Scientific American Advocates Government Violence to Finance Planned Parenthood

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JUNE 7, 2012

One of the most effective forms of violence is that which isn’t noticed or felt, and in that regard, government has all the accolades. Often, the existence of big government is justified by its supporters based on the idea that it is a government’s duty to take care of the needy, or to provide services to people who cannot pay for those services themselves. The problem arises when the government, or anyone else for that matter, initiates violence against citizens and coercively forces them to do what they would not do if left to decide: Fund and support a large, out of control government bureaucracy. One of the services government is strongly involved in today is sexual education and contraception methods, which in the United States are largely provided by Planned Parenthood.

The organization was founded by known eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who a century ago began — well intentionally perhaps — to offer birth control services to women who she believed might not have had access to them. But Sanger’s supposed well-intentioned initiative changed for the worst, as she later became a confessed anti-humanist. Her thoughts about the need to reduce world population and to do it by stealth through government-sponsored healthcare programs is documented through her books and speeches.

At the start of her adventure as a defender of women’s health, Sanger rationalized the need to provide contraception on the idea that if it wasn’t for those services, women would have to go through painful dark ally abortions which in many cases they would have to execute themselves. She also thought that the education she provided to women would help them deal with reproduction and unwanted pregnancies. But Sanger’s idea of safer pregnancies and abortions changed radically as she became influenced by colleagues and mentors.

Her little clinic grew exponentially until it became what we know today as Planned Parenthood, an institution well connected with known eugenicists like Bill Gates’ father, William Henry Gates, Sr. Gates Sr. was a lawyer and a philanthropist who admittedly founded and later funded Planned Parenthood. Gates Sr. shared Sanger’s desire to reduce the world’s population, first in the US and then the rest of the world. Today, just as Gates Sr. did in the past, Bill Gates Jr. channels money to Planned Parenthood and other eugenics projects through his foundation, the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation, which just as many other philanthropic organizations is tax excepted. Planned parenthood itself was born out of the American Eugenics Society.

Back in 2003, Bill Gates Jr. admitted that his father was the founder of Planned Parenthood, which had been founded on the concept that human were “reckless breeders” and “human weeds”. In later interviews, such as TED conferences, Bill Gates openly spoke about reducing the world’s population in order to curb what he said was planetary collapse. In later events, Gates told a group of teachers and workers that denying healthcare to the elderly could translate into hiring more teachers, to which the audience applauded and cheered. Bill Gates & the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are now heavily invested in other eugenics operations such as genetically engineered food. The total amount of their investment reached $23.1 million in Monsanto stock. In a previous purchase, Gates bought Monsanto stock for another $360,000.

Bill Gates is also invested on another giant of the biotechnology industry known as Cargill. South Africa-based watchdog the African Centre for Biosafety reported about Gates’ investment with Cargill to develop a project to “implement the soy value chain” in the country of Mozambique. Gates is well-known for funding aid programs in Africa, where most of his projects involve sterilizing women and conducting vaccination campaigns. Given the harm that genetically engineered crops causes on people and animals, it is more than suspicious that Gates invests so heavily in two GMO companies.

Where does Scientific American fit in all this you may be asking? Apparently, the editorial board at the magazine is one of Planned Parenthood’s strongest supporters, and they’ve made it clear on an opinion piece published on June 1, 2012. According to the editorial, Planned Parenthood is under attack by conservatives and Republicans in Congress, who, they say, threaten women’s lives because of their intention to defund the eugenicist organization. But Scientific American did not stop at pointing out the supposed attack on women’s health, the article actually called for the enforcement of taxpayer funding to maintain Planned Parenthood open and providing abortions and other services to women who in their opinion cannot have access to a doctor. After quickly mentioning the so-called political attacks on Planned Parenthood, Scientific American goes on to say that most of the negative ideas about the organization are wrongly founded of its image as an abortion provider. This misconception, it says, is wrong because Planned Parenthood’s abortion only account for 3 percent of its services. That is a lie which will be explained later.

