Gene Therapy and the Trans-Human Agenda

By Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News | 

Cure disease or alter humans?

“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around.

---

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The post Gene Therapy and the Trans-Human Agenda appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Gene Therapy and the Trans-Human Agenda

By Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News | 

Cure disease or alter humans?

“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around.

---

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The post Gene Therapy and the Trans-Human Agenda appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

US Scientists Made a Genetically Modified Human Embryo

By The Daily Sheeple | 

This is the first confirmed case of the gene editing of human embryos in the US and it gets scientists one step closer to the ability to create genetically engineered humans. Researchers in Portland, Oregon have used a powerful gene editing tool called CRISPR to create genetically modified human embryos, MIT Technology Review reported in an exclusive.

CRISPR, which is often compared to the cut-and-paste function on a word processor, is a powerful and comparatively new genetic engineering technique that allows scientists to make specific, targeted changes to the DNA of a plant, animal, or human. It’s relatively cheap and easy to use and has the potential to cure a wide range of diseases, such as muscular dystrophy or HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus). But scientists seem to be using it to create designer humans and animals instead leading to ethics questions.

In 2015, Chinese scientists used CRISPR to make muscled beagles. But even beyond the often-stated fear that gene editing will lead to a world of designer babies and “genetic have-nots,” CRISPR is still new and may have consequences we don’t understand.

Several countries have a ban or at least some type of regulation on gene editing in human embryos, although as the use of CRISPR speeds up in the lab, regulations, and viewpoints continue to evolve as well. Earlier this year, the US National Academy of Sciences said that editing the DNA of human embryos could be allowed in order to cure disease, with certain safeguards in place; and scientists are going ahead.

According to Motherboard, teams in China have edited human embryos at least three times, and earlier this year, a Chinese team reported another first: using CRISPR to correct genetic mutations in three normal human embryos. (Previous tests were done on non-viable embryos that couldn’t have produced children. According toTechnology Review, the US experiment destroyed embryos after a few days, with no intention to implant them.) Scientists in the US watched developments in China “with a combination of awe, envy, and some alarm,” Technology Review reported.

It looks like Americans were more than eager to try CRISPR for themselves. And the creation of a gene-modified human could happen anytime. Hopefully, scientists will use the technology for the greater good and actually cure viruses and illnesses rather than to create perfect humans in jars.

---

Contributed by The Daily Sheeple of www.TheDailySheeple.com.

The post US Scientists Made a Genetically Modified Human Embryo appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

US Scientists Made a Genetically Modified Human Embryo

By The Daily Sheeple | 

This is the first confirmed case of the gene editing of human embryos in the US and it gets scientists one step closer to the ability to create genetically engineered humans. Researchers in Portland, Oregon have used a powerful gene editing tool called CRISPR to create genetically modified human embryos, MIT Technology Review reported in an exclusive.

CRISPR, which is often compared to the cut-and-paste function on a word processor, is a powerful and comparatively new genetic engineering technique that allows scientists to make specific, targeted changes to the DNA of a plant, animal, or human. It’s relatively cheap and easy to use and has the potential to cure a wide range of diseases, such as muscular dystrophy or HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus). But scientists seem to be using it to create designer humans and animals instead leading to ethics questions.

In 2015, Chinese scientists used CRISPR to make muscled beagles. But even beyond the often-stated fear that gene editing will lead to a world of designer babies and “genetic have-nots,” CRISPR is still new and may have consequences we don’t understand.

Several countries have a ban or at least some type of regulation on gene editing in human embryos, although as the use of CRISPR speeds up in the lab, regulations, and viewpoints continue to evolve as well. Earlier this year, the US National Academy of Sciences said that editing the DNA of human embryos could be allowed in order to cure disease, with certain safeguards in place; and scientists are going ahead.

According to Motherboard, teams in China have edited human embryos at least three times, and earlier this year, a Chinese team reported another first: using CRISPR to correct genetic mutations in three normal human embryos. (Previous tests were done on non-viable embryos that couldn’t have produced children. According toTechnology Review, the US experiment destroyed embryos after a few days, with no intention to implant them.) Scientists in the US watched developments in China “with a combination of awe, envy, and some alarm,” Technology Review reported.

