by
Dan Winter 1/15/99 , url: ../magneticx , other articles at ../sitemap.html
dedicated to Linda and Darcy in Florida...
should be ready 1/15 - www.magneticx.com or link via www.swordsong.com
This article is a follow up to sacred geometry bleeds in genetically engineered food...Will Genetic Engineering in Food Cost Your Children their "Soul" Force.
...go girl 'phi-re away'
!'
below from book:"Biochemistry"by Mathews&VanHolde, Artwork Copyright Irving Geis.
above also note the 36 degree wratchet angle 5/10 symmetry from center column (PHI? H Bond) indicated bottom right..
As explained to me by Professor John Hubbard, PhD Univ Buffalo Medical School in Pathology and Microscopy.. that the stability of the central non- linear hydrogen bond spark gap zipper to the DNA helix, in many ways explained the quantum mechanics of aging. Namely, that the wave geometry of this bond determined the success and accuracy of base pair matching. So in effect, the determinant of replication success.. not making mistakes in coding up the next protein, was limited by the wave fit geometry in this bond center. He suggested cell deterioration associated with aging, at one level, correlated with the decay of this central bond. If the non-linear hydrogen bond tears from it's RECURSION geometry (based on PHI) THEN DNA begins to make more replication mistakes. This is because the ability of the field effect reaching out from the bond center, to attract the right protein/codon fit is limited by the geometry of the bond itself. A spark gap is q square wave, which by definition could have an infinite series of contained harmonics. Yet we know, that no harmonic series can heterodyne or beat with itself infinitely, unless the ratio of the wave lengths are Golden Mean. (The only completly non-destructive wave interference geometric). If we look at the harmonic content of this bond then as being a GOLDEN RATIO (rectangle as depicted in the center of DNA rung above), then it's harmonics become a log function of PHI / The Golden Mean Ratio. In this case then, DNA's central rung as a wave function, (zipper/linear accelerator/superluminal? access to "spirit"? see /superDNA/superDNA.html) becomes an adder and multiplier of both wave length AND WAVE VELOCITY heterodynes.. according to this chart ( a top down view:)
The main point is that 1.618 is also the ratio of the DNA structure and is the only ratio that allows complete information or geometry to cascade down the harmonic series without destructive interference (acheiving perfect fractal "implosive' data/wave compression) - spin path to zero point.
|
With the discovery of recombinant DNA biotechnology, humanity made off with Mother Nature's scissors. Unfortunately we know less than She. Editing the code of life with incomplete knowledge of meaning is like an electrician inside a supercomputer hacking out pieces assumed to be useless in order to make a "better" machine. Specifically, genetic engineers are currently redesigning plants, animals, and people ostensibly for herbicide resistance, and disease immunity. It is assumed that the preponderance of "junk" DNA that intervenes between coding regions is inefficient, useless and could be removed for greater stream- lining. In actuality these spans serve multiple biological functions (cancer prevention, gene induction) and should be left in place within the genome. Eukaryotic organisms (those with a double DNA library) have small sequences of DNA able to remove themselves and reinsert elsewhere in the genome. These "jumping genes" are usually latent and immobile, but under stress, become active. If they reinsert into a coding region of the genome they can disrupt a gene's biological function causing a mutation and potentially cancer. Fortunately, the genome of eukaryotic organisms is characterized by vast stretches of non-coding "junk DNA". If a jumping gene becomes active it is more likely to reinsert somewhere without causing harm. If genetic engineers attenuate non-coding regions, they may increase the likelihood of "jumping gene"-induced cancer. Further, intervening sequences (introns) can be necessary for effective gene induction. For DNA to be converted to RNA from a coding sequence (gene), an upstream promoter must be induced. In some instances the DNA-binding protein required to turn on the gene must bind to the DNA in two places at once separated at times by hundreds of intervening base pairs (rungs of the ladder). DNA achieves this by bending the intron to accomadate dual binding by the DNA-binding protein. In this case, removal of the required intervening sequence would destoy proper gene induction. In addition to the molecular necessity of introns for genetic function, there is also a less immediately tangible requirement for non-coding DNA stretches for biological health. It has been hypothesized that DNA serves as an antennae for electromagnetic capacitance. If the genome has been fragmented to such a degree that it can no longer vibrate with the long wave within which other waveforms nest, those waveforms (memories) will be lost. The tingle of life transmitted through healthy, coherent DNA becomes absent. Humans feeding upon chickens and grains adulterated through genetic engineering may soon find themselves feeling devoid of the charge gleaned from organisms whose DNA was able to infuse their tissues with the electromagnetic charge known as life force. With rampant cases of chronic fatique syndrome in adults, and attention deficit disorder in children, one may infer that our cellular batteries are being insufficiently charged. Adonia McKinzi, Ph.D. Molecular Biologist -- Here's a finding no one was expecting.. BOB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,319704,00.html GM genes can jump species, says expert GM food: special report James Meikle A claim that genes used to modify crops can jump the species
barrier into other Unpublished work by Professor Hans-Hinrich Kaatz of the University
of Jena, The findings, if substantiated, could further dent public
confidence in Prof Kaatz has been experimenting for three years with honey
bees on a field Then he took intestines out of the bees and spread the contents
on a growth Prof Kaatz told the German television station ZDF that the
"bees had obviously The Ministry of Agriculture made clear that it would only
study the research if Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth said: "I think this
is pretty alarming CLIP |
So what do we do now, knowing that the future of our genepool may depend on NOT trapping the field effect around our genes, in the fractionating scissors of our biolabs. It is probably true that the long wave magnetics stored in old growth seeds genes, may be the only sustainable source for bliss for our grandchildren. This would sound merely like another new age romance novel, excdept for one thing. THE MECHANISM IS HERE DESCRIBED HOW TO MEASURE the life force of DNA. (Spectral contained harmonics space themselves in non linear phi progressions, in ALL bandwidths, as life force is acheived.)
