Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Genetically Modified Bacteria in our yogurt!


crystal sage

Recommended Posts

All I want is to say that I, my friends and family (some of them official medical professionals) had good experiences with some of reasonable alternative methods (I admit there are some alternative stuff that is simply insane).

What are they, then?

I do appreciate your work (and of your colleagues too, of course).

Thank you

I know that old-fashioned stuff is not nearly as thrilling as poking the genome around, or inventing new chemicals with questionable effects but I will repeat that as many times as I get a chance: there are millions of us, relatively or completely poor people and we need cheap, safe and easily accessible medications, that don’t leave damage in the body to be cured with next treatment. We don’t have time or money to hang at doctor’s every two weeks.

I agree with you. I'm not sure about the medical community or how the system works in Croatia, however, the job of researchers is to determine whether a treatment is effective at treating a given ailment. That extends to both conventional and alternative treatments and a variety of different ailments, be it anything from a sore throat to cancer. The reason they are called alternative treatments is because they have no evidence to support what they are said to do from the research that has been conducted. Every criticism of the medical industry as far as gaining money through some sort of 'conspiracy' is utterly false. If anything, the alternative treatment practitioners are the ones who are conspiring, as they are capitalizing on the naivety and hopeless people who are terminal. Alternative treatments are fine for less illnesses like the sore throat you had, but for serious things such as cancer, HIV, etc, choosing alternative treatments over conventional ones can have deadly consequences. That is my rationale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My father had an aggressive form of stomach cancer... the doctors ,after telling him for a couple of years that he was imagining his pain.. they finally found the tumor and chopped out most of his stomach... then they just left him as they thought he was too ill to treat.. His oncologist went on a 'golfing holiday' assuming my father would be dead before he returned.

Roughly at that time there was a news item on a Current Affairs program that mentioned an ancient Aboriginal remedy for cancer.. many testimonials supported it.. they jokingly referred to it as 'Jungle Juice'... the ingredient was from the Marroon Bush .. found in the Flinders ranges... they interviewed an Aboriginal medicine man.. who made up ans 'sang' the potion.. by chance.. I was able to pull some strings at that time and so was able to aquire a dose...

I visited my father. in hospital. with the still warm brew flown in by courier in an large Coke bottle..

He was down to sucking ice blocks as he could no longer eat or drink.. and said that there was no way he could take it.. I convinced him to at least try it and put an ounce of this medication in a glass.. To please me he tried.. he was able to swallow it.. and I could see a change in him almost instantly... He suddenly felt hungry and thirsty.. and asked the nurse for a Vegemite and cheese sandwich and a juice.. and got the whole lot down without any trouble...

His progress was rapid after this... and when the doctor saw him again 6 weeks later for a follow up .. he was surprised that my father was still alive.. and the tests showed that the cancer had almost disappeared... He immediately put my father on chemo.. .. which made him really ill.. The Medicine man went on 'walk abouts' so that supply dried up.. but at that time.. due to the controversy of the tv show.. the government did a research on the medication.. we managed to get some... however.. I noticed that the product was totally different from the one we got from the Medicine man... tasted different.. had not bits in it.. I don't know if the boiled the whole plant or just some of it.. or took extracts from the plant.. but.. it.. just wasn't the same..

My experience here has shown me that products in nature work..

Look at the success they are having with using Petti spurge and fever few for cancer!!! there are some very promising results.. without the horrid side effects of chemo...

Testimonials

http://www.gopetition.com/online/21438.html

Description/History:

Traditional Aboriginal bush medicine for treatment of cancer, heart disease, intestinal trouble, urinary & kidney problems & general illnesses.

Ancedotal evidence supports it may be a powerful aid in the treatment of cancer giving the immune system a boost and may have antiviral properties. From 1950's to 2005 it was supplied by the Health Dept as a tea for cancer suffers who requested it. Phased out due to not having had a proper medical trail. Licences to pick it were issued up until 2007.

This petition hopes to bring about the re-instatement of these licences to be able to give people (often with terminal disease) who wish to use it a choice of treatment.

Edited by crystal sage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My father had an aggressive form of stomach cancer... the doctors ,after telling him for a couple of years that he was imagining his pain.. they finally found the tumor and chopped out most of his stomach... then they just left him as they thought he was too ill to treat.. His oncologist went on a 'golfing holiday' assuming my father would be dead before he returned.