After attacking people who oppose Planned Parenthood’s funding with taxpayer money, the article praises the organization for its hard work saying:

“Stripping Planned Parenthood of federal funding would also sacrifice the 97 percent of its public health work that has nothing to do with abortion, from which many people benefit directly. One in five American women have used the group’s services, and three out of four of its patients are considered to have low incomes. In 2011 it carried out tests and treatment for more than four million individuals with sexually transmitted diseases. It supplied 750,000 exams to prevent breast cancer, the most common cancer among U.S. women. And it performed 770,000 Pap tests to prevent cervical cancer, which was a leading cause of death among women before this screen became widely available. Planned Parenthood is one of the most important public health care institutions in the country, even aside from its work in rational family planning.”

They conveniently leave out important information which again, will be explained in detail in the following paragraphs.

The most important fact is that Scientific American advocates for the government to tax citizens in order to fund an institution that not only does not need the money, but also wastes public funds that could be used to actually improve women’s lives. Planned Parenthood does not need public funds because as we mentioned before it is heavily subsidized by tax exempted foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the Bank One Corporation, The Boston Globe Foundation II Inc, the Buffett Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Freddie Mac Foundation, the William H. Gates Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and dozens of other ones. See the complete list here. Groups like the Buffett Foundation donated almost $5 million during 5 fiscal years in a row. Most of those monies allocated to finance Planned Parenthood are sent to it through legalized tax evasion schemes which are maintained because of the Foundations’ supposed philanthropic work.

Many of the services pointed out by the magazine and its editorial board are often fake. For example, according to an article on the Weekly Standard, Planned Parenthood lied about providing mammogram services. The article tells how activist Lila Rose’s from Live Action confirmed in a video, that Planned Parenthood actually didn’t provide mammograms. However, the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecille Richards insisted on CNN that if Congress defunded the organization, they wouldn’t be able to provide such services. So not only does Scientific American supports a eugenicist organization, but also helps cover the lies spoken by Planned Parenthood’s representatives, because the article published on June 1, does not mention anything regarding the fraud, eugenics or lies coming out of the institution.

In a separate case which was also ignored by Scientific Magazine, the organization “Students for Life of America” released an undercover video of a nurse at a New Jersey Planned Parenthood facility admitting that some babies survive abortions even in advanced stages (22 weeks into the pregnancy).  “It does happen,” the nurse said. Another common occurrence is the cover ups of sexual encounters between under age girls and adult men when these girls go to a Planned Parenthood office to get an abortion. In a video obtained by Eyeblast.tv, the lack of care or complicity of Planned Parenthood is put out in the open. In the same video, the nurse admits that cases of infanticide take place at the clinic. She explains that although it is not a common thing, “Usually, for the most part no, but it does happen.  It’s an actual delivery,” she says, “but it wouldn’t be able to survive on its own, so eventually the baby does die.”

For parents who are worried about their children’s well-being there are more bad news when it comes to Planned Parenthood’s actions. In an article published two days ago by CBS Los Angeles, the writer reveals that the eugenics supporting organization just opened a clinic at Roosevelt High School, in the Unified High School District, where it intends to offer its services to teenage girls. This would be just a bit less concerning if California had not approved a mandate that allows schools to vaccinate children without their parents’ consent. Girls will not be able to accept vaccines such as HPV and others that Planned Parenthood offers to women in its clinics.

The move by this organization to set up a clinic in this school, will likely be repeated in other areas of the state as well as other states, where parenting rights are quickly eroding in the hands of bureaucrats that allow organizations like Planned Parenthood to indoctrinate young women and men. “Students can visit the on-campus health clinic to get free birth control, pregnancy tests, counseling and screening for sexually transmitted diseases – the first program of its kind in the country, according to the Los Angeles Times,” says the article. Groups like Planned Parenthood are doing such a great job at brainwashing youngsters into trusting them and not their parents that many teens now don’t believe it is a good idea to tell talk to them about sex, pregnancy, abortion or similar matters. Here is a typical example: I don’t think I would tell my parents, because I feel like they would look at me as someone who’s already messed up – like early in my life, and I’d feel like I was a disappointment.”

