Tag Archives: genetic modification

ANd Now, A “Sprayable” Covid Vaccine

Posted on by

Sprayable COVID Vaccine Trial Raises ‘Significant Safety Concerns’

Several scientists and researchers questioned the design of the trial for the CVXGA1 nasal vaccine, suggesting the trial did not examine “if shed materials can be spread to others.” The trial also included just 72 participants and lacked an unvaccinated control group.

by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
JULY 9, 2025
women getting nasal vaccine

A sprayable intranasal mRNA COVID-19 vaccine demonstrated effectiveness in its Phase 1 clinical trial, according to a study published last week in the journal Science Advances.

However, critics questioned the trial’s design and limited sample size. And some suggested that the sprayable vaccine — CVXGA1, produced by CyanVac LLC — could pose a risk to the public.

Investigative journalist Sonia Elijah noted that CVXGA1, which enters the mucus membranes and lungs through the nose, has the “potential for shedding viral particles through intranasal secretions, which could expose unvaccinated individuals.”

Elijah said the study didn’t examine if shed materials can be spread to others. “This raises significant safety concerns about replication and shedding risks,” she said.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense, said the platform CVXGA1 uses as a vector is parainfluenza virus type 5, a “communicable respiratory virus between humans and non-human animals that is evading our immune system.”

Jablonowski said this platform exacerbates the risk of shedding. “Since it is self-spreading, there is no informed consent or medical precautions as the ‘vaccine’ may infect infants, children, pregnant women, immunocompromised or medically frail.”

Karina Acevedo Whitehouse, Ph.D., professor of microbiology at the Autonomous University of Querétaro in Mexico, agreed. Citing studies involving similar vaccines, Whitehouse said there are “high chances” this vaccine will result in “persistent shedding.”

Whitehouse cited a 2023 study of an intranasal RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) vaccine, which detected virus shedding in 17% of participants.

CVXGA1 produces the SARS-CoV-2 virus spike protein — which was also contained in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna.

Medical experts and peer-reviewed studies have suggested the spike protein poses potentially serious risks to human health.

“Genetically modifying an infectious respiratory virus to express a spike protein is a familiar and really bad idea,” Jablonowski said. “The immune system will be antagonized by the presence of the spike protein.”

Clinical trial flawed, experts say

According to the CVXGA1 Phase 1 study, CVXGA1 “is a potentially effective intranasal COVID-19 vaccine” that produces an immune response with minimal adverse reactions.

The clinical trial included just 72 participants, ages 12-53, split into two groups. One group received a “high dose” of the vaccine, the other received a smaller dose.

Findings showed the high-dose group demonstrated “Significantly lower rates of symptomatic COVID-19 infection” and that the vaccine was “well tolerated without serious adverse events (AEs) or fever reported.”

However, several scientists and researchers noted that the trial lacked an unvaccinated control group.

“There is absolutely no way that this paper can be considered evidence that this intranasal gene-therapy based product is safe or effective,” Whitehouse said. “No group was used as a control with which to compare the results … as well as adverse events. This in itself invalidates any interpretation of safety and effectiveness of this product.”

According to Elijah, the lack of a control group and the small sample size “weakens the trial’s ability to accurately assess safety and immunogenicity,” but these aren’t the only flaws.

Elijah said:

“The study lacks data on RNA detection levels and did not perform infectivity assays to confirm if shed materials can be spread to others.

“The lack of specific safety and immunogenicity data for the adolescent group raises concerns about the vaccine’s effects in younger individuals.

“The open-label design, where both participants and researchers knew who received the vaccine, introduces potential bias in reporting and assessing outcomes, such as adverse events.”

Whitehouse noted that the study’s researchers claimed they didn’t identify any serious adverse events. However, they tracked adverse events only “during a limited time frame,” which “reduces the chances of detecting serious events that may occur after this time period.”

Researchers plan to enroll 10,000 participants for the next phase of the clinical trial.

According to immunologist and biochemist Jessica Rose, Ph.D., if clinical trials for CVXGA1 are deemed a success, “this could be used to push gene-based (mRNA, RNA and DNA) products on us via intranasal (breathing) routes.”

Clinical trial site previously hosted Pfizer COVID vaccine trials for adolescents

Experts also noted that the clinical trials were not performed independently but were fully funded by CyanVac.

