OCCUPY WALL STREET

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by persiphone

i've come to the conclusion that i'm against the idea of having to get a (or 47) permit(s) to protest. free speech and freedom to assemble has become a victim to overpermitization. (is that a word?) especially in areas that the public pays for. it's a little ridiculous and it's the grounds Naomi was arrested on.

about the name. i understand the issue with the name. however, i couldn't care less if they called it Shit On A Stick, as long as it invokes positive changes.

I see your point about permits and I also want safety for all as well as sanitary conditions to exist at protests. Sometimes someone gets sick and needs an ambulance. There has to be a way for the ambulance to get to them and get them on their way to a hospital, for example.

And I don't see a problem with having demonstrators disperse for public works employees to do their clean up jobs. Parks are continually maintained and cleaned by these kinds of departments and power washing is used all of the time. Then, everyone can come back.

I don't agree with the camping out as it leads to many more sanitation problems. For everyone- and disease is spread this way. There are many people including homeless folks that do not have good healthcare (one of our complaints), have compromised immune systems or other chronic illness in which contracting stash or hepatitis is more likely, thus, potentially threatening the health of others. This just happens in large crowd situations no matter who the people gathering are.

In a socially democratic society, we care about the health and well being of others. So, in exercising our rights to protest for the "good of the common people," shouldn't we consider how to best control the spread of germs, etc.?

LOL, yes, I am a germ-phobe, although it comes naturally as a person with an audio-immune cluster that I know compromises me in these kinds of situations. I wash my hands a lot! Don't even think about eating off of my plate or sharing a beverage. And if someone is coughing or sneezing, I'm gone. It isn't just a common cold that I could get. And I am just one of millions of people in the US dealing with this. I will be a real mess if I have to evacuate to a dorm situation or tent city during an earthquake! Consider the fact that homeless people may very well have poor health and not be able to fight off a common cold or become very ill with a flu strain. They don't even get decent general medical care as it is and most that have mental illnesses are not on needed medications in any consistent manner. They are at high risk.

It looks like in Oakland, the demonstrators are free to come back to the park after it is cleaned. However, they will not be allowed to camp-out or demonstrate after dark. I agree with Aj on the whole occupied land thing and the fact that unless one is Native American, they don't really have a right to take over any public space.

Does anyone know if these are now common procedures that are being put in place in other cities in the US where there are OWS protests. Also, have there been more efforts get a balance between the demonstrators and the jobs public works employees need to do with maintaining a public park. Frankly, I don't see the need for violence on either side of this if cool heads prevail. There have to be common sense solutions to keeping this peaceful and safe so that the real points of this assembly is realized.

I was arrested more than once back in the 70's while protesting- and I usually caught a cold after protesting. It's kind of like going into a classroom with a bunch of little kids with runny noses. Back then I didn't have the same health concerns, however. I am still going to some of these, but I won't be setting up camp.

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by AtLast

I see your point about permits and I also want safety for all as well as sanitary conditions to exist at protests. Sometimes someone gets sick and needs an ambulance. There has to be a way for the ambulance to get to them and get them on their way to a hospital, for example.

And I don't see a problem with having demonstrators disperse for public works employees to do their clean up jobs. Parks are continually maintained and cleaned by these kinds of departments and power washing is used all of the time. Then, everyone can come back.

I don't agree with the camping out as it leads to many more sanitation problems. For everyone- and disease is spread this way. There are many people including homeless folks that do not have good healthcare (one of our complaints), have compromised immune systems or other chronic illness in which contracting stash or hepatitis is more likely, thus, potentially threatening the health of others. This just happens in large crowd situations no matter who the people gathering are.

In a socially democratic society, we care about the health and well being of others. So, in exercising our rights to protest for the "good of the common people," shouldn't we consider how to best control the spread of germs, etc.?

LOL, yes, I am a germ-phobe, although it comes naturally as a person with an audio-immune cluster that I know compromises me in these kinds of situations. I wash my hands a lot! Don't even think about eating off of my plate or sharing a beverage. And if someone is coughing or sneezing, I'm gone. It isn't just a common cold that I could get. And I am just one of millions of people in the US dealing with this. I will be a real mess if I have to evacuate to a dorm situation or tent city during an earthquake! Consider the fact that homeless people may very well have poor health and not be able to fight off a common cold or become very ill with a flu strain. They don't even get decent general medical care as it is and most that have mental illnesses are not on needed medications in any consistent manner. They are at high risk.

It looks like in Oakland, the demonstrators are free to come back to the park after it is cleaned. However, they will not be allowed to camp-out or demonstrate after dark. I agree with Aj on the whole occupied land thing and the fact that unless one is Native American, they don't really have a right to take over any public space.

