My Health Insurance Company Got Me Evicted & a Claim of Eugenics? (Video)

To be clear, she wasn't physically evicted by the Insurance company but I'm going with the title of her article. The Company just decided to pull a switch on what she was covered for and what she wasn't. But after a watch, I think many of you will agree that this is just wrong on so many levels and may be the tip of the iceberg so to speak

I won't go into the whole video but this woman has done a little more work for us. Her claims are that a certain Dr. Post on the board of directors is also connected with Monsanto, the D.O.D and the DHS and that has her questioning as to what they are doing, why they are doing it and what the end game really is. Eugenics is mentioned.

www.activistpost.com...

This video is about how health insurance companies are making your health therapy decisions. Based on the Caris Report. Is Caris a possible eugenics corporation?

The board of directors:
www.carislifesciences.com...

Dr. Poste:

In addition to his academic post he serves as chief executive of a consulting company, Health Technology Networks, which specializes in the application of genomic technologies and computing in healthcare. He is chairman of Orchid Biosciences, the leading company in DNA forensic analysis, and serves on the board of directors of Monsanto, Exelixis and Caris. From 1992 to 1999 he was chief science and technology officer and president, R&D of SmithKline Beecham (SB). During his tenure at SB he was associated with the successful registration of 31 drug, vaccine and diagnostic products.

He is a fellow of the Royal Society, the Royal College of Pathologists and the UK Academy of Medicine, a distinguished fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and a member of the Council for Foreign Relations. He is a member of the US Defense Science Board, Institute of Medicine Forum on Global Health, and Council for Foreign Relations. He is chair of the DOD Task Force on Bioterrorism and the newly launched DOD Task Force on Synthetic Biology.

I have to admit that although I am not an expert in any of these fields, I have my curiosity peaked. Does anyone have any further info?

Peace

I see. She cannot afford to pay for both her medication and rent, and she has chosen to pay for the former.

Anyway, Caris Life Sciences did not pull a bait and switch on this woman. She elected to recieve a therapy other than the one Caris recommends either knowing that they would not pay for it or ignorant of her insurance coverage.

It's much like when a dentist suggests composite fillings even though an insurance company says they will only cover amalgam. I've seen many patients who never look at their insurance and have no idea what benefits they have or what services are covered. Then they act surprised when the claim is filed.

Anyway, Caris uses protein markers and gene senquencing on tumor tissues to find the most effective form of treatment:

Caris Target Now (TM) is a comprehensive tumor analysis coupled with an exhaustive clinical literature search, which matches appropriate therapies to patient-specific biomarker information to generate an evidence-based treatment approach. Caris Target Now testing provides information that may help when considering potential treatment options.
[...]
Caris takes the results from each test and applies the published findings from thousands of the world's leading cancer researchers. Based on this analysis, Caris Target Now identifies potential therapies for patients and their treating physicians to discuss. Source

Eugenics? No. They are not trying to create a genetically superior race and the woman never states such. She is trying to say that they are using genetic markers in their testing, possibly stating that they're creating data banks for genealogy's sake, but even then she doesn't go deep enough into it to clarify.

They are using gene and protein markers along with studies that have noted these gene and protein markers to decide which treatment is most effective and then electing to pay for only those treatments they deem most effective. I suppose she should have purchased another insurance plan or, having had the choice to read her insurance plan or call about coverage before she chose her treatment (knowing that she would not be able to afford the medicine if the insurance company did not cover) elected to choose the insurance plan's covered treatment.

It's a shame the woman is in such trouble, and I don't know her circumstances, but she has her health and hopefully a support system that will provide for her until she gets back on her feet.

reply to post by KingAceSuited


Thank you for your input. As mentioned, I am not too much in the know on this particular subject but found the story and back story intriguing.

I'm looking a little further but have to say that anytime I see references to Monsanto and the DOD in the same column, I perk up and take notice.

Thanks again.

reply to post by jude11


Oh, you're very welcome, and thanks for your post.

It is an intriguing backstory, a human interest story that shames the insurance industry for its value of profit over the lives of human beings.

This woman is obviously doing well, and any compassionate person would try and help, but the companies just don't exist to help as much as they can afford to help.

I hate to push the topic off-course (if I'm pushing it off course by asking this), but would you mind explaining to me the significance of Monsanto?

reply to post by jude11


This is just the top of the tip of a huge iceberg. Yes, the same mother corporations DO own and/or control the health insurance, medical device manufacturers, drug manufacturing companies and probably, your doctor. It's called "vertical integration." Yes they DO determine who gets treatment and who might live or die. Yes, they DO follow woefully misinformed notions of genetic superiority, inferiority and inheritance (aka eugenics), and make determinations based on these horrifically flawed principles.