According to the study’s disclosure statement, several of the researchers are CyanVac employees or equity holders, are under contract with the company, or have received research grants from other pharmaceutical companies, including COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers AstraZeneca, Moderna and Pfizer.

Investors such as Bill Gates have previously shown interest in inhalable and sprayable vaccines, although it is unclear whether Gates is involved with the development of CVXGA1.

Elijah noted that Cincinnati Children’s Hospital ran the trial and Dr. Paul Spearman, the hospital’s vice chair of clinical and translational research and education, led it. The hospital was one of the sites for adolescent clinical trials of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

In 2021, a participant in one of those trials, 12-year-old Maddie de Garay, was severely injured after she received the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. She sustained several serious adverse events and ended up in a wheelchair.

According to Elijah, doctors at the hospital dismissed any connection between de Garay’s injuries and the Pfizer vaccine, and instead classified her injuries as “neuralgia and functional abdominal pain.”

from:  https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/sprayable-covid-vaccine-trial-raises-safety-concerns/

It Just Might Be TIme to Move

Posted on by
ENVIRONMENTALISM

These 14 American Cities Have A ‘Target’ Of Banning Meat, Dairy, And Private Vehicles By 2030

BY: EVITA DUFFY-ALFONSO
5 MIN READ
sliced meat on a platter

FDRLST / CANVA

If C40 Cities’ climate aims are carried out, people will die.

EVITA DUFFY-ALFONSO

Fourteen major American cities are part of a globalist climate organization known as the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group,” which has an “ambitious target” by the year 2030 of “0 kg [of] meat consumption,” “0 kg [of] dairy consumption,” “3 new clothing items per person per year,” “0 private vehicles” owned, and “1 short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every 3 years per person.”

C40’s dystopian goals can be found in its “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World” report, which was published in 2019 and reportedly reemphasized in 2023. The organization is headed and largely funded by Democrat billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Nearly 100 cities across the world make up the organization, and its American members include Austin, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.

Media coverage of C40 Cities’ goals has been relatively sparse. The few media personalities and news outlets who have discussed it have been heavily attacked by the corporate “fact-checkers.” In a “fact check” aimed at conservative commentator Glenn Beck, AFP Fact Check claimed that the banning of meat and dairy and limits on air travel and clothing consumption were actually “not policy recommendations.”

AFP quotes a paragraph from the original “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World” report, which reads, “This report does not advocate for the wholesale adoption of these more ambitious targets in C40 cities; rather, they are included to provide a set of reference points that cities, and other actors, can reflect on when considering different emission-reduction alternatives and long-term urban visions.”

But this paragraph,  likely included in the report as a liability in the case of pushback, seems to directly contradict the meaning of “target,” which in this context can be defined as a “desired goal.” The target of eliminating meat, dairy, and private vehicles by 2030 is “based on a future vision of resource-efficient production and extensive changes in consumer choices,” the report notes — something its authors clearly hope to bring about. If these were not their goals, they would not have labeled them “ambitious targets.”

The “fact-checker’s” insistence that C40 Cities’ explicitly stated climate goals are somehow insincere is even more unconvincing, given that we are watching them start to unfold right now. This year, in lockstep with C40 Cities’ 2030 aims, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced that the city will place caps on the amount of meat and dairy served by city institutions, such as schools and prisons. Meanwhile, the U.K. has banned the sale of new gas-powered vehicles after 2030, and France has banned short-haul flights “to cut carbon emissions.”

In 2020, the World Economic Forum (which promotes C40 Cities on its website) introduced “The Great Reset,” which seeks to use the Covid-19 pandemic as a point from which to launch a global reset of society to supposedly combat climate change. This reset, however, has far more to do with social control than it does with the climate. If globalist leaders truly cared about the environment, they wouldn’t be chartering private jets or owning massive, energy-consuming mansions on the coast in California, which, by climate fanatics’ own calculation, will soon be underwater.

As the WEF plainly stated in a 2016 promotional video, by 2030 “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.”

Right now, hedge funds and private billionaires are buying up residential homes and farmland all over the world. At the same time, unrealistic zero-emissions policies are impoverishing Westerners and annihilating the middle class, which is fueling reliance on centralized government. Such intentional steps backward also, ironically, harm the earth because wealthier nations are proven to have cleaner environments and put less strain on natural resources.

