GMOs VS GENETICS

Amid all the clamor and focus on the sad murder of Charlie Kirk and its aftermath, I hope readers of this site will not begrudge me my reluctance to focus on it further. Already there are "dissections" of "the narrative" taking place, some of which I share, some of which I do not. My reluctance to comment further is simply that it is too early, people's passions are too hot (judging from some of the private messages I've received, and some of the feelings I myself have had). Amid all this, the world moves on, and there are some developments that are worth looking at...

... One of these is a quiet development being reported over at  Children's Health Defender,  a site long associated with current Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. This article was spotted and shared by M.W. (for which we express our gratitude). It's important because in many ways it confirms the concerns many of us had all along with the whole subject of GMOs, and the wider health and nutritional value of America "food-like products" (I can't in all honesty call much of it "food" any more, and I know whereof I speak, because I'm guilty of having consumed a lot of it, even though I try to avoid it as much as I can!).

Note firstly that the article begins with a reiteration of the concerns of people like me who have been trying to raise the issue of the actual vs. assumed safety of GMOs:

Are genetically engineered foods safe? In an interview with a leading molecular genetics expert, we discuss the scientific evidence behind health concerns tied to genetically modified (GM) corn and pesticides, how genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are changing in ways that increase health risks, and how regulatory systems have failed to keep pace with modern genetics.

Professor Michael Antoniou, head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College London, has studied for more than 35 years how genes function and how they are disrupted.

His decades of rigorous independent research into the risks of GM foods and glyphosate-based herbicides have raised serious concerns about the safety of these technologies.

In a report he prepared for the Mexican government, as the country attempted to restrict GMO corn imports for health reasons, Antoniou cited “a large body of evidence from well-controlled laboratory animal toxicity studies that show evidence of harm to multiple physiological systems” from toxic agents found in GM corn.

In this interview, Antoniou explains that the health risks of GM corn and its associated pesticides arise from three main sources: Bt insecticidal proteins (Bt toxins) engineered into the plants, DNA damage caused by the genetic modification process itself and pesticides used on the crops.

Now, so far, so good; this is a reiteration of all the issues that other researchers pointed out long ago, most notably F. William Engdahl's Seeds of Destruction and Marie-Marique Robin's celebrated book and documentary The World According to Monsanto.  Many of these same issues appeared earlier in my blogs on this site over the years.

But read on, that's not all; in the accompanying interview, Dr. Antoniou comments at some length on the more recent "scientific" practice of the regulatory agencies of America and their complete lack of response of any sort. Note the following:

Malkan: Your testimony for the Mexican government cites many types of evidence that indicate the potential for “serious negative health outcomes” from eating GMO corn in the very high amounts typical for Mexican citizens. Could you tell us, what are the most concerning health effects showing up in the studies?

Antoniou: Before going into detail, we should realize initially there are three possible sources, minimally, of toxic outcomes from the consumption of not just GM corn, but GMO foods in general.

First is the product of the foreign GM gene — the transgene. In the case of GMO corn, the insecticidal proteins, the Bt toxins, have never been an integral part of the human diet, especially in the special form they have been engineered into the crop. They can pose [a risk of] toxic or allergic reactions.

Secondly, the GM transformation process — the process by which a GMO is generated in the laboratory — is highly mutagenic. What do I mean by that? Inadvertently, you create unintended damage to the DNA of the crop.

Much of this DNA damage remains in the final marketed product. What is the danger from this? DNA damage can change the function of multiple genes — not just one, but many genes.

And by changing the pattern of gene function in the organism, you will change its biochemistry and its composition, including the unexpected production of new toxins and allergens.

Third, regardless of the GMO crop we’re talking about, they’re all grown with one or more different kinds of pesticides, mostly herbicides such as glyphosate. (Italicized and boldface emphasis added)

Note that "highly mutagenic" part of the emphasis in the quotation above: mutagenic simply means the genome, the DNA, of the crop undergoes mutations that are consequences of, but not necessarily desired or even predicted, by the process of genetic transformation. I long ago blogged about the possibility that the introduction of such material into the human food supply might  result in a similar process in humans. Indeed, we have reports from the whole covid potion injections that such things are occurring in those who were injected with the mRNA potions. We should not be surprised at that, since the whole pharmaceutical and GMO "industry" increasingly resembles the witches' scenes in Macbeth. In any case, such properties may indeed perhaps be the reason that potion-injection advocates were also toying with the idea of putting their potions into the already genetically modified food supply. Perhaps they were thinking of piggy-backing the mutagenic effects of their potions with those already present from the GMOs!

Shortly after this exchange, however, we come to the statement that left my jaw on the floor, in spite of the fact that it has been a criticism of mine ever since I started blogging about the subject. However, this statement is also an admission that the potential risks are far worse than one might imagine; ponder this one long and carefully, beginning with the context that sets it up:

Malkan: I want to get into particular health effects you’re concerned about but first let’s discuss how GMOs themselves are changing. In the U.S., most of the corn and soy we grow is genetically engineered as both insect-resistant (Bt toxin) and herbicide-resistant. Can you explain how these stacked-trait GMOs are increasing concerns about the types of DNA changes you’re talking about.

