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.

The Dark and Light Side of Food As Information (Dietary RNAs Directly Impact Gene Expression)

New insights in biology show that food is informational and can directly impact and even control the expression of your genes. The implications of this discovery are profound, and have both a light and dark side in need of deeper exploration…

A new study published in the journal BMC Genetics entitled, “Plant miRNAs found in human circulating system provide evidence of cross kingdom RNAi,” reveals that powerful little diet derived nucleic acids known as microRNAs (miRNAs), from commonly consumed plants, are present within the human circulatory system in what appear to be physiologically significant quantities. MiRNAs are comprised of ~ 22 nucleotide single strand non-coding RNAs, which regulate protein coding gene expression by interfering with messenger RNA’s ability to transcribe DNA into protein. This is why miRNAs are sometimes called RNA interference molecules.

The study found,

“…abundant plant miRNAs sequences from 410 human plasma small RNA sequencing data sets. One particular plant miRNA miR2910, conserved in fruits and vegetables, was found to present in high relative amount in the plasma samples. This miRNA, with same 6mer and 7mer-A1 target seed sequences as hsa-miR-4259 and hsa-miR-4715-5p, was predicted to target human JAK-STAT signaling pathway gene SPRY4 and transcription regulation genes.”

This discovery has profound implications, as the human JAK-STAT signalling pathway has a wide range of potential downstream effects. In fact, JAK-STAT transmits information from extracellular chemical signals to the cell nucleus resulting in DNA transcription and expression of genes involved in immunity, differentiation, proliferation, apoptosis — all of which relate to cancer risk and oncogenesis. But this is just the tip of the miRNA iceberg. There have, in fact, been hundreds of these miRNAs identified in commonly consumed foods in the agrarian diet, and they appear to have the ability to match up with hundreds of human gene targets. The implications of this are profound, if not possibly devastating when it comes to GMO food technology.

It is now widely accepted among conventional biologists that miRNAs regulate most of the protein coding genes in mammals. In fact, the profound difference in complexity between higher life forms such as humans relative to, say, earthworms, is attributable to the higher level of RNA complexity within the so-called ‘dark matter of the genome’ (the ~ 98.5% of the human genome that does not code for proteins).

But what research like this brings to the table is the even more provocative possibility that our genetic and epigenetic wellbeing may be wholly dependent on miRNAs existing outside of us within the gene-regulatory miRNAs embedded within our diet.

Can you imagine the difference between an evolutionarily conserved ancestral diet and a modern one comprised of synthetic components and highly processed GMO cereal grasses?

The New Epigenetic/Nutritional Paradigm: Cross-Kingdom Communication

The idea that the plants and animals we eat contribute to modulating the expression of our genome is known as cross-kingdom or inter-species genentic communication, and represents a significant departure from the classical view that the genetic infrastructure of species were closed off, hermetically sealed within the cell nucleus, and could not be accessed epigenetically from the outside in. We’ve moved from this atomistic, monadistic view to an open access one, where miRNAs operate like software upon the hardwired protein-coding sequences within a species’ genome, making for a much more complex and interdependent web of relationships, reminiscent of the Gaian concept of a biospheric interconnectivity between all the biotic elements of the Earth. As I discuss in another article,

“…this more “open access” model would permit species to alter and affect another’s phenotype in real-time, along with potentially altering its long-term evolutionary trajectory by affecting epigenetic inheritance patterns. This speaks to a co-evolutionary and co-operative model, with all areas of the tree of life, co-developing in a highly complex and seemingly highly intelligent, carefully orchestrated manner.”

And so, if plant derived miRNAs can survive cooking and digestion, as appears to be the case, and can accumulate in physiologically significant quantities, they will therefore alter gene expression, introducing the novel concept that mammalian genomes may have, in fact, evolved to outsource some of their regulation to nutrigenomic dimensions within their dietary milieux.

This, of course, has profound implications, such as validating the concept that an evolutionarily appropriate diet —  e.g. Paleo diet — would help to assure the optimal expression of the human genome. Conversely, the use of RNA interference technology by biotech corporations, such as Monsanto/Dow’s newly EPA approved RNAi corn, could have biologically devastating consequences to the health and wellbeing of those fed or exposed to its altered miRNA profiles. To learn more about this concerning possibility, read (and please share) my report: The GMO Agenda Takes a Menacing Leap Forward with EPA’s Silent Approval of Monsanto/Dow’s RNAi Corn

In a previous report, we discussed the profound implications of this research in understanding how food not just a source of caloric energy and molecular building blocks, but is also a source of potent gene-regulatory information.

For further information on the implications of this research to human nutrition, physiology, and medicine, read our previous articles on the topic:

• Amazing Food Science Discovery: Edible Plants ‘Talk’ To Animal Cells, Promote Healing


• Genetic Dark Matter and the Return of the Goddess


• Are MicroRNAs from Plants the Future of Healing with Food?