Keep digging. S&F&

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by jude11

 

Yes they DO determine who gets treatment and who might live or die. Yes, they DO follow woefully misinformed notions of genetic superiority, inferiority and inheritance (aka eugenics), and make determinations based on these horrifically flawed principles.

I would love to see your evidence/sources for this.

Please post them.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Vertical integration is a standard business strategy practiced by our planet's corporate leaders. If you want names, start here: Meet the Global Financial Elites Controlling $46 Trillion In Wealth. My files showing specific links between Big Pharma and health insurance are on another computer, but a quick search brings this up, for example:

Merck Versicherungsvermittlung GmbH

Merck Versicherungsvermittlung GmbH is an associated company and operates as inhouse insurance broker exclusively for the Merck Group. The range of responsibilities comprises development, implementation and controlling of global insurance programs.

Merck Versicherungsvermittlung GmbH is the central contact for insurance issues, arising out of the entrepreneurial perspective. As part of the risk-management process risks are transferred to the insurance market - always with the objective to be economically reasonable for the Group.

........

National Government Services, Inc., a subsidiary of WellPoint, Inc., contracts with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to administer Medicare Part A (hospital insurance), home health and hospice, national FQHC and Part B (medical insurance) contracts and the Jurisdiction B durable medical equipment Medicare administrative contract, serving nearly 209,000 providers and suppliers, and over 22 million people with Medicare in 18 states and five U.S. Territories. National Government Services has served as a Medicare contractor since 1966.

WellPoint is the nation's largest health benefits company in terms of medical membership, with 34 million members in its affiliated health plans, and a total of more than 66 million individuals served through its subsidiaries.

It has become politically correct to say health problems are self-created - and blame the victims. True, some are - but life is complicated. We live in a hugely contaminated, polluted world - there is no doubt that much of our air, water and food make us sick.

Our Western medical system won't treat most disease in its early stages - insurance terms are written, and doctors are trained, NOT to acknowledge common, chronic, modern diseases until they have progressed to acute and sometimes life threatening stages.

Preventive medicine, instead of late stage interventions, would go a long way to cutting health care costs.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of really crappy research "proving" that preventive medicine is far more expensive than standard Western medicine. ...But really, it's all about who profits (Big Pharma, device industries, etc.) and who picks up the tab (medical insurance OR disability insurance OR unemployment insurance OR government OR the victims....).

We have allowed Big Pharma to take over the world's medical system, control insurance companies and insurance terms, and effectively, train our doctors.

Doctors these days no longer look at patients' overall health or prevention (which is specifically disallowed by medical insurance, which is provided by companies often owned by Big Pharma).

Ie., check out standard insurance policy definitions for "medical necessity," "medically necessary," and "medically unnecessary" - you will find that non-invasive tests for early diagnosis are considered "medically unnecessary" - and "preventive" treatments also are deemed "medically unnecessary."

Public plans and private insurance companies all rely on international "re-insurance" corporations to cover their policies - and the international guys set the terms of coverage.

Early non-invasive diagnostic tests are disallowed as "investigational." ...Diseases caused by misfolded proteins for example, are diagnosed only after they have progressed, and intervention is then, of necessity, invasive (ie., including surgery, angioplasty)

Originally posted by KingAceSuited
reply to post by jude11

 

Oh, you're very welcome, and thanks for your post.

It is an intriguing backstory, a human interest story that shames the insurance industry for its value of profit over the lives of human beings.

This woman is obviously doing well, and any compassionate person would try and help, but the companies just don't exist to help as much as they can afford to help.

I hate to push the topic off-course (if I'm pushing it off course by asking this), but would you mind explaining to me the significance of Monsanto?

Some of the theories I have of course are my own but here's a little more to get the gears rolling. I mentioned Monsanto in the OP because I have a suspicion they are tied in here somewhere. That's all. Nothing solid but I'm still digging. Below is a few reasons why I believe Monsanto can't be far behind.

And seeing Dr. Poste on both boards indeed raises a few flags.

Monsanto buys Black Water. Why do they need the same forces that were used to kill in Iraq?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

On track to own the World's Food Supply. This would tie in with nutrition and the ramping up of nutritional supplements being banned. Started as a slow crawl in the UK but is gaining ground.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And...

