sottnet--2019-09-25--Gene-editing unintentionally adds bovine DNA goat DNA and bacterial DNA mouse researchers find

Gene-editing unintentionally adds bovine DNA, goat DNA, and bacterial DNA, mouse researchers find

there is little difference between the reality of gene-editing and that of genetic engineering  Are there solutions to the presence of superfluous DNA?  The gene-editing of DNA inside living cells is considered by many to be the preeminent technological breakthrough of the new millennium. Researchers in medicine and agriculture have rapidly adopted it as a technique for discovering cell and organism functions. But its commercial prospects are much more complicated.Gene-editing has many potential uses. These include altering cells to treat human disease, altering crops and livestock for breeding and agriculture. Furthermore, in a move that has been widely criticised, Chinese researcher He Jiankui claims to have edited human babies to resist HIV by altering a gene called CCR5.For most commercial applications gene-editing's appeal is simplicity and precision: it alters genomes at precise sites and without inserting foreign DNA. This why, in popular articles, gene-editing is often referred to as 'tweaking'.The tweaking narrative, however, is an assumption and not an established fact. And it recently suffered a large dent. In late July researchers from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) analysed the whole genomes of two calves originally born in 2016. The calves were edited by the biotech startup Recombinetics using a gene-editing method called TALENS Norris et al., 2019 ). The two Recombinetics animals had become biotech celebrities for having a genetic change that removed their horns. Cattle without horns are known as 'polled'. The calves are well-known because Recombinetics has insisted that its two edited animals were extremely precisely altered to possess only the polled trait.However, what the FDA researchers found was not precision.But FDA's findings are potentially trivial besides another recent discovery about gene-editing:These findings have not been reported in the scientific or popular media. But they are of great consequence from a biosafety perspective and therefore for the commercial and regulatory landscape of gene-editing. They imply, at the very least, the need for strong measures to prevent contamination by stray DNA, along with thorough scrutiny of gene-edited cells and gene-edited organisms. And, as the Recombinetics case suggests, these are needs that developers themselves may not meet.As far back as 2010 researchers working with human cells showed that a form of gene-editing called Zinc Finger Nuclease (ZFN) could result in the insertion of foreign DNA at the editing target site ( Olsen et al., 2010 ).Understanding the presence of plasmid vectors requires an appreciation of the basics of gene-editing, which, confusingly, are considerably distinct from what the word 'editing' means in ordinary English.Ultimately, all DNA 'editing' is really the cutting of DNA by enzymes, called nucleases, that are supposed to act only at chosen sites in the genome of a living cell. This cut creates a double-stranded break that severs (and therefore severely damages) a chromosome. The enzymes most commonly used by researchers for this cutting are the Fok I enzyme (for TALENS type editing), Cas9 (for CRISPR ), or Zinc Finger Nucleases (for ZFN).Subsequent to this cutting event the cell effects a repair.Like virtually all enzymes these nucleases are proteins. And like most proteins they are somewhat tricky to produce and relatively unstable once made. Typically, therefore, rather than produce the DNA cutting enzymes directly, researchers introduce vector plasmids into target cells. These vector plasmids are circular DNA molecules that code for the desired enzyme(s). (vector plasmid DNA may also code for the guide RNA that CRISPR editing techniques require). What this means, in practice, is that TALENS, Cas9 and the other cutting enzymes end up being produced by the target cell itself.As Olsen et al. and the FDA showed, using both TALENS and ZFN types of DNA cutters can result in plasmid vector integration at the target site. In 2015 Japanese researchers showed that DNA edits made to mouse zygotes using the CRISPR method of gene editing are also vulnerable to unintended insertion of non-host DNA ( Ono et al., 2015 ).Since then, similar integrations of foreign DNA at the target site have been observed in many species: fruitflies (Drosophila melanogaster), medaka fish (Oryzias latipes), mice, yeast, Aspergillus (a fungus), the nematode C. elegans, Daphnia magna, and various plants (e.g. Jacobs et al., 2015 Gutierrez-Triana et al., 2018 ).The vector plasmids themselves are not the only source of potential foreign DNA contamination in standard gene-editing methodologies.Earlier this year the same Japanese group showed that DNA from the E. coli genome can integrate in the target organisms' genome ( Ono et al. 2019 ). Acquisition of E. coli DNA was found to be quite frequent. Insertion of long unintended DNA sequences occurred at 4% of the total number of edited sites and 21% of these were of DNA from the E. coli genome.Even more worrisome, amongst the DNA sequences inserted into the mouse genome were bovine and goat retrotransposons (jumping genes) and mouse retrovirus DNA (HIV is a retrovirus).Other potential sources of unwanted DNA also exist in cell cultures used for gene editing. In 2004 researchers observed that when cells from a hepatoma cell line were caused to have DNA breaks, some of these breaks were filled by hepatitis B virus sequences ( Bill and Summers, 2004 ). In other words, pathogens contaminating the foetal serum, such as DNA viruses, should also be a source of concern.Furthermore, the insertion of superfluous DNA from other species is likely not restricted to the intended target site. As is becoming appreciated, gene-editing enzymes can act at unwanted locations in the genome (e.g. Kosicki et al., 2018 ). Accidentally introduced DNA can also end up at such sites. This has been shown for human cells and also plants using CRISPR (Kim and Kim 2014; Li et al., 2017 ; Jacobs et al., 2015). There is every reason to suppose that the more exotic DNAs mentioned above can integrate there as well, but this has not been specifically tested for.Stuart Newman of New York Medical College is a cell biologist, a founding member of the Council for Responsible Genetics, and Editor-In-Chief of the journal Biological Theory . According to him, the addition of DNA originating from cell culture "is something that has not been broached in the discourse around safety of CRISPR and other gene modification techniques."In the case of gene-editing intended to generate altered living organisms, cell culture media "contain genes that could cause developmental problems if reincorporated by CRISPR/Cas9 into the zygote genome in extra numbers and uncontrolled chromosomal sites." says Newman.Similar concerns apply to human applications. The incorporation of DNA from other species has not publicly been raised in connection with the gene-edited human babies of researcher He Jiankui. Clearly, it should be. From what cell types, for example, did He Jiankui purify the proteins he presumably used to edit the CCR5 gene? Rabbit cells? Insect cells? Those, at least, are the standard methods.The second important conclusion, and what the Recombinetics case exemplifies, is that researchers are often not looking for stray DNA. If they were to look, many more examples would likely be reported. We can conclude this because the research cited above used standard methods of gene-editing. The only untypical aspect was the extra effort put towards detecting superfluous DNA.What these recent findings also highlight is a more general, but little-discussed, aspect of gene-editing. Although the goals of gene-editors and genetic engineers are assumed to be very different, their standard methods are, in practice, virtually indistinguishable.Consider crop plants, which are where much of the immediate commercial interest in gene-editing resides. To edit plants, DNA, in the form of vector plasmid, is introduced into plant cells. In contrast to methods of animal gene-editing, this vector plasmid is necessary (and not optional) since proteins cannot penetrate plant cell walls. This vector plasmid must access the cell interior, which requires either a gene gun or infection with the DNA-transferring bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Lastly, in-vitro cell culture is used to regenerate the edited cells into whole plants.Gene guns, tissue culture, and A. tumefaciens are all standard genetic engineering methods for crops. They also all create mutations. That is, they damage DNA. Depending on the specifics of the method used, such as the length of time in tissue culture, the collective result can be ten thousand mutations per genome ( Wilson et al., 2006 Latham et al., 2006 ). Windels et al., 2001 ).So, if one only listened to the rhetoric contrasting 'precise' 'tweaks' of gene-editing with 'messy', 'random' genetic engineering one would hardly suspect that, when it comes to plants, and often to animals as well,Solutions to the presence of superfluous DNA (at or distant from the editing site) come in two basic forms: prevention, or detection followed by removal.An obvious preventive step is to avoid the use of vector plasmids and undefined culture media (undefined media are those containing fluids or extracts from living organisms). Another is to explicitly breed (backcross) gene-edited animals and plants to remove superfluous DNAs. A third is to sequence their whole genome, compare it to the parent genome, and select only unaltered lines, if they can be found ( Ahmad et al., 2019 ).However, these remedies are effortful. They are time-consuming and costly, or not yet fully developed, or only available for some species. These are also solutions that nullify the advantages of speed and ease that are often the stated reasons for editing in the first place.Many countries are at present formulating regulations that will go a long way to determining who benefits and who loses from any potential benefits that gene-editing may have . But in any event, these results provide a compelling case for active government oversight.It is not just regulators who need to step up, however. Investors, insurers, journalists, everyone, in fact, should be asking far more questions of the scientists and companies active in gene-editing. Otherwise, boom is likely to stray into bane.Ahmad, Niaz Mehboob-ur Rahman, Zahid Mukhtar, Yusuf Zafar, Baohong Zhang (2019) A critical look on CRISPR-based genome editing in plants . J. Cellular Physiology.Bill, Colin A. and Jesse Summers (2004) Genomic DNA double-strand breaks are targets for hepadnaviral DNA integration . PNAS: 101 (30) 11135-11140.Gutierrez-Triana, Jose Arturo, Tinatini Tavhelidse, Thomas Thumberger , Isabelle Thomas, Beate Wittbrodt, Tanja Kellner, Kerim Anlas, Erika Tsingos, Joachim Wittbrodt (2018) Efficient single-copy HDR by 5' modified long dsDNA donors . eLife 2018;7:e39468.Thomas B Jacobs, Peter R LaFayette, Robert J Schmitz & Wayne A Parrott (2015) Targeted genome modifications in soybean with CRISPR/Cas9 . BMC Biotechnology 15: 16.Kim, J. & Jin-Soo Kim (2016) Bypassing GMO regulations with CRISPR gene editing . Nature Biotechnology 34: 1014-1015.Kosicki, M , K. Tomberg and A. Bradley (2018) Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements . Nature Biotechnology 36: 765-771.Norris, Alexis. L., Stella S. Lee, Kevin J. Greenlees, Daniel A. Tadesse, Mayumi F. Miller, Heather Lombardi (2019) Template plasmid integration in germline genome-edited cattle. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/715482Olsen, P.A., Gelazauskaite, M., Randol, M. & Krauss, S. (2010) Analysis of illegitimate genomic integration mediated by zinc-finger nucleases: implications for specificity of targeted gene correction . BMC Mol Biol 11, 35.Latham, Jonathan R., Allison K. Wilson and Ricarda A. Steinbrecher (2006) The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation. The Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology (2006) 7 pages doi:10.1155/JBB/2006/25376Li, Zhongsen, Zhan-Bin Liu, Aiqiu Xing, Bryan P. Moon, Jessica P. Koellhoffer, Lingxia Huang, R. Timothy Ward, Elizabeth Clifton, S. Carl Falco, A. Mark Cigan (2015) Cas9-Guide RNA Directed Genome Editing in Soybean . Plant Physiol. 169: 960-970.Li, Rong Sheng Quan, Xiaofang Yan, Sukumar Biswas, Dabing Zhang, Jianxin Shi (2017) Molecular characterization of genetically-modified crops: Challenges and strategies . Biotechnology Advances 35:s 302-309.Ming, R., S Hou, Y Feng, Q Yu, A Dionne-Laporte (2008) The draft genome of the transgenic tropical fruit tree papaya (Carica papaya Linnaeus) . Nature 452: 991-996.Windels, Pieter, Isabel Taverniers, Ann Depicker, Erik Van Bockstaele and Marc De Loose (2001) Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert . Eur. Food Res. Technol. 213:107-11.Ono, Ryuichi, Masayuki Ishii, Yoshitaka Fujihara, Moe Kitazawa, Takako Usami, Tomoko Kaneko-Ishino, Jun Kanno, Masahito Ikawa & Fumitoshi Ishino (2015) Double strand break repair by capture of retrotransposon sequenc es and reverse-transcribed spliced mRNA sequences in mouse zygote s. Scientific Reports 5: 12281.Ryuichi Ono, Yukuto Yasuhiko, Ken-ichi Aisaki, Satoshi Kitajima, Jun Kanno & Yoko Hirabayashi (2019) Exosome-mediated horizontal gene transfer occurs in double-strand break repair during genome editing . Communications Biology 2: 57 https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-019-0300-2.pdf?origin=ppub Wilson, Allison K., Jonathan R. Latham, and Ricarda A. Steinbrecher (2006) Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: analysis and biosafety implications . Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 23.1 : 209-238.


sottnet--2019-10-14--Bacteria collaborate to survive contradicting Darwinism

New microbial research at the University of CopenhagenBacteria make space for one another and sacrifice properties if it benefits the bacterial community as a whole. The discovery is a major step towards understanding complex bacteria interactions and the development of new treatment models for a wide range of human diseases and new green technologies.The report has just been published in the scientific publication ISME Journal. For a number of years the researchers have studied how combinations of bacteria behave together when in a confined area. After investigating many thousands of combinations it has become clear that bacteria cooperate to survive and that these results contradict what Darwin said in his theories of evolution."In the classic Darwinian mindset, competition is the name of the game. The best suited survive and outcompete those less well suited. However, when it comes to microorganisms like bacteria," explains Department of Biology microbiologist, Professor Søren Johannes Sørensen.By isolating bacteria from a small corn husk (where they were forced to "fight" for space) the scientists were able to investigate the degree to which bacteria compete or cooperate to survive. The bacterial strains were selected based upon their ability to grow together. Researchers measured bacterial biofilm, a slimy protective layer that shields bacteria against external threats such as antibiotics or predators. When bacteria are healthy, they produce more biofilm and become stronger and more resilient.Time after time, the researchers observed the same result: Instead of the strongest outcompeting the others in biofilm production, space was allowed to the weakest, allowing the weak to grow much better than they would have on their own. At the same time the researchers could see that the bacteria split up laborious tasks by shutting down unnecessary mechanisms and sharing them with their neighbors."It may well be that Henry Ford thought that he had found something brilliant when he introduced the assembly line and worker specialization, but bacteria have been taking advantage of this strategy for a billion years," says Søren Johannes Sørensen referring to the oldest known bacterial fossils with biofilm. He adds:"Our new study demonstrates that bacteria organize themselves in a structured way, distribute work and even to help each other. This means that we can find out which bacteria cooperate, and possibly, which ones depend on each another, by looking at who sits next to who."The researchers also investigated what properties bacteria had when they were alone versus when they were with other bacteria. Humans often discuss the work place or group synergy, and how people inspire each other. Bacteria take this one step further when they survive in small communities."Bacteria take our understanding of group synergy and inspiration to a completely different level. They induce attributes in their neighbors that would otherwise remain dormant. In this way groups of bacteria can express properties that aren't possible when they are alone. When they are together totally new features can suddenly emerge," Søren Johannes Sørensen explains.Understanding how bacteria interact in groups has the potential to create a whole new area in biotechnology that traditionally strives to exploit single, isolated strains, one at a time."Bio-based society is currently touted as a solution to model many of the challenges that our societies face. However, the vast majority of today's biotech is based on single organisms. This is in stark contrast to what happens in nature, where all processes are managed by cooperative consortia of organisms. We must learn from nature and introduce solutions to tap the huge potential of biotechnology in the future", according to Søren Johannes Sørensen.


sottnet--2019-12-05--Growing babies outside the womb

Growing babies outside the womb

What is an artificial womb?  What would an artificial womb contain?  Artificial wombs could help with infertility and fertility • approved protocols for testing artificial wombs that gradually extend the gestation period • funding that prevents discrimination on socio-economic grounds. This might be in the form of government funding to ensure a wide range of groups have access to the technology • clear legal guidelines for the status of ectogenetic embryos and fetuses, including what happens if prospective parents die, divorce or disagree on how to proceed • guidelines for access that calm public fears about the misuse of emerging reproductive technologies.  The idea of growing babies outside the body has inspired novels and movies for decades.And in recent weeks, researchers in The Netherlands have received €2.9m ($4.66m) to develop a prototype for gestating premature babies.So it's important to consider some of the ethical issues this technology might bring.Growing a baby outside the womb is known as ectogenesis (or exogenesis). And we're already using a form of it. When premature infants are transferred to humidicribs to continue their development in a neonatal unit, that's partial ectogenesis.This may sound far-fetched, but many scientists working in reproductive biotechnology believe that with the necessary scientific and legal support, full ectogenesis is a real possibility for the future.An artificial womb would need an outer shell or chamber. That's somewhere to implant the embryo and protect it as it grows. So far, animal experiments have used acrylic tanks plastics bags and uterine tissues removed from an organism and artificially kept alive.An artificial womb would also need a synthetic replacement for amniotic fluid, a shock absorber in the womb during natural pregnancy.Finally, there would have to be a way to exchange oxygen and nutrients (so oxygen and nutrients in and carbon dioxide and waste products out). In other words, researchers would have to build an artificial placenta Animal experiments have used a complex catheter and pump systems . But there are plans to use a mini version of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation , a technique that allows blood to be oxygenated outside the body.Once these are in place, artificial gestation could one day become as common as IVF is today, a technique considered revolutionary a few decades ago.And just as in the case of IVF, there are many who are concerned about what this new realm of reproductive medicine might mean for the future of creating a family.So what are some of the ethical considerations?The main discussion about artificial wombs has focused on their potential benefit in increasing the survival rate of extremely premature babies. Currently , those born earlier than 22 weeks gestation have little-to-no hope of survival. And those born at 23 weeks are likely to suffer a range of disabilities.Using a sealed " biobag ," which mimics the maternal womb might help extremely premature babies survive and improve their quality of life.A biobag provides oxygen, a type of substitute amniotic fluid, umbilical cord access and all necessary water and nutrients (and medicine, if required). This could potentially allow the gestational period to be prolonged outside the womb until the baby has developed sufficiently to live independently and with good health prospects.An artificial womb might provide an optimum environment for the fetus to grow, providing it with the appropriate balance of hormones and nutrients. It would also avoid exposing the growing fetus to external harms such as infectious diseases.The technology might also make it easier to perform surgery on the fetus if needed.And it could see the end of long-term hospital stays for premature infants, saving health care dollars in the process. This is particularly noteworthy considering some of the largest private insurance payments  are currently for neonatal intensive care unit expenses.This emerging reproductive technology may allow women who are infertile, either due to physiological or social reasons , with the chance of having a child. It may also offer opportunities for transgender women and other women born without a uterus, or those who have lost their uterus due to cancer, injury or medical conditions, to have children.Similarly, it could allow single men and gay male couples to become parents without needing a surrogate.Will this lead to a broader discussion about gender roles and equality in reproduction? Will it remove potential risks and expectations of pregnancy and childbirth currently only affecting women? Will this eliminate commercial surrogacy?Equally, artificial wombs could help fertile women who for health or personal reasons choose not to be pregnant. It would allow those whose career choices, medication or lifestyle might otherwise expose a developing fetus to malformation or abnormality.Artificial wombs may harm women, reinforce inequality and lead to discriminationThe prospect of artificial wombs might offer hope for many, but it also highlights a number of potential hazards.For some women, using an artificial womb for gestation to continue might seem like a welcome alternative to terminating a pregnancy. But there are fears that other women thinking about abortion might be compelled to use an artificial womb to continue gestation.Whether artificial wombs should be allowed to influence a woman's right to choose is already under debate Artificial wombs might also further increase the gap between rich and poor. Wealthy prospective parents may opt to pay for artificial wombs, while poorer people will rely on women's bodies to gestate their babies. Existing disparities in nutrition and exposure to pathogens between pregnancies across socio-economic divides could also be exacerbated.This raises issues of distribution of access. Will artificial wombs receive government funding? If it does, who should decide who gets subsidized access? Will there be a threshold to meet?Other issues concern potential discrimination individuals born via an artificial womb may face. How do we prevent discrimination or invasive publicity and ensure individuals' origin stories are not subject to negative public curiosity or ridicule?Others might consider artificial wombs to be deeply repugnant and fundamentally against the natural reproductive order.Currently, there is no prototype of an artificial womb for humans. And the technology is very much in its infancy. Yet we do need to consider ethical and legal issues before rushing headlong into this reproductive technology.Not only do we need to ensure the technology is safe and works, but we also need to consider whether it's the right path to take for different circumstances.It might be easier to defend using artificial wombs in emergency situations, such as saving the lives of extremely premature neonates. However, using them in other circumstances might need broader social and policy considerations.Without first establishing clear regulatory and ethico-legal frameworks, the development and release of artificial wombs could be problematic. We need to clearly outline pregnancy termination rights, parenthood and guardianship issues, limitations to experimentation, and other issues before the technology is fully realized and available. We need to do this soon rather than allowing the law to lag behind the science.We recommend:It is easy to get carried away with visions of utopian or dystopian societies. As radical and futuristic as artificial wombs might sound, it is important to pause and reflect on the present.While this technology may solve some existing problems concerning inequality in reproduction, there are many other issues that demand our immediate attention.Improving maternal health services, equal opportunity in the workplace, and reducing the impact of poor social determinants of health on fetal outcomes are all pressing concerns we must address now before we can consider what the future of reproductive biotechnology might hold.


sputnik--2019-04-30--Russian Scientists Create Eco-Friendly Pesticide Repelling Gypsy Moth

Scientists from Vernadsky Crimean Federal University, together with their colleagues from the  and Forestry Mechanization, have developed and synthesized a new plant protection compound based on the DNA of the gypsy moth. According to the developers, the new DNA insecticide only affects larvae and then quickly self-destructs without damaging the environment. The research was published in Scientific Reports.  "We have proposed a novel biotechnology to protect plants from insect pests using DNA insecticide with improved insecticidal activity based on the gene sequence of the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). Compared with existing insecticides, the oligoRIBO-11 insecticide is more affordable and faster acting. It also causes a higher mortality among both L. dispar larvae grown in the lab and those collected from the forest," said one of the authors, senior lecturer Volodymyr Oberemok.  Creating the biotechnology to protect plants from the gypsy moth led to the next stage, the development of DNA-based insecticides based on a new antisense oligoRIBO-11 sequence from the 5.8S ribosomal RNA gene.  "Our research has proven the effectiveness of the new technology, which makes the oligoRIBO-11-based insecticide a potential candidate for the development of an environmentally friendly product to be used in forestry," said Volodymyr Oberemok.  Various methods are used to fight the gypsy moth, such as clearing eggs from trees, setting traps for mature larvae, and using chemical and biological products. Over the last decade, Crimean University researchers have been investigating the possible use of DNA insecticides synthesized using the moth's own DNA to destroy the pest in the caterpillar stage.


tass--2019-02-01--Siberian scientists wrap up Ebola vaccine trials

NOVOSIBIRSK, February 1. /TASS/. Specialists at the Novosibirsk State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology VECTOR have completed trials of a vaccine against the Ebola virus disease, which claimed the lives of over 11,000 people in Africa recently, said Nikolai Krasnikov, Head of the Administration of Koltsovo Science City near Novosibirsk where the research center is located, at the TASS press center on Friday.  "Our scientists have wrapped up clinical trials of the Ebola vaccine this year. Now it is ready for use," he announced.  The World Health Organization describes the Ebola virus disease (EVD, formerly known as Ebola hemorrhagic fever) as "a severe, often fatal illness in humans. EVD outbreaks have a case fatality rate of up to 90%." Symptoms include a sudden onset of fever, intense weakness, muscle pain, a headache and a sore throat. This is followed by vomiting, diarrhea, a rash, impaired kidney and liver function, and in some cases, both internal and external bleeding. The infection is transmitted by direct contact with the blood, body fluids and the tissues of infected animals or people. The incubation period lasts from two to 21 days.  The virus was first registered in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) in 1976, with outbreaks reported from Sudan, Gabon, the Republic of the Congo, Angola, and Cote d’Ivoire. The latest Ebola epidemics in West Africa in 2014-2016 killed more than 11,300 people, with more than 28,600 contracting the disease. The most lethal outcomes were reported in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia.  Russian doctors and scientists have played an important role in fighting Ebola. In 2017, reports said that an Ebola vaccine had been developed by the Novosibirsk-based VECTOR Research Center.  Founded in 1974, VECTOR is one of the world’s largest research centers. Initially, it studied the causative agents of such deadly disease as anthrax and tularemia to create biological weapons based on them. Currently, the center develops tools for diagnosing and treating infectious diseases. Its specialists, in particular, are developing vaccines against swine flu, HIV and Ebola.


