Autism can be detected in womb

Source: Times of India

13 Jan 2009, 0010 hrs IST, AGENCIES

Close on the heels of a cancer-proof baby being born in UK, screened in the womb to exclude a cancer-causing gene, a new research raises possibility of prenatal screening for autism by potentially identifying the condition in unborn babies.

Scientists at Cambridge University discovered that high levels of testosterone in the amniotic fluid of pregnant mothers was linked to autistic traits in their children, the Telegraph reported on its website on Monday.
The findings raise the possibility of undertaking tests in the womb to detect the condition, which would allow parents the controversial ability to decide whether to terminate fetuses. Experts are now calling for a debate on the consequences of the screening process, called amniocentesis, which is already used to detect Down’s syndrome in unborn babies.

“If there was a prenatal test for autism, would this be desirable? What would we lose if children with autistic spectrum disorder were eliminated from the population?” professor Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the research team, was quoted by the Guardian as saying. “We should start debating this. There is a test for Down’s syndrome and that is legal and parents exercise their right to choose termination, but autism if often linked with talent. It is a different kind of condition.”

Experts from the university’s autism research centre discovered the testosterone link after studying 235 children from birth to the age of eight. They found that when high levels of the hormone were found, children showed autistic traits such as a lack of sociability and verbal skills by the time they were eight.


Read more: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Health__Science/Autism_can_be_detected_in_womb/articleshow/3970196.cms

n.t.

I think a woman is perfectly within her rights to abort for this reason, I just find it rather depressing that we live in a society that devalues the lives and contribution of people with disabilities.

My wife grew up in a high radiation area (near enough to Chernobyl to warrant amniocentesis). She knew of friends who have had downs children. The only one who was really happy had found Jesus thanks to the most obnoxious evangelical missionary I ever had the misery of meeting. (daddy ran away and she had no education...you know the rest.) Her life is dedicated to taking care of her child and going to church.

She seemed very troubled by the aspect of this happening to us...as was I. We told ourselves that we (her really) would have to make the decision if it came to that...but we wouldn't decide beforehand.

It's a nasty situation all the way around.

Little YOY is healthy, smart, and cute as a bag of beans BTW.

Sorry, just love to show her off!

:)

She is precious.

Congratulations.

I understand your dilemma. Like you, I had a dilemma, chose to take a chance, and had an excellent outcome.

I got pregnant for first time at 37, doctors suggested amnio to test for Downs, but also said there was a not insignificant chance of a spontaneous abortion.

I am very pro-choice, so that wasn't the problem. I just didn't want to risk losing any child at 37, so I did not have the amnio done.

My son is now 21, very high intelligence, majoring in the sciences, and a great kid.

Truthfully, a Downs syndrome child would have been a difficult adjustment (tho I think I could have done it, they are very lovable children), but the forces of nature did not have that in store for Mr. WT and me.

Our biggest concern was what would happen to our dependent child when we died. No one loves a child like the parents.

there are often special abilities or gifts that go along with autism or conditions on the autism spectrum. Are we ready to pass that by? Is being "normal" really so highly valued?

I suspect there's just a ton we don't know about autism and autistic people, and that more knowledge would go a long way toward alleviating the fear of this.

I work for a doctor who sees a lot of autistic kids, and every one of them is different as to what has caused the problem and what is needed to help them live with it.

There are no special gifts and abilities associated with autism. It is the most debilitating burden a family, a society can bear. Ask any parent of an autistic child, like me.

Sorry folks, the idea of wiping all neurologically different people from the face of the earth, quite frankly, freaks me the fuck out.

They start with that, next thing you know, it's going to be gays. A lot of people just want a perfect child.

Social model of disability, anyone? Might be a helpful context to look at issues like this.

We are risking the slippery slope of Eugenics and genocide.

My parents didn't know what to do with the autistic child in their family. Every day in his adult life is freaked: scant education, low job skills, poverty, sociophobic. Then when Mom dies, he's my problem.

Sorry, but those kind of opinions disgust me. He's a human being, not a "problem".

If so, then it should be the woman's choice, period. It's not up for us or anybody else to question why a woman chooses to abort her pregnancy.

Seriously, how would you go about that? Would you ban abortions that are for 'discriminatory' purposes? How do you do that? Do you make women fill out a questionnaire when they get an abortion? Do you impose a waiting period?

