Fw: Fwd: 85% of Processed Food May Include HIV and HEP B Transgenes

[Guest guest]

----- Forwarded Message ----From: Ann Hennen <maryann4peace@...>godsfool713@...Sent: Tue, April 19, 2011 4:28:41 PMSubject: Fwd: 85% of Processed Food May Include HIV and HEP B Transgenes

Hi Irene, I thought you might find what patrick jordan send me, interesting. Hope you all had a fine day.

werner

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Jordan <generalportal55@...>Date: Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:02 PMSubject: Fwd: 85% of Processed Food May Include HIV and HEP B TransgenesI only have time to scan messages these days. This was sent by Dr. Cso I am passing it on to the list as always. For the advanced DataDogs on the list there is a clue here that I have been trying toinvestigate for some time. EVERY source I have read said that thereis NO connection between viruses in plants and humans. Geneticmaterial is genetic material. Cell mix and match DNA and RNA liketeenage girls sharing clothes. This closes the chapter on thatparticular inquiry because

it is clear that if cauliflower (yuk) hasnasty mimics in it then there are other triggers in the plant worldincluding epiphytes (sp?) and other foreign inclusions from 'nature'.Add in satellite and promotor viruses along with phages and you have abranch of biophysics that you have NEVER been exposed to because younever even knew the questions to ask. This is why I spent 3 years inuniversity library basements. To find out what questions to ask.www.cafepress.com/icd999---------- Forwarded message ----------From: "DrCarley@GMAIL" <drcarley@...>Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:02:57 -0400Subject: 85% of Processed Food May Include HIV and HEP B Transgenesdrcarley@...Cc: Jordan <generalportal55@...> The BioPirates of Science: Genetic Engineering – Science orHoax?<http://farmwars.info/?p=5648><http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BioPirate-Lab-copy-small1.jpg>*By Barbara H. **Farm Wars <http://farmwars.info/?p=5648>*Only in America can a beleaguered company with a checker past such asMonsanto’s<http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805>,which includes a nasty little habit of poisoning entire towns with toxicwaste, battle it’s way to the top of the dung heap to deliver a fatal blowto the people and planet

with a deadly and insidious type of chemical andbiological warfare via the genetic modification and patenting of transgenicseeds, as well as the coating of our farmland with toxic chemicals.And to top it all off, the U.S. government, which is supposed to be financedby we the people, is actively promoting this biological warfare bystealthily allowing the rampant infection of approximately 85% of ourprocessed food with unregulated transgenes that Monsanto executives admitwill have unknown effects on the environment and life.Did I mention that these transgenes also include a virus that is 70-90%identical to the HIV and Hep B viruses?<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/630px-CauliflowerMosaicRNA35S.png>Genomic Map of CAMV Wikimedia Commons*Because of the limitations of the technology, in most cases the processwill also necessarily involve the insertion of genetic

material from atleast one foreign pathogen, the most common of which (the 35S promoter) istaken from a virus which is very similar to Hepatitis B and related to HIV.The consequences of using such elements have even been questioned byresearchers at the Innes Institute, one of the UK’s premier researchestablishments in the field of agricultural genetic engineering. Despitethis, routine use of such pathogen-derived elements continues.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm*<http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm>*The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter (CaMV 35S) is used in most transgeniccrops to activate foreign genes which have been artificially inserted intothe host plant. It is potentially dangerous.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/camv.htm*Did you get that? Approximately 85% of the processed food on our

storeshelves contains products infected with transgenic material containing avirus that is 70-90% identical to the HIV and Hep B viruses. And ourgovernment, in collusion with companies such as Monsanto, is in charge ofthe attack, using “science†as a battle shield to fend off any who wouldquestion their tactics. But can what these people are doing actually becalled “science?â€*The “Science†of Genetic Engineering*The scientific method is defined by Merriam-Webster Online as:*Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involvingthe recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data throughobservation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.**http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific%2Bmethod*Scientific methods are based on the recognition and formulation of aproblem, collecting data through experiment

and observation, then theformulation of a hypotheses, which leads to a solid conclusion of fact.*After only 20 years or so of development genetic engineering still involvesprocesses which are random and ‘trial and error’ in nature, and in thatsense they are imprecise and unscientific. The biotechnologist has little orno prior predictive power as to how a new gene will behave in the hostorganism. Without demonstrable predictive power it is inappropriate to referto any process as ‘engineering’ or ‘science-based’.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm* <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Looks-Okay-sm.jpg>After well over 20 years, just why is the so-called genetic engineeringprocess still trial and error?*Even in simple biological organisms like bacteria, the total potentialinteractions between genetic components run into many

millions. Theserelationships have until now been managed by the intelligence of theorganism’s own DNA. It is now proposed that these relationships should be‘controlled’ by the same species whose own limited intelligence hasmistakenly and irretrievably peppered the globe with unmanageable nuclearwaste – man.**In traditional plant breeding it is the highly sophisticated discriminatoryintelligence of the plant which ultimately determines which genes may beaccepted as part of the newly created organism, and it is that sameintelligence which determines their placement and functioning within it.This process is driven by the information and knowledge contained within theDNA of the plant itself and exercised as an integral part of the naturalsexual breeding process.**With genetic engineering this process is completely bypassed. Single genesare selected by the ‘scientist’ and randomly

inserted into the genome of thehost organism. The scientist has no control over their placement. In factthe plant geneticist has little or no knowledge as to where the new genesshould be placed in any case; and usually he does not know where they haveactually lodged even after his work has been completed. He simply “hopes forthe best.†Furthermore the inserted genes will frequently be taken fromtotally unrelated species.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm*The genetic engineering process:Aggie the TravelingAgrobacterium<http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/farmwars-400873-aggie-traveling-agrobacterium-gmo-environment-adventures-wavppt-science-technology-ppt-powerpoint/>And still, no valid risk assessment testing is done.*The problem with calling

genetically engineered organisms safe is thatthere are no valid risk assessments being done on them. There is noresearch, really, being done into the health or environmental effects of agenetically engineered organism. Certainly no work that is published in thepeer-reviewed literature that isn’t proprietary. Corporations promotingthese things claim that they have done research, but you can’t get anyinformation on it because it’s all claimed to be proprietary.**As Dr. Bereano explains in this interview, genetic engineering is based onan extremely oversimplified model that suggests that by taking out or addingone or several genes, you can create a particular effect or result.**However, this reductionist model is nowhere near complete.**“First of all, genomes are so complicated with so many interactions withinthe genes of the genome that we don’t really understand it well,â€

Dr.Bereano says. “Let me give a simple example.**The genome in a cell in your eyeball is identical to the genome of a cellin your pancreas, but your eyeball does not make insulin. The constituentsof what’s in a genome are not the end of the story as to what that cell isgoing to produce and do.**There are in the human body maybe about 30,000 genes but there are millionsof proteins. These proteins are produced by very subtle and differentinteractions among the genes in different locations in the body. There areproteins which turn on insulin manufacturing to the cells in the pancreasand don’t turn it on in your eyeball*… *It’s important to understand that the structure of the genome is notdeterminative of what that cell does.**Yet, the kind of mental model that’s being used in all of these discussionsis what I call the Lego model or the tinker toy model. Let’s take out

ayellow piece or let’s put in a green piece… but it’s not an issue just ofstructure—it’s of interaction.**These things are not being studied well. How stable is this genome after itis altered? In many instances we don’t know. It might change spontaneously.There are lots of questions there.**They have this very simplistic model and then they claim that these resultsare going to flow from it. But biology is much more complicated than that.â€**http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/02/dr-philip-bereano-on-gmos.aspx**Laboratory Accreditation and Industry Oversight*We can see from the above information that the “science†of geneticengineering is conducted in no way resembling any form of true scientificmethodology, so how do we know that companies such as Monsanto are evenqualified to conduct such experiments? We don’t. Biotech laboratories

