"Oz" wrote in message
...
Hua Kul writes

Another naif who seems to believe that governments and their
regulations will save us. It was a British government regulation
requiring cattle to be heavily dosed with organophosphate pesticides
which may have triggered the BSE outbreak. See Mark Purdy's research.

Mark Purdy is an ignorant political organic farmer who rightly went to
jail for not dosing his cows to eradicate warbles, despite it being
approved by organic organisations.

His 'theory' is rubbish. Do a google search on "oz purdy bse" and you
will be able to find various threads.

Had organophosphates caused it or fairies dancing ainti clockwise on the
dark of a blue moon BSE is still no more than a fart in a hurricane in the
problems of world health.

Gordon

On 21 Jul 2003 12:09:43 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

But you are leaving it to the plant to do the organisation after it is
damaged. You are not specifically implanting genes to outwit the natural
scheme of adjustment.


You believe in Gaea?

On 21 Jul 2003 12:01:49 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

It is subtle since if you kill all of your hosts you die, too. There must
be some of that knowledge in the genome, too.

No, it's just a survival artifact. Those that don't have the luck to
cop a survival mutation die out. Only those lucky enough to mutate not
to kill out all the hosts survive.

Because bacteria can exchange genes to their advantage in the protected
environment of a human cell it is necessary to take more care with drug
resistance genes. We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people
en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering
anything.

Do bacteria have a special licence from Nature so they can do their own
thing and not need to obey Natures instructions about strict order in the
genome?
Where do you apply for this licence?

I presume you look up your memory bank to remind yourself how to keep
alive. Do not kill every last host. If there is stress start swopping
genes faster.

Gene swapping is done as fast as it CAN be done. There is NO intent.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:20:12 +0100, ddwyer
wrote:

In article , Moosh:]
writes

Thanks Gordon, good point.
Not thet there's much more we can do about it than what we are doing.
If you want to convert a sheep or a bacteria to produce a bioactive
material such as a protein as a theraputic agent the way foreward is not
to breed or mutate but GM a species. I.e. create a self replicating
factory. GM food has the potential to generate unwanted materials that
mutation and breeding cannot.

Of course. The difference is that GM gives us much more control, than
the much more random cross-pollinating.

Unwanted material in foodstuffs will be the rare hazard that we wont
recognise until too late.

But it is much more likelly from cross pollinating or even new random
mutations, than GM.

Sadly whole populations will consume; not just
the ill for whom the risk would ba acceptable.

You are talking about engineering threapeutic substances into foods
for all? I think this is probably not the best way to go.
Unless it is for an epidemic, or has clear public health benefits,
like water fluoridation.

Moosh:] wrote:
On 21 Jul 2003 12:09:43 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

But you are leaving it to the plant to do the organisation after it is
damaged. You are not specifically implanting genes to outwit the natural
scheme of adjustment.


You believe in Gaea?

More like what I posted recently:


Fritjof Capra already in 1996 reports about Kauffman (1993):

`sytems biologists have begun to portray the genome as a
self-organizing network capable of spontaneously producing new forms
of order. "We must rethink evolutionary biology," writes Stuart
Kauffman. "Much of the order we see in organisms may be the direct
result not of natural selection but of the natural order selection
was allowed to act on... Evolution is not just a tinkering ... It is
an emergent order honored and honed by selection."'


So if survival in the past had come about through mutating more when under
stress, then that would happen again under stress. I think that is
accepted.


And anyway it is hard to tell that sort of thing from a Gaia if there is
one.

What was the origin of the first enzymes?

On 21 Jul 2003 23:55:02 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

what memory bank?

The `junk DNA'.

Anthropomorphism noted

Where is there any evidence of this. I think you are
getting carried away with the classifications again. If you run out of hosts
you just find more

Jump species? You would have to do that before you killed every last
one of the previous species.

They are all doing everything at the same time all the time. They have
no brains. They are looking for hosts continually, whether they need
them or not. Your anthropomorphism is running away with you.

Moosh:] wrote:
On 21 Jul 2003 12:01:49 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

It is subtle since if you kill all of your hosts you die, too. There must
be some of that knowledge in the genome, too.

No, it's just a survival artifact. Those that don't have the luck to
cop a survival mutation die out. Only those lucky enough to mutate not
to kill out all the hosts survive.

Once it has happened before then the knowledge is there in the genome, if
it hasn't been messed with GM.


