babies. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 1/31/15: From "Woman born with no womb gives birth to miracle twins" by Patrick Sawer, UK Telegraph

Hayley Haynes had the miracle babies, Avery and Darcey, after hormone therapy enabled her to grow a womb.

She was told at the age of 19 that she would never be able to give birth as she had no womb, ovaries or Fallopian tubes.

But nine years on she has given birth to the twins after IVF treatment using an egg donor.

Following months of hospital trips and blood tests, specialists told her she had been born with XY chromosomes, meaning she was genetically male. She had no reproductive organs thanks to a condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome.

The first signs of hope that Mrs Hayne’s condition might be curable came in 2007 when a new specialist at Royal Derby Hospital found a tiny womb missed on previous scans.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Type 1 Diabetics' Hope Rests in Dead Human Embryos

Homosexuals Can Change, Says Jewish Experts

Orthodox rabbis, mental health professionals, and other leaders have jointly declared that homosexual behavior is prohibited and that so-called sexual orientation can be healed with proper therapy. The formal declaration was made in an effort to counter secular propaganda aimed at normalizing homosexual behavior.

"The concept that G-d created a human being who is unable to find happiness in a loving relationship unless he violates a biblical prohibition is neither plausible nor acceptable."
-- Declaration on the Torah Approach to Homosexuality

For background, read Homosexuality NOT Fixed, Change Possible: Study and also read Lesbianism NOT Genetic: Study as well as Psychologists Suggest Homosexuals Change Religious Affiliation

-- From "Rabbonim OK Therapeutic Approach to Homosexuality" by Hana Levi Julian, MSW, LCSW-R, Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) 12/28/11

A coalition of more than 150 Orthodox rabbis, community leaders, organizers and respected mental health professionals have given an historic stamp of approval to a document entitled a "Declaration on the Torah Approach to Homosexuality."

The treatment recommended in the statement is reparative or gender-affirming therapy . . .

The statement -- which goes out of its way to caution against castigation of the individual and notes "They deserve our full love, support and encouragement in their striving towards healing" -- is likely to be met with a storm of protest both in Israel and abroad.

The Declaration, written by a 25-member committee of rabbis, parents, "strugglers" currently in therapy and "success stories" -- those who completed therapy and today are living heterosexual lives, many with spouses and children, belies those claims.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Declaration On The Torah Approach To Homosexuality"

The Torah makes a clear statement that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle or a genuine identity by severely prohibiting its conduct.

From a Torah perspective, the question whether homosexual inclinations and behaviors are changeable is extremely relevant. The concept that G-d created a human being who is unable to find happiness in a loving relationship unless he violates a biblical prohibition is neither plausible nor acceptable. G-d is loving and merciful. Struggles, and yes, difficult struggles, along with healing and personal growth are part and parcel of this world. Impossible, life long, Torah prohibited situations with no achievable solutions are not.

We emphatically reject the notion that a homosexually inclined person cannot overcome his or her inclination and desire. Behaviors are changeable. The Torah does not forbid something which is impossible to avoid. Abandoning people to lifelong loneliness and despair by denying all hope of overcoming and healing their same-sex attraction is heartlessly cruel.

The only viable course of action that is consistent with the Torah is therapy and teshuvah. The therapy consists of reinforcing the natural gender-identity of the individual by helping him or her understand and repair the emotional wounds that led to its disorientation and weakening, thus enabling the resumption and completion of the individual’s emotional development. Teshuvah is a Torah-mandated, self-motivated process of turning away from any transgression or sin and returning to G-d and one’s spiritual essence. This includes refining and reintegrating the personality and allowing it to grow in a healthy and wholesome manner.

The key point to remember is that these individuals are primarily innocent victims of childhood emotional wounds. They deserve our full love, support and encouragement in their striving towards healing. Struggling individuals who seek health and wellness should not be confused with the homosexual movement and their agenda. This distinction is crucial. It reflects the difference between what G-d asks from all of us and what He unambiguously prohibits.

To read the entire declaration, CLICK HERE.

From "Rabbis get biblical on same-sex lovin'" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 12/27/11

Among the signers who have chosen to go public with their endorsement of the position are psychologist and author Dr. Miriam Adaham of Jerusalem; Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, president of the International Network of Orthodox Mental Health Professions; Los Angeles psychiatrist and author Dr. Miriam Grossman; Dr. Joseph Gelbfish of Brooklyn, N.Y.; Rabbi Yaakov Salomon, psychotherapist and author; Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, a vice president of the Rabbinical Council of America and dozens more.

It contradicts a statement from 2010 signed by Orthodox rabbis who believed, "Jews with homosexual orientations or same sex-attractions should be welcomed as full members of the synagogue and school community. As appropriate with regard to gender and lineage, they should participate and count ritually, be eligible for ritual synagogue honors, and generally be treated in the same fashion and under the same halakhic and hashkafic framework as any other member of the synagogue they join."

The 2010 statement also rejected the idea of therapy to heal homosexuality, but the new declaration takes the opposite position.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Normalization of Pedophilia Urged by Psychiatrists

Fed. Court Rules out Christian Beliefs at Univ.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that Augusta State University was right to expel Jennifer Keeton, a Christian graduate student in counseling, because she believes that homosexual behavior is a choice and that sexual orientation is not fixed.

Note that the secular media (below) refers to the student's Christian beliefs as "anti-gay."

For background, read Reject Christ, Says University to Grad Student and also read Homosexuality NOT Fixed, Change Possible: Study as well as Lesbianism NOT Genetic: Study

UPDATE 12/10/12: Appeals court supports Christian graduate counseling student expelled from Eastern Michigan University

-- From "Court rules Ga. university can require counseling student to follow ethics code on gay clients" by The Associated Press 12/19/11

A federal court has upheld a ruling that Augusta State University in Georgia was within its rights to require a graduate school counseling student to keep her biblical views on gays to herself.

The university argued that it would risk its accreditation if it didn’t hold Keeton to a code of ethics. Keeton filed suit, claiming the institution was punishing her for her Christian views.

The Phoenix-based Alliance Defense Fund, which brought the suit, declined comment on the ruling.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Now in court: Student wants to conduct anti-gay counseling" by Richard Fausset, Los Angeles Times 11/30/11

After enrolling in a graduate counseling program in fall 2009, Keeton, a devout Christian, began discussing how she wanted to engage in "conversion therapy," in which a counselor attempts to "cure" homosexuality, the [Associated Press] news service reports.

Keeton's suit alleges that she was subject to sanction because she "holds Christian ethical convictions," a violation of her constitutional right to free speech.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Ga. Student Fights Expulsion over Biblical Beliefs" posted at CBNNews.com 11/30/11

Augusta State University put counseling student Jennifer Keeton on academic probation in 2010 after she said it would be hard to work with gay clients.

The university said her thinking was unethical and threatened expulsion unless Keeton attended gay pride events and sensitivity training.

"[Augusta State University] faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education Program not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity," Keeton said in the suit.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Anti-Gay Student's Suit Rejected" by Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed 12/20/11

While the ruling may be appealed, it represents a strong victory for advocates of counseling standards that require that students be trained to treat a range of clients in supportive, nonjudgmental ways.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit found that Augusta State had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to enforce its rules. The counseling program's accreditation depended in part on adhering to a code of conduct, and faculty members believed it was their responsibility to train students to work with a wide range of clients, the court found. The decision placed the counseling department's actions at Augusta State in the broader context of faculty members training professionals who must pay attention to the ethics of various fields.

[The decision reads,] "Every profession has its own ethical codes and dictates. When someone voluntarily chooses to enter a profession, he or she must comply with its rules and ethical requirements. Lawyers must present legal arguments on behalf of their clients, notwithstanding their personal views.... So too, counselors must refrain from imposing their moral and religious views on their clients."