It's easy to say what you just said, but in reality, when a woman has the freedom to choose, how can someone else step in and decide which abortions should be allowed, and which ones should not? I'm not asking this to be rhetorical, because it's something that our society is going to have to face as genetic testing gets more and more advanced.

A woman can choose to abort or carry to term any pregnancy. Women abort healty fetuses every day.

You might wish to find a D.A.N. doctor in your area. They test autistic children and adults and often find digestion/metabolism problems that can be dealt with. We have a few young adults who are autistic who we have helped--no, they are not all independent with lots of friends, but their caregivers report that their behavior skills have improved, making their lives easier for them and those around them. It all really depends upon what exactly has caused the problem--but there is always hope.

I'm on the spectrum and my stomach and I are at constant war.

Last night I ate a piece of cold, cooked salmon and Craftgal was within 5 seconds of calling an ambulance before I stopped screaming let out a house-shaking burp.

to parents of autistic children:

We also often find a lack of a certain enzyme to activate vitamin B-6 so that it can actually be used by the body, or the enzyme that activates folic acid. Folic acid is found only in greens (foliage) which your child may not eat. Most of these children are pretty fussy eaters and have some sensory issues with foods. Most supplemental folic acid is not active – an enzyme is required called MTHFR (for short) to turn the folic acid into something the body can actually use. Some children on the autism spectrum have a mutation in this enzyme. Often the dipeptidase enzymes to help with digestion and utilization of certain foods are missing. There is a group of 4 enzymes called metallothionein’s – these enzymes help with the handling of toxic heavy metals, and the tolerance of gluten (from wheat, oats, barley and rye) and casein (from dairy products) in the gut. If certain other enzymes are missing, the child may be turning gluten, gliadin and casein into morphine like compounds in their body, which utterly disturbs a great many normal metabolic processes.
Because of the frequent huge disturbances in digestion, absorption and elimination in these children, it is very frequent that their body will have decided that certain foods are actually germs. When the child eats those foods, the body will create circulating immune complexes to these foods, which wreaks havoc throughout the body. It is as if the body in constantly running a low grade infection. This occurs in a condition called “leaky gut syndrome,” which I would encourage you to learn more about if you have not heard of it. Therefore, we will be checking your child for immune globulin G reactivity to foods (this is different from the normal “allergy testing” to foods, which involves immune globulin E).


We give food allergy (IgG type) tests to most of our autistic patients, along with Urinary Polypeptides (measures that morphine-like compounds formed from gluten, etc, described above), a complete stool analysis (which tells a lot about absorption, digestion, and inflammation in the gut), and other tests. It is amazing what can be done once the doctor figures out what is going on metabolically. You might wish to find a D.A.N. doctor in your area who could run these tests for you.

Ooo, I had IgG tests done. Following this diet makes me feel 100 percent better and did help with my behavior and IBS.

I was moderately reactive to baker's yeast, cow's milk, egg white, oysters, whey, and sugar cane. Really lucked out on the sugar cane. >_< I was the first person they had ever seen react to it.

I also showed low reactivity to whole wheat, wheat gluten, and wheat gliadin, so, I am doing gluten free as a bonus. My diet is...interesting. But, it beats being sick! I am much less puffy now and can breathe through my nostrils on occasion...and I don't act funny either...

A nutritional approach combined with other options certainly doesn't do any harm, FWIW

I've been discounting a lot of some of the crazier theories because the chemistry doesn't work.

I've already read about the leaky-gut problem in peer-reviewed journals.

I recently was having a LOT of intestinal problems until I figured out the timing. I seemed to always have incredble problems over the Christmas season. I had always considered it Irritable Bowel Syndrom from stress. There's something else that's always around during the Christmas season.

Egg nog. I drink it by the gallon. Then I get sick. Normally I barely drink milk and when I do get horrible stomach cramps.

I also have a sensitivity to noodle soups and most store-bought muffins. I also have to be careful of how much bread I eat. Tonight's meal was sloppy joes with hamburger buns. We'll see how that works out.

I used to hate eating breakfast because it would give me stomach cramps. I was fine if I only ate eggs but anything else would give me cramps.

