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:

It Begins: UK Ethics Council Give Green Light On GMO Babies

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...

Our colleague and friend Jon Rappoport has recently written an important article about the latest vaccine plan to come down the pike, namely, a "universal flu" vaccine, that will permanently inoculate an individual against all forms of flu (our thanks to Mr. K.L. for spotting and sharing this one):

Altering Human Genetics Through Vaccination

It all sounds so wonderful and helpful, until one reads the genetic fine print. Here's the way Rappoport puts it:

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.”

Alteration of the human genetic makeup.

Not just a “visit.” Permanent residence. And once a person’s DNA is changed, he will live with that change—and all the ripple effects in his genetic makeup—for the rest of his life.

The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:

“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.

This is genetic roulette with a loaded gun. Anyone and everyone on Earth injected with a DNA vaccine will undergo permanent and unknown genetic changes…

And the further implications are clear. Vaccines can be used as a cover for the injections of any and all genes, whose actual purpose is re-engineering humans in far-reaching ways.

The emergence of this Frankenstein technology is paralleled by a shrill push to mandate vaccines, across the board, for both children and adults. The pressure and propaganda are planet-wide.

Lest one think Mr. Rappoport is over-stating things here, let us recall that his unstated concerns - long-term intergenerational testing of health and environment risks - were not performed with respect for the other great genetic engineering project of recent years, GMOs. Now extrapolate that to vaccines, and that's what we see here, only in this case, it's a simple matter, as Rappoport indicates, to mandate vaccines for a whole population, and then track the results. And Rappoport is correct on another matter: it could be possible to introduce other gene-modifying agents into a vaccine to accomplish any sort of covert purpose, from further dumbing down, to rendering a certain population more susceptible to certain diseases, or needing a permanent supply of drugs (and guess who is going to supply those?)

And lest one think Mr. Rappoport is over-stating this covert possibility, let us also recall the fact that such covert trials have already been taking place both in India and in Africa, and that those tests were pressed and pushed by certain billionaire busybodies who want to tell everyone else what they must eat, what vaccines they must take, and what type of education they are to receive via their own computer products and software.

What to do? Raise the alarm, and share his article, and above all, make it clear to the billionaire busybodies that "as for me and my house" we will say no, and when we say no, we mean it. Enough is enough.

See you on the flip side...

"Who the heck is Fedorov and who are the 'Russian cosmists'?", I'll bet you're saying.

Well, to be woefully succinct and therefore inaccurate about it, the "Russian cosmists" were intellectuals that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th century, who viewed technology as being a means to "live out" and achieve in culture and society certain doctrines of Russian Orthodoxy. One of them, Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov, a widely-read man usually regarded as being the "founder" of the movement, believed that technology would supply the means to resurrect one's ancestors, and more importantly, that it was a moral imperative to use such means to do so.  It was, if you will, the ultimate in "realized eschatologies," the fusion of technology and not just "faith," but central conceptual tenets of Russian Orthodox doctrine.

If that sounds silly and wildly impossible even in our inhuman "transhumanist" age, think again, for this article - which was shared this past week by many regular readers here - indicates that part of the Fedorovian vision may be coming to fruition:

DNA of Man Who Died in 1827 Recreated Without His Remains

The essence of the achievement is here:

Recreating a deceased person or animal’s DNA has required that DNA be extracted from the remains of the individual, but a new study has shown that may not be the only way. The DNA of a man who died nearly 200 years ago has been recreated from his living descendants rather than his physical remains — something that has never been done before.

deCODE Genetics a biopharmaceutical company in Iceland, achieved this feat by taking DNA samples from 182 Icelandic descendants of Hans Jonatan, a man who is quite an icon in Iceland, most well known for having freed himself from slavery in a heroic series of seemingly impossible events.

It was the unique circumstances of Hans Jonatan’s life that made it possible for his DNA to be recreated after his death. For one, Jonatan was the first Icelandic inhabitant with African heritage. Iceland also boasts an extensive and highly detailed collection of genealogical records. The combination of Jonatan’s unique heritage and the country’s record-keeping for inhabitants’ family trees made this remarkable recreation possible.

Any way one slices it, this "reverse engineering" of someone's genome from their existing descendants is quite an achievement, even if, as in this case, Mr. Jonatan's unique heritage and the context of his descendants in Iceland made it relatively easy to do. One can indulge in some high octane speculation here, and envision this as but a "first step" in the ability to recreate almost anyone's DNA, from almost any set of circumstances, say - for example - in the case of someone who left no descendants but who had lots of family. With enough computing power and knowledge of a few other parameters, one might envision the development of such "genomic reconstitution technologies" (as I'm going to call both the technology and the field) from things like pictures or paintings, and so on. All of this in aid of answering the question "what type of genome would produce this look or that individual"?

There was, of course, a flaw in Fedorov's reasoning, and I'm sure you see it: the reconstitution of an individual's specific genome does not itself argue that that individual person has been reconstituted. If I may so put it, the matrix for the epiphany or manifestation of that person has been reconstituted, but not the person himself. The question of whether the person would or could do so remains open from a philosophical point of view. But it's an important one. Ira Levin, in his classic science fiction novel The Boys from Brazil - made into the famous movie with Gregory Peck playing a very brilliant but very deranged Dr. Mengele - had Mengele not only preserving Hitler's DNA and eventually reproducing lots of little cloned "Adolfs," but taking extreme care to recreate the social and family context that led to the creation of the personality: drunken and abusive father, doting and protective mother, and so on. Even then, let it be noted, one "cloned Adolf" is confronted by Mengele (and a very fictionalized Simon Wiesenthal played by Sir Lawrence Olivier), and the "cloned Adolf" turns on his creator, and ends up shaking hands with Wiesenthal.

Of course, all this raises the question of why would anyone want to do this at all?

Permit me to crawl way out on to the end of the twig of speculation today in attempting to answer that question: I suspect - strongly - that such enterprises are for the people engaging in them a kind of spiritual goal, one might perhaps qualify it as even a kind of spiritual lust. There are those for whom the accomplishment would be to prove that science can do what religion can't (or at least, does in a different way). These types of people don't bother me so much, for in the end, scientism of this sort is rather childish and silly, even though all too prevalent. But I suspect there are also those with deeper agendas, like Levin's Dr. Mengele, for whom the technology is a means to an end, the end being the invocation and "resurrection" of revered "hero figures," the "ancient and mighty men of renown". It will all be sold in the usual, deceitfully innocent and charming way, as a means, for example, of "real education" with personal encounters. Add in the "psychological experts" to "recreate the personality," mix, stir, bake for 90 minutes, and voila, one has "resurrected" an individual.

See you on the flip side...