Re: PROOF THAT GENETIC ENGINEERING IS DANGEROUS

[Robert Cohen <notmilkman@notmilk.com>]

Heine J. Deelstra wrote:
Yes, but do you know of any evidence that the epsilon-N-acetyllysine in
rBGH caused an increase in IGF-1 in milk? 

Dear Heine,

You can play this game forever, and of course, my friend, there is
really no scientific proof of anything.  Don't even attempt to play the
devil's advocate with me on this one.

In order to prove that rbGH was safe, FDA pulished the LANDMARK synpsis
of bGH research in the August 24, 1990 issue of the journal SCIENCE.
(Juskevich and Guyer).

I that study, Monsanto and FDA went to great lengths to state that the
only difference between rbGH and bGH was in the N-terminus (amio acid
#191 became methionine).

In citing Jerome Moore (Journal of Edocrinology study), the FDA
scientists explained that a different amino acid in the middle of a
protein chain would be disasterous, and means for non-approval.  Such
errors occurred in diabetes and Alzheimers and sickle cell anemia.

Little did they suspect that there was an error in the #144 position.

All of the laboratory animals got cancer in the Richard, Odaglia and
Deslex study.

Can I prove it?  Damned right, I can.  I have the study.  Should I
release it,  spend the next 15 years in a federal prison, thanks to
CLINTON enacting Monsanto's ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ACT of 1996.

I helped CANADA turn down the hormone, and I am damned proud of that.

The "famous" 90 day study actually lasted for 180 days.  FDA calls the
second 90 day portion "the reverse phase."  That's when all of the
animals got cancer.

Do I know that the increase of IGF-I was responsible?

Nope.  

Do  know that levels of IGF-I increased?  Yep.

FDA, WHO, NIH, JAMA called normal milk and genetically engineered milk
indistinguishable.

So much...for truth.  :>(

Robert Cohen