R.L. McCarty has no answers and goes into damage
control:

If one were to cross a tainted
field corn with an original by simply planting them aternately,,,a
rectified strain could be raised in about three years of continuous
monitoring. ALSO the corn would have HUGE-long ears with giant kernals.
The original corn brought to our Indian Nationss in about 800 BC by what
they call: THE KATCHINA! They were reptoids from Eridanus ( 350 systems)
who are vegetarians and live in a very "controlled' Empire! They are
vegetarians and even the least planet is weather controlled...so much so
that even windows are UN-necessary! No roads od powerlines as each home
has an atomic powere source about the size of a football and it lasts for
3500 yrs. Since they ARE Vegetarians,,they cook in a "WOK"..YES! You
simply cannot beat perfection?? They have Grav-drive flying "pickup
Trucks" as well! ( flat beds) LOL! B-0b1

And do they have a secret society with secret recognition symbols aimed at
fighting genetic pollution?

For some time on earth for an industry to dump their pollutants where
someone else had to deal with them had been fair game: externalisation of
costs it is known as.

Now genetic pollution has become a legal method to take over ownership.

What are the laws on Eridanus about genetic pollution. Do they have
`polluter pays' yet?

On 19 Jul 2003 04:05:43 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Moosh:] wrote:
On 17 Jul 2003 20:09:04 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

"It gets worse. The selling point behind Roundup Ready is
that it is a glyphosphate-resistant strain. Spray on the herbicide and
you're left with nothing but Monsanto crops. However, after two years
application, glyphosphate-resistant volunteer corn plants begin to
flourish. This has led to the most bizarre Monsanto patent yet awarded. US
patent # 6,239,072 covers the practice of mixing glyphosphate with other
herbicides, and any premixture thereof. This patent has been awarded
despite the fact that mixing herbicides is what any sensible, thinking
farmer would naturally do, and has been doing, in the event of resistant
plants emerging. The patent also serves as a "de facto" admission of the
GM "superweed" problem and that Roundup technology lacks efficacy and
predictability. "

So, don't buy Monsanto products, if you don't like them. No-one's
forcing anyone.

And if you don't want to catch an illness, keep away from the source, if
you know what it is.

How far away is labelling of GM ingredients in corn chips, herrings in
tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c?

Logically, as far away as labelling that a random mutation happened in
the corn field.

Moosh:] wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:59:34 -0700, Dzogvi Gzboli
wrote:

Where can I find a list of the persons/cases in which diagnosable
injury resulted from ingesting GE corn? Or medical journal reports?

You are joking? Doesn't the inability to find such say something?

Not really.

Farmers are judging that cows fed on GM corn give less milk.

It takes a while for troubles to show up in humans. If a few percent more
women have to bottle supplement their babies that may reduce a nations
great IQ test as the DHA in human milk helps eye - possibly brain
development.

The extra Roundup in human diets of Roundup Ready crops provides extra
xeno-estrogen in the diet. You may not see results till the developing
eggs in the ovaries of todays foetuses are being fertilised 30 years away.
Farmers who would have gone organic are getting caught with polluting
Monsanto genes in their crops and rather than fighting are finding it
easier to pay up and go totally Roundup Ready, rather than lose the farm.

Then it is very hard to track an origin of a disease which jumps species
in one individual then spreads rapidly through the new species. The GM
technology is designed to get genes to cross barriers they otherwise would
not. The probability of a jump in one individual is very low, but in the
population of China you have to multiply by a billion.

The drug resistance marker in the GM crops has been warned against by
many. All bacteria have always swopped their genes, they really have a
common gene bank, and what you do to one gets around and is made use of by
the others. Then you get indirect harm from GM when the drugs we have can
no longer treat the illnesses.

