A film called GATACA. It's all about a society where people are pigeonholed because of certain genetic markers in their DNA. People with good genes (good being defined by the government of course)  are placed at the top of society while those with bad genes are placed at the bottom with no hope of ever being released from their pigeonhole regardless of how hard they work. It's like the caste system used in India. That is where we will find ourselves if forced or stealth harvesting of DNA is allowed. This DNA information could also be used by a fascist government to weed out the weak and infirm the way Hitler purged the mental hospitals when he took power. Picture in your mind a half dozen stormtroopers kicking in your door one day and dragging off your child with ADHD or autism or dragging you away even though you show no outward sign of any affliction but because you carry a bad gene that they want purged.

by Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 19, 2008 at 7:38:17 AM

  (0+)

Your analogy is correct.  The Manhattan Institute which has cleaned up its public personna over the last years, has been in operaton since the 1920's under various names.  They were actually the forerunner to Hitlers Eugenics program whcih is why, under Operation Paperclip our government secretly moved so many of their scientists here after WW2 so they could keep their programs going.

By the mid 60's, 37 states had forced sterilization programs and four still do. 

Where can I find this movie?

I will be away most of the day.....I'm one of those lazy liberals that has three jobs.....adn will look for your information later in the day when I get home.

I hope everyone uses their action button to contact their representatives, but Sue Jeffers here in Minnesota is on top of this and can help you a lot if you are looking for more information.

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 19, 2008 at 8:49:00 AM

  (0+)

As a genetics researcher, perhaps I can help you here.  I have never heard of researchers being allowed to ever claim "they own" someone elses DNA.  Have parents tried to contact the Minn. Health Department and ask their child's DNA be destroyed? If they can't do that, the reason is probably because after 45 days all identifiers that use to link their child's name to that DNA were destroyed and their sample is now probably one of hundreds of thousands in a big vault.  There is often a period of time after which if the subject (or parent in this case) does not ask for the destruction of the DNA, the DNA is re-labeled so it can not be linked directly to the infant from which it was collected.  Thereafter, the DNA may be used for other types of testing, like developing new genetic tests, sequencing the DNA looking for new variations in other genes.  Even cutting and splicing it so more copies of a specific region of the DNA can be amplified for genetic research.  However, at this point any information obtained is totally disconnected from the individual who supplied it. There should be no way to link the DNA to the infant anymore. This really isn't as nefarious as it all seems.  There is a lot we don't know about genetics and the availability of DNA from various donors can be extremely useful for making new discoveries. However, ethical concerns that have become a standard issue in Genetics make it mandatory that future testing or evaluation of DNA beyond its initial intended purpose must be done so any result can't be traced back to its original source.  Once the DNA is annonymized it is impossible to destroy a particular person's DNA if so requested without destroying every DNA sample collected.

I wouldn't get too concerned right now until you understand more of the specifics.  There are 26,626 genes in the human genome.  We know the starting, stopping and regions that are cut out of less than half those genes.  We know less than 1.5% of all the specific variations in genes that result in the gene product being altered.  DNA repositories are being used to better understand the some 10,000,000 variations in human DNA and to develop new improved testing methods for identifying that variation. 

I can assure you, no one is using it to clone new people, create a super race of humans or any such thing.  There is far too much we don't know to do that.  One can of course use the DNA for a DNA fingerprint, but that information is hardly of functional relevance, it is more like what it sounds like -- a unique collection of genetic markers that make one individual different from another individual. Without the patient identifiers, however, all that tells you is this DNA sample is different from that DNA sample. The DNA fingerprint has nothing to do with diesease or the GATACA story (which by the way is a pretty good movie, but far from our current abilities). 

It sounds to me like what has happened is people have not been told the whole story about what is going on and as a result some extreme ideas are arising with respect to what is really happening.

Homeland security and the FBI as well may actually be interested in large DNA collections to assess new and improved methods of identification of individuals.  These repositories of DNA are extremely valuable resources and certainly they are not necessarily being used for some diabolical plot to re-create eugenetics, which is widely appreciated throughout genetics to have been a foolish and pointless exercise in gene control.  Unfortunately, communication and understanding of these issues gets confused and warped because many facts are not fully explained to the public.  

