Category Archives: Eugenics
By Peter Baklinski
The British Columbia Health Ministry has admitted that the remains of babies destroyed by abortion in B.C. facilities are ending up in a waste-to-power facility in the United States, providing electricity for residents of Oregon.
The province’s Health Ministry said in an email to the B.C. Catholic that “biomedical waste” shipped to the U.S. to be incinerated includes “human tissue, such as surgically removed cancerous tissue, amputated limbs, and fetal tissue.”
“The ministry understands that some is transferred to Oregon. There it is incinerated in a waste-to-energy plant,” the email stated.
By Sarah Knapton
The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.
Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.
Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’
At least 15,500 foetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts over the last two years alone, Channel 4’s Dispatches discovered.
The programme, which will air tonight, found that parents who lose children in early pregnancy were often treated without compassion and were not consulted about what they wanted to happen to the remains.
By Liz Szabo
Frogs in the experiment were exposed to amounts of the weedkiller atrazine that are comparable to the levels allowed in drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency, says lead researcher Tyrone Hayes of the University of California-Berkeley.
The study was released Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
By Dov Fox
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) this week awarded a patent on “gamete donor selection” to 23andMe, the genetic testing company that sells at-home DNA kits directly to consumers. Patent #8,543,339 grants 23andMe exclusive rights to genetic and computer technologies that would enable prospective parents to handpick a sperm or egg donor with whom they would be likely to produce a child born with certain traits that they desire.
It’s not just couples already planning to have a baby together who can use the patented technology to learn the likelihood that their child will inherit certain “phenotypes of interest in the hypothetical offspring.” The patent also covers genetic selection from among a broader menu of options by predicting how a person’s DNA would combine with any number of available donors to produce a child of a particular type.
By Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton
Related: Edible Vaccines and Flying Syringes
Professor, inventor and genetic engineer responds to overpopulation questions by quipping: “Has anybody seen ‘Contagion’? That’s the answer! Go out and use genetic engineering to create a better virus”
During a discussion panel in Arizona State University’s Biotech department that took place on February 2, 2012, the inventor of genetically engineered edible vaccines joked about wiping out 25% of the population with a genetically engineered virus.
Dr. Charles Arntzen, head of The Biodesign Institute for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, responded to a question pertaining to whether feeding the 8 billion people of the world was worth it, or whether population reduction should be pursued.
The scientist quipped:
“Has anybody seen ‘Contagion’? That’s the answer! Go out and use genetic engineering to create a better virus… 25 percent of the population is supposed to go in Contagion.”
Watch the video:
Arntzen was the first to pursue an edible vaccine for use in the developing world while at the Boyce Thompson Institute in 1996 under funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. His signature delivery vehicle is the banana. He noted the possibilities for its use in both poor countries as well as the wealthier Western world:
“Children of developing countries may not be the only beneficiaries of this new technology. Says Arntzen: ‘American kids will also probably prefer being vaccinated by an edible vaccine rather than by a needle.’”
“A moral principle in genetic testing is that it should always be done with the consent of the individual.
No one wants someone snooping into his DNA.” Arthur L. Caplan
Do you intrinsically possess individual privacy rights, based upon natural law authority, or are your civil liberties arbitrarily defined by the current whims of government? How you answer, this question speaks loudly about your understanding of the nature of your very being. Those who deem that natural law is a myth or a superstition are poised for voluntary surrender of their vital identity. The cataloging of individual essence is aberrant. Your deoxyribonucleic acid is the core element of personal uniqueness and human dignity. If your DNA is subject to government collection and storage, the right of personal privacy is destroyed.
The dramatic proliferation of coercive police powers has little correlation to an improvement in public safety. The precedent that convicted criminals lose constitutional rights has gone virtually unchallenged in a society enamored with obedience to state authority. The practice of the law and the judicial review that provides the arbitrary and capricious rulings that incessantly favors the expansion of a greater level of state control, consistently violates common law and inherent principles.