Moosh:] wrote:
On 17 Jul 2003 20:09:04 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

"It gets worse. The selling point behind Roundup Ready is
that it is a glyphosphate-resistant strain. Spray on the herbicide and
you're left with nothing but Monsanto crops. However, after two years
application, glyphosphate-resistant volunteer corn plants begin to
flourish. This has led to the most bizarre Monsanto patent yet awarded. US
patent # 6,239,072 covers the practice of mixing glyphosphate with other
herbicides, and any premixture thereof. This patent has been awarded
despite the fact that mixing herbicides is what any sensible, thinking
farmer would naturally do, and has been doing, in the event of resistant
plants emerging. The patent also serves as a "de facto" admission of the
GM "superweed" problem and that Roundup technology lacks efficacy and
predictability. "

So, don't buy Monsanto products, if you don't like them. No-one's
forcing anyone.

And if you don't want to catch an illness, keep away from the source, if
you know what it is.

How far away is labelling of GM ingredients in corn chips, herrings in
tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c?

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 19 Jul
2003 04:05:43 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote:


And if you don't want to catch an illness, keep away from the source,if
you know what it is.

How far away is labelling of GM ingredientsin corn chips, herrings in
tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c?

Logically, as far away as labelling that a random mutation happened in
the corn field.

No because the sorts of mutations which nature has learnt to allow to
multiply are ones beneficial to itself. The `junk' genes which can later
help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of years.
Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome. The GM process
defeats that. Many people are saying that drug resistance markers should
have ceased being used, or never started.

On 19 Jul 2003 04:24:23 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Moosh:] wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:59:34 -0700, Dzogvi Gzboli
wrote:

Where can I find a list of the persons/cases in which diagnosable
injury resulted from ingesting GE corn? Or medical journal reports?

You are joking? Doesn't the inability to find such say something?

Not really.

Farmers are judging that cows fed on GM corn give less milk.

Which farmers? Which cows? Which corn? Where?

It takes a while for troubles to show up in humans. If a few percent more
women have to bottle supplement their babies that may reduce a nations
great IQ test as the DHA in human milk helps eye - possibly brain
development.

A long bow to draw?

The extra Roundup in human diets of Roundup Ready crops provides extra
xeno-estrogen in the diet.

What "more Roundup"? The glyphosate, or the surfactant wetting agent?

More xeno-oestrogen than what?

You may not see results till the developing
eggs in the ovaries of todays foetuses are being fertilised 30 years away.
Farmers who would have gone organic are getting caught with polluting
Monsanto genes in their crops and rather than fighting are finding it
easier to pay up and go totally Roundup Ready, rather than lose the farm.

Roundup Ready has huge advantages if a farmer can afford it.

Saves on use of far more toxic and expensive herbicides.

Roundup also can save much soil erosion from mechanical pre-seeding
weed control.

Then it is very hard to track an origin of a disease which jumps species
in one individual then spreads rapidly through the new species. The GM
technology is designed to get genes to cross barriers they otherwise would
not. The probability of a jump in one individual is very low, but in the
population of China you have to multiply by a billion.

I think you are confusing two entirely separate phenomena.

The drug resistance marker in the GM crops has been warned against by
many.

But nothing has come of it? What problems has this ever caused?

All bacteria have always swopped their genes,

Just like humans and all beings which reproduce sexually.

they really have a
common gene bank,

Like all species-like groups

and what you do to one gets around and is made use of by
the others.

Yep, happens in all sexually reproducing gene pools.
All surviving mutations will spread into the gene pool.

Then you get indirect harm from GM when the drugs we have can
no longer treat the illnesses.

Examples?

On 19 Jul 2003 04:34:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 19 Jul
2003 04:05:43 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote:


And if you don't want to catch an illness, keep away from the source,if
you know what it is.

How far away is labelling of GM ingredientsin corn chips, herrings in
tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c?

Logically, as far away as labelling that a random mutation happened in
the corn field.

No because the sorts of mutations which nature has learnt to allow to
multiply are ones beneficial to itself.

Well of course. The lethal mutations die out

The `junk' genes which can later
help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of years.

If they last that long. I would guess that every combination and
permutation has been "tried" over the millions of years.

Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome.

Rubbish. There is no control over this other than "what works persists
and what doesn't dies out". It's all chemistry.

