Jump to ‘The Package, Continued--

‘Regulations,’ Continued--

The AIDS Precedent

Nixon at Fort Detrick, 1971

To my knowledge the Nixon-era ‘War on Cancer’ in the US never banned a single toxic chemical. Instead, Nixon launched the Special Virus Cancer Program (SVCP, 1971), announcing that it would be conducted at the US Army’s Fort Detrick biological weapons lab, renamed ‘Cancer Research Center.’ No biological weapon was ever produced against cancer. But by 1978 a ‘special virus’ did emerge. This was the AIDS virus--‘discovered’ by an SVCP scientist and made to order for a depopulation/eugenics program consistent with the goals of the NSSM 200 in Africa.1 Covert projects and fraud are readily hidden behind scientific complexity.

‘Guidelines’ from a Conspirator

As things stand, instead of sanctionable regulations, national rules generally follow voluntary guidelines set by the WHO, a non-sovereign international body which favors the useless concept of ‘substantial equivalence.’ More importantly, the WHO’s record is anything but impartial: the WHO has itself been coordinating the development of anti-fertility ‘vaccines’ (anti-hCG vaccine in the Philippines, Thailand) used to covertly sterilize women in the developing world, as noted earlier (see article ‘The Depopulation Agenda; WHO’s anti-fertility vaccine” and its Note 6). The nature of the WHO as an institution of corporate rule was on blatant display in 2009 during its ‘promotional’ scare campaign for the highly profitable ‘Tamiflu pandemic’ (everyone got Tamiflu), a windfall for Big Pharma and some of its ex- high government official investors, including the American war criminal Donald Rumsfeld.

The Testing Pass

The WHO anti-fertility vaccine research push reportedly came in the wake of expanded funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. Not surprisingly, the WHO’s national guidelines are grossly negligent. The WHO disfavors animal studies for GM foods (--N. Halford, Genetically Modified Crops) -- the only substitute for human testing -- and recommends extremely short, 90-day studies (whereas the lifespan of a lab rodent is around two years). This latter point is a classic ploy to evade unfavorable results in chemical product safety testing, according to Braithwaite: #5 “Premature termination of the test before sufficient time has elapsed for the animals to develop tumors.” Corporate Crime, 1984. Indeed, the only lifespan lab test carried out on GM food (MON maize NK603) did turn up tumors (Seralini 2012, see Table 2) as well as organ failure. The ‘cancer corn’ was subsequently banned from importation in food products to the Russian Federation, where it had never been authorized for cultivation (also EU).

In the EU, non-compulsory 90-day rat-feeding studies may be conducted by the GM companies themselves, with the proprietary results remaining unpublished and unreviewed (the CRIIGEN review of a Monsanto corn study used data made available only after a successful lawsuit forced disclosure). Like the US FDA, the EU’s EFSA has also been subject to conflicts of interest, leading to the resignations of two agency chiefs, in 2008 and 2012.

Massive tumors on a
GM corn-fed lab rat

(Seralini study, 2012)

‘But No One is Falling Over’

The fallacious argument is often heard that GM foods must be safe because Americans have been eating them for years “and no one is falling over.” But they may be sicker, with more immediate possible effects such as auto-immune response disorders, allergies, overburdened kidney/liver, GI problems (like Crohn’s disease or ‘leaky gut’), which may be trending in the population but cannot be traced back to GM foods because these are unlabeled in the US. In Europe, most GM food is imported as animal feed and while negative health effects may be acquired through meat, eggs and dairy products coming from GM-fed livestock, no special labeling is required on such products. As a result, such GM-related illnesses--as well as more long-term, cumulative effects--would be again untraceable until such time as comprehensive labeling is enacted.


Al Capone, philanthropist

As capo in Chicago, Capone pioneered the use of food freshness labeling in America, getting expiry dates stamped onto milk bottles in 1932.

