Genetic Testing, Personalized Medicine, Stem Cell

nikki6278 wrote:Sounds like the Catholics are behind the stem cell issue. check out AVM

Advisors
http://www.avmbiotech.com/advisors.html

Thomas J. Van Gilder, MD, JD, MPH
snip
He spent over nine years in the U.S. Public Health Service at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and obtained a Masters in Public Health from the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Van Gilder is also an attorney specializing in intellectual property.

David Spellman, JD
Mr. Spellman is a shareholder with Lane Powell’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group. Mr. Spellman graduated with honors from Georgetown University Law Center in 1985

Debra Vinnedge
Ms. Vinnedge is the Founder and Executive Director of Children of God for Life, a pro-life outreach source championing the campaign for ethical vaccines. Ms. Vinnedge is a nationally recognized author and speaker and has provided written testimony for the Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) Congressional hearings. She has appeared on both local and national television programs, including Fox News Channel’s Hannity and Colmes, a nationally syndicated program focusing on current events and issues. She has been a guest speaker on several national radio broadcasts, including USA Radio, EWTN and Human Life International. Her work has been publicized in Our Sunday Visitor, New Covenant Magazine, American Life League’s Celebrate Life, the National Catholic Register, Human Life International Reports and numerous diocesan newsletters and periodicals. Ms. Vinnedge resides in Murfreesboro, TN and is an active member of St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church where she promotes and defends Respect Life issues. She has been married 33 years and has 2 children and 6 grandchildren.

“Personalized medicine” is the mantra of modern medical science, a popular phrase coined to describe an impending world in which patients are treated based upon their individual genetic makeup.

Q: The promise of personalized medicine is huge, but we’re clearly not there yet. Is it a question of science or something else?

A: We are only beginning to scratch the surface on personalized medicine because the technology for evaluating or stratifying individuals is expensive and not well-developed. The amount of information that will be collected and analyzed is enormous compared with our current capabilities. Deciphering a person’s genes is only a small part of the puzzle. Genes are important and will provide valuable clues to disease susceptibility in some cases, but there are many other ingredients in the mix, including the environment, the proteins expressed, how DNA is modified in cells, how metabolic pathways are altered. Many of these seem to be independent of our genes. Also, some genes are important only in specific subpopulations of people, such as Asians or people of Western European descent. A separate complete analysis of each group is needed before we truly understand the importance of a gene in a single person.

Q: There’s talk of $1,000 personal genome sequencing in three to five years. If that happens, how will that change things?

A: This information will undoubtedly have an impact on how we make decisions on health care and also how we can prevent disease. But remember, genes are only part of the picture. In some cases, such as with drug metabolism, understanding the genes might be sufficient to make informed decisions on which type of medicine to use or avoid. Complex human diseases are probably going to require considerably more information than the gene sequences to have a quantum leap in managing health and preventing disease.

Q: Five years from now, do you think we’ll still be asking and answering the same questions?

A: We will certainly understand more about our genes and how they interact with the environment. Certain risk factors, either environmental or genetic, will gradually emerge as important in health and disease. These advances will likely be incremental in the short run. The timeline for true breakthroughs will probably be measured in decades rather than years.

The Red Cross has a long history of thieving and stealing cash donations intended for disaster relief. Even as far back as the Korean War the Red Cross was plundering soldiers' mail and care packages. Some veterans have informed us that they would buy cigarettes from the Red Cross and find a twenty dollar bill or a note from a soldier's mother tucked into the pack.

More recent examples are plentiful. Families of September 11th victims were prevented from receiving half of the donations sent by well meaning citizens to the Red Cross for their aid. The recent Tsunami also was a great money-making opportunity for the Red Cross, which was very clear in its calls for donations of only cash, which would be much easier for the organization to funnel and launder and steal. Only recently have tsunami survivors begun to see a dime of the money collected on their behalf by the Red Cross.

The Red Cross is very adept at stealing money and looting mail. They have been caught innumerable times, but always allowed to get away with their schemes because the organisation is so tightly linked to the establishment. Libby Dole, wife of Senator and powerbroker Bob Dole, was for a long time the head of the outfit. It is an organization by and for the elite insiders designed to gather intelligence and steal from those who need aid.

The International Organization of the Red Cross is a secret intelligence agency that has acted as an arm of the British Intelligence Services since its inception.

If you want to help survivors of Katrina, do a little research and find organizations that you can trust or better yet, use available resources and work together with neighbors.

Red Cross Pocketed Half Of 9/11 Donations

CNN | January 3 2005

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Charities swung into action after the September 11 terrorist attacks, raising more than $1 billion. But questions are being raised about where and how and how much of that money is being distributed. Bearing the brunt Tuesday during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight panel was outgoing Red Cross President Dr. Bernadine Healy.

The Red Cross has raised more than $564 million for the Liberty Fund, which was set up in response to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. While the agency states on its Web site that it is spending more than any other relief agency responding to the terrorist attacks, it has distributed only $154 million.

Healy was hammered by one New York official for the Red Cross' decision to put aside nearly half of the money raised for future needs that may include terrorist attacks. "I see the Red Cross, which has raised hundreds of millions of dollars that was intended by the donating public to be used for the victims of September 11 -- I see those funds being sequestered into long-term plans for an organization," testified New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

Healy later told CNN the Red Cross was a service organization and that previous donations had prepared the agency to deal with September 11. "We had planned for a weapon of mass destruction attack," she said. "We knew our obligations under the congressional charter. We knew it involved victim assistance and sheltering. We knew that it involved with dealing with rescue workers. We knew that it involved blood." She also noted that some of the new funding went toward helping communities learn how to deal with other threats such as anthrax.

The hearing was contentious, with panel members trying to get at the issue of donor intent and whether the Red Cross misled donors. "What's at issue here is that a special fund was established for these families. It was specially funded for this event, September 11," said Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-Louisiana. "And it is being closed now because we are told enough money's been raised in it, but we're also being told, by the way, we're going to give two-thirds of it away to other Red Cross needs." The subcommittee asked Healy and her agency to provide the exact language of all of its television and newspaper appeals for donations. Healy said what the agency has learned is it needs to explain to the public the mission of the Red Cross. "Don't confuse us with the 9/11 Fund in New York. Don't confuse us with Habitat for Humanity. Don't confuse us with the scholarship in New York for the victims. We have to get that out," she said.

Controversy over the Liberty Fund was one reason Healy decided to resign at year's end. But she defended the agency's decision of how to use the money. "The Liberty Fund is a war fund. It has evolved into a war fund," she said. "We must have blood readiness. We must have the ability to help our troops if we go into a ground war. We must have the ability to help the victims of tomorrow."

A widow who lost her husband in the World Trade Center attack also complained to the panel that what money was available from various charities was tied up in red tape and confusion. "Why then haven't these charities been able to get together and agree on one uniform application? Why haven't they been able to get together and develop a quicker way for families to receive these funds?" asked Elizabeth McLaughlin of Pelham, New York. "We all have the missing persons reports, death certificates, and any other proof needed to avoid fraud. But the charities are not sharing these documents and information with each other," she testified in tears. She told the panel that she had to construct an 18-page spreadsheet to try to keep track of all the requirements of various aid groups. McLaughlin received a $27,000 check from the Red Cross, but fears she may still lose her house without additional aid.

The Red Cross said it has helped 25,000 families with food and temporary shelter, counseling and cash assistance.

[According to Bush, cash is all they want you to donate... see bottom of page to learn what agency is now going to oversee your charity money]

The traits that we inherit from our parents, physical and emotional, are derived from the genetic characteristics, or DNA, from both your mother and father. Simply stated, genes carry pieces of DNA found on chromosomes, which are located in the cells of your body. Genes can be dominant or recessive. Traits from dominant genes require only one copy (or one parent) for the trait to be inherited. Traits from recessive genes are rare because you require a recessive gene from both parents for that particular trait to be passed on. For example, free floating ear lobes (check yours out in the mirror!) are derived from a dominant gene and attached earlobes, from a recessive gene. Facial dimples from smiling are derived from a dominant gene, whereas no dimples is a recessive trait. Emotional or psychological traits that we inherit from our parents usually indicate a tendency towards a certain state of mind. What we do with those tendencies determine the actual outcome, or personality. Bottom line: the genes inherited from your parents determine your particular Genetic Destiny, and define who you are!

Acceptance of your Genetic Destiny is a healthy and realistic achievement that will allow you to be more confident and satisfied. This means that you acknowledge your body type and height, the intrinsic shape of your face, and your predisposition to have wide hips like your mother and broad shoulders like your father. If you are five-foot-two, you are never going to be five-foot-ten. If you have a delicate bone structure in your face, you are never going to look like Angelina Jolie (and getting your lips plumped will not make you look more like her!).