I have been duped similarly by some of the 9/11 truth reports, half-truths, incomplete information and consequently wild accussations about a government plot.  Knowing what I do about genetics, I don't think you have as much to worry about as you think.  I would ask a few more questions concerning the de-linking of patient names with DNA prior to further use of DNA.  I would ask for specific information on what other types of things and DNA is used for and why they are using it for that.  I think you may find rather than uncovering something awful, the DNA is not just being discarded but is actually helping to advance our understanding of human genetic diversity in ways that will likely be helpful to future generations.  Good luck.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 19, 2008 at 6:27:25 PM

  (0+)

The Minnesota Senate was to vote today...I'm just home from work so have not yet checked on that to see what did happen.

You addressed a critical point.....but missed I think, the crux of the article.  Parents here are not advised to any great extent what they are signing.....if they sign anything at all.  No signed {opt-in) as required by our laws is now considered "presumed consent".  The law is not written as an "opt-out".

Parents here are not told about the additional testing along with the PKU, don't know about the 45 day written instruction to destroy the samples, and have had no idea except in cases when genetic disorder was found, that any such testing was being done.

A second issue is that insurance reps and parmaceutical reps along with business interests are bery present in these debates and discourse.....all claiming that test results will NEVER be used to discriminate against an individual.......and they want the program to continue as is and will be filing for access to the results.  Now why would they have any interest if there were not future plans for using this information adversely?  Look at the aids situation.  People routinely use phony names and id to get tested for aids, knowing that if the test is positive they are now unemployable, uninsurable.

The eugenics program has never died out....only become more efficient in covering its tracks.  The Manhattan Institute....a realtively new name for nearly a century old institution, has been involved in eugenics since before WW1...in fact it was their information that promted hitlers own eugenics holocaust.  After WW2, under Operation Paperclip...(just love these adult "cowboys & indians names) our own government secretly brought german scientists here to continue their "work".  This produced other operations such as "White Coat" to test theories, and to begin forced sterilization in 37 states which continued through the 70's in some cases.

Look into Monsanto's new creation of genetically modified corn being tested in Mexico......males eating the corn from these crops are rendered unable to reproduce.  Look at the GM food created that isn't fit for human consumption......that we don't know the long term affects of consumig these foods.....but which are sold daily all over the world. 

I would love to think that all the good work done with genetic research will be used for good purposes.  But knowing the history of governments, and those who have power, a tool of this nature will be quickly converted into one of human devastation. 

Thanks for your comments.

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 19, 2008 at 9:20:48 PM

  (0+)

You cannot make DNA anonomous......so there is no way to make it untraceale back to the original donor.  Destroying written identity does not destroy the DNA identity and with HSD compiling this database along with every other coutnry in the world........no one has any annonimity.

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 19, 2008 at 9:25:42 PM

  (0+)

Genetics research got a bad name for exactly these reasons -- lack of fully explaining the purpose of their work.  Please slow down a little.  You jump from what is happening in Minn. to Monsanto in Mexico to the Eugenics efforts, weaving them together into a conspiracy.  Let's just take the anonymity issue first.  Everyone who is tested should know precisely why they are being tested.  It is more than just PKU today.  There is Cystic Fibrosis which is even more common, Tay Sach's disease, fragile X chromosome, Muscular Dystrophy, Congenital deafness, etc..  There is a long list of crippling, life-long diseases that are inheritable and can be identified today by a genetic test.  Some are better identified prior to birth, others if identified after birth provide one a way to avoid some of their more serious complications.  These complications might otherwise not be caught early and may lead to longer term problems for the infant.  Thus, there is some value to the institution of genetic testing earlier in life. 

Next, everyone who works in genetics knows they have an OBLIGATION to talk with the patient (or the parent) if they discover something that could affect their health.  The precise language and discussion is straightforward when you know the relevance of what you have tested and found.  All genetic tests used clinically must be validated and the relevance confirmed prior to use clinically.  There are strict guidelines for the quality and interpretation of these tests that must meet Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA) specifications.  That information is likely to be part of the infant's medical record (which by the way is confidential and cannot be released to anyone other than the patient or their guardian without a court order).  It is protected information by LAW. There are additional regulations restricting access to that information in electronic form as well under the Health Importability and Protection Act (HIPA).  The goal is to protect you precisely from the things you fear most – unauthorized people or private concerns gaining access to your medical records as medical records go to Electronic formats.

