1. **NEW Mini Body Light** MBL1 - Orange & Red Light Therapy Mini Body Light
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Cholesterol Powder
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Pau D'arco Bark
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Metabasoap - Handcrafted Soap
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Cocoa Butter - Organic & Fair Trade Certified
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Orange & Red Light Therapy Device - LGS1
    Dismiss Notice
  7. Cascara Sagrada Powder From Farmalabor In Italy
    Dismiss Notice

DNA Of Every Baby Born In California Is Collected And Sold To Companies

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous Health Discussions' started by haidut, May 14, 2018.

  1. haidut

    haidut Member

    Recently, I posted a news article on the truly Orwellian push for collecting as much DNA data from as many US citizens as possible.
    Genetic Testing Companies Sell Your DNA, All Promise Of Privacy Is Bunk

    There were some angry comments in that thread that I am being overly alarmist and that there is no evidence companies are abusing or selling the DNA information they collect. Aside from the additional press coverage I posted in that thread that clearly shows companies' specific goals is to package and sell that DNA profile to other companies, this new article below now adds the (state) government as a player in that sick scheme as well. Apparently, in California the neonatal genetic screening test is mandatory and there is no way to opt out of it. Moreover, California is one state that keeps this data indefinitely and sells it to private companies, without much control of what is being done with that data once it gets into the private companies' hands. Finally, when legislation was proposed in California to make the neonatal test opt-in by default there war a furious response from the hospital and insurance lobby to keep it mandatory because those industries were concerned people will "stop supplying DNA data". I have suspected for a long time that hospitals are in on this scam somehow, especially considering the vicious response we faced from hospital legal (not medical) staff when both of our children were born and we refused to submit to the test. Luckily, in DC the test is still voluntary but that may not continue for too long. To make the story worse, as I mentioned in the thread above, there are several federal databases that collect this DNA data and store it indefinitely and also sell it to private corporations. So, even if laws are passed that ban/restrict this practice at the state level, whatever data is in the federal databases up at NIH is there to stay and be used by every insurance company out there, as well as by government agencies developing "predictive" policing software tools based in part on DNA profile. So, the only way to limit this sociopathic practice is to refuse to submit newborn babies to the test. I think there are very few states where the test is mandatory (still) so most new parents should have no problem resisting this thinly veiled DNA-theft campaign.

    California Biobank Stores Every Baby’s DNA. Who Else Has Access?
    DNA of every baby born in California is stored. Who has access to it?

    "...You probably know where your Social Security card, birth certificate and other sensitive information is being stored, but what about your genetic material? If you or your child was born in California after 1983, your DNA is likely being stored by the government, may be available to law enforcement and may even be in the hands of outside researchers, CBS San Francisco's Julie Watts reports. Like many states, California collects bio-samples from every child born in the state. The material is then stored indefinitely in a state-run biobank, where it may be purchased for outside research. State law requires that parents are informed of their right to request the child's sample be destroyed, but the state does not confirm parents actually get that information before storing or selling their child's DNA. KPIX has learned that most parents are not getting the required notification. We've also discovered the DNA may be used for more than just research. In light of the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook scandal and the use of unidentified DNA to catch the Golden State Killer suspect, there are new concerns about law enforcement access, and what private researchers could do with access to the DNA from every child born in the state."

    "...Some states destroy the blood spots after a year, 12 states store them for at least 21 years. California, however, is one of a handful of states that stores the remaining blood spots for research indefinitely in a state-run biobank. Even though the parents pay for the lifesaving test itself, the child's leftover blood spots become property of the state and may be sold to outside researchers without the parent's knowledge or consent."

    "...You do have the right to ask the biobank to destroy the leftovers after the fact, though the agency's website states it "may not be able to comply with your request." You also have the right to find out if your child's blood spots have been used for research, but you would have to know they were being used in the first place and we've discovered that most parents don't."

    "...Regulations require that the California Genetic Disease Screening Program to be self-supporting. "It has to pay for itself," Lorey noted. Allowing outside researchers to buy newborn bloodspots helps to recoup costs. According to biobank records, the program sold about 16,000 blood spots over the past five years, totaling a little more than $700,000. By comparison, the program reported $128 million in revenue during the last fiscal year alone, mostly generated by the fees parents pay for the test. Parents are charged around $130 on their hospital bill for the Newborn Screening Test itself."

