Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops

reply to post by neo96


Well, I can appreciate the idea, yet think about it.
GMO does not produce seed. So...you think Monsanto is altruistic?

They are only concerned with the bottom line, which is the money
they make.

Knowing that the Roundup ready crops perform better than a non GMO seed with
with the previous applications of Roundup, aka glyphosate. For about 10 years,
this cycle then dies and thats why they want a license to use 2, 4-D. You remember,
Agent Orange.

Also, add in the extra fertilizer that is needed which Monsanto also has under wraps...

www.energybulletin.net...
www.sourcewatch.org...

But....they key to all of it is they must grow NON gmo seed, then alter it.

Think on it....they grow non GMO seed....and contaminate it so its sterile.

Another sad example of the human race boldly tinkering with nature. Smugly treading where we perhaps should not. Safe in the assumption that we know of all the consequences. But ultimately going to end up, with our fingers burnt to a crisp. Perhaps tptb are very aware of the possiible side effects of this poison and really all they care about is making a buck and to hell with the rest of the world.

But surely no one could be that cynical and calculating, could they?

Here is an example of killing off animals to keep the price high.
www.farms.com...

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.

I ask this? Does this not apply to crops as well, it makes me think of the cheese give a ways in the States with subsidized prices. High feed prices equals GMO crops with their monopoly on seed and the prices.

It's all a game.....either feed prices are too high and the meat supply is too low, or the feed prices are too low and the meat supply is too high.

So they kill off the hogs and raise the price?
One more link here, business.financialpost.com...
So now we can trust GMO crops to over produce and thus we need to kill off our pigs/sheep/cows/chickens/and probably fish(farm fish) all in the name of GMO produce.....

Lucky ducks we are not.

Now back to my lurker chair

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder


Kind regards Iwinder.



More detailed info...not for the faint of heart.

www.i-sis.org.uk...

"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)"

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

"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).

Headlines today, this is being picked up by many mainstream news today.

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.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

So...this work was carried out by independent experts, they were not even GM critics!

Makes one wonder....so many biologists have been dissapeared working on GMO...

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
scientific research.

Scientists under Attack - Genetic Engineering In The Magnetic Field of Money


www.youtube.com...


Did they try to keep the public from learning this?

This info below is from the study in which proved that GMO corn
caused cancer in rats.

Citizens were lied to over GM study

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.

www.publicserviceeurope.com...

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.

This is the part you dont want to miss! Who are the critics of these independent science studies?

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.

1994 is abouts when the chemtrailing began, too, I think.

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"

Please make your point with a link. Saying "research X, Y and Z" is always available on the web. Genes, genes, genes -- it's a huge and complex topic.

The OP is doing a bit of hyperbolic fear-mongering here -- but it doesn't mean they haven't found something. Finding a "virus" also doesn't mean anything of significance because we are talking about GMO food -- genetic modification is done often with Viruses as the workhorse.

Genetic Modification however --- then process as it stands, does more than just insert a gene. It's an entirely different process than cross-breeding which is what I point out to people who are TOO COMFORTABLE with the idea of GMO.

GMO foods are likely affecting human DNA, in ways we can't predict. It might not all be dangerous, but randomly monkeying around with such things is probably extremely foolish.

And every time we have an increase in yield, futures speculators work feverishly to create scarcity (and thus profit), we already have enough food to feed everyone on the planet -- but we have rich people who could PAY to solve this issue many times over. We don't need so much better crops as distribution of wealth.

Monsanto and their ilk are solving problems that don't really exist -- but making themselves extremely wealthy getting lock-in and outcompeting other independent famers with captive corporate ones. Their mono-crops create the problems they try and fix. But they do this with dangerous techniques for the ecosystem and humans.

>> I just want to inject balance -- but I don't want to act like I don't think GMOs are a concern. They just aren't an instant poison. However, in rats they (things like GMO soy) cause infertility in 3 generations and tumors. This is a hardier and shorter lived creature than a human -- it's obviously having SOME effect.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


My apologies,

www.sciencemag.org...

www.sciencedirect.com...

journals.lww.com...



