A Russian-born Kāpiti nurse has confirmed disturbing accounts, now emerging, of long-term effects on babies born from implanted frozen embryos in the former Soviet Union.
‘I know what happened,’ she told Pullet Surprise. ‘I was there. I saw it all.’
The woman does not wish to be named, but she did provide us with sufficiently chilling detail to prompt further investigation.
We have found that, between 1980 and 1988, large-scale fertility trials were conducted on embryos taken from thousands of unmarried teenagers. Some of these embryos were deeply chilled for up to three months and then surgically implanted in healthy women of child bearing age. It is understood that most of these women were wives of high-ranking politicians and officials whose husbands were unable to impregnate them.
‘There’s absolutely nothing on record to support these stories of embryo freezing and implantation,’ a spokesperson from the Russian Ministry of Information said today.
It is not known how many of these implantations were successful, as the experiments were carried out in high secrecy, but according to sources the majority of attempts went well. Many of the recipient families were so grateful they gave substantial extra rewards to the teenage donors.
It appears many of these children were born healthy and normal and were at first raised in relatively stable environments, but according to our investigations there is a distressing trend. These children, who are now adults, are reputed to have an unnatural and unreasonable craving for warmth.
Pullet Surprise has been in contact with several witnesses who claim to have been medical technicians or researchers assisting with, or monitoring, the embryo program. One woman stated, ‘We were paid special bonuses for monitoring cases but had to keep quiet. It’s a pity it’s all gone wrong, and none of us anticipated the dreadful outcome.’
When pressed to explain she said that as the children’s progress had been monitored over the months and years it had been noted that every child demanded additional clothing, had terrible tantrums when taken away from fires and heaters, and would avoid eating or drinking anything that wasn’t heated. They all refused to go outdoors on cold days. They craved hot baths morning and night. Several divorces had been blamed on the additional emotional and financial stress. Most disturbing of all, it was claimed, was a look in eyes of the subjects, variously described as ‘cold’, ‘deathly’, and ‘unfeeling’.
We spoke via Skype to a psychologist who was said to have worked with some of the families affected. ‘As long as the children were warm or were in a warm or sunny environment they were quite placid,’ she told us. ‘But as soon as they got cold they seemed to become extremely agitated and go quite berserk. Caregivers were sometimes injured. Anyway, they would eventually get their own way. People just gave up. As far the so-called coldness in the eyes is concerned I can’t comment. I’m strictly a behaviourist and I find those kind of judgements are too subjective. Mind you I wouldn’t like to meet one in a dark alley’.