Roughly at that time there was a news item on a Current Affairs program that mentioned an ancient Aboriginal remedy for cancer.. many testimonials supported it.. they jokingly referred to it as 'Jungle Juice'... the ingredient was from the Marroon Bush .. found in the Flinders ranges... they interviewed an Aboriginal medicine man.. who made up ans 'sang' the potion.. by chance.. I was able to pull some strings at that time and so was able to aquire a dose...

I visited my father. in hospital. with the still warm brew flown in by courier in an large Coke bottle..

He was down to sucking ice blocks as he could no longer eat or drink.. and said that there was no way he could take it.. I convinced him to at least try it and put an ounce of this medication in a glass.. To please me he tried.. he was able to swallow it.. and I could see a change in him almost instantly... He suddenly felt hungry and thirsty.. and asked the nurse for a Vegemite and cheese sandwich and a juice.. and got the whole lot down without any trouble...

His progress was rapid after this... and when the doctor saw him again 6 weeks later for a follow up .. he was surprised that my father was still alive.. and the tests showed that the cancer had almost disappeared... He immediately put my father on chemo.. .. which made him really ill.. The Medicine man went on 'walk abouts' so that supply dried up.. but at that time.. due to the controversy of the tv show.. the government did a research on the medication.. we managed to get some... however.. I noticed that the product was totally different from the one we got from the Medicine man... tasted different.. had not bits in it.. I don't know if the boiled the whole plant or just some of it.. or took extracts from the plant.. but.. it.. just wasn't the same..

My experience here has shown me that products in nature work..

Look at the success they are having with using Petti spurge and fever few for cancer!!! there are some very promising results.. without the horrid side effects of chemo...

Your have your few testimonials, supported with no evidence. I have my thousands of research studies, peer reviewed in journals across the world, with hundreds of thousands of patients success using conventional treatments, with mountains of evidence. All you need to do is visit your local cancer specialist and ask for said statistics. Or go subscribe to the peer reviewed journals yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are they, then?

Thank you

I agree with you. I'm not sure about the medical community or how the system works in Croatia, however, the job of researchers is to determine whether a treatment is effective at treating a given ailment. That extends to both conventional and alternative treatments and a variety of different ailments, be it anything from a sore throat to cancer. The reason they are called alternative treatments is because they have no evidence to support what they are said to do from the research that has been conducted. Every criticism of the medical industry as far as gaining money through some sort of 'conspiracy' is utterly false. If anything, the alternative treatment practitioners are the ones who are conspiring, as they are capitalizing on the naivety and hopeless people who are terminal. Alternative treatments are fine for less illnesses like the sore throat you had, but for serious things such as cancer, HIV, etc, choosing alternative treatments over conventional ones can have deadly consequences. That is my rationale.

I know there are thousands of scientists who dedicated their careers to finding real cures, but they don’t really decide which product will go on the market and under which conditions. I don’t think there’s a conspiracy, there is obvious policy of major players that puts profit before everything else.

Maybe you heard of India’s decision to start producing generic medications (specifically the group of medication used for HIV) because the branded ones are simply too expensive for them. I don’t know how it ended, but it sure started with threats in “we’ll sue the soul out of you” style.

There is further development to be financed somehow, I know that, companies would sink very soon if they would start giving their products away, but there’s also a lot of golfing, yachting and other necessities. I’ve seen the yacht used by one pharmaceutical company, but the kind of research that is going on it won’t take us closer to any cure.

But that’s how this world works, I know it’s not you who made it that way.

Alternative field the most obviously worth of acknowledgement and research is phyto-therapy. Phytochemistry is getting popular even in part of official circles, so the effective natural substances are getting prescribed lately and serious literature by officialy educated authors is appearing. (I have very useful catalogue of "healing herbs" put toghether by Slovenian doctor, with both human and veterinary applications listed, I hope it will be translated into English one day.)

Why not take the plants with (reputation of) healing qualities and study it? It is done, but in extremely small scope and budget, compared to development of various copyrighted chemicals.

Isn’t it logical that our bodies will respond better to substances found in nature, than to chemicals unknown to our systems?

I’m not naïve, I’ve been set and stitched back by surgeon, not by prayer or chamomile tea. But when someone has sinusitis, for example, why not give it a try with horseradish before knocking this man’s system down with antibiotics? Why losing battle against stubborn Helicobacter Pillory when you can thoroughly kill it with common garlic?

Look at the crystal sage’s perfect example of what’s going on. There is a plant that works. So it finally finds its way into official circles. Great? No, it ends up sold in suspicious version and it’s not easily accessible or openly recommended.

I know for worse examples, where company knows their product is needed to fight deadly illness, and still they sold crap instead of real plant-extract.

Maybe because it’s cheaper for them that way, maybe because of some out-of-mind strict sanitary rules, maybe because someone is deliberately trying to show it doesn’t really work.

We had big polemic over here over allegedly miraculous product, a sort of clay that has to be ingested in form of very fine powder and then it (allegedly) absorbs toxins and cleanses organism so efficiently it’s beyond belief. It was in “witchcraft” category until it got permits overnight and hit the market with outrageous price. So what can I conclude about the rigid criteria of official medicine? If it’s natural – it’s crap, if it’s branded – it’s the best. Same substance, two completely opposite “verdicts”.

Jesus, what a long post. Sorry, Cimber, I wanted to make a quick reply and I got carried away.

BTW, what’s wrong with testimonials? One officially highly recommended antibiotic (I won’t mention name because I’m healthy paranoid) with no notable side-effects has more than horrible reputation among folks who took it. So am I a fool if I consider testimonials or the other way around?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there are thousands of scientists who dedicated their careers to finding real cures, but they don’t really decide which product will go on the market and under which conditions.

Their research does determine which treatment will go on the market. Something that doesn't give a benefit won't be in circulation.

Why not take the plants with (reputation of) healing qualities and study it? It is done, but in extremely small scope and budget, compared to development of various copyrighted chemicals.

Alternatives are being studied and the budget given doesn't change that the results show that they are ineffective and thus not used in a conventional sense (speaking in general terms).

Isn’t it logical that our bodies will respond better to substances found in nature, than to chemicals unknown to our systems?

No, because even if a substance is found in nature, its not going to necessarily do what you want it to do. Chemicals are chemicals, depending on the qualities they convey. Not all natural occuring treatments are safe either, many are very toxic. Likewise, man made ones may be toxic too, if wanted.

I’m not naïve, I’ve been set and stitched back by surgeon, not by prayer or chamomile tea. But when someone has sinusitis, for example, why not give it a try with horseradish before knocking this man’s system down with antibiotics? Why losing battle against stubborn Helicobacter Pillory when you can thoroughly kill it with common garlic?

Because antibioitcs are proven to be more efficient and rigorous. The only time garlic may be more useful is through the use in a population that has a high suceptibility to antibiotic resistance and reinfection.

Look at the crystal sage’s perfect example of what’s going on. There is a plant that works. So it finally finds its way into official circles. Great? No, it ends up sold in suspicious version and it’s not easily accessible or openly recommended.

All of crystal sage's posts are nothing more than bogus and you don't need to have anything more than an undergraduate level education in biology to see it.

Would you like me to list all of the clinical trials and journal research studies and statistical analysis once again to show you how useless most if not all alternative treatments are compared to conventional ones?

BTW, what’s wrong with testimonials? One officially highly recommended antibiotic (I won’t mention name because I’m healthy paranoid) with no notable side-effects has more than horrible reputation among folks who took it. So am I a fool if I consider testimonials or the other way around?

Because testimonials are subject to confounding variables and are on a case by case basis. There is no statistical anaylsis being done and no in depth research into single testimonials. Most of the time, there is no way to find out if it was an antibiotic (for example) that caused the problems or if it was an interaction of complimentary treatments the patient did without notifying their doctor. That is why controlled research studies that are peer reviewed that uses statistical analysis are so much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because scientists are super humans, who cannot be bribed and are immune to mistakes or stretching things. Right.

I’m allergic to religious nuts who find “proof” for their gods in various scriptures and I’m developing similar allergy to merchants who have “proof” in their own studies.

I can see the future :D so: There’s nothing wrong with objective study, I don’t have problem with studies, I have problem with questionable objectivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because scientists are super humans, who cannot be bribed and are immune to mistakes or stretching things. Right.

That is why we have peer review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why we have peer review.

See the post above. Being a member of a group of people doesn't make you impecable, only pilled up. And even more susceptible of various kinds of pressures. I know how the climbing to the top looks like, there's less science than peer-reviewed statistics would show.

I'm getting bored.

Edit: spelling

Edited by Helen of Annoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the post above. Being a member of a group of people doesn't make you impecable, only pilled up. And even more susceptible of various kinds of pressures. I know how the climbing to the top looks like, there's less science than peer-reviewed statistics would show.

I'm getting bored.

Edit: spelling

What on earth are you talking about?

Do you understand how peer review works and the reason it exists? It is used to insure scientists aren't fabricating data or simply making up results to fit their goals. If the peer review board catches a scientist and his research team of fabricating data, their scientific career is essentially over. They have no more credibility. It has happened in the past and serves to uphold the integrity of the scientific community.

I know how the climbing to the top looks like, there's less science than peer-reviewed statistics would show.

What does that even mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does that even mean?

That I’m not impressed.

I’m done commenting on yoghurt, bacteria and all the off-topics that sprung out in the process.

See you in some other thread :st

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/sci...ale/default.htm

The editors of scientific journals are in a very powerful position. Those that head up very high impact journals - like Science, Nature or Cell, are bombarded with thousands of articles for each space they have available to publish. They must also vie with each other to publish the sexiest research first, and negotiate with scientists who play journals off against each other for who gets to publish their research.

So editors become quasi-reviewers as they sift through and decide which of the papers will be sent off for peer review. Meanwhile the hapless scientist is waiting - they can't send their paper to another journal until it has been officially rejected by the first one.

Even once a paper has been accepted it can take up to 18 months to be published. The journal has moved from being a method of letting other scientists find out the latest research, to being an archival record of past work to be assessed by bureaucrats.

This time lag also challenges another tenet of the traditional 'system' of science - that of replication of work to iron out any inaccuracies. Let's face it, with the pressure of constant publication to keep the numbers up, who has time to replicate someone else's work? For that matter, who has time to check back original papers cited in other work?

There is other evidence that the system is crumbling. Over the last few years several high profile discoveries that were published in high profile journals were later retracted, causing many to ask about the robustness of the peer-review system. Recent studies have also shown deep flaws in the citation system, but that's another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?? Is this true?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/sci...ale/default.htm

Scientists hand over their intellectual property when they submit a paper to be published. That's right. It's not the author who owns the intellectual property (including copyright) on the work, it's the journal. To add insult to injury, the scientists' institution's not only have to pay for a subscription to a journal to see their work in print, but sometimes scientists are also asked to pay a fee when they submit a paper to a journal.

This situation has been described as the 'Faustian bargain' by some scientists - a deal with the devil. They are tied to the publishers because without them they cannot get promotion or sometimes even funding. But they are giving away their work, their copyright

Edited by crystal sage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
 

My greatest fear... that I may have unwittingly fed my kids GMO yogurt... !!!

:o ??? The new heavily promoted Elivie

http://yoplait-elivae.com/elivae/

Yoplait elivaé is a smooth, delicious 98% fat free yogurt with a unique blend of probiotic cultures, including digestivus culturusTM, Acidophilus and Casei. Yoplait elivaé has been designed to naturally regulate your digestive system, which can relieve bloating.

Opinion: Do we need rice with human genes?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267150

This has led to speculation that sick children in developing countries are being used in a cynical campaign of pretence suggesting that Ventria Bioscience is motivated by altruism. Their longer-term plans are to include the GM human proteins in yoghurt, granola bars and sport re-hydration drinks.

Do we really need a GM cure for diarrhoea?

http://www.bioline.org.br/request?au00049

Possible application of gene technology

To date, no genetically modified yoghurt cultures have been approved.

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/fo...it_yoghurt.html

Raw material milk:

The feed used in the farming of cows may contain a variety of raw materials and additives in which a role is played by gene technology.

* Agricultural raw materials from genetically modified plants: predominantly soybeans, but also maize, oilseed rape or cotton

* Additives such as amino acids, vitamins and various enzymes (e.g. phytase). These may be produced with the aid of genetically modified micro-organisms.

Labelling of feed: Feeds which contain raw material or added material from genetically modified organisms (GMO) are subject as such to labelling. Foodstuffs such as milk, meat or eggs from animals which have been fed with such feed nonetheless are not subject as such to labelling requirements. :angry:

Edited by crystal sage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 years later...
Quote
Finally, the following two demands for future research
on the safety evaluation of novel foods should be addres-
sed with priority. 1. Although a wealth of information on
transfer of recombinant DNA has been accumulated, free
DNA has not been thoroughly ineluded in those studies.
Thus, the presence of free recombinant DNA should be
screened for in different food systems and its biological
activity (transforming capacity) should be determined 2.
The fate of food is to finally end up in the gastrointestinal
tract. The very high concentration of bacteria within the
gastrointestinal tract favours intensive cell-to-cell interac-
tions. Therefore, the capacity of the gastrointestinal tract

... :(    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It's amazing all the experiments of various bacteria are out there... imagine some that went totally wrong... how easy is it for a mould.. a bacteria.. especially forms used for creating yogurts..  yeasts... escape...    note  that gene transfers are one of the main characteristics of GMO's ..  also the inadvertent inclusion of Junk Genes... which we now know are not junk genes at all but have a biological purpose... so how would junk genes from another species interact with human genes.. or genes of another species??? http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/ 

 

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2012/09/06/gene-switches-in-junk-dna-control-human-health/

Quote

The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were dismissed as “junk” but that turn out to play critical roles in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave. The discovery, considered a major medical and scientific breakthrough, has enormous implications for human health because many complex diseases appear to be caused by tiny changes in hundreds of gene switches

 

 

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1550503.htm   Doctors modify yoghurt bacteria to combat HIV infection

 

 

Quote

HAMISH FITZSIMMONS: Doctors in the United States have modified a friendly bacteria found in humans and yoghurt, and discovered, that at least under laboratory conditions, the bacteria can neutralise the deadly HIV virus.

The results published today in the international journal Nature, pave the way for clinical trials this year using monkeys.

Scientists envisage the modified bacteria may one day be incorporated into yoghurts or be taken in tablet form to deliver an HIV blocking drug straight to a woman's vagina.

A single dose could potentially provide a week's worth of protection from HIV infection, as Toni Hassan reports.

TONI HASSAN: What makes this development exciting is how it differs from the approach of existing Human Immuno-deficiency virus drugs.

Existing drugs inhibit proteins in human cells that HIV requires in order to make copies of itself. The existing drugs limit the damage once the HIV is already in human cells. But there are no drugs to prevent the entry of the AIDS virus entering cells after sexual intercourse.

BHARAT RAMRATNAM: Once HIV enters, the game is pretty much over. The person becomes infected. So this is very much a strategy to prevent infection.

TONI HASSAN: Dr Bharat Ramratnam is an HIV specialist at Brown Medical School on Rhode Island. He's one of a team in the US that has genetically modified a good bug found in yoghurt and human stomachs - lactococcus lactic - to release a protein that stops HIV infection.

BHARAT RAMRATNAM: Yoghurt has been used for a bazillion years as a therapeutic. We're just sort of changing the mould a little and saying that let's make the yoghurt better and let's make it a drug machine.

And the thing that's probably not obvious to most people is that this "bug" already resides in us. Lactobacilli… our gastro-intestinal tract is full of bacteria and these bacteria live happily. They don't attack us. They in most cases don't cause disease. They actually probably have some health effects.

So we chose one of these bugs called Lactobacillus and we changed its genetic composition so that in addition to all the things that the Lactobacillus does, it also secretes a protein and that protein happens to be anti-viral or anti-HIV in activity.

TONI HASSAN: The lab results published today are of course just that and will now be tested on macaque monkeys.

The modified bacteria will be placed in what's called mucosal surfaces in vaginas and rectums of monkeys to test if the protein can in fact target and block HIV in infected semen.

Dr Ramaratnam again.

BHARAT RAMRATNAM: The principle is there. I think the concept is fairly scientifically sound, but the entire question which can only be answered through the animal studies is how much drug is produced by these bacteria and how long they last?
 

 

Edited by crystal sage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.