Genetic attacks: more than we know; Where is the roller coaster heading?

Suppose the whole sea of genetic modification which is engulfing the world is not only a giant experiment…the scientists don’t even understand the basic parameters of the experiment?

First, I highly recommend the following report from Gene Watch UK: “On-target effects of genome editing techniques: (Un)repaired DNA damage, a hinderance to safety and development?”

The report is technical, but non-scientists can stagger their way through it and absorb enough to understand how dangerously thin the ice is, when it comes to genetic fiddling.

Only a lunatic would move ahead with wholesale genetic modification of life.

Not only are major mistakes frequent, the whole nature of the mistakes is not understood. And what the report doesn’t cover is:

Do scientists really have a correct picture of genes and all the attendant details they claim to understand?

Is the so-called genome actually what scientists believe it is?

I say that after studying the mind-boggling hoax called viruses—whose existence is a fairy tale originally floated to explain why doctors couldn’t cure sick patients.

I believe it’s quite possible we’re looking at multiple hoaxes and unfounded assumptions and guesses and fake ideas in the genetic area as well.

Even the definition of a gene changes over time. And of course, at each new step, researchers are quite sure they finally have the story right.

Then they change their minds.

For example, genome.cship.org, “What is a gene…?…”:

As we have described above, our knowledge of genes has evolved greatly over the past century. While our understanding has grown, we have also uncovered an increasing number of problematic aspects with simple definitions of a gene…Splicing (including alternative splicing) and intergenic transcription are obviously some of the most problematic aspects…the frequency of mention of these terms in the biological literature has been increasing considerably. Thus, the stage was set for the ENCODE project and the great complexity in transcriptional and regulatory apparatus that it highlighted. At this point, it is not clear what to do: In the extreme, we could declare the concept of the gene dead and try to come up with something completely new that fits all the data. However, it would be hard to do this with consistency. Here, we made a tentative attempt at a compromise, devising updates and patches for the existing definition of a gene.

!!!!!!

Does that quote from a scientific report make you feel secure?

And understand: we’re not merely discussing abstract theory here. Because, every day, all over the world, researchers and corporations are fiddling with these genes—for which NO final definition can be given.

How do you like them apples?

Here is what I see: the scientists are emboldened by the fact that they CAN make changes in living organisms. They can observe some (but not all) of those changes. Therefore, overlooking all the errors (known and unknown) they are creating, they assume their picture of genes and genetic structure is correct and accurate.

But they don’t know that. Their knowledge gaps are truly alarming.

The changes they are creating in life could actually be happening on levels they don’t comprehend at all. Micro-levels whose very nature is currently unknown.

THAT is what I’m ultimately getting at whenever I discuss genetic tinkering. Not just the errors and the ripples of effects down the line from the point where “genes were inserted.”

No. I’m also saying that the whole theoretical construct of genes and genomes is hypothetical. Presumed. Guessed at.

Here’s an analogy: