Monsanto quietly announces they are investing heavily in gene editing

Image: Monsanto quietly announces they are investing heavily in gene editing

Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
June 2, 2017

Is anyone surprised that Monsanto is moving on from “conventional” genetically modified organisms to gene editing? It seems that the world’s most evil corporation is convinced that the new gene editing technology that’s been taking the globe by storm will somehow ease consumer concerns about eating GMOs.

Whether or not the difference between the two is substantial enough to assuage the many fundamental issues that surround GMO seeds, which extend far beyond just concerns about the effects of consumption, has yet to be seen. Personally, this writer feels that the alleged differences between “genetically modified” and “gene-edited” are not going to be very moving.

Dr. Robert Fraley, Monsanto’s chief technology officer, recently told Fox Business, “I see gene editing very differently [than GMOs] because it’s being used today broadly by pharmaceutical, agricultural companies, universities and hundreds of startup companies — and I think there is broad support for this science and I think that is going to make a big difference.”

Supposedly, the key difference between GMOs and “gene-edited crops” is that while GMOs rely on genes from different species (resulting in transgenic organisms), these gene-edited versions will be “generated through precise editing of an organism’s native genome,” as Business Insider explains.

Monsanto has recently announced that they would be investing heavily into new gene editing technology, known as CRISPR/Cas-9, which is a gene editing technique that essentially allows scientists to select, snip and replace certain genetic components. It’s essentially a genetic “find and replace” tool — but there are many questions about its safety.

This technology purportedly allows scientists to manipulate a plant’s DNA without having to pull foreign DNA from other species, like current GMOs. However, you may recall that this same CRISPR-Cas9 technology was used to create human-pig embryos — which are, obviously, transgenic organisms.

The use of CRISPR-Cas9 technology in crops, therefore, would not implicitly guarantee that any creations derived from it would be free of foreign DNA. The potential for transgenic creations is absolutely still quite real.

Fraley says that the CRISPR technology allows them to precisely edit a gene without having to replace it entirely. However, there will still likely be concerns about where the replacement parts for snipped genes are coming from. According to Fraley, we can expect to see the first gene-edited creations on the market within the next five years.

Megan Westgate, the executive director of Non-GMO Project, explained to Fox Business, “While these new technologies are touted to be more precise than older genetic engineering technologies, it is widely accepted in the scientific community that there can be ‘off target’ effects to the genome when the technologies are utilized. GMOs, including the products of these new technologies, have not been adequately tested—no long-term feeding studies have been conducted—and people are starting to connect these experimental technologies to health concerns.”

Fraley, like other GMO proponents, claims that the skepticism of GMOs is due to the fact that Monsanto failed to educate people about the “science” of GMOs early on. And of course, by education he means “brain-washing.” They didn’t realize that the public would be smart enough to ask pertinent questions not just about the safety of GMOs, but everything that tends to come along with them: Pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers,and monocrop farming techniques — all of which can be harmful to the environment.

Claiming that there are “vast” differences between “genetically modified” and “gene-edited” crops could be seen as an exercise in semantics. The fact of the matter is that many people feel strongly about not eating food that has been modified in a lab, by humans who think they know what they’re doing. This is not likely to change just because a new label has been slapped on it.

Regardless of how you feel about genetically modified organisms, or their new “edited” counterparts, the fact remains that every person should have the right to choose what kind of food they want to consume — and the call to label these new “gene-edited” foods needs to begin before they hit the shelves.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

FoxBusiness.com

BusinessInsider.com

CNN.com

SustainableTable.org

Advertisements

CRISPR gene editing may wipe out human geniuses and dumb down human civilization to “conforming” average

Image: CRISPR gene editing may wipe out human geniuses and dumb down human civilization to “conforming” average
Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
January 5, 2017

The biotechnology technique known as CRISPR has brought down the costs of genetic engineering by 99 percent and slashed the time required to create new modifications to a matter of weeks. And while Frankenfood companies such as Monsanto are already eagerly pursuing this technology in their efforts to gain more control over the food supply, the most wide-reaching effects of this new technology will probably lie in the medical arena.

CRISPR and associated “gene editing” technologies have come under fire for many of the same reasons as traditional genetic engineering, but now Dr. Jim Kozubek has raised a new concern: CRISPR may actually enable doctors to eliminate certain neurological and psychiatric “diseases” that have actually been the key to producing many of humanity’s great minds throughout history.

Kozubek is author of Modern Prometheus: Editing the Human Genome with Crispr-Cas9.

Can mental “illness” be a gift?

CRISPR is short for CRISPR/cas9, itself an abbreviation for Clustered Regularly-Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats/CRISPR associated protein 9. The technique works by using a special RNA strand to guide a DNA-splicing protein to a particular site on the genome. It can be paired with other techniques to insert new DNA into the site where the old code has been removed.

Scientists are already investigating ways to use CRISPR to eliminate various human diseases.

“Before we begin modifying our genes with gene editing tools such as Crispr-Cas9, we’d be smart to recall that genetic variants that contribute to psychiatric conditions may even be beneficial depending on the environment or genetic background,” Kozubek said.

For example, Kozubek noted, the rate of bipolar disorder is 10 times higher among writers than among the general population, and 40 times higher among poets.

“Thomas Edison was ‘addled’ and kicked out of school. Tennessee Williams, as a teenager on the boulevards of Paris felt afraid of ‘the process of thought’ and came within ‘a hairsbreadth of going quite mad,’” Kozubek said.

According to Kozubek, the idea of editing “genetic disease” out of the human population reflects a poor understanding of evolution.

“Scientists tend to think of variations in life as problems to be solved, deviations and abnormalities outside of a normal curve,” he said.

“In reality, Darwin showed us that evolution does not progress toward an ideal concept or model, but rather is a work of tinkering toward adaptation in local niches.”

Science rushes recklessly ahead

Kozubek’s comments come in the context of the United States and China both having announced the world’s first clinical trials on CRISPR in humans, with the United Kingdom expected to follow close behind.

In the Chinese trial, already underway, a man was injected with immune cells that had been taken from his body and modified, with CRISPR, to attack his lung cancer. The team plans to perform the same intervention on another nine people, and monitor them for six months. This will be followed by other Chinese trials on CRISPR-modified treatments for bladder, prostate and kidney cancers.

In the United States, the trials are focused less on the effectiveness of CRISPR cancer treatments and more on their safety. Human participants will be injected with immune cells taken from their body and then modified to seek and destroy cancer cells, hide from cancer cells that will destroy them. Another edit is intended to prevent other immune cells from interfering with the process.

Critics have warned that contrary to the promises of the biotech industry, CRISPR editing has a very high error and mutation rate, and does not confer particularly precise control over the biological outcomes of the gene “editing.”

Another major danger posed by the ease of CRISPR editing is the allure of making modifications to human sperm, eggs or embryos. These “germline” modifications are able to affect every organ in the body and can be passed on to future generations — making their overall effects nearly impossible to know ahead of time.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Express.co.uk

BigThink.com

NaturalNews.com

New Vaccines Will Permanently Alter Human DNA

QuestionEverything2
\Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
May 17, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Consider this article in light of the accelerating push to mandate and enforce vaccination across the planet.

The reference is the New York Times, 3/15/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research. Here are key quotes that illustrate the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.”

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.” Alteration of the human genetic makeup. Permanent alteration.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

————————————————————————–

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.