Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A New Breed of Human: First Litter of Genetically Modified Humans Born in NJ
06-07-2013, 02:54 PM,
#1
A New Breed of Human: First Litter of Genetically Modified Humans Born in NJ
So they waited 3 years to announce that 30 healthy babies were part of a GM experiment. Why, just in case something went wrong right off the hop and deep sixed Genetically Engineered Humans? How many epic fails were there before this utterly mad science created this batch of humanity?

Quote:World's First GM Babies Born
by MICHAEL HANLON, Daily Mail

The world's first genetically modified humans have been created, it was revealed last night.

The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics.

So far, two of the babies have been tested and have been found to contain genes from three 'parents'.

Fifteen of the children were born in the past three years as a result of one experimental programme at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey.

The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilised in an attempt to enable them to conceive.

Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults --two women and one man.

The fact that the children have inherited the extra genes and incorporated them into their 'germline' means that they will, in turn, be able to pass them on to their own offspring.

Altering the human germline - in effect tinkering with the very make-up of our species - is a technique shunned by the vast majority of the world's scientists.

Geneticists fear that one day this method could be used to create new races of humans with extra, desired characteristics such as strength or high intelligence.

Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers, led by fertility pioneer Professor Jacques Cohen, say that this 'is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children'.

Some experts severely criticised the experiments. Lord Winston, of the Hammersmith Hospital in West London, told the BBC yesterday: 'Regarding the treat-ment of the infertile, there is no evidence that this technique is worth doing . . . I am very surprised that it was even carried out at this stage. It would certainly not be allowed in Britain.'

John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: 'One has tremendous sympathy for couples who suffer infertility problems. But this seems to be a further illustration of the fact that the whole process of in vitro fertilisation as a means of conceiving babies leads to babies being regarded as objects on a production line.

'It is a further and very worrying step down the wrong road for humanity.' Professor Cohen and his colleagues diagnosed that the women were infertile because they had defects in tiny structures in their egg cells, called mitochondria.

They took eggs from donors and, using a fine needle, sucked some of the internal material - containing 'healthy' mitochondria - and injected it into eggs from the women wanting to conceive.

Because mitochondria contain genes, the babies resulting from the treatment have inherited DNA from both women. These genes can now be passed down the germline along the maternal line.

A spokesman for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which regulates 'assisted reproduction' technology in Britain, said that it would not license the technique here because it involved altering the germline.

Jacques Cohen is regarded as a brilliant but controversial scientist who has pushed the boundaries of assisted reproduction technologies.

He developed a technique which allows infertile men to have their own children, by injecting sperm DNA straight into the egg in the lab.

Prior to this, only infertile women were able to conceive using IVF. Last year, Professor Cohen said that his expertise would allow him to clone children --a prospect treated with horror by the mainstream scientific community.

'It would be an afternoon's work for one of my students,' he said, adding that he had been approached by 'at least three' individuals wishing to create a cloned child, but had turned down their requests.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-43767/Worlds-GM-babies-born.html

Related Threads:

Mature Human Embryos Created From Adult Skin Cells
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=10909

Fertility expert: 'I can clone a human being'
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=3577

From Cthulhu to Cloning
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=32943

Clonaid Inc.
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=12843

Cloned cattle in the human food chain
http://concen.org/forum/thread-34419.html

Torrents:

The First Human Clone Ws Pdtv Xvid Wpi
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=23252

Human Cloning (2009)
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=39403
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
06-07-2013, 03:32 PM,
#2
RE: A New Breed of Human: First Litter of Genetically Modified Humans Born in NJ
When I read the title, the GMO crops came to mind.
This is not the case here, although I still disapprove of this practice.

Had it been the case they would have, for example, taken the "life expectancy" gene from a redwood and combined it with normal human DNA in effect creating a new species which looks and acts human but lives for hundreds of years...
Can anyone say "Gods" ?

Hmmm, perhaps that is the end goal, Man creating God in man's image.
[Image: Signature2.gif]
Reply
06-07-2013, 04:37 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-07-2013, 04:46 PM by Watchdog.)
#3
RE: A New Breed of Human: First Litter of Genetically Modified Humans Born in NJ
I was under the impression that GM humans have been around for a long time? People are waiting for it to be announced on the television nightly news. Of course everyone who claims that humans were genetically modified/created pass as ding bats that are coo coo for cocoa puff, which they might well be, who really knows?

