's Bulletin Board Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

»'s Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » Roundup Ready Crops » Post A Reply

Post A Reply
Login Name:
Message Icon: Icon 1     Icon 2     Icon 3     Icon 4     Icon 5     Icon 6     Icon 7    
Icon 8     Icon 9     Icon 10     Icon 11     Icon 12     Icon 13     Icon 14    

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.


Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™
Smile   Frown   Embarrassed   Big Grin   Wink   Razz  
Cool   Roll Eyes   Mad   Eek!   Confused   BadOne  
Good Luck   More Crap   Wall Bang   Were Up   Were Down    
Insert URL Hyperlink - UBB Code™   Insert Email Address - UBB Code™
Bold - UBB Code™   Italics - UBB Code™
Quote - UBB Code™   Code Tag - UBB Code™
List Start - UBB Code™   List Item - UBB Code™
List End - UBB Code™   Image - UBB Code™

What is UBB Code™?

Disable Graemlins in this post.


T O P I C     R E V I E W
IWISHIHAD  - posted
Roundup Ready Crops (RR Crops) are genetically engineered crops that have had their DNA altered to allow them to withstand the herbicide glyphosate (the active ingredient of Monsanto's herbicide Roundup). They are also known as "glyphosate tolerant crops." RR crops deregulated in the U.S. include: corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, sugarbeets, and alfalfa. When planting Glyphosate Tolerant crops, a farmer can spray the entire crop with glyphosate, killing only the weeds and leaving the crop alive. However, one concern with the heavy use of glyphosate on RR crops is that it will lead to the development of glyphosate resistant weeds (sometimes referred to as "superweeds").[1] One variety of RR Corn, NK603, was linked to tumors in rats by a 2012 study.

IWISHIHAD  - posted
Did anyone watch this topic on HBO a few weeks ago?

glassman  - posted
i didn't see the HBO special, but i is more than a little familiar with the issue.

Roundup is supposedly safe for mammals because it interrupts the formation of certain amino acids. mammals DO NOT make amino acids- plants adn most bacteria do. mammals get their amino acids from the plants.

the gene that was transplanted into plants to make them roundup ready came from a bacteria found growing in the waste stream of a roundup factory.. so the gene from bacteria has been inserted int he genes of the palnts that are roundup ready..

roundup is not as safe as Monsanto and agribiz claim it is. However, if it was very dangerous we'd be feeling it already. We may be feeling it, but not realise what it is.
Roundup use has quadrupled becuase of roundup ready. So it's becoming a serious problem. We get tons of it sprayed on us here in MS by crop dusters and i am all for banning crop dusting and most pesticides/herbicides..

There is major breakthru in genetic engineering happening right now. CRISPR CAS 9 is a sytem we have sorted out and will be able to make do alot of useful things. We need good peer review for scientific accuracy and ethics. We need better oversight by the FDA and the EPA than we have had. Caars and planes both presented us with the same sort of problems. Some we can deal with some we can't and some we won't even if we can.

when i lieved in Nebraska i noticed the farmers had terrible time controling the ditch weed (hemp) even with direct appplications of roundup... if i were int eh biz, i would be sampling the NE ditchweeds genes for more suitable plant genes than the genes from bacteria.. but hey i'm jus' a glassblower, not genetic engineer
Pagan  - posted
So you are saying the Human body can't make any Amino Acids?
raybond  - posted
posted by Sal

Every cell in the body is comprised of proteins. Amino acids are the chemical substances that make up protein. Our bodies use 22 amino acids to make the 50,000 different proteins we must have to be healthy. Of the 22 amino acids there are 8 that are essential for human nutrition. An essential amino acid is one that cannot be synthesised from other available resources, and therefore must be supplied as part of the diet.

It is not important to mix plant material at one meal to obtain the 8 amino acids - Our bodies store amino acids in our blood for several hours. So if we miss getting some amino acids in one meal, we can pick them up at some other time during the day. Non-essential amino acids don't need to be supplied in the diet as they can be synthesised from other dietary substances.

Nearly every food, with the exception of fruits, sugars and fats and oils, has enough protein to supply our necessary amino acids if we eat enough of it to get our day's worth of calories. We do not need to eat meat.

