The Story of GE Agriculture: Traversing the Transgenic Travesty

Exploring the Biotech Industry’s Irresponsible venture into rDNA/CRISPR tech and the exponentially more dangerous decision to subvert science, threaten the biosphere and break the law for profit.

In the following material I will be explaining how certain corporate and government interests actively sought to subvert the scientific process and break the law for profit. I will detail how they did this in order to push the novel organisms that were the product of inherently imprecise and hazardous forms of technology onto the market in products intended for human consumption.

First of all, the entire concept of patenting life and claiming intellectual property of a genetically mutated and contaminated seed (aka “GMO” seed) is built on the fallacy that humans are capable of “inventing” organisms. At best, humans can use gene splicing and/or gene editing technology to temporarily enslave, contaminate and cripple organisms by detrimentally manipulating DNA. This act does not constitute inventing anything, it is in fact aptly described by Vandana Shiva as a form of Biopiracy.

In essence, when you take a step back and honestly assess what the genetic modification/contamination and patenting of seed (and other lifeforms) represents, it is just the next iteration of the parasitic imperialistic colonialism that has been stealing from indigenous peoples and pillaging the Earth for centuries now.

In order to provide some context on the continuity of the mentality of oligarchs and colonialism and how it relates to the genetic modification/contamination of life (Biopiracy) I will share a few excerpts from Vandana Shiva’s excellent book (Oneness vs The 1%) below:

It began with imperialistic marauders leaving their polluted and depleted homelands (due to the inevitable results of “civilization” and “agriculture”) and pushing outwardly, colonizing the lands of indigenous peoples, killing them, enslaving them, assimilating and stealing their physical land. Then, once all the land had been stolen, large corporations in the pharmaceutical industry began stealing the traditional medicinal knowledge of indigenous peoples, copying their plant medicine formulas and claiming that they had invented them through various forms of deceit, duplicitousness and chicanery.

As these medicine marauders worked on pillaging the traditions of many, those same imperialistic oligarchies that were pushing forward global colonialism became entrenched in profiteering and racketeering operations related to petroleum monopolies and weapons manufacturing.

As explained by Dr Vandana Shiva in her book Oneness vs the 1%, the agrichemical industry we know today is nothing more than a continuation of the toxic tools and poisons from the post World World 2 labs of IG Farben.

“A century ago, the money and oil of the Robber Barons came together with the finances and toxic technologies from the labs of IG Farben to form the Toxic Cartel that evolved the tools of killing. This is how a century of ecocide and genocide through poisons and toxic chemicals began. Chemicals developed to kill people in Hitler’s concentration camps during WWII became the agrichemicals for industrial agriculture when the war ended. This industrial agriculture was then forced on people everywhere.” (read more on this here)

Having stolen the land and the plant medicines, the next stage of imperialistic colonialism began to target the very fabric of life, DNA. This is where so called “genetic engineering” comes into the picture, and where mentally deranged oligarchs and a range of morally bankrupt politicians and scientists embarked upon a quest to colonize and attempt to steal the very living heritage that is embodied in our seeds. They are even attempting to pillage the sacred cannabis plant for her many medicinal compounds through biopiracy now (which is something I provided some info on in my last article.)

Now, let us take a step back so we can gain a clearer understanding of how we got to where we are today by assessing the mainstream perspective on genetically modified organisms. As tedious as analyzing their corporate lies and propaganda may be at times, I feel it helps bring clarity to why so many people are confused about “GMOs” and what this abuse of technology is actually designed to accomplish.

Many of us have been told (by people on television, in magazines/newspapers or even by some in certain academic institutions and governments) that food products that are derived from genetically modified organisms (transgenic organisms that are the result of rDNA technology) are completely safe to eat, but as someone who has always questioned and been weary of those who make unfounded claims without presenting any evidence to support them (and someone wanting to know what exactly I would be putting in my body), I decided to do my own research. After several years of talking with scientists, farmers, and reading a lot of literature pertaining to molecular biology, gene splicing, toxicology, biological and organic chemistry, (as well as looking into the work of specialists in pathogens, ecology, botany) I have come to the disturbing conclusion that not only is there no scientific evidence to show “GMO food” is safe for long term consumption, there is a multitude of scientific evidence that indicates the inherent hazards of rDNA technology are great ( and the risks posed to humans (or any other organism) ingesting the transgenic organisms it produces as a food source are severe.

Before I get into the science surrounding the hazards of the technology itself (and the dangers of ingesting the organisms it produces) let’s take a look at some of the Pro-GMO arguments to see if they have any validity.

Many of the proponents of rDNA technology claim the products it produces are necessary to address the ‘world hunger crisis’, but after over three decades of GMO foods being widely available on the market worldwide it has yet to live up to its claim.

It`s also important to keep in mind that the entire basis of a pro transgenic agriculture argument being about solving world hunger is irrelevant even IF rDNA technology was able to live up to its unfounded claim that it can increase agricultural production. In reality we currently globally produce enough food for 10 billion people it`s just that the world wastes a significant portion of the food it produces (in the U.S. 40% of the food it produces is wasted).

This egregious waste is one of the true culprits behind starvation, not scarcity, and in light of these facts it becomes clear that a “pro-GMO argument” based on “addressing world hunger” is a moot point. There is more than one reason why people go hungry, but none of those reasons are because we don’t have enough food to go around and need to produce more. Degenerative agricultural practices, intentionally destabilized economies/supply lines and the unfair distribution of resources are the main factors that artificially and uneccisarily perpetuate the mass starvation of human beings. This is due to apathy, greed, ignorance, colonialism, wasted food and the fact that the core motivation that drives large scale agricultural developments is profit and who will pay the most, not addressing those in need.

The proponents of GMO crops argue that they can engineer plants to put out higher nutritional value and greater crop yields, yet in direct contrast to their claims the nutritional value of crops that switched to GMO seeds have in fact decreased and on top of that the yields are also down due to the extensive damage the GMO associated herbicides have done to the beneficial ecology in the soil (insects, microbes and symbiotic fungi).

The continued use of excessive amounts of highly toxic chemicals that are used in conjunction with GMO farming practices has left the water contaminated, the air contaminated and the soil depleted.

For more information on the history of glyphosate read “Merchants of Poison: A case study in pesticide industry science denial on glyphosate (an excerpt)”

These practices have killed the soil life over vast expanses, which means that the dead and desolate dirt requires the introduction of large amounts of petroleum based fertilizers annually in order for the land to continue producing crops using industrial methods.

These practices are not only doing grievous damage to human and animal health in the present, they are also destroying the living soil and surrounding interconnected ecology of the farm land and in doing so directly threatening future generation’s ability to be self-sustaining and /or grow healthy food for themselves.

For information on Glyphosate Detox and Remediation of Glyphosate contaminated soils:

Glyphosate and Dioxin Detox

Not only has the Biotech industry failed to solve the world hunger crisis it claimed it had the solution to, GMO crops and agricultural developments diminish genetic diversity while also contaminating the existing natural genetic integrity of ecosystems (including but not limited to crop producing plants).

That’s not even to mention how reckless and tragic it is to encourage farmers in third world countries to abandon their ancient traditional seed saving practices with false promises to get them to sign a deal with GMO seed companies with talk of a better more drought resistant bug resistant yield, when what they really are doing is throwing out thousands of years of genetic diversity and crop resilience that was acquired through the natural selection of the seeds they save having adapted to the local conditions creating many different varieties of the crop they grow.

As I touched on in my 23 Reasons To Start A Garden In 2023, the aggressive expansion of GE agriculture has led to a significant diminishing of the genetic diversity in our seed varieties. Until a hundred or so years ago, farmers saved their seeds to plant for the next season. Thousands of varieties evolved across the globe, constantly adapting to their environment and to the preferences of the culture and cuisine.

Just 50 years ago, some 1,000 small and family-owned seed companies were producing and distributing seeds in the United States; by 2009, there were fewer than 100.

Thanks to a series of mergers and acquisitions over the last few years, four multinational agrochemical firms — Corteva, ChemChina, Bayer and BASF — now control over 60 percent of global seed sales.

The recent merger of Bayer and Monsanto came alongside the merger of Dow Chemical and Dupont, as well as Syngenta and ChemChina. These mergers placed the vast majority of the global agriculture industry in the hands of just three corporations.