theguardianuk--2019-03-20--China clones Sherlock Holmes police dog to cut training times report

China clones 'Sherlock Holmes' police dog to cut training times – report

Scientists in south-west China’s Yunnan province have reportedly cloned what they called the “Sherlock Holmes of police dogs” in a programme they hope will help cut training times and costs for police dogs.  The dog, named Kunxun, was cloned from a police sniffer dog by the Beijing-based Sinogene Biotechnology Company and the Yunnan Agricultural University, with support from the Ministry of Public Security, the state-owned tabloid Global Times reported.  Sinogene is hoping to make it possible to achieve “volume production” of cloned police dogs in order to significantly reduce training times, the company’s deputy general manager Zhao Jianping told the Global Times, but he added that cloning costs remain a major obstacle.  Kunxun, now three months old, will undergo extensive training in drug detection, crowd control and searching for evidence, and will become a fully fledged police dog when it is about 10 months old, the official China Daily said.  Training usually takes about five years and costs as much as 500,000 yuan, with no guarantee of success, the paper said, citing an animal expert at the Yunnan Agricultural University. The paper did not say how much a cloned dog would cost.  South Korean scientists created the world’s first cloned dog in 2005, and two years later the country began employing cloned Labrador retrievers to sniff out drugs for the customs service, China Daily said.


theindependent--2019-01-23--Genetic technology used to exterminate disease-carrying animals succeeds in mammals for first time

A genetic technology that could be used to to eradicate disease-carrying insects has been succesfully used in mammals for the first time.  Scientists think so-called "gene drives" could one day be used to spread harmful DNA that can wipe out pests or invasive alien species.  The United Nations (UN) recently considered a total ban on the technique after many expressed concerns about unintended and uncontrollable knock-on effects.  So the controversial practice is currently confined to the laboratory, but publishing their findings in the journal Nature, a team of scientists from California have successfully used it to change the colour of white mice to grey.  Led by Professor Kimberly Cooper, the team used Crispr gene editing to add a segment of DNA known as “CopyCat” into a gene controlling fur colour.  This gene drive tilted the scales in favour of the desired gene, meaning when the new mice are born they were more likely to have darker fur.  After two years, around 70 per cent of mice being born had genes for the greyer complexion compared to around half of those in a normal population.  The technique only worked in female mice during the production of eggs and had no effect on the sperm of males.  Excitement about gene drives in the scientific community has largely focused on their potential to tackle deadly diseases like malaria and dengue fever by wiping out biting insects.  This technique has already proven effective in laboratories, where malaria-carrying mosquitoes have been prevented from laying eggs  The scientists behind the new study hoped to lay the groundwork for the creation of mice that could be used in medical research for complicated genetic diseases.  However, some have proposed similar gene drives could be used to control pests, such as rat infestations.  The technique might be more effective than alternative methods such as dangerous pesticides.  “With additional refinements, it should be possible to develop gene-drive technologies to either modify or possibly reduce mammalian populations that are vectors for disease or cause damage to indigenous species,” said Professor Ethan Bier, one of the study’s co-authors.  The work was welcomed by other scientists as a crucial step that confirms gene drives as an effective technique for use in mammals, but they warned that a lot more work needed to be done.  “Considerable optimisation will be required to develop a gene drive system suitable for proposed field applications such as control of invasive rodent populations on islands for conservation purposes,” said Professor Luke Alphey, an expert in genetic pest management at The Pirbright Institute.  While the proposed moratorium by the UN failed to gain support from biotechnology-friendly countries, concerns about mutations and wider environmental impacts still abound.  With the technology still at a fledgling stage, the scientists concluded that both fears and wilder speculation about its applications are likely premature.


theindependent--2019-01-28--Genetically modified chickens lay eggs with cancer-killing chemicals inside

Genetically modified chickens that produce human proteins with anti-cancer effects in their eggs could provide a cost-effective way to produce drugs, research suggests.  Scientists at the University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute initially set out to produce proteins that could be used in scientific experiments.  However, they found the drugs they were creating worked as well as those produced using existing methods.  Large quantities of the valuable substances can be extracted from the eggs, with three eggs proving enough to produce an adequate dosage.  The scientists added genes to the chickens’ DNA coding for human protein called IFNalpha2a, which has anti-viral and anti-cancer effects, and another protein called macrophage-CSF, which is involved in the production of white blood cells.  These substances are produced as part of the egg white, and the genes have no harmful effects for the chickens.  “We are not yet producing medicines for people, but this study shows that chickens are commercially viable for producing proteins suitable for drug discovery studies and other applications in biotechnology,” said Professor Helen Sang of the Roslin Institute.  While the new research is still in its early days, the scientists said it provided a “promising proof of concept” that could set the stage for improved drug production.  As chickens are capable of laying up to 300 eggs every year, the scientists suggest this method could provide a cheaper approach than existing methods.  Often producing protein-based drugs to treat cancer and other diseases involves a complex and expensive production and purification process involving mammal cell cultures.  Eggs are already used to grow viruses for use in vaccines, and other animals such as goats have been genetically modified in the past to produce useful proteins in their milk.  The new research was published in the journal BMC Biotechnology.


theindependent--2019-02-16--Plan to plant genetically engineered trees throughout US to save dying forests

Plans are under way to plant swathes of genetically engineered trees across the ailing forests of North America in a bid to save them from the ravages of disease and pests.  Species such as the ash tree and whitebark pine have faced catastrophic declines of up to half their populations after creatures introduced from overseas tore through their defences.  With some trees driven to the brink of extinction, some scientists have called for drastic action to help forests fight back against the pests.  “The reason they are so deadly is that native species are not genetically adapted to defend against them,” explained Dr Ines Ibanez, an ecologist from the University of Michigan.  This problem can be fixed by providing trees with the genetic tools they need to fight their attackers.  “People are interested in exploring the potential of biotechnology, which could be used to introduce a specific trait unto a tree species or make it resistant or tolerant a disease or pest,” said Dr Jason Delborne, a social scientist at North Carolina State University  While genetic engineering normally takes place within tight restrictions, these GM trees would be created with the express intention of spreading far and wide.  This prompted the US government to enlist Drs Delborne and Ibanez along with other collaborators from across the academic spectrum to assess whether the nation should embark on such an enormous leap into the unknown.  Their work has come at a crucial time, as efforts to genetically modify trees are already under way.  Perhaps the most successful project has been one targeting the American chestnut, which was all but wiped out by a fungal blight in the mid-1900s.  Chestnuts used to make up around a quarter of the trees in eastern US forests, but after 6 billion were killed the remnant population is nothing but stumps.  But the tree may have found a saviour in the form of a pioneering project led by Professor William Powell at SUNY-ESF, which has created chestnut trees with an extra gene from wheat that detoxifies the fungus.  Tests have shown these new strains are resistant to the blight, providing hope for the future of the species.  “The goal for them is to make it deregulated so they could plant it freely in the environment, then over a decade you could plant chestnut tees and they would spread and repopulate the forest. That’s the vision,” said Prof Powell.  Unlike many GM species, these trees would not be commercial given the primary end goal is simply to restore nature to its former glory and not make money.  Nevertheless, such technologies could still face a backlash, and the scientists presenting their work at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Washington DC urged caution.  “Some people love that idea, others say ‘You want to release a GMO in wild forests, are you kidding?’ said Dr Delborne.  Dr Ibanez said a broad range of measures will be necessary to save the nation’s forests, including breeding programmes and the search for natural genetic resistance in populations. While genetic engineering cannot yet be viewed as a silver bullet to solve the problem, it may still prove essential.  “We may start losing species quite fast, and want to have this in our toolbox,” she said.


theindependent--2019-03-20--Chinese scientists clone aposSherlock Holmesapos of police dogs in bid to cut training times

Chinese scientists clone 'Sherlock Holmes' of police dogs in bid to cut training times

Chinese scientists have reportedly cloned what they call the “Sherlock Holmes of police dogs” in a programme they hope will help cut training times and costs for these dogs.  The dog, named Kunxun, was cloned from a police sniffer dog by the Beijing-based Sinogene Biotechnology Company and the Yunnan Agricultural University, with support from the Ministry of Public Security, the state-owned tabloid Global Times reported.  Sinogene is hoping to make it possible to achieve “volume production” of cloned police dogs in order to significantly reduce training times, the company’s deputy general manager Zhao Jianping told the Global Times.  But he added that cloning costs remain a major obstacle for the company.  Kunxun, now three months old, will undergo extensive training in drug detection, crowd control and searching for evidence, and will become a fully fledged police dog when it is about 10 months old, the official China Daily reported.  Training usually takes about five years and costs as much as 500,000 yuan, with no guarantee of success, the paper said, citing an animal expert at the Yunnan Agricultural University.  The paper did not say how much a cloned dog would cost.  South Korean scientists created the world’s first cloned dog in 2005, and two years later the country began employing cloned Labrador retrievers to sniff out drugs for the customs service, China Daily reported.  We’ll tell you what’s true. You can form your own view.  At The Independent, no one tells us what to write. That’s why, in an era of political lies and Brexit bias, more readers are turning to an independent source. Subscribe from just 15p a day for extra exclusives, events and ebooks – all with no ads.


thevaccinereaction--2019-05-15--Unintended Consequences Dirty Genes in Vaccines

Unintended Consequences: Dirty Genes in Vaccines

What happens when our government regulatory agencies tasked with protecting the public’s health fails to disclose the risks known by the industry?  In the case of viruses and DNA in vaccines, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has internally noted1 that “small amounts of residual cell substrate DNA unavoidably occur in all viral vaccines as well as other biologics produced using cell substrates. There are several potential ways DNA could be a risk factor. DNA can be oncogenic or infectious; in addition, it can cause insertion mutagenesis through integration into the host genome.”  Since all vaccines contain residual DNA that has a potential to be oncogenic (causing cancer), mutagenic (changing your genetic code), and infectious, isn’t it of major concern that section 13 of every vaccine package insert2 states that the product has not been evaluated for carcinogenic (causing cancer) or mutagenic effects?  The FDA continues3: “The use of human tumor-derived cell lines poses added safety concerns regarding the potential presence of unexpected and unknown viruses. These include viruses that may be present in the cell line due to their existence in the patient tissue such as oncogenic, latent DNA viruses (e.g., adenovirus, hepadenoviruses, herpesviruses, papillomaviruses, polyomaviruses) and endogenous retroviruses (ERVs), which exist normally in a quiescent state in the host cell DNA of all species…”  This suggests that these viruses are sleeping and inactive, currently not expressing, and have the full potential to cause infection if they are woken from this sleep. These quiet and sleeping viruses can only be detected in the cells used to make vaccines if they are activated making their presence; and then their detection is quite problematic. This is an issue for all cell strains used to make vaccines and is not unique to human tumorigenic cells.  Genetic engineer Dr. Theresa Deisher, a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Physiology from Stanford University with over 20 years experience in biotechnology, reports that “not only damaged human cells, but also healthy human cells can take up foreign DNA spontaneously. Foreign human DNA taken up by human cells will be transported into nuclei and be integrated into host genome, which will cause phenotype change.”  So here we have proof that the human DNA in the following vaccines has the potential to cause genetic changes in every child who receives them:  According the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and depending on the products used, a child has the potential to receive up to six separate injections that contain residual human DNA by the time they are two years old.  The FDA goes on to discuss the safety aspect of residual DNA in vaccines: Dr. Peden, Chief of the Laboratory of DNA Viruses at the FDA, states that “it depends on the mechanism of transformation. For example, mutations, chromosome rearrangements, translocations, retrotranspositions, etc., all involve DNA. Therefore, reducing the size and amount of the DNA should mitigate this risk” (bold emphasis added).  The conclusion that DNA size will reduce the risk of mutagenesis and infection is based on nothing more than a belief. Research shows us4 that in mammals, such as humans, the genetic code is highly repetitive, meaning it is homologous (similar in structure). Small fragments of DNA are used to achieve genetic modification in a therapeutic manner. It is not much of a stretch to assume this same observation occurs in a non-therapeutic manner as well: “Homologous Replacement is used to modify specific gene sequences of chromosomal DNA in a process referred to as ‘Small Fragment Homologous Replacement’, where DNA fragments replace genomic target resulting in specific sequence changes.”  Studies show that it is a matter of an individual’s genetics5 that increases their risk and susceptibility to the infectious nature of DNA and insertion mutagenesis (bold emphasis added):  “Residual DNA (rDNA) is comprised of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fragments and longer length molecules originating from the host organism that may be present in samples from recombinant biological processes. Although similar in basic structural base pair units, rDNA may exist in different sizes and physical forms. Interest in measuring rDNA in recombinant products is based primarily on demonstration of effective purification during manufacturing, but also on some hypothetical concerns that, in rare cases, depending on the host expression system, some DNA sequences may be potentially infectious or oncogenic (e.g., HIV virus and the Ras oncogene, respectively).”  Dr. Peden goes on to say that “in primary cells and diploid cells there are no limits for the amount of DNA in vaccines”. That means these safety measures to limit the amount of residual DNA does not apply to live virus vaccines grown in human diploid cells such as the MMR and varicella.  In addition to the abomination of genetically modifying our children through insertion mutagenesis of male and female human diploid cell strain DNA without disclosure, is the other elephant in the room: the presence of human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) that was found in MMRII and VARIVAX.6 It is important to note it was the WI-38 and MRC-5 cell strains that contain this contaminant and as such, any and all products used with these cell lines will contain HERV-K.  Human endogenous retrovirus (HERV) is associated with a myriad of chronic disease states7: “Several mechanisms by which HERVs could produce pathological effects have been proposed, including generation of new variants of HERVs, insertional mutagenesis, and protein toxicity. In this regard, HERV activation appears to influence the aggressiveness of different cancers, including seminoma, melanoma, leukemia, hepatocellular carcinoma, sarcoma, prostate, breast and colon cancer. Likewise, the pathologic process of rheumatic disorders, systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, autism spectrum disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, psoriasis, type I diabetes, and systemic sclerosis shows a correlation with HERV activity.”  Childhood cancers8 are on the rise and we cannot underestimate the role directly injecting HERV-K has on this observation. Especially when it is directly associated with leukemia9 as can be seen here: “In patients with leukemia, the presence of antibodies against HERV-K has been identified, which could suggest increased expression of HERV-K in leukemic cells.”  And here10: “Antibody response against HERV-K peptides has been reported in leukemia patients, suggesting a possible over-expression of this sequence in leukemic cells.”  Here we see that herpesviruses are shown to reactivate HERV,11 “Herpesviruses may also be a significant trigger of HERV expression in the CNS. Multiple reports have detected EBV, herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), varicella-zoster virus (VZV), and human herpesvirus type 6 (HHV-6) in MS patient samples; all these herpesviruses have also been demonstrated to trigger the expression of HERVs.”  It should be highly concerning to all that we find HERV-K in the presence of a live herpesvirus, as is the case with VARIVAX (varicella-zoster).  Given the above information, it seems that all vaccines are inherently dangerous and each individual, not a government agency, should be making their own risk-to-benefit analysis for using these products. It also means that we are all participating in an experiment to which we did not consent and from which we are still learning about the unintended consequences of consuming such products. It is not a secret—although rarely discussed by various media outlets and medical professionals we entrust with our children—that the infections we have vaccines for were acute, self-limited, common, childhood infections, as can be seen here in this very well-researched article.12  Prior to vaccination your risk of dying from these infections was still less than your risk of dying from a lightning strike, choking, or falling in the shower. It was uncommon for a child to experience an adverse outcome from these infections. Just like it is uncommon for a child to experience an adverse outcome with vaccination, perhaps we have exchanged one genetically susceptible child with another?  Dr. James Lyons-Weiler said it best13: “If we as a society enjoy collective benefit from protection from infectious diseases due to vaccines, then we as a society share the collective responsibility to protect those who are the greatest risk of harm from vaccines. Enough with the propaganda that says there is no risk; enough. Genetics and careful attention to reliable risk factors will play a fundamental role in protecting those among us who are most susceptible…”.  Now that 54% of our children14 suffer from at least one of 20 chronic illnesses, including neurodevelopmental disorders, seizure disorders, severe allergies, autoimmune conditions, and cancer, we begin to realize that if you have a healthy child you are now a minority. Perhaps it is time to return to our roots and embrace natural medicines. Perhaps it is time to stop putting faith in pharmaceuticals and the doctors who exclusively prescribe them. Perhaps it is time we separate pharma and state.  Note: This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. It was originally published by IPAK Modern Medicine and Health News. Michelle Cotterman, RN APP is a co-founder of Health Freedom Ohio. She is the mother of two naturally raised children. Her continuing education focuses on Holistic Health and includes Polarity Therapy, Homeopathy, and Herbalism. Michelle has been studying the science behind vaccines and the vaccine industry since 2010.  This article or commentary provides referenced information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers. The websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking.


upi--2019-12-27--Scientists observe earliest steps in seed germination

Dec. 27 (UPI) -- Several studies have highlighted the roles hormones play in enabling seed germination, the sprouting of a seedling, or small plant, from a seed, but much less is known about how energy metabolism is jump-started at the outset of the germination process -- until now.  Using a new kind of fluorescent biosensor, researchers were able to watch energy metabolism and a sulfur-powered process called redox metabolism. The new observations, described this week in the journal PNAS, showed energy metabolism is kick-started just minutes after a seed is exposed to water. In no time, the cells' energy centers, or mitochondria, began facilitating respiration.  Researchers were also able to watch the activation of molecular switches, including thiol-redox switchers, that allow for energy to be efficiently released.  "By looking into the very early processes of germination control, we can gain a better understanding of the mechanisms driving seed germination," study leader Markus Schwarzländer, professor at the University of Münster in Germany, said in a news release. "In future we could think about how such switches could be used in crop biotechnology."  What's remarkable about seed germination is that the timing of the processes that turn seed into seedling are not fixed. In fact, the seeds of many plants, especially those of desert species, must remain dormant for years, even decades, until conditions are just right. As soon as conditions are suitable, the germination process must begin in haste.  Understanding the early steps of the germination process, including those related to metabolism, could help scientists design better crop seeds -- seeds that maintain their germination potential, or vigor, for longer periods of time, but which can germinate with great efficiency.  During lab tests, fluorescent biosensors helped scientists track two forms of cellular energy, microscope adenosine triphosphate, ADP, and Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate, NADPH, during the germination process. Scientists also silenced genes related to the proteins that power redox switches and observed the affect on the germination process. Seeds with silenced redox switches were less active during germination than unedited seeds.  During another round of tests, scientists used a combination of biochemical and mass spectrometry methods to isolate and observe the interactions between redox proteins and mitochondria. Scientists were able to identify several cysteine-peptides that play a role in facilitating the efficient release of energy produced by mitochondria.  "The process could be likened to the traffic control system of a large city," said Thomas Nietzel, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Münster. "Before the rush hour -- i.e. germination -- starts, which puts large quantities of metabolites 'on the road', the traffic light and routing systems need to be switched on in the morning; and here this is done by the thiol redox switches."


activistpost--2019-09-16--Yale Study Wild Mosquitoes Retained Genes Of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes

Yale Study: Wild Mosquitoes Retained Genes Of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes

In Brazil a genetic engineering test of mosquitoes appears to have failed, with genes from the mutant mosquitoes now mixing with the native population, Nature reported. This comes as mad scientists in the U.S. are finding they are getting bitten back by messing with nature after running their own program to genetically modify mosquitoes.  The experiment involved a company called Oxitec which took male Aedes aegypti mosquitoes and genetically engineered them to have a dominant lethal gene. The idea was first proposed in 2016, according to an article by Science Magazine that discussed the plans to release the GM insects.  According to the hypothesis when the genetically modified mosquitoes mated with wild female mosquitoes, the gene was supposed to drastically cut down the number of offspring they produced. Further, the few that were born should have been too weak to survive a long period of time.  A team of Yale students then studied the genomes of both the GM strain and the wild species before the release, then again six, 12 and 27 to 30 months after the release began.  Around 450,000 modified males were released in Jacobina, Brazil every week for 27 months straight, totaling tens of millions, according to the Yale study.  Sure enough, by the end of the test there was clear evidence that genes from the transgenic insects had been incorporated into the wild population. Although the GM mosquitoes only produce offspring about three to four percent of the time, it seems that those that are born aren’t as weak as expected. Some appear to make it to adulthood and breed themselves.  In theory, if the experiment worked it would have cut down the population of mosquitoes in an area estimated up to as much as 85 percent. This of course if successful would translate to fewer bug-borne diseases, like — dengue, yellow fever, Zika, and malaria in humans and animals alike.  However, that’s not what the final results were according to Yale University. Yale explains that some of the native bugs, they found, had surprisingly retained genes from the engineered mosquitoes; and even worse, the experiments made them more resilient.  According to New Atlas there are now three different strains of mosquitoes mixed together in Jacobina and other places of Brazil.  “The claim was that genes from the release strain would not get into the general population because offspring would die,’’ Jeffrey Powell, senior author of the study said. “That obviously was not what happened.”  Other researchers released genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes in a controlled environment, into a high-security laboratory in Terni, Italy earlier this year, NPR reported.  Another research firm called Target Malaria research consortium also released 6,400 GM mosquitoes in West Africa, Burkina Faso, this year, which was condemned by the Civil Society, a group of organizations. The tests were funded by organisations linked to the Gates Foundation, Facebook, and – indirectly – the Pentagon, as part of a project to eradicate malaria, The Guardian reported.  The release of GM mosquitoes in the village was an unethical experiment, as Target Malaria acknowledges that there are no direct benefits to the local population of this particular GM mosquito release, in terms of malaria control. This was not an early stage trial of the GM mosquitoes intended to be tested later for their impact on malaria, but a release of an entirely different GM mosquito. Thus, there was no justification for making the releases. According to the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki, which is based on the Nuremberg Code and outlines the internationally agreed ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, such research “may only be conducted if the importance of the objective outweighs the risks and burdens to the research subjects” (Article 16). Indeed, the release of the GM mosquito in Burkina Faso poses risks, including the incidental release of some biting female GM mosquitoes during the experiments. While Target Malaria claims that the number will be small, nevertheless, since GM female mosquitoes can bite humans and spread disease, the release of biting females still poses some risk to local people.[ii]  Yale’s study is especially alarming because here in the U.S. the same company Oxitec was approved in the U.S. by the Food Drug Administration (FDA) in 2016, to genetically modify mosquitoes to fight against the Zika virus. This trial allowed the release of mosquitoes in the state of Florida for testing purposes in Key Haven, Monroe County.  Oxitec also obtained funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to develop the GM insects. It’s worth noting that Bill Gates has said just this year that “mosquitoes are the number one killer.”  Gates also released a swarm of mosquitoes on an unsuspecting audience at a TED conference in 2009 to prove a point.  But Oxitec’s experiments don’t end in the U.S. and Brazil, the lab was also approved to release its hellish X-Files like mosquitoes in France and the Netherlands in 2017.  Christoph Then for TestBiotech commented about the study stating,  Florida isn’t the only state that we may have to worry about releasing GM mosquitoes. In 2017 it was reported that the EPA officially registered another company named MosquitoMate’s Asian Tiger mosquito with a five-year license to sell their lab mosquitoes in as many as 20 states, Nature reported.  In 2017, that same year, the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that mosquitoes carrying disease could invade as much as 75% of America in a paper published in the Journal of Medical Entomology. Last year, the CDC stated that the number of illnesses caused by mosquito, tick, and flea bites has tripled in the United States over the last 13 years, CBS reported.  It’s of particular interest to express that a mosquito-borne virus that causes brain swelling and can be fatal in humans was recently detected in Florida, according to the Florida Department of Health in Orange County. It may be a coincidence, but the research by Yale indicates that it may not be, but this was after Florida released GM mosquitoes in 2017-2018.  After being bitten by an infected mosquito, it takes four to 10 days to develop symptoms of the Eastern Equine Encephalitis virus, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In severe cases involving brain inflammation, symptoms start with the sudden onset of headache, high fever, chills, and vomiting. The infection can then progress, causing disorientation, seizures, and coma, Yahoo News reported.  If that’s not enough, in 2018, the first reported mosquito-borne disease called the Keystone virus was thought only to be transmitted to animals, but jumped to infect humans according to doctors.  Where there have been negative results, there have also been positive results achieved by researchers at London’s Imperial College using “gene drive” technology to successfully eradicate a whole population of malaria-carrying mosquitoes in their lab by making the insects infertile.  However, as Hellen Wallace wrote in Scientific American in 2011, “the release of genetically modified (GM) insects should follow a precautionary approach, because what appears well understood in the lab can have unintended consequences when released on a large scale into the environment.”  It’s worth noting that this isn’t the first time that GM mosquitoes has come into question in Brazil. In 2016, the Mirror reported in a brave headline: “Was Zika outbreak caused by release of genetically modified mosquitoes in Brazil?”


collectiveevolution--2019-03-10--Research Reveals Plants Can Think Choose Remember

Research Reveals Plants Can Think, Choose & Remember

Facebook, which seems to have become a government-run agency claiming to help fight the war on ‘fake news,’ has pledged to delete and flag content that spreads misinformation. This is great, and should be done, but the only problem is that content around the internet is being taken down, flagged, and deemed as a ‘conspiracy theory’ when it is well-supported, factual, and backed by peer-reviewed science.  I just wrote an article about the recent measles outbreak in Washington State for example, and how that state is pushing hard for all school-aged children to receive a mandatory MMR vaccination. These outbreaks are constantly being blamed on unvaccinated children, but the mainstream never points people towards the actual statistics showing that Washington State, like many other states, have not experienced a drop in MMR vaccination coverage. Instead, MMR vaccine coverage is very high.  Furthermore, they don’t mention that there’s been a long history of measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated and fully vaccinated populations (see article linked below for examples and sources), and they don’t mention the deaths, disabilities, and adverse reactions that’ve occurred as a result of the MMR vaccine either. Why don’t they mention that the death rate from measles in Washington State was just 1.4/10,000 (source in article below) before the introduction of the vaccine? You can read more about that and access multiple studies and testimonies on this subject in the article linked below:  Biochemical Engineer Drops Bombshell Facts About Measles & The MMR Vaccine In Washington  Information and science are constantly emerging regarding vaccinations, but we never hear about any of it from mainstream media. I also recently published an article of Robert F. Kennedy explaining how big pharmaceutical companies are the biggest lobbyists, even more than big oil, and how they’ve completely compromised both the Democrats and the Republicans.  So, what’s some of the latest information regarding vaccine safety?  An article published in Nature, International Journal of Science titled “Italian scientists protest funding for vaccine-safety investigation” outlines how The National Order of Biologists made a €10,000 donation to a group that questions the safety of vaccines.  The groups name is Corvelva, and they received the donation on the 26th of October of 2018. The group believes that the research it conducts is necessary because “previous studies it has funded, which have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, indicate that some vaccines contain impurities, or lack the active ingredients they claim to contain.”  Nature points out that “Some scientists in Italy are up in arms over a donation from the organization that oversees the nation’s professional biology qualification to  an advocacy group that opposes the country’s policy of mandatory childhood vaccination.”  This part is confusing: Why would any group or any scientist oppose more safety studies regarding vaccinations? Wouldn’t professionals on both sides of the coin be in support of as much vaccine safety testing as possible?  ONB president Vincenzo D’Anna told Nature in an e-mail interview that there is a need for truly independent vaccine research because, in his opinion, work conducted in public laboratories and at universities is usually influenced or funded by companies that produce vaccines.  “The goal is to contribute to complete the biological and chemical analyses on vaccines,” he said in the interview, part of which the ONB has published in its Bulletin.  Again, Nature points out that many scientists dismiss the need for more vaccine safety testing and that they are upset. That being said, it’s a comforting thought that ONB disagrees and that they are supporting this type of thing. Clearly, many professionals within that organization don’t believe that vaccines go through rigorous safety testing, as is claimed by many. Again, what harm could be done by further testing?  The first vaccine that was tested was the Infanrix Hexa vaccine. It’s a six-in-one vaccine that’s manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) that’s supposed to contain the following antigens: tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis toxoids; inactivated poliomyelitis viral strains 1-2-3; and hepatitis B surface antigen.  Corvelva discovered that none of these antigens were actually in the vaccine, which means it had zero antibodies to the intended antigens to be created. This was a huge shock, and in addition to that they also found the following:  Traces of 65 chemical cross-contaminants from other manufacturing lines:  Tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis toxoids, D antigens of Poliomyelitis 1-2-3, hepatitis B proteins obtained with genetic engineering and Haemophylus polysaccharides chemically linked to tetanus toxoid as carrier. Toxoids are created by treatments with formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde that should remove toxicity keeping intact their ability to stimulate protective antibodies against original toxins. We were expecting to find the three toxoids and the other antigens not modified by treatment with formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde, to separate the antigens from each other and to be digestible by the enzyme specific for proteins (trypsin). We have found instead a real polymer, insoluble and indigestible, that we supposed to be the set of antigens chemically bound together (has to be defined if this is present as an aggregate of the individual antigens or a single macromolecule), on which we can find in literature partial information regarding the single antigens. This macromolecule could not be recognized in any way by the protein databases, and in fact it turned out to be a solid compound of an unknown chemical structure. Proteins solubility and their digestion (i.e. the capacity to divide them into small peptide fragments) are two typical proteins characteristics that not only makes it possible to study them through some specific analysis methods but are also fundamental for the interaction with the immune system to create protective antibodies, because if the protein structure is heavily altered from the original one, the new antibodies result completely different from those that are able to attack the original antibodies causing illnesses. Since this polymer we have encountered, derived from the antigenic mix, is not only different for its spatial conformation but it’s chemically different, so we can state that we are not facing antigens similar to the original ones but in the form of a compound with an unknown and unpredictable toxicity and efficacy. (source)  The fact that the vaccine antigens were not detected is seriously concerning, and so is the fact that, of the 65 signs of chemical contaminants, only 35% are known. This was only the first phase of this safety testing, as a second analytical study with standard controls will be released.  7 chemical toxins were also identified, and the group states that these toxins have a structure that could probably be partially derived from the formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde and cyanogen bromide reactions with other chemical contaminants in the vaccine.  We’d like to point out that the toxicity of many of these toxins have been confirmed and published in Pubchem or Toxnet and this poses important safety problems, issues and concerns. From the protein and peptide fraction study, various free peptides of bacterial origin have been obtained probably coming from the bacterial culture cells used for the antigen extraction. Literature reports bacterial peptides as potential allergens 5 and also as capable of inducing autoimmune reactions 6 and these too put a safety issue that needs to be further clarified with the regulatory bodies. Coming back to the two basic principles that have been our topic on this analysis path, we reaffirm what we have said in the recent interview on the scientific journal Nature: we are inquiring the vaccines efficacy and safety and we can’t quite understand how it is possible to claim that this vaccine is even able to generate the 6 protective antibodies – reason why it is designed for – and furthermore to understand how this cluster made of 6 neurotoxic antigens bound together can be claimed as not toxic for newborns. Infanrix Hexa hexavalent, as for the method we have commissioned, casts major doubts on both its effectiveness and on its safety… One thing is for sure: we will not stop to proceed.  In the 90s, Dr. Antonietta Gatti discovered the relationship between micro- and nano-particles as well as a great number of pathologies: cardiovascular diseases, many forms of cancer, multiple neurological diseases, and autoimmune diseases. She’s taken part in many international research projects, including the pathologies induced by depleted uranium, waste incineration, food polluted with inorganic particles, and more.  Currently, she is the coordinator of the Italian Institute of Technology’s Project of Nanoecotoxicology, called INESE.  She is also a selected expert of the FAO/WHO for the safety in nanotechnological food, a Member of the NANOTOX Cluster of the European Commission, the author of the book “Nanopathology: the health impact of nanoparticles,” on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Biomaterials Applications, and a Member of the CPCM of the Italian Ministry of Defense.  Furthermore, her and her husband Dr. Stefano Montanari founded a laboratory called Nano-diagnostics for the evaluation of the pathological tissues of patients. It’s presently at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy.  Recently, the Italian police raided their home, and the police took all  digital assets that were owned by the the two nanopathologists including their laptops, computers, and flash-drives; basically years of work and research.  James Grundvig via the World Mercury Project describes what happened quite well:  “Because Gatti and Montanari had taken their research of nanodust and nanoparticles, from in-vivo (performed in a living organism) and in-vitro (performed in a test tube) to what unseen contamination might reside in vaccines in 2016, they came under the microscope of the United States, European, and Italian authorities. They had touched the third rail of medicine. They had crossed the no-go zone with the purported crime being scientific research and discovery. By finding nano-contamination in random vaccines, Gatti and Montanari revealed, for the first time, what no one knew: Vaccines had more than aluminum salts adjuvants, Polysorbate-80, and other inorganic chemicals in them, they also harbored stainless steel, tungsten, copper, and other metals and rare elements that don’t belong in shots given to fetuses, pregnant women, newborns, babies and toddlers developing their lungs, immune and nervous systems.”  The scientists published their work in January of 2017, titled, New Quality‐Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro‐ and Nanocontamination. If science wasn’t plagued by corruption, an investigation would have started, healthcare agencies would be involved, and vaccine safety policies would have come under intense scrutiny, but that never happened.  You can read more about this story and access an interview with the scientists here.  There are numerous vaccine safety issues. The bioaccumulation of various vaccine ingredients, for example, are one. Ingredients like aluminum have been added to vaccines for more than 100 years under the assumption that they are safe. It’s only within the last couple years that scientists decided to look to see where these ingredients go after being injected. They found that aluminum, when injected, doesn’t exit the body, it actually travels to distant organs and the brain. You can access those studies and read more about that here. You can also watch a short video from Dr. Christopher Shaw from the University of British Colombia explaining the difference between injectable aluminum and the aluminum our body takes in from food. Here is another related study you can read that goes into further detail.  The main point I’m trying to make is that no parent should ever be made to feel guilty for not vaccinating their children. Vaccines are clearly not as safe as they’re marketed to be, and it’s important that we ask ourselves why this type of information goes virtually unacknowledged by the masses.


