Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops

page: 3
175
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Some time ago I read an NDE-like story in which the experiencer told about strange visions. I was able to find this story, so here is a quote:

I have lost much of what I saw, but I held onto the main idea of what I was being told while moving over the planet.. or rather having a movie OF the planet being shown before me.... There were fields of crops all over, in specific. As I would zoom in and get close, for instance, to a field of wheat, I would be told, "This has been poisoned. The food has been altered and poisoned. It is no longer pure. The people are consuming impure food. This is death." I felt sad and concerned about this and wondered why... or how it was possible. How could a field of wheat or corn be "poisoned"... and WHY?! I was told that man should return to the Earth or death would ensue everywhere. It was said again and again during this scene to "Return to the Earth." I was told that upon my return, that I should look for pure food, unadulterated.. and only consume that which is "clean," but I dismissed this somewhat, because I had no intention of returning.

Of course such accounts are just personal experiences, but I thought it worth posting here. Also with respect to latest events, maybe it's good idea to re-read some prophetic NDE stories and compare what already happened and what to expect in the future. If there is any real substance in such stories, anyway.




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Yep, and the protiens and enzymes are all involved and affected also.
You know, we are just a factory of enzymes, proteins and lipids....
and our genes are regulators.

So it really makes sense....

Were not just eating food, were eating gene regulators....
DNA and RNA


The Nanjing University-based team showed that this genetic material will
bind to receptors in human liver cells and influence the uptake of cholesterol from the blood.

The type of RNA in question is called microRNA (abbreviated to miRNA) due to its small size.
MiRNAs have been studied extensively since their discovery ten years ago, and have been
implicated as players in several human diseases including cancer, Alzheimer's, and diabetes.


The study is here: Cross Kingdom Regulation by microRNA
edit on 21-1-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-1-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


That paper you linked to is 12 years old !!!

So much for you paying attention to the latest research.



No - you mean "so much for this being news"



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infi8nity
"The researchers themselves concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”

Phenotypic definition
www.thefreedictionary.com...

"The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences."


So? According to this article this Gene can change biochemical characteristics? Meaning they can manipulate your emotions by changing your body's chemicals.


Thanks for this link, you provided food for thought.

From the looks of this, and a surface glance at some scholarly articles,
yes it seems that what we eat directly affects our emotions too.



+3 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Do you actually know anything about biochemistry or are you just denying stuff randomly as usual ?


I am going to have to call your bluff on this, because as I see it, all of these other posters are actually presenting information and attempting to answer questions legitimately with actual info.

Then there is someone expecting me to just pretend its all meaningless and silly misunderstandings.
Which it may be, but I am not completely sure yet.

So if you wouldn't mind, since you care, please grant us the information we need to understand why this isn't a threat nor a issue worth debate.

And just linking me to some obscure random google result isn't going to cut it.

I want you to explain to me exactly, in your own words scientifically, what processes are occurring here (or what processes are not occurring), then use links to support this explanation.

Otherwise don't bother with the 1 liner denials, because folks like myself need paragraphs worth of explanations not some blanket sound-bite that doesn't even answer any questions.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


It certainly can be very frustrating!

I was heartened to see so many people petition the government for
labeling food that is GMO.

In spite of that, they wont do it!


So...I guess we are on our own, and I see so many people who have
learned this, and are reading labels in the stores, I think that is great.

Look, hostess is closed down practically. Maybe the tides will turn soon,
someday.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
This does explain a lot of what I've been seeing in friends my age & younger.
Many of them have been diagnosed with Auto-Immune viruses, whatever that means.

Their immune systems are malfunctioning severely, they all eat blindly too, the naive who blindly trust the food corporations and regulatory agencies.

I try to do what I can, I shove the Aspartame sweeteners, Sponge Bob canned poisons, & GMO corns & soy to the back wall of the shelves they're on in the markets. People won't buy what they can't see I figure.



AIV is one of the many para diseases that come from having HIV



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Yes, many scientists have done studys, this one was 10 years in the making,
showing that a GMO diet is hazardous to ones health, humans and animals.


Professor Krogdahl explains: “It has often been claimed that the new genes in genetically modified foods can’t do any damage because all genes are broken down beyond recognition in the gut. Our results show the contrary that genes can be taken up across the intestinal wall, is transferred to the blood and is left in the blood, muscle and liver in large chunks so that they can be easily recognized.”

The professor later again emphasized: “A frequent claim has been that new genes introduced in GM food are harmless since all genes are broken up in the intestines. But our findings show that genes can be transferred through the intestinal wall into the blood; they have been found in blood, muscle tissue and liver in sufficiently large segments to be identified ….. The biological impact of this gene transfer is unknown.”
www.cornucopia.org...
edit on 21-1-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Really interesting reading in this thread, I do not have the knowledge to add anything worthwhile but I thought I should post to show my appreciation to the OP and all posters as well.

Threads like these keep me interested in subjects I would not even glance at in the local paper.
Always learning and that can't be a bad thing.

S&F
Regards, Iwinder

PS back to my lurker chair for this thread



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


The lastest n depth study, research into microRNA shows how this cross kingdom cumminucation
(regulation) takes place.


Our previous studies have demonstrated that stable microRNAs (miRNAs) in mammalian serum and plasma are actively secreted from tissues and cells and can serve as a novel class of biomarkers for diseases, and act as signaling molecules in intercellular communication. Here, we report the surprising finding that exogenous plant miRNAs are present in the sera and tissues of various animals and that these exogenous plant miRNAs are primarily acquired orally, through food intake. MIR168a is abundant in rice and is one of the most highly enriched exogenous plant miRNAs in the sera of Chinese subjects. Functional studies in vitro and in vivo demonstrated that MIR168a could bind to the human/mouse low-density lipoprotein receptor adapter protein 1 (LDLRAP1) mRNA, inhibit LDLRAP1 expression in liver, and consequently decrease LDL removal from mouse plasma. These findings demonstrate that exogenous plant miRNAs in food can regulate the expression of target genes in mammals.www.nature.com...


Not like eating a pepper, when you insert fish genes into a tomato, and then eat the tomato.
edit on 21-1-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Thanks Iwinder, much appreciated.

Not to toot our horn, the core of us combined ....were way better than the news.




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
From your source:


This lapse occurred despite the fact that Gene VI was not truly hidden; the relevant information on the existence of Gene VI has been freely available in the scientific literature since well before the first biotech approval


You are severely misinterpreting this article.
There is NO evidence mentioned that it is harmful in humans.

The attacking the host part you so love to mention is talking about in the plant, not in humans. It makes the plants vulnerable to pesticides, not humans.
edit on 21-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)





Even now that EFSA’s own researchers have belatedly considered the risk issues, no one can say whether the public has been harmed

so let's just assume they have!
edit on 21-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

I want you to explain to me exactly, in your own words scientifically, what processes are occurring here (or what processes are not occurring), then use links to support this explanation.


I have provided 2 links already - 1 to teh original article that is linked from the OP article - ie teh actual source.

the other to an article about the nature of CaMW.

The process that appears to be going on here is that the OP article has falsely claimed that there is a new viral gene "discovered", whereas in fact that gene has been known about for years.

Then they (the OP article link) have ignored what the "source" article actually says - which is that the study has found that there is no known or recogniseable allergen or toxin produced by the gene, nor could the study identify any possible such substance that MIGHT be generated by the gene.

However the source article abstract says the authors created a system for evaluating any possible or postulated products of that gene if anyone wants to evaluate any given theory they may have.

As I understand it.

I hope that helps you understand.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
From your source:


This lapse occurred despite the fact that Gene VI was not truly hidden; the relevant information on the existence of Gene VI has been freely available in the scientific literature since well before the first biotech approval




You forgot the preceeding paragraph, in doing so you have completly taken out of context your
snippet above, leaving out the most important part! Purpose driven?