SAL · 6 years ago
IWISHIHAD  - posted
Glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine) is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses known to compete with commercial crops grown around the globe. It was discovered to be a herbicide by Monsanto chemist John E. Franz in 1970.[3] Monsanto brought it to market in the 1970s under the trade name Roundup and Monsanto's last commercially relevant United States patent expired in 2000.

Glyphosate was quickly adopted by farmers, even more so when Monsanto introduced glyphosate-resistant crops, enabling farmers to kill weeds without killing their crops. In 2007, glyphosate was the most used herbicide in the United States agricultural sector, with 180 to 185 million pounds (82,000 to 84,000 tonnes) applied, and the second-most used in home and garden market where users applied 5 to 8 million pounds (2,300 to 3,600 tonnes); in addition, industry, commerce, and government applied 13 to 15 million pounds (5,900 to 6,800 tonnes).[4] With its heavy use in agriculture, weed resistance to glyphosate is a growing problem. While glyphosate and formulations such as Roundup have been approved by regulatory bodies worldwide and are widely used, concerns about their effects on humans and the environment persist.[5]

Glyphosate's mode of action is to inhibit a plant enzyme involved in the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids: tyrosine, tryptophan, and phenylalanine. It is absorbed through foliage, and minimally through roots,[6][7][8] and translocated to growing points. Because of this mode of action, it is only effective on actively growing plants; it is not effective as a pre-emergence herbicide. Some crops have been genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate (i.e., Roundup Ready, also created by Monsanto Company). Such crops allow farmers to use glyphosate as a postemergence herbicide against both broadleaf and cereal weeds, but the development of similar resistance in some weed species is emerging as a costly problem. Roundup Ready soybean was the first Roundup Ready crop.

Regulatory and scholarly reviews of the toxicity of glyphosate found it to be relatively safe as an herbicide. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment published a toxicology review in 2013, which found that "the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing" with regard to correlations between exposure to glyphosate formulations and risk of various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).[9]:Volume 1, pp. 64–66 A meta-analysis published in 2014 identified an increased risk of NHL in workers exposed to glyphosate formulations.[10] In March 2015 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer published a summary of its forthcoming monograph on glyphosate, and classified it as "probably carcinogenic in humans" (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.[5][11][12]

IWISHIHAD  - posted
NaturalNews) Dr. Andreas Carrasco remained in the locked car and watched with fear as the crowd beat the vehicle and shouted at him -- for two hours. His friends who didn't make it into the vehicle were not so lucky. One ended up paralyzed. Another unconscious. The angry crowd of about 100 were likely organized by a local rice grower who was furious at Carrasco for what he was trying to do that day. Carrasco's crime? Telling people that Roundup herbicide from Monsanto causes birth defects in animals, and probably humans.

Carrasco is a leading embryologist at the University of Buenos Aires Medical School and the Argentinean national research council. He had heard the horrific stories of peasant farmers working near the vast fields of Roundup Ready soybeans -- plants genetically engineered to withstand generous doses of Monsanto's poisonous weed killer. The short-term impact of getting sprayed was obvious: skin rashes, headaches, loss of appetite, and for one 11 year old Paraguayan boy named Silvino Talavera, who biked through a fog of herbicides in 2003, death. But Carrasco also heard about the rise of birth defects, cancer, and other disorders that now plagued the peasants who were sprayed by plane. He decided to conduct a study.

Exposing Roundup's 30 year cover-up of birth defects
Carrasco injected minute amounts of Roundup into chicken and frog embryos, and sure enough, the offspring exhibited the same type of birth deformities that the peasant communities were seeing in their newborns. A report by the provincial government of Chaco soon followed, confirming that those living near soy and rice fields sprayed with Roundup and other chemicals did in fact have higher rates of birth defects -- nearly a fourfold increase between 2000-2009. (Child cancer rates tripled during the same period.)

Regulatory agencies had given Roundup a green light years before, claiming that it was free of such problems. However after Carrasco's findings were published, European authorities quietly pushed their official re-assessment of Roundup, due in 2012, back to 2015. And the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, charged with responding to Carrasco's findings, issued a statement claiming that the Argentine scientist must be mistaken; earlier studies conducted by manufacturers of Roundup (including Monsanto) had already demonstrated that Roundup does not cause birth defects.

But in June 2011, a group of international scientists released a report detailing a massive cover-up that went back to the 1980s. The very industry studies cited by the German Consumer Protection office in fact showed just the opposite. Roundup did increase birth defects. Using scientific sleight of hand, Europe's regulators had ignored statistically significant increases in birth defects, and so did every other regulatory agency worldwide. Monsanto has relied on these misleading statements of safety by regulators ever since, using them to deny that Roundup causes birth defects.

Monsanto secretly poisoning the population, again and again
Covering up toxic effects of their products was not new for Monsanto. They're experts at it. In 2003 the company paid $700 million in settlements for secretly poisoning the population living next to their PCB factory in Anniston, Alabama. Court documents showed the arrogance of Monsanto executives made aware of the product's effects: "We can't afford to lose $1 of business," was the written response in a secret company memo.

Leaked documents also revealed that EPA scientists had charged Monsanto with fraudulently hiding the toxic effects of Agent Orange -- effectively preventing Vietnam veterans from collecting compensation for cancer, birth defects, and other symptoms of exposure.

When Carrasco first reported his findings, he got the usual treatment. His results were vehemently denied, and he was attacked in the press by biotech advocates. Four highly aggressive men showed up at his office and tried to interrogate him, but he wasn't physically attacked. Not until he tried to give a speech on his results in the small Argentine farm town of La Leonesa on August 7, 2010. That was unusual.

Punishing messengers worldwide
When Dr. Irina Ermakova came to her office, the meaning of the charred remains of papers on her desk was unambiguous -- it was yet another attempt to intimidate or punish her. So was the theft of samples from her laboratory, and the continuous verbal attacks by biotech advocates. Her crime? She fed rats genetically modified Roundup Ready soy, and reported the results.

Those results were clearly not what the sellers of GM soy wanted us to hear. After female rats were fed GM soy, more than half their babies died within three weeks. The rat pups were also considerably smaller, and in a later experiment, were unable to reproduce. Offspring from mothers fed non-GM soybeans, on the other hand, died at only a 10% rate, and were able to mate successfully.

Journal ambushes scientist
After Ermakova presented the results as "preliminary" at an October 2005 conference, the biotech industry's damage control teams kicked into high gear. At the center of the coordinated attack was the editor of the journal Nature Biotechnology and four biotech advocates. According to Ermakova, the editor contacted her and told her he was going to include a description of her study as a sort of essay in the journal. She was then asked to summarize her research over the phone, or if she preferred, in writing. Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences, was surprised by the request and asked instead to properly submit the findings for peer review and publication. Oh no, the editor insisted, he just wanted a summary. She sent it in, and the journal sent Ermakova back a proof of the article, with her named as the author.

But that was just a "dummy proof." What was actually published was quite different. Instead of an essay, the journal had inserted scathing criticisms from the four biotech advocates after nearly every paragraph. Many of Ermakova's citations were also stripped off and replaced with those chosen by the biotech detractors -- to weaken her case. It was an academic lynch mob, conducted by four biotech apologists: Bruce Chassy, Vivian Moses, Val Giddings, and Alan McHughen. All acknowledged that they had no personal experience in the type of research they were condemning, but that didn't stop them from throwing every type of challenge they could think of at Ermakova.

The purpose of the attack was transparent. It allowed the biotech industry to claim from that point forward that the study showing high death rates was officially refuted and discredited. It also served as a warning: if anyone wanted to defend Ermakova (or do similar research) they too would be mercilessly attacked.

The problem was that nearly all their criticisms were utterly baseless. About 75 % of their arguments, for example, were simply complaints that she didn't provide sufficient detail. Now remember -- she was told to only provide a summary. Her request to the editor to submit complete details was denied. It was quite a setup. When the details of this ambush were made public, independent scientists charged Nature Biotechnology with an unethical "premeditated attack." At least one letter called on the editor to resign.

It didn't happen. Instead, international pressure against Ermakova got so intense, her boss told her not to do any more studies on GMOs. One of her colleagues even tried to comfort her by suggesting that perhaps the GM soy could solve the human overpopulation problem. (She wasn't comforted.)

Real life confirms research: GM soy = high infant mortality for rats
The main valid criticism against Ermakova's research was that she failed to conduct a biochemical analysis of the feed. Without that, we don't know if some rogue toxin present in the bag of soy flour might have been responsible for the astonishing death rate and stunted growth in her experiment. But subsequent events at her laboratory suggest otherwise.

After Ermakova repeated the test three times with similar results, the supplier of rat food used at the facility began using GM soy in the formulation. With all the rats now eating GM soy, Ermakova couldn't conduct any more experiments (she had no controls). After two months, however, she asked her colleagues at the lab about the mortality rate in their rat experiments. It turned out that 99 of 179 (55.3%) rat pups whose parents were fed GM soy-based rat chow had died within the first 20 days. Thus, whatever caused the high death rate does not appear to be confined to the one batch of GM flour used in her experiment. Both the study, and the subsequent laboratory-wide mortality rate, are published in the Russian peer-reviewed journal Ecosinform.

Horrific reproductive disorders
Other studies on Roundup Ready soy also show scary reproductive problems. Ermakova showed that the testicles of rats fed GM soy changed from the normal pink to blue (not published). Peer-reviewed research from Italy also showed changes in mice testicles, including alterations in young sperm cells. A Brazilian team found changes in the uterus and ovaries of female rats. The DNA of mice embryos functioned differently, compared to those whose parents were fed non-GM soy. And when hamsters were fed GM soy for two years, by the third generation, most lost the ability to have babies. The offspring grew at a slower rate and the infant mortality rate was 4-5 times that of the non-GM soy group. Many also had hair growing in their mouths.

When the Austrian government tested Roundup Ready corn (which was also engineered to produce an insecticide), mice had fewer – and smaller – babies.

It's not possible to know if the reproductive damage was due to the genetic changes in the GM crops, the high residues of Roundup in the GM soybeans and corn, or some other reason. But the American Academy of Environmental Science is among the medical organizations that don't need more animal studies before issuing a warning. They urge all doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets to everyone.

Omnipresent Roundup literally falls from the sky
Although eliminating Roundup Ready soy and corn from our diet will certainly reduce our intake of Roundup, a recent study suggests that getting our exposure down to zero is not possible. In the Midwest during the growing season, Roundup is found in 60–100% of air and rain samples, as well as in streams.

The omnipresence of Roundup in the US is due in large part to the more than 100 million acres of Roundup Ready crops. As farmers pour on Monsanto's weed killer, weeds are learning to adapt and withstand the poison -- so farmers pour on more. In the first 13 years since GM crops were introduced, the use of herbicide-tolerant crops resulted in an additional 383 million pounds more herbicide. And due to the emergence of superweeds (now found in 11 million acres), the increased use of Roundup is accelerating dramatically.

USDA solution? Even more Roundup
The USDA has a unique response to this mounting threat: Add more Roundup. In January 2011 they deregulated yet another Roundup Ready crop, alfalfa -- which is widely used for animal feed. Only 7% of the more than 20 million acres of this crop typically gets any herbicide applied to it. But that's about to change, since Roundup Ready alfalfa will soon be drinking Roundup in a hay field near you.

Not content with just the alfalfa, on July 1 the USDA told Scotts Miracle-Gro that it could introduce Roundup Ready Kentucky Bluegrass to lawns, golf courses, and soccer fields around the nation, without any government oversight.

So now we have Roundup in our food, animal feed, air, rain, and streams, and soon it will be sprayed in high doses where our children play on the grass. It's not just birth defects that may soon plague America as a result. Roundup is also linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, lower sperm counts, abnormal sperm, human cell death, miscarriages, and other disorders. But it's also linked to billions in profits for Monsanto. No wonder they are working overtime to silence the scientists and cover-up the findings. What if people knew the truth?