I’m NOT claiming any of the following below have any substantial weight; everything can simply be meaningless made up crap, I’m just putting it all out on the table for discussion. But, here goes anyway:

1) The Adam and Eve story found in the Jewble book could have mythological undertones stemming from human cloning performed in ancient times. A rib taking from a human to create another human sound like cloning to me... Could this tale be a way to inform us of something?

2) Same sort of reasoning with the Jesus storyline: how can a baby be created without sperm, if not for some sort of genetic-DNA technology being used? Assuming God didn’t just pull Jesus out of thin air which is what we are supposed to believe...

3) Could Noah's ark be another allusion to DNA? Gathering two (male and female) of each species on a boat to preserve and re-create all life on earth is impossible. That much we know. But behind this fantastic tale remains the idea of collecting and seeding DNA on earth, sort to speak.

4) The Raelians (a cult of UFO/Alien believers) have been claiming that cloning of humans has been done for a while... These freaks are not the only ones claiming Alien intervention, but I’m just pointing out what people are speaking about (again this is NOT me saying that I beLIEve in this sort of stuff...) http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2002/dec/27/genetics.science

5) According to Glen Kealey (who claims has information from a code he stumbled on, who has connections with freemasonry (...an email was found of the highest leaders writing to him ordering him to suppress information he “stole” from them...), claims neanderthals had the world's first human-Artificial Intelligence computer which helped to decipher the basic rules of alchemy and astronomy, and the rules of genetic engineering, thereby deciphering the means to do (A)rtificial (I)nsemination and cloning. With this new found knowledge the Neanderthalers fabricated a new Genetically Engineered race of humans they styled Cro-Magnon (i.e. our descendent were slaves). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl8Bk176B_o

6) Dolly the sheep, the goats with spider genes and silk in their milk, etc., tells us that the technology exists. If humans did that, why would we think they haven’t done it on humans?

7) Science tells us that the equation for life is: LIFE = Genetics + Environment + G*E. As such life can be “modified” through the interaction (G*E). This is what is occurring with endocrine disruptors, for example, that modify the bodies genetic and hormonal responses, thus creating “feminised” boys, for example. This is a very subtle way of genetically designing humans by giving them the “environment” needed thought shampoo, municipal drinking water, plastic coated goods, and other cleaning or food/drinking items.

What else can put on this table (real or not) that has allusions to genetic technologies being used on humans?

(06-07-2013, 03:32 PM)JFK Wrote: Hmmm, perhaps that is the end goal, Man creating God in man's image.

As Below so Above...?

The podcast was interesting:
http://therebelpath.com/2013/05/08/as-above-so-below/
Paix, Amour et Lumiere
Reply
06-08-2013, 03:30 PM,
#4
RE: A New Breed of Human: First Litter of Genetically Modified Humans Born in NJ
Like anything else, this technology will need to be properly tested and developed before being applied as part of a national, and later a global, eugenics program.

This story demonstrates how little choice we have in how laws are enforced, let alone written. How does one fight something like this? Or is it better to become part of it?
Truth appears in many forms. Find those that resonate with you.

- "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky
- "Humans are not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one." - Leon Festinger

http://avaaz.org - The World In Action
Reply
06-08-2013, 05:05 PM,
#5
RE: A New Breed of Human: First Litter of Genetically Modified Humans Born in NJ
Merging in some Facebook Comments into the thread:

Quote:Carl Cord: Who knows are the specific changes made to the babies, perhaps the children of the damned.

Jason Prescott: Once human being outsource procreation, by persuasion or force, (sperm counts are way low now, birth control administered at a young age, social health prerogatives..) the blueprint of our species would be firmly in the grasp of the system.

Carl Cord: ...the market demand, artificial.
Pantha Dan Man: is artificial and he should be moving towards natural if he wants to survive without becoming a robot..

Wes Faull: What's to stop them putting animal DNA in the mix. Faster, bigger, night visioned designer babies. Pandora's box.

Carl Cord: They are trying to create chimera humans to wedge in the alteration of human rights under the law to accept such tinkering and get it through the door. Make monsters of people, half demons of the old tales, half human, half wolves, half birds, half fish.

Wes Faull: Nothing new under the sun. As in the days of Noah. I've heard they've taught law enforcement in UK how to determine if a mixed breed committed a crime. The question is, at what point are they human, and at what point animal. 50/50, 75/25, 80/20? It's ridiculous we have to discuss this.

Carl Cord: The transhumanists are very busy with this vision of the New Human Rights for synthetic life forms.

Wes Faull: Seeing how it is the new arms race, it only makes sense to go ahead and till the ground before the harvest comes in.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/60592457064/permalink/10151699333062065/
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
06-09-2013, 11:45 AM,
#6
RE: A New Breed of Human: First Litter of Genetically Modified Humans Born in NJ
Centaurs anyone ?

Hmmm, I wonder what would be considered "indecent exposure" in their case...
That would create jobs in the judicial system as well as a major remodeling of public restrooms LOL.
[Image: Signature2.gif]
Reply
06-11-2013, 04:24 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-11-2013, 04:26 PM by temp9.)
#7
RE: A New Breed of Human: First Litter of Genetically Modified Humans Born in NJ
Quote:World’s First Genetically-Modified Babies Born, Or Were They?

by Rebecca Taylor | LifeNews.com | 7/2/12 12:30 PM

Many people are talking about Michael Hanlon’s piece in the Daily Mail about the first genetically modified babies being born. I want to discuss it because everything is not exactly how it seems.

Hanlon’s undated piece discusses a technique IVF doctors have used to “rejuvenate” an infertile woman’s eggs by injecting the cytoplasm of another woman’s healthy egg. Factors inside the cytoplasm help the infertile woman’s egg in fertilization. When doctors injected the cytoplasm of the healthy egg, it contained mitochondria from the donor egg. Those mitochondria have DNA from the woman who donated that egg. So the after that hybrid egg is fertilized, the resulting embryo has the DNA from 1 man, and 2 women. A genetic modification that any girl would pass onto her offspring since mitochondria are inherited from the mother only. The Daily Mail article reads:

Quote:The world’s first genetically modified humans have been created, it was revealed last night.

The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics.

So far, two of the babies have been tested and have been found to contain genes from three ‘parents’.

Fifteen of the children were born in the past three years as a result of one experimental programme at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey.

The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilised in an attempt to enable them to conceive.

Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults –two women and one man.

The fact that the children have inherited the extra genes and incorporated them into their ‘germline’ means that they will, in turn, be able to pass them on to their own offspring.

Altering the human germline – in effect tinkering with the very make-up of our species – is a technique shunned by the vast majority of the world’s scientists.

Geneticists fear that one day this method could be used to create new races of humans with extra, desired characteristics such as strength or high intelligence.

Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers, led by fertility pioneer Professor Jacques Cohen, say that this ‘is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children’.

A couple of readers have e-mailed this article to me so I went to the journal of Human Reproduction looking for the latest issue and found nothing from Jacques Cohen. I then found that Dr. Cohen is the Laboratory Director at ART Institute of Washington at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Apparently he left Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas and works for a U.S. military hospital. (A fact that I find very disturbing.)

I scratched my head for a minute and dug deeper and think I have found the original paper. It was from 2001, not 2012. The technique is called “cytoplasmic transfer.” I did not start blogging until 2005, so I had no idea that this genetic engineering of embryos took place. I then found an in depth report in the Washington Monthly on the issue. Sharon Brownlee explains how the technique raised concerns at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and it seems they put a stop to cytoplasmic transfer in the United States:

Quote:In the mid-1990s, embryologist Jacques Cohen pioneered a promising new technique for helping infertile women have children. His technique, known as cytoplasmic transfer, was intended to “rescue” the eggs of infertile women who had undergone repeated, unsuccessful attempts at in vitro fertilization, or IVF. It involved injecting the cytoplasm found inside the eggs of a fertile donor, into the patient’s eggs.

When the first baby conceived through cytoplasmic transfer was born in 1997, the press instantly hailed Cohen’s technique as yet another technological miracle. But four years later, the real story has proven somewhat more complicated. Last year, Cohen and his colleagues at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St. Barnabas, a New Jersey fertility clinic, set off alarm bells among bioethicists with the publication of a paper detailing the genetic condition of two the 17 cytoplasmic-transfer babies born through the clinic to date. The embryologists reported that they had endowed the children with extra bits of a special type of genetic material, known as mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA, which came with the cytoplasm transferred from the donor eggs to the patient’s.