“In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the police can collect DNA samples from people they arrest even before they are convicted of a crime. Supporters of the swabbing method call it “the fingerprinting of the 21st century” that will help nab criminals and break open unsolved cases. But privacy advocates say the ruling is vague because it does not define what constitutes a “serious crime,” and could create an incentive for police to make more arrests. The Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 ruling will likely fuel an expansion of DNA swabbing nationwide.”
creation of a new indicted persons index;
expansion of the offenses for which federal and military offender samples are collected;
enhancement of the criminal penalties for unauthorized use of NDIS;
authorization of one-time keyboard searches by all NDIS participants of samples not normally included in NDIS (except for voluntarily submitted elimination samples);
deletion of the separate requirement for semiannual external proficiency tests (although it retained the separate requirement for biannual external audits);
requirement for state and local forensic laboratories to be accredited by a nationally recognized program within 2 years of enactment (October 30, 2006); and
requirement for the FBI to report to Congress any plans to change the “core genetic markers” 180 days prior to that change taking effect.
“Garrett also said that simply adding a DNA sample from everyone who is arrested might even make it harder for police to identify criminals, increasing the likelihood of false positives without adding any perpetrators to the system.
“A lot of innocent people will have their DNA in these databases,” he said. “That dilutes the databases and weakens their power.” He argued that since many criminals have prior convictions, taking samples only from convicts would be more efficient.”
Making the case for privacy rights, David Gusella argues in the Boston Collage Law Review, No Cilia Left Behind: Analyzing the Privacy Rights in Routinely Shed DNA Found at Crime Scenes.
“The purpose of DNA databases is to prevent future crime and to combat recidivism by using the information to catch repeat offenders. The government’s purpose in maintaining DNA samples does not outweigh the privacy rights of individuals because maintaining these samples ostensibly serves no governmental purpose. Despite the fact that many courts have found that convicted felons have a reduced privacy interest due to their past crimes, this privacy interest is diminished, not non-existent. In addition, because innocent people may be included in this database, their right to privacy in their genetic information should outweigh the minimal governmental interest in having access to non-phenotypicinformation. As a result, states should adopt some sort of limits on the duration of retention of physical DNA samples.”
Collecting DNA from defendants is not equivalent with inking fingerprints into a database. Courts, routinely rubber-stamp the broadening of government authority. The calculated assault on liberty is accelerated when the function of peacekeeping morphs into intimidating law enforcement.
“The policy of indefinitely retaining the DNA of anyone arrested – but not necessarily convicted – has meant that hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including thousands of innocent children, have had their DNA permanently retained.”
Are there limits to a national DNA database? If any citizen arrested is subjected to a non- consensual DNA swabs sample, does it end with just suspects? In an age of hyperbolic criminalization of disputed infractions, giving greater discretionary power to an all-pervasive police state is sheer lunacy.
“A February report in the Texas Tribune revealed the Department of State Health Services was giving hundreds of infant blood spots to the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL). According to information obtained through open records requests, AFDIL was in the process of building a national mitochondrial DNA registry.”
From the same piece Twila Brase, president of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care, warns of the consequences of allowing involuntary DNA samples databases.
“Government ownership enables the state health department and future legislatures to use newborn DNA as they see fit,” Brase said. “There is a potential for eugenic strategies, especially in this era of cost containment. Governments and legislatures could implement policies that use the genetic screening data to reduce the bearing of children with costly medical conditions, mandating the kind of decisions you’ve seen with Downs’ Syndrome children.”
With the inception of DNA science, the practice of biological engineering has gone wild. Extracting a DNA exemplar at birth is much different from forcing an arrestee to give up a saliva sample. The entire foundation of Western Civilization, based upon the inborn natural human rights of personhood, is violated when state mandates claim their license over your singular essence.
Assembling a massive DNA database on untold millions of Americans is an existential threat to the sacredness of life itself. The government is not our jailer, but is supposed to be our servant. Caution and vigilance oversight of government abuses is a cardinal duty of every American. Reasonable people should never trust the state to be the gatekeeper of your biological building blocks.
Common sense concludes that ownership of your DNA cannot morally be transferred into a communal retrieval system. Big Brother wants to dispatch the Grim Reaper when defective or unacceptable genetic traits are deemed detrimental to the socially collectivist society.
People need to learn a greater respect for their own privacy and practice its defense accordingly.