Because bacteria can exchange genes to their advantage in the protected
environment of a human cell it is necessary to take more care with drug
resistance genes. We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people
en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering
anything.

Do bacteria have a special licence from Nature so they can do their own
thing and not need to obey Natures instructions about strict order in the
genome?
Where do you apply for this licence?

I presume you look up your memory bank to remind yourself how to keep
alive. Do not kill every last host. If there is stress start swopping
genes faster.

Gene swapping is done as fast as it CAN be done. There is NO intent.

Mutating accelerates under stress.

On 22 Jul 2003 00:46:26 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Moosh:] wrote:
On 21 Jul 2003 11:39:12 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

"Some disease causing bacteria, like Salmonella typhimurium, invade human
cells when they infect people.

News to me, but there you go. What sort of cells are invaded?
Leucocytes?

Epithelial cells.

It looks like the whole article is free to read:

Linkname: J. Bact -- Ferguson et al. 184 (8): 2235
URL:
http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/full/1...&pmid=11914355
size: 947 lines



JB International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology
Gene Transfer between Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium inside Epithelial
Cells

Gayle C. Ferguson,1 Jack A. Heinemann,1^,2^* and Martin A. Kennedy3

Department of Plant and Microbial Sciences, University of Canterbury,1
Department of Pathology, Christchurch School of Medicine,
Christchurch, New Zealand,3 Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology,
Tromsø, Norway2

Received 5 November 2001/ Accepted 16 January 2002

Thanks.

There the bacteria coul dbe protected from
antibiotics while exhanging the genes for antibiotic resistance and the
genes that make bacteria better at causing disease. Laboratory tests
proved that genes do transfer between these bacteria even when antibiotics
are present.

The ability of bacteria to exchange genes insdie human cells also suggests
the bacteria could transfer genes to the human genome. However, Heinemann
says, `This is not necessarily going to cause the transfer of bacterial
genes to our sex cells and to our children, because these bacteria do not
normally have access to our sex cells'" - Deborah Parker, UC Alumni,
Winter 2003, p 19.

Though who knows, when, as I posted in the `apocalypse' thread, GM can be
used to make, in corn, antibodies which will destroy human sperm.

And this would be injected into what site on the body?

I don't know if they have to be injected.

Well how will these proteins survive the gut?

What is the route of the anti-sperm antibodies that vasectomised men may
start to produce?

Well it's already in the bloodstream, so it needs NO route of
introduction.

Why would you want to manufacture anti-sperm antibodies?
Contraception?

If it could be put in food it might be a political tool.

Wow. Machiavelli lives

These are only just proteins, BTW


it is necessary to take more care with drug
resistance genes.

Is not sufficient care already being taken?

No. Things are done with the knowledge of the decade.

What more can you ask?

When you are working with the bases of life take some heed from people who
sacrifice their jobs when they have not been listened to.

Huh?

We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people
en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering
anything.

What evidence have you that this has not been thoroughly investigated?

It has been examined with the old ideas. That genes are transferred from
parent to offspring (vertical movement) was the basis. That is now
outmoded. Genes go horizontally from one bacteria to another, and that is
the more dominant method of passing on resistance. It can happen in human
cells where bacteria are protected from antibiotics.

But how is this well-known phenomenon related to GE?

In GE genes are moved horizontally artificially.

But this "horizontal"/ "vertical" is just an etic grid that you have
put on this phenomrnon. To the organism, there is no difference. And I
believe you are assuming that banana genes are different from human
genes. Let me tell you a little secret, they are not. Genes are just a
sequence of genetic material that occurs in all living organisms.
Just shows that we evolved from the same primitive organisms.

They are engineered
in a package which makes it easier to move in. They will then be
more potently available to bacteria.

But bacteria have just about any gene available to them now. Why
should a few already existing ones be a bother?

Heinemann's work was `recognised by the American Society for Microbiology
as teh best published in April 2002. The society publishes 600 of the many
thousands of articles submitted to its journals each month, and of the 600
published last year, the Canterbury research was singled out as "best of
the best."'

Fine. Bacteria swap genes. As they can multiply "vertically"
from one to 4,722,366,400,000,000,000,000 in just one day, I think
this is probably not all that fantastic

Fritjof Capra already in 1996 reports about Kauffman (1993):

`sytems biologists have begun to portray teh genome as a
self-organizing network capable of spontaneously producing new forms
of order. "We must rethink evolutionary biology," writes Stuart
Kauffman. "Much of the order we see in organisms may be the direct
result not of natural selection but of the natural order selection
was allowed to act on... Evolution is not just a tinkering ... It is
an emergent order honored and honed by selection."'

Surmise.

Gordon Couger writes

Had organophosphates caused it or fairies dancing ainti clockwise on the
dark of a blue moon BSE is still no more than a fart in a hurricane in the
problems of world health.

Indeed so.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote:

But as Jim admitted there is no drug that could cure his father's MRSA
(methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus). It had to be left to
nature
to take its course with some nursing care (soap and water and
bandages).

Jim did no such thing I might not have made it clear.. Jims father was
too
weak for the drugs but didn't need them anyway because the bacteria were
taken out with an antiseptic wash (which will contain bacterialcides)
and
soap and water. The drugs were offered but he couldn't handle them

What drugs?

Here they said soap and water, that is a few years ago. Plus everyone
going near the infected people had to wear protective gear.

I don't know. They tried him on the standard antiboitics for dealing with
MRSA but after two days they had to take them off him because his appetitie
had totally gone and he was being permenantly sick.

As I said 3 to 14% of hospital admissions result from prescribed drug
adverse effects.

So they switched to the
antiseptic wash

Which they probably use anyway, linezolid or not?

I suppose they will claim linezolid is no worse than any other, but it is
better to have more in the arsenal isn't it? Then say do genetic testing
and do not prescribe by trial and error. Try not to eliminate your choices
by feeding everybody with GM antibiotic resistance genes, especially when
we know that DNA is not fully deactivated by digestion, and is also
getting to the unborn.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger
wrote:

But as Jim admitted there is no drug that could cure his father's
MRSA
(methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus). It had to be left to
nature
to take its course with some nursing care (soap and water and
bandages).

Jim did no such thing I might not have made it clear.. Jims father
was
too
weak for the drugs but didn't need them anyway because the bacteria
were
taken out with an antiseptic wash (which will contain bacterialcides)
and
soap and water. The drugs were offered but he couldn't handle them

What drugs?

Here they said soap and water, that is a few years ago. Plus everyone
going near the infected people had to wear protective gear.

I don't know. They tried him on the standard antiboitics for dealing
with
MRSA but after two days they had to take them off him because his
appetitie
had totally gone and he was being permenantly sick.

As I said 3 to 14% of hospital admissions result from prescribed drug
adverse effects.

nothing to do with it in this case, a very sick man cannot be expected to be
able to cope with some drugs.


So they switched to the
antiseptic wash

Which they probably use anyway, linezolid or not?

I suppose they will claim linezolid is no worse than any other, but it is
better to have more in the arsenal isn't it? Then say do genetic testing
and do not prescribe by trial and error. Try not to eliminate your choices
by feeding everybody with GM antibiotic resistance genes, especially when
we know that DNA is not fully deactivated by digestion, and is also
getting to the unborn.

what total twaddle. As bacteria have far more antibiotic resistant genes
than GM crops, and vastly more bacteria are ingested and digested that GM
food, (as everyone swallows bacteria) then any antibiotic resistant transfer
occuring through the mechanism you suggest will be happening constantly and
at a high frequency now and any GM addition will be a trivial irrelevence.

Jim Webster

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 22 Jul 2003 00:46:26 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Gayle C. Ferguson,1 Jack A. Heinemann,1^,2^* and Martin A. Kennedy3

Department of Plant and Microbial Sciences, University of Canterbury,1
Department of Pathology, Christchurch School of Medicine,
Christchurch, New Zealand,3 Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology,
Tromsø, Norway2

Received 5 November 2001/ Accepted 16 January 2002

Thanks.

Heinemann is not getting sufficient grants, I presume because partnership
with immediate profit-making would not be easy in his field. Well that is
a bit strange when you think of the tremendous public-funded sink
going/having gone into GM and not paying off, except to sell herbicide.

He says his work might eventually yield insights into the design of
fundamentally different anti-infective agents for the control of
antibiotic resistance and infectious diseases as well as being relevant to
"the volatile debate on assessing the risks of genetically modified
organisms to teh environment".

There the bacteria coul dbe protected from
antibiotics while exhanging the genes for antibiotic resistance and the
genes that make bacteria better at causing disease. Laboratory tests
proved that genes do transfer between these bacteria even when antibiotics
are present.

The ability of bacteria to exchange genes insdie human cells also suggests
the bacteria could transfer genes to the human genome. However, Heinemann
says, `This is not necessarily going to cause the transfer of bacterial
genes to our sex cells and to our children, because these bacteria do not
normally have access to our sex cells'" - Deborah Parker, UC Alumni,
Winter 2003, p 19.