    "...But while the state may not be making money off your child's DNA, Lorey admitted that there is the potential for outside researchers to profit off your child's genetic material. "Do any of those studies result in something that the company can make money from?" reporter Julie Watts asked Lorey in a recent interview. "Could they create a test or treatment that they ultimately profit from?" "Theoretically, yes," Lorey admitted. "I'm not aware of any cases that that's happened because virtually all, not all, of these researchers that have made requests are scientific researchers." He explained that researchers who request the spots must meet specific criteria. Their studies must first be approved by a review board. They're also supposed to return or destroy remaining blood spot samples after use. However, privacy advocates point to the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook scandal where third-party researchers were supposed to destroy data, but instead used it for profit – and untimely to attempt to influence a presidential election."

    "...Privacy advocates, like Consumer Watchdog's Jamie Court insist DNA is inherently identifiable. "There is no such thing as de-identified DNA," Court said. "The very nature of DNA is that it identifies you and your genetic code specifically." Court points to the recent case of the Golden State Killer. Investigators used public ancestry sites to identify a murder suspect using decades-old unidentified DNA from a crime scene. And we've learned, researchers aren't the only ones with access to the blood spots."

    "...While the newborn screening law was enacted by the state legislature, the authorization to store every child's DNA and sell it to researchers is actually in a separate regulation enacted by the Director of California Department of Public Health. It says that a child's "blood specimen and information," collected during a test paid for by the child's parents, becomes "property of the state." "Any tissue sample that is given in a hospital or any medical facility, once it's given, is no longer your property," Lorey explained. "You can agree with that or disagree with that, but it happens to be the law." In 2015, former California Assemblyman Mike Gatto introduced a law that would have initially made both the test and storage opt-in. It was strongly opposed by the powerful hospital and research lobbies, and after several revisions, it died in the Senate Health Committee."

    "...Researchers, on the other hand, oppose letting parents opt in to the storage too because they believe they would get fewer samples if parents had a choice. But, that doesn't seem to be the case in California."

    "...Though, for a more permanent fix, lawmakers in Sacramento would need to pass new legislation. We've shared our findings with several state lawmakers on the Assembly Privacy Committee. Many were shocked to learn that the state was storing DNA samples from every baby born in the state and selling them to outside researchers without parents' knowledge or consent. So far, however, none have shown any interest in giving parents the right to opt out of storage before the child is born, or even requiring the state to confirm parents are informed before storing their baby's blood indefinitely."

    Now, if all of the above was not already bad enough it turns out the neonatal genetic screening is next to worthless. I had to read this article below and confirm with several doctors before I finally believed my eyes and ears. The genetic screening test is correct on average only 1 out of 50 times there is a positive match! Yes, you read that right. If there is a positive match for specific disease (or more than one) the chance the child really has the disease is only 2%! And of course for some conditions the positive match is even less accurate. In light of this abysmal accuracy, there is no way to conceal or avoid the fact that all of these DANA databases and collection efforts are done exclusively for profit, to aid private industries and some government agency's unilateral wet dream of "total information awareness" (TIA, Total Information Awareness - Wikipedia) based in part on their citizens' DNA.

    "...Overall, perhaps only one in 50 of every “positive” newborn screening tests detects actual disease, estimates Dr. Philip M. Farrell, a professor of pediatrics and population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. But that average can vary widely.
    On average, for every 10 positive screening tests for cystic fibrosis, one child will actually have the disease, Farrell said. But for the disorder congenital adrenal hyperplasia — which can cause boys to enter puberty at age 2 or 3 — there are between 100 and 200 false positives for every child truly affected. “In my opinion, it’s just tragic that parents have to suffer and think about their child having a chronic illness when the child is perfect healthy,” said Audrey Tluczek, an assistant professor and psychologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Nursing."

    @lisaferraro @GAF
  2. Waremu

    Waremu Member

    What shocks me is how many people are so quick to trust our rulers. Sadly, history repeats.
  3. lisaferraro

    lisaferraro Member

    Crazy @haidut,

    Here is another article like yours above showing California law, that makes it patently clear also suggesting if your family has used 23andme or similar, you yourself are already hacked. Urrrgh :-/

    Your genome may have already been hacked

    Your genome may have already been hacked
    Norman A. ParadisApril 30, 2018 6.39am EDT
    What secrets will your DNA give away? Connect world/shutterstock.com
    On April 25, California law enforcement announced the possible capture of a long-sought serial killer. Shortly after, it was reported that police had used public DNA databases to determine his identity.

    This extraordinary event highlights that when you send off a cheek swab to one of the private genome companies, you may sacrifice not just your own privacy but that of your family and your ancestors.

    In a time of widespread anxiety over the misuse of social media, Americans should also be concerned over who has access to their genetic information.

    For-profit genome testing companies like 23andMe make money, in part, by selling anonymized genomic data. Many people may not realize that re-identifying genomes – that is, identifying an individual from their genetic profile – is a relatively straightforward process. In one study, researchers could re-identify five of 10 people, as well as their families.

    Humans share about 99 percent of their DNA bases with one another. The few differences that exist are often sufficient to figure out who’s related to whom.

    The genome has been something of a disappointment medically. Physicians generally can’t do much with the information that a given patient has, say, a 3 percent greater risk of dementia. But those data are potentially very useful to insurance companies and employers trying lower their risk.

    The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, a federal law passed in 2008, prevents insurance companies and employers from forcing people to undergo genetic testing. But it doesn’t necessarily prevent bad actors from using dark-web databases and advanced analytics to give themselves a commercial edge.

    There have been no reports yet of companies doing this. But we live in an age in which it seems the possible becomes probable on an almost daily basis.

    Members of Congress have already tried to remove some of the little genetic privacy protection that already exists. And companies have begun to offer genome sequencing as an employee benefit.

    The financial services industry offers a cautionary tale for the customers of the genome industry. Banks are highly regulated and supposed to provide state-of-the-art protection, yet they have been hacked.

    Compared to financial institutions, genome companies are lightly regulated. Eventually one or more of them will be hacked or even caught selling “risk profiling” services to third parties.

    With respect to police and prosecutors, the situation is somewhat different. In the end, they must submit their work to the courts. It’s possible that setting up a fake account on an ancestor DNA website, as the California police reportedly did, constitutes unreasonable search and seizure.

    Given the large financial rewards and the behavior of other industries, millions of American families should likely consider their genomic privacy as already compromised. If the genome of one of your relatives is in one of these databases, then essentially so is yours.

    In the uncommon circumstance that a whole family has not one member who has yet to send off a cheek swab, that family might want to consider opting out of this whole thing until society sorts out risks, benefits and privacy protections.

    Most people, however, will have to wait and hope they will not be harmed by a genomic revolution that has provided them with little benefit.
  4. x-ray peat

    x-ray peat Member

  5. OP

    haidut Member

    Awesome find, thanks! I think the above quote needs to be added as a quote on this forum's front page. Maybe @Amazoniac can make it happen?? And the link to the NYT article is even more eye-opening, in case anybody still had doubts about how useless genetic testing for disease really is.
    Genes Show Limited Value in Predicting Diseases
  6. OP

    haidut Member

    Wow, I guess mainstream media (MSM as Trump calls it) is really in very tight control of popular opinion considering nobody (even people working at federal scientific agencies) that I mentioned this DARPA project to has even heard about it. That probably means everything is working as planned...
    Btw, the dog in your avatar looks like a human if you conceal its ears from view. I like :):
  7. x-ray peat

    x-ray peat Member

    even the alternative media is controlled. We only know what they want us to know.
    The man-dog is unfortunately just another DARPA genetic experiment :)
  8. lisaferraro

    lisaferraro Member

    Hey @haidut,

    Check this out - yikes:


    A collaborative team of researchers from three major academic medical centers in New York City is showing that emergency contact information, which is included in individuals' electronic health records (EHRs), can be used to generate family trees. Those family trees in turn can be used to study heritability in hundreds of medical conditions.
  9. OP

    haidut Member

    Sad. I think it is fair to say very little science these days is in service to humanity. Peat may be right when he said the Western world may destroy itself out of stupidity and dangerous pursuits in the name of total control.
  10. x-ray peat

    x-ray peat Member

    Unfortunately it's not from stupidity. The western world and its focus on individual rights and freedoms is antithetical to total control and therefore is to be destroyed by design. China is the future model for the world. Take a look at their social credit reporting scheme to see how easily the State can get the individual to be their own jailer.
  11. OP

    haidut Member

    Agreed. But I don't think China has a safe grip on its people. Large authoritarian countries tend to collapse rather unexpectedly right when the world thought they are invincible. Historically, no empire has survived, and it seems they all follow the peak-bust model of stock markets, except that there is nobody to bail them out when the crash happens.
    The (financial) credit score system in the West has been used for a long time along similar lines. Low credit scores can prevent you from getting a job, residence, membership in organizations, insurance, and even relationship. There are even dating sites, which based most of their matching algorithm around similarity of credit scores of members.
  12. x-ray peat

    x-ray peat Member

    I hope that's true. However historically we have never had such a high level of propaganda/mind control combined with the technology to keep track of dissent as well as encourage conformity. I think it was Huxley who said that in the future we will learn to love our servitude.

    here is the quote; keep in mind he was an insider and a leader of the CIAs MK Ultra program
    “There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution”

    Aldous Huxley
  13. OP

    haidut Member

    That drug Huxley talks about already exists - the SSRI class. No other drug is known to induce such complete destruction of curiosity, love, wisdom, empathy, and interest in any matter of real importance. An older study from the early 1990s when SSRI drugs were first coming to the market found that people using SSRI have little interest in anything other than bland sitcoms. Not even sports, just sitcoms. Does that sound like people you know or have seen around you?
    SSRI Drugs Impair Judgment, Wisdom, Understanding, Love And Empathy
  14. x-ray peat

    x-ray peat Member

    yes very true but that is still a small part of society who takes them. Maybe the SSRIs are there to attack the more recalcitrant slaves and its is the other more mass deployed means to capture the rest of us; fluoride, TV, smartphones, EMFs, GMOs, vaccines, recreational drugs, hate, fear, hedonism etc. Soma is just around the corner.
  15. OP

    haidut Member

    There is no need to be prescribed SSRI. Everybody who drinks tap water or eats commercial food is exposed to these drugs in doses that are known to produce psychiatric effects.
    SSRI Make Organisms Demented, Violent & Homicidal, Even At Low Doses
  16. x-ray peat

    x-ray peat Member

    That's true. They also end up on our food as sewage sludge is the new fertilizer of choice. Let's hope plants can't absorb them.
  17. OP

    haidut Member

    Yes, they can and it negatively affects plant resistance to disease and pests. Same with insects and I suspect the recent issues with bees drying and crops being suboptimal is related to SSRI contamination. Serotonin is universally toxic to all organisms. The anti-dote plants use against serotonin? Salicylic acid (aspirin). It is a hormone in plants and increases resistance to all toxic assaults an stresses. Same seems to be true in humans. Note how all references to serotonin in the media are of the "happiness" hormone. In light of what Huxley said, I highly doubt it is a coincidence. No need to develop Soma, it is already here and has been since the 1990s.
    "...Inhibiting the production of the 'happiness' hormone – serotonin – in rice plants, increases their resistance to two of the world's most destructive and costly insect pests, new research has shown.
    The study, published this week in Nature Plants, shows that by suppressing the production of serotonin, rice plants become more resistant to their two most serious predators – the brown plant-hopper and the striped stem borer. Using gene editing techniques on rice plants to switch off the serotonin-producing gene, the team found the plants also produced higher levels of salicylic acid –  a chemical similar to aspirin. Conversely, adding serotonin to the resistant rice led to a loss in insect resistance."
  18. x-ray peat

    x-ray peat Member

    Governance by Total War. The layers of control are very thick.
  19. Ledo

    Ledo Member

    And Zionists have nothing to do with this?
  20. Badger

    Badger Member

    Oh Ledo, that's the wrong question to ask Mr Xray. Replace the word "Zionists" with "Jesuits" and you will have sent him the the right question. If you do, be prepared to receive 10 screens worth of endless rambling data "proving" his affirmative answer to your revamped question.