Health Risks of GMOs Have Been Systematically Misrepresented

Health Risks of GMOs Have Been Systematically Misrepresented by UK's Royal Society


Excerpt: "For more than twenty years, many eminent scientists and scientific institutions have routinely claimed that genetically modified foods are safe. And because of the perceived authority of their pronouncements, most government officials and members of the media have believed them. But when the arguments these scientists employ to support their claims are subjected to scrutiny, it becomes clear that important facts have invariably been misrepresented — either deliberately or through substantial negligence. And when these facts are fairly considered, the arguments collapse.

A prime example of a purportedly scientific — but in reality, inaccurate — publication on GM foods was issued by the UK’s Royal Society in May 2016. Titled “GMO Plants: Questions and Answers,” it claims to provide “unbiased” and “reliable” answers to peoples’ most pressing questions. However, analysis reveals that it not only displays a strong pro-GMO bias, but that several of its assertions are demonstrably false. The following paragraphs examine these defects and reveal the surprising extent to which that document, as well as previous publications of the Society about GM foods, conflict with the truth.

This analysis has major implications, because if the world’s oldest and most respected scientific institution cannot argue for the safety of GM foods without systematically distorting the facts, it indicates that such distortion is essential to the argument.

Obfuscating the unnatural nature of the GM process and ignoring its unsettling features

The document’s bias is evident from the outset, and the authors fail to furnish a forthright answer to the initial question: “What is genetic modification (GM) of crops and how is it done?”. Instead, their response is significantly misleading because it omits the most unnatural and unsettling features while downplaying the unnaturalness of those that are mentioned.

Failing to note the randomness and disruptiveness of the insertion process

In one of the biggest obfuscations, the authors avoid mentioning that biotechnicians have been inserting foreign DNA into plant genomes in a haphazard manner — and that the insertions not only disrupt the region of DNA into which they wedge but cause disruptions throughout the DNA strand, a well-documented phenomenon that some scientists call “genome scrambling.”

Concealing the need to artificially induce gene expression

The authors are equally evasive regarding how the foreign genes are induced to actually function, and they fail to disclose a crucial fact: that inserting a new gene does not in itself endow the plant with the desired new trait. That’s because it’s essential to convert the information encoded within the gene into a protein or other molecule, and in almost every case, that won’t happen without artificial alteration of the inserted genetic material.

Here’s why.

The default condition of most genes is to be inactive and blocked from expressing — which conserves the organism’s energy and prevents proteins from being produced when and where they’re not needed. A gene transitions from its closed-down default mode to its active mode through the operation of a regulatory element called a promoter, a segment of DNA adjoined to the gene that serves as its on/off switch. This switch is finely responsive to specific biochemical signals so that the gene expresses in harmony with the organism’s needs. Consequently, when a gene is taken from one species and transferred to an unrelated one, the promoter will rarely (if ever) receive signals to which it’s sensitive, and the gene will remain inactive. Hence, before making such transfers, biotechnicians must remove the native promoter and replace it with one that will reliably function in the foreign milieu. Moreover, to deliver the desired results, the promoter must in most cases not only induce the gene to express, but to boost its expression (and consequent protein production) to an extraordinary level.
For virtually every GM crop on the market, the potent promoter that’s been used to achieve such unusual results comes from a plant virus. Not only does it impel the inserted genes to produce proteins at an abnormally elevated level, it drives the production continuously, regardless of the organism’s needs and completely outside the intricate regulatory system through which its other genes are controlled. This can create serious problems by inducing metabolic imbalances or upsetting complex biochemical feedback loops.

Therefore, given the crucial role played by viral promoters, and the degree to which their employment is unnatural, it’s reasonable to expect that any purportedly balanced account of the GM process would mention them — and to deplore the Society’s failure to do so.

Obscuring the disruptiveness of the process that transforms modified cells into whole plants

The Royal Society authors are likewise elusive in explaining how an isolated plant cell that has incorporated new genes is subsequently turned into a mature plant. They say this is possible “because individual plant cells have an impressive capacity to generate entire plants,” but they neglect to disclose that this capacity can only be actualized through a distinctly artificial process — in contrast to natural seeds, which grow into plants spontaneously. That artificial process is called tissue culture, and although the authors note that it’s employed, they say nothing more about it — which obscures the fact that through its procedures, the cell is “forced to undergo abnormal developmental changes.” The authors also becloud the fact that besides being highly unnatural, tissue culture is highly disruptive and imparts what’s referred to as a “genomic shock” that causes numerous mutations throughout the plant’s DNA.

Thus, the authors’ systematic avoidance of disquieting facts causes their account of the GM process to be significantly distorted — which, as will be seen, leads to the distortion of other key parts of their presentation as well.

Denying the significant differences between GM crops and those bred conventionally

Because the authors acknowledge only the most obvious differences between GM and conventional breeding, while ignoring the lesser-known but more important ones, they’re emboldened to claim that GM is no more likely to entail “unforeseen effects.” But this is flat-out false, and experts who have taken the key differences into account have decisively reached the opposite conclusion. For instance, a major report by the Royal Society of Canada concluded that GM is far more likely to induce unforeseen effects, and a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has acknowledged this greater likelihood too.

Misrepresenting Reality

The authors attempt to support their spurious claim by arguing that “all” plant genomes “frequently” receive insertions of new DNA through viral and bacterial infections and through the activity of ‘jumping genes’, that these insertions are “similar” to those made via GM, and that conventional breeding is therefore just as likely to have unforeseen consequences.

These assertions are false.

Whereas the genes that are inserted into plant cells via GM technology are always integrated into the entire genome of the resultant plant, genes from viruses and bacteria rarely enter plant genomes. Although viruses frequently infect plant cells, they seldom insert their genes into the DNA of the gametes (the sex cells), a necessary step for transferring to the plant’s progeny and becoming established in the genome. Consequently, the few viral DNA sequences that are present within plant genomes have been there for an extremely long time — and during that time, the plants’ defense mechanisms have inactivated them.

Further, scientists know of only two bacterial species that can insert their genes into the DNA of plants, and those genes are hardly ever incorporated into an entire genome. There are only three plant species in which such integrations have been observed, and just one is a food crop (sweet potato). Moreover, the bacterial genes in the potatoes have no discernible effect, are being transcribed at low levels, and either may not be producing any proteins at all or are producing very little.

In contrast, the new genes that are added to a plant’s genome via GM not only produce proteins, they hyper-produce them, which could cause hazardous imbalances. As previously noted, this hyper-production is driven by a powerful viral promoter. While none of the active genes within conventionally bred crops are associated with that promoter, it’s affixed to one or more active genes within the genome of virtually every commercialized GM crop.

So not only are insertions of bacterial and viral DNA into plant genomes exceptionally rare, and not only are they dissimilarfrom the insertions wrought by GM, it is through the GM process alone that new viral DNA has recently and widely entered plant genomes — and this incursion has introduced new risks.

The actual facts about ‘jumping genes’ are likewise at odds with the authors’ claims. In reality, those segments of DNA, technically termed ‘transposons’, rarely mobilize in the absence of extraordinary stress; so most of their current locations have been stable since an ancient era. In fact, a GM plant is much more likely to harbor new transposon-induced perturbations than its parent because the GM process tends to activate transposons and get them jumping. Conversely, pollen-based breeding rarely causes transposons to move

Reaching a patently false conclusion

Thus, not only do the authors of the Society’s guide fail to acknowledge the abundant evidence that demonstrates the disruptive effects of the GM process, they significantly misrepresent important biological realities that they do discuss. Only in this way can they conclude that GM is no more likely to entail unforeseen consequences than is conventional breeding.

In glaring contrast, the expert panel that produced the report of the Royal Society of Canada, who took account of the facts the guide’s authors ignored or distorted, concluded that while pollen-based breeding rarely involves worrisome unintended outcomes, the “default prediction” for every GM crop should be that it entails unintended effects that are hard to predict, could be difficult to detect, and might be harmful to human health.

Which leads to the question of whether GM crops are safe, another issue that the authors of the guide have seriously mishandled.

Declaring the safety of GM crops by dishonoring the standards of science

“Is it safe to eat GM crops?” Of all the questions the guide addresses, this is the most crucial. And it answers with a resounding “Yes.”

But this simple answer is simply unjustified.