Through these various mergers and acquisitions, the biotech industry has become a modern-day IG Farben – functioning as a singular global chemical-military-industrial complex, the real owners of which are the investment firms like Vanguard and Blackrock.

The mergers are more like musical chairs, organised by the real owners, investment funds like Vanguard, Blackrock, Capital Group, Fidelity, State Street Global Advisors, Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), and others.

Three-fourths of the world’s GMO seeds come from Monsanto/Bayer labs. Monsanto extracts royalties for its seeds and the high cost of the seed and chemicals push farmers into a debt trap.

The slow march of seed consolidation suddenly turned into a sprint. Chemical and pharmaceutical companies with no historical interest in seed bought small regional and family-owned seed companies. Targeting cash crops like corn and soy, these companies saw seeds as part of a profitable package: They made herbicides and pesticides, and then engineered the seeds to produce crops that could survive that drench of chemicals. The same seed companies that now control more than 60 percent of seed sales also sell more than 60 percent of the pesticides.

GMO byproducts degrade and deplete soils of vital minerals and beneficial bacteria, both of which protect crops from pests, viruses, and other threatening elements. Glyphosate which is used in conjunction with GMO seeds does not biodegrade, which means it is continually accumulating in the environment without restraint, perpetually altering soil composition and contaminating natural resources.

This genetic diversity means that if one variety falls to a disease, there will likely be others which are immune, which is not the case for GMO crops. Therefore GMO farming practices actually endanger the long term stability of the food supply due to depending on a seed variety with limited resistance and hardiness to certain diseases and conditions which could arise and wipe out an entire strain of a certain GMO crop (something that would not affect all traditional varieties as long as there is genetic diversity present in the given crop.

When this topic comes up sometimes you will get people saying things like “Humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals since at least the time we moved beyond simple hunter-gatherer societies and in some cases, e.g., dogs, even before that. Almost no plant we eat today is in its fully natural with no selective breeding or tampering state.”

I would like to make it clear that anyone that is attempting to conflate selective breeding with gene splicing (to make transgenic organisms) by describing both as forms of “genetic modification” is an intentional obfuscation of the facts. People who say such things are either purposely attempting to deceive by giving a gross misrepresentation of the facts, or they are significantly ignorant to the science involved in creating a transgenic organism (aka “GMO”). More on this later in the article.

Another flagrantly deceptive claim of pro GMO spokes persons I discovered is that “GMO farming will do less damage to the environment than other methods of farming “. That argument is completely false and not based in reality. Many GMO agricultural practices involve the spraying of copious amounts of toxic chemicals on the plants, on the land and into the ground water. (Ex. “Round up”, “2,4-D” and “Dicamba”).

Even without the spraying of the GMO specific pesticides and herbicides the genetically altered plants themselves are engineered to produce toxic compounds that seep into the ground water damaging trees and poisoning insects (both “pests” and beneficial insects alike) which in turn carry this toxic material up the food chain to poison larger animals.

I think it is also worth noting that Monsanto (now Bayer) was also known for producing DDT, a highly toxic insecticide that played a serious role in the 20th-century polio epidemics.

Despite years of Monsanto propaganda, insisting that DDT was perfectly safe, by 1972 the research indicating its toxicity had mounted to the point that it was banned throughout the US. But this did not dissuade Monsanto from its goal of poisoning the world, for, in the 1960s, they became one of the principal producers of Agent Orange, a herbicide used for chemical warfare during the Vietnam war.

More recently they created yet another deadly chemical to soak the farm fields with. Ingesting this one has a direct effect on sperm mobility and survival rates in males:

and:

Some other commonly “regurgitated PR lines” of the biotech industry you will hear are “there has been a scientific consensus that GMO food is safe”, “if you are anti-GMO you are anti-science” and “rDNA technology and the transgenic organisms it produces are just a form of accelerated selective breeding”. All of those claims couldn’t be further from the truth. Not only has there never been a scientific consensus among scientific experts in regards to their considering transgenic organisms safe to eat, before the ‘biotech propaganda’ became widespread, there was in fact a consensus about GMO foods in the community of experts in relevant fields, but in stark contrast to popular belief it was not pro-GMO, the consensus was that the potential risks and dangers of the technology were such that extensive testing should be done before its products were released onto the market. Unfortunately that scientific consensus was ignored by our governments for purely economic and political reasons, and no such proper testing has been carried out to date. Steven M. Druker said it well when he stated, “(the)parading of unfounded opinion in the guise of solid science has been a constant feature of the GE food venture- and one of its deepest and most enduring deceptions.”

On the topic of how radically different rDNA technology is from traditional forms of breeding Nobel Laureate and Professor of Biology Emeritus at Harvard University George Wald said “Recombinant DNA technology faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms. Such an intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms. It is the biggest break in nature that has occurred in human history.”

What I discovered in my research was that any person who uses any of the “pro-GMO arguments” described above is either purposely attempting to deceive you by giving you a gross misrepresentation of the facts, or they are significantly ignorant to the science involved in creating a transgenic organism (aka “GMO”). The FDA’s own scientific experts, when charged with originally assessing the possible risks to the public before allowing GMOs onto the market, stated very clearly that these novel organisms posed the potential for unprecedented safety issues as they are the result of methods that are radically different than any traditional means of hybridizing, breeding or grafting.

It all started back in the 1990-s, the FDA established a scientific task force with experts from all the relevant disciplines, to aid in developing its policy on GE (rDNA) foods. The majority of the expert scientific staff (including the head of biological and organic chemistry, the director of the center for veterinary medicine, the biotechnology coordinator, and even their own compliance officer) at the FDA concluded that extensive testing was required before said products were declared as safe, and extreme caution should be exercised in their release into the environment. Here’s a short list of some of the other FDA experts who demanded further testing before market release: microbiologist Dr. Louis Pribyl, Dr. E. J. Matthews of their toxicology group, and Dr. Carl B. Johnson the additives evaluation branch). Their professional opinions were ignored by their non-scientist superiors in administrative roles for purely economic and political reasons. FDA administrators subsequently suppressed and denied the scientific consensus of their own experts. They then deliberately censored their expert opinions when issuing their final report by leaving out that the majority stated there was not sufficient data to consider GMOs as “G.R.A.S.” (Generally regarded as safe). This represents an illegal and fraudulent action and they were taken to court for that very reason. Much of the ensuing legal proceedings were documented in a book called “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth” by Steven M. Druker.

While the proponents of the GE food venture have claimed that anyone who is concerned about the safety of GMO food is anti-science, the truth is the venture itself is anti-science. Druker comments on this saying, “Besides enabling the imposition of great potential harm on consumers and the environment, the delinquencies of the scientific establishment have inflicted concrete harm on science – and the harm has been major.” . Further, Patrick Brown, a professor of plant sciences at the University of California, Davis has observed “ to date many in the scientific community have been unwilling to rationally consider the concerns surrounding the current GMOs and have wrongfully considered that a defense of GMOs is a prerequisite to protect the science of plant biotechnology. Nothing could be further from the truth.” Druker expands on this by saying, “But instead of facing the truth about the wrong-headedness of trying to protect science by protecting the image of GE crops, their scientist proponents have significantly effaced the truth about how these crops are created, how they differ from traditionally bred crops and how extensive evidence has cast doubt on their safety. And in striving to manage (and censor) the flow of information to the public, they’ve suppressed the free flow of ideas within the scientific community, which is the life blood of scientific progress.” He adds,“ the scientist proponents of GE foods have been inconsistent in the way they have relaxed scientific protocols, doing so in a biased manner that has created a double standard under which any study reporting problems with these products is subjected to far stricter requirements than those purporting not to find any. Through such a duplicitous set up, rigorous studies published in peer reviewed journals are pilloried or even forced into retraction if they have detected ill effects while shoddy ones that couldn’t qualify for publication in such journals have been treated as authoritative as long as they claim reassuring results. This gross degradation of scientific standards is an important part of the GE food fraud because proponents have created the illusion that science has been assiduously upheld when, in reality, it has been systematically subverted in order to make the products of bioengineering appear safe.” In commenting on this deplorable phenomenon, Dr. Philip Regal, professor at the University of Minnesota and an internationally recognized biosafety expert has noted, “Traditionally scientists regarded intellectual honesty as part of collegiality and there was accountability if one was caught telling lies. Accordingly, liars were blackballed. But since the rise of genetic engineering, the situation in molecular biology has to a significant degree become inverted and when it comes to that technology, one gets blackballed for telling the truth.”

Most people are not aware that one of the first ingestible products which was the result of genetic modification was responsible for a deadly epidemic. Eosinophilia – myalgia syndrome (“EMS”) produced flu like symptoms in some, extreme pain, inflammation and paralysis for some, and death for others. It was a severe neurological disorder brought about by the ingestion of toxic by-products of the genetic alteration of a bacteria called Bacillus amyloliquefacien in an effort to increase tryptophan production. The direct link to the GMO batches of this food supplement (being those which caused EMS) vs the non GM batches (which did not) was well established by rigorous scientific and medical investigation. The facts surrounding these findings were down played, misrepresented, and clouded intentionally by the FDA, bio-tech corporations and those molecular biologists who had a vested interest in the profits and growth of said companies/industries.

There is now much scientific data which suggests the potential for gene splicing (rDNA tech) to precipitate the creation of unknown and undetectable novel substances which could be toxic or allergenic in nature is not only likely, but an inevitable flaw of the technology itself. Some pro GMO people have likened rDNA technology and the transgenic organisms (“bioengineering”) to software engineering and computer programming because they both involve the altering complex information systems, but when some of the world`s most prominent IT (information technology) and software engineering experts who are educated on the subject of rDNA technology were asked how the two stack up their responses showed how rDNA technology (“bioengineering”) is more like “hacking” than software engineering. When asked about how the current practices of “bioengineering” (rDNA tech) compares with software engineering Australian software engineer and information security expert Stephen Wilson said this “It’s like taking a snippet of code from the program of the toaster oven and splicing it into an airline guidance system yet assuming that nothing will be disturbed.”

Much like hackers, genetic engineers are people who don`t understand the “source code” of the programs they attempt to alter. In both hacking and bioengineering (by use of rDNA tech) the inserted segments of foreign code act very much like a virus, impairing the programs performance. Steven M Druker illuminated the parallels between hacking, bioengineering and the behavior of viruses concisely by saying, “They both gain entry by breaching the program`s defenses against foreign incursions, and once inside, they operate independently of, and inimical to, the aims of the invaded system – while commandeering its resources in order to do so.”

Steven explained further on the topic by saying “..Bioengineers are not engaged in the primary activity of software engineers, nor could they even attempt to be. That activity comprises the design and creation of complex information programs; and the bioengineers who develop new varieties of edible plants and animals are utterly incapable of designing and creating the information systems of the higher organism they deal with – systems that crucially contribute to the generation of living cells, guide their development into complex organisms and enable those organisms to conduct a multitude of finely tuned and intricately coordinated operations through which they sustain their lives and successfully interact with immensely variegated environments. Instead, they merely make alterations to those systems: systems that were not (and could not have been) created by humans. … Because genetic engineers know so much less about the programs they alter actually operate than do software engineers, and because the associated risks are so high, one could reasonably expect them to exercise not merely the same degree of caution as do the latter, but substantially more. And this expectation is even more justified in light of the fact that their operations are far less precise than those of software engineers. They cannot control where in the DNA strand the inserted genes end up, nor can they configure them to act in harmony with the myriad doing of the target cell. Instead, these intrusive genetic sequences operate outside the cell’s intricate regulatory system in an exceptionally unruly and potentially disruptive manner. Yet although compared to software engineers, their vision is critically restricted and their acts inexact, the bioengineers have operated with far less precaution.”

Thus, given the how extreme its innate unpredictability is, and the technology’s inherent high risk nature, “bioengineering” doesn’t deserve to be classified as a form of engineering at all. In order to illustrate just how risky, imprecise and dangerous rDNA technology is, I will give a brief overview of the specific methods that are utilized in the biotech industry to create a transgenic organism (aka “GMO”).