. . . an article on the Alliance Defense Fund's website offers its views on the case (from before the time when the gag order was imposed). The article quotes David French, senior counsel, as saying: "A public university student shouldn’t be threatened with expulsion for being a Christian and refusing to publicly renounce her faith, but that’s exactly what’s happening here. Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform. Abandoning one’s own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree. This type of leftist zero-tolerance policy is in place at far too many universities, and it must stop. Jennifer’s only crime was to have the beliefs that she does.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Buffalo Univ. Favors Gays, Suspends Christian Organization

Breast Cancer from Abortion Demonstrated, Again

The decades-long abortion industry and pro-abortion government denials of the link between breast cancer and abortion continue as yet another study demonstrates the link, and separately an astonishing new study finds that the long-believed link to family history is not valid.

Breast cancer isn't genetic? What's the cause?

For background, read Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Admitted by Feds and also read College Censors Abortion-Breast Cancer Link as well as God Created Woman to Give Birth and Breast-feed (not abort)

UPDATE 2/28/13: Breast Cancer Soars, Obvious Abortion Cause Hushed

UPDATE 12/7/11: One Third of Cancers Caused by Lifestyle Factors (no mention of abortion, of course)

-- From "Breast Cancer Rates Similar Regardless of Family History: Study" by Christine Hsu, Medical Daily 11/30/11

The research was presented Tuesday at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA).

"In the 40 - 49 age group, we found a significant rate of breast cancer and similar rates of invasive disease in women with and without family history," said Dr. Stamatia V. Destounis, a radiologist and managing partner of breast imaging and cancer diagnostic center Elizabeth Wende Breast Care, "Additionally, we found the lymph node metastatic rate was similar."

It was found that of the 373 patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer as a result of screening, 39 percent of the group had a family history of breast cancer, 61 percent of the group had no family history of the disease.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "RSNA: Breast Cancer Rates Unaffected by Family History" by Kristina Fiore, Staff Writer, MedPage Today 11/30/11

Among a group of more than 1,000 breast cancer patients, 64% of those with no family history of breast cancer had invasive disease, as did 63.2% of those with family history, a non-significant difference, according to Stamatia Destounis, MD, of Elizabeth Wende Breast Care in Rochester, N.Y., and colleagues.

Destounis and colleagues reviewed data on all breast cancer patients seen at their clinic between 2000 and 2010, with a total of 1,071 patients ages 40 to 49 treated for 1,116 cancers.

The investigators also found that similar percentages of patients with and without familial risk had disease that metastasized to the lymph nodes (29.4% of those without versus 31.3% of those with).

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pro-life advocates: Study shows link between breast cancer and abortion; cancer institute: no way" by Caroline May, Daily Caller 11/29/11

Pro-life advocates have argued for years that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer — due to hormonal changes during pregnancy which leave breasts more vulnerable to cancer. Despite their advocacy, the Department of Health and Human Services denies that there is any link.

On Monday the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer pointed to a new study which found a nearly 3-fold increase in the risk of breast cancer among Armenian women who had an abortion as yet another reason women should steer clear of the procedure.

The report, “Influence of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 and Prolonged Estrogen Exposure on Risk of Breast Cancer Among Women in Armenia” published in Taylor & Francis was authored by Lilit Khachatryan of the Department of Public Health at the American University of Armenia. The study included researchers from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the University of Pennsylvania.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion Nearly Triples Breast Cancer Risk, New Study Finds" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 11/28/11

[Study researchers] Robert Scharpfb is from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and Sarah Kagan is from the School of Nursing at the University of Pennsylvania.

The study, published in Taylor & Francis, also found that delaying a first full-term pregnancy, which is frequently done by women having abortions, also raises the breast cancer risk wheras giving birth resulted in a 64% reduced risk.

Khachatryan’s team reported a statistically significant 13% increased breast cancer risk for every one year delay of a first full term pregnancy (FFTP), with delayed FFTPs until ages 21-30 or after age 30 resulting in 2.21-fold and 4.95-fold increased risks respectively. On the other hand, women with FFTPs before age 20 did not see a comparable breast cancer risk.

Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer said she is not surprised by the findings because, “Fifty-four of 67 epidemiological studies since 1957 report an abortion-breast cancer link (not counting biological and experimental evidence).”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Study of Armenian Women Shows Increased Breast Cancer Risk for those who have aborted" by Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life News Today 11/30/11

. . . as is so often the case with these studies, the authors attempt mightily to excuse away or at least minimize their own findings.

For example, Khachatryan’s team flatly states, “Most evidence (of an abortion-breast cancer link)…points to no effect.” This is simply false, as Dr. Joel Brind, writing in National Right to Life News, has explained over and over and over again. In fact since 1957, 51 of 68 epidemiological studies have reported an ABC link.

Besides stating a patent untruth, Khachatryan’s team invokes the other tactic most commonly used to explain away the connection: invoking “recall bias.” This bizarre notion argues that the only reason that women who have had abortions have a higher incidence of breast cancer is that more women with breast cancer accurately report their past abortions than do healthy women. It is worth noting that Khachatryan’s team offers no citation, almost as if none were needed!

“Dr. Brind concluded that Khachatryan’s team ‘did not–and perhaps were not allowed to–characterize their findings honestly in the politically correct atmosphere of the U.S. and Europe. The good news is that they were able to report their findings in a prominent peer-reviewed journal at all.’”

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Breast Cancer No Concern at Planned Parenthood

Choosing Lesbian Sex in College: Fed Study

10% of college women, and 13% of other women had intimate relations with another woman, says the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), pointing to lesbianism as a choice, rather than a predetermined genetic trait, as popularly claimed by homosexualists.

-- From "For Women, Same-Sex Experimentation In College A Myth" posted at Huffington Post 3/18/11

Between 2006 and 2008, the [CDC] study's authors asked 13,495 individuals aged 15 to 44 to answer a number of questions about their sexual habits and found that while 9.9 percent of college-educated women said they'd had a sexual experience with a female, 14 to 15 percent of women without a college degree said the same. According to the New York Times, only 1 percent of the 13 percent who reported having had same-sex encounters identified as homosexual, and only 4 percent as bisexual.

The study shows that although educational differences in same sex experience for males were less pronounced than for females, men with some college were nearly 3 percent more likely than men with no college to have had a sexual encounter with another male, and that women are almost twice as likely as men to have had same-sex encounters.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Do All Women 'Experiment' With Lesbianism In College? Not Even Close" by Sy Kraft, B.A., Medical News Today 3/19/11

For years, sex researchers, campus women's centers and the media have viewed college as a place where young women explore their sexuality, test boundaries, and, often, have their first, and only lesbian relationship.

The study also showed that women with four or more sexual partners in their lifetime were more likely to have had a female sexual partner, compared with women who had had no male partners or women who've had only one male partner.

Anjani Chandra, a health scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics said:

"There was speculation that it was possibly just experimentation among college girls but we didn't see anything to support that. We saw the opposite. When we look at college degreed women, they were less likely to report same-sex activity than other educational groups. Among men, there's more same sex activity among higher educated men. And for women, the highest level of same-sex activity was reported by those with less education."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Study Undercuts View of College as a Place of Same-Sex Experimentation" by Tamar Lewin, New York Times 3/17/11

Six percent of college-educated women reported oral sex with a same-sex partner, compared with 13 percent who did not complete high school.

Lisa Diamond, a professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah, said . . . “A lot of data shows that women’s sexuality is more hetero-flexible, more influenced by what they see around them.”

In the past, she said, a women with a single homosexual relationship would have been labeled gay, and urged to accept that identity. But now there is a growing sense that a lesbian relationship need not define a woman.

“It’s becoming more acceptable, at least in some parts of society, to see your sexual identity as fluid,” said Joan Westreich, a Manhattan therapist. “I see women whose first loves were women, who then meet and fall in love with a guy, and for whom it

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Lesbianism NOT Genetic: Study