Does anyone know if these are now common procedures that are being put in place in other cities in the US where there are OWS protests. Also, have there been more efforts get a balance between the demonstrators and the jobs public works employees need to do with maintaining a public park. Frankly, I don't see the need for violence on either side of this if cool heads prevail. There have to be common sense solutions to keeping this peaceful and safe so that the real points of this assembly is realized.

I was arrested more than once back in the 70's while protesting- and I usually caught a cold after protesting. It's kind of like going into a classroom with a bunch of little kids with runny noses. Back then I didn't have the same health concerns, however. I am still going to some of these, but I won't be setting up camp.

with the creation of superbugs via the current corporate oppression, i'd say you're kinda out of luck in the germaphobe thing. i'm sure it would be nice to have neat and clean protests that are shiny and germ and violence free, but that's just not how most (not all) change of this magnitude occurs. there is going to be violence, and germs, and differences of opinion, and a whole slew of other things to pick at and pick apart. hopefully the violence stays contained on the police side cuz that will just make people more involved. i would be worried when we hit the tipping point and the protestors become violent in response. i hope that doesn't happen.

i don't mind that it's messy. messy happens. i don't care about what the people look like or how old they are or if there is some trash or not or who has germs and who doesn't or if i smell incense. i don't give a shit. change needs to happen and i don't mind getting my hands dirty over it.

[SoNotHer]

Excellent post! I'm so glad to hear someone bringing this up and correlating it to corporation action - the creation of monocultures, "pesticide ready" plants, GMOs and "terminal seeds," the wildly indiscriminate use of antibiotics in stockyard animals" as a natural (or unnatural) impetus and cause for the creation of superbugs like drug-resistant staff infections.

Persiphone, I've encouraged my students to write about a variety of topics, including OWS and this one. Do you have any sources for this that you like? One student is writing about this, and she's already accessed an article form The Altantic (6/11) and the PBS survival series segment. What else have you read that you like?

Originally Posted by persiphone

with the creation of superbugs via the current corporate oppression, i'd say you're kinda out of luck in the germaphobe thing. i'm sure it would be nice to have neat and clean protests that are shiny and germ and violence free, but that's just not how most (not all) change of this magnitude occurs. there is going to be violence, and germs, and differences of opinion, and a whole slew of other things to pick at and pick apart. hopefully the violence stays contained on the police side cuz that will just make people more involved. i would be worried when we hit the tipping point and the protestors become violent in response. i hope that doesn't happen.

i don't mind that it's messy. messy happens. i don't care about what the people look like or how old they are or if there is some trash or not or who has germs and who doesn't or if i smell incense. i don't give a shit. change needs to happen and i don't mind getting my hands dirty over it.

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

Excellent post! I'm so glad to hear someone bringing this up and correlating it to corporation action - the creation of monocultures, "pesticide ready" plants, GMOs and "terminal seeds," the wildly indiscriminate use of antibiotics in stockyard animals" as a natural (or unnatural) impetus and cause for the creation of superbugs like drug-resistant staff infections.

Persiphone, I've encouraged my students to write about a variety of topics, including OWS and this one. Do you have any sources for this that you like? One student is writing about this, and she's already accessed an article form The Altantic (6/11) and the PBS survival series segment. What else have you read that you like?

there are antibiotic resistant genes in GMOs as well. what i find interesting is that there was DNA specifically engineered to be antibiotic resistant in a lab in America and then it was pumped into the food supply all nice and quiet. meanwhile, the media is all about telling us that OVERuse of antibiotics is the real problem...not that that ISN'T a problem...but i suspect it's not THE problem. same with the use of antibiotics in meat. is it a good practice? no. is it bad for you to eat meat that has been grown with antibiotics? probably. but what we're NOT talking about is the specifically engineered DNA that was specifically made to be antibiotic resistant floating around in GMO foods that are neither labeled on products nor regulated.

to understand this, one would have to look at how foreign or new DNA is taken up by an organism, lets say for example e.coli. there are a couple ways this happens naturally. one way is called horizontal gene transfer where different strains of bacteria are capable of uptaking each other's DNA. some organisms release their DNA upon death and leave what we call DNA litter. so let's say you ingest an e.coil organism that is carrying antibiotic resistant DNA (cuz e.coli is what they use in agrotech to introduce new DNA into plant cells) and that antibiotic resistant DNA litter is now in your digestive tract and your natural e.coli that is swarming around your intestines picks up the DNA via horizontal transfer. and voila! a superbug is born. i believe that we've actually become human farms for these superbugs unwittingly via GMOs. and i suspect i'm not the only one. there seems to be a timeline correlation between the emergence of superbugs and GMOs that i find unsettling.

i've not found books on this stuff. but i do read a lot and i've taken enough microbiology classes to be sufficiently scared to death of our food. you won't find anything in the news either. i would say google some science journals on the matter and possibly news sources that are not in America. Europe is vehemently antiGMO. protestors even went as far as to invade and cut down GMO crops while the police just stood and watched. i think those vids are floating around youtube. if we did that here we would be arrested and sued. on a side note....GMOs aren't only in the food supply. there are acres upon acres of GMO trees growing in our forests, in the amazon, and gawd only knows where else. veggies will pollinate once. trees, however, will pollinate many times in their lifetime. and the location of many of these GMO tree palntings are a secret. why?

