IVF babies ‘risk major diseases’

The Sunday Times (UK) ^ | January 10, 2010 | Jonathan Leake

[Mrs. Don-o]

Scientists have discovered that the DNA of babies conceived through IVF differs from that of other children, putting them at greater risk of diseases such as diabetes and obesity later in life.

The new research could explain why IVF babies tend to be at higher risk of low birth weight, defects and rare metabolic disorders.

The changes are not in the genes themselves but in the mechanism that switches them on and off, the study of which is known as epigenetics.

“These epigenetic differences have the potential to affect embyronic development and foetal growth, as well as influencing long-term patterns of gene expression associated with increased risk of many human diseases,” said Professor Carmen Sapienza...

[Mrs. Don-o]

There are better, healthier approaches to infertility than IVF and other technologies which substitute lab processes for sexual union and conception. One is called NaProTechnology.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thought you might be interested.

[heartwood]

One possibility is that couples who are infertile may have naturally higher levels of epigenetic changes than the rest of the population, perhaps explaining the cause of their infertility.

Small study, 23 babies. Did they control for maternal age and health? What you'd really like to do is look at parents matched for age, health, and SES, and who ALL had difficulty conceiving - and compare IVF babies to those conceived after three years of trying, say.

[altura]

ping

[trumandogz]

Did the study say anything about the health of the Six or Seven babies that are washed down the drain in almost every IVF procedure?

[NonValueAdded]

And thus the seeds of the Butlerian Jihad were sown.

[DJ MacWoW]

Thanks.

[Domestic Church]

I miscarried for 13 years and then had 3 babies...eat sweet potatoes and take prenatal vitamins before you conceive!

[tbw2]

Wasn’t that traced to killing Serena Butler’s baby for population control, not genetic management?

[Marie2]

One wonders about the health of the frozen babies, as well.

[fight_truth_decay]

Yes, thank you for posting.

[NonValueAdded]

Yes, but for whatever reason a proscription against artificial insemination was one of the results (Dune Messiah).

[Wuli]

Again, the science of DNA (life?) continues to admit, in additional ways, that “the gene” alone is not the master of its own fate.

Also, I have often asked if, in as much as one reason couples do things like IVF is that they are having problem reproducing naturally; and therefore, given how many years IVF has been in use now, has there been any study to determine if some percentage of the people who were conceived by IVF have inherited the conditions that limited their parents reproductive chances. And the corollary to that is - if my first question proves correct, then is the whole artificial reproductive industry a self-perpetuating, and expanding industry - helping to “create” a supply of ready future clients?

[James C. Bennett]

I don't know how much this "study" can be taken as fact, because of the small size of the sample population.

Again, the science of DNA (life?) continues to admit, in additional ways, that “the gene” alone is not the master of its own fate.

The DNA of the infertile parents are somewhat off the norm in the first place. IVF merely enforces reproduction, usually over-riding the obstacles that occur in its achievement, without artificial aid.

That said, it is accepted knowledge that genes can be affected by behaviour:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/debate.html

[Mrs. Don-o]

Good point. I’d like to see a lot more information.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's so ironic. Infertile would-be parents (and my heart goes out to them) want babies and treasure life; and yet the whole procedure is based on the most radical dehmanization. IVF treats the conceived child as, at best, a "product" to be made --- maybe even made-to-order --- or, a "by-product" to be kept on ice, or tossed.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Congrats to you and your husband for your three babies! Mr. Don-o and I hit the jackpot with B-vitamins, Benedryl, and boxer shorts!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Very wise. Were they perhaps Catholics? Proto-Catholics? Crypto-Catholics? NINO's (Noncatholics In Name Only)?

:o)

[Moonman62]

I don't know how much this "study" can be taken as fact, because of the small size of the sample population.

The quality of the sample (is it unbiased?) is much more important than the size.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Good question. Another point to make is that IVF doesn't actually "cure" infertility: which is to say, people who were incapable of reproducing normally via sexual intercourse, remain incapable: the underlying cause is not addressed.

A true, morally unobjectionable therapy would identify and modify the underlying cause in order to restore sexual reproductive health and natural fertility--- not try to replace it with a laboratory process.

So strange that nowadays "sexual health" is used as a euphemism for a program of deliberately, temporarily or permanently, subverting normal sexual relationships and procreative processes.