For one thing, the unequivocal declaration that all GM crops are safe flies in the face of the World Health Organization’s assertion that “it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.” As the WHO noted, because “different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways” it’s necessary to assess them “on a case-by-case basis.” Even the Royal Society’s president emphasized the need for a case-by-case assessment in comments he released in conjunction with the guide’s publication.

Unjustifiably dismissing all the research that has detected harm
So how do the authors attempt to support their all-inclusive claim? They declare: “All reliable evidence produced to date shows that currently available GM food is at least as safe to eat as nonGM food.” And they assert “there has been no evidence of ill effects linked to the consumption of any approved GM crop.”

But there has indeed been such evidence, and many studies published in peer-reviewed journals have detected ill effects to the animals that consumed a GM crop. For instance, a systematic review of the toxicological studies on GM foods that was published in 2009 concluded that the results of “most” of them indicate that the products “may cause hepatic, pancreatic, renal, and reproductive effects and may alter hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters the significance of which remains unknown.” It also noted that further studies were clearly needed.  that encompassed the additional studies that had been published up until August 2010 also provided cause for caution. It concluded that there was an “equilibrium” between the research groups “suggesting” that GM crops are as safe as their non-GM counterparts and “those raising still serious concerns.”

My comment: Seems that Royal Society is just maintaining the big heresy of evolution. GM organisms disrupt designed mechanisms and that's why they are not safe.


Rapid human genetic degradation

Millions Of Novel Genetic Variants Found In 1000 Swedish Individuals


Excerpt: "An extensive exercise to map genetic variation in Sweden has found 33 million genetic variants, 10 million of which are novel. Large-scale DNA sequencing methods were used to analyse the whole genome of 1000 individuals from different parts of the country. The study was led by researchers at Uppsala University, who have published their findings in the European Journal of Human Genetics.

"This resource will benefit many national research projects investigating the association between genetic variants and diseases," says Professor Ulf Gyllensten, Uppsala University and SciLifeLab, who has led the project.
The data will also be of immediate use in clinical diagnostics to determine whether a genetic variation in a patient is a cause of disease, or if it is also present among healthy individuals in the population.

"Our study shows the presence of millions of previously unidentified genetic variants in Sweden, the majority of which occur at low frequency in the population. It is crucial to identify these low frequency variants to facilitate the diagnosis of genetic diseases," says Adam Ameur, bioinformatician at Uppsala University and SciLifeLab, who has been responsible for the data analyses."

My comment: The number of disease-causing mutations in the human genome at population level just arose to 208,368. An annual increase was about 20,000 new disease-causing mutations. Can you see the association between these novel genetic variations and disease-causing genetic mutations? It's obvious.

Most of these genetic variants are critical. They result in faulty genes, truncated proteins and loss of biological information. Evolution is not happening. Genetic degradation occurs so rapidly within all kind of organisms that it's ridiculous to talk about millions of years of evolution. Don't get misled.


Distinct diets explain differences between Darwin's finches

Distinct diets result in differences in methylation patterns


Excerpt: "Epigenetics may explain how Darwin's finches respond to rapid environmental changes, according to new research published in the open access journal BMC Evolutionary Biology.

By studying rural and urban populations of two species of Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands, researchers were able to show that while there was very little genetic variation, there were substantial epigenetic differences that could be related to environmental differences resulting from urbanization.

Sabrina McNew, PhD student at the University of Utah and lead author of the study said: "Urbanization of the Galapagos has happened relatively recently, so this is a good opportunity to study how animals respond to rapid environmental change."
Dr Michael Skinner, senior author from Washington State University, said: "In the finches that we studied, epigenetic alterations between the populations were dramatic, but minimal genetic changes where observed. We believe that the epigenetic differences may be a heritable component that might explain the rapid adaptation of Darwin's finches to an urban environment. These species of finch have distinct diets which could explain the differences in methylation patterns as diet is known to influence epigenetics. This is a novel mechanism which is not seriously considered in evolutionary biology at this time".

Epigenetics, particularly a chemical modification to DNA known as methylation, has emerged as a heritable component linked to differences between members of a population and might play a role in the molecular basis of evolutionary change. DNA methylation can be induced by the environment and can impact gene expression, leading to changes in physical traits such as size.

Sabrina McNew explained: "We can't say for sure how these methylation differences affect the morphology or physiology of the finches; however, it's exciting to document epigenetic variation on a population-level. This project is a first step in understanding if epigenetic changes are involved in adaptation to changing environments."

