Moosh:] wrote:
On 3 Aug 2003 10:18:13 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In 1929 cotton breeds were always thought to have limited life.

They still do, don't they?

Maybe that is why Gordon got into a technical huff over the meaning of
variety vs breed when I tabulated all those names -- to avoid the subject.

Our scientists have not been able to make many important parts for the
human body as an alternative to getting them from human donors. I don't
see how they can keep up with the constant change of life's genome, the
fluidity and ecology needed for health, even in cotton.

It is shown by the biotech slump.


Biotech century ending?

This miniseries charts the further collapse of the biotech empire,
particular in the supposedly `highly lucrative' biomedical sector
since the latter part of 2000. It is now desperately grasping for
support from the taxpayer by hyping genetics and bio-defence. Don't be
fooled.

[This is from

Linkname: Genetics & Bio-Defence Research Rescue Biotech Slump
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GBBBS.php

see page for these leads:

1. Genetics & Bio-Defence Research Rescue Biotech Slump
2. Gene Therapy Risks Exposed
3. Death Sentence on Cloning
4. Pig Organ Transplants Dangerous & Costly
5. Animal Pharm Folds]
__________________________________________________ _______________

Genetics & Bio-Defence Research Rescue Biotech Slump

Bad science and dangerous medicine are bringing down the biotech
empire, but our governments are throwing more good money after it. Dr.
Mae-Wan Ho reports.

The complete document with references, is available in the ISIS
members site. Full details here

The biotech slump is nowhere more visible than in Washington DC, where
the industry congregated at the end of June to get the federal
government to fill the funding void. The desperate Biotechnology
Industry Organization (BIO) mounted an unusually extensive public
outreach campaign for its annual meeting, with a barrage of
advertising in newspapers and TV, and a two-day festival on the
National Mall.

Last year saw only 4 biotech companies go public, a 10-fold drop since
2000; in Europe, only 3 biotech companies went public last year.
Venture capital for new firms totaled $465 million, a drop of 70%
compared to the same period in 2002. So, hope turns to the US
government.

[...]
The futility of identifying `predisposing genes' in the human genome
is becoming increasingly clear as genes and genomes are now known to
mutate, reshuffle and rearrange in response to environmental toxins
and hazards (see "Health & the fluid genome" miniseries). Gene
technology projects, from animal bio-pharming and cloning to gene
therapy and xenotransplantation are collapsing because they have
failed to deliver the goods and the inherent hazards involved have
become all too evident (see other articles in this series). It is time
our governments stop throwing good money after bad medicine and invest
in genuinely health-enhancing projects that improve the quality of our
food, our air, water and land.
[...]

RELEVANT LINKS
from the ISIS website
(see all articles on the SITE MAP)
The Need for Another Research Paradigm
MRC Acknowledges GM Food Risks
Why We Should Reject Biotech Patents from TRIPS
Bush U-Turn on Bioweapons & GM
Re- The proposed decision to add Chardon LL Aventis -T25 Maize to the
National List
The Principle of Substantial equivalence is Unscientific and Arbitary
MAFF Reveals New Scientific Findings Confirming Fears Over Health
Hazards of GMOs
Biodefence in Tatters
Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments

On 10 Aug 2003 10:34:31 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Moosh:] wrote:
On 3 Aug 2003 10:18:13 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In 1929 cotton breeds were always thought to have limited life.

They still do, don't they?

Maybe that is why Gordon got into a technical huff over the meaning of
variety vs breed when I tabulated all those names -- to avoid the subject.

Our scientists have not been able to make many important parts for the
human body as an alternative to getting them from human donors. I don't
see how they can keep up with the constant change of life's genome, the
fluidity and ecology needed for health, even in cotton.

They are making great strides in human tissue growth, I believe.

It is shown by the biotech slump.

That shows the fickleness of the stock market gamblers.

Biotech century ending?

This miniseries charts the further collapse of the biotech empire,
particular in the supposedly `highly lucrative' biomedical sector
since the latter part of 2000. It is now desperately grasping for
support from the taxpayer by hyping genetics and bio-defence. Don't be
fooled.

[This is from

Linkname: Genetics & Bio-Defence Research Rescue Biotech Slump
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GBBBS.php

see page for these leads:

1. Genetics & Bio-Defence Research Rescue Biotech Slump
2. Gene Therapy Risks Exposed
3. Death Sentence on Cloning
4. Pig Organ Transplants Dangerous & Costly
5. Animal Pharm Folds]
__________________________________________________ _______________

Genetics & Bio-Defence Research Rescue Biotech Slump

Bad science and dangerous medicine are bringing down the biotech
empire, but our governments are throwing more good money after it. Dr.
Mae-Wan Ho reports.

The complete document with references, is available in the ISIS
members site. Full details here

The biotech slump is nowhere more visible than in Washington DC, where
the industry congregated at the end of June to get the federal
government to fill the funding void. The desperate Biotechnology
Industry Organization (BIO) mounted an unusually extensive public
outreach campaign for its annual meeting, with a barrage of
advertising in newspapers and TV, and a two-day festival on the
National Mall.

Last year saw only 4 biotech companies go public, a 10-fold drop since
2000; in Europe, only 3 biotech companies went public last year.
Venture capital for new firms totaled $465 million, a drop of 70%
compared to the same period in 2002. So, hope turns to the US
government.

[...]
The futility of identifying `predisposing genes' in the human genome
is becoming increasingly clear as genes and genomes are now known to
mutate, reshuffle and rearrange in response to environmental toxins
and hazards (see "Health & the fluid genome" miniseries). Gene
technology projects, from animal bio-pharming and cloning to gene
therapy and xenotransplantation are collapsing because they have
failed to deliver the goods and the inherent hazards involved have
become all too evident (see other articles in this series). It is time
our governments stop throwing good money after bad medicine and invest
in genuinely health-enhancing projects that improve the quality of our
food, our air, water and land.
[...]

RELEVANT LINKS
from the ISIS website
(see all articles on the SITE MAP)
The Need for Another Research Paradigm
MRC Acknowledges GM Food Risks
Why We Should Reject Biotech Patents from TRIPS
Bush U-Turn on Bioweapons & GM
Re- The proposed decision to add Chardon LL Aventis -T25 Maize to the
National List
The Principle of Substantial equivalence is Unscientific and Arbitary
MAFF Reveals New Scientific Findings Confirming Fears Over Health
Hazards of GMOs
Biodefence in Tatters
Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments


Sorry, I always distrust those with an axe to grind. The science comes
off second best, IME.

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 10 Aug 2003 10:34:31 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Our scientists have not been able to make many important parts for the
human body as an alternative to getting them from human donors. I don't
see how they can keep up with the constant change of life's genome, the
fluidity and ecology needed for health, even in cotton.

They are making great strides in human tissue growth, I believe.

I know they have been culturing an infant foreskin into lots of
square meters of skin in USA, which may be a reason why circumcision
has been held on longer in USA. I think the infant donates but I
suspect the culturer gets well paid.


It is shown by the biotech slump.

That shows the fickleness of the stock market gamblers.

They have given it a fair go.

Biotech century ending?
[...]
Sorry, I always distrust those with an axe to grind. The science comes
off second best, IME.


This miniseries charts the further collapse of the biotech empire,
particular in the supposedly `highly lucrative' biomedical sector
since the latter part of 2000. It is now desperately grasping for
support from the taxpayer by hyping genetics and bio-defence. Don't be
fooled.

[...]
MRC Acknowledges GM Food Risks

Sorry, I always distrust those with an axe to grind. The science comes
off second best, IME.

The more advanced science people are pointing out that the
technologists are risky.

Now here is topic we have argued about recently. You haqve been
trying to say that the use of antibioitc resistance genes is oh so
safe, based on your faulty `central doctrine'. You think you know
better than the MRC?

Linkname: MRC Acknowledges GM Food Risks
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MRC-pr.php
size: 184 lines

[...]
The risks mentioned in the Report include the potential transfer
of antibiotic resistance genes into pathogens, the uptake of DNA
from GM foods by human cells or micro-organisms in the
gastrointestinal tract and more indirectly (though beyond the
scope of the report) health-related ecological disturbances
caused by the genes or dissemination of the genes. While
underplaying the transfer of GM DNA to micro-organisms and human
cells, it at least recommends further research.

It also advocates removal of antibiotic resistance genes from GM
constructs used in the production of food, but falls short of
calling for their removal in animal feed, even though there is
growing evidence that bacteria can pass from farm animals to
human beings - E. coli 0157 is a well known example.