Though who knows, when, as I posted in the `apocalypse' thread, GM can be
used to make, in corn, antibodies which will destroy human sperm.

And this would be injected into what site on the body?

I don't know if they have to be injected.

Well how will these proteins survive the gut?

As you may have now read, my post of Schubbert et al, the GM green
fluorescence marker gets in and even crosses to the unborn embryo/fetus.

What is the route of the anti-sperm antibodies that vasectomised men may
start to produce?

Well it's already in the bloodstream, so it needs NO route of
introduction.

And these GM proteins get in.

Why would you want to manufacture anti-sperm antibodies?
Contraception?

If it could be put in food it might be a political tool.

Wow. Machiavelli lives

By saying that you imply I am two faced: that I support such political
control, and further imply that I support the technology, a total about
face.

If I preach against murder and say guns can be used to kill people do you
then say I am Machiavellian and imply I support gun killing?

What sort of intelligence are you hoping to sway/sell to?

These are only just proteins, BTW


it is necessary to take more care with drug
resistance genes.

Is not sufficient care already being taken?

No. Things are done with the knowledge of the decade.

What more can you ask?

When you are working with the bases of life take some heed from people who
sacrifice their jobs when they have not been listened to.

Huh?

Scientists from the FDA who did not support `generally recognised as safe'
(GRAS) line of FDA.

We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people
en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering
anything.

What evidence have you that this has not been thoroughly investigated?

It has been examined with the old ideas. That genes are transferred from
parent to offspring (vertical movement) was the basis. That is now
outmoded. Genes go horizontally from one bacteria to another, and that is
the more dominant method of passing on resistance. It can happen in human
cells where bacteria are protected from antibiotics.

But how is this well-known phenomenon related to GE?

In GE genes are moved horizontally artificially.

But this "horizontal"/ "vertical" is just an etic grid that you have
put on this phenomrnon. To the organism, there is no difference.

Read again:
*********
This is the html version of the file
http://www.nzige.canterbury.ac.nz/fi...ubmission.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we
crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:
http://www.google.com/cobrand_univ?q...www.nzige.cant
erbury.ac.nz/finalgmd01194submission.pdf+heinemann+submission&h l=en&ie
=UTF-8
[...] Submission on AgResearch Application GMD01194
**********

and I shan't quote the volumes of horizontal gene transfer elucidation,
but shall give:

"
tetracycline

stimulates HGT rates by controlling expression of the genes that cause

these elements to transfer (Salyers, 1995)."

As further comment on an earlier point of yours about bacterial
gene-swapping always being all-on.

And I
believe you are assuming that banana genes are different from human
genes. Let me tell you a little secret, they are not. Genes are just a
sequence of genetic material that occurs in all living organisms.
Just shows that we evolved from the same primitive organisms.

Yes, we share 80% of genes with a rice plant. That is why we should be so
careful about tinkering with rice.

And it is now known that the genes themselves are not sufficient to
explain the complexities of mammals.

They are engineered
in a package which makes it easier to move in. They will then be
more potently available to bacteria.

But bacteria have just about any gene available to them now. Why
should a few already existing ones be a bother?

That's like saying an orchestra has so many violinists a few more won't
matter. But it only takes one playing a bit loud to spoil the other 12's
effect. And the genes have strong promoters packaged with them.

Heinemann's work was `recognised by the American Society for Microbiology
as teh best published in April 2002. The society publishes 600 of the many
thousands of articles submitted to its journals each month, and of the 600
published last year, the Canterbury research was singled out as "best of
the best."'

Fine. Bacteria swap genes. As they can multiply "vertically"
from one to 4,722,366,400,000,000,000,000 in just one day, I think
this is probably not all that fantastic

Fritjof Capra already in 1996 reports about Kauffman (1993):

`sytems biologists have begun to portray teh genome as a
self-organizing network capable of spontaneously producing new forms
of order. "We must rethink evolutionary biology," writes Stuart
Kauffman. "Much of the order we see in organisms may be the direct
result not of natural selection but of the natural order selection
was allowed to act on... Evolution is not just a tinkering ... It is
an emergent order honored and honed by selection."'

Surmise.

You yourself agreed when you said survival techniques from the past are
helpful for the present. But we do not realise the extent of that.

