‘Genetically Engineered’ Food and the Effort to Hide What You Eat
Shortly after Covid-19 made its way onto the shores of the U.S., development of vaccines was accomplished in lightening speed. We have learned that this was done by skipping the ever-important long term human trials. Those who refused to blindly stand in line for the Covid-19 vaccines became a Control Group against the effects of the vaccines, as described in an earlier article of mine. Despite the increase in the “died suddenly” numbers and those still tragically suffering from its effects, governments, the media, and big pharma companies are quick to ignore or scuttle reports that those who feared the side effects of the Convid-19 vaccines were indeed justified.
However, big pharmaceutical companies have not put to rest their desire to get their mRNA vaccines into the bodies of the entire population. Since decreasing numbers of people are standing in line to get shots and boosters, they have turned their sights into embedding their mRNA cocktails into the food we eat. On Sept. 16, 2021 Jules Bernstein from the University of California Riverside reported that “The future of vaccines may look more like eating a salad than getting a shot in the arm.“
The project’s goals, made possible by a $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation, are threefold: showing that DNA containing the mRNA vaccines can be successfully delivered into the part of plant cells where it will replicate, demonstrating the plants can produce enough mRNA to rival a traditional shot, and finally, determining the right dosage.
“Ideally, a single plant would produce enough mRNA to vaccinate a single person,” said Juan Pablo Giraldo, an associate professor in UC Riverside’s Department of Botany and Plant Sciences who is leading the research, done in collaboration with scientists from UC San Diego and Carnegie Mellon University.
“We are testing this approach with spinach and lettuce and have long-term goals of people growing it in their own gardens,” Giraldo said. “Farmers could also eventually grow entire fields of it.”
Vegetables are not the only means in which the pharma companies want to spread their mRNA programmed vaccine platform. Sadly, this platform has been used since 2012 in the vaccination of swine by Merck.
“A revolutionary swine vaccine platform, SEQUIVITY harnesses RNA particle technology to create customized prescription vaccines against strains of influenza A virus in swine, porcine circovirus (PCV), rotavirus and beyond. It’s supported by a sophisticated dashboard filled with comprehensive data and insights …
“Sequivity is a custom swine vaccine platform … Sequivity only targets swine pathogen gene sequences of interest. Doesn’t replicate or cause disease, delivering pathogen information to the immune system … There’s no need to transfer or handle live material like autogenous, killed or modified live vaccines …
Merck and Bill Gate’s Moderna teamed up in 2015.
The same year Merck purchased Harrisvaccines (2015), it also entered into a partnership with Moderna to develop a number of undisclosed mRNA “vaccines.” It was slated to be a three-year collaboration, with a one-year optional extension, in which Merck would perform research and development and commercialization of five potential products using Moderna’s mRNA technology.
Medical researchers like Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea have learned that mRNA ribbons, commonly found in the veins of those who have died after being vaccinated, are being found in the unvaccinated as well.
The next step is to find a local source and maybe do live blood analysis on cows or pigs. If they are contaminated even if unvaccinated, then this may be environmental, possibly via geoengineering spraying. The implications for humanity are profound. I asked my colleague Dr. David Nixon in Australia to replicate my findings, and we will ask Matt Taylor in Ecuador and Shimon Yanowitz in Israel. We need to verify these findings around the world. I will continue working with Dr. Jernigan.
Her research shines a light on this simple fact that if these are not coming from the vaccines injected in livestock, then they are coming from another source. Regardless, this demands more research and more answers, which governments and many in the medical industry are not interested in pursuing.
As the truth of the effects on mRNA vaccine platforms are being ignored by governments and food industry corporations, some like Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea are trying to get to the bottom of what is causing the sudden deaths, which are becoming more prevalent in people without pre-existing health problems. In addition to ignoring the common sense concern of the risks of mRNA, the simple request of knowing exactly which foods contain “genetic engineered” ingredients is being aggressively suppressed.
In Feb. 2023, Missouri House Bill 1169 was introduced with the hope of forcing packaging to contain the words “Potential Gene Therapy Product” to give the purchaser the informed consent before purchasing and later consuming a meat product in the state of Missouri.
From MO HB 1169:
2. Any product that has been created to act as, or exposed to processes that could result in the product potentially acting as, a gene therapy or that could otherwise possibly impact, alter, or introduce genetic material or a genetic change into the user of the product, individuals exposed to the product, or individuals exposed to others who have used the product shall be conspicuously labeled with the words “Potential Gene Therapy Product” unless the product is known to be a gene therapy product.
According to the Progressive Farmer: ” Missouri Cattlemen’s Association Executive Vice President Mike Deering, said in a statement. “If passed, this careless piece of legislation would have devalued Missouri agricultural commodities for absolutely no reason. Given that 98% of the calves in Missouri are exported to other states for finishing and processing, this legislation truly would have been a train wreck for Missouri cattle producers.”