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 3 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

This
part of the contract further makes farmers pay Monsanto's legal fees
and other costs of enforcement.

If the contract says anything you disagreee with, don't sign it,
simple. Sheeesh!

Which often means you would have to leave farming corn or canola.
Not so simple when it has been your livelihood for generations. Now
the pollutant GM genes are nearly everywhere in Canada in those
crops, trying to avoid paying the GM tech fee is a losing battle.
You get charged it anyway if the GM genes get on to your land.

I suppose you say litigate, but how do you pay for that when your
income stream has been cut?

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 3 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

This
part of the contract further makes farmers pay Monsanto's legal fees
and other costs of enforcement.

If the contract says anything you disagreee with, don't sign it,
simple. Sheeesh!

Which often means you would have to leave farming corn or canola.
Not so simple when it has been your livelihood for generations. Now
the pollutant GM genes are nearly everywhere in Canada in those
crops, trying to avoid paying the GM tech fee is a losing battle.
You get charged it anyway if the GM genes get on to your land.

I suppose you say litigate, but how do you pay for that when your
income stream has been cut?

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
snip
It also advocates removal of antibiotic resistance genes from GM
constructs used in the production of food, but falls short of
calling for their removal in animal feed, even though there is
growing evidence that bacteria can pass from farm animals to
human beings - E. coli 0157 is a well known example.

There a large number of diseases that are transmittable from farm animals to
man. Anthrax, bruculosis, tuberculosis, leptospiris, a half dozen parasites
and flu often passes from birds to pigs to man just to name a few. E. coli
O157 is not normally transmitted to people unless they are raised in
isolation from livestock a practice that has only been common in the last 50
years. Any one that is around livestock on a regular basis does not catch
it.

We feed the livestock a lot more antibiotics as growth promoters that would
cause resistance more than any possible unproved transfer from feed. We have
been doing for 50 years with out a problem and they still are antsy about
it.

You can find antibiotic resistant bacteria in the most remote places of the
world.

If we were going to create an antibiotic resistant e. coli O157 the
antibioses we feed cattle are lot more worrisome.

Gordon

Gordon

Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
snip
It also advocates removal of antibiotic resistance genes from GM
constructs used in the production of food, but falls short of
calling for their removal in animal feed, even though there is
growing evidence that bacteria can pass from farm animals to
human beings - E. coli 0157 is a well known example.

There a large number of diseases that are transmittable from farm animals to
man. Anthrax, bruculosis, tuberculosis, leptospiris, a half dozen parasites
and flu often passes from birds to pigs to man just to name a few. E. coli
O157 is not normally transmitted to people unless they are raised in
isolation from livestock a practice that has only been common in the last 50
years. Any one that is around livestock on a regular basis does not catch
it.

If they are able to build resistance. Maybe it used to be part of infant
mortality.

We feed the livestock a lot more antibiotics as growth promoters that would
cause resistance more than any possible unproved transfer from feed. We have
been doing for 50 years with out a problem and they still are antsy about
it.

You can find antibiotic resistant bacteria in the most remote places of the
world.

If we were going to create an antibiotic resistant e. coli O157 the
antibioses we feed cattle are lot more worrisome.

The antibiotics provide the selective force and the bacteria can pick up
resistance genes from the food, since they are constantly present.

On 12 Aug 2003 12:18:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 10 Aug 2003 10:34:31 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Our scientists have not been able to make many important parts for the
human body as an alternative to getting them from human donors. I don't
see how they can keep up with the constant change of life's genome, the
fluidity and ecology needed for health, even in cotton.

They are making great strides in human tissue growth, I believe.

I know they have been culturing an infant foreskin into lots of
square meters of skin in USA, which may be a reason why circumcision
has been held on longer in USA. I think the infant donates but I
suspect the culturer gets well paid.

Is that all you know about?

It is shown by the biotech slump.

That shows the fickleness of the stock market gamblers.

They have given it a fair go.

Biotech century ending?
[...]
Sorry, I always distrust those with an axe to grind. The science comes
off second best, IME.


This miniseries charts the further collapse of the biotech empire,
particular in the supposedly `highly lucrative' biomedical sector
since the latter part of 2000. It is now desperately grasping for
support from the taxpayer by hyping genetics and bio-defence. Don't be
fooled.

[...]
MRC Acknowledges GM Food Risks

Sorry, I always distrust those with an axe to grind. The science comes
off second best, IME.

The more advanced science people are pointing out that the
technologists are risky.

They've got something nasty and contagious?

Now here is topic we have argued about recently. You haqve been
trying to say that the use of antibioitc resistance genes is oh so
safe, based on your faulty `central doctrine'. You think you know
better than the MRC?

Using antibiotics is even riskier. It's all to do with cost/benefit.


Linkname: MRC Acknowledges GM Food Risks
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MRC-pr.php
size: 184 lines

[...]
The risks mentioned in the Report include the potential transfer
of antibiotic resistance genes into pathogens, the uptake of DNA
from GM foods by human cells or micro-organisms in the
gastrointestinal tract and more indirectly (though beyond the
scope of the report) health-related ecological disturbances
caused by the genes or dissemination of the genes. While
underplaying the transfer of GM DNA to micro-organisms and human
cells, it at least recommends further research.

It also advocates removal of antibiotic resistance genes from GM
constructs used in the production of food, but falls short of
calling for their removal in animal feed, even though there is
growing evidence that bacteria can pass from farm animals to
human beings - E. coli 0157 is a well known example.

On 12 Aug 2003 22:48:18 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 3 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

This
part of the contract further makes farmers pay Monsanto's legal fees
and other costs of enforcement.

If the contract says anything you disagreee with, don't sign it,
simple. Sheeesh!

Which often means you would have to leave farming corn or canola.

Why? There is plenty of other seed about. Or are you saying these
don't compete with the Monsanto product? Well, grow something else
that you can make a living from or get out of farming and do something
else.

Not so simple when it has been your livelihood for generations. Now
the pollutant GM genes are nearly everywhere in Canada in those
crops, trying to avoid paying the GM tech fee is a losing battle.

No it's not. Don't buy it, don't grow it and you have no problems.

You get charged it anyway if the GM genes get on to your land.

Garbage. You haven't read the court transcripts, just read the
sensationalist popular press, or greenie propaganda.

I suppose you say litigate, but how do you pay for that when your
income stream has been cut?

Litigate for what? No-one is forcing you to buy Monsanto products or
any others, and sign contacts for the conditions of sale.

On 13 Aug 2003 07:49:20 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

The antibiotics provide the selective force and the bacteria can pick up
resistance genes from the food, since they are constantly present.

What are "resistance genes"? Resistance to what?

Bacteria are mutating constantly.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
snip
It also advocates removal of antibiotic resistance genes from GM
constructs used in the production of food, but falls short of
calling for their removal in animal feed, even though there is
growing evidence that bacteria can pass from farm animals to
human beings - E. coli 0157 is a well known example.

There a large number of diseases that are transmittable from farm
animals to
man. Anthrax, bruculosis, tuberculosis, leptospiris, a half dozen
parasites
and flu often passes from birds to pigs to man just to name a few. E.
coli
O157 is not normally transmitted to people unless they are raised in
isolation from livestock a practice that has only been common in the
last 50
years. Any one that is around livestock on a regular basis does not
catch
it.

If they are able to build resistance. Maybe it used to be part of infant
mortality.

I have never heard of any cases of infant mortality from diseases from
animals. In the 50 years we have been feeding animal anibiodics infant
mortalty has decreased substantialy.

We feed the livestock a lot more antibiotics as growth promoters that
would
cause resistance more than any possible unproved transfer from feed. We
have
been doing for 50 years with out a problem and they still are antsy
about
it.

You can find antibiotic resistant bacteria in the most remote places of
the
world.

If we were going to create an antibiotic resistant e. coli O157 the
antibioses we feed cattle are lot more worrisome.

The antibiotics provide the selective force and the bacteria can pick up
resistance genes from the food, since they are constantly present.

That's right but 50 years of use haven't produced any resistant bacteria
problems in humans that can be traced to the farm. We do have animal
diseases that are resistant to antibiotics but they don't seem to be traced
to feeding either. Hospitals, jails and other areas where people are
confined and treated with anybodies produce problems. Many of the problem
are created by people not completing the regime of antibiotics in disease
like tuberculosis,malaria and other diseases that take long term treatment.