© December 29, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post The Dark and Light Side of Food As Information (Dietary RNAs Directly Impact Gene Expression) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

The Dark and Light Side of Food As Information (Dietary RNAs Directly Impact Gene Expression)

New insights in biology show that food is informational and can directly impact and even control the expression of your genes. The implications of this discovery are profound, and have both a light and dark side in need of deeper exploration…

A new study published in the journal BMC Genetics entitled, “Plant miRNAs found in human circulating system provide evidence of cross kingdom RNAi,” reveals that powerful little diet derived nucleic acids known as microRNAs (miRNAs), from commonly consumed plants, are present within the human circulatory system in what appear to be physiologically significant quantities. MiRNAs are comprised of ~ 22 nucleotide single strand non-coding RNAs, which regulate protein coding gene expression by interfering with messenger RNA’s ability to transcribe DNA into protein. This is why miRNAs are sometimes called RNA interference molecules.

The study found,

“…abundant plant miRNAs sequences from 410 human plasma small RNA sequencing data sets. One particular plant miRNA miR2910, conserved in fruits and vegetables, was found to present in high relative amount in the plasma samples. This miRNA, with same 6mer and 7mer-A1 target seed sequences as hsa-miR-4259 and hsa-miR-4715-5p, was predicted to target human JAK-STAT signaling pathway gene SPRY4 and transcription regulation genes.”

This discovery has profound implications, as the human JAK-STAT signalling pathway has a wide range of potential downstream effects. In fact, JAK-STAT transmits information from extracellular chemical signals to the cell nucleus resulting in DNA transcription and expression of genes involved in immunity, differentiation, proliferation, apoptosis — all of which relate to cancer risk and oncogenesis. But this is just the tip of the miRNA iceberg. There have, in fact, been hundreds of these miRNAs identified in commonly consumed foods in the agrarian diet, and they appear to have the ability to match up with hundreds of human gene targets. The implications of this are profound, if not possibly devastating when it comes to GMO food technology.

It is now widely accepted among conventional biologists that miRNAs regulate most of the protein coding genes in mammals. In fact, the profound difference in complexity between higher life forms such as humans relative to, say, earthworms, is attributable to the higher level of RNA complexity within the so-called ‘dark matter of the genome’ (the ~ 98.5% of the human genome that does not code for proteins).

But what research like this brings to the table is the even more provocative possibility that our genetic and epigenetic wellbeing may be wholly dependent on miRNAs existing outside of us within the gene-regulatory miRNAs embedded within our diet.

Can you imagine the difference between an evolutionarily conserved ancestral diet and a modern one comprised of synthetic components and highly processed GMO cereal grasses?

The New Epigenetic/Nutritional Paradigm: Cross-Kingdom Communication

The idea that the plants and animals we eat contribute to modulating the expression of our genome is known as cross-kingdom or inter-species genentic communication, and represents a significant departure from the classical view that the genetic infrastructure of species were closed off, hermetically sealed within the cell nucleus, and could not be accessed epigenetically from the outside in. We’ve moved from this atomistic, monadistic view to an open access one, where miRNAs operate like software upon the hardwired protein-coding sequences within a species’ genome, making for a much more complex and interdependent web of relationships, reminiscent of the Gaian concept of a biospheric interconnectivity between all the biotic elements of the Earth. As I discuss in another article,

“…this more “open access” model would permit species to alter and affect another’s phenotype in real-time, along with potentially altering its long-term evolutionary trajectory by affecting epigenetic inheritance patterns. This speaks to a co-evolutionary and co-operative model, with all areas of the tree of life, co-developing in a highly complex and seemingly highly intelligent, carefully orchestrated manner.”

And so, if plant derived miRNAs can survive cooking and digestion, as appears to be the case, and can accumulate in physiologically significant quantities, they will therefore alter gene expression, introducing the novel concept that mammalian genomes may have, in fact, evolved to outsource some of their regulation to nutrigenomic dimensions within their dietary milieux.

This, of course, has profound implications, such as validating the concept that an evolutionarily appropriate diet —  e.g. Paleo diet — would help to assure the optimal expression of the human genome. Conversely, the use of RNA interference technology by biotech corporations, such as Monsanto/Dow’s newly EPA approved RNAi corn, could have biologically devastating consequences to the health and wellbeing of those fed or exposed to its altered miRNA profiles. To learn more about this concerning possibility, read (and please share) my report: The GMO Agenda Takes a Menacing Leap Forward with EPA’s Silent Approval of Monsanto/Dow’s RNAi Corn

In a previous report, we discussed the profound implications of this research in understanding how food not just a source of caloric energy and molecular building blocks, but is also a source of potent gene-regulatory information.

For further information on the implications of this research to human nutrition, physiology, and medicine, read our previous articles on the topic:

• Amazing Food Science Discovery: Edible Plants ‘Talk’ To Animal Cells, Promote Healing


• Genetic Dark Matter and the Return of the Goddess


• Are MicroRNAs from Plants the Future of Healing with Food?

© December 29, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post The Dark and Light Side of Food As Information (Dietary RNAs Directly Impact Gene Expression) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

A CRISPR Future New Form of Eugenics?

By Dr. Mercola

Gene editing was once a very imprecise and expensive process, but today, thanks to the development of CRISPR, or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat, scientists can go into your DNA and essentially cut and paste it at specified places. Progress is being made in tackling genetic diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and certain forms of blindness and muscular dystrophy.