Monsanto was founded in 1901 by John Francis Quenny, a notable pharmacist, and made it's first profits by manufacturing saccharin, an artificial sweetener, which it sold to the Cocoa-Cola company. By the 1940s it was one of the major producers of plastics and synthetic fibers in the US, as well as entering into it's first US government connections: Monsanto was chosen by Charles Thomas, who would become a president of Monsanto, to operate the Clinton Laboratories and to create nuclear triggers. At the Clinton Labs, now much more well known as the Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Monsanto was involved in the development of nuclear weapons.

Monsanto ain't just about the seeds & Agent Orange anymore:

Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review: High Flux Years In 1954 Monsanto entered a joint venture with the German chemical company bayer to form Mobay, aimed at the marketing of polyurethanes in the United States. Bayer, most known for the discovery of aspirin, was a company that formed part of the German industrial giant I.G. Farben, which was the chief military-industrial-complex of the Nazi regime: The Bayer company then became part of IG Farben, a conglomerate of German chemical industries that formed a part of the financial core of the German Nazi regime. IG Farben owned 42.5% of the company that manufactured Zyklon B[citation needed], a chemical used in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and other extermination camps. During World War II, the company also extensively used slave labor in factories attached to large slave labor camps, notably the sub-camps of the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp[2]. When the Allies split IG Farben into several pieces after World War II for involvement in organized Nazi war crimes, Bayer reappeared as an individual business. The Bayer executive Fritz ter Meer, sentenced to seven years in prison by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, was made head of the supervisory board of Bayer in 1956, after his release.

reply to post by jude11


When you say "they are tied in here somewhere", to what are you referring?

As for why Monsanto bought Blackwater, Monsanto uses Blackwater to harbor intelligence on activists who oppose Monsanto.

One of the most incendiary details in the documents [obtained by The Nation] is that Blackwater, through Total Intelligence, sought to become the "intel arm" of Monsanto, offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm. (Source: The Nation

Okay, Monsonto owns "90 percent of the global transgenic seed market and most global commercial seed." (Via english.pravda.ru, translated from La Jornada)

That sounds like a "brutal" monopoly as Ms. Ribeiro put it. Monsonto sounds like a large business that is continually expanding.

It's understandable that their aim would be to control 100% of the seed market, just as it's Walmart's aim to control 100% of the retail market, or McDonald's aim to control 100% of the fast food market.

I'm not sure I understand what any of your theories are. Would you mind clarifying for me with something like "My theory is that Monsonto...." while replacing the ellipses with the rest of one of your theories?

If you could explain what you mean by "they are tied in here somewhere" by saying who they refers to and expanding on the relationship, that'd be bang up good as well.

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Vertical integration is a standard business strategy practiced by our planet's corporate leaders. If you want names, start here: Meet the Global Financial Elites Controlling $46 Trillion In Wealth.

[...]

Preventive medicine, instead of late stage interventions, would go a long way to cutting health care costs.

[...]

VneZonyDostupa asked for you to show evidence supporting the following claims:

1. The same mother corporations determine who gets treatment and who might live or die.
2. The same mother corporations follow woefully misinforced notions of genetic superiority, inferiority, and heritence (aka eugenics
3. The same mother corporations determine who gets treatment and who might live or die based on the horifically flawed principles of genetic superiority, inferiority, and inheritance (aka eugenics.

VneZonyDostupa did not ask for you to outline the nature of Vertical integration. He did not ask about preventative medicine vs reactive medicine.

Who are the mother corporations you refer to, and what evidence do you have that shows they determine treatment based on notions of genetic superiority (aka eugenics)?

reply to post by KingAceSuited


As I said - If you want names, start here: Meet the Global Financial Elites Controlling $46 Trillion In Wealth. My files showing specific links between Big Pharma and health insurance are on another computer, but a quick search brings this up, for example:

Merck Versicherungsvermittlung GmbH

Merck Versicherungsvermittlung GmbH is an associated company and operates as inhouse insurance broker exclusively for the Merck Group. The range of responsibilities comprises development, implementation and controlling of global insurance programs.

Merck Versicherungsvermittlung GmbH is the central contact for insurance issues, arising out of the entrepreneurial perspective. As part of the risk-management process risks are transferred to the insurance market - always with the objective to be economically reasonable for the Group.

........

