State Claims Ownership of Newborn DNA

God Bless America!
Unknown to most new parents, or those who became parents in the last ten or so years, DNA of newborns has been harvested, tested, stored and experimented with. All 50 states are now routinely providing these results to the Homeland Security Department. Excellent!

If you recall the movie Gattaca, embryos were created and screened to provide the ultimate eugenics program and the "super" human. Some refused to take part in this process and had "God" children, children who were made through normal conception. These children invariably didn't have the same superior genome compared to GMO children, and were thus forced into unwanted societal roles like cleaning and garbage disposal.

In Minnesota the state tests for 56 various genetic disorders and variants. At least 1/3 of these tests produce a false positive meaning that a flaw was identified that actually did not exist. Regardless, the false positive becomes part of the permanent record of the child and follows them for the rest of their lives as does any true positives. This means that the child may face discrimination in employment and the ability to gain health insurance at any cost.

Should we really be complaining? I mean, after all it's not required by law, you can opt out of the pogram, that is, if you knew about it in the first place.

Our legislators declared that if the parent doesn’t specifically opt out, they are presumed to have “informed consent” and have opted in.

So what are the long term implicaions of this?

The implications of the DNA database need to be viewed in conjuction with the Real ID Act in the US, and the requirement by Americans to carry around National Identity Cards. Combine the identity card with your DNA, and you've got yourself a highly controlled Statist system. I hear people saying? So, thats ok, if you're not doing anything wrong? Others look forward to a technocractic Utopia where everything you do will be based on your DNA, from your ATM card, your health insurance, driving your car, the locks on your house, all of which could be DNA specific.

It's all just a little bit Big Brother (1984) and This Perfect Day for my liking.

Read the full article by Marti Oakley

Read about RFID chips and the Real ID act here and here and here.

Is there such a thing as different races in the human species? Or are we just one race – the human race?

I found this article: The K9 Comparison—What Dogs Tell Us About Humans

The article describes a scientist Dr Freedman who himself is in a bi-racial marriage, perform tests on different dog breeds to determine the effect of breed on behaviour.

Dog breeds provide the classic case study of within-species differentiation. Those who would dismiss race and race differences regularly point out that DNA differences between races are minimal. But, as Vincent Sarich demonstrated in Race: The Reality of Human Differences (pp. 170 – 173) human racial differences in morphology are greater than in any non-domesticated species. They are around ten times the difference between the sexes within each race and larger than the differences that distinguish the two species of chimpanzee. Despite minimal genetic differences, human physical racial differences are clearly observable.

(Studies show that humans share 98.4% of genetic information with Chimpanzees, so it only takes a little to change phenotypical differences in nature).

He submitted the paper on racial differences in neonate behavior to Science, the most prestigious scientific journal in the U.S. It had published his study behavioral differences in pups of different dog breeds without any problem or controversy. The paper on race differences, however, was rejected by a split vote of the reviewers. Interesting!

Freedman then submitted it to Nature, the British analogue to Science. It again received a split decision from the judges. Fortunately, the editor broke the deadlock by casting his deciding vote in favor of publication. [Behavioural Differences between Chinese–American and European–American Newborns D. G. Freedman & Nina Chinn Freedman, Nature December 20, 1969]

The following are the interesting scientific points to note to suggest there are different races, with different characteristics inherent in their genes.

New born babies were studied by neurologists using a maneuver called the "defense reaction", the baby's nose was briefly pressed with a cloth, forcing him to breathe with his mouth. Most Caucasian and black babies fight the maneuver by immediately turning away or swiping at the cloth with their hands. Not surprisingly, this is listed in Western pediatric textbooks as the normal, expected response.

But not so for the average Chinese babies in the study. They simply lay on their back, breathing from the mouth, "accepting" the cloth without a fight.

There were other more subtle differences. While both Chinese and Caucasian infants would start to cry at about the same point in the examination, especially when they were being undressed, Chinese babies stopped crying immediately, while Caucasian babies quieted only gradually.
The conclusions found that white babies started to cry more easily, and once they started, they were more difficult to console. Chinese babies adapted to almost any position in which they were placed. When placed face down in their cribs, they tended to keep their faces buried in the sheets rather than immediately turning to one side, as did the Whites.

Another scientific field that recognises racial difference is pharmacogenetics for example, the study of genetic differences in the tolerance and effectiveness of medicinal drugs. African American patients, on average, do not benefit as much as whites from ACE (Angiotensin Converting Enzyme) inhibitors, a standard treatment for heart failure. This is probably because of race differences in nitric oxide, which is produced by the cells that line our blood vessels and dampens contraction of the muscle cells, relaxing the vessels and lowering blood pressure. Blacks are more likely than whites to have nitric oxide insufficiency. Why, no one currently knows.

I would like to see this study conducted on children from bi-racial parents where the offspring are “pure” in their appearance of either being black/ asian/white to see if the mixed offspring will give the same response.

For example the image is of the “Hodgson twins” , where both the parents are bi-racial. They have twin daughters, one appears traditionally “black” while the other, with blonde hair and blue eyes appears “white”. To have one white offspring and one black offspring as twins is statisically a 1 in a million chance!

I’d like to see the results of the study done on these sorts of children, and the effects of mixed-race.

Genetics – interesting, no?