Hospitals Shun Science for Sexual Mutilation $$$

Pursuing profit and political correctness, more hospitals across America, including Cleveland Clinic and Johns Hopkins, are offering "sex change" transgender surgery despite a lack of medical/psychiatric/scientific evidence that such procedures help sexually-confused people.

“There’s much greater buy-in [for transgender surgeries] in the conventional medical community than there ever was before.”
-- Dr. Joshua Safer, Director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, at Boston Medical Center

“Phalloplasty [false penis] surgeries are more complex than vaginoplasty [false vagina surgeries] and complications aren’t unusual. Most of the cost is increasingly covered by insurance and can range from $50,000 to $125,000, experts say.”
-- Wall Street Journal

“To change somebody’s life in a few hours is really rewarding.” [$$$]
-- Rachel Bluebond-Langner, Assistant Professor of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine

For background, read Transgenderism is a 'Delusion' According to Victims and Professionals and read U.S. Government Survey Shows 'Sexual Orientation' is Learned Behavior, NOT Genetic

Also read Gay Agenda Increases Suicides of Young Men, Study Shows

Yet, a Mother Plans Sexual Mutilation of Her Son, as the Media Cheer

And Schools Say 'Sex Change' Surgery is Toddlers' Choice



-- From "With Insurers on Board, More Hospitals Offer Transgender Surgery" by Sumathi Reddy, Wall Street Journal 9/26/16

. . . Other medical centers also have begun offering transgender surgeries, including Boston Medical Center, Oregon Health & Science University in Portland and Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. . . . Previously, patients wanting transgender surgeries had to seek them out through private-practice plastic surgeons or in countries such as Thailand.

In 2014, the U.S. government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began to allow coverage of transgender-related surgery. Currently, Medicaid programs in 12 states and the District of Columbia cover transition-related care, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality, in Washington, D.C. Many commercial insurers also have begun covering such procedures.

Research on the surgeries is mixed. Critics point to a 2011 study published in the online journal PLOS One by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden that followed more than 300 transgender people after surgery and found they had a higher rate of psychiatric care, suicide and mortality than a control group. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From Johns Hopkins University announces “gender-affirming” surgeries and its “unequivocal and profound commitment to the LGBTQ community” by Paul B. Rothman, M.D., Dean of the Medical Faculty, CEO, Johns Hopkins Medicine; and by Ronald R. Peterson, President, Johns Hopkins Health System, EVP, Johns Hopkins Medicine

Johns Hopkins Medicine highly values and is fully committed to supporting LGBT individuals. We have developed practices and policies consistent with this commitment, including:

. . . We have expanded our health care benefits to cover transgender health services, including surgical procedures, with no lifetime maximum benefit.

Johns Hopkins Children’s Center physicians helped lead an American Academy of Pediatrics committee that authored the 2013 policy statement that supports access to clinically and culturally competent health care for all LGBT and questioning youth.

. . . We have committed to and will soon begin providing gender-affirming surgery as another important element of our overall care program, reflecting careful consideration over the past year of best practices and the appropriate provision of care for transgender individuals.

To read the entire announcement above, CLICK HERE.

From "Transgenders: Denying reality?" by Dr Glenville Ashby, Trinidad Newsday 10/11/16

With a shift in the cultural paradigm, transgender rights are slowly being accommodated. . . . Not surprisingly, political, academic, and judicial activism has advanced a new confrontational liberal zeitgeist that has made it difficult to have a dissenting opinion for fear of being maliciously labelled. . . .

Prominent businesses are boycotting states, such as Georgia, Indiana, and North Carolina that uphold the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA] that is arguably discriminatory and unconstitutional.

[However, priest and neuroscientist Tad Pacholczyk's] scientific and theological background offered a unique insight into this highly-charged subject.

In the article, “Seeing through the intersex confusion,” he acknowledged that confounding physiological (hormonal) triggers and cultural forces lead to psychological discordance.

Comparing somatic disorders to other developmental disorders that should never “be subjected to bias or mistreatment”, he argued that “while a newborn’s ‘intrinsic maleness’ or ‘intrinsic femaleness’ may be difficult to access in certain more complicated intersex cases, the point remains that there is an ‘underlying’ sexual constitution that we must do our best to recognise and respect and act in accord with”.