Creating transgenic organisms via rDNA technology involves using restrictive enzymes to cut DNA, reattaching the foreign matter to other organisms which they use to ‘piggyback’ the gene and force it to bond with and express itself in the target organism. Some of their delivery mechanisms for these foreign fragments of genetic material include something called a ‘gene gun’ (aka biolistic transformation) and “viral promoters” like the Cauliflower mosaic virus, as well as “agrobacteria” such as Agrobacterium tumefaciens, (the ‘gene gun’ or biolistic transformation being the most imprecise of them all).

The fragments of foreign DNA enter the target genome in an essentially random manner; and research indicates that they usually disrupt the DNA of the regions into which they wedge.

According to Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine, “this gene transfer process is known to introduce hundreds or even thousands of additional mutational defects in the DNA, with potentially devastating consequences on the global host gene function”. The other two most commonly used methods of creating GMOs involving an aggressive pathogen/’viral promoter’ or a parasitic bacteria/”agrobacteria” pose serious hazards as well. These viruses and parasitic bacteria force the target organism to accept the fragments of genetic material and express them in conjunction with their own genes. Due to the aggressive nature of these pathogens and parasitic bacteria gene expression of the inserted material isn’t just forced, it’s forced to express copiously and constantly, creating novel amino acids and toxins in levels that are dangerous to humans ingesting these GMOs. These new proteins made within GMOs can have detrimental consequences. According to molecular biologist and protein chemist, David Schubert, a professor at the Salk Institute “We know that such modifications can render an otherwise harmless protein toxic or allergenic, we don’t know enough to predict how and when such malefic modifications will occur.” Schubert also says, “The complexity of insertional effects is compounded by the fact that each cell type of the organism tends to respond differently… the disruptive potential is amplified by the presence of the 35S promoter in each haphazardly placed fragment. Because this viral-derived booster is so powerful, it can induce erratic expression of some native genes – or activate biochemical pathways that are ordinarily inactive. Each of these outcomes could spur the production of unintended toxins or induce damaging imbalances. Moreover, due to their “always-on” promoters, the transplanted genes act independently of the host organism’s intricate control systems, as do the genes of an invading virus, in contrast to the harmonious coordination that exists among native genes. Consequently, not only is every cell of the organism forced to produce substances that have never been in that species, it’s forced to produce them in an unregulated manner – which can disrupt complex biochemical feedback loops (and induce unintended toxins).” As a direct result of such potential hazards (mentioned above) one of the first ingestible products (which was produced via genetic modification) was responsible for a deadly epidemic (Eosinophilia – myalgia syndrome aka “the EMS outbreak”).

More recently humans have created new ways to attempt to pillage, dominate and mutilate the building blocks of life in a laboratory (on a molecular level). One such technologies is referred to as “Gene Editing”.

CRISPR gene editing unintentionally causes changes in gene regulation, a recent scientific publication ( https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-020-07233-2 ) shows that CRISPR/Cas gene scissor applications in animals unintentionally leave traces. The findings are related to gene regulation, i.e. epigenetics. The effects are heritable and may, for example, result in disruption of embryonic development.

The recent findings not only indicate risks for medical applications but also for the environment. For example, gene drive organisms generated by CRISPR/Cas are altered in a way that epigenetic changes, which can result in alterations in the patterns of gene expression, are present in the genomic makeup of all offspring. If this process also causes unintended changes in gene regulation, environmental risk assessment is much more complicated.

Bill Gates is funding new GMO technologies, including gene editing and gene drives and has made investments in Editas, a company that controls patents on the new GMO technologies. Along with DARPA, he is promoting the use of gene drives for the deliberate extinction of species.

Over 1,200 emails released under open records requests reveal that the U.S. military is now the top funder and influencer behind a controversial genetic extinction technology known as “gene drives” – pumping $100 million into the field. The trove of emails, obtained via open records requests, also shed light on a $1.6 million dollar UN gene drive advocacy operation paid for by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. https://www.etcgroup.org/content/gene-drive-files

Gene drives are a gene-editing application that allows genetic engineers to drive a single artificial trait through an entire population by ensuring that all of an organism’s offspring carry that trait. For example, recent experiments are fitting mice with ‘daughterless’ gene drives that will cascade through mouse populations so that only male pups are born, ensuring that the population becomes extinct after a few generations.