On 22 Jul 2003 02:29:38 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Now engineers in any field, mechanical or electrical or anything, know
that what theory says is not always what works.

Rubbish. That is what engineering is all about. If the observations
don't match the theory, then it has either been improperly applied, or
they change the theory. Usually an estimation or measurement is wrong.

There is a lot of trial
and error and practical theories are continually improved.

That's better

Moving the parts on a computer motherboard might stop it from being so
fast, or make it unstable. Just electric network theory may be severely
lacking.

You mean motherboards don't follow the rules of physics?

When you introduce a gene you also introduce a promoter and the process is
a bit hit and miss.

But nowhere near as hit and miss as mutagens or cross pollination.

It has been found that the characterization of Rounup
Ready soy was rather inexact.

But nowhere near as inexact as trying the results of mutagen
applications, or cross pollinating.

The promoter, when strong, may not just
switch on the gene next to it, but also ones further along.

Just like is happening every second of every day in uncountable
millions of living cells.

And it may not
do that until certain conditions of stress come up. Heat, drought, cold,
other herbicides or pesticides which are later found necessary.

No, the cell that hasn't got the survival mutation dies, and the one
that does survives.

The
theories are not good enough to predict it all.

But nowhere near as hit and miss as mutagens or cross pollination.

Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
As I said 3 to 14% of hospital admissions result from prescribed drug
adverse effects.

nothing to do with it in this case, a very sick man cannot be expected to be
able to cope with some drugs.

So you want a greater range in the arsenal. You don't want them getting
disabled by resistance.


So they switched to the
antiseptic wash

Which they probably use anyway, linezolid or not?

I suppose they will claim linezolid is no worse than any other, but it is
better to have more in the arsenal isn't it? Then say do genetic testing
and do not prescribe by trial and error. Try not to eliminate your choices
by feeding everybody with GM antibiotic resistance genes, especially when
we know that DNA is not fully deactivated by digestion, and is also
getting to the unborn.

what total twaddle. As bacteria have far more antibiotic resistant genes
than GM crops,

They bacteria may have a few more types, if they have been selected by
anitbiotics, but the crop has it in every cell, so far
more altogether, and constantly present.

and vastly more bacteria are ingested and digested that GM
food, (as everyone swallows bacteria)

Now from North America the corn is grown patch work in fields and all is
mixed. So unless North Americans go to special trouble to get non-GM they
will be getting an antibiotic resistance gene every second cell of that
food they eat. Same with soy.

then any antibiotic resistant transfer
occuring through the mechanism you suggest will be happening constantly and
at a high frequency now

I suggested the gene packages jumping from the GM food to bacteria, yes.
You say it will be happening at a high frequency now,

and any GM addition will be a trivial irrelevence.

you say. I and several others say we do not want any GM addition we want
the whole GM contribution brought right back to zero.

Stop using antibiotic resistance markers. The argument that we are using
so many that a few more is of no consequence is as silly as saying another
drink will be of no consequence to a driver who is already drunk. We do
not want any drivers drunk in the first place.

On 22 Jul 2003 07:08:06 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Moosh:] wrote:
On 21 Jul 2003 11:53:41 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Not anthropomorphism, ecology of genes. The chief of the University of
Canterbury Plant and Microbial Sciences Department runs the New Zealand
Gene Ecology organisation. (Jack Heinemann) (do google search in
www.canterbury.ac.nz)

Because bacteria can exchange genes to their advantage in the protected
environment of a human cell it is necessary to take more care with drug
resistance genes. We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people
en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering
anything.

As bacteria make better bacteria we have to make better drugs.

However in this case we are doing the opposite. We are giving the bacteria
the genes to improve their resistance.

You reckon they haven't already tried these somewhere over the past
aeons? Afterall where did these "resistance markers" come from?

Probably from culturing them in a weak antibiotic environment, then
gradually stronger when you find ones which learn to survive.

Just like happens in thousands of human guts every day?
Of course, "learning to survive" is anthropomorphism. But I guess you
know this. The "learners" are just lucky mutants.

Yes this may be important in the short term, but in the grand scheme
of things, it's only a matter of time before these bacteria would have
developed resistance to all antibiotics known today.

When the resistance is of no use to them then the gene to express it will
not be expressing.

No, not until a random mutation turns it off, and this may be never,
if it causes no disavantage to survival.

That is when there is no antibiotic being applied
for a while. But put the genes in everyone's food and they are
always there.