Here is the entire meaning

Big Lessons for Biotechnology
It is perhaps the most basic assumption in all of risk assessment that the developer of a new product provides regulators with accurate information about what is being assessed. Perhaps the next most basic assumption is that regulators independently verify this information. We now know, however, that for over twenty years neither of those simple expectations have been met. Major public universities, biotech multinationals, and government regulators everywhere, seemingly did not appreciate the relatively simple possibility that the DNA constructs they were responsible for encoded a viral gene.

This lapse occurred despite the fact that Gene VI was not truly hidden; the relevant information on the existence of Gene VI has been freely available in the scientific literature since well before the first biotech approval (Franck et al 1980). We ourselves have offered specific warnings that viral sequences could contain unsuspected genes (Latham and Wilson 2008). The inability of risk assessment processes to incorporate longstanding and repeated scientific findings is every bit as worrysome as the failure to intellectually anticipate the possibility of overlapping genes when manipulating viral sequences.
independentsciencenews.org...


They are calling out the previous researchers, plain and simple, and they repear thatthey have warned about
viral sequencing before!




Can you not understand, they are not saying the discovery of the viral gene is new,
they are saying that its now shown in GMO commercially produced foods, and its harmful!
edit on 21-1-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


So you think this is the result of gross misunderstandings?

To put it bluntly?


Thanks for replying and elaborating btw.
edit on 21-1-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Misunderstandings? Possibly.

Possibly also deliberate misrepresentation.

If I had to make a choice on teh balance of probabilities I would probably go for this being deliberate, because what was written in the OP article seems to me unrelated to the abstract of its source - I find it difficult to see how it could be "just" a misunderstanding.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

The process that appears to be going on here is that the OP article has falsely claimed that there is a new viral gene "discovered", whereas in fact that gene has been known about for years.

.


I dont see that at all ATG, where does the OP article claim there is a new viral gene "discovered".



Thats not what they assert at all...in fact they say right in the article this viral gene was not
"newly" discovered, and it was not really hidden, only that the regulators have now
acknowledged this.

And...any answer as to your claim that GMO is not harmful, I posted two links to research that shows
it is, and the DNA is not digested the same, you did not comment after that.
edit on 21-1-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


You go ahead & eat all the GMO goodness you want to. I'm going to pass when I can help it.

Especially considering some of the people involved in it's development won't even eat it.


GMO fed to lab rats has been shown to have detrimental affects on their populations including tumor growth and higher mortality rates
GMO Corn causes cancer in lab rats

There's little to no oversight by the FDA - this stuff is rubber stamped & most of the testing is done (as in this case) after the fact.

I'm sorry - I refuse to be a lab rat...after all they end up with cancer apparently
edit on 21-1-2013 by coldkidc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Muzzleflash, it's not my forte, but to answer your question... google GMOs and agrobacterium. Agrobacterium, and other cell-wall-penetrating bacteria LIKE agrobacterium, are the key to making BT toxin happen in your body... and more. YAY


I can't say it enough to anyone who reads these threads, along with corn and soy, canola is always GMO. This doesn't get enough attention ANYWHERE.

Canola is the cheapest and most widely used oil in the post-trans-fat revolution.

ANY restaurant you visit will serve canola. Any deli. Any business that serves food.

If you ever see the words "healthy oils" or "no trans fats" on a restaurant menu, run like hell or ask for olive oil. It means a big box of canola is lurking somewhere in the kitchen...



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thorneblood
Oh! So that's how the zombie apocalypse starts.


Thanks for the thread.


So many posts and so many attempts at debunking without any proof whatsoever. Now attempting to debunk a Monsanto thread? Sorry, but you just revealed yourself. A person could claim Monsanto as the Devil incarnate and would still be 100% in the right.

I believe that you are on the wrong site. Unless this is a site in your target range? Or that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever on what Monsanto really represents but just randomly attack a thread looking for a few stars. hmmmm?

Very suspicious indeed.


edit on 21-1-2013 by jude11 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
175
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join