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception (, the world's bestselling book on GMOs. He is also the author of Genetic Roulette
IWISHIHAD  - posted
Bottom line, it is just to easy to spray everywhere on the plants and around these plants in excess, to kill the weeds, when these plants are resistant to the herbicide.

It must be cost efffective to spray these plants so heavily, which ends up being the consumers downside.

We know this herbicide is absorbed into plants and end product and then we absorb this when we eat the product.

If it is so safe then have them drink some on a daily basis, then we can see how safe it is.

This is a major problem as we develope more fruits etc. that are resistant to these products that enhance larger crops.

Really makes you want to grow all your own crops and raise your meats.

glassman  - posted
Originally posted by Pagan:
So you are saying the Human body can't make any Amino Acids?

sorry, i see what you mean-- i didn't mean to say "any" we sortof make half of them and and can't make the other half. (good catch)

roundup blocks the production of three amino acids that are not made by mammals...tyrosine, phenylanaine and tryptophan...
tyrosine is made from phenylanine so it's really an essential amino acid since you have to have one of the "essentials" ( one we don't make)to make it, even though it is usually listed as a non-essential...
glassman  - posted
Originally posted by IWISHIHAD:
Bottom line, it is just to easy to spray everywhere on the plants and around these plants in excess, to kill the weeds, when these plants are resistant to the herbicide.

It must be cost efffective to spray these plants so heavily, which ends up being the consumers downside.

We know this herbicide is absorbed into plants and end product and then we absorb this when we eat the product.

If it is so safe then have them drink some on a daily basis, then we can see how safe it is.

This is a major problem as we develope more fruits etc. that are resistant to these products that enhance larger crops.

Really makes you want to grow all your own crops and raise your meats.


i don;'t think roundup is safe, but i can tell you first hand that raising all your own food is a full time job for a family of ten... when i say full time, i don't mean forty hour weeks either i mean full time...
glassman  - posted
Originally posted by glassman:
Originally posted by Pagan:
So you are saying the Human body can't make any Amino Acids?

sorry, i see what you mean-- i didn't mean to say "any" we sortof make half of them and and can't make the other half. (good catch)

roundup blocks the production of three amino acids that are not made by mammals...tyrosine, phenylanaine and tryptophan...
tyrosine is made from phenylanine so it's really an essential amino acid since you have to have one of the "essentials" ( one we don't make)to make it, even though it is usually listed as a non-essential...

what i was trying to stress was how they decided that glyphosate (roundup) was totally safe to begin with. they made a huge assumption because of the amino acids that (and their production in specific) it affected....

i do not beleive we are being wise with current strategy.
glassman  - posted
Bayer and Syngenta are both way worse then Monsanto.

Monsanto isn't even the same company it was thirty years ago...

some of their business practices leave much to be desired, but their families eat the same food we do... more GMO's are coming not less. It's getting easier adn every single day we learn much more about all of the molecular processes that go on in cells
glassman  - posted
take five minutes and watch this video about the future of GMO; most of this stuff can be ordered ONLINE right now if you know the sequences you need.
IWISHIHAD  - posted
Originally Posted By Glassman:

"i don;'t think roundup is safe, but i can tell you first hand that raising all your own food is a full time job for a family of ten... when i say full time, i don't mean forty hour weeks either i mean full time..."

I don't think most people today have a family of ten, probably more of that your way than in other parts of the country. It is a major time consumer to raise crops and livestock, let alone have the property and zoning to do so.

It's also not realistic to think many people are in the right situation to allow this.

This was just a thought after seeing all the practices used today to grow crops and raise livestock.

But then again we are living longer today, whether we think the quality of life is better or worst today. But the only ones that can compare that, are the ones that have lived longer.

So many chemicals that we have no clue of the long term affects on ourselves, kids and grandkids.

We do know the affects of that chemical that cleared the overgrowth in Vietnam, many years later, which may have proved more brutal than the war itself.

glassman  - posted
i know- and it was a good thought IMO too.

there's a terrible war being waged right now in the scientific community. It started when the economy collapsed and it isn't getting any better. Real Research (with a capital R) is not done for profit ever. Profit is made whne real Research provides a basis to Develop a concept. In America, we are losing track of that in huge way. Too many Researchers are only for the golden ring, and nothing is allowed to get done because of it.

Too many people are flat out lying in Scir=ntific publications today. The leading Scientific Publications Journal estimates that about one half of all experiments published are not duplicable and some serious researchers claim as much 90% are not duplicable.

There's several reason for this but it all comes down to money. People publish lies to get grants.
People publish to support Monsanto or Bayer or Syngenta or any of the thousan pharmacy companies

They publish lies because they didn't (or can't) actaully do the work. I'm seeing massive amounts of evidence for this and i can't do anything about it becuase we have to protect my wife's career. It's friggin bad from where she is standing. When my wife created her first GMO fifteen years ago, the publication community was all over her to perform this and that proof to her claim that she had seen no-one else subjected to. Many previous papers ahd no proof other than pictures. She actually did prove it with chemical tests that no-one else had been asked to do. We eventually figured out that about about 75% of the other claims in publications were flat out BS, Fraud, lies. Yeah, it's bad.

So Roundup and Ready. It isn't good that we are using so much of it. If a scientist like my wife came out with proof say, that Roundup, or roundup ready plants was the reason our bees are dying- we lost 40 % last year it would more than just her career we'd have to worry about....

do you remebr hearing that Monsanto bought a company called Bee-o-logics for about 80 million to save the bees? That was a few years back, since then they haven't anything with the comapny.

Roundup kills bacteria. bees have symbiotic bacteria in their guts they cannot live without.
is it worth your life to draw the direct line from one to the other?

honestly? Monsanto is not evil, they're human like the rest of us,the food their families has to eat is the same as the rest of us, and htye have to live in the planet they are making too- and yeah we all forkup, did they forkup? prolly. i don't want to be the one that proves it.
glassman  - posted
Lancet was not the publication i was talking about above i was talking abouthe Journal SCIENCE. It's good to know there are some other scientists out there who care about this-

Editor In Chief Of World’s Best Known Medical Journal: Half Of All The Literature Is False
May 16, 2015 by Arjun Walia.

In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

glassman  - posted
so the biggest reason that i get really angry about bad science and the funding wars that we have been seeing is in this peice right here. We have been on the verge of "discovering" the keys to longevity now for the past ten years, but the problem is that the "power players" are working hard to make sure they control who gets to discover it. I know this sounds a bit paranoid, but i know it's happening for fact. Stem cell "regualtions" really were a passion play in politics, but not for the reasons they claimed on thenews. they'll do it in China or korea if we don't do it here. The key is whetehr or not i will be "open-souirce" or for profit. If it's for profit? how much would you pay? how many people would you eliminate to live 500 yrs?

Epigenetics and ncRNA Headlines

Get all the latest highlights from the literature and special features covering trending epigenetics, ncRNA, and gene regulation research.

Could Chromatin Organization be the Key to Eternal Youth?
Posted May 13, 2015

For thousands of years great men such as Alexander the Great and Ponce de León have searched far and wide in their search for the fountain of youth and the hope of eternal life. But where they previously failed, an enterprising group of scientists may have now just succeeded! A report published recently in Science suggests that epigenetic disorganization may be one of the major determinants of human cellular aging, and they also suggest that this disorganization may be reversible. Have we discovered a molecular fountain of youth?

In this new report, researchers from the laboratories of Fuchou Tang, Guang-Hui Liu, and Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte studied Werner syndrome (WS), a rapid aging disease caused by mutations in the WRN gene. WS patients display premature aging, with notable defects in mesodermal tissues (bones, veins/arteries, hair, etc.) and so the authors sought to assess epigenetic alterations in the stem cell which gives rise to these tissues – the mesenchymal stem cell (MSCs). To this end, the group generated a WRN-null human embryonic stem cell line (ESC) using helper-dependent adenoviral (HDAd) vectors, and then differentiated these to MSCs

note the names, distinctly asian- this is all stem cell AND GMO driven work- but in the USA they regualte stem cell work to a very tiny group of researchers that are working for big pharma (money)

Contact Us | Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2018 All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2