If you've been following my bogs this week, you've noticed I've been talking about a lot of "genetic" things, not so much because I have a "theme," but because these were the primary focus of articles that people were sending me. But that doesn't mean that there was not a purpose or "argument" that I had in mind. In fact, today's blog and articles were more or less where I was headed all week, but it was necessary to talk about the other articles about CRISPR dangers, epigenetics, and retroviruses first, before tackling today's subject. In a nutshell, an "ethics body" in the UK has ok'ed the go-ahead for genetically modified babies, according to these articles shared by Ms. S.H. and Mr. V.T., respectively:

Genetically modified babies given go ahead by UK ethics body

As one can imagine, I have a problem with "ethics panels", particularly of "experts". I don't believe in ethics, I believe in morals. I don't believe in values, I believe in virtues and vices, and given what I've seen coming out of "big science" lately, I'm beginning to reevaulate my stance toward "scientific progress."

But my personal convictions aside, for a moment, I want to focus on the second of these articles, the UK's The Guardian presentation of all of this:

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics said that changing the DNA of a human embryo could be “morally permissible” if it was in the future child’s interests and did not add to the kinds of inequalities that already divide society.

The report does not call for a change in UK law to permit genetically altered babies, but instead urges research into the safety and effectiveness of the approach, its societal impact, and a widespread debate of its implications.

“It is our view that genome editing is not morally unacceptable in itself,” said Karen Yeung, chair of the Nuffield working group and professor of law, ethics and informatics at the University of Birmingham. “There is no reason to rule it out in principle.”

Recent advances in genetic technology have given scientists the tools to rewrite the DNA bound up in living cells, letter by letter. With the procedures in hand, scientists can in principle tweak the genetic code in sperm, eggs and embryos, and change dramatically how future children develop.

While laws in the UK and some other countries currently ban the creation of genetically altered babies, a handful of experiments around the world have shown that DNA editing could, in principle, prevent children from inheriting serious diseases caused by faulty genes.


Another consideration is that any changes made to an embryo’s DNA would affect all of its cells, including the sperm or eggs, meaning that genetic modifications would be passed down to all future generations. Also, in the vast majority of cases alternative procedures, such as preimplantation genetic testing, can be used to screen embryos for harmful DNA.

DNA editing also raises the possibility of “designer babies”, where the genetic code of embryos created through standard IVF is rewritten so that children have traits the parents find desirable. The Nuffield report does not rule out any specific uses of genome editing, but says that to be ethical, any applications must follow the principles of being in the child’s interests, and have no ill-effects for society.

This, as one can tell, is pretty much the standard "boiler plate" for such articles: the virtue signaling of "social concern" and the usual "concern for the child" which, coming from certain quarters these days, I'm inherently skeptical of to begin with. Then this is followed by the elaboration of the "social concern" part of the virtue signaling, that we must guard against the genetic haves and have nots sowing the usual social discord. Reading between the lines a bit, that means we must "level the genetic modification access playing field," and that of course means more socialist programs to make sure everyone has a fair crack at all that wonderful CRISPR gene-editting technology; step right up, get your state approved modified baby here. Then this is followed by more boiler plate about "designer babies" and a very brief bow to what may be a huge lurking scientific problem, that modifications may be passed down through that "modified baby's" offspring.

It's that "brief bow" that concerns me, beyond my inherent disgust at those willing to play God and tinker with the very stuff of life itself, be it vaccines, genetic therapies, GMOs, or what have you. In the blogs earlier this week, in the past two days, I've pointed out the fundamental flaw in western science has always been its analytical hubris, and corresponding inattention to how systems interact. While this gap has been closing, it certainly is not completely closed. After all, the "analysts" have had about a 500 year head start on the "integreationists" or "synthesists", i.e., those who think the whole interactive system itself is more than the sum of its parts, and contributes to the overall efficiency of a system or organism. In genetics this basic idea - to oversimplify - is epigenetics, but whatever one calls it, the synthesists are pointing out that modifications to a part can effect the whole, and those modifications can result in unpredictable adjustments by the system, including (as we saw yesterday), the creation of transgenic chimerical viruses, entirely unintentionally (or so they say), simply from a system that itself is poorly designed and not understood very well.

And those effects could potentially be inherited.

So now a committee of "ethics experts" has determined it's ok to go ahead an genetically modify a human being, if it's in that individual's best interest (doubtless to be determined by panels of ethics experts in the National Health system, think of Charlie Gard, folks). One can think of all sorts of nightmarish scenarios: a panel of "experts" deciding that you'd be better off being the opposite sex, or better off being a host for growing various organs or body parts, and so on. I suspect we're all familiar with "the political and cultural nightmarish scenarios", so I feel no need to rehearse them further. They're definitely there, and I trust panels of ethics experts just about as much as I trust non-aggression pacts signed by Adolf Hitler.

What concerns me is that no one is raising those epigenetic potentialities of unintended damage to the whole "ecosystem" of human genetics, by intended "good meddling" in an infant's DNA, that may, like the recent CRISPR studies, show to have some potentially very bad consequences.

But it's ok... the panels of experts and scientists have waved their magic wands and said everything's ok, because they've all imbibed their daily dose of bubbling potions of "concern."

See you on the flip side...

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. RBG Santa Monica on July 29, 2018 at 6:43 pm

    This sounds like a prelude to “Star Trek: The Wrath Of Khan”. With or without panels of ethical experts, corporations will find political sanctuaries to make designer babies (the Augments from the Star Trek lore). There will be some private island outside of international law where this may be achieved.