Now, what about the anonymity issue?  Everyone should know that DNA is a valuable resource for research.  The goal of anonymity of DNA by removing all linkers that identified who provided the sample was arrived at by many people as a way of avoiding the ethical conflict of testing a DNA sample for something not initially described to the patient and finding they are at extreme risk for a disease like say Huntington's or Breast Cancer that won’t hit until middle age.  It was decided that if DNA was to be used for any further research, all links to the subject had to first be removed so the sample could not be traced back to the individual.  If something was discovered, there would be no way to know who the sample belonged to and the ethical dilemma of how to tell them would be removed.  This is why DNA that is kept for long periods is anonymous and untraceable.  If you think you can identify who the DNA came from with the best technology available and no other sample from the subject, good luck.  That would be an extremely costly effort and for the most part a pretty unproductive use of resources.There are many types of diseases tested.  PKU, Congenital Deafness, Fructose intolerance and even cystic fibrosis are examples of inherited diseases that can be treated at least to a certain extent and knowledge of a genetic pre-disposition to the diseases is a valuable medical aid.  Most disease that will be tested is disease that can be ameliorated to some extent by having that genetic information early. It makes little sense to test for a disease in which nothing you can do will help the patient. This is the reason genetic testing of newborns has increased, it can be beneficial. 

Are you aware of the cost (both financially and emotionally) for families who don't have answers for why their infant is always so sick?  Families have been unable to find out what is wrong with him or her and take them to multiple doctors.  Doctors have done unnecessary tests, operations or worse.  We are talking about some inherited diseases that have cost $500,000 to $2,000,000 to treat over the shortened lifetime of a child.  Disease complications that in some cases could have been completely avoided by earlier knowledge but because we didn’t know it wasn’t.  This isn't some nefarious scheme to steal someone's identity or to raise their insurance premiums --this is about decreasing the cost of medical care by earlier medical intervention.  Ten years ago, one third of all costs at children’s hospitals around this country were to treat children with inherited genetic disorders.  Those kids make up a small minority of the total child population, but they account for a major portion of child health care costs.  So yes, many insurers would like the state to test for these earlier because those costs could be reduced by knowing who is at risk earlier.  That does not mean insurers can access their medical records (they cannot).  It means, earlier, preventive care saves them money down the road and believe me, they are all for that.

I don't work for the insurance industry, but in academia and have no reason to support the goals of the health care insurance industry.  Frankly, I would like to see Universal Health Care because I think the health care industry has done a terrible job.  However, in this instance I think they are right.  Early knowledge, preventive efforts could improve people’s lives and make them better.  There is no question genetic testing to reduce and prevent health care problems is a cost effective investment.  It is unfortunate people think it is some terrible scheme to get their infant's DNA so that DNA can be used for something else.  I suspect, the outcome of these concerns may well be the destruction of all stored DNA so it cannot be used for any future research.  That will be a terrible loss for everyone involved in genetics.  It represents a failure yet again to provide an open and meaningful understanding of what the purpose really was.  Poor communication has led us again to misunderstanding and distrust.  This was exactly the same thing that happened to the genetic testing for sickle cell disease in African Americans.  Insufficient dialog and explanation led to suspicion and termination of what was meant to be a helpful medical program to inform African-Americans about their genetic predisposition to sickle cell disease.  They (like you) felt it was a conspiracy against them and the entire program was terminated.  It is sad to see the same thing repeated again, this time when it is meant to help infants and their parents.

May I suggest you talk with people on both sides of this issue before assuming one side alone provides you the whole unvarnished truth.  The lack of communication in this country has gotten so bad, everyone assumes the worst today and we no longer trust anyone.  Please, get all the FACTS before you draw conclusions.  Question everything, but don't close your mind to the obvious.  I have been in genetics for over 20 years and I can tell you it is not anything like what you think.  There are organizations that attempt to decide when genetic testing has advanced sufficiently to be a useful clinical tool.  There are Goverment regulations governing the performance of those tests.  There are typically local and state boards overseeing these efforts.  Many people want to see the benefits of genetics after all the money invested into the human genome project.  The hope is this could improve your quality of life, increase your length of life and reduce medical problems, not create more anxiety.  I guess there is still a long, long way to go before people really understand.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Mar 20, 2008 at 9:36:50 AM

  (0+)

This is all very true.......and it is what I referred to in the second paragraph of my column......about acknowledging the benefits of this kind of testing and and what a benefit it should be to all of us.