seemto be bereft of any form of mandatory accreditation process. In fact, itseems that any accreditation is voluntary.<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/cardboard-box-lab.jpg>Theoretically,it seems that Monsanto could set up shop in a cardboard box, create afrankenvirus, get peer reviewed studies from other labs in cardboard boxes,then unleash this abomination on the world without consequences for itsactions if/when people die. Especially when backed by the U.S. government. Icannot find any evidence that accreditation and compliance with setscientific standards is anything but voluntary. You pay to play.A quick search of The American Association for LaboratoryAccreditation<http://www.a2la.org/dirsearchnew/newsearch.cfm>forMonsanto Crop Analytics provides us with the following 2accreditationsinvolving one

laboratoryHERE<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1833-01-AALA-Monsanto.pdf>andHERE <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1833-02.pdf>, whichare very specific regarding only a certain few procedures.On the USDA site, in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS<http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/7cfr340_08.html>)section, the following authority is claimed:*In order to protect plant health, Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS)implements the APHIS regulations for certain genetically engineered (GE)organisms that may pose a risk to plant health. APHIS coordinates theseresponsibilities along with the other designated federal agencies as part ofthe Federal Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology.**http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/brs_main.shtml*There are regulations for “certain†GE organisms that

may pose a risk toplant health. How about posing a risk to human health? Evidently, thatdoesn’t count. So off we go, down the road, Monsanto hand in hand with theUSDA, conducting chemical and biological warfare on American citizens first,then spreading onwards and upwards to the rest of the world. Accreditation?We don’t need no stinkin’ accreditation – not with the USDA covering ourbacks!* <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/APHIS.jpg>APHISinspectors and compliance specialists perform targeted inspections of fieldtests and thoroughly evaluate all potential noncompliance incidents. BRSalso evaluates facilities, equipment, records of developers, and potentialincidents reported by permittees. Authorizations under the permitting andnotification procedures require that noncompliance incidents beself-reported within designated time

frames.**http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/compliance_main.shtml*A self-reporting clause. The agency, (APHIS/USDA), conducts “targetedinspections†and evaluates “non-compliance†issues that are self-reported bythe permittees. It can’t get any better than that for Monsanto.*The Sky’s the Limit*So, without proper oversight, genetic markers in hand, Monsanto and the U.S.government are conducting the world’s largest unscientific, under-regulatedexperiment on the population at large. And we are paying for it. We aresystematically being poisoned, our DNA is changing, new and resistancebacteria and superweeds are cropping up, and Monsanto gets paid for thecarnage, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. We are literally paying for our owndemise at the hands of so-called “scientists†gone wild. This is not ascience fiction movie, it is what we are living, and somehow, I don’t

thinkDuck and Cover will cut it.*A special thanks to the following Facebook Friends for help in the researchon accreditation: Peyton, Jo, Barry, and Tim.*© 2011 Barbara H. * *[image: survival seedvault]<http://www.non-hybrid-seeds.com/sp/seed-packs.html?roia=%2127Mdvq1BAAGPcGMxMjIAVQAABVNCAAApiQ-A>

[Guest guest]

----- Forwarded Message ----From: Ann Hennen <maryann4peace@...>godsfool713@...Sent: Tue, April 19, 2011 4:28:41 PMSubject: Fwd: 85% of Processed Food May Include HIV and HEP B Transgenes

Hi Irene, I thought you might find what patrick jordan send me, interesting. Hope you all had a fine day.

werner

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Jordan <generalportal55@...>Date: Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:02 PMSubject: Fwd: 85% of Processed Food May Include HIV and HEP B TransgenesI only have time to scan messages these days. This was sent by Dr. Cso I am passing it on to the list as always. For the advanced DataDogs on the list there is a clue here that I have been trying toinvestigate for some time. EVERY source I have read said that thereis NO connection between viruses in plants and humans. Geneticmaterial is genetic material. Cell mix and match DNA and RNA liketeenage girls sharing clothes. This closes the chapter on thatparticular inquiry because

it is clear that if cauliflower (yuk) hasnasty mimics in it then there are other triggers in the plant worldincluding epiphytes (sp?) and other foreign inclusions from 'nature'.Add in satellite and promotor viruses along with phages and you have abranch of biophysics that you have NEVER been exposed to because younever even knew the questions to ask. This is why I spent 3 years inuniversity library basements. To find out what questions to ask.www.cafepress.com/icd999---------- Forwarded message ----------From: "DrCarley@GMAIL" <drcarley@...>Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:02:57 -0400Subject: 85% of Processed Food May Include HIV and HEP B Transgenesdrcarley@...Cc: Jordan <generalportal55@...> The BioPirates of Science: Genetic Engineering – Science orHoax?<http://farmwars.info/?p=5648><http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BioPirate-Lab-copy-small1.jpg>*By Barbara H. **Farm Wars <http://farmwars.info/?p=5648>*Only in America can a beleaguered company with a checker past such asMonsanto’s<http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805>,which includes a nasty little habit of poisoning entire towns with toxicwaste, battle it’s way to the top of the dung heap to deliver a fatal blowto the people and planet

with a deadly and insidious type of chemical andbiological warfare via the genetic modification and patenting of transgenicseeds, as well as the coating of our farmland with toxic chemicals.And to top it all off, the U.S. government, which is supposed to be financedby we the people, is actively promoting this biological warfare bystealthily allowing the rampant infection of approximately 85% of ourprocessed food with unregulated transgenes that Monsanto executives admitwill have unknown effects on the environment and life.Did I mention that these transgenes also include a virus that is 70-90%identical to the HIV and Hep B viruses?<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/630px-CauliflowerMosaicRNA35S.png>Genomic Map of CAMV Wikimedia Commons*Because of the limitations of the technology, in most cases the processwill also necessarily involve the insertion of genetic

material from atleast one foreign pathogen, the most common of which (the 35S promoter) istaken from a virus which is very similar to Hepatitis B and related to HIV.The consequences of using such elements have even been questioned byresearchers at the Innes Institute, one of the UK’s premier researchestablishments in the field of agricultural genetic engineering. Despitethis, routine use of such pathogen-derived elements continues.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm*<http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm>*The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter (CaMV 35S) is used in most transgeniccrops to activate foreign genes which have been artificially inserted intothe host plant. It is potentially dangerous.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/camv.htm*Did you get that? Approximately 85% of the processed food on our

storeshelves contains products infected with transgenic material containing avirus that is 70-90% identical to the HIV and Hep B viruses. And ourgovernment, in collusion with companies such as Monsanto, is in charge ofthe attack, using “science†as a battle shield to fend off any who wouldquestion their tactics. But can what these people are doing actually becalled “science?â€*The “Science†of Genetic Engineering*The scientific method is defined by Merriam-Webster Online as:*Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involvingthe recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data throughobservation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.**http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific%2Bmethod*Scientific methods are based on the recognition and formulation of aproblem, collecting data through experiment

and observation, then theformulation of a hypotheses, which leads to a solid conclusion of fact.*After only 20 years or so of development genetic engineering still involvesprocesses which are random and ‘trial and error’ in nature, and in thatsense they are imprecise and unscientific. The biotechnologist has little orno prior predictive power as to how a new gene will behave in the hostorganism. Without demonstrable predictive power it is inappropriate to referto any process as ‘engineering’ or ‘science-based’.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm* <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Looks-Okay-sm.jpg>After well over 20 years, just why is the so-called genetic engineeringprocess still trial and error?*Even in simple biological organisms like bacteria, the total potentialinteractions between genetic components run into many

millions. Theserelationships have until now been managed by the intelligence of theorganism’s own DNA. It is now proposed that these relationships should be‘controlled’ by the same species whose own limited intelligence hasmistakenly and irretrievably peppered the globe with unmanageable nuclearwaste – man.**In traditional plant breeding it is the highly sophisticated discriminatoryintelligence of the plant which ultimately determines which genes may beaccepted as part of the newly created organism, and it is that sameintelligence which determines their placement and functioning within it.This process is driven by the information and knowledge contained within theDNA of the plant itself and exercised as an integral part of the naturalsexual breeding process.**With genetic engineering this process is completely bypassed. Single genesare selected by the ‘scientist’ and randomly

inserted into the genome of thehost organism. The scientist has no control over their placement. In factthe plant geneticist has little or no knowledge as to where the new genesshould be placed in any case; and usually he does not know where they haveactually lodged even after his work has been completed. He simply “hopes forthe best.†Furthermore the inserted genes will frequently be taken fromtotally unrelated species.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm*The genetic engineering process:Aggie the TravelingAgrobacterium<http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/farmwars-400873-aggie-traveling-agrobacterium-gmo-environment-adventures-wavppt-science-technology-ppt-powerpoint/>And still, no valid risk assessment testing is done.*The problem with calling

genetically engineered organisms safe is thatthere are no valid risk assessments being done on them. There is noresearch, really, being done into the health or environmental effects of agenetically engineered organism. Certainly no work that is published in thepeer-reviewed literature that isn’t proprietary. Corporations promotingthese things claim that they have done research, but you can’t get anyinformation on it because it’s all claimed to be proprietary.**As Dr. Bereano explains in this interview, genetic engineering is based onan extremely oversimplified model that suggests that by taking out or addingone or several genes, you can create a particular effect or result.**However, this reductionist model is nowhere near complete.**“First of all, genomes are so complicated with so many interactions withinthe genes of the genome that we don’t really understand it well,â€

Dr.Bereano says. “Let me give a simple example.**The genome in a cell in your eyeball is identical to the genome of a cellin your pancreas, but your eyeball does not make insulin. The constituentsof what’s in a genome are not the end of the story as to what that cell isgoing to produce and do.**There are in the human body maybe about 30,000 genes but there are millionsof proteins. These proteins are produced by very subtle and differentinteractions among the genes in different locations in the body. There areproteins which turn on insulin manufacturing to the cells in the pancreasand don’t turn it on in your eyeball*… *It’s important to understand that the structure of the genome is notdeterminative of what that cell does.**Yet, the kind of mental model that’s being used in all of these discussionsis what I call the Lego model or the tinker toy model. Let’s take out

ayellow piece or let’s put in a green piece… but it’s not an issue just ofstructure—it’s of interaction.**These things are not being studied well. How stable is this genome after itis altered? In many instances we don’t know. It might change spontaneously.There are lots of questions there.**They have this very simplistic model and then they claim that these resultsare going to flow from it. But biology is much more complicated than that.â€**http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/02/dr-philip-bereano-on-gmos.aspx**Laboratory Accreditation and Industry Oversight*We can see from the above information that the “science†of geneticengineering is conducted in no way resembling any form of true scientificmethodology, so how do we know that companies such as Monsanto are evenqualified to conduct such experiments? We don’t. Biotech laboratories

seemto be bereft of any form of mandatory accreditation process. In fact, itseems that any accreditation is voluntary.<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/cardboard-box-lab.jpg>Theoretically,it seems that Monsanto could set up shop in a cardboard box, create afrankenvirus, get peer reviewed studies from other labs in cardboard boxes,then unleash this abomination on the world without consequences for itsactions if/when people die. Especially when backed by the U.S. government. Icannot find any evidence that accreditation and compliance with setscientific standards is anything but voluntary. You pay to play.A quick search of The American Association for LaboratoryAccreditation<http://www.a2la.org/dirsearchnew/newsearch.cfm>forMonsanto Crop Analytics provides us with the following 2accreditationsinvolving one

laboratoryHERE<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1833-01-AALA-Monsanto.pdf>andHERE <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1833-02.pdf>, whichare very specific regarding only a certain few procedures.On the USDA site, in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS<http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/7cfr340_08.html>)section, the following authority is claimed:*In order to protect plant health, Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS)implements the APHIS regulations for certain genetically engineered (GE)organisms that may pose a risk to plant health. APHIS coordinates theseresponsibilities along with the other designated federal agencies as part ofthe Federal Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology.**http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/brs_main.shtml*There are regulations for “certain†GE organisms that

may pose a risk toplant health. How about posing a risk to human health? Evidently, thatdoesn’t count. So off we go, down the road, Monsanto hand in hand with theUSDA, conducting chemical and biological warfare on American citizens first,then spreading onwards and upwards to the rest of the world. Accreditation?We don’t need no stinkin’ accreditation – not with the USDA covering ourbacks!* <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/APHIS.jpg>APHISinspectors and compliance specialists perform targeted inspections of fieldtests and thoroughly evaluate all potential noncompliance incidents. BRSalso evaluates facilities, equipment, records of developers, and potentialincidents reported by permittees. Authorizations under the permitting andnotification procedures require that noncompliance incidents beself-reported within designated time

frames.**http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/compliance_main.shtml*A self-reporting clause. The agency, (APHIS/USDA), conducts “targetedinspections†and evaluates “non-compliance†issues that are self-reported bythe permittees. It can’t get any better than that for Monsanto.*The Sky’s the Limit*So, without proper oversight, genetic markers in hand, Monsanto and the U.S.government are conducting the world’s largest unscientific, under-regulatedexperiment on the population at large. And we are paying for it. We aresystematically being poisoned, our DNA is changing, new and resistancebacteria and superweeds are cropping up, and Monsanto gets paid for thecarnage, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. We are literally paying for our owndemise at the hands of so-called “scientists†gone wild. This is not ascience fiction movie, it is what we are living, and somehow, I don’t

thinkDuck and Cover will cut it.*A special thanks to the following Facebook Friends for help in the researchon accreditation: Peyton, Jo, Barry, and Tim.*© 2011 Barbara H. * *[image: survival seedvault]<http://www.non-hybrid-seeds.com/sp/seed-packs.html?roia=%2127Mdvq1BAAGPcGMxMjIAVQAABVNCAAApiQ-A>

[Guest guest]



Scientifically nonsensical headlines like these (one would assume that a physician would not draw such an erraneous conclusion) only provide fodder to the pro-GM lobby to discredit truly evidence-based findings of ethical scientists.

Before anyone disseminates Barbara 's excellent article, please remove the misleading headline,

The fact that the cauliflower mosaic virus used as a viral promoter in genetic engineering is RELATED (NOT identical) to the Hepatitis B and HIV virus, which I have pointed out for years based on the research of Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae Wan Ho,simply cannot lead to the conclusion (and one would assume that a physician (Dr. Carley) knows that) that the latter are inserted in genetically modified plants.

