Yes, they are playing with fire. I first began mutating DNA in the late 1980s (then a weeks-long laborious process, now inexpensively done by machine in hours.) I was a proponent of genetic engineering for many years. But by 2015, I realized it to be a fool's game. By then, the 1950s-era DNA-RNA-Protein paradigm been completely overturne…
Yes, they are playing with fire. I first began mutating DNA in the late 1980s (then a weeks-long laborious process, now inexpensively done by machine in hours.) I was a proponent of genetic engineering for many years. But by 2015, I realized it to be a fool's game. By then, the 1950s-era DNA-RNA-Protein paradigm been completely overturned, and any understanding "science" had of genetics and role in life was in its infancy. I told my students this was a great research opportunity, as so little was known or understood. Yet, "science" continues its pronouncements regarding genetic engineering of plants, animals, and people which entirely ignore the harmful or lethal hazards which accompany changing things one does not understand. The "covid vaccine" was but one example.
I'm curious if properties that can change or alter dna is really a big deal? I don't know science as well as I'd wish. But I read somewhere that sperm changes women's dna. And if that is so then what does that mean? For women it is natural? But consuming gmo corn and gmo wheat ect is unnatural and harmful? And if nanotech shots do alter and damage us generationally as well, then is there reversibility? My guess if billions are affected by all of this accumulated frankenshit, then this will be an area of long term work to correct as best as possible.
Don't know about the sperm thing- sperm penetration of the egg must signal a woman's body to activate different genes, but that's not changing DNA, only activating it to do as it was designed to do. On the generation thing, based on the current hypothesis, the only DNA passed generationally is that in the sperm and egg. So mutations in those cells would be passed to a child. But mutations to DNA in the other body's cells would effect only that individual. On reversibility- the whole mRNA gene therapy concept was to reverse existing natural mutations. However, that technology failed miserably, both failing to help and causing great harm including death. I see no hope of repairing DNA once damaged. I suppose the least bad news is that while the poisonous injection is causing great harm and death, there is no direct evidence that it is damaging the DNA. We don't even know what exactly is contained in the different lots of injections, nor which component(s) of the injection is causing the harm or how that harm is caused. Time, money, and resources are required to answer those questions, and the US government is doing all it can to restrict access to those things required to prevent finding answers to those questions.
Overall, the problem is that nobody knows what effects any given mutation will have because nobody knows the mechanism(s) of DNA and RNA in the body. Our lab made single mutations in mice- some killed the mice, others had no apparent effect. Typically, researchers are only looking for a single effect, but there are tens of thousands of biological reactions occurring at any given time, and no way to monitor if any of those other reactions are disrupted. In plants, who can guess? For instance, one mutation in roses designed to give them insect resistance had the unexpected result that the flower also lost its odor.
One suggestion in the review article is that the organization of DNA is not at the gene level, but at the exon level, to use an analogy, the organization is not at the sentence level, but at the word level, with each word (exon) in a given sentence (gene) potentially being part of a different sentence (gene.) If so, any changes in one word in a sentence could disrupt any number of other sentences- we just don't know. One thing is certain, the only safe strategy is to make no changes at all. I once favored GMO products- I now consider them hazardous and complete folly.
I seen on TV commercial once that I should trust a Real Farmer that GMO raised foods are good. Other than cash, would there any other real basis for his Expert assessment?
You changed your view. Were you paid a bunch of money to do that? You just up and considered the work you loved to do and at one time you even favored GMO products. How does one make that leap?
It would be the rare farmer has enough information to make such a statement. He probably believes what he was told, just as I did.
I wish there had been money. Nor was it a sudden change- just 20yrs more experience and gaining new information. Students are trained in the establishment science model, and it takes time (and the will to want to know) to determine that much of what is taught is bullhockey.
Serious question - unlike my prior sarcastic comment in which I impersonated a geneticist PhD - are there any books you can suggest on the topic of the overturned paradigm of DNA -> RNA -> Protein? Horace Freeland Judson's Eighth Day of Creation was a favorite of mine long ago. I loved Crick's anecdote about how he coined the term "central dogma". He misunderstood the meaning of "dogma", and yet his coinage still stuck.
Yes, they are playing with fire. I first began mutating DNA in the late 1980s (then a weeks-long laborious process, now inexpensively done by machine in hours.) I was a proponent of genetic engineering for many years. But by 2015, I realized it to be a fool's game. By then, the 1950s-era DNA-RNA-Protein paradigm been completely overturned, and any understanding "science" had of genetics and role in life was in its infancy. I told my students this was a great research opportunity, as so little was known or understood. Yet, "science" continues its pronouncements regarding genetic engineering of plants, animals, and people which entirely ignore the harmful or lethal hazards which accompany changing things one does not understand. The "covid vaccine" was but one example.
I'm curious if properties that can change or alter dna is really a big deal? I don't know science as well as I'd wish. But I read somewhere that sperm changes women's dna. And if that is so then what does that mean? For women it is natural? But consuming gmo corn and gmo wheat ect is unnatural and harmful? And if nanotech shots do alter and damage us generationally as well, then is there reversibility? My guess if billions are affected by all of this accumulated frankenshit, then this will be an area of long term work to correct as best as possible.
Don't know about the sperm thing- sperm penetration of the egg must signal a woman's body to activate different genes, but that's not changing DNA, only activating it to do as it was designed to do. On the generation thing, based on the current hypothesis, the only DNA passed generationally is that in the sperm and egg. So mutations in those cells would be passed to a child. But mutations to DNA in the other body's cells would effect only that individual. On reversibility- the whole mRNA gene therapy concept was to reverse existing natural mutations. However, that technology failed miserably, both failing to help and causing great harm including death. I see no hope of repairing DNA once damaged. I suppose the least bad news is that while the poisonous injection is causing great harm and death, there is no direct evidence that it is damaging the DNA. We don't even know what exactly is contained in the different lots of injections, nor which component(s) of the injection is causing the harm or how that harm is caused. Time, money, and resources are required to answer those questions, and the US government is doing all it can to restrict access to those things required to prevent finding answers to those questions.
Overall, the problem is that nobody knows what effects any given mutation will have because nobody knows the mechanism(s) of DNA and RNA in the body. Our lab made single mutations in mice- some killed the mice, others had no apparent effect. Typically, researchers are only looking for a single effect, but there are tens of thousands of biological reactions occurring at any given time, and no way to monitor if any of those other reactions are disrupted. In plants, who can guess? For instance, one mutation in roses designed to give them insect resistance had the unexpected result that the flower also lost its odor.
One suggestion in the review article is that the organization of DNA is not at the gene level, but at the exon level, to use an analogy, the organization is not at the sentence level, but at the word level, with each word (exon) in a given sentence (gene) potentially being part of a different sentence (gene.) If so, any changes in one word in a sentence could disrupt any number of other sentences- we just don't know. One thing is certain, the only safe strategy is to make no changes at all. I once favored GMO products- I now consider them hazardous and complete folly.
Thanks that was helpful.
I seen on TV commercial once that I should trust a Real Farmer that GMO raised foods are good. Other than cash, would there any other real basis for his Expert assessment?
You changed your view. Were you paid a bunch of money to do that? You just up and considered the work you loved to do and at one time you even favored GMO products. How does one make that leap?
It would be the rare farmer has enough information to make such a statement. He probably believes what he was told, just as I did.
I wish there had been money. Nor was it a sudden change- just 20yrs more experience and gaining new information. Students are trained in the establishment science model, and it takes time (and the will to want to know) to determine that much of what is taught is bullhockey.
Thanks man.
Serious question - unlike my prior sarcastic comment in which I impersonated a geneticist PhD - are there any books you can suggest on the topic of the overturned paradigm of DNA -> RNA -> Protein? Horace Freeland Judson's Eighth Day of Creation was a favorite of mine long ago. I loved Crick's anecdote about how he coined the term "central dogma". He misunderstood the meaning of "dogma", and yet his coinage still stuck.
I just responded, but I think it ended up in the general comments section?
Yes - I see it.
David Lamson: My in-laws are a perfect example of genetic engineering gone wrong.