A CRISPR clinical trial in people with cancer is already underway in China, and the technology has been used to edit human embryos made from sperm from men carrying inherited disease mutations. The researchers successfully altered the DNA in a way that would eliminate or correct the genes causing the inherited disease.¹

If the embryos were implanted into a womb and allowed to grow, the process, which is known as germline engineering, would result in the first genetically modified children — and any engineered changes would be passed on to their own children. The technology is moving so fast that innovations like this are occurring before their full implications are known or fully understood.

“Some critics say germline experiments could open the floodgates to a brave new world of ‘designer babies’ engineered with genetic enhancements,” Technology Review reported, bringing up questions of ethics and eugenics.²

Does the Elimination of Down Syndrome in Iceland Point to a Dark Future for CRISPR?

It’s recently been reported that, in Iceland, Down syndrome births are becoming increasingly rare, with just one or two children born with the condition each year. In essence, Down syndrome is disappearing, but not by nature or happenstance. In Iceland, up to 85 percent of pregnant women receive prenatal screening tests to detect chromosome abnormalities, including Down syndrome. Close to 100 percent of women who receive a positive result end up terminating their pregnancy, CBS News reported.³

Other countries also have high termination rates for fetuses with Down syndrome: 67 percent in the U.S.; 77 percent in France; and 98 percent in Denmark, for instance. As for why so many women terminate their Down syndrome pregnancies in Iceland, geneticist Kari Stefansson told CBS News, “It reflects a relatively heavy-handed genetic counseling. And I don’t think that heavy-handed genetic counseling is desirable … You’re having impact on decisions that are not medical, in a way.”⁴

Writing in The Nation, journalist and historian — and father to a young son with Down syndrome — David Perry noted that “we’re failing our test run for the age of CRISPR.”⁵ He points out that today children with Down syndrome can lead long, happy and productive lives, but many expectant parents aren’t informed of this reality.

Prenatal testing companies market heavily to physicians but provide little information on the conditions being tested for. As a result, some parents are receiving wrong information about their would-be child’s prognosis. Perry writes:⁶

“What does all this have to do with CRISPR? Right now, we’re still in a liminal state when it comes to predicting genetic outcomes for fetuses. Our tools, from amniocentesis (developed in the 1950s and ’60s) to contemporary screenings that locate fetal blood cells in the mother’s bloodstream, are reactive and postconception.

Soon, they’ll shift to preconception and proactive. What will the tens of thousands of clinicians tell would-be parents as they get flooded with messaging from companies eager to sell their high-tech CRISPR product lines?”

As it stands, access to information, or lack thereof, may result in physicians providing outdated or biased genetic counseling to patients. As CRISPR moves ahead, access to accurate and neutral data will be essential. Difficult questions — such as, “When does abortion become eugenics?” as posed by The Atlantic⁷ — must be asked, and answered. The time has come when parents can choose to abort a fetus based on a disability, but soon this may extend into sex, race or even, one day, sexual orientation.

Even now, Miami-based radiologist Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie pointed out that “eugenics and equality can’t mix,” explaining in U.S. News & World Report, “When we do everything in our power to detect the existence of a baby with a special need with the sole purpose of terminating him or her, we create a discriminatory culture, where only perfect humans may apply for entrance.

This is a powerful obstacle against equality and acceptance of the disabled, which a just society must set as its first goal.”⁸ Perry also notes that access to unbiased, up-to-date information is crucial in an age of genetic testing and CRISPR:⁹

“Preventing this potentially dystopian future where altered genes separate the haves from the have-nots starts by shifting discourse. A pro-information approach demands that everyone involved in genetic counseling have access to the best data and presents it in a value-neutral way. We must build systems now that grow as our tools evolve. If we do not, genetic diversity will gradually become code for poverty, and new stigmas will run all the way to the DNA.”

Many Countries Have Already Banned Genetic Engineering of Human Embryos, Germ-Line Modification

Whether or not the creation of “designer babies” with a certain eye color or increased intelligence is inevitable remains to be seen, but some regions are not willing to take a wait-and-see approach. About 40 countries have already banned the genetic engineering of human embryos and 15 of 22 European countries prohibit germ line modification.¹⁰ Time reported:¹¹

“Using CRISPR on humans is still hugely controversial, in part because it’s so easy. The fact that it allows scientists to efficiently edit any gene — for some cancers, but also potentially for a predisposition for red hair, for being overweight, for being good at math — worries ethicists because of what could happen if it gets into the wrong hands.

… As CRISPR goes mainstream in medicine and agriculture, profound moral and ethical questions will arise. Few would argue against using CRISPR to treat terminal cancer patients, but what about treating chronic diseases? Or disabilities? If sickle-cell anemia can be corrected with CRISPR, should obesity, which drives so many life-threatening illnesses? Who decides where that line ought to be drawn?”

Correcting embryonic DNA to eliminate genetic defects associated with inheritable diseases currently has the greatest support, but some scientists argue that using germ-line gene editing to eliminate genetic disease is unnecessary, since the technology to test and choose embryos free of genetic disease already exists and is regularly used in IVF clinics.

