Genetic Genocide: How misused Science Threatens Life

The problem with genetic modification of plants, animals and plants; cloning and splicing genes is not its existence, but the results of this unregulated practice.

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | OCTOBER 29, 2012

If you are partially or totally ignorant about genetically modified products, I will not blame you. In 15 years of research I have not been able to get a significant grasp on what genetically engineering humans, fish, soy, corn, milk and other products could mean for humankind.

When I set out to write this article my first challenge was how to present the information in a concise, yet shocking enough to wake up people who still believe that cloning humans for organ harvesting, splicing animal and human genes and making food out of human DNA or tissue is just science fiction.

I thought then, that the most appealing way to start off was to simply provide the headlines of some of the articles and documents I found during my research process, so that the readers had an immediate notion of what genetic engineering really means and how it affects them directly now and how it will affect them in the future. Posting the headlines will also facilitate the research for you and will give you the opportunity to do your own investigative work.

So let’s see what the headlines tell us.

Why the future doesn’t need us.

New Federal Guidelines Will Allow Creation of Human-Animals Chimeras

GM Food Dangers Include: Low Fertility, Organ Damage and Hormone Disruption

GM goat spins web based future

‘Spider-goats’ start work on wonder web

Transgenic fish could threaten wild populations

‘Trojan gene’ could wipe out fish

Chimeras, Cloning and Freak Human-Animal Hybrids

Bone marrow cell-mediated production of transgenic chickens Open

Part Human/Part Animal Hybrid Monsters Are Being Created By Scientists All Over The Planet

Human-rabbit clone announced and no noses twitch

The Case for Fertility Control Using Immuno-contraception

Endosulfan and Endocrine Disruption:

Human Risk Characterization

19 Studies Link GMO Foods to Organ Disruption

GMO Pesticides linked to birth defects, disruption of male hormones, cancer

On top of the fact genetic engineering is literally compared with “Playing God” with the building blocks of life, you should know that this widely exercised practice is almost completely unregulated. Furthermore, there are initiatives to promote its deregulation and to create legislation to exempt genetic engineering from all oversight. My question regarding genetic engineering deregulation was then: What would happen if scientists who are provided with unlimited money and resources have no legal liability to realize their experiments cloning humans and literally engineering new species?

Last time scientists were given unlimited funding and resources they manage to create things like the nuclear bomb, the hydrogen bomb, and nowadays, they are trying to imitate the origin of the universe with the already infamous Supercollider. We all know what happened when corporations and governments with no oversight got their hands on the first two pieces of technology.

When you think about genetically modified organisms it is always tempting to believe that such organisms are created and experimented with only in industrialized countries, where high tech labs are available. Maybe you think they are only held at research labs that belong to pharmaceutical corporations or public and private universities. What would you think if I told you that human-animal cloning, for example, is carried out in Costa Rica, and that this practice has been taking place for at least a decade there? It was reported in the Washington Post, which described discussions about human cloning among scientists:

“During one recent meeting, scientists disagreed on such basic issues as whether it would be unethical for a human embryo to begin its development in an animal’s womb, and whether a mouse would be better or worse off with a brain made of human neurons..”

So, hundreds of companies and governments are free to carry out genetic experiments in thousands of laboratories, mixing genes from several species, and are completely free to put it in food and water supplies across the planet with no oversight. That is the conclusion of the situation that we now face.

Evidence of Genetic Engineering, Cloning and Splicing

If you cannot or do not want to get into the heavy research, I am about to give you a detailed report on the state of genetic engineering, human-animal cloning and gene splicing.

Let’s start by possibly the most disturbing but not the newest fact. There are scientists out there splicing human and cow genes for the purpose of promoting the growth of human clones in cow wombs. Cloned humans and or animals would be “living drug factories by producing valuable pharmaceutical substances in their milk, or as organ factories because theirs will not be rejected by the human immune system.”

The reason for the cloning of humans and animals and the splicing of their genes is what I often cite as the sneaky treat of convenience. Sure, there is a need to find cures for all disease and to have organs available when people’s own rotten because they smoke for 40 years or drank their pension funds until the end. Would not it be convenient to have an organ bank, or a cure for lung and stomach cancer? Who would oppose to growing human fetuses in animal wombs, or extracting the organs of living animals or fellow humans to substitute our own? Convenient, right? Wrong.

In a farm near Reno Nevada, a farmer keeps sheep that hold human livers, hearts, brains among others. The “scientist” who is in charge of the experiment said he could not wait to see the effects the human cells had on the brain of the animal. He had himself injected those genes. According to the report from the Associated press, this kind of experiments fall within the new ethics guidelines that govern the type of “scientific research conducted at the farm.

In an article dated June 19 2011, The London Telegraph announces that pigs are now able to host organs from other species as “scientists have found they can create chimeric animals that have organs belonging to another species by injecting stem cells into the embryo of another species.” Another article from the Daily Mail advertises how pigs will serve as human organ farms. “Human organs could be grown inside pigs for use in transplant operations following pioneering research.” Then they launched the convenience hook again by saying that “The method would help reduce the risk of the transplanted organ being rejected.” This type of experiments will also allow animals to provide blood for transfusions whenever a patient needs it. So, the clone will be harvested for its organs and people will have on-demand organ transplantation.

The New Atlantis publication even dared to ask why wouldn’t be a good idea to use artificial wombs. The undated article claims that using human and / or animal cells or genes is a fairly new and imperfect practice. Probably the author ignores that this kind genetic manipulation has been discussed — if not applied — since the mid 1960’s. So there is nothing new here.

The Plan Behind Genetically Engineering Humans and Food

One aspect often ignored in the discussion of human cloning and genetic engineering, is the goals; the real goals these practices seek. Because believe, no matter how convenient it sounds, it is not for aiding humans live a longer, healthier life. Corporations and tax payer funded universities are researching how to enhance human and other forms of life because those who get to implement these technologies intend to have a humanless future. Does it sound insane enough? The article on The New Atlantis attempts to be positive about these experiments and related them to a brighter, healthier future for humankind. “Today, we have inched slightly—but only slightly—closer to perfecting the technology that would realize Haldane’s vision, albeit for reasons other than the eugenic improvement of the race.” The problem is, that is exactly where human genetic experiments originated and that is why they are still being carried out. If the future does not need humans to invent, design, construct, repair or reproduce, why would the world need humans? Mimicking human reproductive powers, as the author from The New Atlantis says, is named “ectogenesis” and has been tried for centuries.

Rather than expending all scientific talent and resources developing artificial wombs,” Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote recently, “I suspect that it will be much easier and cheaper to establish pregnancies with human embryos in other mammals, like cows and horses, than it will be to achieve the same thing using artificial uteruses.”

Although modern technology allows all kinds of experiments in medicine, food, water and even air, the overall goal is not and will not be to help humanity extend its presence in this planet. Most articles I found through my research present all kind of scenarios where genetic engineering would be applied for our benefit. From spider goats to human milk in cows’ utters,  genetically modified salmon, soy or corn, the applications seem to be endless. One of the most common responses when pro GMO people are questioned about the dangers of playing with life is that it will help feed the hungry or aid the poor.

But in practice, any and all life extension technology — as we see it now with electronics — only cause further degeneration of the human race. Through convenience, empty promises and what ifs, those who are empowered by their riches and political power want to use our own DNA to end human life as we know it.

In an article titled Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us, Wired magazine explores the possibility that humans will become a threatened species as more and more technologies turn us into useless eaters, as some globalists have called humankind. Humans who are ‘chosen’ to actually take advantage of the latest technology will merge with robots or become robots in what will become the next sentient creatures. As Ray Kurzweil, the inventor of the first reading machine for the blind writes in his book The Age of Spiritual Machines, those fortunate humans will gain near immortality by becoming one with robotic technology. But what will happen to the rest of us, or our children and grandchildren who will come after us?

What does the Genetic Engineering Threat Entail?

Simply put, the out-of-control insanity of modern science and biotechnology implies Genetic Genocide. Depending on where you obtain information, scientists and researchers coincide that the common denominator of genetically engineered forms of life is the end of current forms of life. According to researcher Jeffrey Smith, when lab animals were fed genetically engineered organisms, it resulted in complete sterilization. Such sterilization came in some cases in the second and third generations, but scientists also saw test subjects losing its capacity to reproduce during the subject’s life term.

William Muir and Richard Howard of Purdue University, Indiana, warned about a ‘trojan’ gene in fish which could wipe out natural forms of fish off the planet if GM fish are released into the wild or escape from farms. “This resembles the Trojan horse,” said Muir. “It gets into the population looking like something good and it ends up destroying the population.” Both Muir and Howard studied the use of human growth hormone in fish, which in now being used in laboratory experiments to make salmon grow bigger, faster while eating less feed. The researchers found that GM fish turned sexually mature faster than the rest and produced more eggs as well. According to a report from the BBC, professor Muir asserts that GMO fish “would enjoy the same reproductive advantages of a natural one, so the hGH gene would quickly spread through a fish population.”

Human Growth Hormone (hGH) is also put in the feed given to cattle and other farm animals which humans consume later. Coincidentally, both male and female humans have experienced physical development with girls getting to puberty at earlier and earlier ages, while boys have suffered from hormonal changes that many researchers associate with the feminization of a large portion of human males.

Other studies on genetically modified organisms show that its consumption results in problems such as low fertility, organ damage and hormone disruption. This last one is specifically important, because it is through hormonal disruption that some scientists have discovered how and why some men are beginning to lose interest in mating and some women choose same sex mates instead of men. In the study titled: “A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health the International Journal on Biological Sciences found that Monsanto’s Bt corn contributes to liver failure. All types of Monsanto-created GMO corn (Mon 863, Mon810, and NK 603) are approved by the FDA and labeled as safe for human consumption in the United States and Europe.

Other studies conducted using pesticides, revealed that these chemical products cause endocrine disruptions. Ingredients such as glyphosate, used in Roundup, increases the number of birth defects in animals. Birth defects include something called cyclopia, or the appearance of one single eye in the middle of the forehead. Additionally, glyphosate causes stillbirths and miscarriages.

A study conducted in Argentina, confirmed what older studies have found regarding the consequences of ingesting products contaminated with pesticides and herbicides. Andres Carrasco, head of the Molecular Embryology Laboratory at the University of Buenos Aires, presented a report that explains how Monsanto’s Roundup is responsible for causing infertility, sperm destruction, and cancer. Carrasco tested the effects of glyphosate on animal embryos and found that the chemical alters and impairs proper embryonic development. “I didn’t discover anything new,” said Carrasco, “I just confirmed what other scientists discovered… There is scientific proof and, above all, there are hundreds of affected towns [that] are a living evidence of this public health emergency.”

Recently, the UK Daily Mail reported on how scientist in England are experimenting with half human, half animal clones and how these experiments have been kept in secret. “The revelation comes just a day after a committee of scientists warned of a nightmare ‘Planet of the Apes’ scenario in which work on human-animal creations goes too far,” reads the article.

But the toughest cookie to chew is not any of these examples of human, animal or plant manipulations I have provided examples of. As mentioned before, nothing good comes out of corporations, governments, or for that matter scientists controlled by and / or paid for these two entities. The subject then, moves to bio-weapons. For the past century, at least, governments in association with the biotechnology industry launched a movement to produce biological weapons that were race specific. These bio-weapons would be used in war to wipe out enemy populations. What are the chances that those bio-weapons are used on all of us? Just about the same chances genetically engineered organisms have of making it to our food and water supplies. In other words, it is highly likely. As the link above exemplifies, former US Defense Secretary William Cohen described what he thought was the threat posed by certain countries that sought to develop “certain types of pathogens” that were ethnic-specific.

The infamous document titled: Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources describes how the establishment may seek to develop “advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes… …transforming biological warfare into a political useful tool.” No matter what human or animal disease you think about, rest assured that the establishment has thought of them all as possible biological weapons. Hemorrhagic fever, Ebola are two of those experimented upon weapons, which by the way were first tested on animals.

Aside from biological weapons, the more mundane genetic engineering that is supposed to benefit humanity is suddenly turning against its creators. Those tiny modifications performed to human, animal and plant genes, are not finding their ways out of human control and getting to other species. As reported on GM.org, scientists at Bristol University announced the discovery of a route, which genetically engineered organisms ‘jump’ through to invade the environment. This invasion, the scientists say could come in the form of infection or multiplication, no matter what barriers are set between species.

So if it is not from natural mutation or infection derived from some insane scientists “Playing God”, humans are threatened by establishment-created biological weapons that can be directed to specific races or ethnicities. Choose your poison. Either way, we have been and continue to be genetically engineered.

GMO foods and other chemicals are the origin of most allergies. Meanwhile, governments fight alongside with pharmaceutical and chemical corporations to ban any type of labeling of GMO ingredients in food. Most people do not even know that the meat they are eating comes from a cloned or cross species bull or that the milk they are drinking comes from a cloned cow. How could they? There are no labels!

The rates of once rare diseases such as cancer, diabetes, autism as well as allergies and other health problems are now going through the roof, and this has no other origin, as I have shown here, than the genetic Russian roulette game played by mad scientists who are supported by an out-of-control ruling class. The same people who experimented on children by giving them polio and syphilis, the same establishment that weaponized air borne Ebola and finances abortions in China; who tell us that family planning is the greatest tool for women’s independence are the same people that in the pursue of ‘human immortality’ are endangering our own existence.

This is what we know about the threat posed to humans by Genetic Engineering. This is what I know, anyways. Can you imagine what we do not know?

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Consulted Materials:

Life Magazine.Control of Life. 1965.

Wired Magazine.Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us. April 2000.

Organic Consumers Association. New Federal Guidelines Will Allow Creation of Human-Animals Chimeras. April 27, 2005.

Natural Living 360. GM Food Dangers Include: Low Fertility, Organ Damage and Hormone Disruption. May 30, 2011.

GMO.org. Scientists Discover New Route For GM Genes To Jump Species. March 4, 2011.

BBC. GM goat spins web based future. August 21, 2000.

The Telegraph. ‘Spider-goats’ start work on wonder web. Jan 18, 2002.

Purdue University News. Transgenic fish could threaten wild populations. April 2000.

BBC. ‘Trojan gene’ could wipe out fish. December 1, 1999.

Infowars. Chimeras, Cloning and Freak Human-Animal Hybrids. November 23, 2004.

Laboratory Investigation. Bone marrow cell-mediated production of transgenic chickens.April 25, 2011.

The American Dream. Part Human/Part Animal Hybrid Monsters Are Being Created By Scientists All Over The Planet.

Natural News. Phthalate warning: Medications contain chemicals that “feminize” unborn baby boys. November 17, 2009.

ABI. Human-rabbit clone announced and no noses twitch. August 26, 2003.

Lisa K. Chambers, Malcolm A. Lawson and Lyn A. Hinds. The Case for Fertility Control Using Immunocontraception.

Laura M. Plunkett, Ph.D., DABT Integrative Biostrategies, LLC. Endosulfan and Endocrine Disruption: Human Risk Characterization. June 23, 2008.

Dr.Mercola. 19 Studies Link GMO Foods to Organ Disruption. April 27, 2011

Dr. Leonard Coldwell. GMO Pesticides linked to birth defects, disruption of male hormones, cancer. April 28, 2011.

NPR. Cloned Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner?  January 16, 2008.

Consumer Affair. Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies. June 8, 2007

Birth defects in Iraq linked to weapons used by Western Militaries

By SARAH MORRISON | THE INDEPENDENT | OCTOBER 15, 2012

It played unwilling host to one of the bloodiest battles of the Iraq war. Fallujah’s homes and businesses were left shattered; hundreds of Iraqi civilians were killed. Its residents changed the name of their “City of Mosques” to “the polluted city” after the United States launched two massive military campaigns eight years ago. Now, one month before the World Health Organisation reveals its view on the legacy of the two battles for the town, a new study reports a “staggering rise” in birth defects among Iraqi children conceived in the aftermath of the war.

High rates of miscarriage, toxic levels of lead and mercury contamination and spiralling numbers of birth defects ranging from congenital heart defects to brain dysfunctions and malformed limbs have been recorded. Even more disturbingly, they appear to be occurring at an increasing rate in children born in Fallujah, about 40 miles west of Baghdad.

There is “compelling evidence” to link the increased numbers of defects and miscarriages to military assaults, says Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, one of the lead authors of the report and an environmental toxicologist at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health. Similar defects have been found among children born in Basra after British troops invaded, according to the new research.

US marines first bombarded Fallujah in April 2004 after four employees from the American security company Blackwater were killed, their bodies burned and dragged through the street, with two of the corpses left hanging from a bridge. Seven months later, the marines stormed the city for a second time, using some of the heaviest US air strikes deployed in Iraq. American forces later admitted that they had used white phosphorus shells, although they never admitted to using depleted uranium, which has been linked to high rates of cancer and birth defects.

The new findings, published in the Environmental Contamination and Toxicology bulletin, will bolster claims that US and Nato munitions used in the conflict led to a widespread health crisis in Iraq. They are the latest in a series of studies that have suggested a link between bombardment and a rise in birth defects. Their preliminary findings, in 2010, prompted a World Health Organisation inquiry into the prevalence of birth defects in the area. The WHO’s report, out next month, is widely expected to show an increase in birth defects after the conflict. It has looked at nine “high-risk” areas in Iraq, including Fallujah and Basra. Where high prevalence is found, the WHO is expected to call for additional studies to pinpoint precise causes.

The latest study found that in Fallujah, more than half of all babies surveyed were born with a birth defect between 2007 and 2010. Before the siege, this figure was more like one in 10. Prior to the turn of the millennium, fewer than 2 per cent of babies were born with a defect. More than 45 per cent of all pregnancies surveyed ended in miscarriage in the two years after 2004, up from only 10 per cent before the bombing. Between 2007 and 2010, one in six of all pregnancies ended in miscarriage.

The new research, which looked at the health histories of 56 families in Fallujah, also examined births in Basra, in southern Iraq, attacked by British forces in 2003. Researchers found more than 20 babies out of 1,000 were born with defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital in 2003, a number that is 17 times higher than recorded a decade previously. In the past seven years, the number of malformed babies born increased by more than 60 per cent; 37 out of every 1,000 are now born with defects.

Read Full Article →

Monsanto ‘Knowingly Poisoned Workers’

By ANTHONY GUCCIARDI | NATURAL SOCIETY | APRIL 11, 2012

In a developing news piece just unleashed by a courthouse news wire, Monsanto is being brought to court by dozens of  Argentinean tobacco farmers who say that the biotech giant knowingly poisoned them with herbicides and pesticides and subsequently caused ”devastating birth defects” in their children. The farmers are now suing not only Monsanto on behalf of their children, but many big tobacco giants as well. The birth defects that the farmers say occurred as a result are many, and include cerebral palsy, down syndrome, psychomotor retardation, missing fingers, and blindness.

The farmers come from small family-owned farms in Misiones Province and sell their tobacco to many United States distributors. The family farmers say that major tobacco companies like the Philip Morris company asked them to use Monsanto’s herbicides and pesticides, assuring them that the products were safe. Through asserting that the toxic chemicals were safe, the farmers state in their claim that the tobacco companies ”wrongfully caused the parental and infant plaintiffs to be exposed to those chemicals and substances which they both knew, or should have known, would cause the infant offspring of the parental plaintiffs to be born with devastating birth defects.”

The majority of the farmers in the area used Monsanto’s Roundup, an herbicide with the active ingredient glyphosate that has shown to be killing human kidney cells. What’s more, the farmers say that the tobacco companies pushed Monsanto’s Roundup on the farmers despite a lack of protective equipment. In other words, these farmers — many in dire economic conditions — were being directly exposed to Roundup in large concentrations without any protective gear (or even experience or skills in handling the substance). Still, the farmers say the tobacco giants required the struggling farmers to ‘purchase excessive quantities of Roundup and other pesticides’.

Read Full Article →

Cancer causing Dioxin in Meat, eggs and Dairy

by Cassandra Anderson
NaturalSociety
January 30, 2012

Dioxin is the most toxic man-made chemical known regarding damage to health and the environment.  The EPA has withheld a study about dioxin for decades in order to protect large industries that produce dioxin while manufacturing herbicides and pesticides, plastics, chlorine, bleach, and other chemicals.  In addition, industrialized agriculture (Big Ag) has pressured the EPA to withhold the report because dioxin becomes concentrated in animal products like meat, eggs and dairy.

The non-cancer portion of the EPA report is due out by the end of January 2012, with the cancer portion to follow at some unspecified date.

Dioxin is an umbrella term for a class of super toxic chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, liver disease, immune system damage and many other health problems.  There is no safe ‘threshold’ dose as our bodies have zero defense against dioxin, according to health consultant Jonathan Campbell.

Dioxin has a half life of over 100 years in the environment when it is below the surface or dumped in waterways.

Prior Dioxin Contamination

Monsanto and Dow Chemical were the largest producers of 2,4,5-T herbicide that created dioxin as a byproduct and was used as an agricultural herbicide before the 1950′s.  Monsanto, Dow Chemical and other makers of dioxin-contaminated herbicide 2,4,5-T produced 50 MILLION pounds of these chemicals per year for agricultural uses in the US!  Since 1947, more than 300 million pounds of dioxin laden 2,4,5-T was sprayed on more than 400 MILLION acres of US land, mostly on farms and agricultural property.

The 2,4,5-T dioxin-containing herbicide was later combined with 2,4-D to create Agent Orange for chemical warfare against Viet Nam.

Both Monsanto and Dow Chemical were aware, since the 1950′s, that German company Boeringer was able to produce herbicide 2,4,5-T without any detectable dioxin by slow cooking the chemical for about 12 hours.  But Monsanto and Dow ignored this information and cooked their 2,4,5-T batches in 45 minutes or less, thus contaminating the product with dioxin — presumably for higher profits.

Monsanto and Dow Chemical were also aware that dioxin caused health problems. Monsanto and Dow Chemical would go bankrupt if they were actually held accountable for their crimes against humanity and the environment. The herbicide 2,4,5-T was phased out in the late 1970′s.

Read Full Article…

Pregnant Women Being Dosed with Chemotherapy

by Christina Luisa
NaturalNews.com
August 24, 2011

In the world of medicine, the toxicity of chemotherapy drugs is widely known. They make your hair fall out, after all, and that’s on top of the muscle wasting, vomiting and overall health deterioration that chemo drugs admittedly produce. But now the insanity has reached a new low with doctors routinely prescribing chemotherapy drugs to pregnant women!

When a woman becomes pregnant, she is told to avoid alcohol, caffeine, cigarettes, sushi and other conceivable risks to the fetus. Almost every single medication and supplement has warnings that pregnant women should consult a doctor before use.

The utmost of concern is taken to ensure the protection of the unborn child. So does it seem reasonable that researchers claim that exposing pregnant women to chemotherapy (a deadly treatment that kills living cells) does not APPEAR to affect the fetus?

Though still fairly rare (the rate of pregnancy associated cancer is about 1 in 1,000 pregnancies), the incidence of pregnancy associated breast cancer is quickly on the rise.

It is becoming more common that pregnant women with breast cancer or other forms of cancer are being treated with chemotherapy despite the potential danger this is to the life growing inside of them. Doctors have even told pregnant patients they will die within a short period of time if they don’t get chemotherapy, without informing them of more natural and safe options for treating their disease.

New data from researchers at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center says that pregnant women treated for breast cancer supposedly do at least as well as non-pregnant women.

These results contradict earlier studies showing that outcomes were worse for pregnant women treated for breast cancer. Many doctors in the past have also recommended abortion, advising that chemotherapy could cause birth defects.

In a German study examining outcomes among 122 pregnant breast cancer patients, researchers concluded that pregnant patients can often be treated as aggressively as non-pregnant patients, with little evidence of ill effects to their babies.

These findings are said to prove that pregnant women who have breast cancer can be treated successfully without harming their babies. Abortion, the only other option that seems to be prevalently considered in cases of cancer during pregnancy is unnecessary.

Experts admit to being unsure about what is behind the new statistics but are apparently assuming the only important fact from the new research findings is the revelation that women treated while pregnant “do well.”

One more reason not to trust oncologists

Even if cancer is detected in early pregnancy, women are being advised that chemo is completely okay if it is put off until the second trimester, in order to minimize the risk of birth defects.

Studies have shown that the birth defect rate is as high as 20% when chemotherapy is given in the first trimester, but that this rate drops to around 1.3% when chemotherapy is given later in the pregnancy. This percentage is said to be on par with the national average.

Chemotherapy given after the first trimester “does not usually harm the fetus but may cause early labor and low birth weight.” Putting off chemo until the later trimesters is supposedly good reasoning because the first trimester is the most vulnerable period of a pregnancy, when vital organs are still forming.

However, what makes doctors and researchers think that this fact means the rest of the pregnancy does not also require extreme caution, especially when it comes to lethal drugs in large doses?

Pregnant patients are also recommended to receive the same drugs as non-pregnant patients in the same proportional doses according to weight. Chemotherapy treated patients usually get a combination of three drugs — fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide. However, it is clearly stated on Drugs.com that Doxorubicin can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman.