Ingrid

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: "DrCarley@GMAIL" <drcarley@...>Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:02:57 -0400Subject: 85% of Processed Food May Include HIV and HEP B Transgenesdrcarley@...Cc: Jordan <generalportal55@...> The BioPirates of Science: Genetic Engineering – Science orHoax?<http://farmwars.info/?p=5648><http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BioPirate-Lab-copy-small1.jpg>*By Barbara H. **Farm Wars <http://farmwars.info/?p=5648>*Only in America can a beleaguered company with a checker past such asMonsanto’s<http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805>,which includes a nasty little habit of poisoning entire towns with toxicwaste, battle it’s way to the top of the dung heap to deliver a fatal blowto the people and planet with a deadly and insidious type of chemical andbiological warfare via the genetic modification and patenting of transgenicseeds, as well as the coating of our farmland with toxic chemicals.And to top it all off, the U.S. government, which is supposed to be financedby we the people, is actively promoting this biological warfare bystealthily allowing the rampant infection of approximately 85% of ourprocessed food with unregulated transgenes that Monsanto executives admitwill have unknown effects on the environment and life.Did I mention that these transgenes also include a virus that is 70-90%identical to the HIV and Hep B viruses?<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/630px-CauliflowerMosaicRNA35S.png>Genomic Map of CAMV Wikimedia Commons*Because of the limitations of the technology, in most cases the processwill also necessarily involve the insertion of genetic material from atleast one foreign pathogen, the most common of which (the 35S promoter) istaken from a virus which is very similar to Hepatitis B and related to HIV.The consequences of using such elements have even been questioned byresearchers at the Innes Institute, one of the UK’s premier researchestablishments in the field of agricultural genetic engineering. Despitethis, routine use of such pathogen-derived elements continues.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm*<http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm>*The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter (CaMV 35S) is used in most transgeniccrops to activate foreign genes which have been artificially inserted intothe host plant. It is potentially dangerous.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/camv.htm*Did you get that? Approximately 85% of the processed food on our storeshelves contains products infected with transgenic material containing avirus that is 70-90% identical to the HIV and Hep B viruses. And ourgovernment, in collusion with companies such as Monsanto, is in charge ofthe attack, using “science†as a battle shield to fend off any who wouldquestion their tactics. But can what these people are doing actually becalled “science?â€*The “Science†of Genetic Engineering*The scientific method is defined by Merriam-Webster Online as:*Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involvingthe recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data throughobservation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.**http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific%2Bmethod*Scientific methods are based on the recognition and formulation of aproblem, collecting data through experiment and observation, then theformulation of a hypotheses, which leads to a solid conclusion of fact.*After only 20 years or so of development genetic engineering still involvesprocesses which are random and ‘trial and error’ in nature, and in thatsense they are imprecise and unscientific. The biotechnologist has little orno prior predictive power as to how a new gene will behave in the hostorganism. Without demonstrable predictive power it is inappropriate to referto any process as ‘engineering’ or ‘science-based’.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm* <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Looks-Okay-sm.jpg>After well over 20 years, just why is the so-called genetic engineeringprocess still trial and error?*Even in simple biological organisms like bacteria, the total potentialinteractions between genetic components run into many millions. Theserelationships have until now been managed by the intelligence of theorganism’s own DNA. It is now proposed that these relationships should be‘controlled’ by the same species whose own limited intelligence hasmistakenly and irretrievably peppered the globe with unmanageable nuclearwaste – man.**In traditional plant breeding it is the highly sophisticated discriminatoryintelligence of the plant which ultimately determines which genes may beaccepted as part of the newly created organism, and it is that sameintelligence which determines their placement and functioning within it.This process is driven by the information and knowledge contained within theDNA of the plant itself and exercised as an integral part of the naturalsexual breeding process.**With genetic engineering this process is completely bypassed. Single genesare selected by the ‘scientist’ and randomly inserted into the genome of thehost organism. The scientist has no control over their placement. In factthe plant geneticist has little or no knowledge as to where the new genesshould be placed in any case; and usually he does not know where they haveactually lodged even after his work has been completed. He simply “hopes forthe best.†Furthermore the inserted genes will frequently be taken fromtotally unrelated species.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm*The genetic engineering process:Aggie the TravelingAgrobacterium<http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/farmwars-400873-aggie-traveling-agrobacterium-gmo-environment-adventures-wavppt-science-technology-ppt-powerpoint/>And still, no valid risk assessment testing is done.*The problem with calling genetically engineered organisms safe is thatthere are no valid risk assessments being done on them. There is noresearch, really, being done into the health or environmental effects of agenetically engineered organism. Certainly no work that is published in thepeer-reviewed literature that isn’t proprietary. Corporations promotingthese things claim that they have done research, but you can’t get anyinformation on it because it’s all claimed to be proprietary.**As Dr. Bereano explains in this interview, genetic engineering is based onan extremely oversimplified model that suggests that by taking out or addingone or several genes, you can create a particular effect or result.**However, this reductionist model is nowhere near complete.**“First of all, genomes are so complicated with so many interactions withinthe genes of the genome that we don’t really understand it well,†Dr.Bereano says. “Let me give a simple example.**The genome in a cell in your eyeball is identical to the genome of a cellin your pancreas, but your eyeball does not make insulin. The constituentsof what’s in a genome are not the end of the story as to what that cell isgoing to produce and do.**There are in the human body maybe about 30,000 genes but there are millionsof proteins. These proteins are produced by very subtle and differentinteractions among the genes in different locations in the body. There areproteins which turn on insulin manufacturing to the cells in the pancreasand don’t turn it on in your eyeball*… *It’s important to understand that the structure of the genome is notdeterminative of what that cell does.**Yet, the kind of mental model that’s being used in all of these discussionsis what I call the Lego model or the tinker toy model. Let’s take out ayellow piece or let’s put in a green piece… but it’s not an issue just ofstructure—it’s of interaction.**These things are not being studied well. How stable is this genome after itis altered? In many instances we don’t know. It might change spontaneously.There are lots of questions there.**They have this very simplistic model and then they claim that these resultsare going to flow from it. But biology is much more complicated than that.â€**http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/02/dr-philip-bereano-on-gmos.aspx**Laboratory Accreditation and Industry Oversight*We can see from the above information that the “science†of geneticengineering is conducted in no way resembling any form of true scientificmethodology, so how do we know that companies such as Monsanto are evenqualified to conduct such experiments? We don’t. Biotech laboratories seemto be bereft of any form of mandatory accreditation process. In fact, itseems that any accreditation is voluntary.<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/cardboard-box-lab.jpg>Theoretically,it seems that Monsanto could set up shop in a cardboard box, create afrankenvirus, get peer reviewed studies from other labs in cardboard boxes,then unleash this abomination on the world without consequences for itsactions if/when people die. Especially when backed by the U.S. government. Icannot find any evidence that accreditation and compliance with setscientific standards is anything but voluntary. You pay to play.A quick search of The American Association for LaboratoryAccreditation<http://www.a2la.org/dirsearchnew/newsearch.cfm>forMonsanto Crop Analytics provides us with the following 2accreditationsinvolving one laboratoryHERE<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1833-01-AALA-Monsanto.pdf>andHERE <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1833-02.pdf>, whichare very specific regarding only a certain few procedures.On the USDA site, in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS<http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/7cfr340_08.html>)section, the following authority is claimed:*In order to protect plant health, Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS)implements the APHIS regulations for certain genetically engineered (GE)organisms that may pose a risk to plant health. APHIS coordinates theseresponsibilities along with the other designated federal agencies as part ofthe Federal Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology.**http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/brs_main.shtml*There are regulations for “certain†GE organisms that may pose a risk toplant health. How about posing a risk to human health? Evidently, thatdoesn’t count. So off we go, down the road, Monsanto hand in hand with theUSDA, conducting chemical and biological warfare on American citizens first,then spreading onwards and upwards to the rest of the world. Accreditation?We don’t need no stinkin’ accreditation – not with the USDA covering ourbacks!* <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/APHIS.jpg>APHISinspectors and compliance specialists perform targeted inspections of fieldtests and thoroughly evaluate all potential noncompliance incidents. BRSalso evaluates facilities, equipment, records of developers, and potentialincidents reported by permittees. Authorizations under the permitting andnotification procedures require that noncompliance incidents beself-reported within designated time frames.**http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/compliance_main.shtml*A self-reporting clause. The agency, (APHIS/USDA), conducts “targetedinspections†and evaluates “non-compliance†issues that are self-reported bythe permittees. It can’t get any better than that for Monsanto.*The Sky’s the Limit*So, without proper oversight, genetic markers in hand, Monsanto and the U.S.government are conducting the world’s largest unscientific, under-regulatedexperiment on the population at large. And we are paying for it. We aresystematically being poisoned, our DNA is changing, new and resistancebacteria and superweeds are cropping up, and Monsanto gets paid for thecarnage, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. We are literally paying for our owndemise at the hands of so-called “scientists†gone wild. This is not ascience fiction movie, it is what we are living, and somehow, I don’t thinkDuck and Cover will cut it.*A special thanks to the following Facebook Friends for help in the researchon accreditation: Peyton, Jo, Barry, and Tim.*© 2011 Barbara H. * *[image: survival seedvault]<http://www.non-hybrid-seeds.com/sp/seed-packs.html?roia=%2127Mdvq1BAAGPcGMxMjIAVQAABVNCAAApiQ-A>

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6062 (20110421) __________The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6062 (20110421) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]



Scientifically nonsensical headlines like these (one would assume that a physician would not draw such an erraneous conclusion) only provide fodder to the pro-GM lobby to discredit truly evidence-based findings of ethical scientists.