The GM process
defeats that.

Again, rubbish. If a man-made mutation (and man has been artificially
mutating things for a long time) works to the advantage (or no effect)
on the organism it will survive. If it does harm to the organism, it
will die out.

Many people are saying that drug resistance markers should
have ceased being used, or never started.

The natural mutations of bacteria are breeding drug resistance every
moment of every day. That's life.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 19 Jul
2003 04:05:43 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote:


And if you don't want to catch an illness, keep away from the
source,if
you know what it is.

How far away is labelling of GM ingredientsin corn chips, herrings in
tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c?

Logically, as far away as labelling that a random mutation happened in
the corn field.

No because the sorts of mutations which nature has learnt to allow to
multiply are ones beneficial to itself. The `junk' genes which can later
help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of years.
Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome.

what total rubbish

where to you apply to 'nature' for a licence, where does 'nature' test and
'allow' these genes.

Nature is not a person for christsake!

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 19 Jul
2003 04:05:43 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote:


And if you don't want to catch an illness, keep away from the
source,if
you know what it is.

How far away is labelling of GM ingredientsin corn chips, herrings in
tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c?

Logically, as far away as labelling that a random mutation happened in
the corn field.

No because the sorts of mutations which nature has learnt to allow to
multiply are ones beneficial to itself. The `junk' genes which can later
help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of years.
Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome.

what total rubbish

where to you apply to 'nature' for a licence, where does 'nature' test and
'allow' these genes.

Nature is not a person for christsake!

Jim Webster

Organims including humans have learned to coexist.

Now we have to learn new lessons very fast.

Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the
edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance,
because of current practices.

Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from
antibiotics, too.

Moosh:] wrote:
On 19 Jul 2003 04:34:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 19 Jul
2003 04:05:43 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote:


And if you don't want to catch an illness, keep away from the source,if
you know what it is.

How far away is labelling of GM ingredientsin corn chips, herrings in
tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c?

Logically, as far away as labelling that a random mutation happened in
the corn field.

No because the sorts of mutations which nature has learnt to allow to
multiply are ones beneficial to itself.

Well of course. The lethal mutations die out

The ones lethal to themselves, Moosh means.

But that is a very simplistic, outdated view, that neo-Darwinism.

Bacteria for example swop and store genes which help them survive.

It is now being found that drug resistance to several antibiotics
can be selected by applying only one of them.

The `junk' genes which can later
help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of years.

If they last that long. I would guess that every combination and
permutation has been "tried" over the millions of years.

Many reactions to stress have been tried and their results saved in
the junk DNA.

Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome.

Rubbish. There is no control over this other than "what works persists
and what doesn't dies out". It's all chemistry.

The GM process
defeats that.

Again, rubbish. If a man-made mutation (and man has been artificially
mutating things for a long time) works to the advantage (or no effect)
on the organism it will survive. If it does harm to the organism, it
will die out.

Outdated.


Many people are saying that drug resistance markers should
have ceased being used, or never started.

The natural mutations of bacteria are breeding drug resistance every
moment of every day. That's life.

It is very seriously wrong to provide them with extra tools to do
it.

On 19 Jul 2003 11:01:41 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Moosh:] wrote:
On 19 Jul 2003 04:34:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 19 Jul
2003 04:05:43 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote:


And if you don't want to catch an illness, keep away from the source,if
you know what it is.

How far away is labelling of GM ingredientsin corn chips, herrings in
tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c?

Logically, as far away as labelling that a random mutation happened in
the corn field.

No because the sorts of mutations which nature has learnt to allow to
multiply are ones beneficial to itself.

Well of course. The lethal mutations die out

The ones lethal to themselves, Moosh means.

But that is a very simplistic, outdated view, that neo-Darwinism.

That lethal mutations aren't lethal? Hookay....

Bacteria for example swop and store genes which help them survive.

And so? How does this not show that "Nature" only allows mutations
beneficial to the organism? As if anything is needed to show this
self-evident phenomenon.