Climate activists are also advocating for “climate lockdowns,” in the same way there were Covid lockdowns. Ideas floated for a climate lockdown have ranged from shuttering people in their homes and restricting air travel to providing a Universal Basic Income and introducing a maximum income level.gene

Climate dystopianism doesn’t end there. WEF-linked “bioethicist” Dr. Matthew Liao has proposed the idea of scientists genetically modify humans to be allergic to meat. Liao has also discussed shrinking the physical size of humans via eugenics or hormone injections so they consume fewer resources.

All of these policy proposals appear even more unreasonable and illogical when we actually evaluate the data. According to the International Disaster Database, deaths related to extreme heat, floods, storms, and droughts have plummeted as C02 emissions have risen. The fossil fuel economy has provided billions of people with heating, air conditioning, weather warning systems, mass irrigation, and durable buildings.

This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t try to limit carbon emissions. Environmentally friendly nuclear energy, which is safe and more reliable than wind and solar energy, is a great way to wean our society off of our reliance on fossil fuels. The globalist climate activists, however, oppose nuclear energy, further undermining their supposedly good intentions.

Ultimately, the climate coalition’s goals are inherently anti-human. People generally need meat and the protein it provides to flourish. Banning meat and dairy, restricting calories, genetically altering the human body, and impoverishing the masses will hurt the planet and people. More likely than not, it will do more than hurt people — it will kill many of them.

Evita Duffy-Alfonso is a staff writer to The Federalist and the co-founder of the Chicago Thinker. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, and her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1 or contact her at evita@thefederalist.com.
from:    https://thefederalist.com/2023/08/19/these-14-american-cities-have-a-target-of-banning-meat-dairy-and-private-vehicles-by-2030/

What’s In Your Catfish?

Posted on by

Scientists Use CRISPR To Put Genes From Alligator Into Catfish

Credit: Jam Press/Auburn University

POSTED BY: JESSICA HAMZELOU VIA MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW FEBRUARY 3, 2023

Transgenic gene editing means taking a genetic sequence from one species and inserting it into another. The United Nations is cataloging the DNA of all species on earth for this very reason: mix and match. Given enough time, these Technocrat/Transhumanist scientists will cause a meltdown of life on earth from genetic corruption. ⁃ TN Editor

Millions of fish are farmed in the US every year, but many of them die from infections. In theory, genetically engineering fish with genes that protect them from disease could reduce waste and help limit the environmental impact of fish farming. A team of scientists have attempted to do just that—by inserting an alligator gene into the genomes of catfish.

Americans go through a lot of catfish. In 2021, catfish farms in the US produced 307 million pounds (139 million kilogram) of the fish. “On a per-pound basis, anywhere from 60 to 70% of US aquaculture is … catfish production,” says Rex Dunham, who works on the genetic improvement of catfish at Auburn University in Alabama.

But catfish farming is also a great breeding ground for infections. From the time farmed fish are newly hatched to the time they are harvested, around 40% of the animals worldwide die from various diseases, says Dunham.

Could the new genetic modification help?

The alligator gene, which Dunham’s research turned up as a potential answer, codes for a protein called cathelicidin. The protein is antimicrobial, says Dunham—it’s thought to help protect alligators from developing infections in the wounds they sustain during their aggressive fights with each other. Dunham wondered whether animals that have the gene artificially inserted into their genomes might be more resistant to diseases.

Dunham and his colleagues also wanted to go a step further and ensure that the resulting transgenic fish couldn’t reproduce. That’s because genetically modified animals have the potential to wreak havoc in the wild should they escape from farms, outcompeting their wild counterparts for food and habitat.

Transgenic survivors

Dunham, Baofeng Su (also at Auburn University), and their colleagues used the gene-editing tool CRISPR to insert the alligator gene for cathelicidin into the part of the genome that codes for an important reproductive hormone, “to try to kill two birds with one stone,” says Dunham. Without the hormone, fish are unable to spawn.

The resulting fish do seem to be more resistant to infections. When the researchers put two different types of disease-causing bacteria in water tanks, they found that gene-edited fish were much more likely to survive than their counterparts that had not undergone gene editing. Depending on the infection, “the survival rate of the cathelicidin transgenic fish was between two- and five-fold higher,” says Dunham.

The transgenic fish are also sterile and can’t reproduce unless they are injected with reproductive hormones, say the researchers, who published their findings online at the preprint server bioRxiv. The paper has not yet been peer-reviewed.