Before anyone disseminates Barbara 's excellent article, please remove the misleading headline,

The fact that the cauliflower mosaic virus used as a viral promoter in genetic engineering is RELATED (NOT identical) to the Hepatitis B and HIV virus, which I have pointed out for years based on the research of Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae Wan Ho,simply cannot lead to the conclusion (and one would assume that a physician (Dr. Carley) knows that) that the latter are inserted in genetically modified plants.

Ingrid

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: "DrCarley@GMAIL" <drcarley@...>Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:02:57 -0400Subject: 85% of Processed Food May Include HIV and HEP B Transgenesdrcarley@...Cc: Jordan <generalportal55@...> The BioPirates of Science: Genetic Engineering – Science orHoax?<http://farmwars.info/?p=5648><http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BioPirate-Lab-copy-small1.jpg>*By Barbara H. **Farm Wars <http://farmwars.info/?p=5648>*Only in America can a beleaguered company with a checker past such asMonsanto’s<http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805>,which includes a nasty little habit of poisoning entire towns with toxicwaste, battle it’s way to the top of the dung heap to deliver a fatal blowto the people and planet with a deadly and insidious type of chemical andbiological warfare via the genetic modification and patenting of transgenicseeds, as well as the coating of our farmland with toxic chemicals.And to top it all off, the U.S. government, which is supposed to be financedby we the people, is actively promoting this biological warfare bystealthily allowing the rampant infection of approximately 85% of ourprocessed food with unregulated transgenes that Monsanto executives admitwill have unknown effects on the environment and life.Did I mention that these transgenes also include a virus that is 70-90%identical to the HIV and Hep B viruses?<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/630px-CauliflowerMosaicRNA35S.png>Genomic Map of CAMV Wikimedia Commons*Because of the limitations of the technology, in most cases the processwill also necessarily involve the insertion of genetic material from atleast one foreign pathogen, the most common of which (the 35S promoter) istaken from a virus which is very similar to Hepatitis B and related to HIV.The consequences of using such elements have even been questioned byresearchers at the Innes Institute, one of the UK’s premier researchestablishments in the field of agricultural genetic engineering. Despitethis, routine use of such pathogen-derived elements continues.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm*<http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm>*The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter (CaMV 35S) is used in most transgeniccrops to activate foreign genes which have been artificially inserted intothe host plant. It is potentially dangerous.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/camv.htm*Did you get that? Approximately 85% of the processed food on our storeshelves contains products infected with transgenic material containing avirus that is 70-90% identical to the HIV and Hep B viruses. And ourgovernment, in collusion with companies such as Monsanto, is in charge ofthe attack, using “science†as a battle shield to fend off any who wouldquestion their tactics. But can what these people are doing actually becalled “science?â€*The “Science†of Genetic Engineering*The scientific method is defined by Merriam-Webster Online as:*Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involvingthe recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data throughobservation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.**http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific%2Bmethod*Scientific methods are based on the recognition and formulation of aproblem, collecting data through experiment and observation, then theformulation of a hypotheses, which leads to a solid conclusion of fact.*After only 20 years or so of development genetic engineering still involvesprocesses which are random and ‘trial and error’ in nature, and in thatsense they are imprecise and unscientific. The biotechnologist has little orno prior predictive power as to how a new gene will behave in the hostorganism. Without demonstrable predictive power it is inappropriate to referto any process as ‘engineering’ or ‘science-based’.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm* <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Looks-Okay-sm.jpg>After well over 20 years, just why is the so-called genetic engineeringprocess still trial and error?*Even in simple biological organisms like bacteria, the total potentialinteractions between genetic components run into many millions. Theserelationships have until now been managed by the intelligence of theorganism’s own DNA. It is now proposed that these relationships should be‘controlled’ by the same species whose own limited intelligence hasmistakenly and irretrievably peppered the globe with unmanageable nuclearwaste – man.**In traditional plant breeding it is the highly sophisticated discriminatoryintelligence of the plant which ultimately determines which genes may beaccepted as part of the newly created organism, and it is that sameintelligence which determines their placement and functioning within it.This process is driven by the information and knowledge contained within theDNA of the plant itself and exercised as an integral part of the naturalsexual breeding process.**With genetic engineering this process is completely bypassed. Single genesare selected by the ‘scientist’ and randomly inserted into the genome of thehost organism. The scientist has no control over their placement. In factthe plant geneticist has little or no knowledge as to where the new genesshould be placed in any case; and usually he does not know where they haveactually lodged even after his work has been completed. He simply “hopes forthe best.†Furthermore the inserted genes will frequently be taken fromtotally unrelated species.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm*The genetic engineering process:Aggie the TravelingAgrobacterium<http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/farmwars-400873-aggie-traveling-agrobacterium-gmo-environment-adventures-wavppt-science-technology-ppt-powerpoint/>And still, no valid risk assessment testing is done.*The problem with calling genetically engineered organisms safe is thatthere are no valid risk assessments being done on them. There is noresearch, really, being done into the health or environmental effects of agenetically engineered organism. Certainly no work that is published in thepeer-reviewed literature that isn’t proprietary. Corporations promotingthese things claim that they have done research, but you can’t get anyinformation on it because it’s all claimed to be proprietary.**As Dr. Bereano explains in this interview, genetic engineering is based onan extremely oversimplified model that suggests that by taking out or addingone or several genes, you can create a particular effect or result.**However, this reductionist model is nowhere near complete.**“First of all, genomes are so complicated with so many interactions withinthe genes of the genome that we don’t really understand it well,†Dr.Bereano says. “Let me give a simple example.**The genome in a cell in your eyeball is identical to the genome of a cellin your pancreas, but your eyeball does not make insulin. The constituentsof what’s in a genome are not the end of the story as to what that cell isgoing to produce and do.**There are in the human body maybe about 30,000 genes but there are millionsof proteins. These proteins are produced by very subtle and differentinteractions among the genes in different locations in the body. There areproteins which turn on insulin manufacturing to the cells in the pancreasand don’t turn it on in your eyeball*… *It’s important to understand that the structure of the genome is notdeterminative of what that cell does.**Yet, the kind of mental model that’s being used in all of these discussionsis what I call the Lego model or the tinker toy model. Let’s take out ayellow piece or let’s put in a green piece… but it’s not an issue just ofstructure—it’s of interaction.**These things are not being studied well. How stable is this genome after itis altered? In many instances we don’t know. It might change spontaneously.There are lots of questions there.**They have this very simplistic model and then they claim that these resultsare going to flow from it. But biology is much more complicated than that.â€**http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/02/dr-philip-bereano-on-gmos.aspx**Laboratory Accreditation and Industry Oversight*We can see from the above information that the “science†of geneticengineering is conducted in no way resembling any form of true scientificmethodology, so how do we know that companies such as Monsanto are evenqualified to conduct such experiments? We don’t. Biotech laboratories seemto be bereft of any form of mandatory accreditation process. In fact, itseems that any accreditation is voluntary.<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/cardboard-box-lab.jpg>Theoretically,it seems that Monsanto could set up shop in a cardboard box, create afrankenvirus, get peer reviewed studies from other labs in cardboard boxes,then unleash this abomination on the world without consequences for itsactions if/when people die. Especially when backed by the U.S. government. Icannot find any evidence that accreditation and compliance with setscientific standards is anything but voluntary. You pay to play.A quick search of The American Association for LaboratoryAccreditation<http://www.a2la.org/dirsearchnew/newsearch.cfm>forMonsanto Crop Analytics provides us with the following 2accreditationsinvolving one laboratoryHERE<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1833-01-AALA-Monsanto.pdf>andHERE <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1833-02.pdf>, whichare very specific regarding only a certain few procedures.On the USDA site, in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS<http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/7cfr340_08.html>)section, the following authority is claimed:*In order to protect plant health, Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS)implements the APHIS regulations for certain genetically engineered (GE)organisms that may pose a risk to plant health. APHIS coordinates theseresponsibilities along with the other designated federal agencies as part ofthe Federal Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology.**http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/brs_main.shtml*There are regulations for “certain†GE organisms that may pose a risk toplant health. How about posing a risk to human health? Evidently, thatdoesn’t count. So off we go, down the road, Monsanto hand in hand with theUSDA, conducting chemical and biological warfare on American citizens first,then spreading onwards and upwards to the rest of the world. Accreditation?We don’t need no stinkin’ accreditation – not with the USDA covering ourbacks!* <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/APHIS.jpg>APHISinspectors and compliance specialists perform targeted inspections of fieldtests and thoroughly evaluate all potential noncompliance incidents. BRSalso evaluates facilities, equipment, records of developers, and potentialincidents reported by permittees. Authorizations under the permitting andnotification procedures require that noncompliance incidents beself-reported within designated time frames.**http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/compliance_main.shtml*A self-reporting clause. The agency, (APHIS/USDA), conducts “targetedinspections†and evaluates “non-compliance†issues that are self-reported bythe permittees. It can’t get any better than that for Monsanto.*The Sky’s the Limit*So, without proper oversight, genetic markers in hand, Monsanto and the U.S.government are conducting the world’s largest unscientific, under-regulatedexperiment on the population at large. And we are paying for it. We aresystematically being poisoned, our DNA is changing, new and resistancebacteria and superweeds are cropping up, and Monsanto gets paid for thecarnage, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. We are literally paying for our owndemise at the hands of so-called “scientists†gone wild. This is not ascience fiction movie, it is what we are living, and somehow, I don’t thinkDuck and Cover will cut it.*A special thanks to the following Facebook Friends for help in the researchon accreditation: Peyton, Jo, Barry, and Tim.*© 2011 Barbara H. * *[image: survival seedvault]<http://www.non-hybrid-seeds.com/sp/seed-packs.html?roia=%2127Mdvq1BAAGPcGMxMjIAVQAABVNCAAApiQ-A>