The argument that Mike Deering makes is patently false. The FDA already requires such labeling, to a degree, for its meat products. This bill would have required it to be labeled in Missouri in addition, and maybe at more stringent levels than the FDA giving Missourians more information not less. With the media claiming the fear of anti-vaxers asking for too much information, and four Republicans voting against HB 1169, the bill failed in April 2023 (10-4). Incidentally, the voting record of MO HB 1169 has not been made public which only feeds the suspicions of the failure of this bill. Some comments on the bill’s voting have been described as four Republicans ‘selling out.’
The concerns for genetically engineered foods are completely justified and not a new concern. The Center for Food Safety states that the “unexpected effects” of genetically engineered foods are; toxicity, allergic reactions, antibiotic resistance, immuno-suppression, cancer, and loss of nutrition. Covid-19 has taught us that big corporations, be it pharmaceutical companies or governments, are not concerned about longterm risks to its people when it comes to cashing in on big money. Why else did Pfizer and others have blanket immunity from lawsuit on the effects of their vaccines?
The risks of (GM) genetically modified techniques should not be downplayed or ignored. Dr Belinda Martineau, the former genetic engineer who developed the Calgene GM describes a case in which her and her colleagues had inadvertently added bacterial DNA into 20%-30% of their commercial tomatoes because of GM imprecisions.
This type of GE-associated imprecision isn’t unique or new. In fact, unintended insertion of “extra” DNA into genetically engineered organisms has been happening for over 30 years. I know because my colleagues and I at Calgene, Inc. found that we had inadvertently inserted bacterial DNA into the Flavr Savr tomatoes we were analyzing and preparing for commercial sales back in the early 1990s.
In the Flavr Savr case, FDA scientists asked us to prove our contention that only the DNA we intended to insert into our tomatoes had been inserted. The fact that our subsequent experiments revealed bacterial DNA had been inserted into 20-30% of our tomatoes shocked me, and we published our results in a peer-reviewed journal soon thereafter so as to let the scientific community know about this imprecision of genetic engineering.
Humans are not the only ones at risk for harmful genetic mutations, bees and other pollinators are also at risk. Helmut Burtscher-Schaden, ECI spokesperson, from Save Bees and Farmers describes an example when the bee population was massively altered because of genetic engineering in seeds.
“Thirty years ago, a new technology was introduced to the market with the promise of being safe and even protecting bees; coating seeds with insecticides called neonicotinoids. This technology became one of the main drivers of pollinator decline worldwide. This is because when this new technology was introduced, scientific knowledge of how it affects the complex relationship between pollinators and plants was limited. The same is now the case with GMOs, as the World Biodiversity Council has warned and pointed to the importance of ‘assessment of the risks posed to pollinators by GMO’. If, despite these warnings, the Commission is going to deregulate and water down risk assessment of new GMOs, it is acting against the precautionary principle and accepting irresponsible ecological risks.”
Despite the historical examples of risk, imperfections, and unintended mutations, governments are caving to the pressure to deregulate genetic engineering along the entire path from the farm to the table with our food. The failing of HB 1169 in Missouri is just the latest in a line of rulings to remove previous regulations on listing risks and ingredients in our food. As recent as July the European Commission is proposing to de-regulate the use of the next generation of genetically modified plants, also known as new GMOs or ‘new genomic techniques‘ or NGT.
However, some organizations, countries, and communities are not blindly accepting this push to de-regulate this new generation of GMOs. Organizations like the European Non-GMO Industry Association is pushing back against this latest move to de-regulate the new GMOs. Several countries are citing these dissatisfaction with the new de-regulations including Austria, Hungary, and Cyprus. In 2015 Hungary amended the EU GMO Directive allowing Member states to decide for themselves whether or not to grow GMOs in their countries. The new proposal would take away this freedom from all Member states. Because of this, Hungary is adamantly against this proposal to de-regulate these new generation of GMOs.
With the track record of pharmaceutical companies getting blanket immunity from prosecution or lawsuit for any damages their vaccines have caused, are we to accept the same blanket immunity for GMOs embedded in every stage of our food from farm to table? It is true that ‘No GMOs’ labels are out there, but recent regulations are re-defining what needs to be reported and what does not, especially when it comes to this next generation of GMOs. If you find an organization that claims to be ‘non-GMO, ‘ do your research on them. Have they recently come out against these new regulations? Do they recognize the dangers and risks of genetic engineering in plants and livestock?
The power we have is in where we spend our dollars. My family has transitioned to smaller, local farms and ranches, and for your families’ safety and health I suggest you do the same at least until proper labeling appears. Also research local farms and ranches. Don’t be afraid to ask questions. There is a phrase ‘trust by verify’ that I think applies here. If you, as the consumer, are denied any capability to verify, then why should you trust? Their ongoing push to conceal detailed information of what is in our food only cultivates suspicion, not trust.