It is about time we assigned freedom and dignity to the enlivening worm, whose replication success IS us. The significance of people is that we are a container to enable DNA's way of acheiving replication. This means that we as people are therefore only sustainable as a race, to the extent WE GIVE OUR GENES THEMSELVES FREEDOM TO LEARN SELF DIRECTION!
THIS MEANS THAT IF DNA IS NOT GIVEN A MEANS TO EXPRESS WILL, IT WILL LOSE THE ABILITY TO HAVE WILL! (And then there will be only chaos instead a "Willed Mutation of the Species").
To set our DNA free, means to respect it's ability to have will. This means recognizing the physics that happens when the worm develops an eyeball (sufi heart with wings bird tribe from snake root..coatel) at the squirtgun business end: The Magnetic X.
(see the superDNA link on how a superconducting gold monofilament welding to a DNA strand yields a faster than light signal progation thru both..)
SPIRALING MESSENGERS
As evolution progresses
Nature's intelligence reveals
Crystalline structures
with an animate essence
unfolding in intuition
of
Beings of Pure Light
Ascending and descending
Jacob's Ladder
As messengers of meaning
Between Man and his Creator
The coiled serpents
Of Yin and Yang
Pinwheel galaxies
spinning in space-time
Rotating Vortices
Pulsating Plasma
Magnetic light
Quantum and cosmic
knowledge flowing
through our veins
into our consciousness
Hurricanes
Monsoons
Meandering streams
Flowering buds in our gardens
Shells from the sea
Pinecones in the forest
Seedlings grown on the plains
Our pineal glands
The shape of our genes
Each a reflection of
Rotational flow
A universal shape
We are beginning to know
The whirling dervish
experiences the Holy Grail
A cosmic code
transmitted through genetics
Our DNA
A double helix
Of twin salt water dragons
Entwined but not touching
Spitting fire
Emitting coherent communicative light
Vibrating strings
A fundamental foundation
In multi-dimensions
For spiraling curves
The hidden universal
Of matter and life
JOHN ALAN LEE©
November 26, 1999
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #685 .
. ---February 3, 2000--- .
. HEADLINES: .
. TROUBLE IN THE GARDEN .
. Environmental Research Foundation .
. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 .
. Fax (410) 263-8944; E-mail: erf@rachel.org .
. All back issues are available by E-mail: send E-mail to .
. info@rachel.org with the single word HELP in the message. .
. Back issues are also available from http://www.rachel.org.
.
. To start your own free subscription, send E-mail to .
. listserv@rachel.org with the words .
. SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME in the message. .
. The Rachel newsletter is now also available in Spanish; .
. to learn how to subscribe, send the word AYUDA in an .
. E-mail message to info@rachel.org. .
TROUBLE IN THE GARDEN
Wall Street investors lost confidence in agricultural
biotechnology during 1999.[1,2,3] Agricultural biotechnology is
by no means dead, but investors drove down stock prices of ag
biotech companies during 1999 in a stunning reversal for the
industry. The WALL STREET JOURNAL said Jan. 7, 2000, "With
the
controversy over genetically modified foods spreading across the
globe and taking a toll on the stocks of companies with
agricultural-biotechnology businesses, it's hard to see those
companies as a good investment, even in the long term."[2]
Hardest hit was Monsanto, the St. Louis chemical giant that
had
spent 5 years and billions of dollars morphing itself into a
"life sciences" company, betting its future on biotechnology
in
pharmaceutical drugs and agricultural crops. As the WALL STREET
JOURNAL wrote December 21, 1999, "Billions of dollars later,
that
concept of a unified 'life sciences' company -- using technology
to improve both medicines and foods -- has become an affliction
itself for Monsanto. The crop-biotechnology half of the program
has grown so controversial that Monsanto has agreed to a deal
that is likely not only to push biotech to the back burner, but
also to cost Monsanto its independence. And investors are
reacting harshly."[3]
Monsanto agreed late in 1999 to merge with Pharmacia &
Upjohn,
Inc. and the combined company will be run not from St. Louis but
from Pharmacia headquarters in Peapack, New Jersey. Monsanto's
ag
biotech business will be spun off into a separate company and
as
much as 19.9% of it will be sold.