  2. Pierre on July 27, 2018 at 9:11 pm

    The Nuffield Council on Bioethic or
    The Nullified Council on Bioethics ?

  3. marcos toledo on July 26, 2018 at 7:42 pm

    Does the movie GATTACA ring a bell it came out either the late eighties or nineties. How terrified are our elites of dying and their bottomless lust for slavery and control and they want the rest of us to pay for their obsessions.

  4. goshawks on July 26, 2018 at 2:09 pm

    The most ‘laughable’ part of this situation is that it doesn’t matter. What is referenced in those articles is only the merest tip of the iceberg on genetic matters. Without a doubt, ‘private’ genetics research is 100-1000 years ahead of that shown to the public. And that is before any ‘sharing’ of genetic knowledge between the Anunnaki and their psychopathic offspring. So, these ‘ethics panels’ are just hand-waving to keep the naked apes from looking behind the curtain…

    (In that regard, current [public] ‘elites’ are probably ranked with the naked apes. It would be interesting to discover what a real [too different to be public] elite-type would be…)

  5. mpaff on July 26, 2018 at 1:41 pm

    One more step closer to the Tyrell Corporation and its Nexus series of replicants. How else will TPTB have the manpower to exploit and colonize the solar system and the galaxy. The Wallace Corporation, the successor of the Tyrell Corporation, is having difficulty with creating replicants which can procreate on their own eliminating the need for factory production! To the Stars! Buzz Lightyear would be proud!
    Are we replicants run amok after the masters had to leave? Time to get back control of the errant fleshbots on this watery rock and remake the models into a more compliant and docile product in order to retake the solar system…
    Woo Hoo!

    • goshawks on July 26, 2018 at 2:21 pm

      Yeah, I have often wondered what the Bladerunner movie series was **nod nod wink wink** flashing in front of the naked ape audience…

  6. Robert Barricklow on July 26, 2018 at 1:28 pm

    F. William Engdahl recently addressed this very subject matter in the below article:

    From the get-go the usual suspects are behind this recent humanitarian Potemkin Frankenstein’s R Us media putsch.

  7. Robert Barricklow on July 26, 2018 at 11:40 am

    The newly wed couple was deciding on a new house, new car or a new baby. They’d decided to go to the nearest brand-new baby dealership to pick out options & bundles packages for their new baby. They would take advantage of the sale, including an attractive all inclusive finance incintive w/low interests & insurances.

    • Robert Barricklow on July 26, 2018 at 11:45 am

      Until they change the private-based economic system into a publicly based economy[preferably based on a living economy]; there will be no equality.

    • Robert Barricklow on July 26, 2018 at 12:19 pm

      So they stumble expertly forward w/hopeful engineered chaos, thrusting that the technological light on the horizon is the dawn and not the twilight of spiritual living beings.

      • Robert Barricklow on July 26, 2018 at 12:25 pm

        [that nasty type algorithm]
        We do not have to go to other planets to find aliens. They live among us as algorithms , that represent an extension of the process of alienation, in which knowledge is first routinized, then codified and transferred from its viable human component to its fixed, machine form wholesale.

  8. OrigensChild on July 26, 2018 at 10:10 am

    So, now we have scientific approval for the basic concept behind the movie, “Island”, from 2005. (Director Michael Bay. Starring Ewan McGregor, Sean Bean and Scarlett Johansson, et. al.) After all, we cannot expect a “go fund me” account to pay for all of the research and development. Raising taxes can provide some additional revenues but we need most of that cash to fund our secret space programs…

  9. OrigensChild on July 26, 2018 at 10:04 am

    Dr. Farrell, you said: As one can imagine, I have a problem with “ethics panels”, particularly of “experts”. I don’t believe in ethics, I believe in morals. I don’t believe in values, I believe in virtues and vices, and given what I’ve seen coming out of “big science” lately, I’m beginning to reevaulate my stance toward “scientific progress.”

    I posted a comment on a song entitled “Progress” this morning on yesterday’s blog that you might find entertaining. Kerry Livgren might agree with this sentiment more now than when he wrote these words in the 1980’s.

  10. WalkingDead on July 26, 2018 at 9:50 am

    “Recent advances in genetic technology have given scientists the tools to rewrite the DNA bound up in living cells, letter by letter.”
    This is a false statement. I do not believe they have achieved anywhere near that accuracy yet, although they would have you believe it to be true. The DNA of any organism is far more complicated than any computer code. The alteration of one letter could, and probably does, alter the “code” of an unknown number of other lines of “dependent code” throughout the organism; just as altering one variable may alter an unknown number of lines of dependent code in a computer program.
    To believe that we even remotely understand that code, written by a being of incomprehensible knowledge, is blatant idiocy on an astronomical scale.
    Least we forget, we are talking about a seriously inbred, wealthy “elite” driving this agenda. Perhaps they believe they have achieved the status of the Annunaki, who couldn’t even get it right the first time either. Perhaps they want their ” designed slave race” also.
    God didn’t take it to well when the Fallen Angels interbred with human women and altered the DNA of mankind the first time. How well do you think he is going to take it this time when lesser beings attempt the same thing? It wont be destruction by flood this time around, it will be destruction by fire which leaves behind a sterile world. They may well be literally playing with fire.

  11. DanaThomas on July 26, 2018 at 9:06 am

    When I saw this item on a major website the other day I had to read it twice, the first time it seemed like “fake news”…

  12. anakephalaiosis on July 26, 2018 at 6:35 am

    Deified principle is another endgame. He, who spins roulette, is prime mover.

    Weaponized deity was used before. One does not create god of wrath, unless grapes are sour.

    Frankenstein winery is mud water without yeast.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events