The alteration of genes to protect a person against future disease or diseases is another area of ongoing research, while genetic enhancement, in which genes are installed or modified to change a person’s appearance, or physical or mental potential is most controversial. A top U.S. intelligence official even added gene-editing to a list of potential weapons of mass destruction that pose a threat to national safety.¹²

As complex and futuristic as it seems, gene editing is inexpensive and easy to do. Killer mosquitoes, agricultural plagues and DNA-targeting viruses have all been suggested as potential bioweapons should CRISPR or other gene-editing tools fall into the wrong hands.¹³

Gene editing has become so mainstream there are classes on the topic available at community colleges and DIY kits you can order online. Even middle school students may learn the basics of gene editing in science class, with some comparing the new technology to computer coding a few decades ago.

CRISPR May Cause Unexpected Mutations

Gene-editing technology has gotten much more precise over the years, particularly with the invention of CRISPR-Cas9.¹⁴ By modifying an enzyme called Cas9, the gene-editing capabilities are significantly improved, in some cases reducing the error rate to “undetectable levels.” It’s not perfect, however, and may accidently hit other parts of the genome.

A recent study searched for unintended mutations, based on a separate study that used CRISPR-Cas9 to restore sight in blind mice by correcting a genetic mutation. The researchers sequenced the entire genome of the CRISPR-edited mice to search for mutations. In addition to the intended genetic edit, they found more than 100 additional deletions and insertions along with more than 1,500 single-nucleotide mutations. Study co-author Dr. Stephen Tsang, of Columbia University Medical Center, told Scienmag:¹⁵

“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 non-coding regions of the genome … Researchers who aren’t using whole genome sequencing to find off-target effects may be missing potentially important mutations. Even a single nucleotide change can have a huge impact.”

It’s too soon to say whether the mutations are a cause for alarm. However, in the recent study in which researchers used CRISPR to edit human embryos, altering the DNA to prevent inherited disease, they claim to have developed a better technique that avoids off-target effects, as well as mosaicism, in which the DNA changes are taken up by some of the embryo’s cells instead of all of them.¹⁶

Meanwhile, a February 2017 report issued by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences (NAS) basically set the stage for allowing research on germline modification and CRISPR, but only for the purpose of eliminating serious diseases — not for “enhancing traits or abilities beyond ordinary health.” The latter would raise concerns “about whether the benefits can outweigh the risks, and about fairness if available only to some people,” NAS noted.¹⁷

According to Technology Review, however, “Despite such barriers, the creation of a gene-edited person could be attempted at any moment, including by IVF clinics operating facilities in countries where there are no such legal restrictions.”¹⁸

With the technology becoming increasingly accessible to anyone with an interest, it’s probably going to be a matter of when, not if, this boundary is crossed, with unknown consequences. While gene-editing technology has the potential to be great, it could also be easily, and seriously, misused and abused.

– Sources and References

A CRISPR Future New Form of Eugenics?

By Dr. Mercola

Gene editing was once a very imprecise and expensive process, but today, thanks to the development of CRISPR, or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat, scientists can go into your DNA and essentially cut and paste it at specified places. Progress is being made in tackling genetic diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and certain forms of blindness and muscular dystrophy.

A CRISPR clinical trial in people with cancer is already underway in China, and the technology has been used to edit human embryos made from sperm from men carrying inherited disease mutations. The researchers successfully altered the DNA in a way that would eliminate or correct the genes causing the inherited disease.¹

If the embryos were implanted into a womb and allowed to grow, the process, which is known as germline engineering, would result in the first genetically modified children — and any engineered changes would be passed on to their own children. The technology is moving so fast that innovations like this are occurring before their full implications are known or fully understood.

“Some critics say germline experiments could open the floodgates to a brave new world of ‘designer babies’ engineered with genetic enhancements,” Technology Review reported, bringing up questions of ethics and eugenics.²

Does the Elimination of Down Syndrome in Iceland Point to a Dark Future for CRISPR?

It’s recently been reported that, in Iceland, Down syndrome births are becoming increasingly rare, with just one or two children born with the condition each year. In essence, Down syndrome is disappearing, but not by nature or happenstance. In Iceland, up to 85 percent of pregnant women receive prenatal screening tests to detect chromosome abnormalities, including Down syndrome. Close to 100 percent of women who receive a positive result end up terminating their pregnancy, CBS News reported.³

Other countries also have high termination rates for fetuses with Down syndrome: 67 percent in the U.S.; 77 percent in France; and 98 percent in Denmark, for instance. As for why so many women terminate their Down syndrome pregnancies in Iceland, geneticist Kari Stefansson told CBS News, “It reflects a relatively heavy-handed genetic counseling. And I don’t think that heavy-handed genetic counseling is desirable … You’re having impact on decisions that are not medical, in a way.”⁴

Writing in The Nation, journalist and historian — and father to a young son with Down syndrome — David Perry noted that “we’re failing our test run for the age of CRISPR.”⁵ He points out that today children with Down syndrome can lead long, happy and productive lives, but many expectant parents aren’t informed of this reality.

Prenatal testing companies market heavily to physicians but provide little information on the conditions being tested for. As a result, some parents are receiving wrong information about their would-be child’s prognosis. Perry writes:⁶

“What does all this have to do with CRISPR? Right now, we’re still in a liminal state when it comes to predicting genetic outcomes for fetuses. Our tools, from amniocentesis (developed in the 1950s and ’60s) to contemporary screenings that locate fetal blood cells in the mother’s bloodstream, are reactive and postconception.

Soon, they’ll shift to preconception and proactive. What will the tens of thousands of clinicians tell would-be parents as they get flooded with messaging from companies eager to sell their high-tech CRISPR product lines?”

As it stands, access to information, or lack thereof, may result in physicians providing outdated or biased genetic counseling to patients. As CRISPR moves ahead, access to accurate and neutral data will be essential. Difficult questions — such as, “When does abortion become eugenics?” as posed by The Atlantic⁷ — must be asked, and answered. The time has come when parents can choose to abort a fetus based on a disability, but soon this may extend into sex, race or even, one day, sexual orientation.

Even now, Miami-based radiologist Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie pointed out that “eugenics and equality can’t mix,” explaining in U.S. News & World Report, “When we do everything in our power to detect the existence of a baby with a special need with the sole purpose of terminating him or her, we create a discriminatory culture, where only perfect humans may apply for entrance.

This is a powerful obstacle against equality and acceptance of the disabled, which a just society must set as its first goal.”⁸ Perry also notes that access to unbiased, up-to-date information is crucial in an age of genetic testing and CRISPR:⁹

“Preventing this potentially dystopian future where altered genes separate the haves from the have-nots starts by shifting discourse. A pro-information approach demands that everyone involved in genetic counseling have access to the best data and presents it in a value-neutral way. We must build systems now that grow as our tools evolve. If we do not, genetic diversity will gradually become code for poverty, and new stigmas will run all the way to the DNA.”

Many Countries Have Already Banned Genetic Engineering of Human Embryos, Germ-Line Modification

Whether or not the creation of “designer babies” with a certain eye color or increased intelligence is inevitable remains to be seen, but some regions are not willing to take a wait-and-see approach. About 40 countries have already banned the genetic engineering of human embryos and 15 of 22 European countries prohibit germ line modification.¹⁰ Time reported:¹¹

“Using CRISPR on humans is still hugely controversial, in part because it’s so easy. The fact that it allows scientists to efficiently edit any gene — for some cancers, but also potentially for a predisposition for red hair, for being overweight, for being good at math — worries ethicists because of what could happen if it gets into the wrong hands.

… As CRISPR goes mainstream in medicine and agriculture, profound moral and ethical questions will arise. Few would argue against using CRISPR to treat terminal cancer patients, but what about treating chronic diseases? Or disabilities? If sickle-cell anemia can be corrected with CRISPR, should obesity, which drives so many life-threatening illnesses? Who decides where that line ought to be drawn?”

Correcting embryonic DNA to eliminate genetic defects associated with inheritable diseases currently has the greatest support, but some scientists argue that using germ-line gene editing to eliminate genetic disease is unnecessary, since the technology to test and choose embryos free of genetic disease already exists and is regularly used in IVF clinics.

The alteration of genes to protect a person against future disease or diseases is another area of ongoing research, while genetic enhancement, in which genes are installed or modified to change a person’s appearance, or physical or mental potential is most controversial. A top U.S. intelligence official even added gene-editing to a list of potential weapons of mass destruction that pose a threat to national safety.¹²

As complex and futuristic as it seems, gene editing is inexpensive and easy to do. Killer mosquitoes, agricultural plagues and DNA-targeting viruses have all been suggested as potential bioweapons should CRISPR or other gene-editing tools fall into the wrong hands.¹³

Gene editing has become so mainstream there are classes on the topic available at community colleges and DIY kits you can order online. Even middle school students may learn the basics of gene editing in science class, with some comparing the new technology to computer coding a few decades ago.

CRISPR May Cause Unexpected Mutations

Gene-editing technology has gotten much more precise over the years, particularly with the invention of CRISPR-Cas9.¹⁴ By modifying an enzyme called Cas9, the gene-editing capabilities are significantly improved, in some cases reducing the error rate to “undetectable levels.” It’s not perfect, however, and may accidently hit other parts of the genome.

A recent study searched for unintended mutations, based on a separate study that used CRISPR-Cas9 to restore sight in blind mice by correcting a genetic mutation. The researchers sequenced the entire genome of the CRISPR-edited mice to search for mutations. In addition to the intended genetic edit, they found more than 100 additional deletions and insertions along with more than 1,500 single-nucleotide mutations. Study co-author Dr. Stephen Tsang, of Columbia University Medical Center, told Scienmag:¹⁵

“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 non-coding regions of the genome … Researchers who aren’t using whole genome sequencing to find off-target effects may be missing potentially important mutations. Even a single nucleotide change can have a huge impact.”

It’s too soon to say whether the mutations are a cause for alarm. However, in the recent study in which researchers used CRISPR to edit human embryos, altering the DNA to prevent inherited disease, they claim to have developed a better technique that avoids off-target effects, as well as mosaicism, in which the DNA changes are taken up by some of the embryo’s cells instead of all of them.¹⁶

Meanwhile, a February 2017 report issued by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences (NAS) basically set the stage for allowing research on germline modification and CRISPR, but only for the purpose of eliminating serious diseases — not for “enhancing traits or abilities beyond ordinary health.” The latter would raise concerns “about whether the benefits can outweigh the risks, and about fairness if available only to some people,” NAS noted.¹⁷

According to Technology Review, however, “Despite such barriers, the creation of a gene-edited person could be attempted at any moment, including by IVF clinics operating facilities in countries where there are no such legal restrictions.”¹⁸

With the technology becoming increasingly accessible to anyone with an interest, it’s probably going to be a matter of when, not if, this boundary is crossed, with unknown consequences. While gene-editing technology has the potential to be great, it could also be easily, and seriously, misused and abused.

– Sources and References

Anorexia May Be Genetic, Not Just a Mental Health Issue

For the first time, scientists have located a genetic variant for anorexia nervosa – an eating disorder that until now was believed to be entirely psychiatric in nature. Genetic variation refers to the variation in the DNA sequence in the human genome. [1]

Researchers at King’s College London, the University of North Carolina, and Stanford University found that people with anorexia had a genetic variant on chromosome 12, but those without the disorder did not. This chromosome has been associated with type 1 diabetes and autoimmune disorders.

The finding could lead to new or repurposed treatments for anorexia. Currently, anorexia is treated with cognitive analytic therapy (CAT), cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), interpersonal therapy (IPT), focal psychodynamic therapy, and family therapy. [1] [2]

It also sadly means that anorexia patients could pass the disease to their children. [3]

Source: Office on Women’s Health

Prior to the study, anorexia nervosa was thought to be fueled by a combination of physical, social, and environmental triggers, including anxiety, depression, and the West’s obsession with thinness and outward appearance. [3]

Teasing Out the Genetic Connection

For the research, the scientists compared the genetic code of 3,495 individuals with anorexia to that of 10,982 healthy people. [2]

The team found faulty genes in over half of the anorexic patients they analyzed – genes that are associated with neuroticism, schizophrenia, and metabolism.

Professor Cynthia Bulik, of the University of North Carolina, said:

“Anorexia nervosa was significantly genetically correlated with neuroticism and schizophrenia, supporting the idea that anorexia is indeed a psychiatric illness.” [2]

However, Bulik added:

“We identified one genome-wide significant locus for anorexia nervosa on chromosome 12, in a region previously shown to be associated with type I diabetes and autoimmune disorders.

We also calculated genetic correlations — the extent to which various traits and disorders are caused by the same genes. Anorexia nervosa was significantly genetically correlated with neuroticism and schizophrenia, supporting the idea that anorexia is indeed a psychiatric illness.

But, unexpectedly, we also found strong genetic correlations with various metabolic features including body composition (BMI) and insulin-glucose metabolism. This finding encourages us to look more deeply at how metabolic factors increase the risk for anorexia nervosa.” [2]

The researchers are continuing to increase their sample sizes and view the outcome of the study as the beginning of genomic discovery in anorexia nervosa.

Sources:

[1] The Huffington Post

[2] Psych Central

[3] The Telegraph

Smith College

---

---

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.

Novartis Using HIV Virus as Part of Gene Therapy

[image: www.aranca.com]The promise of gene therapy has been circulating for nearly a quarter of a century, and the best that can be said of it is that its results have been very modest, and sometimes tragic.

In 1999, American teenager Jesse Gelsinger died in a clinical trial where gene therapy was used.

One year later, a team of French researchers treated 11 children with a severe immunodeficiency, achieving partial success, but two of the patients developed leukemia because of the virus -a retrovirus- used for Introducing the correct gene into their cells. Despite the great efforts of scientists, little else has been improved; at least publicly

Despite little or no success, the United States will approve in September the first form of gene therapy for commercial use.

It will be used against leukemias that do not respond to any another treatment, and this time the technique, developed by Novartis, is backed by an apparent good result in an international clinical trial.

Now hold your breath. The vector virus, used as a carrier, is a manipulated version of HIV, the AIDS virus.

Like the viruses most commonly used so far, HIV is a retrovirus. Scientists have taken copies of its genome and integrated them into the human genome. It is a special type, scientists say. It is called a lentivirus. And, unlike traditional retroviruses, modified lentiviruses have been shown to be incapable of causing leukemia, as was the case with the children’s bubble.

Scientists claim that, unlike traditional retroviruses, modified lentiviruses have been shown to be incapable of causing leukemia, as was the case with the children’s bubble.

Now sit down for the following detail. The injection that is given to the patient costs between 250,000 and 500,000 euros.

The second key is that leukemia is a disease of the lymphocytes, or white blood cells, which are the incarnation of the immune system.

This avoids having to infect a solid organ, such as the liver or the lung, with the virus carrying the correct gene, which is extremely difficult. Instead, lymphocytes are removed from the patient and transported to Novartis laboratories, where virus infection is carried out with full assurance.

The cells are then selected and injected back into the patient. Scientists claim that two-thirds of them remain cancer-free two years after treatment. These would be a seriously relevant detail if they were true.

The main obstacle is now the economic one. The price of the injection is out of reach for most patients -250,000 to 500,000 euros- according to unofficial estimates.

Scientists say that if the patient heals, he does not need the medication again.

This is just the nightmare of any financial department at Big Pharma, and is often expressed with a cold statement: curing a disease is not profitable.

Unfortunately, it is going to be the big problem with the great advances of pharmacological research that are now waiting their turn in the industry’s production pipeline.

They are increasingly effective medicines, but also more expensive. A prologue of this type of situations has taken place with drugs against hepatitis C, which some administrations have resisted tooth and nail to fund despite its proven effectiveness against this serious disease.

This economic aspect is going to be our daily bread, and public health managers should already be preparing for what is coming. These are the lights and shadows of the future.

Novartis Using HIV Virus as Part of Gene Therapy

[image: www.aranca.com]The promise of gene therapy has been circulating for nearly a quarter of a century, and the best that can be said of it is that its results have been very modest, and sometimes tragic.

In 1999, American teenager Jesse Gelsinger died in a clinical trial where gene therapy was used.

One year later, a team of French researchers treated 11 children with a severe immunodeficiency, achieving partial success, but two of the patients developed leukemia because of the virus -a retrovirus- used for Introducing the correct gene into their cells. Despite the great efforts of scientists, little else has been improved; at least publicly

Despite little or no success, the United States will approve in September the first form of gene therapy for commercial use.

It will be used against leukemias that do not respond to any another treatment, and this time the technique, developed by Novartis, is backed by an apparent good result in an international clinical trial.

Now hold your breath. The vector virus, used as a carrier, is a manipulated version of HIV, the AIDS virus.

Like the viruses most commonly used so far, HIV is a retrovirus. Scientists have taken copies of its genome and integrated them into the human genome. It is a special type, scientists say. It is called a lentivirus. And, unlike traditional retroviruses, modified lentiviruses have been shown to be incapable of causing leukemia, as was the case with the children’s bubble.

Scientists claim that, unlike traditional retroviruses, modified lentiviruses have been shown to be incapable of causing leukemia, as was the case with the children’s bubble.

Now sit down for the following detail. The injection that is given to the patient costs between 250,000 and 500,000 euros.

The second key is that leukemia is a disease of the lymphocytes, or white blood cells, which are the incarnation of the immune system.

This avoids having to infect a solid organ, such as the liver or the lung, with the virus carrying the correct gene, which is extremely difficult. Instead, lymphocytes are removed from the patient and transported to Novartis laboratories, where virus infection is carried out with full assurance.

The cells are then selected and injected back into the patient. Scientists claim that two-thirds of them remain cancer-free two years after treatment. These would be a seriously relevant detail if they were true.

The main obstacle is now the economic one. The price of the injection is out of reach for most patients -250,000 to 500,000 euros- according to unofficial estimates.

Scientists say that if the patient heals, he does not need the medication again.

This is just the nightmare of any financial department at Big Pharma, and is often expressed with a cold statement: curing a disease is not profitable.

Unfortunately, it is going to be the big problem with the great advances of pharmacological research that are now waiting their turn in the industry’s production pipeline.

They are increasingly effective medicines, but also more expensive. A prologue of this type of situations has taken place with drugs against hepatitis C, which some administrations have resisted tooth and nail to fund despite its proven effectiveness against this serious disease.

This economic aspect is going to be our daily bread, and public health managers should already be preparing for what is coming. These are the lights and shadows of the future.

There is a Revolution in Genetics Afoot – And It Affects Everyone

There’s a revolution in genetics afoot, but it’s not what most people think.

Sixteen years ago, scientists completed the first draft of the human genome, and contrary to predictions that they would find as many as 100,000 genes, they only found about 25,000. Since then, the estimate has been revised downward several times to its present day estimate of 19,000 (Ezkurdia et al. 2014). Compare that to a water flea which has 31,000 genes!

And so, today, scientists are forced to admit that the key to understanding our complexity is not in our protein-coding genes but in the so-called “dark matter” of our genome: the about ~98% of our DNA that doesn’t code for proteins at all (they used to call it “junk DNA”), which includes these very important and powerful things called small, non-coding RNAs.

This is why RNAs have been a primary interest of mine over the past few years, and this, I believe, is the heart of the revolution in genetics today. 

Just a little background on these RNA’s and their implications…

A particular class of small, non-coding RNA called microRNA have been identified as “master regulators” of the genome of individuals, and can be passed between individuals, and circulated throughout an entire species. There is even evidence that they may function as cross-kingdom regulators (for instance, enabling plants and animals to affect the expression of one another’s genomes), making it possible to link together the entire web of life in a manner that validates the biotic aspects of the Gaia hypothesis which looks at the entire Earth as a meta-organism. To learn more about this fascinating subject you can read my article entitled, Genetic Dark Matter, Return of the Goddess, and the Post-Science Era, or listen to my lecture at the 2016 Functional Forum event in Boulder, CO.

I’ve also reported on how these RNAs undermine key elements of germ theory by explaining how RNA viruses like influenza are not truly “other,” as well as how RNA-replete foods “talk to our cells” making it possible to heal our bodies nutrigenomically, if you will.

Finally, huge biotech and agrochemical interests know all too well the power of these RNAs because the newest GMO Frankenfood threat on the market is based on RNA interference technology, the consequences of which I believe could be horrifically unhealthy. In fact, the EPA just surreptitiously approved Monsanto/Dow’s RNAi corn which is slated to be on your dinner table by the end of the decade. Read more here: The GMO Agenda Takes a Menacing Leap Forward with EPA’s Silent Approval of Monsanto/Dow’s RNAi Corn.

