Historic birth of cancer-immune baby

reply to post by flyindevil


it was more of a rhetorical question really.
the poster i replied to implied that cancer was there for a reason or that was how i read it anyway, i simply used the above as an open way of suggesting that cancer had no real purpose in nature.
but thanks for the post someone in here is bound to learn from it.

reply to post by Sonya610


Yup I agree science has it's place in making life better for man, but my own personal line in the sand is genetic manipulation.

Yes the little girl was born through a process of screening specific sperm, which isn't quite as evil as:

Recently scientists have made rapid advances in our knowledge of the human genome and in our ability to modify and change genes. In the future we may be able to "cure" geneticy diseases in embryos by replacing faulty sections of DNA with healthy DNA. This is called germ line therapy and is carried out on an egg, sperm or a tiny fertilised embryo. Such therapy has successfully been done on animal embryos but at present it is illegal to do this in humans.

But it's the first step on the slippery slope.

But hey, you got Pris in your avatar, I'm not surprised you'd be pro genetic manipulation

A little edit since I see people talking about cancer. I heard somewhere that 100 years ago there was a 3% chance of dying of cancer, and nowdays it is 1/3. Well who knows how accurate that is, since many people must have died from cancer without knowing it back then.

But the rise of cancer is definitely more present in our scientifically advanced cultures, than in those where people live a more natural life.

There are some lucky people, nomads living on the borders of Russia, they live on goats milk, berries, raw vegetables. And the guy who went to stay with them to study them, asked what happens when you get sick? and the reply was that they don't get sick.


[edit on 9-1-2009 by Lazyninja]

If this was beneficial to all people and out of elitist hands, and governments and its policies ensured enriched health care to all, then the future will be genetically enhanced people, disease wise, IQ, longevity, and a variety of things. Advancements are just that. But if this is a tool for the rich and powerful to make themselves into our "gods" while we are turned into light bulbs that burn out quickly, then its time to purge the world of false gods.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by mystiq]

reply to post by munkey66


i am nitpicking i know, at one point it just gets old hearing the same equation used in so many ways one could describe in other ways.
but the equation states that it is always and opposite and equal reaction, that is not the case when you look at most things relating to the human behavior.

i follow your train of though in that we change the world around us based on all actions we take, therefore in a sense one would be better off saying that an action always has a reaction, although not necessarily an opposite nor equal one.

Originally posted by sty

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
I think the title to the story is misleading. It said the child was born without the BRCA 1 gene, which causes breast and ovarian cancer. What about all of the other cancers out there?

hm.. i understood different : that the existance of the BRCA 1 gene will bring a 80% chance for cancer, so they removed the gene. Actually it says that the fetus was scanned for this gene , then the gene removed. At least this is what I understood..

I think that is why the gene is called BRC-for breast cancer.

Any daughter born with the BRCA 1 gene has an 80 per cent risk of developing breast cancer and a 60 per cent chance of developing ovarian cancer - as well as a 50 per cent risk of passing on the anomaly to their own children

en.wikipedia.org...

Did you read the article from the OP?

[edit on 1-9-2009 by nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Sonya610

Nahhh...it will never get to that point. Though some strongly inherited diseases (like huntingtons disease quite nasty, and 50% of the offspring will get it with only 1 parent having the gene) I can see that causing some guilt.

But I guess it doesn't cause guilt because they all have it, it is part of their family heritage. It becomes a "clan" thing, and they all live with the fear of it.

You have more faith in humanity than me, Sonya

Here's a quote the doctor who did this gave in another article:

Fertility expert Paul Serhal, who led the PGD team, said: "We have now entered a new era of being able to help people who have cancer genes. Not only can we liberate people from the guilt of passing a cancer gene onto their child, we can cut off transmission of the gene once and for all. These are families who have been plagued by this genetic curse for generations. With a wave of a magic wand the job is done, and this is fantastic."

Source

Again, with the "liberating parents from the guilt" of passing on bad genes. It makes me very nervous.

And what about down the line? If parents fail to use this technology to choose fetuses without heritable conditions that result in large healthcare bills, can insurance companies refuse to cover future care? Can governments determine that failure to protect your children from a known cancer risk is abusive? I just see so many possible pitfalls in it.

Originally posted by americandingbat
Again, with the "liberating parents from the guilt" of passing on bad genes. It makes me very nervous.

Absolutely.

As soon as the word guilt is mentioned, that implies that someone has probably comitted a crime. That will be enough cause for lawyers to sink their evil claws into a money making racket. Which will mean that laws will be written to enforce the guilt and make those people financially responsible for the guilt.

It's a quick downward slope into the world of Gattaca where we will be persectuted for daring to have natural births, with all of the inherent risks involved in doing so.

reply to post by nyarlathotep


no, i found the article on several other sites today in the morning..

[edit on 9-1-2009 by sty]

Originally posted by Lazyninja
A little edit since I see people talking about cancer. I heard somewhere that 100 years ago there was a 3% chance of dying of cancer, and nowdays it is 1/3. Well who knows how accurate that is, since many people must have died from cancer without knowing it back then.

Yeah well cells are more likely to mutate as the individual gets older. So since many of us live longer, and survive other issues, cancer becomes more prevalent.

I watched a Showtime series recently, John Adams (1799 era stuff, revoluationy war etc...). Turns out his daughter was diagnosed with breast cancer and died a truly horrid death after having undergone old-time surgery. She survived the surgery, but the cancer took her long and slow. Not hollywood, there are accounts online of the actual surgery. Even back then women knew what breast cancer was and what it meant.

My god they also did radical mastectomies without anesthesia back then. They just used a knife and a hot iron to cauterize, and other "surgeons" to hold the patient down. Horrendous stuff.


[edit on 9-1-2009 by Sonya610]

reply to post by nyarlathotep


You are right, the OP is not very cleaer . It looks like it was just an "artifficial selection" not a genes alteration.

"The baby grew from an embryo screened to ensure it did not contain the faulty BRCA 1 gene. "

I have to look into the BBC website, maybe they are more clear.

reply to post by Sonya610


my believe - cancer is also caused by our 100 000 chemicals we invented in the last 100 years..

Originally posted by Sonya610

Yeah well cells are more likely to mutate as the individual gets older. So since many of us live longer, and survive other issues, cancer becomes more prevalent.

Hmm I hadn't thought of that.

Originally posted by stymy believe - cancer is also caused by our 100 000 chemicals we invented in the last 100 years..

Oh I am sure chemicals are not helping anything. But cancer has always been with us. Cells do crazy things. Overall our life expectancy is still pretty high, though granted it will take another 50 years to judge whether the chemicals are affecting the overall life expectancy.

here we go , the BBC link (with video, not sure it this works outside the UK)

"Doctors then select an embryo free from rogue genes to continue the pregnancy, and discard any whose genetic profile points to future problems. "



news.bbc.co.uk...


lol i thought they stripped out the faulty gene , but actually this was just artifficial selection by killing the unwanted embrions that would be positive for the BRCA1 mutation

Originally posted by sty
lol i thought they stripped out the faulty gene , but actually this was just artifficial selection by killing the unwanted embrions that would be positive for the BRCA1 mutation

Yeah it was just selection. I don't follow the whole gene dicing thing that closely but I don't think they are at the point where they can manipulate the genes of animals, as in take stuff out, with any accuracy. Or at all.

reply to post by Sonya610


well they have made modifications on animals a lot of times, it is far from a new thing, the difference is that usually they only add more genetic material to gain some wanted attribute and to track the attribute they use special gene markers that only bind to the altered part, that way one can with fair ease identify if the treatment worked or not.

Fluorescent cat

Originally posted by Oodain
well they have made modifications on animals a lot of times, it is far from a new thing, the difference is that usually they only add more genetic material to gain some wanted attribute and to track the attribute they use special gene markers that only bind to the altered part, that way one can with fair ease identify if the treatment worked or not.

Okay that was disturbing. God only knows what they did to those cats as they "figured it out". Some humans are truly evil.

Hey...where can I sign up for the NWO agenda? : )

reply to post by Sonya610


i can follow you on that one, but again when does an embryo become aware?
a lot of the preliminary testing could have been done on embryos or even single cells, don't know if they just saying it could have been done.

Put me down for an order of a disease-immune free baby with lightning fast reflexes and a great singing voice.

humans have a startling amount of negative genes compared to animals.

reply to post by welivefortheson


As a veterinarian that deals with the many and varied problems of small domestic animals especially the dog, I don't agree.

When and where the human genome developed all its problems is endlessly debatable. We assume the dog, for instance, got his from bad, irresponsible, uninformed or neglectful breeding since domestication.
Nevertheless the canine has a long list of problems relatable to its genetics.

Both species would do well to pay more attention to the genes however it is done!

Here's an example:
Breed a puppy with hip dysplasia and that dog suffers pain, discomfort, stiffness, and is unable to perform his entire life requiring hundreds if not thousands of dollars in paliative medications.

Have a kid that ends up suffering the same arthritic conditions as mom and dad and you compound the suffering by several times often causing a half a century of suffering in that individual, untold hundreds of thousands in hip, knee and other operations and a lifetime of going to the pharmacy for paliative prescriptions. The patient is at least partially disabled much of his/her life.

Both COULD have been prevented.