Equally important is his far-reaching assertion that “willfully (denying this reality) is a prescription for disillusionment and dishonesty”.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Authors defend controversial report on sexuality" by Paul R. McHugh and Lawrence S. Mayer, Baltimore Sun 10/11/16

In a recent Sun op-ed, colleagues at the Bloomberg School of Public Health sought to "disassociate" themselves from a paper we published in The New Atlantis entitled "Sexuality and Gender." Our paper explored, and found flimsy, any scientific support for popular notions about sexual orientation and gender. . . . Our paper entailed a careful study and full description of close to 200 scientific papers.

We did say that scientific studies did not now support (though could not categorically reject) the view that sexual orientation or gender identity is an "innate" bio-behavioral feature of human beings, fixed at conception and rigidly defining sexual desires, attractions and identities throughout life — i.e. the claim that gay people are "born that way." We also said studies of gay, lesbian and transgender populations revealed among them a considerable increase in mental distress and disorder up to and including suicide. And, we noted, science declares that there are only two human sexes, so that thoughts such as "I'm a woman in a man's body" did not describe a biological reality even though it might be a powerful feeling or assumption of a person and could take myriad forms. Follow up of children with such feelings demonstrated that the great majority — 80 to 95 percent — abandon them as they mature.

Our colleagues did not offer any specific scientific study that refuted what we demonstrated. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Schools Teach Kindergartners Transgenderism Across America

Minnesota School Sued: OKs Boy Flashing in Girls Room

52-year-old Man is Adopted as 6-year-old Girl

Gay Men, Who Say They're Dogs, Demand Acceptance

Dead Baby Parts Have NEVER Cured Disease: Congress

While Planned Parenthood insists that their baby-killing business furthers medical science, the Congressional Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has found no such benefits.

“Fetal tissue has been used in biomedical research for over 90 years. In this time, not a single medical cure has resulted from this research.”
-- Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

UPDATE 8/27/16: Congressional Panel Finds Criminality — High Schoolers Dissected Aborted Baby Brains

For background, read Planned Parenthood Sells Aborted Baby Parts for Research

Also read Stem Cell Breakthrough: Embryos Needn't Be Killed

-- From "Congressional Report: ‘Fetal Tissue Has Not Been Directly Linked to a Single Medical Cure’" by Jeannette Richard, CNSNews.com 7/19/16

“While it is commonly claimed that fetal tissue was used to produce the polio vaccine, this is largely false. The polio vaccine was developed by Jonas Salk in 1955 using a monkey cell line, and is still produced using monkey cells.

“Some might object that while fetal tissue research has not directly resulted in medical cures, it has helped advance the overall body of scientific knowledge and thereby assisted in producing cures. It is impossible to determine whether this claim is true, and if so to what extent. Yet the fact is that no one can point to a single medical advancement that critically depended on the use of fetal tissue.”

“In fact, vaccines against eight diseases (Rabies, Diphtheria, Typhoid, Cholera, Plague, Tetanus, Pertussis and Bacille-Calmette-Guerin disease) were all developed in the 1800s and early 1900s, well before the first use of fetal tissue in research,” according to the report.

The panel examined the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) list of approved vaccines which prevent 26 different diseases, and found only three (Varicella, Hepatitis A, and Zoster) for which vaccines were developed using fetal tissue. However, these vaccines rely on fetal cell lines only for “economic, not scientific reasons,” the panel reported.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "How fetal tissue is used in medical research" by The Week Staff 10/24/15

How do scientists use fetal tissue?

It's used to find potential treatments for a wide range of common diseases and afflictions, including cancer, diabetes, birth defects, HIV, multiple sclerosis, ALS, and Alzheimer's. Unlike adult tissue cells, fetal tissue cells can be manipulated into almost any kind of tissue, are less likely to be rejected by a host, and have the capacity to replicate rapidly — making them perfect for analysis into how diseases work. They are also being tried as actual treatments for Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes, with researchers injecting fetal cells directly into organs in hopes of regenerating them. Fetal tissue was also a vital component in the development of vaccines for polio, chicken pox, rubella, and shingles. The polio vaccine alone saves 550,000 lives a year. Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, says fetal tissue research has benefited "virtually every person in this country."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The Transfer of Fetal Tissue and Related Matters" a report to Select Investigative Panel of the U. S. House of Representatives 7/14/16

Fetal Cell Research is Outdated Technology - Beginning in the 1930s, viruses were propagated using fetal tissue and some laboratories continued to this method until the 1970s. During that time, scientists did not yet know how to work with more mature human cells, and fetal tissue was easier to grow in the laboratory. Science has now advanced beyond these earlier approaches. In short, human fetal tissue is outdated technology that is not necessary for modern vaccine research. For example, current vaccine research for HIV/AIDS, Cancer, Malaria and Ebola does not rely on fetal tissue.

Fetal Tissue is not Mainstream Science - In 2014, the most recent year for which data is available,200 NIH funded a total of 76,081 research grants, only 160 of which (less than 1%) involved the use of human fetal tissue. In contrast, in the same year, NIH funded 1,136 grants using adult stem cells. The fact that fetal research is such a tiny fraction of all scientific research calls into serious question the claim that fetal research is vital and that science will not advance without it. In reality, use of human fetal tissue is increasingly an outdated and unnecessary scientific technology, used only by a handful of scientists.

To read the entire report above, CLICK HERE.

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

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

Human 'Lab Rats' Tortured for Weeks, Then Killed

American and British scientists are heralding a new-found ability to cultivate embryonic human beings for weeks and perform experiments on them in a "laboratory womb" where they "feel as good as they would feel in the body of the mother," says Magdelena Zernicka-Goetz at the University of Cambridge in England.

"Now that it has become possible to culture human embryos to the 14-day limit and perhaps beyond, the time is right for the scientific community to educate the public about the potential benefits and to work with regulators on ethical consensus to guide this important research."
-- Amy Wilkerson, Rockefeller University

"The question has to be: 'Are there any limits to what we will do to human beings in order to gain scientific knowledge?' And then who counts as a human being?"
-- Daniel Sulmasy, University of Chicago

For background, read Embryo-killing Essential for Life, Scientists Say

Also read Government Wants 'Defective Babies' to Harvest Organs

And read Genetic Scientists Worshiped as Creators of Life

-- From "Advance In Human Embryo Research Rekindles Ethical Debate" by Rob Stein, All Things Considered, WBEZ NPR (National Public Radio) 5/4/16

Zernicka-Goetz says being able to go past the previous limit is "extremely important" from a scientific point of view.

That's because the seventh day of development is the time when the human embryo becomes embedded within the body of the mother — when it becomes implanted in the womb.

Scientists had thought embryos could only keep developing if they were safely in the womb and receiving instructions from the mother's body.

But the embryos in the studies implanted in the dish as they would in the womb. Then they started organizing themselves into the very early stages of different complex organs and tissues and structures in the body, the researchers report.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Why this lab-grown human embryo has reignited an old ethical debate" by Patrick Monahan, Science Magazine 5/4/16

It’s easy to obey a rule when you don’t have the means to break it. For decades, many countries have permitted human embryos to be studied in the laboratory only up to 14 days after their creation by in vitro fertilization. But—as far as anyone knows—no researcher has ever come close to the limit. The point of implantation, when the embryo attaches to the uterus about 7 days after fertilization, has been an almost insurmountable barrier for researchers culturing human embryos.

Now, two teams report growing human embryos about a week past that point.

. . . Both groups initially removed each embryo’s outer membrane and grew the embryos in two different types of culture media, the first containing fetal bovine serum. Together, that allowed embryos to “implant” onto a plastic substrate, which was transparent, enabling the researchers to take images of what followed.

After normal implantation, part of a mammalian embryo reorganizes itself into what will become the placenta and the yolk sac. This is also the stage at which many developmental defects originate. The lab-grown human embryos hit all of the bases expected of one implanted on a uterus. They developed the right shape and generated various cell types, even though they lacked the structure and nutrition that maternal tissues would normally supply. As Harvard University stem cell researcher George Daley puts it, “The embryo is somewhat on autopilot.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Human embryos grown in lab for longer than ever before" by Sara Reardon, Nature - International weekly journal of science 5/4/16

The work, reported this week in Nature and Nature Cell Biology, also raises the possibility that scientists could soon culture embryos to an even more advanced stage. Doing so would raise ethical, as well as technical, challenges. . . .

The ability to grow an embryo in vitro for 13 days raises ethical and policy considerations. At least 12 countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, bar scientists from working with embryos older than 14 days. The US government introduced the limit in 1979, on the basis that 14 days marks the beginning of gastrulation in humans. It is also around the latest point at which an embryo can split into identical twins. After this time, the logic goes, a unique individual comes into being.