This type of barbaric cancer treatment and the potent drug regimen during pregnancy carries the possibility of having disastrous effects in many cases. How could this amount and form of toxicity possibly not have some sort of significant harm on the vulnerable cells developing into a tiny human within a mother’s womb?

Instead of referring pregnant women to natural cancer treatments that are entirely safe for their unborn children, oncologists are pushing them toward the “cure-all” of the corrupt cancer industry chemo. This means more money for them, but what about the children that will likely suffer due to the powerfully toxic treatments they were exposed to while in their mothers womb?

Questionable (uncertain) claims

It is being claimed by researchers, scientists, and doctors that chemotherapy has supposedly no detrimental effect on the fetus and that there is no increased risk of congenital defects in children who are exposed to chemotherapy during pregnancy.

The reasoning used for this is that the placenta acts “as a filter” for most of the products researched and “protects the fetus against the damaging effects of chemotherapy.”

New research is stating that some medications barely penetrate the placenta, while in cases of other drugs the same concentration is found in both the mother and fetus. Does this sound like convincing enough evidence that the fetus is protected from the harmful effects of chemo?

An article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology also claims chemotherapy administered to pregnant women during second or third trimesters for the treatment of breast cancer APPEARS safe for both the fetus and mother.

In fact, many of the articles published on similar research studies on chemotherapy during pregnancy claim that the dangerous treatment APPEARS safe for unborn children. This wording certainly sounds confident and sound.

Although it has been clinically proven chemotherapy and radiation therapy can cause changes in germ cell DNA, most such changes are claimed to “not be viable, yielding only a slightly increased risk of birth defects.” Only a slightly increased risk? Really? Even a New York Times article clearly stated that “Contradictions abound about just how chemotherapy affects babies in utero.”

The same article mentions how the FDA has established 5 categories for the use of drugs during pregnancy, with category A the only unequivocally safe one. Most chemotherapeutic agents fall into category D, meaning there is clear evidence of risk to the fetus.

The study that started it all

In 1973, a senior researcher at the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social in Mexico City named Dr. Agustin Aviles saw his first pregnant patient with leukemia. This woman became the catalyst for his revolutionary study on the effects of chemo while pregnant and the first of 84 patients who received chemotherapy during pregnancy between 1973 and 2003 (58 of them during the first trimester).

All 84 had acute leukemia, advanced Hodgkin’s or malignant lymphoma and were told by doctors that putting off chemotherapy for even a few days could kill both them and the unborn children in their wombs.

Among all 84 cases in his study, every fetus survived and 5.8% of them had birth defects — most of which were reported to be supposedly minor. In a follow-up study, Aviles examined 43 children born to mothers who received chemo from 1970 to 1986.

The children’s ages ranged from 3 to 19 at the time of his assessment and all were recorded to have normal physical, neurological and psychological development. Because of this study and other more recent ones, doctors have been telling patients they don’t have to make a choice between their lives and the life of their baby.

Although Aviles found that only 5.8 % of the babies of mothers who had undergone chemo in the first trimester were born with defects, other studies have found defects in the 14 to 19 % range when chemo is given in the first trimester. Even during the second and third trimesters, chemo is not risk free. Some studies clearly indicate that chemotherapy increases the risk of stillbirth, low birth weight and retardation.

Pregnant chemo patients are taking a potentially dangerous gamble

Most of the problems described in the babies exposed to chemotherapy in this minor study were said by a doctor to not be related to the treatment, but were “most probably due to other circumstances.” These circumstances were not specified, however.

Some of the problems recorded in the study included: alopecia, trisomia 18 (a chromosomal disorder which caused a baby to die one week after birth), necrotic enterocolitis (a severe bacterial infection of the intestine which caused a baby to die three weeks after birth), sepsis (blood infection), neutropenia (low white blood cell count) and anaemia. Few studies have followed the long-term development of children born to women who received chemotherapy during pregnancy.

Although growing numbers of doctors are recommending chemo as an option for pregnant women, many of these women are still refusing treatment unless they abort their fetus first. However, some women have stated that being pregnant increases their will to survive after being diagnosed.

This is a decision that clearly carries a lot of weight in many different ways, and the only person who should be responsible for deciding what is best for the baby is the mother carrying its life in her body.

Article that talks about risks of chemo during pregnancy: http://www.otispregnancy.org/files/…