Meet My Father, and Join Us Online…

Now you have a better sense for why I believe we are standing in the midst of a revolution in biology, medicine, and nutrition. And this revolution — thanks to companies like Monsanto/Dow — will affect every aspect of our lives, whether we like it or not.

This is also why I believe we all need to become genetically/epigenetically literate on the topic. And what better way than to take part in an online summit on the topic: Interpreting Your Genetics Summit (August 21-28), which is being made available at no cost, and which gives you immediate access to Jeffrey Bland’s brilliant talk, “The Current State of Genetics,” when you register for access here.

I’m also extremely excited to announce that not only will I be speaking on “RNA and Our Interconnected World,” but my own father, Sungchul Ji, PhD, a molecular biologist from Rutgers University, will be speaking at this summit as well on “Particles, Waves and Cellular Mechanisms.” This will be his first online appearance.

My father and I overlooking the Flatirons in Boulder, CO, a few months ago.

My father has almost half a century of research under his belt on the topic, and will be sharing a revolutionary new way to understand the cell, our genes, and life as a whole (Warning: my Dad is uber-abstract at times; I’ve had a lifetime of trying to understand him, and can’t say I do entirely yet!)

You’ll be hearing more about my father and his work in the future because we co-founded a company called Systome Biomed, which I have been working on behind the scenes this past year, and which I believe will make major contributions to the field of biology, medicine, and nutrition in the coming years.

Are you excited yet? Please join us at this event and share this with friends, family, and colleagues. Again, you can register here for the upcoming online event if you haven’t already.

© July 28, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

There is a Revolution in Genetics Afoot – And It Affects Everyone

There’s a revolution in genetics afoot, but it’s not what most people think.

Sixteen years ago, scientists completed the first draft of the human genome, and contrary to predictions that they would find as many as 100,000 genes, they only found about 25,000. Since then, the estimate has been revised downward several times to its present day estimate of 19,000 (Ezkurdia et al. 2014). Compare that to a water flea which has 31,000 genes!

And so, today, scientists are forced to admit that the key to understanding our complexity is not in our protein-coding genes but in the so-called “dark matter” of our genome: the about ~98% of our DNA that doesn’t code for proteins at all (they used to call it “junk DNA”), which includes these very important and powerful things called small, non-coding RNAs.

This is why RNAs have been a primary interest of mine over the past few years, and this, I believe, is the heart of the revolution in genetics today. 

Just a little background on these RNA’s and their implications…

A particular class of small, non-coding RNA called microRNA have been identified as “master regulators” of the genome of individuals, and can be passed between individuals, and circulated throughout an entire species. There is even evidence that they may function as cross-kingdom regulators (for instance, enabling plants and animals to affect the expression of one another’s genomes), making it possible to link together the entire web of life in a manner that validates the biotic aspects of the Gaia hypothesis which looks at the entire Earth as a meta-organism. To learn more about this fascinating subject you can read my article entitled, Genetic Dark Matter, Return of the Goddess, and the Post-Science Era, or listen to my lecture at the 2016 Functional Forum event in Boulder, CO.

I’ve also reported on how these RNAs undermine key elements of germ theory by explaining how RNA viruses like influenza are not truly “other,” as well as how RNA-replete foods “talk to our cells” making it possible to heal our bodies nutrigenomically, if you will.

Finally, huge biotech and agrochemical interests know all too well the power of these RNAs because the newest GMO Frankenfood threat on the market is based on RNA interference technology, the consequences of which I believe could be horrifically unhealthy. In fact, the EPA just surreptitiously approved Monsanto/Dow’s RNAi corn which is slated to be on your dinner table by the end of the decade. Read more here: The GMO Agenda Takes a Menacing Leap Forward with EPA’s Silent Approval of Monsanto/Dow’s RNAi Corn.

Meet My Father, and Join Us Online…

Now you have a better sense for why I believe we are standing in the midst of a revolution in biology, medicine, and nutrition. And this revolution — thanks to companies like Monsanto/Dow — will affect every aspect of our lives, whether we like it or not.

This is also why I believe we all need to become genetically/epigenetically literate on the topic. And what better way than to take part in an online summit on the topic: Interpreting Your Genetics Summit (August 21-28), which is being made available at no cost, and which gives you immediate access to Jeffrey Bland’s brilliant talk, “The Current State of Genetics,” when you register for access here.

I’m also extremely excited to announce that not only will I be speaking on “RNA and Our Interconnected World,” but my own father, Sungchul Ji, PhD, a molecular biologist from Rutgers University, will be speaking at this summit as well on “Particles, Waves and Cellular Mechanisms.” This will be his first online appearance.

My father and I overlooking the Flatirons in Boulder, CO, a few months ago.

My father has almost half a century of research under his belt on the topic, and will be sharing a revolutionary new way to understand the cell, our genes, and life as a whole (Warning: my Dad is uber-abstract at times; I’ve had a lifetime of trying to understand him, and can’t say I do entirely yet!)

You’ll be hearing more about my father and his work in the future because we co-founded a company called Systome Biomed, which I have been working on behind the scenes this past year, and which I believe will make major contributions to the field of biology, medicine, and nutrition in the coming years.

Are you excited yet? Please join us at this event and share this with friends, family, and colleagues. Again, you can register here for the upcoming online event if you haven’t already.

© July 28, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.