Greg Odogwu
gregodogwu@yahoo.com 08063601665
It is not entirely surprising that after the article on this column last week, entitled, “Who is afraid of genetically modified mosquitoes”, the biotech company mentioned as the manufacturers of the GM mosquitoes contacted this writer. As this is not the first time such an immediate riposte from concerned stakeholders has been received after a “GMO article”, it goes to show how combustible the topic is.
Indeed, there is a clear line demarcating the pro and the anti-GMO publics that it has now sneaked into the reportage of this scientific sub-sector. To the uninitiated, it could be shocking to learn of the vocal demonisation and vilification of genetically engineered organisms – especially food – by opponents who ascribe all sorts of dangers to them; the same way it could be discomforting to witness how the scientific world engages in violent pushback against the naysayers.
For the records, I am not holding brief for any side of the divide. I am an independent writer, with the sole aim of seeing that none of these practices, products and processes violates the integrity of our environment, either directly or indirectly. The article published on this column was not to support either the company that produced the GM mosquitoes or the communities where they were to be deployed. My aim was to ensure that all concerned arrived at an environment-friendly consensus, in order to set the template for future researches.
Having said that, the press officer of Oxitel, Joshua Van Raalte, contacted me via email to state, among other things, that the research on which I based my analysis “have been widely discredited”. I had also quoted a news report which stated that Oxitel was going to release the GM mosquitoes in Texas for 2021; he, however, stated that the company did not have plans for Texas yet. He also clarified that the OX5034 is the company’s 1st Generation mosquito, while the EPA approval is for OX513A mosquito, its 2nd Generation mosquito.
I wrote: “But now a group of researchers not involved with Oxitec is raising questions as to whether this method went as planned. They took genetic samples of the native population of mosquitoes in Brazil six, 12 and 27 to 30 months after the company released the GM mosquitoes.
“They found that some of the genes from the GM mosquitoes had transferred to the native population. In other words, some of the offspring had survived and were strong enough to reproduce. This new population is a hybrid of Brazilian mosquitoes and the GM mosquitoes that were created from strains in Cuba and Mexico, according to the study published in the journal, Scientific Reports.”
In reaction to the above assertion, I was referred to a Nature publication, where the editors, on March 24, 2020, published an Editorial Expression of Concern on the paper I based my write-up.
For clarity sake, it is relevant to fully quote the publication: “Editorial Expression of Concern: Tansgenic Aedes aegypti Mosquitoes Transfer Genes into a Natural Population – (by) Benjamin R. Evans, Panayiota Kotsakiozi, Andre Luis Costa-da-Silva, Rafaella Sayuri Ioshino, Luiza Garziera, Michele C. Pedrosa, Aldo Malavasi, Jair F. Virginio, Margareth L. Capurro and Jeffrey R. Powell.
“Addendum to: Scientific Reports , published online 10 September 2019. The Editors are issuing an Editorial Expression of Concern for this Article.
“Shortly after publication of this Article in September 2019, the Editors were alerted to concerns regarding the interpretation of the data and some of the conclusions. Specific concerns include:
– the title does not make it clear that the authors only examined genomes of specimens that lacked the transgenes and sampled during the release period;
– the Abstract and Introduction use language which is not justified given the evidence present in the peer reviewed literature and the data presented in this Article. No sampling for this study was conducted more than a few weeks after the release program, and as such there is no evidence in the Article to establish whether the non-transgenic, introgressed sequences from the released strain remained in the population over time. Furthermore, previous work from some of the authors (Reference 6 in the Article) showed that over time, the transgene is lost from the population, but the Article does not disclose this information;
– in the Discussion, the authors claim that because of the distinct genetic backgrounds of different mosquito populations (two used to create OX513A mosquitoes, and one local population), the existing population in Jakobina is more robust than the original wild population due to hybrid vigour. There are no data in the Article to support this point; furthermore, data included in the Article indicate that a number of hybrid individuals rapidly declined post-release;
– the conclusion of the Article highlighting “the importance of having in place a genetic monitoring program during such releases” could be misunderstood to mean that such program was not in place. The Mosquito release program in Jakobina is monitored by the Brazilian regulator, the National Technical Commission of Biosafety (CTNBio).
“When contacted about these issues, some of the authors indicated that they had not approved the final version that was submitted for publication.
“The Editors received a response to the concerns from the corresponding author, and sought further advice from expert peer reviewers regarding both the issues raised and the response received. The reviewers confirmed that the scientific concerns are valid and should be addressed.
“The Editors have offered the authors the opportunity to submit a Correction which will be peer reviewed. However, the authors have not notified the Journal that they have been able to reach agreement on the content of a Correction that would fully address the issues raised.
“Additional concerns were also raised about potentially undisclosed competing interests. The Editors reached out to the authors and subsequently received confirmation from all of the authors that they have no potential competing interests.
“Andre Luis Costa-da-Silva, Rafaella Sayuri Ioshino, Luiza Garziera, Michele C. Pedrosa, Jair F. Virginio and Margareth L. Capurro agree with the Editorial Expression of Concern. Benjamin R. Evans, Panayiota Kotsakiozi, Aldo Malavasi and Jeffrey R. Powell disagree with the Editorial Expression of Concern.”
Instructively, it can be seen in the above paragraph, that not all the scientists – who wrote the paper I quoted – agreed to the Editorial Expression of Concern. This is a clear testimony to the truth that GMO is highly contentious. What is the reason for this? My answer is based on personal spiritual conviction.
There are three unseen forces controlling the evolution of Earth: Yahweh, Anunnaki and Pleiadian Angelic powers. While the Yahweh is neutral; the Pleiadian is actively inspiring human scientists into genetic engineering, while the Anunnaki is vehemently opposing them. For instance, the first organisation (Valiant Ventures, USA) that began publicising human cloning was founded by a religious organisation (Rael movement) whose main article of faith is that human beings were genetically engineered by extraterrestrial beings from outer planets. These ET beings are generally referred to as Pleiadians (from the ‘Pleiades’ constellation; mentioned in the Bible in Job 38:31; 9:9).
On the other hand, the dictionary describes Anunnaki as the first humanoids believed to have landed on Earth to guide the evolution of evolving homosapiens, starting from the Sumerian Empire, through the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and the Roman empires. Interestingly, the Roman Catholic Church is vehemently anti-GMO. To the extent that in one occasion when I wrote an article that seemingly supported the anti-GMO position, an ordained cleric from the Catholic hierarchy contacted me with effusive “God bless you’s”.
END
Be the first to comment