As for looking at "both sides"......believe me.......I write nothing that I haven't investigated thoroughly.  I don't care about "sides" of an issue.....I form an opinion of an issue based on what I have researched about it and always look at all available information whether I like it or not.

I addressed the Manhattan Institute after you mentioned that eugenics was somehow a thing of the past......it isn't.  I mentioned the Monsanto project and GM food only as examples of what is still being worked on as a result of the advances in genetic testing and alteration. 

I do not dispute the wonderful benefits of genetics research......no question that it is valuable and useful.  But!  My article was about how that testing and information is being used (misused) here in this state......and how insurance and medical reps along with business interests are trying to co-opt this info for future use and discrimination.  Also, the lack of informed parents......intentionally uninformed....about the extended use of unclaimed DNA.  And, about HSD's collection of this data. 

Genetic research is not the question or the problem..........it is how its being conducted and at what cost to individual privacy and the attaching of this info to some permanent record stored somewhere that will follow a child all of his life.........and with insurers, medical an business interests eager to use this info adversly.  

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:51:04 AM

  (0+)

Marti:  You have made some pretty strong claims.  Are you sure the DNA samples are not de-linked before being used for further testing?  That would be a clear violation of the code of ethics for genetics to be testing or using DNA for purposes beyond what it was originally intended without first making sure the samples anonymous.  What evidence do you have that the DNA is used for purposes other than research?  I am not questioning what you know or your efforts to find answers, only the veracity of some of the sources you may have.  Have you spoken with people who process the DNA and use it?  Have you asked to have them explain what they are doing with it?  Or, did the information on this come from a less reliable source?  I ask that because most people who actually use DNA have no problem explaining to people precisely what they are doing and why.  What safeguards exist to protect the identity of source of the DNA etc. 

It is probably true that people in the hospital did not fully explain what would happen to the DNA after it was collected.  That doesn't mean the purpose is a bad one, it means people aren't communicating well and that aspect does need to be improved.  Nurses and Doctors tend to look at this as just another medical test and forget people are very, very sensitive about something that identifies them in ways never before possible. I would focus on working to improve that communication with the public after you convince yourself something terrible is not really going on here.

The Manhattan Institute is a Conservative "Think tank".  The US has lots of these "think tanks" designed to foster a political viewpoint varying from Libertarian, to Conservative to Liberal.  I didn't find anything on their web site to suggest support of Eugenics.  I can assure you, throughout the scientific establishment, eugenics is widely considered a stupid, ignorant effort that damaged the field of genetics, not helped it.  No scientist worth anything would ever lend his or her voice or devote their careers to support any effort that fostered this pointless, reckless, idiotic effort to improve race or eliminate "bad genes".  Anyone who understands anything about genetics can tell you exactly why "Eugenics" was a total folly.  That doesn't mean some stupid moron somewhere doesn't exist who might support it.  After all we still have people who believe in creationism instead of evolution.  However, no capable scientist who has studied genetics would lend their support or voice to such a ridiculous effort.

The long term purpose of genetic information is to provide doctors with information that might help them treat chronic diseases better, select the most appropriate therapy and improve the quality of your health care.  That remains the dream of genomics, we aren't there yet.  However, everyone in genetics knows to accomplish that goal in a cost effective way, it is necessary to put the results of genetic tests into your medical record so that information can be re-accessed any time you get sick or for preventive care.  Imagine the cost if you had to re-test someone every time they went for a doctor’s visit -- genetic information would never be a cost effective clinical tool.  At the present time, family history of disease, cholesterol levels, smoking behavior, weight to body height, blood pressure which are all collected routinely and often as part of a medical exam by health insurers or life insurance companies are far better predictors of disease risk than most genetic tests are.  Insurance companies already use these for determining your insurance premiums.  The problem in the US is we still have private health insurance and the whole issue about their using this would disappear with Universal Health Care.  One of the many aspects that is unique to the American Health Care Field.  At this time, Insurance companies cannot gain access to your medical records or your child’s without your permission.  It is against the LAW.  There is always a potential for abuse and greater safeguards to prevent potential abuse are always welcome.  I would look to your state and work with them to make sure you are satisfied unintended access cannot occur.