Well they are often so common in the environment, and idiots not
taking full courses and sewage outflow. I think we just have to live
with it and, like pesticide resistance, stay one or two steps ahead.

The same is
true with insects on the farm. 75 years ago simple natural pesticides work
for my father. In the 50's and 60's the first generation of insecticides
work very very well. We have had to keep making better insecticides and at
the same time more specific ones.

But as Jim admitted there is no drug that could cure his father's MRSA
(methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus).

I suspect there was, but his father was unable to take it.

Something like vancomycin? I have read someone suggesting using it for
prevention when they do operations.

In susceptible people, why not?

So resistance to it by Staph. aureus
will probably be developing, too.

Only if they use it incorrectly.

Yes it is a bit toxic - maybe hearing
damage to quite a few.

There is always a drug which can kill the illness, but may quite often
kill the patient, agreed.

Not the aim of therapy, though

It had to be left to nature
to take its course with some nursing care (soap and water and bandages).

We also learned how to extend their
usefulness but

he means `by' not `but'.

refuges and IPM.

When you plant bt corn or cotton you plant it in a checkerboard pattern
with non-bt so some of the bugs will develop in non-bt and the development
of resistance will be slowed a bit. Still there will be loss of
effectiveness of organic bt
to the organic farmers who only apply it when necessary, and have it
active for a short period. With that use resistance does not develop.
With the bt crops teh bt is there all the time and gradually weakens as
the crop ages - perfect for development of resistance.

It always amazes me how Organic folk can accept a GE "chemical" as OK
for their needs.

Bt is a natural soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, which happens to
be toxic to butterfly and moth larvae. It is not a GE "chemical", though
the genes producing the Bt toxins have been engineered into GE crops.

I suggest you bring yourself up to date. BT is the freeze dried
protein (chemical) that is produced by the bacterium you mentioned. It
is a stomach poison to caterpillars and some other insects. Some
strains of it are produced by genetic engineering.

Desperation? Anyways, Bt has been so overused that it
only has a limited useful life.

Now that it is present perpetually, whether really needed or not, you are
right.

Well it is that by use of the protein powder by agriculture and the
home gardener.

New specific pesticides will be
developed.

Which we do not know the problems with.

Same problems as with BT. Have you heard of testing?
Happens all the time.

And the produce will probably not
sell as well as when the organic Bt stuff was used occasionally.

Only because the public has been hoodwinked into believing that
Organic is somehow better.

If you want to blame some one for antibiotic resistant bacteria the water
out of the sewer plant has several orders of magnitude more effect that
crops possibly could because they are mixed with the pathogens at the sewer
and in the environment and give them a chance to build resistance.

Sewage is not being eaten by everyone.

But it's where epidemics start.

Epidemics start when the bugs are resistant to the conditions in the host.

Or the host is susceptible, like all Westerners to Cholera?

They continue when drugs given to the host are resisted by the bugs, too.
When everyone is eating food with the resistance in it that is far more
likely.

Antibiotic resistant organisms are a small percentage of the
microorganisms that cause disease.

Also it will be worse with
incompletely digested naked DNA from GM crops.

I don't see why. Why should a gut commensal suddenly become pathogenic
at the same time it absorbs a million-to-one chance of a compatible
antibiotic resistant gene?

Bacterial resistance tends to be multidrug resistant.

To members of the same class of drug, of course, but how is this
relevant to a bug suddenly becoming pathogenic, AND drug resistant at
the same time? Sure you have a problem treating this infection, but
why should the bug do both at the same time? And what has this to do
with GE?

Poor food hygiene introduces the bacteria from a worker who has not washed
themselves or animal faecal contamination.

Or any one of myriad other vectors.

An infected beast or human is
treated with antibiotics and the bacteria has ducked inside a huamn cell
and exchanges drug resistance from naked DNA which has got there since
everyone has it in their diet.

How did it get from the mouth to the human cells?
This phenomenon you describe has been demonstrated in vivo?
How common is it thought to be? Rare as hens' teeth?

Lots in the population have less than
optimal digestion, leaky guts from gluten injury, and will get the naked
DNA into their circulation.

What proportion of folk have this damage, and what proportion are
likely to have undigested DNA enter their bloodstream?

Seems very far-fetched to me. Of course
there will likely be plenty of other antibiotics to treat this rare
event, if that is what is needed.

Another class of antibiotics may have deleterious side effects - hearing
damage, kidney damage, liver damage. Some 3 to 14% of hospital admissions
result from prescribed drug injury.

But not antibiotics, in the main.