(NaturalNews) The era of pre-birth genetic screening of babies has commenced. Doctors at University College in London have produced what they called the "world's first breast cancer gene-free baby" by screening a baby for the BRCA1 gene, which they claim causes breast cancer. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7819651.st...)
That announcement is saturated with so many medical myths, it's difficult to know where to begin. For starters, the idea that the BRCA1 gene causes cancer is pure hogwash. There's no such thing as a gene that causes cancer by itself. The truth is that environmental factors such as exposure to cancer-causing chemicals in foods, medicines, personal care products, pesticides or other industrial chemicals causes the expression of the cancer gene. Without all that toxic chemical exposure, the gene never gets expressed in the first place.
And it gets even better: You can eat raw broccoli sprouts or other cruciferous vegetables and suppress the BRCA1 gene so that you never grow cancer tumors at all. Thus, the patient has complete control over the expression of their genes based on their diet and environment, and there are literally hundreds of different foods that have an anti-cancer effect: Cruciferous vegetables, onions, garlic, red wine, green tea, raw cacao, omega-3 oils, and of course a whole universe of anti-cancer herbs and superfoods.
This doesn't even mention the effects of vitamin D and exercise on the BRCA1 gene, both of which also suppress cancer.
But modern medicine -- which is largely based on marketing-motivated quackery -- wants women to believe they have no control over breast cancer and that it all comes down to your genes, not your choices. That's the little trap they set for women, stripping them of their power and condemning them to a lifetime of medical "treatment" that just happens to earn outrageous profits for the drug companies.
Welcome to the new era of eugenics
So now we have a new era being unleashed where babies born with the BRCA1 gene are going to be considered "defective" while babies born without the gene will be considered "superior."
This is leading us into a dangerous new mindset where babies will be condemned as second-class citizens from the moment they're born simply because they carry a gene that the corrupt medical system mistakenly believes is a causative factor for some disease.
The relevant movie to watch here is GATTACA (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/), a film that depicts a future society where your genes determine every opportunity you have in life: Your job, you income, your social standing and much more.
GATTACA is a smart movie that sends a highly relevant warning message: If we begin to profile babies for their genes, then we are heading down a slippery slope of defunct medical ethics that could ultimately lead to a new division between the "genetic upper class" and the "genetic lower class."
The next class war could very well be based on genetics, and parents will fret over the genetic makeup of their children, choosing to abort babies that don't have the "right" genes, even if those babies are perfectly healthy. And then we'll have medical companies offering to manipulate the genes of the fertilized egg, promising to give parents a baby with blond hair, or a high IQ, or a thin physique...
It's just what we need, huh? A whole society of genetically-selected supermodels running around society, thinking they're superior because they've been genetically designed by scientists who think they're God.
These gene-pushing doctors mistakenly think they can determine the future of a human being by manipulating the genes of the fetus. It's no surprise, after all: Most conventionally-trained physicians believe in outright determinism, thinking that there is no such thing as a soul, or free will, or a spiritual reality of any kind. You're born with genes, you "play out" your predetermined fate recorded in those genes, and then you die and that's the end of everything. It's a deeply pessimistic, deterministic point of view, and yet it's the view that's held by the vast majority of western doctors.
The real truth is that while genes certainly have potential influence over a person's health, it is the environment (foods, health habits, exercise, exposure to chemicals, etc.) that is the far more important factor in determining what happens to an individual's health. I can take a room full of a thousand BRCA1 gene carriers and show every one of them how to live a life 100% free of breast cancer through simple, safe and low-cost methods that are available to everyone.
Modern medicine refuses to do that. Because despite all the grand technology, the manipulation of human life and the arrogant playing God that takes place daily in the minds of western doctors, there's one thing they still haven't figured out how to do: Tell the truth to a patient about how they can prevent cancer, regardless of their genes.
Modern medicine is a huge technical success and a complete humanistic failure. It offers the most impressive technology in the world and puts it into the hands of the most ethically-deficient professionals who are so pessimistic about the nature of reality that they don't even believe in the existence of their own souls.
And do you really want scientists who don't even believe in the existence of the human soul to be playing God with your baby's genes?
It should also be noted, by the way, that this whole process of "gene screening babies" involves testing the embryo at the eight-cell stage (when conception has already taken place and the baby is beginning to grow), and then throwing away any embryos that don't fit the desire genetic profile.
In effect, the gene screening of babies involves the systematic destruction of viable human embryos that could grow into full-fledged babies. This opens up a whole new debate on the issue of abortion, of course, and I'd like to hear your comments on all this. Simply post your thoughts in the comment section below.
The key issues are: At what point is the genetic screening of a baby going too far? Most people might agree, for example, that screening for major birth defects is acceptable, but is it acceptable to screen for things like blue eyes and then toss out the embryos that don't carry that gene?
What will happen in the future of society if the gene screening of embryos becomes socially acceptable and is embraced by parents?
What are the risks posed by a race of beings that engages in routine genetic selection? (For example, might be lose biodiversity? Might the BRCA1 gene have another positive purpose that doctors haven't identified yet?)
Should humans be genetically engineered to insert new traits? Larger brains? Stronger muscles? Bigger boobs? (Parents could actually order up a boob job on their daughter before she's born!)
Think carefully about this one. It's a hugely complex sociomedicalethical issue.
In addition to his lab work, Adams is also the (non-paid) executive director of the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center (CWC), an organization that redirects 100% of its donations receipts to grant programs that teach children and women how to grow their own food or vastly improve their nutrition. Click here to see some of the CWC success stories.
With a background in science and software technology, Adams is the original founder of the email newsletter technology company known as Arial Software. Using his technical experience combined with his love for natural health, Adams developed and deployed the content management system currently driving NaturalNews.com. He also engineered the high-level statistical algorithms that power SCIENCE.naturalnews.com, a massive research resource now featuring over 10 million scientific studies.