Your typical breakfast:

milk

breads

wheat-based cereal

Go figure.

there is life after milk, wheat based products, and the like. I am on a low carb, low glycemic diet. Basically I can't eat grains or sweets. Since milk is high carb, I've gone off it as well. Our clinic has a naturopath on staff who helps with recipes, etc. Here's some she's given me that have helped me stay on my diet for over a year.

Breakfast frittata--

Cook up some onions, add other veggies of choice, then meat in a large frying pan. Add appropriate spices. Beat up six eggs with some almond milk (great milk substitute), pour over veggies and meat. Cover and cook about 20 minutes, or until eggs are set. Divide into four portions, eat one for breakfast now and save the rest for the next few breakfasts. The variations on this are endless. I've made it with peppers and tomatoes and Italian sausage, and with chicken strips, bean sprouts, peas, and water chestnuts (in fact, I'm eating that right now.) This breakfast fills you up and "sticks with you".

For your eggnog, try making it with almond milk. You can get the almond milk sweetened or unsweetened, and if you don't have issues with sugar, add more to taste.

PM me if you need more recipes.

Folic acid & folate are found in lentils, beans, peanuts, orange juice, tomatoes, avocadoes & even eggs - among other foods. One glass OJ = 15% RDA.

Not the only problematic item in your handout. With all due respect, I encourage you to consult standard texts & revise; some of the information you're giving out is misleading or just plain wrong, & in certain situations, could do harm.

I cannot even get him to apply for Medicaid. Apparently, he was at county/state-funded psychological counseling and they prescribed for him some kind of antidepressent medication. I don't think he uses it now. My observation is that psychological counseling varies a lot in quality. I think he got dismayed and just quit.

Now, he uses my mother to screen my calls from him. I think it is because I was prodding him to apply for Medicaid since he has nothing. Instead, he just borrows on the house when he needs medical care. I had hoped that a social worker could have referred him to some job with no social pressure, too. I know that is done.

My input is not welcome. Some day, I will get a call that he has nowhere to live.

Hope things turn around for him, somehow, some way.

When I was working at one of the top centers in the field years ago, the director told me that autism was "a behaviorally defined syndrome with multiple etiologies", that is, lots of different things can lead to the set of behaviors (self-stimming, lack of eye contact, etc.) that we refer to collectively as "autism". Thus, since there's no one cause, there can't be one "cure". Leaky gut syndrome could well be one such cause, but even so, the GFCF (and now SF, soy-free, too -- ouch) diet would only work for people who have it, and not one of potentially dozens of other causes.

and I know of no D.A.N. doctor that believes that the only treatment is for leaky gut syndrome. The doctor I work for also looks for buildup of toxins and works with getting rid of them. Each patient is treated as an individual and as an individual case. Interestingly enough, the only patients to drop out of the protocol are those who have gotten better and the parents have opted to not continue monitoring tests.

We are already there.

(whatever that really means, anyway).

is overblown. Some parents would abort if they found out in advance that there was a good chance they'd be taking on lifetime care of their offspring. Others wouldn't. As long as the choice is personal and not policy, some will choose either way. As long as there's the ability to have the choice, prospective parents should be given that choice.

...that think that we are a "burden" on society and think we must be "cured" or not be allowed to be born in the first place.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Be ready when my baby was born to do what is needed to do the best thing for him/her.

a gamble - who will this person be? What challenges will this person present? You can't ever really be ready!

1) chose to abort and I would not pass judgment on either decision.
2) prepare, though of course you can't ever be ready or totally prepared. But being ready to accept it and figure out positive ways of working with it from the beginning I see as a good thing.

I opted out of an amnio with my long-awaited second - because I didn't want to risk the procedure, and because I was going to have the child, regardless. But I did have a level II US - for the potential information it would give me to prepare if need be.

Especially given the state of care here right now. Would I put a kid into that system on purpose? No way.

Autism is definitely a spectrum condition. Some people are very high functioning - would that really be such a terrible thing? As was mentioned, many are also quite gifted in a particular area.

I think we'll eventually come to a whole lot more information and understanding of the condition, and see things a great deal differently - not in "abled" or "disabled" by autism, but the more accurate idea that everyone is differently abled or gifted, and really, no one is "neurotypical"...

I wouldn't go forward with the pregnancy. Period.

I was married to a very high functioning Aspie for over a decade and maybe it's in part that horrible fight to get tech that brings me down on this side of things. Were it forty years ago when we still had something like a functioning health system, that might be different.

