by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:
Amid all the clamor and focus on the sad murder of Charlie Kirk and its aftermath, I hope readers of this site will not begrudge me my reluctance to focus on it further. Already there are “dissections” of “the narrative” taking place, some of which I share, some of which I do not. My reluctance to comment further is simply that it is too early, people’s passions are too hot (judging from some of the private messages I’ve received, and some of the feelings I myself have had). Amid all this, the world moves on, and there are some developments that are worth looking at…
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
… One of these is a quiet development being reported over at Children’s Health Defender, a site long associated with current Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. This article was spotted and shared by M.W. (for which we express our gratitude). It’s important because in many ways it confirms the concerns many of us had all along with the whole subject of GMOs, and the wider health and nutritional value of America “food-like products” (I can’t in all honesty call much of it “food” any more, and I know whereof I speak, because I’m guilty of having consumed a lot of it, even though I try to avoid it as much as I can!).
Note firstly that the article begins with a reiteration of the concerns of people like me who have been trying to raise the issue of the actual vs. assumed safety of GMOs:
Are genetically engineered foods safe? In an interview with a leading molecular genetics expert, we discuss the scientific evidence behind health concerns tied to genetically modified (GM) corn and pesticides, how genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are changing in ways that increase health risks, and how regulatory systems have failed to keep pace with modern genetics.
Professor Michael Antoniou, head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College London, has studied for more than 35 years how genes function and how they are disrupted.
His decades of rigorous independent research into the risks of GM foods and glyphosate-based herbicides have raised serious concerns about the safety of these technologies.
In a report he prepared for the Mexican government, as the country attempted to restrict GMO corn imports for health reasons, Antoniou cited “a large body of evidence from well-controlled laboratory animal toxicity studies that show evidence of harm to multiple physiological systems” from toxic agents found in GM corn.
In this interview, Antoniou explains that the health risks of GM corn and its associated pesticides arise from three main sources: Bt insecticidal proteins (Bt toxins) engineered into the plants, DNA damage caused by the genetic modification process itself and pesticides used on the crops.
Now, so far, so good; this is a reiteration of all the issues that other researchers pointed out long ago, most notably F. William Engdahl’s Seeds of Destruction and Marie-Marique Robin’s celebrated book and documentary The World According to Monsanto. Many of these same issues appeared earlier in my blogs on this site over the years.
But read on, that’s not all; in the accompanying interview, Dr. Antoniou comments at some length on the more recent “scientific” practice of the regulatory agencies of America and their complete lack of response of any sort. Note the following:
Malkan: Your testimony for the Mexican government cites many types of evidence that indicate the potential for “serious negative health outcomes” from eating GMO corn in the very high amounts typical for Mexican citizens. Could you tell us, what are the most concerning health effects showing up in the studies?
Antoniou: Before going into detail, we should realize initially there are three possible sources, minimally, of toxic outcomes from the consumption of not just GM corn, but GMO foods in general.
First is the product of the foreign GM gene — the transgene. In the case of GMO corn, the insecticidal proteins, the Bt toxins, have never been an integral part of the human diet, especially in the special form they have been engineered into the crop. They can pose [a risk of] toxic or allergic reactions.
Secondly, the GM transformation process — the process by which a GMO is generated in the laboratory — is highly mutagenic. What do I mean by that? Inadvertently, you create unintended damage to the DNA of the crop.
Much of this DNA damage remains in the final marketed product. What is the danger from this? DNA damage can change the function of multiple genes — not just one, but many genes.
And by changing the pattern of gene function in the organism, you will change its biochemistry and its composition, including the unexpected production of new toxins and allergens.
Third, regardless of the GMO crop we’re talking about, they’re all grown with one or more different kinds of pesticides, mostly herbicides such as glyphosate. (Italicized and boldface emphasis added)
Note that “highly mutagenic” part of the emphasis in the quotation above: mutagenic simply means the genome, the DNA, of the crop undergoes mutations that are consequences of, but not necessarily desired or even predicted, by the process of genetic transformation. I long ago blogged about the possibility that the introduction of such material into the human food supply might result in a similar process in humans. Indeed, we have reports from the whole covid potion injections that such things are occurring in those who were injected with the mRNA potions. We should not be surprised at that, since the whole pharmaceutical and GMO “industry” increasingly resembles the witches’ scenes in Macbeth. In any case, such properties may indeed perhaps be the reason that potion-injection advocates were also toying with the idea of putting their potions into the already genetically modified food supply. Perhaps they were thinking of piggy-backing the mutagenic effects of their potions with those already present from the GMOs!
Shortly after this exchange, however, we come to the statement that left my jaw on the floor, in spite of the fact that it has been a criticism of mine ever since I started blogging about the subject. However, this statement is also an admission that the potential risks are far worse than one might imagine; ponder this one long and carefully, beginning with the context that sets it up:
