Listen to the Podcast:
Watch the Podcast:
In this episode, Jeffrey discusses the new patents being considered for Gene Drives. One of the recent Gene Drives involved GM Mosquitos being released in Brazil to combat the spread of malaria. Oxitec, the developers of the GM mosquitos have consistently lied to the public about the science and about the dangerous permanent effects the mosquitos will have on existing populations. You can learn more about GM mosquitos here: https://stopgmm.com/
The Institute for Responsible Technology is working to protect you & the World from GMOs (and while we’re at it, Roundup®...) To find out exactly how we do this and to subscribe to our newsletter visit https://www.responsibletechnology.org/
Join us at Protect Nature Now to Safeguarding Biological Evolution from GMOs 2.0. The place to get critical up to date information, watch our short film and most importantly, learn easy ways for you to take action against this existential threat. Visit: https://protectnaturenow.com/
Sign the Petition https://protectnaturenow.com/signthepetition/
Notes for this week's Podcast
This week's Transcript
Speaker 1: (00:08)
There are looking at different ways of using gene drives in the military conservation health and agriculture.
Speaker 1: (00:19)
There's a, the one that you'll hear about not the department of defense, the one that you hear about is the, it, it sounds very altruistic. And maybe the people that thought of it are well-meaning without a deep understanding of what could go wrong, they want to kill off the mosquito that carries malaria. Now a I can tell you that in a non dream gene drive situation, a company from the UK called OxyTech brought up genetically engineered mosquitoes to reduce the population of the ADA Gyi that carries Zika and dengue. And I testified against them in the south Florida, miss mosquito control, uh, district. And I remember talking to the OxyTech scientist years ago, and I tried to explain to him that they were making changes that can be inheritable and a permanent part of the gene pool. Now he had testified that only 3% of the offspring and when there's presence of tetracycline, for some reasons, then it's up to 18%, but he was absolutely convinced and promised me up and down that there was no way that a release of his mosquitoes could change the nature of nature.
Speaker 1: (01:41)
As soon as they stopped releasing, they would die off. So they released millions of them in Brazil. And about three years later, they started testing the mosquitoes and sure enough, in 60% of the samplings, they found changes in the genome of the mosquito. So it was a combination of the local mosquitoes and the two types of genes brought in from these OxyTech mosquitoes. Now, the author said, clearly, we don't know what this means. It might mean that these mosquitoes are harder to kill. It might mean that they carry more disease or less disease. We don't know, but it was not anticipated. And it's now permanent. I'm sorry to say that OxyTech is, is now planning to release genetically engineered mosquitoes in the Florida keys. I believe next week, it's a disaster. And as I remember talking to Derek Nemo, who is the scientist from OxyTech?
Speaker 1: (02:46)
I said, Derek, the mosquitoes saliva gets into our blood. Have you tested this? The mosquito saliva to see if it's dangerous. He said, we're just now doing the test to see if the protein that's produced by the inserted. Gene ends up in the saliva of the mosquito. Now, if you're paying attention, there's two things that are shocking. Well, you didn't know the timing of this. So the first thing is they've already released millions of mosquitoes in four countries, and they've never checked. They never looked at the saliva of their genetically engineered mosquito to see if it could be allergenic or toxic or carcinogenic to the people who get bitten by the mosquitoes. So, first of all, it was incredibly irresponsible. Second. It was bad at science. Cause I said to him, you know, Derek, the process of genetic engineering creates massive collateral damage. And the insertion of a single gene can change the gene expression of many, many other genes.
Speaker 1: (03:58)
So in a human cell, this was a cystic fibro study. They put in a single gene and as many as 5% of the other human genes changed how much protein they were producing. When you change the amount of protein, you can increase an allergen or a toxin or an anti nutrient or carcinogen, you can decrease something that's important. I said, shouldn't you be checking the entire saliva of the mosquito and not just the presence of a single protein and I'll never forget his answer. He said, good idea. So these are the people that are in charge of the gene pool, the people who are experimenting on us and realize, oh, it was probably a good idea if we do a little bit of safety evaluation. So I can't imagine what they're thinking about in terms of target malaria. I saw a presentation at the center, the convention of biological diversity of these folks, and they sidestep all possible things that can go wrong.
Speaker 1: (04:59)
The possibility that that first of all, there could be an ecosystem down collapse. If you take out an entire species, but the genes could transfer, you could be transferring something that you don't know. You can actually increase the, like the likelihood of those mosquitoes causing problems, because we do not have a deep understanding of what our changes will do. And we do not have a technology to do just what we wanna do, but many other things happen at the same time. Also at that meeting, a group was talking about trying to use genetic engineering. Gene drives to kill off mice on islands. Now, altruistic, this is conservation, right? Let's the, the mice came on ships and got into the ecosystem, are eating the birds of the baby birds or their eggs. And they're destroying the ecosystem. So let's destroy all the mice, what could go wrong? Well, how did those mice get there in the first place, on the holes of ships? So what happens if those mice end up on a mainland, sending their gene drive and destroying the mouse population there all over the world, or what happens if the gene transfers to something else? I said earlier that this year they discovered gene transfer between plants and animals that could give you goosebumps. If you think about gene drives right now, they're trying to destroy. They're proposing that they use gene drives to kill off a fruit fly.
Speaker 1: (06:45)
And there's some major players you've seen bear Monsanto and others. Agen wants to alter plants and insects. Agen is advertising, be friendly, organic ecosystem, sustainable, a smart choice for affordable Biocon control, change the nature of nature. And trust us, there's a company there's a patent actually to make crops that have become resistant to Roundup to then become susceptible again. And they have a way that the gene drives could then make them susceptible and not resistant to 167 chemicals. So here they wanna use gene drives to make chemical herbicides more effective. This is insanity. They will wanna use a gene drive to disarm a deadly wheat pathogen. They talk talking about changing the nature of nature with livestock so that it has the qualities that those who process the livestock for food will benefit from. So if anyone is into animal rights, pay attention here in Beijing, there were, there were scientists that wanted to use CRISPR. They proposed it purport proposed to disrupt the odor sensing genes and grasshoppers that are responsible for locust swarming behavior. And that a gene drive could spread it throughout the grasshopper population.
Speaker 1: (08:37)
There's an even a bizarre patent to use a gene drive for honeybees, and then equip them with ways to control them with sound. If you look at all the different things that have been proposed, they can change the nature of nature of an entire farm. All these different gene drives putting together a new genetic pool, a new ecosystem designed by companies that want to sell herbicides that want to process livestock trick. There's been an outcry from some major voices saying there should not be gene drives in conservation, meaning don't use it to kill off the mice. Don't use it to kill off, um, to, to try and re sculpture the ecosystem. There was a, our organization was one of 150 calling for a global moratorium.
Speaker 1: (09:49)
And although the UN did not, the convention of biological diversity did not. As we had hoped ban gene drives, they now require notifi proper informing. So it's still there's still work to do so. It turns out that gene editing can create gene drives. So imagine for a moment or not that you can, when you pay for that $2,000 home laboratory, that you can also build gene drives and change the nature of nature all over the world on purpose. So this is a, another example of a GMO 2.0 technology. And if we run outta questions, Ben, I can talk about another, I don't have this, the slide, but we could talk about RNA interference. We could talk about hagas. We could talk about other things, but you get the sense of what we're doing. Now. Years ago, I sat in a, uh, a restaurant with a friend of mine, trying to think of all the way, all the ways we could redefine GMO. And I coined the term, God, move over. And now we see, see how appropriate that is. Thank you for listening to live healthy. Be well, please subscribe to the podcast, using whatever app you're listening to podcasts with, or go to live healthy, be well.com to subscribe this podcast. Ask will inform you about health dangers, corporate and government corruption and ways we can protect ourselves, our families and our planet. I interview scientists, experts, authors, whistle blowers, and many people who have not shared their information with the world until now, please share the podcast with your friends. It will enlighten and may even save lives day.