freedombunker--2019-03-14--Global Gene-Edited Baby Ban Urged

Global Gene-Edited Baby Ban Urged

The American Medical Association called for a moratorium on experiments that would seek to implant a "test tube baby" into a woman in an editorial in the May 1, 1972, issue of its journal. The association asserted that the ethical implications of this and other experiments in "genetic engineering" should be thoroughly explored before the work is applied to human beings. Ethically speaking, a Harris poll just two years earlier reported that a majority of Americans believed that producing test-tube babies was "against God's will."  Subsequent to the AMA's statement, research on in vitro fertilization (IVF) essentially halted in the United States until British researchers announced the imminent birth of just such a test tube baby—Louise Joy Brown—in July, 1978. The consensus about the morality of IVF then flipped and the Gallup poll a month later reported that 60 percent of Americans approved of IVF and more than half would consider using it if they were infertile.  The first IVF baby born in the United States was Elizabeth Carr in 1981. Since then, more than 8 million babies have been born as a result of IVF and other advanced fertility treatments.  In Nature, a group of eminent researchers are now advocating a moratorium on heritable human genome editing. "We call for a global moratorium on all clinical uses of human germline editing—that is, changing heritable DNA (in sperm, eggs or embryos) to make genetically modified children," they write. "By 'global moratorium,'" they hasten to add, "we do not mean a permanent ban."  The proposed moratorium is in response to the widely condemned announcement in November by Chinese biophysicist Jiankui He of the birth of two baby girls upon whom he had applied CRISPR gene-editing when they were embryos to silence a specific gene related to HIV-infection resistance. Interestingly, other research suggests that silencing that gene would likely enhance the girls' intelligence. While the Chinese government hurried to condemn He's gene-editing, more recent reporting suggests that the government may well have known and approved of what He was up to. Since it looks like He failed to adequately inform his patients with regard to how technically premature his version of gene-editing was, and what he was hoping to achieve by using it, he should be sanctioned by the relevant authorities.  In their Nature article, the researchers suggest that a global moratorium be adopted for five years during which time an international framework be set up for considering the safety and ethical aspects of inheritable gene-editing of human embryos. Under the proposed framework, an international coordinating body would be established, the goal of which would be to foster a "broad societal consensus" on "whether to proceed with human germline editing at all, and on the appropriateness of the proposed application[s]." By broad societal consensus, the researchers do not mean unanimity or simple majority. "Societal consensus on germline editing is something that must be judged by national authorities, just as governments make political judgements about their citizens' views on other complex social issues," they write.  This call for setting up an international framework is a bit behind the times. The World Health Organization already announced a month ago the creation of a 18-member Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing.  But why does there need to be a "broad societal consensus" before would-be parents are allowed to access the benefits of gene-editing for their prospective children? There was certainly no such broad consensus before Lesley and Peter Brown decided to risk then-novel IVF treatments in order to bear their daughters Louise and Natalie.  Let's consider the concerns that the researchers suggest merit the effort of achieving a broad societal consensus. They warn:  The societal impacts of clinical germline editing could be considerable. Individuals with genetic differences or disabilities can experience stigmatization and discrimination. Parents could be put under powerful peer and marketing pressure to enhance their children. Children with edited DNA could be affected psychologically in detrimental ways. Many religious groups and others are likely to find the idea of redesigning the fundamental biology of humans morally troubling. Unequal access to the technology could increase inequality. Genetic enhancement could even divide humans into subspecies. Moreover, the introduction of genetic modifications into future generations could have permanent and possibly harmful effects on the species. These mutations cannot be removed from the gene pool unless all carriers agree to forgo having children, or to use genetic procedures to ensure that they do not transmit the mutation to their children.  These are strawmen, but let's knock them down anyway.  Forbidding parents from taking advantage of gene-editing, thereby mandating that their children run the risks of being born disabled, is immoral.  Outlawing gene-editing will not eliminate peer pressure on parents to provide advantages to their children.  The fact that children born via IVF are psychologically and cognitively normal suggests that gene-edited ones would be, too.  Religious groups that oppose gene-editing don't have to use it to reproduce, and they should not be allowed to impose their beliefs on reproductive "sinners."  All new beneficial technologies are initially accessed unequally, but eventually become more widely available.  If two people belonging to different human subspecies fall in love, they can overcome barriers to fertility by resorting to improved assisted reproduction to bear children.  If a genetic modification proves harmful to an individual, he or she can use improved assisted reproduction to make sure that his or her progeny are free of the deleterious mutation.  Rather than resorting to international commissions to devise regulations, the United States offers a successful hands-off model for how assisted reproduction—including gene-editing of embryos—should be governed. The federal government requires laboratories engaged in assisted reproduction to be certified by organizations such as the American College of Pathologists and to report certain data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Otherwise, guidelines issued by private professional organizations, such as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), account for most governance of assisted reproduction. Regarding germline gene-editing, the ASRM has endorsed the American Society of Human Genetics statement that declares, "At this time, given the nature and number of unanswered scientific, ethical, and policy questions, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy."  A 2018 Pew poll provides some indication of a broad societal consensus among Americans with respect to gene-editing prospective children. In that poll, 72 percent of Americans approved of gene-editing an unborn baby to treat a serious congenital disease or condition, and 60 percent approved of gene-editing to reduce a baby's risk of developing a serious disease or condition over their lifetimes. As of now, only 19 percent think gene-editing to an enhance a baby's mental or physical characteristics is appropriate. Once germline gene-editing achieves a high degree of safety and accuracy, most people will find it ethically unproblematic, just as folks did in the case of IVF 40 years ago.  Ultimately, it should be no else's concern—even the concern of an august panel of international experts—if adequately informed parents choose in the future to use safe gene-editing with goal of benefiting their prospective children.