I do know a little about Monsanto's and other genetically engineered plants.  The purposes have been to generate plants that are resistant to things like herbicides, so one can plant a field, spray it with herbicide to kill off the weeds without affecting the plants.  In other cases it is to increase the nutritional production of plants, make plants that can produce medicines more cheaply than bacteria do now and to make plants that can survive in more extreme environments. You might be familiar with one of some of these genetically engineered plants like those that is more resistant to flooding and are now being used in the flood areas of Bangladesh.  It use to be the entire crop would be wiped out by floods and now they have far more resistant crops that can tolerate floods. These efforts have been of varying success, and sometimes they have created new problems like food allergies.  I know of instances the genes responsible for resistance to herbicides that have been transferred to weeds, making the herbicides useless. These failures are always well reported in the literature because they affect how scientists must work in the future to prevent similar problems.   I have never personally heard of anyone reporting a genetically altered food resulted in sterility in men, ever.  I would check that resource carefully because that would be by far the most severe outcome of genetically engineered plants.  This sounds more like urban legend than verifiable fact since it would be HUGE news throughout the genetics literature if it were true. Believe me, genetics journals would jump at publishing such news.

In brief, I'm not responding to you to argue or trying to deny anything you have written, only to provide you with my own understanding of genetics and genetic research over the last 20 years.  Everyone is welcome to draw their own conclusions from whatever information they can find.  Everyone is welcome to their own opinions as well.  However, as Patrick Moynahan once said, "Everyone is not entitled to their own facts".  It sounds to me like there is a fairly poor understanding thus far between the public and the people who store and test the DNA what those "facts" are and it might be valuable to sit down with these individuals so you know a little more about what it is they do and why.  If the people are honest and have nothing to hide they should be more than willing to sit down and talk with you and answer your questions and address your concerns.  More often than not these problems arise from an incomplete understanding of what the real facts are.   I would keep an open mind until you at least have the complete answers to all your questions and then see what can be done to address your concerns.  No one in genetics wants a return to the problems of the past or worse.

Genetics and genetic research has suffered a lot from the Eugenics and other disasters like forced sterilization.  It would be a shame to have to destroy valuable DNA repositories because of misunderstandings about what they are used for or worse, terminate genetic testing for disease in infants and go back to the old hit and miss treatments of the past.  I don't think that is why the US public invested so much money to learn about human DNA.  We are just entering a new age when that huge investment just might start to provide us with some great rewards from all that work and effort.   I would hate to see it spoiled by poor communication at this point.  Be skeptical, but always keep and open mind.  I have found even in science, when people assume too much they make their greatest leaps of faith and often in the wrong direction.  Good luck.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:44:19 PM

  (0+)

You wrote: 

I can assure you, throughout the scientific establishment, eugenics is widely considered a stupid, ignorant effort that damaged the field of genetics, not helped it.  No scientist worth anything would ever lend his or her voice or devote their careers to support any effort that fostered this pointless, reckless, idiotic effort to improve race or eliminate "bad genes".  Anyone who understands anything about genetics can tell you exactly why "Eugenics" was a total folly.  That doesn't mean some stupid moron somewhere doesn't exist who might support it.  After all we still have people who believe in creationism instead of evolution.  However, no capable scientist who has studied genetics would lend their support or voice to such a ridiculous effort.

Current Genetics research was birthed from the Eugenics experiments financed by groups such as the Rockefeller Foundation: 

The eugenics of Hitler were financed to a major extent by the same Rockefeller Foundation which today is building a doomsday seed vault to preserve samples of every seed on our planet. Now this is getting really intriguing. The same Rockefeller Foundation created the pseudo-science discipline of molecular biology in their relentless pursuit of reducing human life down to the ‘defining gene sequence’ which, they hoped, could then be modified in order to change human traits at will. Hitler’s eugenics scientists, many of whom were quietly brought to the United States after the War to continue their biological eugenics research, laid much of the groundwork of genetic engineering of various life forms, much of it supported openly until well into the Third Reich by Rockefeller Foundation generous grants.2

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529

Thanks to these efforts we have GMO terminator seeds, and GMO food on our grocery store shelves that has been proven to be injurious to life.

Mouse tests and photos

http://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2007/uapr07.php 

Maria Konovalova provided photos of the mice under tests:

 

A mouse from the control set [fed] on a common vivarium [controlled environment] ration

A mouse from the sample group that ate isolate of GM soy within five months

These people have no philanthropic sensibilities:

Through the Green Revolution, the Rockefeller Foundation and later Ford Foundation worked hand-in-hand shaping and supporting the foreign policy goals of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and of the CIA.

One major effect of the Green Revolution was to depopulate the countryside of peasants who were forced to flee into shantytown slums around the cities in desperate search for work. That was no accident; it was part of the plan to create cheap labor pools for forthcoming US multinational manufactures, the ‘globalization’ of recent years.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529

Eugenics is alive and well, and financed by some very powerful people. It has simply gone underground and resurfaced with new names such as genetics and planned parenthood, and hides behind philanthropy.

by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:06:42 AM

  (0+)

Thank you for your post. With all due respect to you, the work you do and the time well spent on the posts, I am curious to know what, if anything, you can tell me that will convince me to believe what you wrote: why should we believe such sweeping generalizations you make, for instance:

I can assure you, no one is using it to clone new people, create a super race of humans or any such thing.  There is far too much we don't know to do that. 

To assume that no one is using "it" to clone "new people, create a super race of humans or any such thing."???

There are so many similarly worded statements that for me destroys any pretense of credibility. Where are the "facts" you advise readers to know, to be skeptical and to confirm the truth?

This does not impress me as written by someone with over 20 years in academia genetics research. In fact, a scientific mind would naturally write, after 20+ years in academia, in such a way that eliminates the possibility of using absolute generalities, such as: no one, everyone, should never, impossible. . .

Many people want to see the benefits of genetics after all the money invested into the human genome project. 

EGO attached to the outcome - which is precisely the reason I do not trust anyone mentioned in your comments, government, academia - there are too many people who have too much at stake, entire careers spent researching with the big prize just out of reach, it would get to be easier and easier to cut corners the closer one perceives they are to the goal, as they get closer and closer to retirement.

Wait until the public fully comprehends there is no money for pensions to fund retirement, because the obligations of the pension funds investments will or have already been wiped out by trades executed around the world, known as derivatives because the value is derived from the assets value.

As the credit unwinds the cracks in the edifice will crumble and grow until at some point the structure will just collapse.

Kind of like what happened to Bear Stearns last week - I don't care how rick you are, $2 bucks a share is almost nothing, compared to $90 the week before.

The payments mechanism worldwide - strained, stretched and finally it will just snap. When? Sooner than later, beyond that I don't know. I would be surprised if between now and November the status quo holds.

No one ever saved their way to wealth; losses wipes out billionaires and millionaires with equal ferocity, literally overnight. But if it was always paper the whole time, did we ever have what we thought we lost? Not to me, it was never there to begin with, so all I lost was aggravation. 

by Drew Terry (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 125 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:18:44 PM

  (0+)

You hit the nail on the head!  We have a legislature here that appears determined to open the door to insurance and business for future use of these results.  Thats the problem.  That , and the intentional or unintentional, (take your pick) lack of informed consent.

If the inurance industry was not present and vocal along with business interests, and parents were fully informed......this would not be such a big issue.

IF HSD was not collecting and storing this data (for what purpose?) I would probably not be concerned. 

The Manahttan Institute as I said earlier, has cleaned up its public personna quite a bit........actually reinventing itself to appear to be something other than what it was and most likely still is.  Refiguring yourself to become a "think tank" does not negate your purpose if that purpose has only been buried in other less offensive material.

Monsanto is now suing farmers who saved seeds from crops even if the Monsanto GM crop cross pollinated into a native or non-patented field.  They are doing this right here in the US in addition to South American countries.  The latest that I knew of was a farmer in Missouri. And then there is those pesky terminator seeds.......now there was a money making genetic invention!

I would have liked to believe that all of this is being done to increase production.......but Monsanto is a corporation with one duty.....to increase profits. 

Thank you for all your insight.  More things to think about.  But, until these privacy laws you mentioned are enforced and until the public is fully made aware of the entire program, and unless some one can come up with a way to rein in the insurance companies.......I see no hope for us regular people out here ever regaining our privacy.

Thanks for an intelligent conversation.

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:30:04 AM

  (0+)