Despite these and other examples of what Planned Parenthood actually does, Scientific American strongly supports its work saying that the organization’s family planning programs has benefited society in numerous ways. “It has saved lives, opened new horizons for women and kept populations from soaring. As a major provider of contraceptives—it furnished birth control to two million Americans last year—Planned Parenthood serves as “America’s largest abortion preventer,” says the article, citing the Chicago Tribune. The magazine the says that “access to birth control in the U.S. has helped narrow the income inequality gap between men and women by as much as 30 percent during the 1990s alone. The pill has given women greater choice about when to have children, freeing them up to acquire career skills.”

For the sake of argument let’s assume all this is true. It seems Scientific American condones the ‘great work’ conducted by Planned Parenthood which has undoubtedly contributed with the death of over 55 million unborn children in the United States. The argument that the world would be overpopulated if Planned Parenthood didn’t exist is weak and just pure speculation. So is the idea that women could not have turned successful had they not been helped by the foundation ran and funded organization. But the lies don’t end there. Let’s see what else Scientific American doesn’t say or covers up in order to make Planned Parenthood look good.

The claim that Planned Parenthood’s abortion accounts for only 3 percent of its activities is deceiving. How do they make it so? For example, back in 2006, Planned Parenthood completed 289,750 abortions, which added up to  approximately 23% of  all abortions in the country. That made the organization the largest of such procedures  in the United States.  More surprisingly, although abortion in the US continue to drop, Planned Parenthood’s sponsored abortions keep on increasing every year. This information comes from a report issued by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

While Scientific American, the Washington Post and Planned Parenthood officials say that abortion account for only 3 percent of the procedures, therefore trying to imply that such a service  is not the main reason for its existence, reality says otherwise. The deceit comes from the fact that every time that a woman visits Planned Parenthood to receive counseling, pregnancy advice, contraception guidelines or help with an abortion, each visit is counted separately, instead as a group of visits from the same patient which in many cases end up in an abortion. Since the abortion procedure is only done once, the numbers on abortion services are compared with a stack of other visits which make it seem as only a small part of Planned Parenthood’s work.

However, it is just a matter of looking a little closer to see the trees for the forest. In 2006, for example, Planned Parenthood’s services were provided to 3.1 million clients, which added up to 9 percent of the total. In this case the figures are three times what they claim. Another misleading statement often told about the greatness of Planned Parenthood is that it provides a safe way for women to have abortions, which in itself is a risky procedure. Since 1973, when abortion was made legal, thousands of women have died during and after being submitted to an abortion procedure. Many of these women died at Planned Parenthood clinics. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, a Planned Parenthood facility personnel failed to realize that one of their patients who came in for help had a vaginal infection. The clinic did not offer any treatment and the patient died a few days later. Her name was Edrica Goode a 21-year-old woman from Riverside California. Planned Parenthood was accused by Edrica’s parents for malpractice.

Another fact left out by Scientific American is that although publicly Planned Parenthood says it rejects racism, the organization was founded by a eugenicist that believed that certain people and ethnicities of people were undesirable. In fact, Planned Parenthood affiliates often set up shop in or near poor neighborhoods, where most of the people are black, hispanic of belong to other minority groups. Even though blacks only account for about 13 percent of the american population, 37 percent of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood are done on black women. Author Robert L. Zangrando explains in his book The Reader’s Companion to American History, that more unborn blacks are killed at Planned Parenthood clinics than those who were murdered by the Ku Klux  Klan in their entire history.

Planned Parenthood is not the clean dedicated organization that the Scientific American article intends to paint. In fact, it is controlled by the Planned  Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which extends its tentacles through the work of 97 affiliates all over the United  States. Those affiliates are in charge of opening clinics in communities around the country; many of them as we said, in poor neighborhoods or schools. Its affiliates operate some 880 facilities. Besides the United States, Planned Parenthood also operates in 17 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, three of the poorest regions of the world. In many cases, Planned Parenthood creates partnerships with governments of local medical organizations to provide abortions, contraception methods and supposed medical advice to patients.