Most of the diseases that humans can catch from livestock have been
eradicated or nearly eradicated for both the human health point of view and
economic point of view. The main disease we have problems with antibiotic
resistance is shipping fever in cattle. It is not shared by humans and it
symptoms are similar to a cold but the very low lung capacity of cattle
quickly turn into a very serious problem with any secondary infection.

The genetics of e. coliO157 indicate it has been around hundreds of years
and can be found in every corner of the world. In 50 years of feeding
antibiotics and using antibiotics it should have developed resistance if it
was going to.

Some classes or antibodies are not allowed for use in livestock out of
concern that they will cause a problem. They are limited in humans as well
to multiple antibiotic resistant infections.

Antibiotic resistance is real problem but the antibiotic restraint gene that
is used in plants is for tetracycline one of the most used antibiotic in
livestock. It is far more likely that bacteria will acquire it from the use
of the antibiotic in cattle or from the may tetracycline resistant bacteria
in wild life and water ways. There is a substantial amount of antibiotics
that go though the sewage treatment plant and are spread in our rivers. The
relative risk of the unproved speculated risk of an antibiotic resistant
gene causing a problem compared to the real problems of antibiotics in the
environment are like trying to drain Lake Michigan with a tea cup. If it did
happen you couldn't see it for all the other exposures that bacteria have to
tetracycline.

Gordon

Gordon

In article , "Gordon Couger" wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
snip
It also advocates removal of antibiotic resistance genes from GM
constructs used in the production of food, but falls short of
calling for their removal in animal feed, even though there is
growing evidence that bacteria can pass from farm animals to
human beings - E. coli 0157 is a well known example.

There a large number of diseases that are transmittable from farm
animals to
man. Anthrax, bruculosis, tuberculosis, leptospiris, a half dozen
parasites
and flu often passes from birds to pigs to man just to name a few. E.
coli
O157 is not normally transmitted to people unless they are raised in
isolation from livestock a practice that has only been common in the
last 50
years. Any one that is around livestock on a regular basis does not
catch
it.

If they are able to build resistance. Maybe it used to be part of infant
mortality.

I have never heard of any cases of infant mortality from diseases from
animals.

Just because you haven't heard doesn't mean it doesn't happen

In the 50 years we have been feeding animal anibiodics infant
mortalty has decreased substantialy.

These are almost certainly unconnected statistics (ie one is not relevant to
the other).

Bruce

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oook !
NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !

"Bruce Sinclair" wrote in
message ...
snip
If they are able to build resistance. Maybe it used to be part of
infant
mortality.

I have never heard of any cases of infant mortality from diseases from
animals.

Just because you haven't heard doesn't mean it doesn't happen

I follow several emerging disease mailing list that follow zoonoses very
carefully. My wife works in the veternery library at OSU and almost everyone
I knew before leaving the fam was involed with livestock. I am very well
informed on diseases on domstic animals in man. The only one that has risen
is bruculoisis in veterneraians that they get when they stick them selves
with the mofied live virures vaccine for cattle.


Gordon.

"Bruce Sinclair" wrote in
message ...
snip
If they are able to build resistance. Maybe it used to be part of
infant
mortality.

I have never heard of any cases of infant mortality from diseases from
animals.

Just because you haven't heard doesn't mean it doesn't happen

I follow several emerging disease mailing list that follow zoonoses very
carefully. My wife works in the veternery library at OSU and almost everyone
I knew before leaving the fam was involed with livestock. I am very well
informed on diseases on domstic animals in man. The only one that has risen
is bruculoisis in veterneraians that they get when they stick them selves
with the mofied live virures vaccine for cattle.


Gordon.

"Bruce Sinclair" wrote in
message ...
snip
If they are able to build resistance. Maybe it used to be part of
infant
mortality.

I have never heard of any cases of infant mortality from diseases from
animals.

Just because you haven't heard doesn't mean it doesn't happen

I follow several emerging disease mailing list that follow zoonoses very
carefully. My wife works in the veternery library at OSU and almost everyone
I knew before leaving the fam was involed with livestock. I am very well
informed on diseases on domstic animals in man. The only one that has risen
is bruculoisis in veterneraians that they get when they stick them selves
with the mofied live virures vaccine for cattle.


Gordon.