I suspect outcomes depend on initial disabilities plus interventions.

I work for a D.A.N. doctor (Defeat Autism Now!), handling paperwork. One thing the doctor looks for is a family history of autism or behavior disorders. The theory now is that some of the disorders in the autism spectrum may be caused by genetic mutations--an inability to effectively detoxify the body, or the lack of certain enzymes such as MTHFR, which causes the body not to be able to digest certain vitamins.

If you do have a family history of attention/behavior problems, then by all means go ahead and get that test if you and your physician feel it will be helpful. Then, when the child is born, observe his/her ability to digest and metabolize his/her food. We can usually start testing children at about age 2.

taking my lunch break late. This is the sort of question I ask when folks call. So it was good practice!

at least that is the latest research I know about. True, there can be genetic factors involved, but there is more than one genetic factor. Was it inherent poor detoxification coupled with toxin exposure that caused the onset of symptoms? Or was it a mutation of an enzyme that won't allow the child to absorb folic acid or foods? If certain enzymes are missing, the child may be turning gluten, gliadin and casein into morphine like compounds in their body, which utterly disturbs a great many normal metabolic processes.

Nice headline, but I don't think there is one "magic bullet" or one test that will determine if a child will be autistic.

Baron-Cohen and colleagues have certainly *not* found a way to detect autism in the womb.

Let's look at the number of participants: 235. Even if 1 in 100 children have autism (a very high estimate), only 2 or at most 3 children in the sample would have been autistic: far too low to be able to make such a pronouncement.

What Baron-Cohen and colleagues have found is that prenatal testosterone is correlated to a very moderate degree with verbal and social skills (negatively) and spatial skills (positively) in childhood. It's controversial how much this simply reflects the fact that boys have more prenatal testosterone, and also tend on average to be a little better spatially, worse verbally, and more socially immature than girls of the same age. At any rate, there is a lot of normal variation in all these things, and for example slight verbal weakness does not equate with autism.

A very irresponsible piece of reporting IMO.

Simon Baron Cohen is Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat)'s cousin.

far larger studies are needed to address the issue of what causes autism. As usual, though, the MSM uses sensational headlines and hype rather than educating people about the complexities of autism.

(and some comment: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/12/autism-screening-health)

And a piece from a few days ago by Baron-Cohen himself:



"A link" between traits and testosterone levels doesn't seem specific enough to say there's a test coming soon. It may just enable people to say "there's more of a chance they will develop autism".

1 in 100 children have autism (a very high estimate),

That's pretty close to the CDC's latest figures for the state of New Jersey (1 in 150 nationwide).

That does not, however, invalidate your point about the timy sample size.

Told by three doctors and two "experts" in neo natal that she had "Turner's Syndrome" already had two cysts on the brain and should be aborted, her mother decided not to. The child is perfectly normal and as beautiful a baby you'd never see.

I can't imagine there'd be a false positive unless the mother had a recent pregnancy loss which showed up in the test or something.

On the other hand, reasons to suspect Turner Syndrome could show up in an ultrasound, but those would be reasons to do an amnio and not definitive for diagnosis.

For those who don't know, Turner is a sex-linked chromosomal disorder. Absent genetic testing it generally isn't diagnosed until puberty, because it causes infertility and prevents normal development, as sufferers are outwardly female but do not have a fully developed reproductive tract.

is a female with only one X chromosome, instead of the usual XX. Males are XY, and Turner females are denoted as XO.

I had a student with Turner Syndrome. She spent 90% of her day in the regular classroom, but needed a few Special services. She looked fairly "normal".

I can't imagine many circumstances for a false diagnosis, and people with Turner Syndrome generally look normal and healthy (they can have some physical indicators like short stature and webbing at the neck, but they're not always there or clear during early development) so if the kid mentioned above does have the condition she really should be monitored closely for the problems that she could have with learning, heart conditions, etc.

But, I can see that might not happen unless you get an amniocentesis or if the doctor orders some testing at birth.

once it's obvious the girl isn't just a late bloomer.

been tested since birth. They screwed up. Sometimes you have to accept that doctors make mistakes.

her child had Turner's. She did not.

it is one hell of a big leap from "high levels of testosterone in the amniotic fluid of pregnant mothers was linked to autistic traits" to "Autism can be detected in womb"!!