“When I first [heard about the study], I thought: what on earth? Who would have thought to do this? And why would they?” says Greg Lutz at Louisiana State University, who has been researching the role of genetics in aquaculture for decades. But Lutz thinks the work has promise—disease resistance can have a big impact on the amount of waste generated by fish farms, and reducing this waste has long been a goal of gene editing in farmed animals, he says.

Read full story here…

from:  https://www.technocracy.news/scientists-use-crispr-to-put-genes-from-alligator-into-catfish/

Gene Therapy & DNA Alteration

Posted on by

Lockdowns: looks like an op, smells like an op, walks six feet apart like an op

by Jon Rappoport

May 6, 2020

We don’t need Rahm Emanuel to tell us a crisis shouldn’t go to waste. It’s a strategy that probably got off the ground a hundred thousand years ago. The other half of it is, create the crisis to begin with. Then don’t waste it.

The Bill Gates plan involves a mother of all vaccines for COVID, mandated across the globe, before the lockdowns end. That’s his psychopathic wet dream. Then, coming in behind that, his lackey, the World Health Organization, along with the professional liars at the CDC, will add—“we must mandate EVERY vaccine…”

To pull off a mandated global vaccine for eight billion people takes a manufactured crisis.

Fake virus plus real lockdown is the crisis.

You don’t think that one up overnight. You plan. You drill, and you organize. You put all your ducks in a row. You prepare, in order to become Stalin and Mao.

Then somebody has to break the ice.

In this case, it was the Chinese regime—locking down 50 million people overnight in three cities. Moving quickly to a hundred million.

“If the Chinese did it, we can do it, too. We must.”

Then follow up with a dire prediction. Where will that come from? “Let’s dust off that broken-down hack, Neil Ferguson. He’ll give us what we want. He always does. Tell him to slap together one of his computer models. You know, predictions of lots of deaths up the road. Half a million in the UK, a couple of million in the US. Fauci will salute it like money.”

Then LOCKDOWN.

Drive people back into their homes. Put them out of work. Shut down businesses. Wreck economies.

NOW, hold out the carrot. The vaccine.

Note: A new COVID vaccine could be used to alter the genetic makeup of humans. That’s exactly what the emerging (and as yet unlicensed) DNA technology does. It’s a form of gene therapy, now in clinical trials—and, officially, one of the “competing candidates” for a COVID vaccine.

The New York Times, 3/10/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes a 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.” [That was five years ago.]

“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.

The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:

“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.

Even if we (falsely) assume this is an epidemic caused by a virus, the official case numbers—as I’ve described in a recent article—do NOT warrant nearly as much concern as annual official flu numbers.

And, of course, NO lockdowns faintly resembling what we have now have ever been recommended, much less enforced, for flu.

And there is no mandated global flu vaccine.

Therefore, a planet-wide, mandated COVID vaccine, as a get-out-of-jail-card, is absurd.

The freedom to reject the vaccine MUST be protected.

The actual conspiracy theorists—Gates, WHO, CDC—who invented the conspiracy, must also be rejected.

SOURCES:

* https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/health/protection-without-a-vaccine.html

* https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/05/05/covid-the-numbers-game-the-fraud-and-the-final-answer/

* https://medcitynews.com/2020/04/gsk-sanofi-huddle-to-develop-covid-19-recombinant-dna-vaccine/

* https://www.technologynetworks.com/biopharma/product-news/phase-1-us-trial-of-covid-19-dna-vaccine-enrollment-complete-334373

from:    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/05/06/lockdowns-looks-like-an-op-smells-like-an-op-walks-six-feet-apart-like-an-op/

Designer Babies on The Way?

Posted on by
gene

First the crops, now the babies: Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos to create designer babies

Wednesday, October 07, 2015 by: L.J. Devon, Staff Writer

(NaturalNews) If a group of Chinese scientists gets their way, the future genome of the human race will be designed and mapped out by their genetic standards. Human genetics might one day have to pass strict genetic tests and go through genetic modification to meet the demands of developing a more perfect human race. Chinese scientists are taking eugenics to a whole new level at the Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, confirming for the first time that human embryos have been genetically engineered.

Those who are angered at the current corporate control and genetic modification of crops should be even more furious at the experiments currently taking place on human embryos.

The Chinese scientists claim they have modified the germ line of several human embryos. The genetic changes are intended to eliminate the possibility of a fatal blood disorder in humans called thalassemia. This is the next step toward a society of designer babies engineered to possess more disease-resilient traits.

As scientists are already finding out with crops, altering genes can elicit unintended consequences. For example, GMO Bt corn was spliced with the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin, which was designed to repel the corn ear worm, but over time that worm population adapted and became resilient, causing widespread crop damage and the need for more chemical pesticides.

What are the unintended consequences of manipulating human life?

The impending eugenic society

Research team leader Junjiu Huang assured the medical community that all of the embryos used in the research study were non-viable embryos that could not survive. The embryos were obtained from fertility clinics where two sperm fertilized one egg.

After Huang got the results he was looking for in non-viable fetuses, was he willing to stop there or will he take it to the next level? Will this kind of research ultimately be carried out on fully-intact, viable human fetuses – possibly those harvested from Planned Parenthood pathology labs?

Editing the DNA of human embryos is already banned in Europe, but other countries – apparently China and maybe the U.S. – might not be too concerned with the ethical grounds involved in fetal tissue research and the genetic modification of human life.

“This news emphasizes the need for an immediate global ban on the creation of GM designer babies,” said Human Genetics Alert Director, Dr. David King. “It is critical that we avoid a eugenic future in which the rich can buy themselves a baby with built-in genetic advantages.”

“It is entirely unnecessary since there are already many ethical ways to avoid thalassemia. This research is a classic example of scientific careerism – assuring one’s place in the history books even though the research is unnecessary and unethical.”

Shirley Hodgson, professor of cancer genetics at St. George’s University of London said, “I think that this is a significant departure from currently accepted research practice. Can we be certain that the embryos that the researchers were working on were indeed non-viable?”

“Any proposal to do germline genetic manipulation should be very carefully considered by international regulatory bodies before it should be considered as a serious research prospect,” she stated.

The experiment caused mutations in genes that were not supposed to be affected at all

The Chinese scientists used a technique originally discovered by MIT scientists. The genetic engineering technique is known as CRISPR/Cas9 and works by inserting a protein from a specific bacterium into the germ line of human DNA. The gene editing process mimics the way in which a virus is attacked in the body. The spliced bacterium snips away at the gene responsible for the rare blood disorder.

This technique has its shortfalls. First of all, what are the long-lasting effects of altered genes that are passed down through generations? How will the environment ultimately respond to these changes, and what mutations might occur?

These are valid questions considering that only 71 of 86 embryos survived the two-day gene editing period. On top of that, only 28 embryos were successfully spliced and an even smaller portion actually contained genetic material replacement when all was said and done.

To make matters worse, the CRISPR technique caused mutations in genes that were not supposed to be affected at all!

Nevertheless, four other groups of Chinese scientists are expected to continue the research. Lead researcher Huang says he is abandoning the controversial research to study ways to stop these mutations from occurring. How thoughtful.

Sources for this article include:
TheAlternativeDaily.com
NaturalNews.com

Genetically Modified Children

Posted on by

 

Dozens of Genetically Modified Babies Already Born – How Will They Alter Human Species?

July 17 2012

Story at-a-glance

  • As of 2001, 30 children genetically modified children had been born, courtesy of a process in which genes from a female donor are inserted into a woman’s eggs before being fertilized. Two children that were later tested were found to have DNA from three parents—two women and one man
  • No one really knows what the ramifications of having DNA from three parents might be for the individual, or for their subsequent offspring
  • Many follow-up reports continue to tout the high success of this method of treating infertility. But some do warn about the dangers and risks of this procedure. Researchers have found a link between chromosomal anomalies and oocytes manipulation, and one of the babies was diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder, a spectrum of autism-related diagnoses, at the age of 18 months

By Dr. Mercola

When I first read that genetically modified humans have already been born, I could hardly believe it. However, further research into this story featured in the UK’s Daily Mail1 proved it to be true. They’ve really done it… they’ve created humans that nature could never allow for, and it’s anyone’s guess as to what will happen next.

Even more shocking was the discovery that this is actually old news!

The Daily Mail article was not dated, and upon investigation, the experiments cited actually took place over a decade ago; the study announcing their successful birth was published in 20012.

While I typically comment on recent findings and health related news, in this case I will make an exception, because I think many of you may be as surprised by this information as I was. I do not propose to have any answers here as this is out of my scope of expertise.