Just how normal those children will turn out to be is anybody’s guess. At a recent meeting in Europe, the New Jersey researchers reported that one of the children conceived through cytoplasmic transfer has been diagnosed with “pervasive developmental disorder,” a catch-all term for symptoms that range from mild delays in speech to autism. Cohen’s group maintained that it is extremely unlikely that cytoplasmic transfer and the resulting mishmash of mtDNA is to blame.

But geneticists have only begun to trace the connections between mtDNA and a host of diseases ranging from strange metabolic ailments to diabetes and Lou Gehrig’s disease, and some experts argued that the child’s disorder may well be caused by a mismatch between the donor and mother’s mtDNA. As Jim Cummins, a molecular biologist at Murdoch University in Western Australia, put it: “To deliberately create individuals with multiple mitochondrial genotypes without knowing the consequences is really a step into the dark.”

Since 1998, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has argued that genetically manipulated embryos are a “biological product,” and therefore subject to regulation, just like medical devices and drugs. But because of a quirk in federal law, the FDA’s authority in this sphere is far from certain.

Last summer, FDA sent warning letters to six fertility centers threatening “enforcement action,” and asserting its regulatory power over “therapy involving the transfer of genetic material by means other than the union of [sperm and egg.]” Cohen’s clinic at St. Barnabas chose to stop performing cytoplasmic transfer. But at least two other recipients scoffed at the agency’s threat: Panos Zavos, an embryologist at a Kentucky fertility clinic, and Brigitte Boisselier, the scientific director of Clonaid, the clinic set up by a group known as the Raelians, who believes human beings were genetically engineered by aliens. Both have announced their intentions to clone a human being.

Both also disputed the FDA’s authority, and several bioethicists and legal scholars had to agree that the FDA could not prevent them from tinkering with human bioengineering. “It’s a stretch for the FDA,” says R. Alta Charo, a legal scholar and bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin, and former member of President Bill Clinton’s Bioethics Advisory Committee.

So the children born using cytoplasmic transfer are indeed “genetically modified” but this is not a new development as the Daily Mail report suggests. Since it is not dated, I think the article came out in 2001 but is just making the rounds of the Internet now. So while still unethical, this is not a new technology that will be taking off as the new rage in infertility treatments.

In fact, I could not find any information on who offers this technique or where. When asked, in 2009, where cytoplasmic transfer is legal, Dr. John David Gordon, the Co-Director of Dominion Fertility at The George Washington University and an expert that has been answering questions on high tech IVF for more than ten years, replied, “I honestly have no idea…”

We should still be concerned, since there are questions about the FDA’s authority to regulate the fertility industry in this regard. Which means it is even more critical that the United States join a host of other countries that have legally banned any germ-line genetic modifications and cloning in humans.

As the case of cytoplasmic transfer shows, scientists and doctors in the fertility industry will do anything that they are allowed to by law, even genetically modify embryos without real evidence that it is safe.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/02/worlds-first-genetically-modified-babies-born-or-were-they/
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Who Needs Humans? R.R 28 6,813 11-02-2013, 03:15 AM
Last Post: R.R
  Mature Human Embryos Created From Adult Skin Cells Guest 2 1,337 05-16-2013, 05:55 PM
Last Post: CharliePrime
  Scientists Enhance Intelligence of Mice with Human Brain Cells Frank2 4 1,617 03-22-2013, 10:45 PM
Last Post: Frank2
Information DARPA Continues Human Experiments to Create Military Super Soldiers FastTadpole 1 949 09-26-2012, 12:24 AM
Last Post: h3rm35
  ‘Euthanasia Rollercoaster’ Hailed by Anti-Human Scientists Defendfreedom 2 708 02-27-2012, 02:07 PM
Last Post: Defendfreedom
Shocked WTF? Japan scientist synthesizes meat from human feces yeti 20 9,177 11-14-2011, 11:42 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Spontaneous human combustion killed OAP, rules Irish coroner Djones 1 1,186 10-07-2011, 09:46 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
Information Printing Human Skin, Organs and Tissue April 2 2,337 09-18-2011, 03:40 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  150 human animal hybrids grown in UK labs: Embryos have been produced secretively for mexika 0 602 07-23-2011, 08:33 AM
Last Post: mexika
  Alien Forests, Oceans and Skies: Genetically Engineered Forests icosaface 12 3,683 10-15-2010, 02:07 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)