GMOs

THE GMO SCRAPBOOK: RNA TARGETING PESTICIDES

August 24, 2015 By Joseph P. Farrell

Just when you thought it was no longer safe to trust the Congress not to pass the Mon(ster)santo Poisonous Food Pandering Protection Act, and no longer safe to eat anything The Powers That Be tell you is perfectly safe, things take yet another turn for the worse, as this article, shared by Mr. M.N., reveals:

New Monsanto Spray Kills Bugs by Messing With Their Genes

Now, this all sounds well and good, because the new pesticide is supposed to target specific insects and their specific genes; no need to worry about your vanishing honeybees (how many of those have you seen lately? I ask, because the other day I went outside, and saw my first bee in years). But I digress, for yes, the latest miracle from I.G. Farbensanto targets only the "bad" insects:

The novel sprays in question are powered by a genetic technology called RNA interference, which promises to kill specific insects and weeds by silencing genes crucial to their survival, while leaving nontarget species unscathed.

RNAi, as it's known, is an emerging science; the two US researchers who discovered it brought home a Nobel Prize in 2006. Regalado describes the process like this:

The cells of plants and animals carry their instructions in the form of DNA. To make a protein, the sequence of genetic letters in each gene gets copied into matching strands of RNA, which then float out of the nucleus to guide the protein-making machinery of the cell. RNA interference, or gene silencing, is a way to destroy specific RNA messages so that a particular protein is not made.

If you can nix RNA messages that exist to generate crucial genes, you've got yourself an effective bug or weed killer. And GMO seed and pesticide behemoth Monsanto thinks it has just that. Robb Fraley, the company's chief technology officer and a pioneer in creating GM seeds, told Regalado that within a few years, RNA sprays would "open up a whole new way to use biotechnology" that "doesn't have the same stigma, the same intensive regulatory studies and cost that we would normally associate with GMOs." Fraley described the novel technology as "incredible" and "breathtaking."

And then, we have the "there's no need to worry the digestive process kills anything before it gets into your system" argument:

The panel concluded there's "no convincing evidence" that RNAi material poses a threat to humans or other animals—the digestive process likely destroys it before it can do harm. But for nontarget insects in the field, they concluded, it's a different story. The technology's boosters claim the technology can target particular pests and leave everything else in the ecosystem alone.

IN other words, there's no danger that the RNA interference technology will "jump species" into animals or humans consuming the products sprayed with Mon(ster)santo's latest concoction.

We've heard this before, and it led my co-author of Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas, Dr Scott deHart and I to posit the idea that horizontal gene transfer might occur even through the digestive system. We were, predictably, laughed at for even raising the possibility. After all, we all know that eating beef or pork doesn't turn us into cows and pigs, right?

But the danger is real, if not more subtle:

GMO Jumping Genes

Or this:

Confirmed: DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them

Complete Genes May Pass from Food to Human Blood

There is of course a skeptical literature countering all this, such as here:

5.1—DNA fragments in the gut are plentiful, but cause no problems

But as we argued in Transhumanism, such claim and counter-claim in the literature only highlight what the problem all along was, and is: when dealing with just such horizontal transposons, it is surely the height of arrogance to assume we know all the mechanisms of such transfer, or that life - even genetically engineered life - will not create such mechanisms, and hence very long-term intergenerational studies are necessary before such products should be allowed into the open market. Many papers continue to be produced assuring us (and everyone else) that such risks are minimal. But a careful consideration of what even some scientific papers are suggesting should make it clear that there are risks, and accordingly, such technologies should be viewed and tested with all due diligence.

But don't expect I.G. Farbensanto or its bought-and-paid-for scientismists and government lackeys to do it, for I suspect we are dealing - as Dr. deHart and I argued in Transhumanism - with an agenda that isn't just about profits. It's about creating Frankenfoods for the alchemical reengineering of mankind itself. It is comforting that at least Russia and some other countries increasingly indicate that they don't want their populations to be the lab rats in I.G. Farbensanto's projects.

See you on the flip side...