In this study, the authors captured over 1,000 birds of two species of Darwin's finch, the medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis) and the small ground finch (G. fuliginosa), from a rural and an urban site located 10km apart on the Galapagos Islands. Morphological study of the birds revealed that G. fortis from the urban environment were larger in all measured traits than their rural counterparts. There were no size differences recorded between the urban and rural G. fuliginosa, which could be due to the fact that the two species have different diets and because G. fuliginosa are less variable in size than G fortis, according to the researchers.

Genetic analysis of the birds revealed very little differences in genetic make-up between the rural and urban populations of both species. Analysis of DNA methylation patterns revealed significant differences between urban and rural populations for both species."

My comment: Diet type is the most significant factor causing alterations to methylation patterns and other epigenetic regulatory mechanisms. Changes in organisms are based on designed mechanisms, not random mutations or selection. Changes in organisms might happen very rapidly due to heritable epigenetic modifications. Sequence changes are not the reason for ecological adaptation. They are results of altering methylation patterns and mostly they are just genetic errors. This is why large scale evolution has no mechanisms. Alterations in methylation patterns result in loss of genetic information. That's the cost of adaptation. Life is not driven by gene sequences. Genes are driven by life(style). That's why Creation and Design. Don't get lost.


Intergenerational inheritance of epigenetic information

Intergenerational inheritance of epigenetic information - why we can observe changes in organisms


  • Epigenetic mechanisms modulated by environmental cues such as diet, disease or our lifestyle take a major role in regulating the DNA by switching genes on and off, and activating/silencing regions of the DNA.
  • Mother's epigenetic memory is essential for the development and survival of the new generation.
  • Epigenetic modifications label specific regions of the DNA to attract or keep away proteins (transcription factors) that activate genes.
  • Epigenetic marks can also change throughout our life and in response to our environment or lifestyle.
  • Inherited epigenetic information is needed to process and correctly transcribe the genetic code of the embryo.
  • Epigenetic marks transmitted from the mother are a fine-tuned mechanism to control gene activation during the complex process of early embryogenesis.
  • Disruption of epigenetic mechanisms may cause diseases such as cancer, diabetes and autoimmune disorders.
Excerpt: "We are more than the sum of our genes. Epigenetic mechanisms modulated by environmental cues such as diet, disease or our lifestyle take a major role in regulating the DNA by switching genes on and off. It has been long debated if epigenetic modifications accumulated throughout the entire life can cross the border of generations and be inherited to children or even grand children. Now researchers from the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics in Freiburg show robust evidence that not only the inherited DNA itself but also the inherited epigenetic instructions contribute in regulating gene expression in the offspring. Moreover, the new insights by the Lab of Nicola Iovino describe for the first time biological consequences of this inherited information. The study proves that mother's epigenetic memory is essential for the development and survival of the new generation.
In our body we find more than 250 different cell types. They all contain the exact same DNA bases in exactly the same order; however, liver or nerve cells look very different and have different skills. What makes the difference is a process called epigenetics. Epigenetic modifications label specific regions of the DNA to attract or keep away proteins that activate genes. Thus, these modifications create, step by step, the typical patterns of active and inactive DNA sequences for each cell type. Moreover, contrary to the fixed sequence of 'letters' in our DNA, epigenetic marks can also change throughout our life and in response to our environment or lifestyle. For example, smoking changes the epigenetic makeup of lung cells, eventually leading to cancer. Other influences of external stimuli like stress, disease or diet are also supposed to be stored in the epigenetic memory of cells.

It has long been thought that these epigenetic modifications never cross the border of generations. Scientists assumed that epigenetic memory accumulated throughout life is entirely cleared during the development of sperms and egg cells. Just recently a handful of studies stirred the scientific community by showing that epigenetic marks indeed can be transmitted over generations, but exactly how, and what effects these genetic modifications have in the offspring is not yet understood. "We saw indications of intergenerational inheritance of epigenetic information since the rise of the epigenetics in the early nineties. For instance, epidemiological studies revealed a striking correlation between the food supply of grandfathers and an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease in their grandchildren. Since then, various reports suggested epigenetic inheritance in different organisms but the molecular mechanisms were unknown", says Nicola Iovino, corresponding author in the new study.

Epigenetics between the generations

He and his team at the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics in Freiburg, Germany used fruit flies to explore how epigenetic modifications are transmitted from the mother to the embryo. The team focused on a particular modification called H3K27me3 that can also be found in humans. It alters the so-called chromatin, the packaging of the DNA in the cell nucleus, and is mainly associated with repressing gene expression.

The Max Planck researchers found that H3K27me3 modifications labeling chromatin DNA in the mother's egg cells were still present in the embryo after fertilization, even though other epigenetic marks are erased. "This indicates that the mother passes on her epigenetic marks to her offspring. But we were also interested, if those marks are doing something important in the embryo", explains Fides Zenk, first author of the study.

Inherited epigenetic marks are important for embryogenesis

Therefore the researchers used a variety of genetic tools in fruit flies to remove the enzyme that places H3K27me3 marks and discovered that embryos lacking H3K27me3 during early development could not develop to the end of embryogenesis. "It turned out that, in reproduction, epigenetic information is not only inherited from one generation to another but also important for the development of the embryo itself", says Nicola Iovino.

When they had a closer look into the embryos, the team found that several important developmental genes that are normally switched off during early embryogenesis were turned on in embryos without H3K27me3. "We assumed that activating those genes too soon during development disrupted embryogenesis and eventually caused the death of the embryo. It seems, virtually, that inherited epigenetic information is needed to process and correctly transcribe the genetic code of the embryo", explains Fides Zenk.

Implications for the theory of heredity and human health

With these results the study by the Max Planck researchers is an important step forward and shows clearly the biological consequences of inherited epigenetic information. Not only by providing evidence that epigenetic modifications in flies can be transmitted down through generations, but moreover by revealing that epigenetic marks transmitted from the mother are a fine-tuned mechanism to control gene activation during the complex process of early embryogenesis.

The international team in Freiburg is convinced that their findings have far-reaching implications. "Our study indicates that we inherit more than just genes from our parents. It seems to be that we also get a fine-tuned as well as important gene regulation machinery that can be influenced by our environment and individual lifestyle. These insights can provide new ground for the observation that at least in some cases acquired environmental adaptations can be passed over the germ line to our offspring", explains Nicola Iovino. Further, since the disruption of epigenetic mechanisms may cause diseases such as cancer, diabetes and autoimmune disorders, these new findings could have implications for human health."

My comment: All change in organisms is based on epigenetic regulation of existing biological information OR loss of it. Random mutations and selection have no role in biodiversity. We can observe several fine tuned mechanisms that point to Intelligent Creator. The theory of evolution is a major heresy. Don't get misled.


Different DNA structures exquisitely fine tune the activity and expression of genes

Complex biological structures are able to perform the myriad intricate and elaborate functions of the human body


Excerpt: "How can six and half feet of DNA be folded into the tiny nucleus of a cell? Researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health have developed a new imaging method that visualizes a very different DNA structure, featuring small folds of DNA in close proximity. The study reveals that the DNA-protein structure, known as chromatin, is a much more diverse and flexible chain than previously thought. This provides exciting new insights into how chromatin directs a nimbler interaction between different genes to regulate gene expression, and provides a mechanism for chemical modifications of DNA to be maintained as cells divide. The results will be featured in the July 28 issue of Science.

For decades, experiments suggested a hierarchical folding model in which DNA segments spooled around 11 nanometer-sized protein particles, assembled into rigid fibers that folded into larger and larger loops to form chromosomes. However, that model was based on structures of chromatin in vitro after harsh chemical extraction of cellular components.
Now, researchers at the Salk Institute, La Jolla, California, funded by the NIH Common Fund, have developed an electron microscopytechnique called ChromEMT that enables the 3D structure and packing of DNA to be visualized inside the cell nucleus of intact cells. Contrary to the longstanding text book models, DNA forms flexible chromatin chains that have fluctuating diameters between five and 24 nanometers that collapse and pack together in a wide range of configurations and concentrations.

The newly observed and diverse array of structures provides for a more flexible human genome that can bend at varying lengths and rapidly collapse into chromosomes at cell division. It explains how variations in DNA sequences and interactions could result in different structures that exquisitely fine tune the activity and expression of genes.

“This is groundbreaking work that will change the genetics and biochemistry textbooks,” remarks Roderic I. Pettigrew, Ph.D., M.D., director of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), which administered the grant. “It’s an outstanding example of how constantly improving imaging techniques continue to show the true structure of everything from neuronal connections in the brain to the correct visualization of gene expression in the cell. It reveals how these complex biological structures are able to perform the myriad intricate and elaborate functions of the human body.”

“We identified a fluorescent small molecule that binds specifically to DNA and can be visualized using advanced new 3D imaging methods with the electron microscope,” explained Clodagh O’Shea, Ph.D., the leader of the Salk group, associate professor and Howard Hughes Medical Institute Faculty Scholar. “The system enables individual DNA particles, chains and chromosomes to be visualized in 3D in a live, single cell. Thus, we are able to see the fine structure and interactions of DNA and chromatin in the nucleus of intact, live cells.”

Dr. O’Shea’s team included collaborators from the University of California, San Diego, and the National Center for Microscopy and Imaging Research, San Diego.

The researchers believe their discovery dovetails with their research on how tumor viruses and cancer mutations change a cell’s DNA structure and organization to cause uncontrolled cell growth. It could enable the design of new drugs that manipulate the structure and organization of DNA to make a tumor cell ‘remember’ how to be normal again or impart new functions that improve the human condition.

“To see the human genome in in all of its 3D glory is the dream of every biologist. Now, we are working to design probes that will allow us to also see the proteins that bind to the DNA to turn genes on and off. We will then be able to view an actual gene in action,” concluded O’Shea."

My comment: Do you think scientists are able to create a regulatory system, where 3D structure affects accurately gene activity and expression? How is this kind of regulatory system done? Think about all of those complex factors needed for that kind of system to function. 3D genome provides an interesting epigenetic mechanism that might explain several types of alterations occurring in organisms due to nutrition, climate, stress, toxicants etc. Gene sequences don't determine traits. Life is not driven by gene sequences. Genes are driven by lifestyle. Don't get lost. 


Biological information is compressed in an astonishing way

How much does weigh the dna of all 'species' in the world?


"The human genome is about 3 x 109 basepairs long, which would weigh about 40 pg (picograms: 1 pg = 10^-12 grams) per genome. Human cells are diploid, i.e. each contains two copies of the genome, so the nuclear DNA from a human cell would weigh about 80 pg."
The human DNA with epigenetic layers weighs about 10^-10 g, i.e., 100 pg. There are some ten thousands of basic groups of organisms in the world, but let's assume the number of species to be one million, so the estimate does not go too low. Thus, the total genome of all organisms in the world weighs about 0.0001 g. The mosquito weight is about 2.5 mg and its proboscis weighs approximately 1/25 of the total mosquito weight. This weight can accommodate the genetic information of all organisms in the world.

This kind of hyper efficient way to pack massive amounts of biological information into a minimal space tells about God's intelligence. 


Breakthrough device heals organs with a single touch

Tissue healing by microRNA induced epigenetic stem cell reprogramming


Excerpt: "Researchers at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and Ohio State's College of Engineering have developed a new technology, Tissue Nanotransfection (TNT), that can generate any cell type of interest for treatment within the patient's own body. This technology may be used to repair injured tissue or restore function of aging tissue, including organs, blood vessels and nerve cells.

Results of the regenerative medicine study published in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.

"By using our novel nanochip technology, injured or compromised organs can be replaced. We have shown that skin is a fertile land where we can grow the elements of any organ that is declining," said Dr. Chandan Sen, director of Ohio State's Center for Regenerative Medicine & Cell Based Therapies, who co-led the study with L. James Lee, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering with Ohio State's College of Engineering in collaboration with Ohio State's Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center.

Researchers studied mice and pigs in these experiments. In the study, researchers were able to reprogram skin cells to become vascular cells in badly injured legs that lacked blood flow. Within one week, active blood vessels appeared in the injured leg, and by the second week, the leg was saved. In lab tests, this technology was also shown to reprogram skin cells in the live body into nerve cells that were injected into brain-injured mice to help them recover from stroke.
"This is difficult to imagine, but it is achievable, successfully working about 98 percent of the time. With this technology, we can convert skin cells into elements of any organ with just one touch. This process only takes less than a second and is non-invasive, and then you're off. The chip does not stay with you, and the reprogramming of the cell starts. Our technology keeps the cells in the body under immune surveillance, so immune suppression is not necessary," said Sen, who also is executive director of Ohio State's Comprehensive Wound Center.

TNT technology has two major components: First is a nanotechnology-based chip designed to deliver cargo to adult cells in the live body. Second is the design of specific biological cargo for cell conversion. This cargo, when delivered using the chip, converts an adult cell from one type to another, said first author Daniel Gallego-Perez, an assistant professor of biomedical engineering and general surgery who also was a postdoctoral researcher in both Sen's and Lee's laboratories.

TNT doesn't require any laboratory-based procedures and may be implemented at the point of care. The procedure is also non-invasive. The cargo is delivered by zapping the device with a small electrical charge that's barely felt by the patient.

"The concept is very simple," Lee said. "As a matter of fact, we were even surprised how it worked so well. In my lab, we have ongoing research trying to understand the mechanism and do even better. So, this is the beginning, more to come."

Researchers plan to start clinical trials next year to test this technology in humans, Sen said."

My comment: How does this tissue healing method work? Certain microRNA molecules, such as miR-27a and miR-24 target several pluripotency associated factors in the cell. This means that these microRNA molecules affect the differentiation state of the cell and reset it. It means they remove or clear the epigenetic information layers of the cell making them pluripotent stem cells that are able to differentiate into any cell type. RNA molecules carried by exosomes in cells of target tissue direct the re-differentiation procedure of stem cells. So, changing the identity of the cells has nothing to do with mutations.

By the way, did you know that similar microRNAs can be found in human sperm, for example? And they have the same function; to reset the differentiation state of embryonic cells. This procedure is done in perfect timing.

Reprogramming of cells point to Intelligent Design and Creation. Don't get lost.


Rapid increase in human disease-causing genomic mutations

The Annual increase of disease-causing genomic mutations was about 20,000


The number of disease-causing genomic mutations in the human genome rose to just 208,368. Thus, annual growth has been around 20,000. And modern science does not know any beneficial random mutations. Similar genetic degradation occurs in all organisms.  

Evolution really does not happen.


Embryos won’t use anything else but parent's genes

Extending human genome seems to be impossible


Excerpt: "Creating “designer babies” with a revolutionary new genome-editing technique would be extremely difficult, according to the first U.S. experiment that tried to replace a disease-causing gene in a viable human embryo.

Partial results of the study had leaked out last week, ahead of its publication in Nature on Wednesday, stirring critics’ fears that genes for desired traits — from HIV resistance to strong muscles — might soon be easily slipped into embryos. In fact, the researchers found the opposite: They were unable to insert a lab-made gene.

Biologist Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health and Science University, who led the first-of-its-kind experiment, described the key result as “very surprising” and “dramatic.”
The “external DNA” provided to fertilized human eggs developing in a lab dish “was never used,” he told STAT. The scientists excised a mutated, heart-disease-causing gene from the embryos — a gene that came from sperm used to create them through in vitro fertilization — and supplied them with a healthy replacement. But every single one of the 112 embryos ignored it. Instead, they copied the healthy gene from their mother and incorporated that into their genome to replace the father’s.

“This is the main finding from our study,” Mitalipov said: Embryos’ natural preference for a parent’s gene “is very strong, and they won’t use anything else.”

The discovery suggests that opportunities for disease prevention are more limited than scientists assumed and that enhancement — giving a days-old embryo “better” genes — is unlikely to succeed, at least with current methods. Genetic tinkering can, however, eliminate a “bad” gene that an embryo got from one parent and replace it with a “good” gene from the other parent. And the experiment showed for the first time in a large number of embryos that this can be done efficiently and without harming other genes."

My comment: Genes are no drivers or controllers. Gene sequences don't determine traits. Scientists are not able to extend human genome by inserting more genetic material into embryonic cells. But due to rapid degeneration of the human genome, scientists are in a hurry to develop accurate gene editing techniques, by which they can remove faulty sections by letting the cell repair damages or by inserting healthy genetic material from parent's genome. Interesting is that the embryonic cells don't accept insertion of external genes. So, scientists can forget the idea of designer babies. And they can forget the idea of human induced evolution.