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6062 (20110421) __________The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6062 (20110421) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]



Scientifically nonsensical headlines like these (one would assume that a physician would not draw such an erraneous conclusion) only provide fodder to the pro-GM lobby to discredit truly evidence-based findings of ethical scientists.

Before anyone disseminates Barbara 's excellent article, please remove the misleading headline,

The fact that the cauliflower mosaic virus used as a viral promoter in genetic engineering is RELATED (NOT identical) to the Hepatitis B and HIV virus, which I have pointed out for years based on the research of Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae Wan Ho,simply cannot lead to the conclusion (and one would assume that a physician (Dr. Carley) knows that) that the latter are inserted in genetically modified plants.

Ingrid

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: "DrCarley@GMAIL" <drcarley@...>Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:02:57 -0400Subject: 85% of Processed Food May Include HIV and HEP B Transgenesdrcarley@...Cc: Jordan <generalportal55@...> The BioPirates of Science: Genetic Engineering – Science orHoax?<http://farmwars.info/?p=5648><http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BioPirate-Lab-copy-small1.jpg>*By Barbara H. **Farm Wars <http://farmwars.info/?p=5648>*Only in America can a beleaguered company with a checker past such asMonsanto’s<http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805>,which includes a nasty little habit of poisoning entire towns with toxicwaste, battle it’s way to the top of the dung heap to deliver a fatal blowto the people and planet with a deadly and insidious type of chemical andbiological warfare via the genetic modification and patenting of transgenicseeds, as well as the coating of our farmland with toxic chemicals.And to top it all off, the U.S. government, which is supposed to be financedby we the people, is actively promoting this biological warfare bystealthily allowing the rampant infection of approximately 85% of ourprocessed food with unregulated transgenes that Monsanto executives admitwill have unknown effects on the environment and life.Did I mention that these transgenes also include a virus that is 70-90%identical to the HIV and Hep B viruses?<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/630px-CauliflowerMosaicRNA35S.png>Genomic Map of CAMV Wikimedia Commons*Because of the limitations of the technology, in most cases the processwill also necessarily involve the insertion of genetic material from atleast one foreign pathogen, the most common of which (the 35S promoter) istaken from a virus which is very similar to Hepatitis B and related to HIV.The consequences of using such elements have even been questioned byresearchers at the Innes Institute, one of the UK’s premier researchestablishments in the field of agricultural genetic engineering. Despitethis, routine use of such pathogen-derived elements continues.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm*<http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm>*The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter (CaMV 35S) is used in most transgeniccrops to activate foreign genes which have been artificially inserted intothe host plant. It is potentially dangerous.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/camv.htm*Did you get that? Approximately 85% of the processed food on our storeshelves contains products infected with transgenic material containing avirus that is 70-90% identical to the HIV and Hep B viruses. And ourgovernment, in collusion with companies such as Monsanto, is in charge ofthe attack, using “science†as a battle shield to fend off any who wouldquestion their tactics. But can what these people are doing actually becalled “science?â€*The “Science†of Genetic Engineering*The scientific method is defined by Merriam-Webster Online as:*Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involvingthe recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data throughobservation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.**http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific%2Bmethod*Scientific methods are based on the recognition and formulation of aproblem, collecting data through experiment and observation, then theformulation of a hypotheses, which leads to a solid conclusion of fact.*After only 20 years or so of development genetic engineering still involvesprocesses which are random and ‘trial and error’ in nature, and in thatsense they are imprecise and unscientific. The biotechnologist has little orno prior predictive power as to how a new gene will behave in the hostorganism. Without demonstrable predictive power it is inappropriate to referto any process as ‘engineering’ or ‘science-based’.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm* <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Looks-Okay-sm.jpg>After well over 20 years, just why is the so-called genetic engineeringprocess still trial and error?*Even in simple biological organisms like bacteria, the total potentialinteractions between genetic components run into many millions. Theserelationships have until now been managed by the intelligence of theorganism’s own DNA. It is now proposed that these relationships should be‘controlled’ by the same species whose own limited intelligence hasmistakenly and irretrievably peppered the globe with unmanageable nuclearwaste – man.**In traditional plant breeding it is the highly sophisticated discriminatoryintelligence of the plant which ultimately determines which genes may beaccepted as part of the newly created organism, and it is that sameintelligence which determines their placement and functioning within it.This process is driven by the information and knowledge contained within theDNA of the plant itself and exercised as an integral part of the naturalsexual breeding process.**With genetic engineering this process is completely bypassed. Single genesare selected by the ‘scientist’ and randomly inserted into the genome of thehost organism. The scientist has no control over their placement. In factthe plant geneticist has little or no knowledge as to where the new genesshould be placed in any case; and usually he does not know where they haveactually lodged even after his work has been completed. He simply “hopes forthe best.†Furthermore the inserted genes will frequently be taken fromtotally unrelated species.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm*The genetic engineering process:Aggie the TravelingAgrobacterium<http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/farmwars-400873-aggie-traveling-agrobacterium-gmo-environment-adventures-wavppt-science-technology-ppt-powerpoint/>And still, no valid risk assessment testing is done.*The problem with calling genetically engineered organisms safe is thatthere are no valid risk assessments being done on them. There is noresearch, really, being done into the health or environmental effects of agenetically engineered organism. Certainly no work that is published in thepeer-reviewed literature that isn’t proprietary. Corporations promotingthese things claim that they have done research, but you can’t get anyinformation on it because it’s all claimed to be proprietary.**As Dr. Bereano explains in this interview, genetic engineering is based onan extremely oversimplified model that suggests that by taking out or addingone or several genes, you can create a particular effect or result.**However, this reductionist model is nowhere near complete.**“First of all, genomes are so complicated with so many interactions withinthe genes of the genome that we don’t really understand it well,†Dr.Bereano says. “Let me give a simple example.**The genome in a cell in your eyeball is identical to the genome of a cellin your pancreas, but your eyeball does not make insulin. The constituentsof what’s in a genome are not the end of the story as to what that cell isgoing to produce and do.**There are in the human body maybe about 30,000 genes but there are millionsof proteins. These proteins are produced by very subtle and differentinteractions among the genes in different locations in the body. There areproteins which turn on insulin manufacturing to the cells in the pancreasand don’t turn it on in your eyeball*… *It’s important to understand that the structure of the genome is notdeterminative of what that cell does.**Yet, the kind of mental model that’s being used in all of these discussionsis what I call the Lego model or the tinker toy model. Let’s take out ayellow piece or let’s put in a green piece… but it’s not an issue just ofstructure—it’s of interaction.**These things are not being studied well. How stable is this genome after itis altered? In many instances we don’t know. It might change spontaneously.There are lots of questions there.**They have this very simplistic model and then they claim that these resultsare going to flow from it. But biology is much more complicated than that.â€**http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/02/dr-philip-bereano-on-gmos.aspx**Laboratory Accreditation and Industry Oversight*We can see from the above information that the “science†of geneticengineering is conducted in no way resembling any form of true scientificmethodology, so how do we know that companies such as Monsanto are evenqualified to conduct such experiments? We don’t. Biotech laboratories seemto be bereft of any form of mandatory accreditation process. In fact, itseems that any accreditation is voluntary.<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/cardboard-box-lab.jpg>Theoretically,it seems that Monsanto could set up shop in a cardboard box, create afrankenvirus, get peer reviewed studies from other labs in cardboard boxes,then unleash this abomination on the world without consequences for itsactions if/when people die. Especially when backed by the U.S. government. Icannot find any evidence that accreditation and compliance with setscientific standards is anything but voluntary. You pay to play.A quick search of The American Association for LaboratoryAccreditation<http://www.a2la.org/dirsearchnew/newsearch.cfm>forMonsanto Crop Analytics provides us with the following 2accreditationsinvolving one laboratoryHERE<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1833-01-AALA-Monsanto.pdf>andHERE <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1833-02.pdf>, whichare very specific regarding only a certain few procedures.On the USDA site, in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS<http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/7cfr340_08.html>)section, the following authority is claimed:*In order to protect plant health, Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS)implements the APHIS regulations for certain genetically engineered (GE)organisms that may pose a risk to plant health. APHIS coordinates theseresponsibilities along with the other designated federal agencies as part ofthe Federal Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology.**http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/brs_main.shtml*There are regulations for “certain†GE organisms that may pose a risk toplant health. How about posing a risk to human health? Evidently, thatdoesn’t count. So off we go, down the road, Monsanto hand in hand with theUSDA, conducting chemical and biological warfare on American citizens first,then spreading onwards and upwards to the rest of the world. Accreditation?We don’t need no stinkin’ accreditation – not with the USDA covering ourbacks!* <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/APHIS.jpg>APHISinspectors and compliance specialists perform targeted inspections of fieldtests and thoroughly evaluate all potential noncompliance incidents. BRSalso evaluates facilities, equipment, records of developers, and potentialincidents reported by permittees. Authorizations under the permitting andnotification procedures require that noncompliance incidents beself-reported within designated time frames.**http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/compliance_main.shtml*A self-reporting clause. The agency, (APHIS/USDA), conducts “targetedinspections†and evaluates “non-compliance†issues that are self-reported bythe permittees. It can’t get any better than that for Monsanto.*The Sky’s the Limit*So, without proper oversight, genetic markers in hand, Monsanto and the U.S.government are conducting the world’s largest unscientific, under-regulatedexperiment on the population at large. And we are paying for it. We aresystematically being poisoned, our DNA is changing, new and resistancebacteria and superweeds are cropping up, and Monsanto gets paid for thecarnage, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. We are literally paying for our owndemise at the hands of so-called “scientists†gone wild. This is not ascience fiction movie, it is what we are living, and somehow, I don’t thinkDuck and Cover will cut it.*A special thanks to the following Facebook Friends for help in the researchon accreditation: Peyton, Jo, Barry, and Tim.*© 2011 Barbara H. * *[image: survival seedvault]<http://www.non-hybrid-seeds.com/sp/seed-packs.html?roia=%2127Mdvq1BAAGPcGMxMjIAVQAABVNCAAApiQ-A>

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6062 (20110421) __________The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6062 (20110421) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]



Scientifically nonsensical headlines like these (one would assume that a physician would not draw such an erraneous conclusion) only provide fodder to the pro-GM lobby to discredit truly evidence-based findings of ethical scientists.

Before anyone disseminates Barbara 's excellent article, please remove the misleading headline,

The fact that the cauliflower mosaic virus used as a viral promoter in genetic engineering is RELATED (NOT identical) to the Hepatitis B and HIV virus, which I have pointed out for years based on the research of Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae Wan Ho,simply cannot lead to the conclusion (and one would assume that a physician (Dr. Carley) knows that) that the latter are inserted in genetically modified plants.

Ingrid

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: "DrCarley@GMAIL" <drcarley@...>Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:02:57 -0400Subject: 85% of Processed Food May Include HIV and HEP B Transgenesdrcarley@...Cc: Jordan <generalportal55@...> The BioPirates of Science: Genetic Engineering – Science orHoax?<http://farmwars.info/?p=5648><http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BioPirate-Lab-copy-small1.jpg>*By Barbara H. **Farm Wars <http://farmwars.info/?p=5648>*Only in America can a beleaguered company with a checker past such asMonsanto’s<http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805>,which includes a nasty little habit of poisoning entire towns with toxicwaste, battle it’s way to the top of the dung heap to deliver a fatal blowto the people and planet with a deadly and insidious type of chemical andbiological warfare via the genetic modification and patenting of transgenicseeds, as well as the coating of our farmland with toxic chemicals.And to top it all off, the U.S. government, which is supposed to be financedby we the people, is actively promoting this biological warfare bystealthily allowing the rampant infection of approximately 85% of ourprocessed food with unregulated transgenes that Monsanto executives admitwill have unknown effects on the environment and life.Did I mention that these transgenes also include a virus that is 70-90%identical to the HIV and Hep B viruses?<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/630px-CauliflowerMosaicRNA35S.png>Genomic Map of CAMV Wikimedia Commons*Because of the limitations of the technology, in most cases the processwill also necessarily involve the insertion of genetic material from atleast one foreign pathogen, the most common of which (the 35S promoter) istaken from a virus which is very similar to Hepatitis B and related to HIV.The consequences of using such elements have even been questioned byresearchers at the Innes Institute, one of the UK’s premier researchestablishments in the field of agricultural genetic engineering. Despitethis, routine use of such pathogen-derived elements continues.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm*<http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm>*The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter (CaMV 35S) is used in most transgeniccrops to activate foreign genes which have been artificially inserted intothe host plant. It is potentially dangerous.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/camv.htm*Did you get that? Approximately 85% of the processed food on our storeshelves contains products infected with transgenic material containing avirus that is 70-90% identical to the HIV and Hep B viruses. And ourgovernment, in collusion with companies such as Monsanto, is in charge ofthe attack, using “science†as a battle shield to fend off any who wouldquestion their tactics. But can what these people are doing actually becalled “science?â€*The “Science†of Genetic Engineering*The scientific method is defined by Merriam-Webster Online as:*Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involvingthe recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data throughobservation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.**http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific%2Bmethod*Scientific methods are based on the recognition and formulation of aproblem, collecting data through experiment and observation, then theformulation of a hypotheses, which leads to a solid conclusion of fact.*After only 20 years or so of development genetic engineering still involvesprocesses which are random and ‘trial and error’ in nature, and in thatsense they are imprecise and unscientific. The biotechnologist has little orno prior predictive power as to how a new gene will behave in the hostorganism. Without demonstrable predictive power it is inappropriate to referto any process as ‘engineering’ or ‘science-based’.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm* <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Looks-Okay-sm.jpg>After well over 20 years, just why is the so-called genetic engineeringprocess still trial and error?*Even in simple biological organisms like bacteria, the total potentialinteractions between genetic components run into many millions. Theserelationships have until now been managed by the intelligence of theorganism’s own DNA. It is now proposed that these relationships should be‘controlled’ by the same species whose own limited intelligence hasmistakenly and irretrievably peppered the globe with unmanageable nuclearwaste – man.**In traditional plant breeding it is the highly sophisticated discriminatoryintelligence of the plant which ultimately determines which genes may beaccepted as part of the newly created organism, and it is that sameintelligence which determines their placement and functioning within it.This process is driven by the information and knowledge contained within theDNA of the plant itself and exercised as an integral part of the naturalsexual breeding process.**With genetic engineering this process is completely bypassed. Single genesare selected by the ‘scientist’ and randomly inserted into the genome of thehost organism. The scientist has no control over their placement. In factthe plant geneticist has little or no knowledge as to where the new genesshould be placed in any case; and usually he does not know where they haveactually lodged even after his work has been completed. He simply “hopes forthe best.†Furthermore the inserted genes will frequently be taken fromtotally unrelated species.**http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/eagmconf.htm*The genetic engineering process:Aggie the TravelingAgrobacterium<http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/farmwars-400873-aggie-traveling-agrobacterium-gmo-environment-adventures-wavppt-science-technology-ppt-powerpoint/>And still, no valid risk assessment testing is done.*The problem with calling genetically engineered organisms safe is thatthere are no valid risk assessments being done on them. There is noresearch, really, being done into the health or environmental effects of agenetically engineered organism. Certainly no work that is published in thepeer-reviewed literature that isn’t proprietary. Corporations promotingthese things claim that they have done research, but you can’t get anyinformation on it because it’s all claimed to be proprietary.**As Dr. Bereano explains in this interview, genetic engineering is based onan extremely oversimplified model that suggests that by taking out or addingone or several genes, you can create a particular effect or result.**However, this reductionist model is nowhere near complete.**“First of all, genomes are so complicated with so many interactions withinthe genes of the genome that we don’t really understand it well,†Dr.Bereano says. “Let me give a simple example.**The genome in a cell in your eyeball is identical to the genome of a cellin your pancreas, but your eyeball does not make insulin. The constituentsof what’s in a genome are not the end of the story as to what that cell isgoing to produce and do.**There are in the human body maybe about 30,000 genes but there are millionsof proteins. These proteins are produced by very subtle and differentinteractions among the genes in different locations in the body. There areproteins which turn on insulin manufacturing to the cells in the pancreasand don’t turn it on in your eyeball*… *It’s important to understand that the structure of the genome is notdeterminative of what that cell does.**Yet, the kind of mental model that’s being used in all of these discussionsis what I call the Lego model or the tinker toy model. Let’s take out ayellow piece or let’s put in a green piece… but it’s not an issue just ofstructure—it’s of interaction.**These things are not being studied well. How stable is this genome after itis altered? In many instances we don’t know. It might change spontaneously.There are lots of questions there.**They have this very simplistic model and then they claim that these resultsare going to flow from it. But biology is much more complicated than that.â€**http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/02/dr-philip-bereano-on-gmos.aspx**Laboratory Accreditation and Industry Oversight*We can see from the above information that the “science†of geneticengineering is conducted in no way resembling any form of true scientificmethodology, so how do we know that companies such as Monsanto are evenqualified to conduct such experiments? We don’t. Biotech laboratories seemto be bereft of any form of mandatory accreditation process. In fact, itseems that any accreditation is voluntary.<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/cardboard-box-lab.jpg>Theoretically,it seems that Monsanto could set up shop in a cardboard box, create afrankenvirus, get peer reviewed studies from other labs in cardboard boxes,then unleash this abomination on the world without consequences for itsactions if/when people die. Especially when backed by the U.S. government. Icannot find any evidence that accreditation and compliance with setscientific standards is anything but voluntary. You pay to play.A quick search of The American Association for LaboratoryAccreditation<http://www.a2la.org/dirsearchnew/newsearch.cfm>forMonsanto Crop Analytics provides us with the following 2accreditationsinvolving one laboratoryHERE<http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1833-01-AALA-Monsanto.pdf>andHERE <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1833-02.pdf>, whichare very specific regarding only a certain few procedures.On the USDA site, in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS<http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/7cfr340_08.html>)section, the following authority is claimed:*In order to protect plant health, Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS)implements the APHIS regulations for certain genetically engineered (GE)organisms that may pose a risk to plant health. APHIS coordinates theseresponsibilities along with the other designated federal agencies as part ofthe Federal Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology.**http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/brs_main.shtml*There are regulations for “certain†GE organisms that may pose a risk toplant health. How about posing a risk to human health? Evidently, thatdoesn’t count. So off we go, down the road, Monsanto hand in hand with theUSDA, conducting chemical and biological warfare on American citizens first,then spreading onwards and upwards to the rest of the world. Accreditation?We don’t need no stinkin’ accreditation – not with the USDA covering ourbacks!* <http://farmwars.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/APHIS.jpg>APHISinspectors and compliance specialists perform targeted inspections of fieldtests and thoroughly evaluate all potential noncompliance incidents. BRSalso evaluates facilities, equipment, records of developers, and potentialincidents reported by permittees. Authorizations under the permitting andnotification procedures require that noncompliance incidents beself-reported within designated time frames.**http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/compliance_main.shtml*A self-reporting clause. The agency, (APHIS/USDA), conducts “targetedinspections†and evaluates “non-compliance†issues that are self-reported bythe permittees. It can’t get any better than that for Monsanto.*The Sky’s the Limit*So, without proper oversight, genetic markers in hand, Monsanto and the U.S.government are conducting the world’s largest unscientific, under-regulatedexperiment on the population at large. And we are paying for it. We aresystematically being poisoned, our DNA is changing, new and resistancebacteria and superweeds are cropping up, and Monsanto gets paid for thecarnage, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. We are literally paying for our owndemise at the hands of so-called “scientists†gone wild. This is not ascience fiction movie, it is what we are living, and somehow, I don’t thinkDuck and Cover will cut it.*A special thanks to the following Facebook Friends for help in the researchon accreditation: Peyton, Jo, Barry, and Tim.*© 2011 Barbara H. * *[image: survival seedvault]<http://www.non-hybrid-seeds.com/sp/seed-packs.html?roia=%2127Mdvq1BAAGPcGMxMjIAVQAABVNCAAApiQ-A>

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6062 (20110421) __________The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6062 (20110421) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com