At best, I hope I can stir you to ponder the implications of this type of genetic engineering, and I invite you to share your perspective in the vital votes’ comment section below. As reported in the featured article:

“The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics… Fifteen of the children were born… as a result of one experimental program at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey.

The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilized in an attempt to enable them to conceive.

Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults—two women and one man.”

Human Germline Now Altered… What Happens Next?

Today, these children are in their early teens, and while the original study claims that this was “the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children,” later reports put such claims of absolute success in dispute. Still, back in 2001, the authors seemed to think they had it all under control, stating:

“These are the first reported cases of germline mtDNA genetic modification which have led to the inheritance of two mtDNA populations in the children resulting from ooplasmic transplantation. These mtDNA fingerprints demonstrate that the transferred mitochondria can be replicated and maintained in the offspring, therefore being a genetic modification without potentially altering mitochondrial function.”

It’s relevant to understand that these children have inherited extra genes—that of TWO women and one man—and will be able to pass this extra set of genetic traits to their own offspring. One of the most shocking considerations here is that this was done—repeatedly—even though no one knows what the ramifications of having the genetic traits of three parents might be for the individual, or for their subsequent offspring.

Based on what I’ve learned about the genetic engineering of plants, I’m inclined to say the ramifications could potentially be vast, dire, and completely unexpected.

As a general, broad-strokes rule, it seems few scientists fond of gene-tinkering have a well-rounded or holistic view of living organisms, opting instead to view the human body as a machine. And as demonstrated with the multi-varied problems that have arisen from genetically engineered foods—from the development of superweeds and superpests, to the creation of a never-before-seen organism now linked to miscarriage and infertility—such a view is bound to lead you to the wrong conclusions…

Surprise, Surprise… “Unpredictable Outcomes” Reported

As it turns out, this type of genetic modification, called cytoplasmic transfer, is actually a hot topic among geneticists, but it’s rarely published or discussed in the lay press, if at all—as evidenced by my own surprise when reading this decade-old piece of news.

Many follow-up reports continue to tout the high success of this method of treating infertility. But some, including a book put out by Cambridge Press, warns of the dangers and risks of this procedure. For example, the following excerpts from a report3 delivered during the 2003 World Congress on Controversies in Obstetrics, Gynecology & Infertility in Berlin raises questions about the less than thoughtful implementation of this technology, and some of the problems encountered:

“… Cytoplasmic control of preimplantation development is not a “new” concept, but ooplasm transfer have been amazingly rapidly applied in humans, with relative success, in the absence of extensive research to evaluate the efficacy and the potential risks of the method, resulting in some publications highlighting the potential dangers (Winston and Hardy 2002, DeRycke et al 2002, Templeton 2002), and unpredictable outcomes (Cummins 2001, 2002).

… A frank follow-up of ooplasmic transplantation pregnancies and infants reports that two out of 17 fetuses had an abnormal 45, XO karyotype. The authors assume the hypothesis of a link between chromosomal anomalies and oocytes manipulation, and reveal that one of the babies has been diagnosed at 18 months with Pervasive Developmental Disorder, a spectrum of autism-related diagnoses.” [Emphasis mine]

So it didn’t take long—less than two years, in fact—for reports of “unpredictable outcomes” to crop up. I for one am not surprised. It’s somewhat disconcerting that so much of this research is taking place without open discussion about the ethical questions associated with it.

The US FDA appears to have begun looking at the ethics of ooplasmic transplantation, and in one powerpoint4 it is pointed out that an 18-month-old child born from this procedure has been diagnosed with autism (PDD), and that the incidence of chromosomal anomalies is known to be higher in children born from the procedure than the rate of major congenital abnormalities observed in the natural population.

The document also states that lack of testing and long-term follow-up of the children born from the procedure so far is a significant shortcoming, making evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of the technique very difficult. The genetic modification of humans appears to have been running alongside the genetic engineering of plants, being just a few years behind in terms of the technology being unleashed, and the lack of proper evaluation of health effects is apparently on par as well, which is to say near non-existent…

Could They Create Patentable Humans? Perhaps…

Another horrific side effect that has nothing to do with health per se, is the potential that making this procedure widely available may trigger a “patent” war; meaning these genetically modified humans could become patentable property.

Sound crazy?

You bet! But it’s not outside the realm of possibility. The world is already embroiled in discussions about which genetically engineered life forms can and cannot be patented5, and biotech companies have secured patents on everything from genetically modified seeds to engineered animals of various kinds. Even human genes have already been patented!