Proponents have framed gene drives as a breakthrough tool for eradicating pests or invasive species. However, the Gene Drive Files reveal that these ‘conservation’ efforts are primarily supported by military funds.

These funds go beyond the US; DARPA is now also directly funding gene drive researchers in Australia (including monies given to an Australian government agency, CSIRO) and researchers in the UK. The files also reveal an extremely high level of interest and activity by other sections of the U.S. military and Intelligence community.

The PR hype states that Gene drive technology could be deployed to wipe out troublesome plant-parasites, weeds, crops, animal pests and animals.. but what about humans? Mull that over with your morning coffee. How about if you don’t like a specific group of humans and you isolate a genetic sequence that differentiates them from other humans, then use that as a means to target them for extermination via crippling their DNA in an unstoppable cascade reaction with gene drive technology?

Several years ago, UN member nations were considering a recommendation to call a moratorium on the use of gene drives. However, Bill Gates showed up to try to squash the moratorium.

The Gene Drive Files reports: “Documents received under Freedom of Information requests reveal that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation paid a private agriculture and biotechnology PR firm $1.6 million for activities on Gene Drives. This included running a covert ‘advocacy coalition’ which appears to have intended to skew the only UN expert process addressing gene drives…”

The latest and greatest gene-editing tools (e.g., CRISPR), which are used for gene drives, are far from precise, despite official assurances.

Increasing off-target implications are uncovered from gene-editing tools such as CRISPR, or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat, and TALEN (Transcription Activator-Like Effector Nuclease), the reality is the opposite of what was advertised: the perfectly precise snips to DNA may not be so exact after all, highlighting the complete lack of understanding of the complexities that come with attempting to alter genetics.

Researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) have revealed that CRISPR base editors, which are intended to target a single DNA base, induce widespread off-target effects in RNA.

The study titled, “CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing induces exon skipping by alternative splicing or exon deletion.” linked above tells a very different story. An exon is “a segment of a DNA or RNA molecule containing information coding for a protein or peptide sequence.” So you can see that exon skipping or deletion is a very bad outcome.

ANY gene editing done on ANY species opens the door wide to all sorts of errors and unforeseen consequences.

Gene drives have the potential to dramatically transform our natural world and even humanity’s relationship to it. The invention of the CRISPR-CAS9 tool and its application to gene drives (also known as a “mutagenic chain reaction”) gives technicians the ability to intervene in evolution, to engineer the fate of an entire species, to dramatically modify ecosystems, and to potentially unleash large-scale environmental changes, in ways never thought possible before.

I feel it is worth re-iterating that Bill Gates and the WEF champion this technology.

For more information on CRISPR and the inherent dangers this technology poses to humanity and the biosphere:

• How Gene Drive Organisms Could Entrench Industrial Agriculture and Threaten Food Sovereignty: https://www.etcgroup.org/content/forcing-farm?fbclid=IwAR10noqi45Bhq5ykcpSGQ2ys0iaehosqkansq_xx-wzwACTr_DvgFFu_A3w

• The “Farm to Fork” Green Agenda: How the EU and the Davos WEF Plan to Control Agriculture: https://www.globalresearch.ca/farm-fork-how-eu-davos-cabal-plan-control-agriculture/5757350

Any way you look at it, rDNA (gene splicing) and so called “gene editing” (CRISPR) technologies are horrible ideas. These technologies embody and exemplify the hubristic insanity of humans trying to play God and dominate nature which got us to where we are today.

Natural reproduction offers intrinsic checks and balances that these types of technology do not. The genetic rearrangement that occurs through conventional breeding (sexual reproduction) provides genetic diversity allowing the organism to remain robust and take on the most resilient traits of the parents in a manner that doesn’t disrupt or imbalance the organism. When the natural recombination of genetic material occurs in sexual reproduction it includes a step called crossover in which two partner chromosomes in each gametes (sperm or egg cells) break at corresponding points and then exchange complimentary sections of DNA. In this way all the chromosomes end up with genes from both parents instead of only from one. However, all the genes are preserved, as is the sequence in which they’re positioned. This means the integrity of the genome stays intact. The natural recombination of DNA augments diversity while maintaining stability. This process sharply contrasts with genetic engineering. Although the gene that is transferred via this technology is known, not only is it impossible to predict all its unintended effects, there’s no sound basis for assuming they’ll be safe. In essence when one looks at the hard data and fairly compares the two processes it is bioengineering that is random and risky. The inserted cassettes of genetic material are haphazardly wedged into the cell’s DNA. They create unpredictable disruptions at the site of insertion. The overall process induces hundreds of mutations throughout the DNA molecule, the activity of the inserted cassettes can create multiple imbalances and the result cannot be deemed safe without undergoing a battery of rigorous tests that has yet to be applied to any engineered crop.

