Thursday, September 7, 2017

Scientific Thought Police are destroying Nature

Claiming to improve Mankind while preserving Nature is just a P.R. Smokescreen. Disagree with Biotech consensus claims & you're labelled an Anti-Science Luddite !!!
source -

To say that I am thoroughly disgusted with the way scientists is run today through giant industrial corporate entities would be an understatement. Aside from obsession with profit creation, it's also infected with secular & traditional religious worldviews and political ideology, none of which belongs in a discipline which is supposed to be and claims to be neutral regarding such things. When these things infect scientific research, it colours the understanding of how our natural world really works. And the average person on Earth today (people scientists and clergy call, Layman), often blindly trust any Scientific Consensus conclusion without question, often believing the researcher's assertions and assumptions are truth for no other reason than a group of scientists says so. They will often dogmatically defend these assumptions in the face of overwhelming evidence and facts to the contrary. The question is, why won't they question things ? Often times it's just that the average person is gullible, and easily misled. They've been trained that way from youth onward. The secular science world today has taken pages right out of the old Christendom Dark ages playbook and made them their own. We now have a scientific orthodoxy which resents being questioned and condemns any who dare take a heretical stand against their worldview of things.

Look how successful Chevron was throughout the 1970s where they indoctrinated generations of mankind into believing Nature was dangerously flawed and badly designed, but that they had the answers to fight back against Nature with those
propaganda commercials. Seriously, watch that 1970s video and count how many times Nature gets trashed and only they have the answer to fight against Nature. And people back then believed this propaganda. Now look at our degradws condition of our planet. Take another recent example where recent research published in Nature Methods revealed that CRISPR had the negative side effect of causing 100s or 1000s of unintended mutations aside from the target's goal. Almost immedately and predictably the consensus damage control gang came out in force countering the study with their own counter conjecture. This is an industry that is fighting hard to keep governments from regulating their consumable goods. Remember that infamous letter released to the public back in April 2016, where the US Department of Agriculture said that they wouldn't regulate the mushroom that had been gene-edited to prevent it from turning brown ? Well, today they are pulling the same stunt by encouraging the European Union to also  not to regulate the CRISPR gene-editing technology. Why ? Because like the other USA agrument, they claim they are not introducing foreign genes into an unrelated organism, they are simply editing genes from a plant's (or any organism's) genome. See, no harm done. So the strategy is to con authorities into believing that CRISPR is more precise, less risky, more efficient, less costly and therefore much safer. Hence, like they tried to do 20+ years ago, they are selling the idea of deregulating new biotechnologies to the legislators, both at European Union and national levels. Such deregulation is meant to bypass time and restriction which set back or hinder profit taking by Biotechs. Take the example of the recent "Get Out of Jail Free" card given to a biotech called, Yield10 Bioscience Inc.

This plant photo on the right is called Camelina which is in the Brassicaceae (think Mustard family) of plants which includes broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, kale, collards, etc. It may even look familiar to other easily recognized plants like common radish, even horseradish, Thale Cress (Scientist's flavourite test plant) and Rapseed (think Canola Oil). It's the potential as an oilseed commodity which interests the business world's Industrial Ag Oligarchy. But up till now the plant has not been very profitable as an agricultural commodity because it does not produce enough oil to allow it as an industrial application venture. However that seems to have all changed now with the announcement that Yield10 Bioscience Inc, has made a mjor breakthrough in genetically engineering a new Camelina plant which produces more oil. 