As explained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)6:

“The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) grants patents on human genes, which means that the patent holders own the exclusive rights to those genetic sequences, their usage, and their chemical composition. Anyone who makes or uses a patented gene without permission of the patent holder – whether it be for commercial or noncommercial purposes – is committing patent infringement and can be sued by the patent holder for such infringement. Gene patents, like other patents, are granted for 20 years.

For example, Myriad Genetics, a private biotechnology company based in Utah, controls patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes [two genes associated with hereditary breast- and ovarian cancer]. Because of its patents, Myriad has the right to prevent anyone else from testing, studying, or even looking at these genes. It also holds the exclusive rights to any mutations along those genes. No one is allowed to do anything with the BRCA genes without Myriad’s permission.

A 2005 study found that 4,382 of the 23,688 human genes in the National Center for Biotechnology Information’s gene database are explicitly claimed as intellectual property.  This means that nearly 20% of human genes are patented. In addition to the BRCA genes, genes associated with numerous diseases, both common and rare, are patented, including Alzheimer’s disease, asthma, some forms of colon cancer, Canavan disease, hemochromatosis, some forms of muscular dystrophy, Long QT Syndrome, and many others.”

If this sounds outrageous, illegal, and nonsensical, it’s because it’s all of those things. The ACLU claims to be engaged in a noble lawsuit against the US Patent and Trademark Office to stop the practice of issuing patents that are contrary to the law, which states only inventions can be patented—not naturally occurring parts of the human body. Still, the precedent has been clearly set. So what’s to stop a company from eventually claiming patent rights on an entire individual?

Human Cloning Next?

to read more, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/17/first-genetically-modified-babies-born.aspx?e_cid=20120717_DNL_artNew_1

Bee Collapse, Monsanto, Truth & Fiction

Posted on by

Blamed for Bee Collapse, Monsanto Buys Leading Bee Research Firm

20th April 2012

By Anthony Gucciardi

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

Monsanto, the massive biotechnology company being blamed for contributing to the dwindling bee population, has bought up one of the leading bee collapse research organizations. Recently banned from Poland with one of the primary reasons being that the company’s genetically modified corn may be devastating the dying bee population, it is evident that Monsanto is under serious fire for their role in the downfall of the vital insects. It is therefore quite apparent why Monsanto bought one of the largest bee research firms on the planet.

It can be found in public company reports hosted on mainstream media that Monsanto scooped up the Beeologics firm back in September 2011. During this time the correlation between Monsanto’s GM crops and the bee decline was not explored in the mainstream, and in fact it was hardly touched upon until Polish officials addressed the serious concern amid the monumental ban. Owning a major organization that focuses heavily on the bee collapse and is recognized by the USDA for their mission statement of “restoring bee health and protecting the future of insect pollination” could be very advantageous for Monsanto.

In fact, Beelogics’ company information states that the primary goal of the firm is to study the very collapse disorder that is thought to be a result — at least in part — of Monsanto’s own creations. Their website states:

“While its primary goal is to control the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) infection crises, Beeologics’ mission is to become the guardian of bee health worldwide.”

What’s more, Beelogics is recognized by the USDA, the USDA-ARS, the media, and ‘leading entomologists’ worldwide. The USDA, of course, has a great relationship with Monsanto. The government agency has gone to great lengths to ensure that Monsanto’s financial gains continue to soar, going as far as to give the company special speed approval for their newest genetically engineered seed varieties. It turns out that Monsanto was not getting quick enough approval for their crops, which have been linked to severe organ damage and other significant health concerns.

Steve Censky, chief executive officer of the American Soybean Association, states it quite plainly. It was a move to help Monsanto and other biotechnology giants squash competition and make profits. After all, who cares about public health?

“It is a concern from a competition standpoint,” Censky said in a telephone interview.

It appears that when Monsanto cannot answer for their environmental devastation, they buy up a company that may potentially be their ‘experts’ in denying any such link between their crops and the bee decline.

About the Author

Anthony Gucciardi is an accomplished investigative journalist with a passion for natural health. Anthony’s articles have been featured on top alternative news websites such as Infowars, NaturalNews, Rense, and many others. Anthony is the co-founder of Natural Society, a website dedicated to sharing life-saving natural health techniques.

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2012/04/20/blamed-for-bee-collapse-monsanto-buys-leading-bee-research-firm/