Total Pageviews

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Obama, This Be Thy Legacy

We The People need to make America great again, because right now, it isn't.

Soon to be former President Barack Hussein Obama signed into law S.764, also known as DARK Act 2.0, which nullifies not only the recent labeling law established in Vermont, but also around a hundred state laws. Shoppers (I won't use the term "consumers", as if we're all nothing more than cattle, chewing whatever bloody cud that's thrown at us) will now require the use of a smartphone and a bar code scanner app to determine whether or not the item we are deciding to purchase contains GMOs.

If Blackberry were smart, they would repurpose their card readers to scan and display this information. Those who use phones as only phones could benefit from a scanner not much bigger than a business card.

And to think...I once had the opportunity to work with them...but I digress.

It should go without saying that I am profoundly disappointed with the current administration, and I am hoping that Republican candidate Donald John Trump win in such a landslide that any and all efforts to run a VoteScam upon the American people comes to naught.

I'm not giving away anything by saying this: there is going to be a huge groundswell against HRC. Not only has she demonstrated that the rule of law is broken; she has also indicated that she feels that she is above you and I.

That's a huge load of bollocks.

Understand, however; this isn't about hurt feelings - this is about allowing criminals to escape punishment, and therefore aiding and abetting them in their ill-gotten gains. I have my ideas of what happened to her childhood "friend" Vincent Foster, but this isn't the proper venue to discuss such ideas...and many other sites have done a far better job than I might - but I can clearly state that when Clinton had sent individuals into his office before the announcement of his death was made public, and she suffered no repercussions whatsoever, that was a huge mistake that we are now just beginning to realize.

"Just because you ignore politics, that doesn't mean that politics will ignore YOU."

With that said, let's talk about the infamous 28 pages released yesterday.

What justified the wait?

We all knew about the "identities" of 15 of the 19 hijackers, right? What exactly were we to learn from these redacted pages?

In fact, why redact any of it? Isn't the truth of what happened on September 11th, 2001, the business of We The People?

Well, why not reference the Chilcot Report, another document we had to wait far too long to see. Former PM Tony Blair toadied around "taking responsibility" in his role of destroying thriving Middle East nations for the cause of globalism.

Don't want to believe me? Not my problem - it's all in the report.

Okay - back to the scourge at hand. Steven Druker writes about the actual process of how genes are inserted into organisms, and as to how the process is dangerous. I've discussed this, as well:

Obfuscating the unnatural nature of the GM process and ignoring its unsettling features
The bias is evident from the outset, and the authors don’t even provide an honest answer to the initial question: “What is genetic modification (GM) of crops and how is it done?”Their response is substantially misleading because they omit the most unnatural and unsettling features while downplaying the unnaturalness of those they do mention.
In one of the biggest obfuscations, they avoid mentioning that biotechnicians have been inserting foreign DNA into plant genomes in a haphazard manner – and that the insertions not only disrupt the region of DNA into which they wedge but cause disruptions throughout the DNA strand, a phenomenon some scientists call ‘genome scrambling‘. [i]
The authors are equally evasive regarding how the foreign genes are induced to actually function, and they fail to disclose a crucial fact: that inserting a new gene does not in itself endow the plant with the desired new trait. That’s because it’s essential to get the information encoded within the gene expressed into a protein, and in almost every case, that won’t happen without artificial alteration of the inserted genetic material.
Here’s why.
The default condition of most genes is to be inactive and blocked from expressing – which conserves the organism’s energy and prevents proteins from being produced when and where they’re not needed. [ii]
A gene transitions from its closed-down default mode to its active mode through the operation of a regulatory element called a ‘promoter’, a segment of DNA adjoined to the gene that serves as its on/off switch. This switch is finely attuned to specific biochemical signals so that the gene expresses in harmony with the organism’s needs.
Consequently, when a gene is taken from one species and transferred to an unrelated one, the promoter will rarely (if ever) receive signals to which it’s sensitive, and the gene will remain inactive. Hence, before making such transfers, biotechnicians must remove the native promoter and replace it with one that will reliably function in the foreign milieu.
Moreover, to deliver the desired results, the promoter must in most cases not only induce the gene to express, but to boost its expression (and consequent protein production) to an extraordinary level.
For virtually every GM crop on the market, the potent promoter that’s been used to achieve such unusual results comes from a plant virus. Not only does it impel the inserted genes to produce proteins at an abnormally elevated level, it drives the production continuously, regardless of the organism’s needs and completely outside the intricate regulatory system through which its other genes are controlled. This can create serious problems by inducing metabolic imbalances or upsetting complex biochemical feedback loops.
Therefore, given the crucial role played by viral promoters, and the degree to which their employment is unnatural, it’s reasonable to expect that any purportedly balanced account of the GM process would mention them – and to deplore the Society’s utter failure to do so.
 A paraphrasing of my ideas regarding the same (posted to Jon Rappoport's blog):


Monsanto knows…and they’ve known for over 35 years.
What I won’t assume Monsanato knows are the invisible changes that take place when genes are shot into an organism.
The best example I can cite is from Dr. Oz’s show from last week in regards to the Arctic Apple. The apple has been modified to turn off the gene that turns an apple brown once exposed to air.
They were wrong about the pesticides not affecting our gut flora – what else are they utterly wrong about?
 From the Arctic Apple site - How'd We Make A Non-Browning Apple?
When my friends find out about my work with Arctic® apples, invariably one of the first questions they ask is: How’d we do that? That is, how’d we “make” a nonbrowning apple? Here’s what I tell them:
First, a quick biochemistry lesson.  When the cell of a typical apple is ruptured – for example, by biting, slicing or bruising – polyphenol oxidase (PPO) found in one part of the cell mixes with polyphenolics found in another part of the cell. (PPO is a plant enzyme. Polyphenolics are one of the many types of chemical substrates that serve various purposes, including supplying its aroma and flavor.) When PPO and polyphenolics mix, brown-toned melanin is left behind.
Arctic® apples produce practically no PPO so that enzymatic browning reaction never occurs.  This means Arctic® apples’ polyphenols aren’t burned up when the apple is bitten, sliced, or otherwise bruised. No chemical reaction, no yucky brown apple left behind.

So how’d we “make” a nonbrowning apple? The small number of genes  (four, to be exact) that control PPO production were identified several years back, when the apple’s genome was mapped. To create a nonbrowning Arctic® version of an existing apple variety, our science team uses gene silencing to turn down the expression of PPO, which virtually eliminates PPO production, so the fruit doesn’t brown. This genetic transformation is aided by modern science tools. (We’ll explain what we mean by “modern science tools” in a later post.)
This transformation takes place in a laboratory in a petri dish, with a small sample of apple tissue. We confirm the genetic transformation was successfully completed before growing the tissue out into a tiny plantlet and eventually moving it to an orchard. (We’ll explain how we confirm the transformation in a later post, too.)
Personally, I was amazed to find out how “simple” this transformation process is. (I put the word in quotes out of deference to the head of our science team, Dr. John Armstrong, who knows best how much hard work and brain power went into making this process look simple to me.)
The end result of all this science is just an apple tree, now with very low PPO production to prevent enzymatic browning in its fruit. Our Arctic® apple trees grow and behave in the orchard, blossom and bear fruit just like their conventional counterparts. We’ve got almost 10 years of test orchard experience to document that. Arctic® apples are also compositionally and nutritionally similar to conventional apples, further indicating that lower levels of PPO aren’t consequential to the tree or the fruit. It’s only when one of our apples is bitten, sliced or cut that the Arctic® apple difference becomes clear.
What role does PPO play in the plant, you might ask? In some plants, PPO plays a defensive role – for example, tomatoes produce high levels of PPO when attacked by pests or pathogens. In contrast, apples produce very low levels of PPO, and only in very young fruit.  Its presence is probably left over from apples of ages ago, playing no role in today’s apples.
I always close my talk with friends with this intriguing sidebar to the story: When eaten by humans, polyphenolics may have health-promoting benefits. For example, phenolics are believed to act as antioxidants, fighting the well-documented damaging effects that oxidation can have on the heart, other organs and throughout the body. Not enough is known yet about phenolics for the health community to suggest a recommended intake amount, as for other vitamins and nutrients such as Vitamin C (the best-known antioxidant), fiber and so on – but they are certainly worth watching!
Sounds great, right? Well, let's just think about this for a second.

What processes within your body are utterly isolated from all others?

For example - if you take a single step forward, does it affect the rest of your body at all?

Of course it does.

All biologic functions are intertwined.

Turning off the browning feature of the apple will cause an unforeseen reaction in the balance of the fruit, regardless of their fluffy press releases.

Let me end today with this - I believe that people aren't suffering from gluten intolerance; we are suffering from glyphosate intolerance.

No comments:

Post a Comment