For the last time, "journalists", correlation does not imply causality! For instance, what if, say, one percent of fetuses with the high testosterone levels became children with autism, veruse .1% of those without? How useful would such a test be? "Mrs. KamaAina, I have dire news. there is only a 99% chance that your baby will be born neurotypical..." :eyes:

NT!

There can be more than one cause for things, so it can still be caused by other sources.

This is great news that there is a test.

For the ones who don't like the idea of terminating the life of a disabled child, I'm happy to say that it is your choice when it's your body/baby.

Instead autistic traits. Anyone know why?

David

Pervasive Developmental Disorder is a nonspecific term that includes autism at the extreme end. Aspergers is on the spectrum, and are sometimes called "high functioning autistic", although the two are not necessarily the same.
There are also many children and adults who display some mild characteristics of autism, but while they are not autistic, they are said to be within the spectrum of autism.

These etiologies are to be diagnosed by qualified professionals. (No armchair diagnosis allowed! LOL)

That seems odd to me. They didn't say that people who displayed these markers in the womb have been diagnosed with autism. Surely they have qualified professionals who are capable of making the diagnoses.

David

This just confirms what I already knew: The causes of autism are largely unknown.

Vaccines as a potential cause: interesting, yet unproven.
Genetics as a potential cause: interesting, yet unproven.
Pollution as a potential cause: interesting, yet unproven.

My comment that only professionals should be diagnosing, was just about people commonly speculating things like, "that guy seems kinda autistic", or presuming that Einstein was autistic. I have worked with many children with autism, and none of them were exceptional at math.

Anyway, the original article stinks.

Glad someone else found this article worthless.

David

There was a slight negative correlation between testosterone levels in the womb and verbal and social skills. Children with autism have poor verbal and social skills; so a big leap is going on here to imply that this negative correlation implies increased risk of, or tendency toward, autism.

It should be noted that Baron-Cohen has a theory, certainly not accepted by all, that autism is an 'extreme version of the male brain' (see his book 'The Essential Difference'). This influences his interpretation - which was then badly distorted by the reporters.

i won't know -- nor will it be any of my business what she does with it.

resources has something to do with this.

many -- if not most -- women will greet the news of any baby with love and joy.

but difficult circumstances can make deciding to have a child who requires extra resources a hard if not impossible decision.

i support the idea of information -- but i am also 100% commited that all women should be in charge of their own bodies.

in fact.

First off, this is not the question of "do I wish to be pregnant and give birth?". This is a question of " do I think a particular type of disabled person should be allowed to exist?" That's why eugenics makes otherwise pro-choice people uncomfortable: it really isn't a question of a woman's control over her body, though it masquerades as it. It's really a very very different question which raises serious moral issues.

Secondly, the decision to abort on the basis of a child's prospective identity and personality does not occur in a vacuum. It occurs in the context of predatory insurance and, above all, societal bias (including strong, documented, medical bias) against disabled persons. A woman whose fetus would test positive would in fact face enormous external pressure to abort, including exposure to false portrayals of what the condition actually is, presented by supposed "experts", and little or no exposure to more accurate information (none, really, except by accident). Such a decision would not amount to a free choice on either the first or second questions I elucidated above.

And now for the nasty "bonus": high testosterone in the womb has also been associated with the birth of lesbians (and incidentally it's been observed that autistic women are disproportionately homosexual). Whee! We can kill them off too, if we continue to confuse the issue of a woman's control of her body with the issue of granting certain classes of people the authority to decide whether other classes of people should exist.

Unless feminists grapple seriously with the fact that there are two radically different questions being deliberately conflated here (I say deliberately because I believe that medical researchers and the medical industry prefer to keep the two conflated), and stop reflexively treating the whole thing as an attack on a woman's control of her body, feminism will find itself the unwitting pawn of some very unfeminist, very destructive, forces.

though we're not talking about a high profiled institutional program.

we're talking about medical information being given to an individual.

the individual decides what to do.

some will -- some won't.

and poverty and resources will play an issue here.

and the issue of women owning their bodies and deciding what they want to have happen to them must always be paramount.

I agree that the woman should be free from pressure to make the decision, but ultimately it's her body. We're talking about a fetus that cannot survive on its own. It's the woman's choice if she wants to continue to gestate a fetus until it can survive as an independant life. While I wouldn't abort for every disability, there are some I would - not because I believe such people should not exist, but because I personally don't feel I could handle the situation of being a parent under those circumstances. While there are never guarantees with any child, I wouldn't choose to go forward with a pregnancy I knew for certain would lead to a life beginning that I felt I would do a very poor job of being a parent to. I don't believe that would be doing the potential life any favors.

Even if her reasoning would make us horrified - ie if a woman wanted to abort because some genetic test showed her fetus had a higher chance of being gay - it's still her choice. When we start to decide who can and cannot seek an abortion, then we begin restricting a woman's right to choose, and where do you stop?

There's been some naysayers out there who claim that autism is some sort of "made up disease".

Some children with autism are treated successfully and go on to lead fairly normal lives. And like Professor Baron-Cohcn says, "autism is often linked with talent."

is also disgusting.

This procedure would severely curtail the evolution of homo sapiens.

- fetus about to be aborted and we're headed for trouble. It's not about the potential of the fetus. It's not about if the fetus does or does not have a genetic disease, handicap, or the IQ of Einstein. It's not about what could be and how the world might be different with or without this fetus as a contributing member. It's about a woman's right to choose. Period.

If we're going to be concerned about the potential contributions that autistic children could make to society when discussing abortion, we must also be concerned about the potential contributions of all others that are aborted. Not a smart place to go, IMO.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508

"Then in the early '80s, China began enforcing an ambitious demographic engineering policy to limit families to one-child, as part of its strategy to fast-track economic modernization. The policy resulted in a slashed annual birth rate of 1.29 percent by 2002, or the prevention of some 300 million births, and the current population of close to 1.3 billion.

"From a relatively normal ratio of 108.5 boys to 100 girls in the early 80s, the male surplus progressively rose to 111 in 1990, 116 in 2000, and is now is close to 120 boys for each 100 girls at the present time, according to a Chinese think-tank report."

(snip)

"Prenatal sex selection was probably the primary cause, if not the sole cause, for the continuous rise of the sex ratio at birth," said population expert Prof. Chu Junhong.

"A slew of reports have confirmed the disturbing demographic trend."

(more)

------

You sure that slick-slope is looking at the consequences?

Or is it selecting a fetus?

I don't think the government or society should pressure women to abort in that circumstance. I don't agree with forced population control either. However, I don't feel that legally, any reason a woman has for having an abortion of a fetus too young to survive outside the uterus should be restricted. Even if I personally think her reason for having an abortion is absolutely horrible, as I would in the case of a woman who aborted because she felt one gender was inferior, legally I feel she has the complete right to decide to abort a fetus completely dependent on her body.

when discussing abortion in this country. It is her choice. Nothing else needs to be taken into consideration.

how many years have the intelligensia been deciding for us what is best for us?

To me this feels like another money scam, and probably isn't what it appears to be, though what it is is anyone's guess. Perhaps it relates to far too much information that has been collected on each of us, so they're tossing this little bit of information out there in some sort of appeasement and wedge issue.

What happens to all those blood samples the doctors have taken from us for years, and now we read that there's apparently some evidence GMO foods either are or probably are responsible for a declining birthrate.

Did the doctors insure the corporations they're compliant with destroyed the tissues after their lawfully "approved" and narrow test the patient needed and paid for was completed, and that before such destruction, no further test was performed on those tissues such as DNA studies.

And doesn't the 4th Amendment give us protection against such a potential seizure of our body's information? I mean if I'm responsible for what my hand does, I must own my own hand, just as a woman owns her body (so long as she doesn't take certain illegal drugs). Why don't I own my own DNA?

People have sex a lot of the damn time. Some times this results in a baby.

Population control. Eugenics. But gays can't get married, though they can be appeased with a civil union, maybe. But no hate crimes legislation.

It's enough to drive one insane. So I think I'll go watch the morning sun.

Just don't do that too much self, 'cause you got to earn a living, so the sharks can take their cut.

One day we'll all be homeless, without a dime in our pockets to buy food, just like some have been for 30 years, but the Finanical sector deserves all our money right now.

So is it anywonder the door of eugenics is being opened wider and wider? How many years has this been going on.

(apologies if it was too rambling)