Image - Capitol Press

The announcement came out yesterday (September 5, 2017) through an online Ag journal called Capitol Press which is based out of the Pacific Northwest and covers agricultural industry news in and around California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. The journal champions numerous things regarding agricultural technological innovations and no doubt receives advertising business from the industry. They announced the achievement of  Yield10 Bioscience Inc's genetic engineers who had successfully used the much hailed CRISPR cas9 gene editing tool to wipe out a gene which regulated just how much oil the Camelina plant would produce. Sounds like a great breakthrough on the surface and it will take a while for the company to produce enough seed for more testing and in volumes for farmers to start growing and producing this new oilseed commodity. While the article mostly celebrated, it did not really ask any of the hard inconvenient questions about the potential for unintended consequences. After all, despite biotech industry's attempts at painting a picture of genetic engineering as nothing more than playing with different coloured Lego or Tinker Toy pieces, we now know through better science that the informational content of DNA is far more complex and sophisticated than what the ideologues within the Scientific Orthodoxy want us to blindly believe. When ever you have opportunity to read or witness first hand any of those ridiculous nonsensical origins debates where an evolutionist insists that the word/term "information" is nothing more than mere patterns which they liken to rocks in a landslide or pebbles strewn along a beach, you need to run the other way. We are finding out far more about how the epigenetic functions of genetics really works and how much Scientists really don't know about it. 

image -
For decades now the Scientific Orthodoxy has tried to mask or cloak their ignorance about the function of non-coding DNA by labelling it junk. In their worldview if parts of DNA, the genes didn't code for a specific type of protein, it therefore was nothing more than useless evolutionary junk held over from centuries deep time past of dumb luck experiments. Now we are finding out this has been a lie all along. It's not in the nature of your average he scientific animal whose has a flattering important title before their name and much coveted alphabet soup initials after their name to admit and own up to the fact that they may not know something to the average layman public. Hence Junk DNA was not only invented to hide their ignorance, but also justify a flawed worldview and make huge profit all at the same time. The article in Capitol Press never asked the company researchers what other important potential functions they may have been deleting by removing that gene from the the Camelina's genome. There's a reason this is so important. Mostly because the biotech industry have painted a picture to world governments that CRISPR technology is far safer than past conventional GMO technology, but that's not really the case. Here are some of the outstanding quotes, starting with the first two paragraphs:
"A variety of camelina that’s gene-edited to increase oil content can be grown without undergoing the USDA’s regulatory process for biotech crops.   
The agency has determined the camelina cultivar doesn’t pose a plant pest risk, which means it’s outside the USDA’s regulatory jurisdiction over genetically modified organisms, or GMOs."
This is bogus. Science really has no idea how the entire genome works and operates or what exactly the entire informational content of DNA is really all about. How could they, when their worldview insists that the definition of the very word information has nothing to do with intelligence, with most of it being nothing more than junk and that nature is basically flawed, imperfect & badly designed. They believe only they can fix these flaws and as one of the major CRISPR founders, Jennifer Doudna said, "It won’t be long before CRISPR allows us to bend Nature to our will." But no regulation or rules guiding this technology ???
"Yield10 Bioscience is examining the possibility of “stacking” the trait associated with increased oil content with other genes that improve yield, potentially making camelina more economically attractive,"
(Kristi Snell, Yield10 Bioscience's Chief Science Officer)
Okay, really ??? So deleting and eliminating a gene which regulates oil content and production, but then adding other genes from somewhere taken from some thing else to this Camelina plant's genome doesn't need regulating ??? Look at the danger this poses from these further quotes in the article:
"Because the gene-edited cultivar isn’t regulated by USDA, the company can move seeds across state lines and conduct field trials without obtaining a permit, Snell said.   
“It really helps shorten the timeline and the cost,” she said.   
Yield10 doesn’t aim to become a seed producer, so it would likely license the trait to another company for commercialization, Snell said.   
Using CRISPR to alter genes doesn’t fall under USDA’s regulatory purview, but the views of trading partners, such as the European Union, are still evolving, said Snell.   
“The jury is still out in these foreign countries,” she said.
Forget about them adding other genes later  for the moment, what if anything could go wrong with the missing regulatory gene they eliminated from Camelina's genome ? First they (journalists) never even asked that question and second, the researchers never volunteered any info on this question which they should have had as part of their research on this. What negative potential is there if this eliminated epigenetic switch within the genome is past on to other plant's of this Brassicaceae family which are out in the wild ? Is the regulation of oil content and production important in the first place ? So what purpose or need is there for this regulation in the Camelina plant ? Did they attempt to find out first before messing with it's programming ?  Given the negative effects of other CRISPR experiments where people have already died and become ill from incidents like the  Alnylam Pharmaceuticals debacle, who manufactured an RNAi drug by means of the therapeutic genome editing CRISPR cas9 tool, why aren't more questions being asked ? What about the research study in Nature Methods who published a scathing article that suggested CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing leads to a disturbing number of unintended mutations ? A single off-target effect could have devastating or even fatal consequences if somehow let loose into the environment. Take a look at this video below and what some serious scientific researchers from the Salk Institute saw with their visual 3D structure of DNA in cells for first time. It's far more complex than anything they ever imagined. Listen to the questions they asked themselves, the same questions that Yield10 Bioscience researchers should have considered. Scientific tunnel vision hinders the truth.