Two other leaders in ag biotech, the Swiss pharmaceutical giant
Novartis AG, and the Anglo-Swiss drug firm AstroZeneca PLC,
announced during 1999 that they will combine their ag biotech
divisions into one and sell it off, "effectively washing
their
hands of crop biotechnology," the WALL STREET JOURNAL said.[3]
Thus by the end of 1999, ag biotech companies found themselves
in
trouble, worldwide, for the first time. Here is a short list of
reasons why:
** A lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)
forced the release of government documents showing that FDA
scientists had expressed grave doubts about the safety of
genetically modified foods even as the agency was publicly
declaring such foods "substantially equivalent" to traditional
crops.[4] It seems clear from these documents that the scientific
integrity of the U.S. regulatory system has been compromised for
political purposes, to provide a "fast track" for the
rapid,
large-scale introduction of genetically modified foods.
** The insurance industry has consistently refused to write
policies covering liability for harm caused by genetically
modified organisms. Steven Suppan, research director at the
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) in Minneapolis,
said last June, "It is worth asking what kind of regulatory
system approves for commercialization a technology whose risks
are so undetermined that the products developed from the
technology have not been insur- ed? An intuitive response is that
the U.S. rejection of liability suggests that U.S. agribusiness
and the U.S. government have less confidence than is proclaimed
publicly in the safety of the products approved and in the
integrity of the product review process," Dr. Suppan said.[5]
** A growing body of literature has begun to show that
genetically modified crops are creating new kinds of
environmental problems for farmers, and that genetically modified
crops are exacerbating already-severe economic problems on
American farms.[6]
** Europeans and others overseas have continued to insist that
the safety of genetically modified foods has not been
sufficiently documented and that import of such foods must be
prohibited, or they must be labeled. The doubts expressed by FDA
scientists, and the growing list of economic and environmental
problems are likely to stiffen European resistance to
genetically-modified seeds, crops, and foods.
** It became apparent in 1999 that the public rationale for
promoting genetically modified foods -- that such foods would
"feed the world" -- was based on wishful thinking, not
economics.
It is now clear that U.S. genetically modified crops are too
expensive to "feed the world."[6]
** The rationale for refusing to label genetically modified
foods
came unraveled in 1999 as biotechnology companies began to
announce new crops with special traits (rice with increased
vitamin A, for example). For years, biotech companies, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and FDA have argued that labeling genetically
modified foods was impossible because it would require food
companies to segregate genetically modified crops from
conventional crops and it simply couldn't be done. All the crops
were mixed together in the grain elevator, so labeling would be
impossible, they said.
This silly and disingenuous argument evaporated in 1999. As
soon
as biotech firms announced specialty foods created by genetic
engineering, the labeling problem miraculously disappeared.
Labeling is suddenly easy -- indeed, required -- because
consumer's can't be expected to pay premium prices for specialty
foods if those foods aren't clearly identifiable on the grocery
shelf.
Polls have shown that more than 80% of American consumers want
genetically modified foods labeled as such. Now that labeling
is
acknowledged as feasible, will the biotech industry, USDA, EPA,
and FDA bend to the public will and start labeling ALL
genetically modified foods? Not on your life. Government and
industry argue with one voice that labeling is not necessary
because genetically modified foods are "substantially equivalent"
to the conventional foods they have replaced. They even say
labeling would be "misleading" because it would imply
that there
are differences between biotech foods and conventional foods.
Federal regulations governing biotech foods are founded on
the
premise that there are no "material differences" between
genetically modified crops and conventional crops. This argument,
it turns out, was thoroughly discredited by FDA scientists before
the regulations were issued.
The FDA spent 1989-1992 developing regulations governing
genetically modified foods for humans and feed for animals. This
was back when President Bush and Vice-President Quayle were
advocating "regulatory relief" for industry.
FDA's rules -- which were announced by Mr. Quayle in 1992 --
allow a biotech company like Monsanto or DuPont to decide for
itself whether its food products are "generally recognized
as
safe" (GRAS). If a company decides that its new genetically
modified corn or soybean or potato or wheat is "generally
recognized as safe" then no safety testing is required before
the
products are introduced into the food supply. FDA said these
rules -- like all their rules -- are based on "sound science."