It is now being found that drug resistance to several antibiotics
can be selected by applying only one of them.

Was this the Mexican finding that was shown to be invalid?

The `junk' genes which can later
help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of years.

If they last that long. I would guess that every combination and
permutation has been "tried" over the millions of years.

Many reactions to stress have been tried and their results saved in
the junk DNA.

But they are generally irrecoverable, except for splicing into the
right area by genetic engineers. In the junk DNA there is just about
everything that has been tried, if it hasn't been harmlessly corrupted
over the aeons.

Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome.

Rubbish. There is no control over this other than "what works persists
and what doesn't dies out". It's all chemistry.

The GM process
defeats that.

Again, rubbish. If a man-made mutation (and man has been artificially
mutating things for a long time) works to the advantage (or no effect)
on the organism it will survive. If it does harm to the organism, it
will die out.

Outdated.

What, that man has been genetically engineering organisms for
centuries? Or that lethal mutations are lethal, or that beneficial
mutations are beneficial? Your one word reposts are uninformative.

Many people are saying that drug resistance markers should
have ceased being used, or never started.

The natural mutations of bacteria are breeding drug resistance every
moment of every day. That's life.

It is very seriously wrong to provide them with extra tools to do
it.

Like unnecessary applications to the environment of sub lethal doses
of antibiotics? In the short term, I agree, but in the long run, it
probably makes no odds.

On 19 Jul 2003 11:07:15 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 19 Jul
2003 04:05:43 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote:


And if you don't want to catch an illness, keep away from the
source,if
you know what it is.

How far away is labelling of GM ingredientsin corn chips, herrings in
tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c?

Logically, as far away as labelling that a random mutation happened in
the corn field.

No because the sorts of mutations which nature has learnt to allow to
multiply are ones beneficial to itself. The `junk' genes which can later
help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of years.
Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome.

what total rubbish

where to you apply to 'nature' for a licence, where does 'nature' test and
'allow' these genes.

Nature is not a person for christsake!

Jim Webster

Organims including humans have learned to coexist.

Humans have difficulty coexisting with humans.

Most other creatures eat each other in one form or other.

Now we have to learn new lessons very fast.

What would they be?

Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the
edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance,
because of current practices.

So? Tell us something new. Every animal's gut is swarming with E coli.
It is everywhere. Only a few strains are pathogenic, and to actually
infect us, a huge number of organisms must be ingested.

Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from
antibiotics, too.

Which bacteria are these?

Amongst the myriad mutations of these organisms with a generation life
of 20 minutes, a few antibiotic resistances here and there, while a
worry at the moment, are neither here nor there in the scheme of
things.

Moosh:] wrote:
On 19 Jul 2003 04:24:23 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Moosh:] wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:59:34 -0700, Dzogvi Gzboli
wrote:

Where can I find a list of the persons/cases in which diagnosable
injury resulted from ingesting GE corn? Or medical journal reports?

You are joking? Doesn't the inability to find such say something?

Not really.

Farmers are judging that cows fed on GM corn give less milk.

Which farmers? Which cows? Which corn? Where?

I shall have to search it out.

But you might expect it. It does not take much to affect milk
production, cows even have music preferences.

As I reported before rats given the choice of GM and non-GM feed
had a preference for the latter. So that could affect the cows.

Before Roundup Ready times strict withholding periods for herbicides
had to be adhered to. Roundup has been promoted as safe so is
applied more. And you have to buy it with the Monsanto seed.
So there will be more Roundup in the corn crop now. It will be more
estrogenic. Estrogenic pasture is generally a reproductive problem.
as I have posted.

Perhaps Jim might comment on pendulous udders in developing calves
produced from cows on estrogenic pasture. They will be harder to
milk. Maybe an estrogenic mycotxin is causing it, or red clover, or
Roundup? Needs research, I would say.


It takes a while for troubles to show up in humans. If a few percent more
women have to bottle supplement their babies that may reduce a nations
great IQ test as the DHA in human milk helps eye - possibly brain
development.

A long bow to draw?

The business world is always trying to avoid taking long time spans
into account.

The extra Roundup in human diets of Roundup Ready crops provides extra
xeno-estrogen in the diet.

What "more Roundup"? The glyphosate, or the surfactant wetting agent?

I think it is proprietary information.

More xeno-oestrogen than what?

Than before the advent of Roundup Ready.

You may not see results till the developing
eggs in the ovaries of todays foetuses are being fertilised 30 years away.
Farmers who would have gone organic are getting caught with polluting
Monsanto genes in their crops and rather than fighting are finding it
easier to pay up and go totally Roundup Ready, rather than lose the farm.

Roundup Ready has huge advantages if a farmer can afford it.

Saves on use of far more toxic and expensive herbicides.

Roundup also can save much soil erosion from mechanical pre-seeding
weed control.

Some farmers have `succeeded' with Roundup Ready, but the technology
fee is still a loss leader.

Then it is very hard to track an origin of a disease which jumps species
in one individual then spreads rapidly through the new species. The GM
technology is designed to get genes to cross barriers they otherwise would
not. The probability of a jump in one individual is very low, but in the
population of China you have to multiply by a billion.

I think you are confusing two entirely separate phenomena.

Why do you?

The drug resistance marker in the GM crops has been warned against by
many.

But nothing has come of it? What problems has this ever caused?

The experminent going on is uncontrolled. Therefore although
infectious disease is increasing world wide it cannot be pinned on
the GM technology.

All bacteria have always swopped their genes,

Just like humans and all beings which reproduce sexually.

But bacteria can swap quite a percentage in a day.

they really have a
common gene bank,

Like all species-like groups

No really rather different. You are behind with your reading.

and what you do to one gets around and is made use of by
the others.

Yep, happens in all sexually reproducing gene pools.
All surviving mutations will spread into the gene pool.

You are behind. Mid 1990s the question was whether horizontal gene
transfer occurs. Now it totally accpeted. Bacteria probably pass on
more of their survival characteristics through it than through
vertical transfer.

Then you get indirect harm from GM when the drugs we have can
no longer treat the illnesses.

Examples?

I have been in a hospital ward which had MRSA. When I went back to
hospital 4 years later I had a red medicalert sticker on my
bracelet. It turned out to be an MRSA warning. Several tests were
done and some weeks before it was removed.

Resistance can develop from animals fed antibiotics, but what about
when humans are fed antibiotic resistance genes en masse?

Funding of research these days is based on partnerships with profit
driven companies. So risk analysis which might take away the
quick-profit-and-get-out-of-it is a poor relation.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 19 Jul
2003 04:05:43 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:


And if you don't want to catch an illness, keep away from the
source,if
you know what it is.

How far away is labelling of GM ingredientsin corn chips, herrings in
tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c?

Logically, as far away as labelling that a random mutation happened
in
the corn field.

No because the sorts of mutations which nature has learnt to allow to
multiply are ones beneficial to itself. The `junk' genes which can
later
help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of years.
Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome.

what total rubbish

where to you apply to 'nature' for a licence, where does 'nature' test
and
'allow' these genes.

Nature is not a person for christsake!

Jim Webster

Organims including humans have learned to coexist.

Now we have to learn new lessons very fast.

Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the
edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance,
because of current practices.

Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from
antibiotics, too.

so what

what has this got to do with the childish anthropomorphism of nature. It
makes as much sense as saying that Gravity has a sense of humour.

Jim Webster

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Perhaps Jim might comment on pendulous udders in developing calves
produced from cows on estrogenic pasture.

If I had ever heard of this effect before I would. Certainly never come
across it, have you any evidence for it?



Snip

I have been in a hospital ward which had MRSA. When I went back to
hospital 4 years later I had a red medicalert sticker on my
bracelet. It turned out to be an MRSA warning. Several tests were
done and some weeks before it was removed.

my father has had it several times but clears up with nursing care (he is
too weak for antibiotics) and natural resistance.

Jim Webster