Yesterday, you'll recall, I blogged about an article by our friend and colleague Jon Rappoport, who has raised the alarm about the latest vaccine gimick coming down the pike, the "universal flu vaccine" whose potency relies upon reprogramming a recipient's DNA as a means of fighting all types of flu. As Rappoport indicated, this technology is being touted without any sort of long-term inter-generational science which could indicate potential problems with the technology.
Well, look no further than this story shared by Ms. M.W. and Mr. H.B. and Mr. B.G.:
Ponder the opening two paragraphs from this article again, and in the context of yesterday's blog about gene-therapy drugs:
Crispr Therapeutics led gene-editing stocks lower after new studies published by Nature Medicine found that cells whose genomes are edited with the CRISPR-Cas9 technology have the potential to cause cancer, Stat News reports.
Editing cells’ genomes with CRISPR-Cas9 might increase the risk that the altered cells, intended to treat disease, will trigger cancer, two studies published on Monday warn — a potential game-changer for the companies developing CRISPR-based therapies.
Could we be looking at a wider phenomenon, namely, that genetic modification itself increases the risks of cancer? While it's probably too early to tell, let us recall once again that independent studies of GMOs - largely done in France and the rest of Europe - have indicated beyond any doubt increased risks of cancers from regular consumption of GMOs. If one is in the presence of a general phenomenon, then the dangers of which Mr. Rappoport wrote yesterday take on a specific potentiality: a "universal vaccine" intended to inoculate against one thing might end up increasing the risks of another.
But now ponder the last paragraphs of the story:
Given the massive interest in this company and its gene-editing applications, Stat News asks an obvious question - if successfully CRISPR’d cells can seed cancers, why hasn’t this been seen before, and why haven’t the many CRISPR’d mice developed tumors?
Karolinska’s Haapaniemi said the effect shows up in large-scale experiments like hers and Novartis’ “but can be missed in small-scale studies where people only focus on editing one gene in one cell type.” In speaking to other scientists, she said, “it seems that other teams have noticed the effect of p53 on editing,” but have not highlighted it.
Now here comes the high octane speculation, for what is being alleged is that the safety evaluations of CRISPR technology were tested on a small group, and a narrow cellular tissue sample, whereas their study suggesting increased cancer risk from CRISPR editing were done on a larger group and presumably different types of tissue samples. The question is, were those initial studies on a narrow base done deliberately? Was something already known and covered-up? I don't know, but given the malfeasance of big agriculture and big pharma on GMOs and their endless vaccines, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
And there's another high octane speculation, but this time, it's not mine, but Mr. B.G.'s: could we be looking at some sort in in-built defense mechanism in the human genome against such editing. And perhaps (here's my contribution to Mr. B.G.'s speculation) we will discover that these types of mechanisms might be epigenetic. If that latter speculation about epigenetics should prove to be the case, then it should be a warning to the over-confidence placed in "universal gene therapy vaccines," for until such epigenetic influences on the genome development of any species is adequately understood, then tinkering with genes would seem a sure bet to invite disaster.
See you on the flip side...