[permaculture] Svar: Re: Genetic Glass Ceiling

fdnokes at hotmail.com fdnokes at hotmail.com
Wed Dec 2 23:51:20 EST 2009

I liked your point about the commonsense reasons to discard gmo's; but I 
found your reasons for discarding Morgellons didn't entirely add up.
So, I consulted Thierry once more, and here is his reply:

If Mae Wan Ho and Joe Cummins don't cut it - understandably their article is 
sensational and not written for specialists, Thomas will want to check out 
Vitaly Citovsky from SUNY in PNAS, 2001, 98, 1871-87.   Citovsky also posted 
in January 07 results of a small experiment that needs to be repeated -  he 

"Because Agrobacterium, is capable of genetically transforming human cells, 
we investigated the presence of Agrobacterium in biopsies from Morgellons 
patients.   Only Morgellons patients, but not healthy subjects, tested 
positive for Agrobacterium DNA.  This is the first plant infecting bacterium 
to play a role in human disease."

The fibers were analyzed by Infrared Spectroscopy  and identified as 
cellulose.  Agrobacterium, is known to produce cellulose fibers at infection 
sites within plant tissues.

This disease has appeared in the last 10 years and there are now many 
thousands of people in California, Florida and Texas, and many other places, 
who claim to have fibers painfully stick out of their skin. The human body 
does not make cellulose, but human cells transformed by Agrobacterium 
tumefasciens do.  Agrobacterium has coexisted with humans for eons, yet 
there is no previous record of infection.

A product that is that much detrimental to health should not be allowed on 
the market.  In the movie "The Corporation", the personality diagnostic 
checklist of the WHO Manual of Mental Disorders rates the corporation's 
personality with antisocial personality disorder, i.e. a sociopath.


From: "Thomas Paul Jahn" <tpj at life.ku.dk>
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:40 PM
To: <permaculture at lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: [permaculture] Svar: Re:  Genetic Glass Ceiling

> Sorry guys and girls, but this Morgellons thing seems rather ridiculous to 
> me.
> First of all, it is still disputed what the "thing" (disease) is. Secondly 
> the two links from “Global Research” really disqualify themselves. In the 
> first link, Agrobacterium is a introduced as a "substance". Obviously, the 
> author had not the faintest idea, what he/she was talking about. Then in 
> the second link, finally, the author was smart enough to do some research 
> to find out, that the “substance” actually is a bacterium that is commonly 
> used to transfer DNA (T-DNA) into plants for genetic engineering. But then 
> all other information is a wild, incoherent mix. There is no proof 
> provided whatsoever. And as a specialist in the field I have to confess 
> that in my wildest dreams, I cannot see any possible connection between 
> GMO and Morgellons disease.
> But I know that Agrobacterium is ubiquitously present in our surroundings. 
> And PCR, rather than being a highly “stringent” method (sounds very 
> powerful, here we trust the science) is a very sensitive method that can 
> pick up a single copy of a gene, meaning from traces of Agrobacterium. 
> Just to give you an example, during the human DNA sequencing program, 
> people were horrified by the risk to catch DNA from laboratory assistants 
> into their test tubes. PCR would have amplified it just as happily as Lucy’s 
> DNA and the entire project would have become a mess. (Maybe it did J)
> The sad thing here is, when opponents of GMO technology descend to this 
> type of uninformative campaign. I have just recently taken part in a 
> scientific meeting about GMOs and I was probably the only opponent to GMO 
> technology at the meeting. What I understood quite clearly is, with this 
> type of campaigns we disqualify ourselves.
> In my eyes, the worst thing about GMO is that it is a business and 
> intellectual property thing. Money is ruling it. And I believe that we 
> would do much better as opponents if we pointed towards this real threat, 
> instead of distributing unqualified reports that do not last.
> The main problem with GMO is that it is done, although not needed. Only 
> for profit. That simple it is.
> Thomas
>>>> "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <venaurafarm at bellsouth.net> 02-12-09 20:25 
>>>>  >>>
> fdnokes at hotmail.com wrote:
>> Why are so few people aware of this issue?
>> Why aren't people gathering around the globe to express their discontent?
> I was thinking the same thing. A reason might be that most people's
> silence has been bought and paid for or they are too brainwashed to
> wake up and speak for themselves.
> The Morgellons thing ought to be enough to make the gmo researchers
> themselves recoil in horror. That alone could be a rallying call to 
> action.
> For me, I will begin identifying all foods I buy that could contain
> gmo's and eliminate them from my groceries. Needless to say I will only
> eat at home or at local restaurants using local ingredients and non gmo
> products.
> Tripp Tibbetts wrote:
> > Sshhh!
> >
> > Be quiet, Frances.  Survivor is coming back on...
> >
> > (in the background) this message brought to you by, Cargill -
> > Nourishing Ideas.  Nourishing People.
> Nourishing theirs and their stockholders pocketbooks. They'd fee us
> flavored sawdust if they thought we would eat it. Look at the meat
> industry, largely unregulated, and what is fed to the animals to make
> the burgers.
> Even soy (gmo of course) has big problems in conventional food industry.
> Traditional Asian soy, prepared the way it is in Korea, Japan and
> elsewhere in that part of the world is OK for you. Here is a source 
> article:
> http://boingboing.net/2009/11/20/taste-test-natto.html
> <...>
> "Here's what we know about soy: unprocessed, it's a great source of
> digestible protein and has tons of vitamin B, calcium, and folate — all
> things that are good for you. It also contains isoflavones, and here's
> where things get tricky. Some studies prove that isoflavones are
> beneficial, while others have shown that it promotes breast and prostate
> cancer. Soy has also been called out as an agent of brain cell aging and
> thyroid dysfunction, too."
> <...>
> "The bottom line, at least for now, seems to be that good soy prevent
> cancer and bad soy might promote cancer. Good soy = tofu, soy sauce,
> miso, natto, edamame. Bad soy = soy protein powder, energy bars made
> with soy, fake hot dogs, tofurky."
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe or unsubscribe here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> Google command to search archives:
> site:http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture searchstring
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe or unsubscribe here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> Google command to search archives:
> site:http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture searchstring

More information about the permaculture mailing list