National Government Services, Inc., a subsidiary of WellPoint, Inc., contracts with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to administer Medicare Part A (hospital insurance), home health and hospice, national FQHC and Part B (medical insurance) contracts and the Jurisdiction B durable medical equipment Medicare administrative contract, serving nearly 209,000 providers and suppliers, and over 22 million people with Medicare in 18 states and five U.S. Territories. National Government Services has served as a Medicare contractor since 1966.

WellPoint is the nation's largest health benefits company in terms of medical membership, with 34 million members in its affiliated health plans, and a total of more than 66 million individuals served through its subsidiaries.

The vertical integration is given - if you're really interested in the actual spider webs, do your own research. Half of it's already on ATS. As far as eugenics policies aka "genetics" informing decision-making - just spend a bit of time in a university, or read a few newspapers and magazines - half the world is convinced most diseases are "genetic" or result from "genetically susceptibility" - when it's largely epigenetic inheritance. Big difference. But treatment is still denied on the grounds it's a "pre-existing condition."

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by KingAceSuited

 

As I said - If you want names, start here: Meet the Global Financial Elites Controlling $46 Trillion In Wealth. My files showing specific links between Big Pharma and health insurance are on another computer, but a quick search brings this up, for example:

Meet the Global Financial Elites Controlling $46 Trillion In Wealth focuses on a general description of millionaires and the 1% most wealthy in the United States without naming any particular person. Its focus is neither on Big Pharmaceutical companies nor health insurance companies. Please stop directing people to that thread.

You seem to have confused eugenics (applying science to improve the genetic composition of a population) with genetics (the application of science to the study of genes, heredity, and adaptation between organisms.

For example, one cannot simply equate genetic policies such as those in the OP which use gene markers to determine which treatments are most effective against a particular tumor to eugenics policies which would aim to treat the lady based on whether or not she (not the tumor) has genes that predispose her to cancer.

In addition, scientific literature is careful in describing the nature/nurture side of genetic predisposition just as universities are. There are some genes, which are inherited, that if they had not been inherited, would not be around for the environment to influence their activation. To simply say the public fails to recognize epigenetic inheritance is to completely ignore the large understanding of nature vs. nurture or people's recognition that food, pollution and stress for instance play a role on health.

Also, "pre-existing conditions" do not necessarily cause a patient to be denied just because they had a particular gene. A person with insurance and a genetic disorder before diagnosis may avoid denial on the grounds of "pre-existing conditions".

Anyway two of the companies that you claim to be mother corporations determining who gets treatment and who might live or die based on genetic superiority, inferiority, and inherence (aka eugenics) are Merck Versicherungsvermittlung GmbH and National Government Services, Inc., a subsidiary of WellPoint, Inc.

After searching ATS for "Merck eugenics" (without quotes) I looked through the first five:
1. No evidence of Eugenics - **The Reality of the Gardisil Eugenics Campaign** VITAL INFORMATION WITHIN
2. Look, there you are mentioning Eugenics but not mentioning anything about Eugenics. Drug Shortages are Leading to Price Gouging and Safety Issues
3. Here are two instances in which eugenics comes up, but they all come up in error. (a) reference to the HPV vaccine, but if you look at link "1.", you see that less than one in five thousand deaths would be evident after clinical trials... hardly an effective eugenics program... (b) the analysis of the video ignores that Bill Gates is talking about many elements that affect population growth, not killing people using HPV, which would be pretty ineffective as evident in link "1."
4. The author says "in his opinion" with another invocation of HPV vaccination. Do I need to mention link "1."?
5. What's with this talk about the HPV vaccine? Is that the only evidence of Eugenics ATS has to offer? ATS offers contradicting testimony as well, along with unsubstantiated opinion.

I doubt the validity of your claim based on this initial search and will not use any more of my time trying to validate your claim.

Imagine how silly it would be if I made an unsubstantiated claim and said it's your duty to go out and prove it. That's just not how making claims works.

reply to post by KingAceSuited

You seem to have confused eugenics (applying science to improve the genetic composition of a population) with genetics (the application of science to the study of genes, heredity, and adaptation between organisms.

Eugenics went underground after WW2 and the corporate-funded Nazi's eugenics-justified atrocities - the principles were repackaged as "genetics" and force-fed to students in lower and higher educational institutions. Most people, like you, remain convinced that disease for example is genetic, or results from "genetic susceptibility" aka "genetic inferiority" - and that one simply can "breed humanity" to improve the gene pool.

In fact, the public health crises humanity face today result from epigentic inheritance, NOT genetic inheritance. Current science shows that LaMarck's work is far more pertinent to maintaining the health and genetic integrity of the human population than Darwinian-Mendelian genetics.

In short, it is necessary to control -and clean-up- the environment to protect human's genetic integrity; all the breeding programs you might imagine won't do diddly-squat to "improve the gene pool" in a contaminated world.

Evolution, Tout de Suite: Epigenetic perturbations could jump-start heritable variation.

Molecular mechanism based on self-replicating protein conformation for the inheritance of acquired information in humans.

Prions, protein homeostasis, and phenotypic diversity


RE: names and financial connections. You may find the following threads useful - particularly if you recognize that Big Pharma rivals oil for 1st place as the world's largest industry, and that the insurance - re-insurance industry is pivotal in making the world go round.

Who Runs the World ? – Network Analysis Reveals ‘Super Entity’ of Global Corporate Control

Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by KingAceSuited

 

You seem to have confused eugenics (applying science to improve the genetic composition of a population) with genetics (the application of science to the study of genes, heredity, and adaptation between organisms.

Eugenics went underground after WW2 and the corporate-funded Nazi's eugenics-justified atrocities - the principles were repackaged as "genetics" and force-fed to students in lower and higher educational institutions. Most people, like you, remain convinced that disease for example is genetic, or results from "genetic susceptibility" aka "genetic inferiority" - and that one simply can "breed humanity" to improve the gene pool.

Show where the principles of eugenics were repackaged after World War II as genetics and force-fed to students in lower and higher educational institutions.
Show where I said that I am convinced that disease is genetic or results from genetic susceptibility.
Show where I said that one can simply "breed humanity" to improve the gene pool.

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by KingAceSuited

 

In fact, the public health crises humanity face today result from epigentic inheritance, NOT genetic inheritance. Current science shows that LaMarck's work is far more pertinent to maintaining the health and genetic integrity of the human population than Darwinian-Mendelian genetics.

Show where the public health crises humanity face today result from epigenetic inheritance.
Show where current science says that LaMarck's work is far more pertinent to maintaining the health and genetic integrity of the human population than Darwinian-Mendelian genetics.

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by KingAceSuited

 

In short, it is necessary to control -and clean-up- the environment to protect human's genetic integrity; all the breeding programs you might imagine won't do diddly-squat to "improve the gene pool" in a contaminated world.

I agree that controlling and cleaning up the environment will help protect human's genetic integrity.
I don't believe enough support for breeding programs exists for them to be a concern.


Evolution, Tout de Suite: Epigenetic perturbations could jump-start heritable variation. - This shows that epigenetic changes could jump-start heritable variation. It does not show that public health crises humanity face today are a result of epigenetic inheritence. It does not show that LaMarck's work is far more pertinent to maintaining the health and genetic integrity of the human population than Darwinian-Mendelian genetics. It shows that epigenetics may cause heritable variation, but it does not support any of your claims.

Molecular mechanism based on self-replicating protein conformation for the inheritance of acquired information in humans. - This shows that proteins may carry biological information from generation to generation, but it does not support any of your claims.

Prions, protein homeostasis, and phenotypic diversity - This link is broken

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by KingAceSuited

 

RE: names and financial connections. You may find the following threads useful - particularly if you recognize that Big Pharma rivals oil for 1st place as the world's largest industry, and that the insurance - re-insurance industry is pivotal in making the world go round.

Who Runs the World ? – Network Analysis Reveals ‘Super Entity’ of Global Corporate Control

Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world

Anyway two of the companies that you claim to be mother corporations determining who gets treatment and who might live or die based on genetic superiority, inferiority, and inheretance (aka eugenics) are Merck Versicherungsvermittlung GmbH and National Government Services, Inc., a subsidiary of WellPoint, Inc.
The above links do not support your claim.
Show that Merck and National Government Services determine treatment based on notions of genetic superiority (aka eugenics).

reply to post by KingAceSuited


Some quick reading for your edification.

The Old Eugenics and the New Genetics Compared

Summary
One of the greatest fears associated with the new genetics is the resurgence of eugenics, but too often this assumes the new genetics is eugenics without investigating the diverse definitions and interpretations of eugenics. The aim of this paper is to critically investigate the concept of eugenics in theory and in practice and to question whether the new genetics is a renewal, reform or return of eugenics. The discussion is oriented around six key arguments that illuminate the central points of convergence and divergence between the old eugenics and the new genetics. Ultimately, the paper concludes that despite significant procedural, legislative and administrative differences between the old eugenics and the new genetics, and despite significant spatial, temporal and cultural variations in interpretation and implementation, at the ideological level, there is essentially no difference. The old eugenics was genetics and the new genetics is eugenics.

The “new eugenics”

Despite the dropping of the term eugenics, eugenic ideas remain prevalent in many issues surrounding human reproduction. Medical genetics, a post-World War II medical specialty, encompasses a wide range of health concerns, from genetic screening and counseling to fetal gene manipulation and the treatment of adults suffering from hereditary disorders. …..

Applications of the Human Genome Project are often referred to as “Brave New World” genetics or the “new eugenics” ……many eugenics-related concerns are reemerging as a new group of individuals decide how to regulate the application of genetics science and technology. This gene-directed activity, in attempting to improve upon nature, may not be that distant from what Galton implied in 1909 when he described eugenics as the “study of agencies, under social control, which may improve or impair” future generations.

The New Eugenics in Cinema: Genetic Determinism and Gene Therapy in GATTACA

Jeremy Rifkin has pointed out that the potential for a new eugenics is inherent in our ability to manipulate our genetic makeup, even if the technology has beneficial uses:

If diabetes, sickle-cell anemia, and cancer are to be prevented by altering the genetic makeup of individuals, why not proceed to other less serious "disorders": myopia, color blindness, dyslexia, obesity, left-handedness? Indeed, what is to preclude a society from deciding that a certain skin color is a disorder? In the end, why would we ever say no to any alteration of the genetic code that might enhance the well-being of our offspring? It is difficult to imagine parents rejecting genetic modifications that promised to improve, in some way, the opportunities for their progeny. (140)

Rifkin, among others, is concerned that the new eugenics will lead to homogenous societies, to a loss of diversity. Worse, he argues, we may create a society that discriminates against those who cannot access technologies controlled by a limited number of scientists.

The New Eugenics: Genetic Engineering

The key difference between natural selection and selective breeding is that selective breeding is always based on value judgments. Natural selection in is an automatic process that is wholly indifferent to concepts such as good and bad, beautiful and ugly, strong and weak, noble or loathsome. Natural selection revolves wholly around reproductive viability. Although reproductive viability is necessary in selective breeding, the selection is oriented toward increasing some characteristic or set of characteristics that have been judged to be of value. Eugenics, in its original sense, like other forms of selective breeding was conceptualized as a means of "improving" the stock, in this case the human race. …..

The line between germ-line correction of potential health problems and germ-line enhancement is a very blurred and indistinct one. ….“designer humans” will also have access to vastly improved somatic techniques and pharmacological technologies allowing for very precise adjustments in hormones and neurotransmitters. Self-made man and woman will become a reality in a very concrete sense. Whether these beings will be more like demi-gods, monsters or something as yet unimagined, no one can predict. ...

History of Genetics: EUGENICS
"Modern Genetics Is Eugenics"

reply to post by KingAceSuited


More.

Epigenetics: 100 Reasons To Change The Way We Think About Genetics

For years, genes have been considered the one and only way biological traits could be passed down through generations of organisms.

Not anymore.

Increasingly, biologists are finding that non-genetic variation acquired during the life of an organism can sometimes be passed on to offspring—a phenomenon known as epigenetic inheritance. An article forthcoming in the July issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology lists over 100 well-documented cases of epigenetic inheritance between generations of organisms, and suggests that non-DNA inheritance happens much more often than scientists previously thought.

Epigenetics: DNA Isn’t Everything

Research into epigenetics has shown that environmental factors affect characteristics of organisms. These changes are sometimes passed on to the offspring.

…..Epigenetics examines the inheritance of characteristics that are not set out in the DNA sequence. ….

Such phenomena could only be examined in a descriptive manner in the past. Today, it has been scientifically proven, which molecular structures are involved….

Cells have a memory

Epigenetics: the Revenge of Lamarck!

I just finished a fascinating book called Epigenetics: The Ultimate Mystery of Inheritance, by Richard C. Francis, a Ph.D in neurobiology and behavior from Stony Brook who did post-doc work at Stanford and Berkeley. It arrived earlier this year and is, as far as I can tell, the first book on epigenetics written for the intelligent layperson.

……The story of the triumph of neo-Darwinism and the decline of Lamarckism is filled with political intrigue (see Paul Kammerer's downfall, and polymathic Arthur Koestler's The Case of the Midwife Toad, for the inklings of a true mystery, and I know full well the delicious irony of linking here to a creationist's writing!), which I will not go into now. But it seems safe to say that both Darwin and Lamarck were "right" and their theories are so advanced now that they wouldn't recognize the intricacies of depth they have engendered.

….The most disturbing thing about the book is that your life may have been altered forever by mom's stress levels while you were in the womb. This new approach to genetics eerily explains how a famine in the 1940s still affects the physiology of people born recently. It places a tremendous burden on our responsibilities to optimize our environments, and not simply from toxins: from stress-inducing environments too, which cause our DNA's expression to alter even when we are middle-aged.

In addition, we can inherit from our grandfathers, not just our fathers. Epigenetics has a rather fat role to play in explaining the obesity epidemic. The implications of this study - in which DNA no longer plays the role of Executive - are astonishing. Here's Francis:

"Epigenetics is the study of how these long-lasting, gene-regulating attachments are emplaced and removed. Sometimes epigenetic attachments and detachments occur more or less at random, like mutations. Often though, epigenetic changes occur in response to our environment, the food we eat, the pollutants to which we are exposed, even our social interactions. Epigenetic processes occur at the interface of our environment and our genes." - from the Preface

RE: Epigenetics and disease - for your review:

Sick People, Not Corporate Greed, Causing Financial Crisis?

reply to post by soficrow


The material you present in your last two posts is very interesting, and I appreciate your taking the time to retrieve the links and quote significant portions of your references (so much so that I am starring each of the posts), but I do not appreciate your haphazard approach to organizing your information.

When one makes a claim that claim should be followed by supporting evidence and references so that claim can be verified. Poorly supported claims lack credibility, and for the person making a claim to ask someone else to verify one's claim without offering evidence or by offering unrelated evidence is very poor behavior.

As I mentioned before, soficrow, the 'quick reading' you present is very interesting, but it is presented without prefacing it with a claim. You have made at least 9 claims in this thread and then you had the audacity to deputize me to figure out which of your links apply to which claims (after having supplied me earlier with links unrelated or insufficient to support your claims). That is not right.

Let me restate the 8 claims you have made.

1. The principles of eugenics were repackaged after World War II as genetics.
2. The principles of eugenics were force-fed to students in lower and higher educational institutions
3. KingAceSuited is convinced that disease is genetic or results from genetic susceptibility.
4. KingAceSuited believes that one can simply "breed humanity" to improve the gene pool.
5. The public crisis humanity faces today results from epigenetic inheritence.
6. Current science says that LaMark's work is far more pertinent to maintaining the health of genetic integrity of the human population than Darwinian-Mendelian genetics.
7. It is necessary to control - and clean up - the environment to protect human's genetic integrity.
8. Breeding programs will do nothing to improve the gene pool in a contaminated world.
9. Merck and National Government Services determine treatment based on notions of genetic superiority

Your first post appears to offer evidence directly supporting claims 1 and 8.
Your second post supports the claim that epigenetics is an alternative way for an organism to pass traits from one generation to the next, but I hardly see how it supports 5 or 6.

Now, we only get 5,000 characters a post, so would you like to address a single claim so we can discuss the claim, or are you going to respond with an assortment of possibly related links?

I hope we can talk about your first claim, that the principles of eugenics were repackaged after World War II as genetics, because it seems to be the most fruitful, supported of all your claims so far.

reply to post by KingAceSuited


Thanks. It is interesting stuff, isn't it? ...Sorry to be so provocative, but the truth is, I am working on a personal project and while I'm willing to share a few bits and bytes, I have no intention of laying it all out here. My goal simply is to throw out some ideas, help identify the key issues and support the thread's stated focus. ....With respect to illustrative anecdotal stories, I'm sure there are more to come.

My apologies: re: #3, #4 (based solely on the tone of your "argument" rather than substance); #9 (my old research linked Merck USA to one of the national insurance carriers - likely out of date, can't make finding it a priority; I threw in that bit about National Government Services being a subsidiary of WellPoint Insurance because the connection is just too cute to ignore; hopefully, someone will be intrigued enough by the seeds to follow through).

RE: genetics = eugenics. I take it as a given that at the ideological level, there is essentially no difference between eugenics and genetics - and am far more interested in how the proponents spun the 'surprise' results of Genome Project and now, how they're spinning the growing evidence supporting epigenetic inheritance. Cold Spring Harbor (the home of eugenics), is pitching the idea of an epigenetic code! Great way to distract from the concept of shifting and accumulating environmental impacts! ...But I digress. Which is what I need to do. Elsewhere.

No worry. Apology accepted. Please pardon my tone.

With regard to equating genetics and eugenics, to be fair, there are medical applications of genetics in which human production plays no direct part. One example is the treatment of adults suffering from hereditary disorders. There is

medical progress that enables victims of many genetic diseases to live fairly normal lives. Direct manipulation of harmful genes is also being studied. If perfected, it could obviate eugenic arguments for restricting reproduction among those who carry harmful genes. Such conflicting innovations have complicated the controversy surrounding what many call the "new eugenics." (Source: Eugenics. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Section: The "new eugenics".

In the above case, genetics creates a counter ideology within genetics, one that promotes the procreation of all peoples with all other peoples and is the antithesis of eugenics.

Even in the OP, we see an attempt by the insurance company to apply genetics in a manner completely unrelated to reproduction, to choose the treatment that scientific literature says works best. So I'm not so sure about taking the equivalence of genetics and eugenics for granted. I'd say genetics is much more complex.

I take it the 'surprise' results of the Genome Project that you refer to are the new views of noncoding DNA, epigenetic marks, proteins, and other molecules that are attached to DNA and apparently play a role in heredity. Even here, not enough credit is given to scientists who recognize the nurture part of both genetics and epigenetics.

In 1944, for example, the Netherlands suffered a brutal famine. Scientists at the University of Leiden recently studied 60 people who were conceived during that time. In October, the researchers reported that today they still have fewer epigenetic marks than their siblings. They suggest that during the 1944 famine, pregnant mothers could not supply their children with the raw ingredients for epigenetic marks. (Source: NY Times)

I do think that genetics and epigenetics and the scientists who study both subjects are more complex, nuanced than anyone can at this time describe.

That's not to say that there aren't examples of scientists who by the very nature of their mission laid out by, say, the journal they publish in, are "extremists". For example, The Annals of Human Genetics which, as you pointed out in your first claim and eventually supported with the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on eugenics, used to be named The Annals of Eugenics has in their latest issue an arguably narrow focus on the genetic mechanism behind Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, but the lay person looking up Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome will immediately be alerted of the biological basis/underlying infection behind the disorder.

While one might argue that the powers that be, the former "Annals of Eugenics" are pushing their eugenic ideas upon the population, the reality is that Google, the more powerful and renown medium for information, will lead interested parties to the National Institute of Health, where eugenics won't even appear as a side-note.

So honestly, how can we take the equivalence of eugenics and genetics for granted?

Good luck with your work by the way. Any idea when you may complete it?

reply to post by KingAceSuited

I take it the 'surprise' results of the Genome Project that you refer to are the new views of noncoding DNA, epigenetic marks, proteins, and other molecules that are attached to DNA and apparently play a role in heredity.

No - I refer to the fact that there aren't enough genes in the human genetic code to explain much as "genetic." Public conceptions of what constitutes "genetic" and "genetic susceptibility" are misinformed and manipulated to cover-up corporate industry's culpability in altering the planet's environment, protect industry from liability for the impacts, and promote "personal responsibility in health" public policies as a distraction from the real problems. Totally, completely wrong.

Genetic engineering is based on an outdated idea

The key assumption of genetic engineering is that you can "tailor" organisms by adding genes with desirable properties. But science has found that genes don't work as isolated carriers of properties. Instead the effects of every gene is the outcome of interaction with its environment. The situation is succinctly summarized by Dr Craig Venter:

"In everyday language the talk is about a gene for this and a gene for that. We are now finding that that is rarely so. The number of genes that work in that way can almost be counted on your fingers, because we are just not hard-wired in that way."

"You cannot define the function of genes without defining the influence of the environment. The notion that one gene equals one disease, or that one gene produces one key protein, is flying out of the window."

Dr. J. Craig Venter, Time's Scientist of the year (2000). President of the Celera Corporation. Dr. Venter is recognized as one of the two most important scientists in the worldwide effort to map the human genome. Source: Times, Monday February 12, 2001 "Why you can't judge a man by his genes"

The last nail was pounded into the Eugenics coffin when the Human Genome Project was completed (10-odd years ago). There just are not enough genes in the human genome to explain the astounding range of human diversity - or to back up claims that "everything is genetic." Seems not much is, after all.

One of my favorite Venter quotes:

...we have, in truth, learned nothing from the [human] genome other than probabilities. How does a 1 or 3 percent increased risk for something translate into the clinic? It is useless information.

—Genomicist J. Craig Venter, explaining in a Der Spiegel interview (July 29, 2010) why the results of genome research have not yielded more medical applications