Capone, pictured at Hotel Seville
in pre-revolution Havana, Cuba

(c. shiningimagegallery.com)

Limits to traceability--Mutability, non-uniformity

Even with the labeling of GM foods, the random factor in genetic modification itself may make tracking GM-related disease more difficult. The ballistic (‘biolistic’) or ‘shotgun’ genetic modification technique used to propagate a GM transgene reportedly scrambles the host plant’s genome, with extra and/or incomplete copies of the transgene, and unpredictable effects, including toxicity, according to a study on GM potatoes (see Pusztai: damage to vital organs and immune system in rats). GM seed genetic lines themselves are non-uniform, partly because of the randomness of the genetic modification process and partly because the transgenes are unstable in the host genome and prone to recombine (CRIIGEN). Both the GM line instability and non-uniformity have been corroborated by later studies. Because of the mutability and non-uniformity of GM product genetics, the correlation between disease and a GM food responsible will be reduced, limiting traceability.

The irregularity is also a legal issue because in the EU, genetic stability and uniformity are legal requirements for registered GM ‘events,’ as noted earlier. Nor is this the only legal irregularity concerning GMOs in the EU. Not only is there a lack of transparency for regulatory purposes, notably concerning proprietary data, no peer review of studies, etc. as mentioned, but a French NGO (Générations Futures, formerly MDRGF) has discovered non-uniformity among the different herbicide brand ingredients currently commercialized in France:

1) Ingredients in the commercialized herbicide do not correspond with the formulations legally registered.

2) Ingredients (surface agents) between two examples of the same commercialized formulation do not correspond.

If the herbicide formulations (as well as the paired genetic ‘event’ lines themselves) cannot be counted on as uniform, this means that safety testing would be meaningless (even if not otherwise compromised) because less potent ingredients will effectively give ‘false positive’ test results for safety.

Other Irregularities--National Sovereignty Overruled

Countries that are also members of the non-sovereign WTO, an instrument of corporate world government, potentially face stiff penalties under treaty rules if they oppose the dissemination of GM crops. The EU’s 1998-2004 moratorium on GM crops was ruled illegal by the WTO. The EU in 2006 was paying an annual 150m euro penalty for its ban on US beef.

The subversion of national sovereignty is not only through unaccountable international bodies like the WHO and the WTO. France has had its sovereign ban on Monsanto’s MON 810 maize overturned for the second time (2013) by its own court, which cited EU rules however in its decision. The EU itself, both by its structure (unelected executive issuing ‘directives’, parliament without lawmaking powers) and in practice is anti-democratic. The federation as it stands today has been achieved only by effectively ignoring members’ rejections of its federal treaties or having them revote until they get the answer right (French and Dutch referenda ‘No’ to EU Constitution 2005 (Lisbon Treaty); Ireland ‘No’ to Lisbon Treaty, 2008; Ireland ‘No’ to Treaty of Nice, 2001...) The national ‘voting’ on EU federation is a pretense. The reality is American boots on the ground.

Back to ‘What Is Class War?’

--The Package, Continued

Binary Vector Transfer Method

Transfer DNA (T-DNA)

--Agrobacterium tumefaciens (Ag T), a tumor-causing soil bacterium

A commonly used method to transfer a modified DNA ‘transgene’ into a new host is called the binary vector method, for its use of two transfer vectors. The first, which transfers a spliced DNA transgene into an intermediate host, is a tumor-causing plant pathogen, Ag T. (In nature, it works by infecting a plant and disturbing the hormone balance of cells, causing cell proliferation and cancer tumors [crown gall]). In genetic engineering, before a GM transgene is transmitted to the target host plant, additional copies must be made. This is done by means of transforming an intermediate host (E. coli bacteria) with the Ag T transfer DNA carrier. As a transfer vector, only the transfer DNA segments of the Ag T plasmid are said to be used, with the (adjacent) virulence segment replaced with the GM transgenes to be transferred. So it is a ‘disarmed’ pathogen that propagates the transgenes into E. Coli for ‘bulking up.’