In light of this information, it becomes clear that the belief that transgenic food and rDNA technology is safe is a matter of faith or opinion not science. It’s obvious that genetically modifying life, patenting living organisms for profit and feeding them to our children without any proper testing on the potential long term health risks or environmental risks is irresponsible.

In conclusion; it is clear that the industry which has built up around rDNA technology (through its carelessness, fraud and deceit) has been involved in the subverting of science and the cause of substantial damage to human life all in the name of profit and politics. The fact is that the methods (rDNA tech) and practices of the biotech industry (have been and continue to be) unscientific and irresponsible. There is a substantial amount of evidence to show that food which is derived from GMOs is unsafe , and zero legitimate evidence that has proven its safety for long term consumption by humans or livestock.

If you want to do an even deeper dive into genetic engineering here is the full presentation what I where I got many of the screenshots in the article from.

---

If you have read this far I would like to thank you, because as I said in my article titled “In Pursuit Of An Antidote For Corporate Parasites And Charting A Path Towards A Brighter Future”

Without first accurately diagnosing the patient, formulating an effective treatment is impossible. If we do not test (and/or closely observe/assess) the soil then our efforts for remediation and regeneration will inevitably fall short of our intended outcome (of creating a healthy, lush, resilient growing space). If we want our problem solving and solutions based actions to make lasting changes we must first clearly assess the current state of affairs so that we can plan effectively.

So now we know how bad of an idea genetically modifying life is and how eating those genetically modified organisms is an even more horrible idea, but what is the solution?

Well I bet you can guess it has something to do with gardening and seed saving! ;)

My next post will be focusing on the many ways through which we can embody the solution, resist the corporate take over of our food systems and take action to protect the very fabric of life itself through the incredibly empowering and educational act of Seed Saving.

For now I will conclude this article by sharing some more material from the wise and courageous scientist and heirloom seed activist that is Dr. Vandana Shiva.

I really like her “Seed Satyagraha” initiative (https://www.navdanya.org/living-seed/seed-satyagraha ) and the “Global Movement for Seed Freedom” that her and her colleges created as they focus on a decentralized solutions based approach that can bring resilience to each of our individual communities.

They describe these movements as being “..network(s) of individuals and organizations committed to align our thoughts and actions with the laws of Gaia, Pachamama, Vasundhara, Mother Earth… We protect the biodiversity of the planet by defending of the freedom of the seed to evolve in integrity, self-organisation, and diversity. We are seed savers and seed defenders, farmers and gardeners, practitioners of regenerative agriculture..

..Our right to save and exchange our open pollinated, non GMO, non patented seed is non alienable. We will resist every law and technology that attempts to undermine our freedoms, and the freedom of the seed, which is intimately linked to the freedom of Mother Earth. Across Diverse Ecosystems and cultures we are united in defending Seed freedom/Seed sovereignty as the foundation of Food Freedom/Food Sovereignty, based on ecological production and fair and just distribution, beginning with protecting and promoting local food systems.”

“Declaration on Seed Freedom” by Dr. Vandana Shiva https://seedfreedom.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/declaration.pdf

---

---

If we learn from our ancestors and our Mother Nature and accept her open hand we can thrive and nurture our bodies in any and all situations (while staying guided by integrity and love).

It is for times such as these that Gandhi used Satyagraha – the force of truth to resist unjust laws and empires peacefully and non violently. In nature one of her most innate truths and constants is her irrepressible capacity for regeneration. We can align with this innate facet of the living planet that sustains us and become irrepressible as well.

We will remember the importance of the sacred act of saving seed and teach the next generation to do the same.

We are the ones we have been waiting for.