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).

reply to post by Mayson


You kind of re-stated what I was saying, but thanks for the support.

The stomach DOES do a bit more than just soften up the food -- it absorbs simpler carbs and certain soluble nutrients. People who use surgery to lose weight like getting their stomach banded, are forcing themselves to eat smaller portions but also reducing the time food spends in the stomach -- it's drastic but it does reduce calorie intake.

The "thickening" of the stomach is occurring and it's not just about "absorbing nutrients." The least this causes is Gastritis (digestive.niddk.nih.gov...) and reduces the acids and mucous (which protects you from bad stuff) and thus affects the digestion in the intestines. It's like everyone is getting their stomach banded but without the benefit of blocking simple carbs and sugars.

>> I don't know WHY the GMO grains are thickening stomach linings -- but it might be that it is generally promoting inflammation and that can lead to cancer and tumor growth. The other thing that is likely going on is it is promoting the growth of the "wrong kind" of bacteria - bacteria that help us digest. And this is an under-appreciated part of animal life -- the symbiotic relationship we have with bacteria. They affect our mood, they may even produce pheromones and some of our neurotransmitters. So bacteria can affect allergies, depression and our immune system -- so all these strange phenomena that are impossible to track and defy a clear smoking gun might have more to do with growing the wrong colonies of stomach flora due to numerous changes in diet and environment.

Immunizations might cause the body to attach pro-biotic bacteria and that in turn could reduce the creation of Seratonin or something else, and THEN that might produce Autism. Or it could cause an immune response to the probiotic and you have a chronic disease. Since modern medicine doesn't really pay much attention to bacteria colonies or parasites - it flies under the radar.

If the FOOD itself contains anti-fungicides to keep the wheat from getting things like "rust" -- did Monsanto or ADM stop to study what it might do to Acidophillis (a common bacteria found in yogurt). The fact is; they can't figure out ALL the effects of building insecticides and fungicides inside of a plant -- so they never should try. That's what we already have to contend with; profit driven business models that mess around with things that are too expensive to test for, but have far reaching impacts that nobody can predict.

Hi, good food fans!

We all no that we can have ZERO trust about any lucrative/profitable entity !!

I am always amazed tho always see/read some dudes that defend/support them !! B-)
? Don't you know what greed does ?

Blue skies.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

My apologies,

www.sciencemag.org...

www.sciencedirect.com...

journals.lww.com...



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).

No problem. Those were awesome links and I think it's good to post some excerpts as these pertain to the general dangers of the GMO process;

Molecular control of transgene escape from genetically modified plants

The short story on this is geneticists have recently discovered that genes can be transmitted from non-related species. In fact, certain plants and insects use this technique to enhance their survival. It's just being learned how extensive this may be -- and by extension, how dangerous it is to put genes from non-related species that COULD NOT have had transgenic migration and then you make it available to an organism that CAN now absorb those genes without propagation (having babies). This was the first culprit I thought of with the Bee collapse -- and it turns out it had a lot to do with transgenic pesticides. Yes we can wipe ourselves out this way. Wild plants can all of a sudden become toxic to bees.

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

All right, I'm not sure I got this one -- but I'll take a guess. They are showing that human brains can get smarter with SOME trauma from a GM interaction. Though by extension, this would mean that GM's have an effect and therefore they can also be directly detrimental. The fact that they found ONE instance of a positive outcome means there is a mechanism, so we can also have negative outcomes. This reminds me of the finding that "roundup" can affect babies if the mothers ingest food with it at the wrong time. Not the weed-killing spray but the plants tailored to withstand it; Round-up Ready plants have a GM modification to survive Roundup (which is like a harmless salt in low doses).. The fact of life is that ALL MOTHERS are probably ingesting roundup GM at the wrong time. It's an interesting story if you look into how they found the "slime that adapted" in a pool of roundup and realized they could take this gene and make plants survive. However, transgenics has allowed weeds to start becoming "round-up ready" and that means higher doses of roundup until they give up the practice all together.

SAGE (serial analysis of gene expression) and its application to unraveling the differences in gene expression between normal cells and tumor cells.

I'm not sure of your point on this last one. My own theory is that "viruses" were actually created by complex organisms when they first arrived on the planet, and higher life forms still create them (in a way). Basically, I figure the body has a "genetic broadcast system" -- kind of like sending an engineer to patch up a structure if the architectural blueprints need modification. The genetic "broadcast" uses little snippets of genes that tell cells "how many times to copy" the data. So the cell takes in the broadcast genes and copies them and sends them out. That's why the "key to the gate" of the cell is so perfect an there is a mechanism there to turn the cell into a "gene production factory" when it shouldn't be part of it's normal function (when we are no longer embryos, that is). Viruses are merely a malformed "message" that takes on a life outside the body that created it.

Cancer, in most cases, I theorize, is a broadcast message that is broken in regards to it's copy limit. The body might identify this and try and "Clump up the noisy cells" -- and this forms a tumor. The tumor isn't the Cancer causing the problem, but the body dealing with a derailed system it has no way to truly defend against since it's also necessary to adapt to changing conditions. Environmental and genetic stressors create more NEEDS to adapt genes, and thus more opportunities for "unstoppable gene broadcasts."

GM foods then deliver opportunities for genetic migration of malformed gene messages. It's only a matter of time before something nasty results from that -- or humans become sterile.

So basically the makers of GMO crops will be able to effectively start a massive crop failure manually and blame it on nature?

Interesting find.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


I tried to post scholarly articles that pertained to gene expression, and GMO.

One of the links was less desireable, and I was not making any certain point,
just providing food for thought.

As I am not a biologist, some of that gene expression is a bit over my pay grade.

However, I think I have a good understanding of the basics, and from the looks
of things it does appear they have indeed opened a Pandora's box, and
know they are in trouble.

No fear mongering intended, with everything else aside, this is a grave situation, and it appears that time
is limited to try and correct this, before it becomes an extinction event.

Its a long story, and complicated, however from my research into this transgenic
event with the GMO, and the viral gene now "exposed", there is correlation
between this and the escalation in human decline, and also most importantly
sustainable practices for humans, animals and animal husbandry, and not last
nor least important, insects.

That defines my passion to "get the word out".

Many people dont get exicited about three generations till sterility,
however thats not the way I see it. Its urgent, and we are out of time.

hi all
great thread BTS

re: the pre nazi origen and purpose of eugenics

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.

www.hsl.virginia.edu...

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."

www.blackgenocide.org...

reply to post by Danbones


Danbones! Nice to see ya!

What is your opinion, is it likely they are using this as a means of population
control? I think this is very likely, probable.

I think these hi up mucky muks ARE A REAL THREAT
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!

my standard come back was sure some must go...what happens when they say YOU FIRST!
thats the stumper
(don't they watch the conquer the universe movies where the minions are all expendable?)

i think a big mistake is to NOT look at the big picture and the PREPONDERANCE of evidence that there is a plot to reduce the population radically.
my thought has for the longest time been that they will choose a method that allows for the useless eaters to clean up the mess as they die off so as to keep it all neat and tidy and of course profitable...

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!

They dont seem to hide it much, especially when they are on home turf.
Good point, and its fairly easy to find their hangouts online too.

I think they have brought us to the tipping point....I just dont know.
I hope not, fight for it to be turned around.....

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.

Indeed - the article the OP refers to includes a link to its own source.

And that source quite clearly states what they found in the abstract:

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.

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.

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.

ATG,

Its nice that you are so sure, thank goodness your not on the E.U. panel that has decided
that things may not be safe, and they are going to re-evaluate.

To you it says that, well thats not saying alot.