It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
We've got very high feed prices coming into the hog barns and some of the hog barns around North America are selling off not just their regular pig crop but the sows, the breeding herds and that breeding herd has been part of the supply for awhile and so we actually have very low hog prices. That's not going to last too long but it'll kill off the breeding herd in a few months. Then we will start to have, actually because we've got less sows around producing pigs, we'll start to have less total number of hogs in North America and prices will start to come back up but for right now we are in this period of time when they're facing record high feed prices and low output prices. That's incredibly difficult for the hog sector in Manitoba Dr. Brewin notes Manitoba has two major processing plants. He expects the economics of those plants will stay steady for quite awhile which will provide an incentive for producers to grow hogs close to those plants.
"In 2000, some six years after the first GM crop was commercialised, we drew attention to new and old findings that have been overlooked on the hazards of the CaMV 35S promoter; including its relationship to hepatitis B virus (HPV) and human immune deficiency virus (HIV)"
"Retroviral Gag polyproteins are cleaved by the viral protease into the matrix, capsid, and nucleocapsid proteins, which rearrange and assemble during maturation to form infectious particles (35). The zinc finger domains in the nucleocapsid of retroviruses are critical for viral replication and participate directly in genome recognition and encapsidation (1, 6, 12, 20, 34, 45). One of the best-studied examples is human immunodeficiency virus 1 (HIV-1) (18), for which the three-dimensional structure of the nucleocapsid bound to RNA stem-loop 3 of the HIV-1 leader has been determined (11).
A new study conducted by the EU has shown that standard tests for GM foods may be missing a potentially poisonous gene for humans
As a result, watchdogs have not investigated its impact on human health and the plants themselves when assessing whether they were safe.
The findings are particularly powerful because the work was carried out by independent experts, rather than GM critics.
Árpád Pusztai and Ignacio Chapela have two things in common. They are distinguished
scientists and their careers are in ruins. Both scientists choose to look at the phenomenon of
genetic engineering. Both made important discoveries. Both of them are suffering the fate of
those who criticise the powerful vested interests that now dominate big business and
When a scientific study was published in September last year showing that a genetically modified maize and tiny amounts of the Roundup herbicide it is designed to be grown with damaged the health of rats, Corinne Lepage MEP called it "a bomb". The study, by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini's team at the University of Caen, France, was the first to test the effects of eating a GM food and its associated pesticide over the animals' lifetime of two years. The study found that GM maize and Roundup caused severe organ damage and increased tumour rates, as well as earlier death.
Séralini carried out his recent study to follow up these initial findings of toxicity and to see if they were insignificant, as the EFSA claimed, or if they developed into serious disease. The findings were alarming. The initial signs of toxicity in Monsanto's 90-day study developed into full-blown liver and kidney damage over the longer two-year period. The first tumours only showed up four to seven months into the study, peaking at 18 months.
The common sense conclusions were clear. The 90-day tests routinely done on GM foods are simply too short to see effects that take time to show up, such as organ damage and cancer. And regulatory agencies like the EFSA may be liable for allowing unsafe GM foods onto the market. But this common sense conclusion was not allowed to gain traction. Within hours of the study's release, it was shouted down as flawed and meaningless by a chorus of scientist critics.
The criticisms were circulated to the press by the United Kingdom-based Science Media Centre and its sister organisations in other countries. Most of the world's media took the criticisms at face value. The focus of the story shifted from the alarming health risks of a poorly tested GM food to "junk science" that should never have been published.
But all was not as it seemed. Many of the critics were subsequently exposed as having commercial or career interests in GM technology – interests that went undisclosed in media articles that quoted them. The Science Media Centre itself has taken funding from GM and agrochemical companies. Government agencies that condemned the study, such as the EFSA, had been involved in GM crop approvals and so were simply defending their own decisions.
Originally posted by burntheships
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I'd have to learn more about this -- but this virus might not be "hidden" so much as PART OF the genetic transcoding process. Instead of injecting a command to "reproduce more of the virus" the virus injects the new DNA sequence.
Research "Gene Expressions GMO".
"Its in the Genes"
Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
The term "genetically modified organism" (GMO) is legally defined by the European Union.
An organism is "genetically modified", if its genetic material has been changed in a way that does not occur under natural conditions through cross-breeding or natural recombination - Article 2 of the EU Directive on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms (2001/18/EG).
Molecular control of transgene escape from genetically modified plants
Genetically Modified NT2N Human Neuronal Cells Mediate Long-Term Gene Expression as CNS Grafts In Vivo and Improve Functional Cognitive Outcome Following Experimental Traumatic Brain Injury
SAGE (serial analysis of gene expression) and its application to unraveling the differences in gene expression between normal cells and tumor cells.
Sir Francis Galton first coined the term “eugenics” in 1883. Put simply, eugenics means “well-born.” Initially Galton focused on positive eugenics, encouraging healthy, capable people of above-average intelligence to bear more children, with the idea of building an “improved” human race. Some followers of Galton combined his emphasis on ancestral traits with Gregor Mendel’s research on patterns of inheritance, in an attempt to explain the generational transmission of genetic traits in human beings.
Negative eugenics, as developed in the United States and Germany, played on fears of “race degeneration.” At a time when the working-class poor were reproducing at a greater rate than successful middle- and upper-class members of society, these ideas garnered considerable interest.
One of the most famous proponents in the United States was President Theodore Roosevelt, who warned that the failure of couples of Anglo-Saxon heritage to produce large families would lead to “race suicide.”
The center of the American eugenics movement was the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at Cold Spring Harbor, New York. Biologist Charles Davenport established the ERO, and was joined in his work by Director Harry H. Laughlin. Both men were members of the American Breeders Association. Their view of eugenics, as applied to human populations, drew from the agricultural model of breeding the strongest and most capable members of a species while making certain that the weakest members do not reproduce.
The Truth About MARGRET SANGER
(This article first appeared in the January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine)
How Planned Parenthood Duped America
At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.
Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."
Originally posted by Danbones
After talking to some of these folks in thier home environs I discovered that it is standard inculcation in the sciences in universities...we must reduce population!
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
The OP is doing a bit of hyperbolic fear-mongering here -- but it doesn't mean they haven't found something.
Multiple variants of the Cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter (P35S) are used to drive the expression of transgenes in genetically modified plants, for both research purposes and commercial applications. The genetic organization of the densely packed genome of this virus results in sequence overlap between P35S and viral gene VI, encoding the multifunctional P6 protein. The present paper investigates whether introduction of P35S variants by genetic transformation is likely to result in the expression of functional domains of the P6 protein and in potential impacts in transgenic plants. A bioinformatic analysis was performed to assess the safety for human and animal health of putative translation products of gene VI overlapping P35S. No relevant similarity was identified between the putative peptides and known allergens and toxins, using different databases. From a literature study it became clear that long variants of the P35S do contain an open reading frame, when expressed, might result in unintended phenotypic changes. A flowchart is proposed to evaluate possible unintended effects in plant transformants, based on the DNA sequence actually introduced and on the plant phenotype, taking into account the known effects of ectopically expressed P6 domains in model plants.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Which to me says:
1/ the gene does not produce anything toxic or allergenic that we could recognise, and
2/ there might be unintended consequences to using this gene, and
3/ you can evaluate possible unintended consequences using our handy flowchart.