Additionally, the Planned Parenthood Federation uses its Action Fund Political Action Committee (PPFAPAC), to lobby the US Congress on keeping abortion unrestricted by law, and well funded with taxpayer money. That may be part of the reason why Congress refuses to defund this organization despite the fact it is supported by private initiatives such as money streams from philanthropic foundations, which are already tax exempted. Annually, Planned Parenthood’s budget amounts to over $1 billion. At least a third of that budget is provided by US taxpayers. Planned  Parenthood reported an income of $100 million for surgical abortions in  2006. If that is not a sign that abortions are a business in the United States, I don’t know what it is.

All this information proved meaningless to Scientific American, so they still decided to publicly endorse the work performed by Planned Parenthood. With all this information, it is not hard to see where the future of humanity would walk towards if it was in the hands of Planned Parenthood and its eugenicist financiers. In fact, this organization may just have gotten a new tool in its battle to kill more unborn children. In an article published by the London Telegraph, writer Stephen Adams reveals how scientists will soon be able to supposedly test children for some 3,500 ‘genetic defects’. This new technology, according to Adams, may spur a new era of murder through abortions under the excuse of preventing ‘genetic disorders’. The idea that humans are defective from birth is one of the most popular sickening premises to carry out eugenics programs all around the world.

Before concluding, let’s be clear that it is absolutely unjustified to call for government-sponsored violence against its citizens in any way, shape or form for the sake of supporting any initiative created by government or any other group. Taxation is one of the clearest forms of violence conducted by government throughout the history of humanity, and it is even worse when the money stolen from the labor of citizens is used to finance well-known eugenics programs and institutions like Planned Parenthood. As for the decision of a woman to have an abortion, she is free to do it or not as this decision will directly impact her health — for the worst in most cases. It would be hypocritical to propose the use of force against women to prevent them from having an abortion or any other procedure if that is what they desire. The problem arises, as emphasized before, when governments force citizens to provide funding for abortions, which is proven to be biological murder, if the citizens do not willingly support such initiatives.

If private organizations want to endorse and provide financing to organizations like Planned Parenthood, it is their right to do so, but don’t ask to be exempted from paying taxes while everyone else is forced to pay them in order to finance the murder of unborn children. If private citizens are interested in financing abortions, they can donate their money to Planned Parenthood directly, or give it to the globalist foundations who will gladly accepted. Forcing the whole population to finance a eugenics is like asking citizens to shoot themselves twice on the head.

The Gates are Open to Forced Sterilization

By SUSANNE POSEL | OCCUPY CORPORATISM | MAY 13, 2012

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was created over a decade ago. They have been responsible for vaccine programs across the globe.

The Gates Foundation is focusing on controlling population in poor countries with drugs like Depo-Provera. By pouring funding into the supply chains and relationships with the pharmaceutical corporations, they plan on bringing this drug to the developing world.

Melinda Gates has made this issue her personal mission. Gates announced her new emphasis on contraception in a staff meeting to a room full of applause. The Gates Foundation is teaming up with the British government in raising $4 billion to fund their birth control agenda worldwide by 2020.

Melinda Gates would like to see her agenda turned into a global movement. “When I started to realize that needed to get done in family planning, I finally said, OK, I’m the person that’s going to do that,” she says.

By calling her mission “family-planning programs” Gates hopes to shift the focus of their agenda from their plan to secure a coercive population control strategy.

Gates justification for her invasive presence in the lives of women and children in poor countries is that 100,000 women die in child birth from unintended pregnancies.

The global family planning issue is been carted as a national security issue. Gates is purveying the rising birth rates in poor countries as an international over population situation. They are using a fear-mongering assertion that population instability leads to vulnerability to communist revolution.

