August 23, 2013
Edible vaccine supporter and head of the Biodesign Institute for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, Dr. Charles Arntzen has recently responded to questions about the issue of overpopulation with the following sardonic remarks, “Has anybody seen Contagion? That’s the answer! Go out and use genetic engineering to create a better virus [to wipe out the population]“.
According to the Institute for which Dr. Arntzen works,
“Infectious disease causes 35 percent of deaths worldwide, and is the world’s biggest killer of children and young adults. Our researchers are focused on basic bacterial and viral infectious disease processes as well as the design and use of vaccines and protein therapeutics to combat infectious diseases. These include newly emerging pathogens and potential biological warfare agents.
(NaturalNews) In May 2013, two million people in over 50 countries expressed outrage over Monsanto’s desire to own the food supply through genetically-altered (and patented) seeds that threaten all life on this planet. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are when a plant or animal has been genetically engineered with DNA from bacteria, viruses or other plants and animals. Whether you like it or not, you are eating genetically manipulated food without your consent.
Henry Kissinger once said, ‘Who controls the food supply controls the people…’ This comment plus many other dark and sinister ideas come from control hungry, greedy and, often times, dangerous people and corporations. On the next NaturalNews Talk Hour – we’ll expose the hidden agenda behind Monsanto.
- Aquabounty salmon set to granted approval in the U.S.
- Move alarms critics battling to stop expansion of GM crops
By Sean Poulter
The first genetically modified meat and fish could be approved this summer.
Authorities in the US are expected to grant approval to Aquabounty salmon, which has been modified to grow twice as fast as normal salmon.
And experts trying to combat world hunger are calling on the British Government to back the use of GM farm animals on the dinner table here.
Approved: U.S. authorities have given the go ahead for salmon that grow twice as fast as normal fish, paving the way for the Government to back the use of them here
The push into GM meat could see the production of giant pigs, hens that have only female chicks and cattle made disease resistant using genes from baboons.
But the move will alarm critics of the use of GM technology who are still battling to block the expansion of genetically modified crops.
Earlier breakthrough: Dolly the cloned sheep, which was developed by the Roslin Institute
Professor Helen Sang, GM animal expert at the Roslin Institute – where Dolly the sheep was cloned – insisted fears surrounding ‘Frankenstein’ foods can be overcome.
Roslin scientists yesterday called on the Government to support the spread of GM into farm animals but admit there will need to be a change in attitude among British families and retailers.
They say a new technique of gene editing allows precise changes to be made in animals destined to be eaten.
Professor Sang said: ‘This is a very exciting time. We have GM animals that have qualities you can’t achieve through conventional animal breeding.
‘The problem with GM is that it is seen as mumbo jumbo magic. But if people can understand what the aims are and what we are trying to achieve then they are much more comfortable.
‘It is an issue for us that the supermarkets decided many years ago not to sell GM food. They will have to change what they do, which will be a challenge for them. Food production is an international business and so GM animals may become acceptable in other countries before it is accepted here.’
The US is expected to approve Aquabounty salmon in the next few weeks. It is produced by inserting a growth hormone gene and another gene taken from the eel-like ocean pout. The fish would be sterile and raised in vast tanks on land rather than in sea cages. Bruce Whitelaw, professor of animal biotechnology at Roslin, said the main priorities of animal breeding companies are to create disease-resistant animals and manipulate the gender of offspring.
But Chinese scientists are also working on creating bigger, faster-growing food animals, he said.
Dr Helen Wallace of GeneWatch, which campaigns to ensure any use of GM is in the public interest, warned: ‘GM fish escapes could pose a serious threat to wild salmon populations.’ An EU move to allow the use of GM animals and insects modified to help destroy crop pests ‘amounts to engineering whole ecosystems, and no one knows the consequences of this,’ she said.
Pete Riley, of the GM Freeze campaign, said: ‘We can see no advantages from GM animals in either food production, pest control or disease control.
‘We know from in-breeding using conventional methods that this causes huge genetic problems which impact on the health and welfare of farmed animals.’
After an announcement last year that a series of experiments in the United States had resulted in the birth of 30 healthy genetically modified babies, genetics experts are now debating whether or not further development of designer offspring should be banned.
Just 16 years ago, the concept of genetic perfection was the stuff of Hollywood movies like “Gattaca.” Fast forward to just over a month ago, however, and experts were busy debating over whether genetically engineered babies should be prohibited in a session hosted in New York City by Intelligence Squared U.S.
Arguing for prohibition were Professor Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts University and chair of the Council for Responsible Genetics, and Lord Robert Winston, professor of Science and Society and emeritus professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College.
Arguing against prohibition was Nita Farahany, professor of Law and Philosophy and professor of Genome Sciences & Policy at Duke University. Filling out her team was Princeton University professor and author Lee Silver.
Among the audience who were asked to vote on the debate question before and after the presentations was Jim Watson, one of the discoverers of the structure of the double helix DNA.
In his opening arguments, Krimsky told the audience: “Enhancement through genetic engineering of human germ plasm is a fool’s paradise and will lead to no good.”
His first objection to the research was the fact that it would require clinical trials. “No set of animal studies can ensure the safety and efficacy of human prenatal genetic modification. It is unimaginable that any humane, democratic society would permit such a trial with public or private funds; the risk would so outweigh the societal benefits,” argued Krimsky.
He further argued that traits being considered for genetic modification could not be simply enhanced by a modification of one or two genes. “Traits like intelligence, personality, muscle tone, musicianship … are complex and not only involve dozens if not hundreds of genes but are the result of nutrition, social and environmental factors, genetic switches that are outside of the DNA and the gene-gene interactions that occur in human cells,” said Krimsky. “Scientists and the so-called transhumanists who believe that it is possible think of the human genome as a Lego set, where pieces of DNA can be plugged in or out without interfering with the other parts of the system. Actually, the human genome is more like an ecosystem where all the parts interrelate and are in mutual balance.”
He also contended: “The idea of genetic enhancement grows out of a eugenic ideology that human perfection can be directed by genetics.
“The danger is not so much that it will work, but as a myth, it will have social power that can be used by those who have wealth and resources to make others believe that to be prenatally genetically modified makes you better.”
In her opening remarks, Farahany asked the audience to vote against a complete ban on the genetic engineering of babies and argued that there are many instances where genetic engineering is legitimately necessary, saying it “is no different in kind from the many ways that we already engineer our children, from the partners we choose to prenatal screening to the supplements we take that impact our children and their fates.”
She highlighted new research showing that administering folate to women during pregnancy reduces the incidence of autism in children but no one wanted to ban folate. “… I want to convince you that we already can and have taken the next step of genetic engineering of babies and that we would take a drastic step backwards to ban outright that technology,” argued Farahany.
Mitochondria provides energy for the proper functioning of human cells and about two percent of human DNA is mitochondrial. “About one in 5,000 babies born have problems with their mitochondrial DNA that cause rare but incredibly serious disease, including heart failure, dementia, blindness, severe suffering and death,” said Farahany.
The 30 healthy genetically modified children noted at the beginning of this story, she noted, were treated through mitochondrial transfer and they were all born free of mitochondrial disease as a result.
A complete ban on the science that could help babies in this case would only serve to drive the science into dangerous underground conditions that wouldn’t be as helpful if people are allowed to seek private help, Farahany further explained.
At the end of the debate which lasted for approximately two hours, the audience voted against prohibition.