[Cin]

[Cin]

Occupy Oakland: Officials shift into damage control

OAKLAND -- Oakland Mayor Jean Quan shifted into damage control Thursday, asking hospitalized protester Scott Olsen and other Occupy Oakland demonstrators to cooperate with police investigating Olsen's head injury.

Quan visited Olsen, a former Marine and Iraq War veteran, on Thursday morning at Highland Hospital. She shook his hand, and apologized for what happened to him. She also encouraged him and fellow demonstrators to speak with police, a hospital spokesman said. Olsen was knocked down -- apparently by a tear-gas canister or other police projectile -- Tuesday night as authorities tried to keep protesters away from Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, in front of Oakland City Hall.

The protest group had been dislodged from their tents on the plaza by police earlier in the day.

Oakland police have promised a thorough investigation of the incident, which left Olsen with a brain injury that has impeded his speech. Alameda County prosecutors and federal investigators also planned to look into the violent clash.

The city has tried this week to recover from the confrontation, which attracted an avalanche of criticism from pundits, politicians and protesters. Television host Keith Olbermann called for Quan's resignation, and White House press secretary Jay Carney called on U.S. cities to preserve "a long and noble tradition in the United States of free expression and free speech."

Protesters started rebuilding their tent city Thursday, with at least a dozen tents erected on the plaza lawn by the evening. Quan had planned to speak to a large crowd that had gathered in front of City Hall on Thursday night, but she left without speaking because she would have had to wait in line, said her attorney, Dan Siegel.

She would have had to wait in line? I wonder what that implies.
For the whole article:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_19205555

[SoNotHer]

My reactions today are more emotional than logical. There is no logic or good explanation for what has happened. I was reading one of the articles posted here -

http://www.occupytogether.org/2011/1.../#comment-9248

and discovered this comment which has garnered many comments, rightly so. It says a lot.
__________________________________________________ ____________

22 Responses to “Tonight: Vigils Across America for Scott Olsen”

Concerned American on October 27th, 2011 at 1:13 pm #

To the Mothers and Fathers of America:

This may not be clear to you yet, but those protestors out in the streets are your bravest children. They now hold the front for all of us in the centuries-old battle against tyranny. Many are fighting the corrupting influence of money in American politics, others against a system no longer functional for a majority that will only grow.

Some do not know exactly what they want–only that something has gone terribly wrong in a country in which they would like to believe.

They have not articulated one focused message, or one set of demands–and they do not need to. This is not a battle of right against left, red against blue, or liberal against conservative. It is not made-for-TV politics. It is a battle of right against wrong. America has lost, in its political discourse and behavior, the ability to distinguish between the two. Many of its practitioners seem not to care.

Those who support this movement in all its myriad shapes, sizes, sexes, colors, ideologies, income levels, and nationalities–have no sound bite. They get the problem, in general, and are massing to change it. Like the old thinker, they would rather be approximately correct than precisely wrong.

They give their nights, their sleep, their weekends, and their comfort to fight an uncertain battle for you, for all your children. They face police lines and mainstream scorn. They face the indifference of the vast armies of complacency and distraction, who keep waiting for the channel to change, the web page to update, and this movement to end. They face cynics who believe nothing will change, they face the often well-intentioned defeatists who believe nothing can change. They face politicians who patronize, tell them they don’t understand–that they, the politicians, support the movement, even as they make plans with their police forces to clear them.

On Tuesday, October 25th in Oakland, California, Scott Olsen, a 24-year-old Marine and Iraq veteran, standing beside another veteran, a naval officer in dress, was critically injured by a weapon used against him by a police officer from one of 17 jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area. A group of occupiers running away from the scene, amidst police flash grenades, tear gas, and rubber bullets, rushed back when they saw Scott Olsen lying still on the ground. As they rushed in to pick him up–a dozen of your bravest, America–an unidentified officer tossed, from behind police ranks, another flash grenade at their feet. A handful of these unarmed protestors persisted, carrying Scott Olsen, dazed with a fractured skull, away from the police line, shouting for medics as the explosions and smoke recalled the nightmare of American battlefields.