To further this point, back in July, there was an article on this very subject of genes which regulate, you know, the genes which were once given the label Junk DNA ? For example, how does any cell decide which combination of genes is needed for its function within any organism's genome (plant, animal, reptile, fish, insect, human, etc) ??? How does it really all work ? Often in these discussions, we generally are considering a single cell, but how do 1000s upon 1000s of cells coordinate and know what they are doing ??? There was an incredible explanation in the Oxford Science Blog which dealt with these questions and more:
"Our bodies are composed of trillions of cells, each with its own job. Cells in our stomach help digest our food, while cells in our eyes detect light, and our immune cells kill off bugs. To be able to perform these specific jobs, every cell needs a different set of tools, which are formed by the collection of proteins that a cell produces. The instructions for these proteins are written in the approximately 20,000 genes in our DNA.   
Despite all these different functions and the need for different tools, all our cells contain the exact same DNA sequence. But one central question remains unanswered – how does a cell know which combination of the 20,000 genes it should activate to produce its specific toolkit?"
Toolkit ? Tools ? Yeah, the non-coding DNA (Junk DNA) is loaded with tools. Let's think of that Camelina plant's oil production regulatory gene which was edited out of the Camelina's genome as a complete toolbelt. The problem is they don't want to look at that gene as a toolbelt because toolbelts have many tools, not just one. What happens to any organism when an entire gene is eliminated for the purpose of erasing one function of targeted regulation, but also have other off target regulating (on & off switches or enhancers) tools eliminated as well ? Anyone remember the article in Nature about the White Button Mushrooms and the push for nonregulation by the USA Government ? The reason they wanted to use CRISPR to eliminate one gene within the mushroom's genome is because they identified this gene as the one which causes browning through the production of an enzyme called polyphenol oxidase. But guess what, Mycologist, Paul Stamets, and other researchers have pointed out that this gene regulates the organism's immune system by creating anti.virals and elimination could compromise the organism's immune system. The same polyphenol oxidase enzyme producing genes are found in Apples and Potatoes which cause browning and yet this same chemical boasts the immune system when under attack from pest enemies. It's also beneficial for people who eat these plants. But these Biotechs don't care because consumers have a "Yuck" factor when it comes to brown things. They've been trained this way by slick marketing on the part of industrial agriculture. Here is what the Oxford Science Blog said further:
"The answer to this question may be found in the pieces of DNA that lie between our protein producing genes [Scientist's Junk DNA]. Although our cells contain a lot of DNA, only a small part of this is actually composed of genes. We really don't understand the function of most of this other sequence, but we do know that some of it has a function in regulating the activity of genes. An important class of such regulatory DNA sequences are the enhancers, which act as switches that can turn genes on in the cells where they are required."
Wow, so non-coding DNA (Scientist's Junk DNA) has enhancers and switches ? So apparently these switches are not really junk after all. They have function and purpose. I understand the word/term purpose is a dirty word for many in the scientific community, but that's tough. To further show how the function works the articles continues:
"Researchers have identified key proteins that appear to define and help organise this domain structure. One such protein is called CTCF, which sticks to a specific sequence of DNA that is frequently found at the boundaries of these domains. To explore the function of these CTCF boundaries in more detail and to investigate what role they may play in connecting enhancers to the right genes, our team studied the domain that contains the α-globin genes, which produce the haemoglobin that our red blood cells use to circulate oxygen in our bodies.   
Firstly, as expected from CTCF’s role in defining boundaries, we showed that CTCF boundaries help organise the α-globin genes into a specific domain structure within red blood cells. This allows the enhancers to physically interact with and switch on the α-globin genes in this specific cell type. We then used the gene editing technology of CRISPR/Cas9 to snip out the DNA sequences that normally bind CTCF, and found that the boundaries in these edited cells become blurred and the domain loses it's specific shape. The α-globin enhancers now not only activate the α-globin genes, but cross the domain boundaries and switch on genes in the neighbouring domain."