In the 1960’s Dwight Eisenhower, who has an honorary member of Planned Parenthood, called for foreign aid for birth control to curb population growth. In 1965 President Lyndon Johnson implored the United Nations to “face forthrightly the multiplying problems of our multiplying populations … Let us act on the fact that less than $5 invested in population control is worth $100 invested in economic growth.”

The United Nations created the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) to use population control as a resolution toward facilitating peace, prosperity, and individual rights worldwide.

Melinda Gates hopes to continue the empirical authority in forcing countries to adhere to ideologies and change the general public’s perspective about population control by calling it “women’s rights” issues. “There is no controversy in raising your voice for equal access,” Gates said at a TEDxChange talk.

“If [Gates] wants to put money into it, that’s fine, but she doesn’t get to say no one gets to argue with me,” says Susan Yoshihara, director of research at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. Yoshihara feels that Gates attempt to equate family planning programs to women’s rights issues is painting an inaccurate picture. “You don’t tell a woman dying of an ectopic pregnancy that she should have used a female condom. To say that we’re going to help women not die in childbirth by telling them that they shouldn’t get pregnant in the first place, I think, borders on scandalous.”

The Gates Foundation is currently funding research for the development of new forms of contraceptives with the intention of purveying them across the underdeveloped countries where their oversight is not closely regulated. The Gates Foundation wants to investigate the use of a contraceptive that does not utilize hormones, calling it a potentially “whole new class” of drugs.

They are also envisioning an implantable device that can completely override a woman’s natural ability to conceive. Gates believes that this type of birth control would greatly benefit the world’s populations.

Bill Gates Favors Death Panels and Vaccines for Depopulation

by Theodora Filis
UK Progressive
February 16, 2012

When Bill Gates, founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which provides vaccines to third world countries, promoted decreasing the population of the world and favoring the ‘death panel’, it shocked many people. Bill Gates believes that “instead of spending millions of dollars on old people who just have months to live, the money should be spent elsewhere, where it can actually benefit people”.

Two years ago, the Microsoft billionaire, unveiled his mission to reduce the world’s population through vaccines during a TEDx presentation. As Gates rambles on about CO2 emissions, and its effects on climate change, he injects without pause, that in order to get CO2 to zero, “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero.” He then goes on to describe how the first number, P (for People) might be reduced.

“The world today has 6.8 billion people”, said Gates, “that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

In January 2010, at the Davos World Economic Forum, Gates announced his foundation would give $10 billion (€7.5 billion) over the next decade to develop and deliver new vaccines to children in the developing world.

For those who haven’t figured it out, the primary focus of the Gates Foundation is vaccinations, especially in Africa and other underdeveloped countries. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a founding member of the GAVI Alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccinations and Immunization) in partnership with the World Bank, WHO and the vaccine industry. The goal of GAVI is to vaccinate every newborn child in the developing world.

How could that be a bad thing? Sounds like noble philanthropic work, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, the vaccine industry has been repeatedly caught forcing dangerous (unsafe, untested or proven harmful) vaccines onto Third World populations – vaccines they cannot get rid of in the West. Some organizations have suggested that the true aim of the vaccinations is to make people sicker and even more susceptible to disease and premature death.

 

Back in May of 2009, The London Times reported that some of the “richest people in the world met in New York to discuss their favorite causes”. The group, which included such notables as Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, George Soros and Michael Bloomberg, decided, during that meeting, their money would best be spent on reducing the world’s population.

Read Full Article…

Bill Gates Finances Insane Geo-Engineering Programs

by John Vidal
The Guardian
February 8, 2012

A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.

The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a “plan B” for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of international research.

Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial: while some climate scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow global warming, others fear that when conducted in the upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and interfere with the earth’s climate.

Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space,except for small-scale scientific studies.

Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy.

“We will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure that choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant amounts of money through a choice to modify climate, especially using proprietary intellectual property,” said Jane Long, director at large for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper delivered to a recent geoengineering conference on ethics.

“The stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to deal with the social, ethical or political issues that geoengineering raises,” said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace. “The idea that a self-selected group should have so much influence is bizarre.”

Pressure to find a quick technological fix to climate change is growing as politicians fail to reach an agreement to significantly reduce emissions. In 2009-2010, the US government received requests for over $2bn(£1.2bn) of grants for geoengineering research, but spent around $100m.

As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of official reports into future use of the technology. Branson, who has frequently called for geoengineering to combat climate change, helped fund the Royal Society’s inquiry into solar radiation management last year through hisCarbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.

Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, are the world’s two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run theFund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (Ficer). Nearly half Ficer’s money, which comes directly from Gates’s personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.

Read Full Article…

Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Released in Brazil, Malaysia…

Concerns are raised about the GMO mosquitoes which cannot be re-called.

When did the governments ask their citizens about releasing mosquitoes?

By Andrew Pollack
NYT
October 31, 2011

Researchers on Sunday reported initial signs of success from the first release into the environment of mosquitoes engineered to pass a lethal gene to their offspring, killing them before they reach adulthood.

GMO mosquitoes are also intended to carry out mass vaccination campaigns, as explained by Microsoft's Bill Gates.

The results, and other work elsewhere, could herald an age in which genetically modified insects will be used to help control agricultural pests and insect-borne diseases like dengue fever and malaria.

But the research is arousing concern about possible unintended effects on public health and the environment, because once genetically modified insects are released, they cannot be recalled.

Authorities in the Florida Keys, which in 2009 experienced its first cases of dengue fever in decades, hope to conduct an open-air test of the modified mosquitoes as early as December, pending approval from the Agriculture Department.

“It’s a more ecologically friendly way to control mosquitoes than spraying insecticides,” said Coleen Fitzsimmons, a spokeswoman for the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District.

The Agriculture Department, meanwhile, is looking at using genetic engineering to help control farm pests like the Mediterranean fruit fly, or medfly, and the cotton-munching pink bollworm, according to an environmental impact statement it published in 2008. Millions of genetically engineered bollworms have been released over cotton fields in Yuma County, Ariz.

Yet even supporters of the research worry it could provoke a public reaction similar to the one that has limited the acceptance of genetically modified crops. In particular, critics say that Oxitec, the British biotechnology company that developed the dengue-fighting mosquito, has rushed into field testing without sufficient review and public consultation, sometimes in countries with weak regulations.

“Even if the harms don’t materialize, this will undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the research enterprise,” said Lawrence O. Gostin, professor of international health law at Georgetown University.

The first release, which was discussed in a scientific paper published online on Sunday by the journal Nature Biotechnology, took place in the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean in 2009 and caught the international scientific community by surprise. Oxitec has subsequently released the modified mosquitoes in Malaysia and Brazil.

Luke Alphey, the chief scientist at Oxitec, said the company had left the review and community outreach to authorities in the host countries.

“They know much better how to communicate with people in those communities than we do coming in from the U.K.” he said.

Dr. Alphey was a zoology researcher at Oxford before co-founding Oxitec in 2002. The company has raised about $24 million from investors, including Oxford, he said. A major backer is East Hill Advisors, which is run by the New England businessman Landon T. Clay, former chief executive of Eaton Vance, an investment management firm.

Oxitec says its approach is an extension of a technique used successfully for decades to suppress or even eradicate pests, which involves the release of millions of sterile insects that mate with wild ones, producing no offspring.

But the technique has not been successfully used for mosquitoes, in part because the radiation usually used to sterilize the insects also injures them, making it difficult for them to compete for mates against wild counterparts.

Oxitec has created Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, the species that is the main transmitter of the dengue and yellow fever viruses, containing a gene that will kill them unless they are given tetracycline, a common antibiotic.

In the lab, with tetracycline provided, the mosquitoes can be bred for generations and multiplied. Males are then released into the wild, where tetracycline is not available. They live long enough to mate but their progeny will die before adulthood.

The study published on Sunday looked at how successfully the lab-reared, genetically modified insects could mate. About 19,000 engineered mosquitoes were released over four weeks in 2009 in a 25-acre area on Grand Cayman island.

Read Full Article…