Next, in the transformed E. Coli, the transfer DNA segments (T-DNA) of Ag T are said to be replaced with the second transfer vector that will be active in the host plant. This new vector is the missing virulence segment of Ag T, minus its tumor-causing genes. The resulting transgene package is then blasted (biolistics) into the target host plant at unknown insertion points (in the host plant genome) and with unknown numbers of copies of the new DNA. [This built-in unpredictability in the process itself means that the results cannot be uniform--a legal problem (Directive 2010/46/EU ) as well as a problem in ‘safety testing’ for toxicity.] The random insertion of the new DNA causes rearrangement of the host genome, or mutation.

The modified (mutant) host plant is then treated with either herbicide or antibiotics to kill unmodified cells and select the surviving cells, which must have acquired the transferred DNA together with its herbicide-tolerance or antibiotic resistance marker genes. These remaining germ cells are then cultivated into GM seeds. The Pusztai study (see Table 2) suggested that the GM process itself, apart from the herbicide, traits or toxins added to food crop plants, causes toxic effects in mammals.

GM transgenes --
A Hearty Helping of Toxins, Infectious Agents and Antibiotic Resistance Genes

Herbicide tolerance trait

Having looked at the transfer method, we’ll now zoom in for a look at the transgene package. In most Monsanto Roundup Ready (RR) seeds, the herbicide tolerance trait is imparted by a gene (cp4 or epsps) also taken from the transfer vector Ag T bacterium. In RR canola, the herbicide tolerance feature comes from a gene (gox) taken from the bacterium O. anthropi, which is an emerging pathogen in humans--affecting especially immuno-compromised hospital patients--and one of the most resistant to antibiotics (Romano 2009, BMC Microbiology). Tolerance to Bayer’s glufosinate herbicide is derived through a natural detoxification agent via a gene (BAR) from the Streptomyces bacterium. One strain used for this purpose, S. hygroscopicus, is also the source in medicine of a strong immunosuppressant (Sirolimus).

Plant toxicity, Reduced Nutritional Value

Though modified to survive the direct application of herbicide, most GM food crops are still damaged by herbicide toxicity. Plants sprayed with the weed killer Roundup ® are said to turn stunted and sick, yellowing after the application before recovering their green color as much as two weeks later (gmfreescotland). Although these GM crops have been selectively bred, they are permanently damaged by mutation caused by the genetic modification process itself and by the toxicity of herbicide: they show lower levels of chlorophyl; have smaller leaves; are shorter; are structurally weaker; require more water; have reduced nutrient uptake due to the herbicide binding with needed minerals; have reduced natural resistance to disease.  In the soil, Roundup ® harms soil fertility, requiring the use of more fertilizer.

Food crop losses with reduced yields, together with much higher costs of seed, herbicide and fertilizer have caused an epidemic of suicides  among Indian farmers, who had switched from traditional, drought-resistant cottonseed. The emergence of Bt-resistant pests has also been noted there, reminiscent of Roundup resistant super weeds elsewhere. The problem of toxic effects of herbicide on the ‘tolerant’ GM food crops has reportedly been reduced in next generation GM crops but not eliminated.

In addition to the element for coding the main, herbicide tolerance trait, the other transgenes in a GM crop package (using GM RR soy as our example) include three other sequences spliced in between the two T-DNA transfer-vector end-segments. Two of these additional sequences are genetic ‘regulators,’ necessary to make the unrecognized transgene function in its new host. The first of these genetic regulators is a termination sequence or end-marker to regulate termination of protein coding.

Promoter sequence

The second genetic regulator present in the transgene package is a promoter sequence to ‘turn on’ the main transgene function in the new host. In GM cotton and soy this promoter is taken from a plant virus (cauliflower mosaic virus, CaMV--a retrovirus) related to the hepatitis B virus that causes human liver disease. According to experts, some risks associated with this strong promoter are genetic instability, illegitimate recombination, illegitimate gene expression and over expression, which can lead to toxic effects. Cell proliferation, a cancer risk, possibly from gene over expression linked to the CaMV promoter, has been observed in GM-fed animals.

A ‘Hidden’ Virus

Though the CaMV promoter comes from a plant virus, it may also be functional in other species (Latham, Wilson 2013), raising concern about potential activation of transgene elements in (gut) bacteria after ‘horizontal transfer’ (gene flow) and recombination. Even more concerning is the fact that in the majority of GM crop constructs, this promoter sequence also contains an illegitimate, overlapping, protein-encoding viral element of the CaMV gene VI, (Podevin and du Jardin 2012) which : ‘enhances infection’ by disabling defenses in its host against pathogens; favors gene over expression (by an unusual genetic ‘carriage-return’ function in protein synthesis); and ‘may be active [as a virus] on its own’ (Latham, ISN 2013). Another promoter, FMV (Figwort Mosaic Virus) used in GM canola, also contains an (illegitimate) overlapping viral gene, as did Monsanto’s withdrawn ‘New Leaf’ GM potato (Latham), once pitched to (and rejected by) McDonald’s. [An ex-McDonald’s USA president now sits on the Board of Monsanto.]

Antibiotic Resistance Trait

To return to our example of the RR GM soy transgene package, the third additional DNA sequence spliced into this GM transgene ‘cassette,’ besides the promoter and termination regulators, is a gene conferring antibiotic resistance. These are said to be used for convenience as selection markers in the lab, despite the obvious risk to human health if they should combine with pathogens and become activated. Resistance genes for multiple antibiotics effective on different spectra of bacteria have been used, some of which are medically important, such as beta-lactam (Ampicillin), kanamycin (TB, pneumonia, meningitis...) and neomycin. Even if the marker genes are usually not expressed in the transgene-host plant (they are expressed in the neomycin nptII gene for cotton, used in edible, processed foods such as cottonseed oil), expression depends on the ‘promoter’ sequence attached to them. A GM construct’s instability means that recombination with a different promoter could reportedly reactivate the trait (see Table 2: Duggan 2000; Heritage 2000).

The Smoking Gun

More importantly, if antibiotic resistance genes are used as markers in the lab for the sake of convenience only, as claimed, there is no legitimate reason to exacerbate risks to human health by employing resistance to multiple spectra of bacteria 2--which means that an even wider range of medicines could be rendered ineffective against a wider range of bacteria. Danger by design however is wholly consistent with the engineering of weapons.

Bt (bacillus thuringiensis)

While the main genetically engineered trait conferred to GM crops is herbicide tolerance, as we’ve seen, other commercially cultivated GM crops are modified not for herbicide tolerance but for insect resistance. The GM Bt toxin is produced by about 20 percent of commercialized varieties of GM food crop plants including cotton and edible corn (MON 863). Some new varieties are “stacked” with other pesticide or with the herbicide-resistance trait, meaning that derivative food would contain both the pesticide toxin and weed killer residue. One variety of Bt toxin  (Cry1ac), used in edible corn (“Bt Xtra”) and rice, is as potent an immunogen as the cholera toxin (Vasquez 1999). The Bt toxin Cry1ab has been shown to cause cell death (in embryonic human kidney cells) at 100 ppm concentrations (R Mesnage 2012).

The naturally-occurring Bt bacteria whose modified toxin is used as an insecticide in food crops is a close relative of anthrax, with a ‘capacity for wide transfer of DNA.’ 3 The GM ‘food’ crops containing the toxins are registered pesticides, ‘overseen’ by the Environmental Protection Agency, as are other pesticides.

Back to ‘What Is Class War?’


1 (NB Victimization of male gays with AIDS admittedly does not fit this picture in the parallax of retrospect. They may have been deliberately targeted as a group, as in Nazi Germany, before the possibility to popularize homosexuality for eugenic purposes through social engineering had been appreciated.)

See L. Horowitz’s Emerging Viruses for more information.

2  This is the smoking gun.

3 "...probably the nearest relative of Bacillus thuringiensis (the GMO Bt toxin)

is B. anthracis (anthrax) with whom it shares genes". Professor Anthony Trewavas, Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology, Edinburgh The Lancet, Volume 355, Number 9207. p. 931-934 11 March 2000