This is exciting, notice that this non-coding genes, " . . appear to define and help organise this domain structure." And that's exactly what the gene within the Camelina does when it regulates the oil production. But then notice what the article said happens to edited genomes - " . . the boundaries in these edited cells become blurred and the domain loses it's specific shape."  So one has to ask the question the researchers and journalist refused to bring up and address, what other unintended consequences will there be when this gene is eliminated ? If we could view any genome like a recipe book in the kitchen that might help illustrate something that is otherwise mysterious. The various ingredients are the so-called coding DNA and the instructions within the recipe book for utilizing those ingredients (temperature - heat or cold, when to add what, stirring, blending, sifting, etc, etc, etc) could be likened to the so-called non-coding DNA or evolutionist's Junk DNA. It's sad really. So much good science has been held back for decades because of an irresponsible blind faith religious dogma of a secular kind and we're all paying the price, both Mankind and Nature. We may never know until it's too late the true outcomes of this CRISPR gene-editing for profit technology which is done based on a flawed ideology and worldview of our natural world. In the mean time they will manipulate public information and demand consumers employ blind unquestioning faith in the industrial food system. Any kind of complex systems which problem solve major logistics challenges, control access, and maintain structures speak of a goal oriented purpose. I understand those are dirty words to a majority of ideologically driven scientists, but that's what you get with sophisticated mechanisms that have a structure for creating a purpose (or function) which organize their parts in an orderly fashion to achieve those functions. So much for the prevailing consensus science.
Example of how good science is manipulated
Here is an example of a well known Lichenologist, Kerry Knudsen who lives in Prague half the year with his second wife, a Czechoslovakian lichenologist named Jana who he met online. This is not to take away anything from the great accomplishments of Mr Knudsen who has done far more to our understanding of Lichens than any other person who comes from a radically unusual background. But this paragraph in last year's Atlantic journal is illustrative of where the problems originate in Science starting with academics within many of our world's institutions of higher learning systems we call Colleges & Universities:
He is employed by the University of Life Sciences in Prague to study California lichen, although he teaches no classes. The University is interested in keeping him on staff because he publishes so many papers and their funding is, in part, determined by the number of papers their faculty produce. 
“I get paid to write their university’s name on the papers,” Knudsen explained.
The Atlantic (May 2016) "The Ex-Anarchist Construction Worker Who Became a World-Renowned Scientist"
Referenced Links to the Articles:
Oxford Science Blog: Breaking Boundaries in our DNA
(Kristi Snell, Yield10 Bioscience's Chief Science Officer)
Just follow the money folks! 😔
There is always a lot of discussion in Biotech world about ethics and morality these days regarding the pursuit of genetic engineering technology. In the show NCIS, Ducky (Dr Mallard played by David McCallum) provided a great example of the ethical person versus the moral person when he says,
"The ethical man knows it is wrong to cheat on his wife, where as the moral man actually wouldn't." 
It is perhaps the briefest and most concise explanation of those two terms and the writer who penned those lines deserves congratulations. Apparently in the Biotech world, there are loads of people who totally understand bioethics, in other words what is ethical and what is not ethical. Some may even call it a conscience. But in the long run, they choose to play dumb, which allows them to imagine they have the moral high ground over others in the debate. In the end they ignore the long term consequences of their decisions for instant monetary gradification and in the process make the immoral amoral choice anyway. Talking about ethics is just talk. It's doesn't necessarily make you a moral person. Being a moral person is dependent on the actual actions you take. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks for visiting and stopping by with your comments!

I will try to respond to each comment within a few days, though sometimes I take longer if I'm too busy which appears to be increasing.