It looks like Americans were more than eager to try CRISPR for themselves. And the creation of a gene-modified human could happen anytime. Hopefully, scientists will use the technology for the greater good and actually cure viruses and illnesses rather than to create perfect humans in jars.

---

Contributed by The Daily Sheeple of www.TheDailySheeple.com.

The post US Scientists Made a Genetically Modified Human Embryo appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Scientists Use CRISPR to Edit Human Embryos in U.S. for First Time

A group of scientists in Oregon have edited the genes of human embryos for the first time in the United States, using CRISPR-Cas9, a cut-and-paste gene-editing tool. [1]

The experiments were conducted by Shoukhrat Mitalipov and colleagues at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. The single-celled embryos Mitalipov edited were discarded after the experiments to ensure they could not become too developed.

Live Science explains how the CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing tool works:

“The CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing system is a simple “cut and replace” method for editing precise spots on the genome. CRISPRS are long stretches of DNA that are recognized by molecular “scissors” called Cas9; by inserting CRISPR DNA near target DNA, scientists can theoretically tell Cas9 to cut anywhere in the genome. Scientists can then swap a replacement gene sequence in the place of the snipped sequence. The replacement sequence then gets automatically incorporated into the genome by natural DNA repair mechanisms.”

Source: Daily Mail

CRISPR was used by scientists in China in 2015 to edit several human embryos that had severe defects. Like the scientists in Oregon, the team in China discarded the embryos before they could become too developed.

The Chinese technique led to genetic changes in a few of the embryos, and in a few cases, CRISPR sometimes snipped out the wrong place in the DNA.

Mitalipov’s experiments were reportedly successful in that they edited far more embryos than scientists did in past research. Additionally, Mitalipov and his colleagues claim they managed to do so without causing as many errors as previous scientists. [2]

Someday – perhaps much sooner than we realize – scientists could use this technique to edit not just the offspring of people with genetic diseases, but their offspring, as well. Theoretically, this could eradicate diseases caused by mutated genes, such as Huntington’s, sickle-cell anemia, Tay-Sachs, and many others.

But it’s risky…

Gene-editing is rife with controversy and ethical concerns. While many say CRISPR-Cas9 will help reduce the occurrence of genetic diseases, Marcy Darnovsky, Executive Director of the Center for Genetics and Society, says there are ways to do that which don’t involve editing the human genome.

“This is just not needed for preventing inheritable disease. There are [other techniques that] can already be used safely to prevent the births of children with serious genetic diseases in almost every case.”

For example, preimplantation diagnosis (PGD) allows parents to screen embryos for certain disease-causing genes before implanting them via in-vitro fertilization (IVF). However, in cases where someone carries 2 copies of a defective gene, PGD won’t work because all their embryos would also carry that gene.

Read: Study: CRISPR Gene-Editing Ignites Tons Of Unintentional Genetic Mutations

Darnovsky is also greatly worried about the safety of CRISPR gene-editing. He said:

“Despite whatever the claims are about safety, [like] no mosaicism, we still don’t know if that would mean it’s safe to create a new human being and anyone who tried it would be taking an enormous and unacceptable risk with that future person’s life.”

Right now, scientists are supposed to focus their efforts on editing disease-causing genes. But CRISPR could potentially open the door to the creation of “designer babies,” in which parents are permitted to edit their children to be better at sports or math, for example, or to be more physically attractive.

Source: Metro news

Darnovsky explained:

“That would be layering new forms of inequality and discrimination onto the ones we already live with.”

He’s not alone in his concerns.

In 2016, the U.S. intelligence community called CRISPR a potential “weapon of mass destruction.” [3]

Sources:

[1] Live Science

[2] Mother Jones

[3] MIT Technology Review

Daily Mail

Metro News

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

In Case You Missed It: EPA Quietly Approved Monsanto’s RNAi Genetic Engineering Technology

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently and quietly approved Monsanto’s new genetic engineering technology, known as RNAi. [1]

The insecticide DvSnf7 dsRNA is not sprayed on crops. Instead, instructions for manufacturing it in the DNA of the crop itself must be encoded in crops. The plants’ self-made DvSnf7 dsRNA disrupts a crucial gene in western corn rootworms – a major threat to corn – and kills the pests.

All that’s left after that is RNA interference, or RNAi, and the EPA approved this final step in making corn rootworm-resistant in mid-June 2017. RNAi was the source of both hype and controversy just a few years ago, The Atlantic reports. But the EPA so quietly approved the technology that the media and environmental groups barely noticed.

The first DvSnf7 dsRNA product will be used in SmartStax Pro genetically modified corn seeds made in collaboration between the world’s top agrotech giants, Monsanto and Dow. Monsanto will supply the RNAi technology, and it already has its eye on several RNAi applications. The company expects corn seed with RNAi to be on the market by the end of this decade.

The western corn rootworm is known as the “billion dollar pest” because of the damage it wreaks on cornfields. The insect keeps becoming resistant to the other insecticides that farmers use against it – including the kind you spray on crops and corn genetically modified to product Bt toxin, another technology commercialized by Monsanto.

The SmartStax Pro corn will contain both Bt toxin and DvSnf7 dsRNA.

Read: Monsanto’s GMO Bt Toxins Found in 93% of Pregnant Women

RNAi works by “turning off” 1 specific gene in 1 specific species by leaving other crops unharmed, at least theoretically. In nature, plants and animals use this process to “silence” their own genes. The technology has already been used to create genetically modified apples and potatoes that don’t brown. (The apples, called Arctic Apples, are expected to reach supermarkets in the U.S. by the end of 2017.)

However, with Monsanto and Dow’s GMO corn, the DvSnf7 dsRNA silences a gene in another living organism, in this case the western corn rootworm. It modifies its environment, rather than itself.

Environmental Groups Stunned by Quiet Approval

Groups like the Center for Food Safety, who vocally opposed the RNAi-made apples and potatoes, said they were a bit stunned by the EPA’s approval. The agency only allowed a 15-day comment period, instead of the traditional 30 days, and it did not post its proposed decision in the Federal Register. It’s not the first time the EPA has done that, but Bill Freese, CFS’ science policy analyst, says the unparalleled use of RNAi as insecticide should have warranted more public scrutiny.

Freese – who has received funding from Monsanto to study the western corn rootworm – has reason to be concerned. A scientific paper published in 2011 questions the safety of DvSnf7 dsRNA, after Chinese scientists found that people eating genetically modified rice had naturally occurring RNA molecules in their bloodstream. It should be noted, however, that scientists have struggled to replicate the study’s findings, and the report received much criticism.

Freese told The Atlantic that the real problem goes beyond RNAi itself. He explained:

“There’s faddish interest in the latest technology. It often neglects the basic issues of the unhealthy practices used in planting corn.”

For example, rotating crops versus planting corn multiple years in a row in the same field can make a dent in the western corn rootworm problem.

Freese says planting non-GMO corn is also vitally important, because overplanting of Bt corn led to Bt resistance.

“We need to treat these things carefully because we really can’t just afford to throw them away.”

Sources:

The Atlantic

---

---

About Mike Barrett:
	Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.

Study: CRISPR Gene-Editing Ignites Tons of Unintentional Genetic Mutations (VIDEO)

By: Julie Fidler, Natural Society | 

CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing has been hailed as one of the biggest scientific breakthroughs of our lifetime. The technology is often called “molecular scissors” for its ability to “cut and paste” pieces of DNA, thereby removing unwanted traits and replacing them with more desirable ones. CRISPR is being celebrated for its accuracy, but a recent study sheds light on some imperfections surrounding the technology that we should be aware of.

When researchers at Columbia University used CRISPR-Cas9 to correct blindness in mice, they found that the process did successfully edit the gene responsible for blindness. However, it also caused unintentional mutations to more than 1,000 other genes. It’s exactly what critics of the technology have been warning about – that in the process of “fixing” part of the human genome, scientists could actually wind up doing irreparable damage. [1]

Study co-author Stephen Tsang, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of ophthalmology, pathology, and cell biology at CUMC, Columbia’s Institute of Genomic Medicine, and the Institute of Human Nutrition, said:

“We feel it’s critical that the scientific community consider the potential hazards of all off-target mutations caused by CRISPR, including single-nucleotide mutations and mutations in noncoding regions of the genome.” [2]

CRISPR alters specific DNA sequences, but fails to correct the side effects that occur as a result.

There are currently 2 clinical trials involving humans underway in China, and a U.S. trial is slated to begin sometime next year. As many as 20 trials are in the works. One of the trials is aimed at preventing cervical cancers by using CRISPR to target and destroy the genes of the human papillomavirus (HPV) that cause tumors. [1] [3]

Here is a video talking a little bit about CRISPR.

Scientists identify areas likely to be affected by off-target DNA mutations with the assistance of predictive computer algorithms. Refinements to the technology suggested that in those trials off-target effects would be few. But nobody knows for certain how many side effects will result, or how serious they will be, and many experts are convinced the technology is simply not safe for use in humans at this point in time. [2]

Alexander Bassuk, M.D., Ph.D., the study’s co-author and professor of pediatrics at the University of Iowa, said:

“These predictive algorithms seem to do a good job when CRISPR is performed in cells or tissues in a dish, but whole-genome sequencing (WGS) has not been employed to look for all off-target effects in living animals.”

In the experiment in mice, researchers learned that success in the lab doesn’t always translate into success in the real world. The team looked at mice that they had previously corrected a blindness-associated gene in and sequenced their entire genome to find changes.

Though the mice’s vision was restored, 2 of them were left with over 1,500 unintended mutations, and more than 100 deletions and insertions of genes the researchers never intended to touch. What’s more, the computer algorithm failed to predict any of them. [1]

Outwardly, the mice didn’t look any different or develop any superpowers. But how the mutations will impact the mice in the future, or in subtle ways, remains an unanswered question for now. The vast majority of genetic mutations are not good. They’re exactly what CRISRP is intended to treat.

One scientist warned in January 2017 that gene-editing has the potential to “ruin human evolution.” Obviously, others see it as a promising advancement for the future.

The researchers concluded:

“This finding warns that CRISPR technology must be further tailored, particularly before it is used for human gene therapy.”

Sources:

[1] Gizmodo

[2] GEN Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

[3] New Scientist

Study: CRISPR Gene-Editing Ignites Tons of Unintentional Genetic Mutations

CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing has been hailed as one of the biggest scientific breakthroughs of our lifetime. The technology is often called “molecular scissors” for its ability to “cut and paste” pieces of DNA, thereby removing unwanted traits and replacing them with more desirable ones. CRISPR is being celebrated for its accuracy, but a recent study sheds light on some imperfections surrounding the technology that we should be aware of.

When researchers at Columbia University used CRISPR-Cas9 to correct blindness in mice, they found that the process did successfully edit the gene responsible for blindness. However, it also caused unintentional mutations to more than 1,000 other genes. It’s exactly what critics of the technology have been warning about – that in the process of “fixing” part of the human genome, scientists could actually wind up doing irreparable damage. [1]

Read: British Research Gets Green Light to Edit Human Embryos

Study co-author Stephen Tsang, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of ophthalmology, pathology, and cell biology at CUMC, Columbia’s Institute of Genomic Medicine, and the Institute of Human Nutrition, said:

“We feel it’s critical that the scientific community consider the potential hazards of all off-target mutations caused by CRISPR, including single-nucleotide mutations and mutations in noncoding regions of the genome.” [2]

CRISPR alters specific DNA sequences, but fails to correct the side effects that occur as a result.

There are currently 2 clinical trials involving humans underway in China, and a U.S. trial is slated to begin sometime next year. As many as 20 trials are in the works. One of the trials is aimed at preventing cervical cancers by using CRISPR to target and destroy the genes of the human papillomavirus (HPV) that cause tumors. [1] [3]

Here is a video talking a little bit about CRISPR.

Read: First Human Injected with Controversial Genetically Modified Genes

Scientists identify areas likely to be affected by off-target DNA mutations with the assistance of predictive computer algorithms. Refinements to the technology suggested that in those trials off-target effects would be few. But nobody knows for certain how many side effects will result, or how serious they will be, and many experts are convinced the technology is simply not safe for use in humans at this point in time. [2]

Alexander Bassuk, M.D., Ph.D., the study’s co-author and professor of pediatrics at the University of Iowa, said:

“These predictive algorithms seem to do a good job when CRISPR is performed in cells or tissues in a dish, but whole-genome sequencing (WGS) has not been employed to look for all off-target effects in living animals.”