However, during 1999 a lawsuit filed by the Alliance for
Bio-Integrity in Fairfield, Iowa, forced the FDA to release some
44,000 pages of internal documents for the first time.[4] Among
them was a series of memos from FDA scientists commenting on the
FDA's proposed "substantially equivalent" policy for
biotech
foods.
A key issue is whether "pleiotropic effects" will
occur when new
genes are inserted into plants to give the plants desirable new
traits. Pleiotropy means that more than one change occurs in a
plant as a result of the new gene. For example, a gene that
allows a plant to grow better under drought conditions might also
make the entire plant grow smaller. The smaller size would be
an
unexpected "pleiotropic" effect.
FDA regulations assume that pleiotropic effects will not occur
when new genes are inserted into conventional foods such as corn
or potatoes or wheat or soybeans. Therefore, FDA says,
genetically modified crops are "substantially equivalent"
to
conventional crops.
Internal memos make it abundantly clear that FDA's scientific
staff believes pleiotropic effects will occur when new genes are
inserted into food crops. [In the following quotations, words
inside square brackets have been added for clarity but words
inside normal parentheses were in the original memos.--P.M.]
Commenting on the FDA's proposed biotech regulations in early
1992, Louis Pribyl, an FDA microbiologist, wrote March 6, 1992,
"It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended
effects.... This is industry's pet idea, namely that there are
no
unintended effects that will raise the FDA's level of concern.
But time and time again, there is no data to backup their
contention, while the scientific literature does contain many
examples of naturally occurring pleiotropic effects. When the
introduction of genes into [a] plant's genome randomly occurs,
as
is the case with the current [genetic modification] technology
(but not traditional breeding), it seems apparent that many
pleiotropic effects will occur," Dr. Pribyl wrote. "Many
of these
effects might not be seen by the breeder [meaning Monsanto or
DuPont or other biotech firm] because of the more or less similar
growing conditions in the limited trials that are performed.
Until more of these experimental plants have a wider
environmental distribution, it would be premature for FDA to
summarily dismiss pleiotropy as is done here," Dr. Pribyl
wrote.
On the same subject, a memo from the Division of Contaminants
Chemistry within FDA's Division of Food Chemistry and Technology
said November 1, 1991, "Pleiotropic effects occur in genetically
engineered plants... at frequencies up to 30%. Most of these
effects can be managed by the subsequent breeding and selection
procedures. Nevertheless, some undesirable effects such as
increased levels of known naturally occurring toxicants,
appearance of new, not previously identified toxicants, increased
capability of concentrating toxic substances from the environment
(e.g., pesticides or heavy metals), and undesirable alterations
in the levels of nutrients may escape breeders' attention unless
genetically engineered plants are evaluated specifically for
these changes. Such evaluations should be performed on a
case-by-case basis, i.e., every transformant should be evaluated
before it enters the marketplace."
Instead of heeding the concerns of its scientific staff, FDA
issued biotech food rules that assume no pleiotropic effects will
occur, therefore no safety testing is required. All biotech foods
are assumed to be safe. The stage was thus set for confidence
in
biotech foods to plummet as soon as word leaked out that the
scientific underpinnings of the regulatory system had been
compromised.
To be continued next week.
==============
[1] I am indebted to Steven Suppan, research director at the
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) in Minneapolis,
who provided me with several brief, thoughtful summaries of the
state of agricultural biotechnology. Contact: ssuppan@iatp.org.
Telephone (612) 870-3413.
[2] Christina Cheddar, "Tales of the Tape: Seed Co. May
Yet Reap
What They Sow," WALL STREET JOURNAL January 7, 2000, pg.
unknown.
[3] Scott Kilman and Thomas M. Burton, "Biotech Backlash
is
Battering Plan Shapiro Thought Was Enlightened," WALL STREET
JOURNAL December 21, 1999, pg.A1.
[4] The FDA documents are available at
http://www.bio-integrity.org/list.html. And see Marian Burros,
"Documents Show Officials Disagreed on Altered Foods,"
NEW YORK
TIMES December 1, 1999, pg. A15.
[5] Steven Suppan, unpublished paper, "National Summit
on the
Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods, June 17, 1999, Capitol
Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C. 2 pgs.
[6] Some of this literature is summarized in Charles M. Benbrook,
"World Food System Challenges and Opportunities: GMOs,
Biodiversity, and Lessons From America's Heartland," unpublished
paper presented January 27, 1999, at University of Illinois.
Available in PDF format at http://www.pmac.net/- IWFS.pdf .
Descriptor terms: biotechnology; monsanto; dupont; novartis;
pharmacia; astrozeneca; agriculture; hunger; fda; regulation;
labeling; alliance for biointegrity; pleiotropy;
NOTICE
Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic
version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge
even though it costs the organization considerable time and money
to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service
free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution
(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send
your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research
Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do
not send credit card information via E-mail. For further
information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.
by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or
at
(410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944.
--Peter Montague, Editor
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *