GMOs lead to pathology of internal organs, allergies, oncology and infertility

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Biological scientist Irina Ermakova on the dangers of GMOs, the trial of the Monsanto corporation and the military interested in GMOs as biological weapons

In July 2016, Federal Law No. 358 came into force in Russia, the so-called Law on GMOs, which provides for a ban on the cultivation and breeding of genetically engineered plants. In addition, the import and use of seeds containing GMOs is prohibited. However, scientific debate about the dangers and benefits of GMOs does not subside all over the world, and this issue is clearly not closed, given that, according to world statistics, the share of genetically modified products is growing every year. Moreover, the developments of genetic engineers in this area affect not only food, but also many spheres of human life, including the creation of biological weapons. So, what is GMO, who benefits from developing this direction in science and what it can threaten in the future of our planet, biologist Irina Ermakova told Realnoe Vremya.

Such a process is impossible in nature

Irina Vladimirovna, many people have heard about GMOs, the majority perceives this phenomenon as something negative, but few clearly understand what it is. Please explain in popular science language what this phenomenon is, tell its story

- Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are artificially created organisms as a result of the introduction of genes from other species and classes of plants and animals in order to obtain a new organism with the desired properties. I will dwell on GM plants in more detail. If related organisms are crossed during selection, then when creating GMOs, using special technologies, a gene from any organism can be introduced into the plant genome. For example, genes characteristic of animals or humans are introduced into plants, etc. Such a process is impossible in nature. For the introduction of genes, as a rule, they are used as a transport for the transfer of plasmid genes (circular DNA) of tumor-forming agrobacteria. These plasmids give numerous copies and can be introduced into both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, disrupting the work of the energy structure (mitochondria) of cells. In humans and animals, plasmids with genes embedded in them live their own lives. GMOs were developed by the former US military company Monsanto.

Many scientists claim that GMO products are no more dangerous than the results of conventional breeding. Is it so?

- Most scientists just assert that GMOs are dangerous. So, back in 2000, an open letter was written to the governments of all countries about the dangers of GMOs, signed by 828 scientists and public figures from 84 countries. About 3-4 years ago, a letter was sent to the European Commission, signed by 1 million 200 thousand scientists and public figures from different countries, demanding to ban GMOs.

GMOs are protected mainly by biotechnologists who receive research grants from multinational companies producing GMOs. However, none of them have ever tested the effect of GMOs on animals or humans. It has been experimentally shown that GMOs lead to pathology of internal organs, allergies, oncology and, worst of all, to infertility.

Not only those who eat GM crops become sterile, but also the GM plants themselves. The sterility of GM seeds leads to a lack of yields and dependence on multinational companies. GM crops are also known to cause soil degradation. In animal husbandry, GM feed has caused diseases and death of animals, missed pregnancies and infertility in cows and pigs. The story of the German farmer Gottfried Glockner, who lost his entire herd of cows after feeding them GM corn, is revealing. A similar story happened with other German farmers, which led to the closure of their farms. In medicine, drugs derived from GM plants only exacerbated the disease. So, for example, according to Japanese scientists, GM insulin provoked the rapid development of type 2 diabetes into the first type (when its own hormone is practically not produced), as a result of autoimmune destruction of cells that produce insulin. Or a sensational story: a dietary supplement of the amino acid L-tryptophan, obtained from GM bacteria, led to the death of 37 people, and 1.5 thousand people became disabled.

How do scientists motivate further research in the field of GMOs?

- As I said, GMOs are supported by GMO companies and biotechnology scientists who receive research grants from these companies. For companies it means taking over the food market and making a profit, for scientists it means grants and satisfying scientific curiosity. Also, the military and terrorists are interested in promoting GMOs, since GMOs can be used as biological weapons, as they lead to disease and infertility. The use of GMOs as biological weapons was announced by one of the NATO Science for Peace and Security committees back in 2004 in the city of Liege (Belgium).

Have there been enough tests and checks on the influence of GMOs on human activity and the environment?

Currently, more than 1500 scientific publications are known about the dangers of GMOs to humans, animals and the natural environment. However, scientists who prove the dangers of GMOs are under pressure from multinational companies. Their experiments are considered incorrect, the results are invalidated, and there are difficulties with the publication of articles. Scientists themselves are denied grants or fired. The first to suffer were American scientists Ignacio Chapela and David Quist, who proved genetic contamination as a result of GM pollen entering other plants, which is understandable to every biologist. Following them, British, Italian, Austrian, French and other scientists suffered. Russian scientists were also attacked. Of the 500 scientists working in the UK biotech industry, 30% said they had to change their results at the request of sponsors, according to figures published in the Higher Education app of the British newspaper The Times. Of these, 17% agreed to distort their data in order to show the result preferable for the customer; 10% stated that they were "asked" to do so, threatening to deprive them of further contracts; and 3% reported that they had to make changes that made it impossible to open publication of works. According to scientists, pressure from multinational companies brought with it disturbing implications for the future of academic freedom and independent science and had huge negative consequences for the spread of GM crops around the world.

What are the worst consequences of consuming GMO foods?

-The large-scale spread of GMOs, which lead to a decrease in immunity, pathology of internal organs, oncology, genetic deformities and infertility of various organisms, can lead to the death of humanity and the destruction of the planet's biosphere.

How do religious organizations today relate to GMOs?

- Religious organizations, as a rule, are against GMOs. They believe that the creation and distribution of dangerous GMOs is contrary to divine design.

Monsanto and other agricultural giants like it do not feed the world, they are involved in the production of commodities

You mentioned that GMOs were developed by the former military company Monsanto. It is known that on October 14-16, 2016, a tribunal and a people's assembly were held in the Hague court against Monsanto

- Yes, for two days the world followed the testimony of witnesses, requests from lawyers and the first impressions of the judges. The Hague had 750 participants representing 30 nations and nationalities from around the world; but thousands of people followed online, live and social media, and the tribunal received a lot of press attention. Both the victims and the experts were grateful that we gave them a voice on this important international platform - a very well registered voice in this new process to hold corporations accountable for their actions. Monsanto was invited to the tribunal, but decided not to appear. Yet we did get their attention. They made a statement in five languages of the world, saying that we are "raising" the wrong issues when the real discussion should be about how to feed the world. Monsanto does not “see” that how to feed the world in a safe way was the main topic of the tribunal, discussion of farmers, consumer movements and their associated networks. Many eminent speakers emphasized that Monsanto and similar agricultural giants do not feed the world, but rather are involved in the production of commodities, animal husbandry, fuel for cars and sugar for the food industry - all at a very high cost to human health and the environment. Wednesday. This is a production that feeds profits, but not people. Who really feeds the world are small and medium-sized farmers.

This tribunal and the People's Assembly are about showing the enormous costs of industrial agriculture for people, for health and for nature. And also - about the confrontation of Monsanto herself and others like her, about stopping their poisoning of our world and their control over the supply of food to us. One way to do this is by showing the value of the current global food system and the very real alternatives that exist. The Assembly and the Tribunal can be kept up to date on the website. The judges are now looking closely at evidence from legal briefs and testimony to answer the six questions that fall within the purview of the tribunal. They will then provide a legal advisory opinion, hopefully soon, but next spring if necessary: we will provide logistical support, but timing is their business.

- What is the current situation in the confrontation between scientists - supporters and opponents of GMOs - in the world? In 2016, more than 107 Nobel laureates (including physicians and biologists) are known to have signed a letter calling on Greenpeace, the United Nations and governments around the world to end the fight against genetically modified organisms. What position does Russia take in this regard?

- The appearance of a letter, signed by 107 Nobel laureates calling on Greenpeace to end its campaign against GMOs, strangely coincided with the adoption of a law banning GMOs in Russia. When other countries (European, Israel, etc.) announced the ban on GMOs, none of the Nobel laureates signed the letters. All this looks like a political action against Russia. It is also known that the biotech industry was the organizer of this campaign to collect signatures from the Nobel laureates.

In addition, as far as I know, Greenpeace stopped actively opposing GMOs 10 years ago. Then, yes, they identified companies that used GMOs in their products and distributed compilations with the names of these companies in many countries around the world with the slogan that the consumer has the right to choose himself. The list includes both large and small companies. It was valuable information that helped people choose a natural product. As a result, many companies have begun to move away from GMO products. But all of a sudden, Greenpeace was banned from doing this without explanation. Perhaps some people still oppose GMOs, but not on behalf of Greenpeace, but on their own behalf. Therefore, the letter of the Nobel laureates in relation to "Greenpeace" is not at all "in the box office."

"Golden rice", about which the Nobel laureates wrote, caused outrage among ecologists, specialists and public figures that it was tested on young children aged 6 to 10 years without preliminary testing on animals. In addition, this rice has caused a deterioration in the health of children. Most likely, the purpose of this letter was to convince the Russian government that GMOs are safe, and the bill to ban GMOs should be abandoned. This is despite the fact that almost all European countries have abandoned GMOs, and the United States is actively promoting "organic food", non-GMO environmentally friendly products. There are three reasons for signing this letter by Nobel laureates, each of them dealing with a very narrow topic, not related to GMOs: 1. They were misled. 2. They were pressured. 3. They have something to do with Monsanto.

I will cite the commentary of one professor, a genetic engineer: “… Of these 107 laureates, half do not understand anything about the effects of GMOs on animals and humans, since they were engaged in completely different, narrow problems, and half are kept by Monsanto. In addition, the overwhelming majority of these laureates are Americans. Again Monsanto mobilized its heavy artillery, so nothing is clear either here or in Europe. And what efficiency!"

There are a lot of scientists in Russia who hold the same position as me.

Try not to buy food or seeds imported from GMO producing countries

What other discoveries await us in the field of genetic engineering that cause your concern?

- Almost all experiments in the field of genetic engineering - both on the creation of GM plants, as well as GM animals or GM humans - cause me concern. I believe that such research should be prohibited or strictly controlled.

Please give your advice to ordinary consumers: how to protect themselves from the harm of GMOs? How to protest, what can be done?

- In order to help yourself, you need to adhere to a few simple rules. To do this, you must try not to buy products or seeds brought from GMO-producing countries, carefully study the composition of any product. The second rule concerns the principles of food intake. The tips are simple and familiar to everyone: eat a little, chewing food thoroughly. If your body “does not accept” any product, then it is better to refuse it. The third rule is related to the diet: eat either strictly according to the clock, or only when you have a strong feeling of hunger. The fourth rule: to help your body cope with transgenes, you need to arrange fasting or hungry days. The fifth rule: to track information about GMOs, to help identify those companies that widely use them in food products, violating the law on the prohibition of GMOs adopted in 2016 in Russia, to require the introduction of mandatory labeling of their presence in products approved for sale. I would also recommend purchasing a personal device for the determination of GMOs in food.

The topic of GMO also allows us to talk about scientific ethics. What is the state of affairs in Russian and world science from this point of view? Are there many such scientists who think about what harm their development will bring?

- The fact that some scientists support dangerous and poorly tested GMOs speaks of their irresponsibility.

Society is the ultimate bearer of ethics: people decide whether or not to buy GMO products. But at the same time, their choice is influenced by the mass media, education, etc. What public opinion is being created today about GMOs and other newest products of genetic engineering?

- Today, an extremely negative opinion about the products of genetic engineering is being created in society, and this is correct, since there have been many cases of unsuccessful treatment with the help of genetic engineering. The use of gene therapy methods in the treatment of severe hereditary diseases can lead to the development of leukemia in a significant proportion of patients. These are the conclusions reached by the authors of the study, the report of which was published in the most prestigious biological journal Nature. Thus, an attempt in France to use gene therapy in the treatment of children with congenital combined immunodeficiency (X-SCID) led to the development of leukemia in children. One child subsequently died. And many other cases, usually fatal. According to a social survey, over 80% of people are against GMOs.

What other topics concern you in modern science?

- Unfortunately, I am worried about a lot. Lack of control, ill-considered actions, unjustified haste, lack of checks, misunderstanding, a ban on important research. Sometimes it even seems that there is a targeted sabotage. For example, the use of bacteria and carbon nanotubes to destroy the oil film on the surface of the seas and oceans has led to the death of marine animals and people on the coast from the destruction of internal organs. But they were warned about it. And even the book Gray Goo ("Gray goo") was written and a film of the same name was released about the possible consequences of the use of self-replicating carbon nanotubes, etc.

Or the lack of research on the consequences of collider launches (obtaining antimatter, studying the creation of the Universe, etc.), on which a lot of money was spent. At the same time, there are data from European ecologists and doctors who drew attention to abnormal weather (showers or snowfalls, river floods), poor health of people, strong anxiety of animals after launching colliders.

And recently the Russian Academy of Sciences issued a statement declaring homeopathy a pseudoscience because, as it turned out, they simply do not know what homeopathy is and, naturally, did not understand the mechanisms of action of homeopathic remedies, although everything is quite transparent there. And the point is not at all in small doses, as they claim. Many people have been cured with the help of homeopathy. Homeopathy is more than 200 years old and in many countries exists on a par with allopathy (traditional medicine). I personally participated in the testing of homeopathic remedies and witnessed how people were completely cured of chronic diseases with the help of homeopathy without any negative consequences.

What are you working on now?

- I consider projects to create artificial meat from stem cells, which should be of high quality and cheap, as interesting. I am also interested in a personal device for the determination of GMOs, which is already available abroad and the development of which has begun in Russia. There is also a project to develop a battery of tests to identify harmful chemicals and GMOs in food. I would like the leadership of our country to provide assistance and support to new projects.