[However, these new] achievements in the lab may be grounds for re-examining the limit, says George Daley, a stem-cell researcher at Children’s Hospital Boston in Massachusetts. He says that it is somewhat arbitrary. Such a debate would be complex and heated, and it could reach beyond researchers working directly with human embryos. If scientists succeed in growing stem cells into embryo-like structures, it could be difficult to determine whether the structures count as embryos, and thus are subject to the 14-day rule. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "New method allows first look at key stage of human development, embryo implantation" Source: Rockefeller University, posted at Science Daily 5/4/16

Despite significant biomedical advances in recent decades, the very earliest events of human development -- those that occur during a critical window just after fertilization -- have remained an unobservable mystery, until now.

New research from scientists at The Rockefeller University shows, for the first time, molecular and cellular processes in human development that occur up to day 14 after fertilization. Published in Nature on May 4, the breakthrough system is the first in which the process of implantation has successfully been replicated in an experimental setting, outside of the uterus. This novel technique vastly expands the ability to answer basic questions about our own development, as well as to understand early pregnancy loss.

Perhaps most importantly, this new method opens the door to a wide variety of studies, never before possible, on the molecular events that occur during the very earliest stages of human development.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read 3-Parent Babies are Ethical: Experts to Obama FDA

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.

Embryo-killing Essential for Life, Scientists Say

Recent advancements in stem cell research using adult skin cells have demonstrated that destruction of human embryos is not necessary to advance disease-curing science.  However, this week, scientists at the University of Cambridge claimed that their new method of obtaining naïve pluripotent stem cells from human embryos — destroying life at its earliest stages — is the best hope to cure disease.

For background, read Stem Cell Science Advances WithOUT Killing Embryos

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Human Embryos Cloned, Killed to Harvest Stem Cells

Unborn Must Die so Others Can Live, Scientists Say

Hollywood Actor Recants Embryonic Stem Cells for Parkinson's Cure

-- From "Scientists develop early stage embryonic stem cells" by Stephen Feller, UPI 3/4/16

The technique, described in a study published in the journal Stem Cell Reports, is significant because current methods of obtaining stem cells can be difficult, and those cells often still contain instructions to become a specific cell type.

Naive pluripotent stem cells are the earliest incarnation of the cells before they have differentiated into the types of cells found in different organs and parts of the body.

While researchers have two resources for pluripotent stem cells -- embryonic stem cells derived from fertilized eggs discarded from IVF procedures and skin cells that have been induced into becoming stem cells -- both have been "primed" to differentiate into other cell types.

In addition to opening up new methods of research -- such as how Down syndrome occurs during cell development -- scientists said earlier stem cells could make it easier to develop cells needed for regeneration of damaged organs and tissues, including those that do not regenerate very well, such as the heart, brain and pancreas.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Cambridge Researchers Develop New Technique of Deriving Embryonic Stem Cells" by Barbara Mast, Lighthouse News Daily 3/5/16

The researchers from the Wellcome Trust-Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute managed to take cells from the blastocyst and grow them individually.

According to lead author Tony Parenti, other researchers may have spotted these cells before, but they probably thought they were defective or cancer-like formations. The Cambridge scientists, on the other hand, chose not to ignore those cells, that others overlooked, and decide to study their characteristics.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scientists develop very early stage human embryonic stem cell lines for first time" posted at EurekAlert (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 3/4/16

When an egg cell is fertilised by a sperm, it begins to divide and replicate before the embryo takes shape. Around day five, the embryonic cells cluster together and form a structure called the 'blastocyst'. This occurs before implantation into the uterus. The blastocyst comprises three cell types: cells that will develop into the placenta and allow the embryo to attach to the womb; and cells that form the 'yolk sac', which provides nutrients to the developing foetus; and the 'epiblast' comprising the naïve cells that will develop into the future body.

In research published today in the journal Stem Cell Reports, scientists from the Wellcome Trust-Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute managed to remove cells from the blastocyst at around day six and grow them individually in culture. By separating the cells, the researchers in effect stopped them 'talking' to each other, preventing them from being steered down a particular path of development.

Naïve pluripotent stem cells in principle have no restrictions on the types of adult tissue into which they can develop, which means they may have promising therapeutic uses in regenerative medicine to treat devastating conditions that affect various organs and tissues, particularly those that have poor regenerative capacity, such as the heart, brain and pancreas.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

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

And read Harvesting Blood of Children for Fountain of Youth

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

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

Women Who Birth More Children Live Longer: Study

A study by a team of Canadian researchers shows that women who deliver a greater number of children (e.g.: those who shun abortion) are biologically destined to live longer, as measured by the length of their "telomeres" — the portion of the chromosomes affecting how cells age.

“These results suggest that, at least in our study population, having more surviving children acts as a protective factor . . .”
-- Simon Fraser University and the University of British Columbia

For background, read Women Who Give Birth Live Longer and Healthier

Also read God Created Woman to Give Birth and Breast-feed

-- From "Want to Age Slower? Have More Kids!" by Marco Reina, Health Newsline 1/9/16

Probably we all, especially women, always scare of growing old. Now a new research has suggested a new way for ladies to live longer and slow down ageing- Have more kids!

The astonishing findings contradict a conventional wisdom that giving birth to a number of children accelerates the pace of a woman’s biological aging.

Telomeres are the protective caps at the end of each strand of DNA, like the plastic tips at the end of shoelaces, that protect our chromosomes from deterioration.

The length of telomeres is associated with cellular ageing, hence longer telomeres are associated with longevity, explain the researchers.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Why Having More Kids Slows Down the Aging Process" by Rachel Grumman Bender, Yahoo Parenting 1/11/16

Researchers at Simon Fraser University in Canada studied indigenous women in Guatemala who have high fertility rates in general and found that those with more children had longer telomeres, which are a sign of slower cellular aging, compared with those who had fewer offspring. “Telomeres are little pieces of DNA at the end of chromosomes that protect the rest of the chromosome,” Pablo A. Nepomnaschy, PhD, one of the study’s authors and an associate professor at Simon Fraser University, tells Yahoo Parenting. “The older the cell gets, the shorter the telomere.” On the flip side, long telomeres are associated with longevity.

Although more research is needed to understand why, Nepomnaschy and his colleagues hypothesize that estrogen plays a role. The hormone, which is high during pregnancy, is a known protective factor against oxidative stress, which ages cells, according to Nepomnaschy. “Perhaps the more times you go through pregnancy, the more time you — and your cells — spend protected,” he says.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Having more children could slow aging" by Honor Whiteman, Medical News Today 1/8/16

In the journal PLOS One, researchers reveal that women who had more children had longer telomeres than women who had fewer children.

Each time a cell replicates, telomeres become shorter. They eventually become so short that they stop protecting chromosomes, leaving them vulnerable to damage, which in turn causes our cells to age and stop functioning effectively.

Previously, animal studies have supported the "life history theory," suggesting that higher reproductive behavior is associated with accelerated biological aging.

However, this latest study, led by Prof. Pablo Nepomnaschy and Cindy Barha - both of Simon Fraser University in Canada - contradicts this theory.

Each additional child linked to an increase in telomere length

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Number of Children and Telomere Length in Women: A Prospective, Longitudinal Evaluation" by Cindy K. Barha, Courtney W. Hanna, Katrina G. Salvante, Samantha L. Wilson, Wendy P. Robinson, Rachel M. Altman, Pablo A. Nepomnaschy, posted at PLOS ONE 1/5/16

Here we investigate the relationship between the number of surviving children born to a woman and telomere length (TL, a marker of cellular aging) over 13 years in a group of 75 Kaqchikel Mayan women. Contrary to LHT’s [life history theory] prediction, women who had fewer children exhibited shorter TLs than those who had more children (p = 0.045) after controlling for TL at the onset of the 13-year study period. . . .

At a “proximate” level, mechanisms involved may include the actions of the gonadal steroid estradiol, which increases dramatically during pregnancy. Estradiol is known to protect TL from the effects of oxidative stress as well as increase telomerase activity, an enzyme that maintains TL. . . .

Here we prospectively evaluated the relationship between number of offspring and change in TL across a 13-year period in a cohort of indigenous Kaqchikel Mayan women. In this population, number of offspring is high and varies remarkably among individuals, providing a good model to investigate a potential association between reproductive effort and the pace of cellular aging in humans. Improving our understanding of the factors that influence inter-individual differences in TL changes can provide useful information to help improve our management of wellbeing, morbidity and mortality during the aging process.

To read the entire study above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Doctors Say Abortion Causes Breast Cancer — Media Silent

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.