Antoniou:  Yes, a very important point here. In the earliest days, first-generation GMO crops had one or two different Bt toxins in them, and the early safety assessments were based on the single trait — a single Bt toxin, or glyphosate tolerance — and, rightly or wrongly, they were passed as safe using various criteria, which were completely inadequate anyway.

What’s happened over the years is that, as insects have become resistant to the early Bt toxins that were engineered into the corn, companies have added more variants of Bt toxins into the crop — up to six now, in some varieties.

In addition, you’ve got not just glyphosate-tolerant genes, but up to three different herbicide-tolerant genes added on top of that. You would think the regulators would say, we’re dealing with a completely different animal here. You’d think they would reevaluate from scratch. But I’m afraid that’s not what’s happened.

What regulators have done — no doubt, what industry has convinced them to do — is that if a GMO crop was passed as safe with one or two Bt toxins in it, it was assumed that when you combine more traits into one crop, there is no additional risk. Well, I’m afraid that is not science; that’s just assumption.

It’s not as if they did the research to convince themselves that that was the case. It was a purely hypothetical assumption to avoid doing any proper health risk assessment.

Now none of these statements are yet the one statement that left my jaw on the floor, but I have to pause and comment because this excerpt does confirm some of my own speculations in blogs I did years ago: keep stacking more and more mutations - intended or otherwise - on top of each other, and the risks are bound to compound, and to do so in increasingly unpredictable ways. As I have repeatedly said, and as even Russia emphasized when it refused to admit GMOs into its agriculture, no long-term intergenerational studies of the effects of GMO consumption have been done. And guess what country went "all-in" for GMOs?  Yup. That's right: The Ukraine.

But before we get to that arresting statement, did you happen to notice the reference to liver and kidney damage in animals fed with GMOs?:

And it ignores the fact that these single traits of either Bt toxin corn or glyphosate-tolerant corn, when assessed in these rat toxicity studies I was referring to earlier, both of them showed signs of liver and kidney damage — structure and functional damage, particularly — and that is based on relatively short-term feeding studies.

So if you were to extrapolate going longer term, which unfortunately was never done, then it’s very worrying that these could have escalated into very serious health outcomes in these animals. (Emphasis added)

Or how about that part on the rise in food allergies correlative to the introduction of GMOs?:

As you know, in the United States, food intolerances, especially allergies, have skyrocketed in recent decades, especially since the launch of GMO crops and foods in the U.S. Has that contributed to the rise in food intolerances and allergies? This is a valid question to ask, which needs to be addressed formally.

This brings me at last to that disturbing statement, which was this:

Malkan: So what are the consequences for human health? And do we see evidence of these types of problems in humans increasing since these foods have been on the market?

Antoniou: Well again. This is a very good question, but unfortunately, there have been no human epidemiological studies to try to correlate increases in GMO food consumption and negative health outcomes in say, the U.S. population, where they are consumed in quite large quantities compared to some other parts of the world. So we don’t really have an answer to this very important question. (Emphases added)

...in conjunction with this:

The key thing is that the level of the glyphosate was at the European Union acceptable daily intake in this mixture — half the acceptable daily intake in the United States. We didn’t see profound health outcomes. But when we mix that level of glyphosate with the 2,4-D and dicamba, we saw the most pronounced negative health outcomes.

This is showing us how regulators are failing to consider combinatorial toxicity. We’re not just exposed to one chemical at a time a day. We’re exposed to tens of different pesticides every day through our food and that’s added to other toxic chemicals from other sources in the environment. (Emphases added)

I have to admit, when I read these passages I had to go back and re-read the entire article to make sure I had read correctly, because Dr. Antoniou expressly confirmed some of my own speculations aired and voiced earlier on this website about GMOs: the combinatorial  activity and implications of throwing a bunch of toxins in the food supply, and thinking there will be no interaction (or worse, thinking that there will be, and secretly testing it all on the human population to find out what it might be).

Would they even be so evil? Would they have, perhaps, secretly done those epidemiological studies? I would not put it past them at all; after all, they pretty much did that during the covid planscamdemic, by foisting off potions and insisting the public take an untested or minimally tested injection, and then suppressing evidence, and even discussion, of the strange and anomalous results, and sudden spike of cancers, heart attacks, and so on.

In other words, it does not take much reading between the lines to see that, perhaps, the GMO scam is either a component of a deliberate poisoning effort, or a kind of "manslaughter" version of genocide, both being done in the name of "the science" and "progress" and "profit."  It's also a disturbing indicator that Big Agribusiness (I.G. Farbensanto as we like to call it here) has been talking to Big Pharma (Muck Pharmaceuticals, as we like to call it here), and coordinating their playbooks.  It's also a sad indicator that the subservience of regulatory agencies to Farbensanto and Muck is an accomplished fact.

See you on the flip side...

(If you enjoyed today's blog, please share it with your friends.)