In the experiment in mice, researchers learned that success in the lab doesn’t always translate into success in the real world. The team looked at mice that they had previously corrected a blindness-associated gene in and sequenced their entire genome to find changes.

Though the mice’s vision was restored, 2 of them were left with over 1,500 unintended mutations, and more than 100 deletions and insertions of genes the researchers never intended to touch. What’s more, the computer algorithm failed to predict any of them. [1]

Outwardly, the mice didn’t look any different or develop any superpowers. But how the mutations will impact the mice in the future, or in subtle ways, remains an unanswered question for now. The vast majority of genetic mutations are not good. They’re exactly what CRISRP is intended to treat.

One scientist warned in January 2017 that gene-editing has the potential to “ruin human evolution.” Obviously, others see it as a promising advancement for the future.

The researchers concluded:

“This finding warns that CRISPR technology must be further tailored, particularly before it is used for human gene therapy.”

Sources:

[1] Gizmodo

[2] GEN Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

[3] New Scientist

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

In the Future, You Won’t Need Two Parents to Make Babies

There are test-tube babies and three-parent babies, and both generate plenty of controversy. But as it stands, making a baby still requires an egg from a mother and sperm cells from a father. Scientists say that won’t always be the case, though, because someday it will likely be possible to make babies from skin cells alone.

Last year, scientists in Japan revealed that mice had been born of eggs made from a parent’s skin cells, and researchers believe the same technique can one day be used in humans. [1]

Known as in-vitro gametogenesis, or IVG, the process allows eggs and sperm to be created in a culture dish in a lab.

The discovery could virtually wipe out infertility. It would allow same-sex couples to have children that are biologically related to both parents. A single woman could conceive on her own. The resulting embryo could be implanted into a mother’s womb, or into an artificial womb. Through IVG, the world could also see babies born with a single genetic parent or more than two genetic parents. [1], [2]

Read: GMO Babies? What Could Possibly go Wrong?

Kyle Orwig, a reproductive scientist at the University of Pittsburgh, says:

“It will create an option for people who have no options.” [2]

Ethical Conundrum

In the future IVG could spell the end of infertility, but there are multiple ethical concerns surrounding the controversial technique.

First, the Oxford Academic Journal of Law and the Biosciences published in 2015 a paper by Sonia M. Suter, professor of law at George Washington University. Her paper referred to single-parent babies as “incest on steroids” because it increases the risk of certain types of genetic disorders.

Suter said:

“Solo IVG — unlike ‘natural’ reproduction – increases the possibility of homozygosity (identical genes) for recessive genes, contributing to a greater risk of disease and disability.” [1]

According to Suter, IVG is riskier than cloning. Genetic diagnosis could be used to detect diseases before implantation, but it wouldn’t erase the risk.

In-vitro gametogenesis, combined with gene-editing technology, could be used to create “designer babies” – a worry at the very forefront for George Daley, dean of the Harvard Medical School in Boston. He says:

“One of the things I’ve been most concerned about is the use of IVG coupled with gene editing and modification to select specific traits.”

And then there’s the creepy potential for skin thieves – people who “steal” skin cells for the purpose of making a baby. Someone could give a person a light fingernail scratch and use the skin to start a family.

Another ethical concern of scientists is that:

“IVG may raise the specter of ’embryo farming’ on a scale currently unimagined, which might exacerbate concerns about the devaluation of human life.” [3]

The authors write in Science Translational Medicine:

“With science and medicine hurtling forward at breakneck speed, the rapid transformation of reproductive and regenerative medicine may surprise us. Before the inevitable, society will be well advised to strike and maintain a vigorous public conversation on the ethical challenges of IVG.”

IVG for use in humans is a long way off; but depending on the speed at which it is studied and perfected in humans, it could become a possibility much sooner than expected.

Sources:

[1] CNN

[2] NBC News

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.