As the old adage goes, you are what you eat. But do you really know what you are eating on a daily basis? You might be surprised to find out that the institutions in charge of keeping our food safe are really not as interested in your health as you think. In episode 39, we sit down with long time GMO activist John Diaz as he breaks down the corporate monster that is the bio tech industry and gives you tips on how to avoid Frankenfood Fever!
For full episodes check out deadrabbitssociety.com!
2008 Presidential Panel on Cancer: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#imp/FMfcgxwLtGqDjZpnPLxtZVTVGdMnlZTh?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1
GM Watch, Michael Antoniou, a London-based molecular geneticist, explained that significant changes could occur due to genetic editing, in both agricultural and medical contexts, necessitating long-term safety and toxicity studies. He explained:15
"Many of the genome editing-induced off-target mutations, as well as those induced by the tissue culture, will no doubt be benign in terms of effects on gene function. However, many will not be benign and their effects can carry through to the final marketed product, whether it be plant or animal …
Thus not only is it necessary to conduct whole genome sequencing to identify all off-target mutations from CRISPR-based genome editing, but it is also essential to ascertain the effects of these unintended changes on global patterns of gene function.
… In addition, it is important to acknowledge that the targeted intended change in a given gene may also have unintended effects. For example, the total disruption or modification of an enzyme function can lead to unexpected or unpredictable biochemical side-reactions that can markedly alter the composition of an organism, such as a food crop.
The compositional alterations in food products produced with genome editing techniques will not be fully revealed by the molecular profiling methods due to the current inherent limitations of these techniques. So it is still necessary to conduct long-term toxicity studies in established animal model systems. In the absence of these analyses, to claim that genome editing is precise and predictable is based on faith rather than science."
Gene Editing May Not Be as Precise as It Seems
Researchers at the U.K.'s Wellcome Sanger Institute systematically studied mutations from CRISPR-Cas9 in mouse and human cells, focusing on the gene-editing target site. Large genetic rearrangements were observed, including DNA deletions and insertions, that were spotted near the target site.
They were far enough away, however, that standard tests looking for CRISPR-related DNA damage would miss them. The DNA deletions could end up activating genes that should stay "off," such as cancer-causing genes, as well as silencing those that should be "on."16
CRISPR-Cas9 also leads to the activation of the p53 gene, which works to either repair the DNA break or kill off the CRISPR-edited cell.17 CRISPR actually has a low efficacy rate for this reason, and CRISPR-edited cells that survive are able to do so because of a dysfunctional p53.
The problem is that p53 dysfunction is also linked to cancer (including close to half of ovarian and colorectal cancers and a sizable portion of lung, pancreatic, stomach, breast and liver cancers as well).18
https://www.nexusnewsfeed.com/article/science-futures/genetic-editing-of-animals-has-horrible-side-effects/
#GMOs #Monsanto #frankenfood #bigpharma #bigagra #glyphosate #rounduplawsuits #roundup #geneticallymodifiedorganism #covidvaccine #vaccinecourt #yesonprop37 #billgates #eugenics...