Like this, the guns have again been turned back on your bravest children, most fighting only for the core values they were taught as children: people in need should be helped; democracy should be uncorrupted; citizens must gather in peace; and this country belongs to all of us, not a political elite increasingly indistinguishable from a financial and industrial corporate elite. Like all of us, they see clearly and abhor this crony capitalism now ascendent. They are doing something about it.

These are not trouble-making hippies, America–you mistake them as such at your peril. These are your better angels, trying to save you from yourself. They are your child that cannot help tell the truth, the sometimes inconvenient one that thinks of safety last and justice first. They are fighting the war that rages inside you when you see the circus on TV, in print, or online and can only shake your head. You ignore them, laugh at them, demean them, or discount them at your peril. They may be our last hope of transformation for this country reeling from war, from a crisis of confidence, from scandal, division, corruption, and poverty. Let no demagogue–especially talkers at the service of money and power–convince you, a thinking American, that these are not patriots of the truest kind.

So go out and support your children, America, and with them the fundamental ideas upon which this country was founded. Take a walk by the protest in your town at night, in the morning–drive by or bike past. Stop and talk to someone for a minute. Listen and watch. Gather your friends and neighbors. Everyone has their own place and their own role.

For every Scott Olsen, now lying in a hospital bed in critical condition, there should be 100,000 witnesses, who by their presence lend this movement strength and legitimacy.

As long as they occupy the centers of our cities, big and small, we–who wish to create a more perfect union–have an opening to change something vital, such as removing money from politics once and for all. It is possible. It has been done elsewhere. These children have brought the season of democracy, the days and especially nights of renewing democracy, and they need your protection.

Even your bravest children need to feel your strong hands on their back.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Occupy Oakland: Officials shift into damage control

OAKLAND -- Oakland Mayor Jean Quan shifted into damage control Thursday, asking hospitalized protester Scott Olsen and other Occupy Oakland demonstrators to cooperate with police investigating Olsen's head injury.

Quan visited Olsen, a former Marine and Iraq War veteran, on Thursday morning at Highland Hospital. She shook his hand, and apologized for what happened to him. She also encouraged him and fellow demonstrators to speak with police, a hospital spokesman said. Olsen was knocked down -- apparently by a tear-gas canister or other police projectile -- Tuesday night as authorities tried to keep protesters away from Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, in front of Oakland City Hall.

The protest group had been dislodged from their tents on the plaza by police earlier in the day.

Oakland police have promised a thorough investigation of the incident, which left Olsen with a brain injury that has impeded his speech. Alameda County prosecutors and federal investigators also planned to look into the violent clash.

The city has tried this week to recover from the confrontation, which attracted an avalanche of criticism from pundits, politicians and protesters. Television host Keith Olbermann called for Quan's resignation, and White House press secretary Jay Carney called on U.S. cities to preserve "a long and noble tradition in the United States of free expression and free speech."

Protesters started rebuilding their tent city Thursday, with at least a dozen tents erected on the plaza lawn by the evening. Quan had planned to speak to a large crowd that had gathered in front of City Hall on Thursday night, but she left without speaking because she would have had to wait in line, said her attorney, Dan Siegel.

She would have had to wait in line? I wonder what that implies.
For the whole article:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_19205555

Also, the rest of the council members are speaking out about the mayor not bringing the coucil together to discuss approaches to the demonstrations. Frankly, I agree with these members as this could have been avoided with looking at more ideas and safety concerns. One member said she would never have backed any kind of police action in which unarmed citizens of Oakland would be subjected to "riot squad" mentality.

After a fair amount of time in which it was clear not only in Oakland, but all across the US, that people are going to continue airing their complaints about these issues (that affect every part of their lives), city governments should have sat down with appointed reps from the protests and worked out how to have a safe and peaceful way for our rights to assemble and take our dissent to our public officials. There have been many, many supporters with the means offering financial help for things like porta-potties, food and food distribution as well as park cleaning and sanitation in order to take the financial burden of of city budgets that have been cut to shreads.

What bothers me the most about this is that this has become just another layer of the blockade the 99% feel is at the core of why our complaints are not heard. And there are solutions out there that can stop these kinds of things from happening.

News I have heard today about Olsen is that the surgery (for the brain swelling) planned has been postponed for today and he still is unable to speak. He is stable and his family is here from WS. There was a candle light vigil last night and more planned. he has support from other vets that stand up against war and want our troops out of Afghanistan.

Let's all throw out a "best wishes" for his full recovery from all corners of the Planet.

There is a lot of passing of the buck going on with Mayor Qwan that is just discusting. She needs to take responsibility, especially since she acted quite unilaterally- which to me, puts another layer of discust concerning the fact that we send troops off to wars under the guise of fighting for freedom and democratic (action bt consensus) ideals.

Sorr- not spell checking or getting typos- tired today.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by persiphone

[COLOR="Purple"]there are antibiotic resistant genes in GMOs as well. what i find interesting is that there was DNA specifically engineered to be antibiotic resistant in a lab in America and then it was pumped into the food supply all nice and quiet.

Can you explain what you mean by "DNA specifically engineered to be antibiotic resistant" and "pumped into the food supply"? I ask for a couple of reasons:

1) Antibiotics do not, strictly speaking, affect 'naked' DNA. (Here I mean DNA that isn't in some living thing.) Antibiotics affect, well, bacterials but not viruses (RNA) and DNA is RNA with an extra strand, some sugar and one different base (T in DNA is U in RNA). So what doesn't effect RNA also doesn't effect DNA.

2) What do you mean by "pumped into the food supply" in the context of DNA? This seems to violate the central dogma of molecular biology. Put simply, DNA codes for proteins. So DNA that isn't coding for something in the context of being in the presence of a living thing isn't' doing anything. So how can DNA, absent a body in which to express itself, be *doing* anything? Are you saying that it is making antibiotic resistant proteins? That doesn't really make sense unless you are talking about it being inside a living thing.

3) Are you saying that someone cooked up DNA as a bacteriophage (a virus that infects bacteria)? If so, why on Earth would they have it code for resistance to antibiotics since the whole purpose of a bacteriophage would be to try to kill a bacteria not make it more resistant to antibiotics. What's more, there's a far less expensive way they could get the same effect. Simply have people take too many antibiotics, not use them correctly, use a lot of antibacterial soaps so that we're constantly turning the selective volume on bacteria up to eleven. Wait, that's what we're doing now.

I will admit that I do not read all of the literature but I do try to keep up with what is happening in molecular genetics particularly as it relates to our ongoing battle against pathogens. I'm not aware of the work you're talking about and really am not sure that I understand what you're saying. I don't want to derail the thread so if you want to write me privately or put it on its own thread, I really would like to understand what it is you're saying. Thanks.

meanwhile, the media is all about telling us that OVERuse of antibiotics is the real problem...not that that ISN'T a problem...but i suspect it's not THE problem. same with the use of antibiotics in meat. is it a good practice? no. is it bad for you to eat meat that has been grown with antibiotics? probably. but what we're NOT talking about is the specifically engineered DNA that was specifically made to be antibiotic resistant floating around in GMO foods that are neither labeled on products nor regulated.

Actually, the explanation that it's because of the overuse of antibacterials is actually the most simple and the most likely. Since bacteria are living things and since all living things are subject to variation, Darwinian selection operates on bacteria just as it does everything else. Since antibiotics literally kill bacteria and do so by making various chemical tricks happen, any variation that made a bacteria more resistant to that chemical attack would cause it to leave around more descendants than others. What has been going on since we first started using antibiotics is we have been selecting for antibacterial resistance in TB, staph, e. coli, and every other bacterial pathogen we care about. We've been using antibacterials since 1940 so just over 70 years. Given the very fast generation times of most bacteria (every 24 minutes for e. coli, under ideal conditions) and the fact that bacteria are gregarious with their genes and will just share and pick them up from any old bacterial colony we should expect resistance to naturally evolve in a population. It would be remarkable if it didn't happen.

So here I have to ask which is more likely? That bacteria are subject to Darwinian selection and that introducing antibiotics into the ecology of bacteria would inevitably (and rather quickly) lead to strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics OR someone for no good reason introduced antibiotic resistance into the ecology of mammal infecting bacteria *knowing* that resistance was already evolving? (It's been known that it was happening all of my adult life, I first encountered this in 1991.)


Cheers
Aj

[Cin]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Can you explain what you mean by "DNA specifically engineered to be antibiotic resistant" and "pumped into the food supply"? I ask for a couple of reasons:

1) Antibiotics do not, strictly speaking, affect 'naked' DNA. (Here I mean DNA that isn't in some living thing.) Antibiotics affect, well, bacterials but not viruses (RNA) and DNA is RNA with an extra strand, some sugar and one different base (T in DNA is U in RNA). So what doesn't effect RNA also doesn't effect DNA.

2) What do you mean by "pumped into the food supply" in the context of DNA? This seems to violate the central dogma of molecular biology. Put simply, DNA codes for proteins. So DNA that isn't coding for something in the context of being in the presence of a living thing isn't' doing anything. So how can DNA, absent a body in which to express itself, be *doing* anything? Are you saying that it is making antibiotic resistant proteins? That doesn't really make sense unless you are talking about it being inside a living thing.

3) Are you saying that someone cooked up DNA as a bacteriophage (a virus that infects bacteria)? If so, why on Earth would they have it code for resistance to antibiotics since the whole purpose of a bacteriophage would be to try to kill a bacteria not make it more resistant to antibiotics. What's more, there's a far less expensive way they could get the same effect. Simply have people take too many antibiotics, not use them correctly, use a lot of antibacterial soaps so that we're constantly turning the selective volume on bacteria up to eleven. Wait, that's what we're doing now.

I will admit that I do not read all of the literature but I do try to keep up with what is happening in molecular genetics particularly as it relates to our ongoing battle against pathogens. I'm not aware of the work you're talking about and really am not sure that I understand what you're saying. I don't want to derail the thread so if you want to write me privately or put it on its own thread, I really would like to understand what it is you're saying. Thanks.



Actually, the explanation that it's because of the overuse of antibacterials is actually the most simple and the most likely. Since bacteria are living things and since all living things are subject to variation, Darwinian selection operates on bacteria just as it does everything else. Since antibiotics literally kill bacteria and do so by making various chemical tricks happen, any variation that made a bacteria more resistant to that chemical attack would cause it to leave around more descendants than others. What has been going on since we first started using antibiotics is we have been selecting for antibacterial resistance in TB, staph, e. coli, and every other bacterial pathogen we care about. We've been using antibacterials since 1940 so just over 70 years. Given the very fast generation times of most bacteria (every 24 minutes for e. coli, under ideal conditions) and the fact that bacteria are gregarious with their genes and will just share and pick them up from any old bacterial colony we should expect resistance to naturally evolve in a population. It would be remarkable if it didn't happen.

So here I have to ask which is more likely? That bacteria are subject to Darwinian selection and that introducing antibiotics into the ecology of bacteria would inevitably (and rather quickly) lead to strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics OR someone for no good reason introduced antibiotic resistance into the ecology of mammal infecting bacteria *knowing* that resistance was already evolving? (It's been known that it was happening all of my adult life, I first encountered this in 1991.)


Cheers
Aj

I don't want to derail the the thread either, but I do want to understand this as well. From what I can gather, and believe me gathering hurts my head, DNA used as markers in genetic engineering are somehow or other antibiotic resistant. I don't think it is a purposeful thing, it is a by product of using markers. At least that is what it sounded like to me. Then there is something about it being able to possibly do some kind of horizontal gene transfer thing, especially surrounding e-coli, which seems to be useful for genetic modification and we all have some so when we eat gmos that have this antibiotic resistant dna we might be developing it also. Or something like that anyway. Not sure how proven it is. Europe seems more disturbed by it than we are in the U.S. But even there some study decided it wasn't much of a threat to humans but two scientists disagreed and wanted an addendum added to the study. Or something like that. I can't find the study anymore. Read about it awhile ago. Anyway it doesn't sound like a great idea to me. And it seems like a more direct way to find oneself resistant to antibiotics. I think they have been doing this since 1970 or so. Does this make any sense?

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I don't want to derail the the thread either, but I do want to understand this as well. From what I can gather, and believe me gathering hurts my head, DNA used as markers in genetic engineering are somehow or other antibiotic resistant. I don't think it is a purposeful thing, it is a by product of using markers. At least that is what it sounded like to me. Then there is something about it being able to possibly do some kind of horizontal gene transfer thing, especially surrounding e-coli, which seems to be useful for genetic modification and we all have some so when we eat gmos that have this antibiotic resistant dna we might be developing it also. Or something like that anyway. Not sure how proven it is. Europe seems more disturbed by it than we are in the U.S. But even there some study decided it wasn't much of a threat to humans but two scientists disagreed and wanted an addendum added to the study. Or something like that. I can't find the study anymore. Read about it awhile ago. Anyway it doesn't sound like a great idea to me. And it seems like a more direct way to find oneself resistant to antibiotics. I think they have been doing this since 1970 or so. Does this make any sense?

antibiotic resistant genes are 'selected' and then 'farmed' in labs. perhaps i should have used those words. to me that is creating, or advancing the existence of antiobiotic resistant bacteria.

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Can you explain what you mean by "DNA specifically engineered to be antibiotic resistant" and "pumped into the food supply"? I ask for a couple of reasons:

1) Antibiotics do not, strictly speaking, affect 'naked' DNA. (Here I mean DNA that isn't in some living thing.) Antibiotics affect, well, bacterials but not viruses (RNA) and DNA is RNA with an extra strand, some sugar and one different base (T in DNA is U in RNA). So what doesn't effect RNA also doesn't effect DNA.

2) What do you mean by "pumped into the food supply" in the context of DNA? This seems to violate the central dogma of molecular biology. Put simply, DNA codes for proteins. So DNA that isn't coding for something in the context of being in the presence of a living thing isn't' doing anything. So how can DNA, absent a body in which to express itself, be *doing* anything? Are you saying that it is making antibiotic resistant proteins? That doesn't really make sense unless you are talking about it being inside a living thing.

3) Are you saying that someone cooked up DNA as a bacteriophage (a virus that infects bacteria)? If so, why on Earth would they have it code for resistance to antibiotics since the whole purpose of a bacteriophage would be to try to kill a bacteria not make it more resistant to antibiotics. What's more, there's a far less expensive way they could get the same effect. Simply have people take too many antibiotics, not use them correctly, use a lot of antibacterial soaps so that we're constantly turning the selective volume on bacteria up to eleven. Wait, that's what we're doing now.

I will admit that I do not read all of the literature but I do try to keep up with what is happening in molecular genetics particularly as it relates to our ongoing battle against pathogens. I'm not aware of the work you're talking about and really am not sure that I understand what you're saying. I don't want to derail the thread so if you want to write me privately or put it on its own thread, I really would like to understand what it is you're saying. Thanks.



Actually, the explanation that it's because of the overuse of antibacterials is actually the most simple and the most likely. Since bacteria are living things and since all living things are subject to variation, Darwinian selection operates on bacteria just as it does everything else. Since antibiotics literally kill bacteria and do so by making various chemical tricks happen, any variation that made a bacteria more resistant to that chemical attack would cause it to leave around more descendants than others. What has been going on since we first started using antibiotics is we have been selecting for antibacterial resistance in TB, staph, e. coli, and every other bacterial pathogen we care about. We've been using antibacterials since 1940 so just over 70 years. Given the very fast generation times of most bacteria (every 24 minutes for e. coli, under ideal conditions) and the fact that bacteria are gregarious with their genes and will just share and pick them up from any old bacterial colony we should expect resistance to naturally evolve in a population. It would be remarkable if it didn't happen.

So here I have to ask which is more likely? That bacteria are subject to Darwinian selection and that introducing antibiotics into the ecology of bacteria would inevitably (and rather quickly) lead to strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics OR someone for no good reason introduced antibiotic resistance into the ecology of mammal infecting bacteria *knowing* that resistance was already evolving? (It's been known that it was happening all of my adult life, I first encountered this in 1991.)


Cheers
Aj

when creating GMO food, a gene selected for antibiotic resistance is spliced into DNA of plant cells. i'm gonna copy and paste a couple things for you:

Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Genetically Engineered Foods
2002-06-19

Executive Summary



No federal laws have ever been passed to govern the regulation of genetically engineered foods and crops. The regulations in place, cobbled together under existing statutes, require no mandatory pre-market or post-market health testing. When the regulations were legally challenged in the 1980s, the court found they were flawed but did not set them aside, reasoning that they were only an initial effort to set policy. Instead, the regulations remain largely in place, although weakened over time. One result of this lax oversight is that potentially unsafe practices, such as the inclusion of antibiotic resistance marker genes, have gone forward with far too little scientific and public debate and scrutiny.

Many genetically engineered crops on the market currently contain antibiotic resistance marker genes because of the imprecision of the gene insertion process. Scientists use these genes to determine whether a gene has inserted itself into a target organism. As a result of incorporating these antibiotic resistance genes, these crops threaten the already growing problem of antibiotic resistance, which the world medical community acknowledges as a serious public health concern. Infectious diseases are responsible for one-quarter of all the deaths in the world, second only to cardiovascular diseases. As new strains of bacteria and viruses emerge that are resistant to drugs and antibiotics, infections become more difficult to treat.

The market for genetically engineered crops hinges in large part upon their acceptance by food processors. Food companies such as Kraft Foods, the largest food company in the United States and the second largest in the world, can join the call for an end to antibiotic resistance marker genes and tell biotechnology companies they do not want to put their customers at risk. Corporations have set a precedent for this type of action: McDonald's and other large corporate consumers of chicken have played a significant role in reducing in the use of antibiotics fed to chickens for non-therapeutic purposes. If food processors, as potential customers, clearly articulate that antibiotic resistance marker genes are unacceptable, manufacturers will have no incentive to continue their use.

Antibiotic resistance marker genes are just one example of how genetically engineered crops should be better regulated, so products that should never make it to market do not, and health concerns are addressed before, not after, products are commercialized. In order to accomplish this goal with regards to antibiotic resistance marker genes, products on the market with them should be removed, and no new products should be approved that contain antibiotic resistance marker genes. In addition, the state Public Interest Research Groups, along with our coalition partners in Genetically Engineered Food Alert, have issued the following call to action:

Genetically engineered food ingredients or crops should not be allowed on the market unless:

1) Independent safety testing demonstrates they have no harmful effects on human health or the environment,
2) They are labeled to ensure the consumer's right to know, and
3) The biotechnology corporations that manufacture them are held responsible for any harm.



~and to answer the technical questions (and thanks i know what a phage is lol!)


Horizontal gene transfer

Horizontal gene transfer has been reported between distantly related bacteria, and from bacteria to
yeast, mammalian cells and plant cells.
The few examples of transfer from plants to bacteria indicated by DNA sequence comparisons and
the lack of experimental confirmation suggest that the frequency of evolutionary successful gene
transfer from plants to bacteria is extremely low. However this inference is based on a small number
of experimental studies and indications in the scientific literature.
Detection of horizontal gene transfer events is difficult due to the limitations of the techniques
available. Unequivocal proof requires isolation of the putative transformed bacteria for thorough
genetic characterisation.
The rate of gene transfer from plants to bacteria is insignificant compared to gene transfer between
micro-organisms. Almost any type of bacterium has the potential to transfer DNA to any other type
of bacterium if it contains a broad host range gene transfer element.

Antibiotic resistance genes and human health

The presence of the antibiotic resistance gene by itself is not associated with any adverse health
effects.
There is in vitro evidence that free DNA in human saliva is capable of transforming a naturally
competent human oral bacterium (Mercer et al, 1999). Since the regions preceding the stomach are
likely to have the highest concentrations of intact DNA entering with the diet further research is
needed to establish whether transformation of oral bacteria occurs at significant frequencies in vivo.
Although most ingested DNA is likely to be degraded and diluted in the human gastro-intestinal
tract, natural transformation of gut epithelial cells or micro-organisms cannot be completely ruled
out.
Research in mice indicates that DNA can survive digestion and uptake by gut epithelial cells occurs,
however at levels of DNA intake unlikely to be encountered in a normal diet (Schubbert et al, 1997).
The mechanism of DNA uptake by gut epithelial cells is unknown and its significance is unclear.
If DNA uptake does occur in humans critical factors are the presence of regulatory sequences that
allow gene expression and the presence of selective pressure. Without selective pressure it is highly.......

......blahblahblah.....i can attach that entire pdf to your email if you like.


i understand that by the act of processing foods...let's take a box of Cheez-Its for example (a common GMO containing food)....clearly bacterias and therefore their DNA would not survive the process of the making of a Cheez-It. so the bacteria itself dies, but where does the DNA litter go? also, GMO food products are being fed to our meat supply, while simultaneously being fed antibiotics or being injected. (actually i think it's strictly in the feed now cuz injections are too expensive) we then, eat that meat, and not always overly well done. to me, it seems like the bacteria or even the DNA litter of said bacteria were to survive it would be here. however, stranger things have happened.

[Ebon]

Occupy Update from RT (the only real news station left)



Added another video

[Cin]

Originally Posted by AtLast

I agree with Aj on the whole occupied land thing and the fact that unless one is Native American, they don't really have a right to take over any public space.

I must have missed this argument. Why do you and Aj believe no one else has a right to take over any public space?

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I must have missed this argument. Why do you and Aj believe no one else has a right to take over any public space?

i think because some of the parks in question are privately owned

[Cin]

Originally Posted by persiphone

i think because some of the parks in question are privately owned

oh so they are saying it's okay to take over privately owned space? Because public space can't be taken over by them? Only Native Americans? Okay. I guess that makes sense.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I must have missed this argument. Why do you and Aj believe no one else has a right to take over any public space?

I never said that. I think that people DO have the right to take over ANY public space at any time of their choosing. That's what makes it public. I do *not* think people have a right to take over a private space. I would go further, I think we should use the idea of public space to our advantage.

One of the most expensive parts of a political campaign is getting air time. It costs a lot. Here's the thing, though, we *own* the air waves and we *own* the right-of-way that the cable companies use to lay fiber. That's ours. The satellites that are in orbit beaming CNN to you everyday was lifted with the heavy space-lift capacity of the United States. NASA put those satellites up there, not Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch. So since the media companies have used public resources, I think they should pay it back in the following form. During an election cycle, as part of a condition of their license, all broadcast media is obliged to carry debates and campaign ads gratis. That turns down the volume for having to raise such god-awful amounts of money to get a television spot in the middle of prime time. Without our public right-of-way and heavy-lift capacity and the FCC regulating how powerful your broadcast tower can be so channel 3 can't just overwhelm channel 5 with a more powerful signal, none of the media companies would be profitable. So since we make it possible for them to be profitable, they should do something by way of saying 'thank you'. Carrying our elections for free is a great way to show gratitude.

Cheers
Aj