Calls to take DNA Profiles From Newborns

Image of a DNA Helix

Government proposals to take DNA samples from every newborn baby are being debated by pioneering genetic scientists. Health Secretary John Reid first set out plans to screen babies at birth in a White Paper presented to Parliament in June last year. Details of their genetic profiles would then be stored in a database.

Members of the Human Genetics Commission (HGC) were today beginning a two-day conference in Bristol to discuss the controversial implications of DNA testing after being asked to consider the proposals by Dr Reid. The HGC will hear evidence from four professors associated with the ongoing Children Of The 90s project, one of the largest population studies of its kind.

Ethical issues

The project (also known as the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children) has been given £3 million by the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council to collect the DNA from 25,000 parents and children at a new population genetics laboratory.

Professor Jean Golding, Professor Marcus Pembury, Professor Michael Furmston and Professor Alastair Campbell will be addressing the practical and ethical issues involved. Professor Jean Golding said:

"The benefits of creating a national databank of every newborn baby could be "enormous".

Speaking ahead of the conference she said: "The idea of collecting DNA from every child as they are born needs to be thought through carefully to make sure that the information can't be misused.

"But provided the proper safeguards are in place the benefits to everyone could be enormous. Just imagine if your doctor had access to your complete genetic profile."

Genetically-related illness

She Said:

She said DNA profiles could help doctors reduce the risk of heart attacks or diabetes or any other genetically-related illness.

Sir John Sulston, founder director of The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and vice-chair of the HGC, was also due to attend the conference at Bristol's Marriott Royal Hotel.

The Government proposal to screen babies at birth was part of a £50 million plan for the NHS to exploit advances in genetic science.

Mr Reid also said he intended to introduce new laws to make it an offence to test a person's DNA without their consent.

Taken from the Daily Express 13th May 2004

Blood Taken From Newborn Babies Without Parents Consent

May 24th2010

BLOOD samples from millions of newborn babies are being stored without their parent's knowledge, it emerged today.

In a sinister example of Britain's slide into a Big Brother society, hospitals have admitted storing the blood samples of four million newborns during routine heel-prick tests.

Babies DNA In Secret Vaults

Official guidance says the samples should be kept for at least five years, but some hospitals have been storing them since 1984. The disclosure of the secret database’s existence prompted calls for an official inquiry into why the information is being stored in such a covert way.


theilluminatifiles comment...

Here we have two separate mainstream news articles that are 6 years apart. In the 2004 article above, government proposals to take DNA from newborns were being debated by top scientists. Yet in an article printed in May 2010, it was exposed that the government had been secretly taking DNA from the heel-prick test of newborn babies and storing them in secret vaults, as early as 1984.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that something is slightly amiss here and the only question is, who is fooling who? The press or the politicians? The fact is that the agenda of the elite has been known by those who have been diligent enough to put the pieces together through studying eugenics based government papers and associated propaganda. The fact that the government have been taking DNA from newborns and storing it in secret databases since 1984 comes as no great surprise whatsoever. Of course, in this context, the word 'government' is used, more as a knowing euphemism to mean the 'controlling elite', rather than the government themselves, who are nothing more than figureheads for the country they represent, and simply rubber-stamp legislation that the controlling elite want them to implement.

Of course, it would not be realistic to suggest that every member of the mainstream press or even every politician, for that matter, knows of the existence of an elitist network and is privy to or part of the deception. There are those however, both politicians and journalists, who know only too well what the real agenda is.

However, despite any prior knowledge of an elitist agenda, by either journalists or members of the government themselves, a fact is a fact, is a fact, and the fact remains that the government have been taking and storing the DNA of new born babies since as early as 1984. Yet, amazingly, there is no outrage expressed in the article from 2010. There is no mention of the human rights of both the child and its parents being violated. There is no mention or investigation into the legality of such action, let alone the ethical implications therein.

The question, that you the reader, needs to be asking; is why does an article appear in 1994 that seeks to inform the public that genetic scientists 'are debating' whether or not to take the DNA of all children at birth, when those same genetic scientists must surely know, that DNA is already being taken, albeit covertly behind closed doors? Moreover, the article claims that the debate is taking place in response to a White Paper, released by the then, Health Secretary, John Reid over a year earlier. This is clearly a lie as they are debating something they know they have been doing for years as opposed to something that they want to do.

The reason for this article is merely to test the public reaction to such a proposal, so that they can do legitimately and lawfully, what they have been doing and know they have been doing for years. This article is nothing more than a sales pitch for you, the reader to ponder. In the 2010 article, Professor Jean Golding is quoted as saying, "the benifit of such a database would be enormous" and "just imagine if your doctor had access to your genetic profile?". As if having your genetic information stored on a database, will aid your average GP in treating you in any way, shape or form. This is pure fantasy on the part of Professor Golding and shows that either she is lying or seriously out of touch with her minions in the medical profession.

Firstly and foremostly, your doctor cannot treat you or diagnose any condition that lies outside the boundaries of his/her scope, which is very limited. If your doctor suspects you have a more serious condition, he/she will always refer you to a specialist to either, confirm any initial diagnosis or to find a diagnosis by way of further tests. Secondly, the reality is that doctors don't have the time to sit and access a database and it's clear that the vast majority of them, don't even sit down and read the medical notes before the patient arrives. Doctors are so hard pressed for time and doctors surgeries are so full, that their only aim is go get rid of the patient as quickly as possible. Sadly, we live in an age where the role of the GP has been, for all intents and purposes, designated to nothing more than a glorified sales person on behalf of the multinational drug companies.

Lastly, one must be aware of the underhand psychological tactics employed by the mainstream media. Firstly, both these articles were tucked away within the depths of their respective papers. The 2010 article should have been front page news, considering the outrage and sinister nature of the collection and storage of DNA without the perons consent or in this case, the consent of the parents. This, however, was not the case and together with the fact that the collection of DNA from newbords was touted as being ptentially a 'good thing' as opposed to a sinister and underhand move, tries and clearly succeded, in sofening the blow and dampering any rightful indignation that the story should have brought.

Had the 2010 article been front page headlines, that in and of itself, would have been enough turn public opinion against such a move and produce anger and indignation in the vast majority of readers. As it was, the article seemed to come and go without so much as passing thought and any sinister reprecussions of such a plan were never mentioned. Having such a DNA database would be the dream of any multinational drug company or life insurance salesperson, and it goes without saying that the existence of such a database is worth billions to these companies. Unfortunately, todays news papers become tomorrows chip paper and with all the destractions that are available in our modern society, anything else in between is lost or stored in the dark recesses of ones mind, never to see the light of day again. However, in the end money always speaks louder than ethics, just ask the British and American governments.

Navigational Links

Paypal Donate

Turn off your TV
Click Here To Donate Supported Credit Card Logos - American express, Matercard, Visa debit Visa Credit, Maestro and others

Banking The Greatest Scam on Earth

The American Dream