Giza Death Star

A Website of Alternative Thinkers & Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

12 Comments

FRANKENSTEIN “SCIENCE”: ABORTED HUMAN BODY PARTS IN MICE

So many people sent me this one that I have to talk about it, but my high octane speculation today may surprise some people. But we'll get back to that. For the moment, here's the story that caught many people's eye:

Baby body parts in 'humanized mice' experiments

What we are dealing with, in my opinion, is a kind of Frankenscience, a horrid quest to create chimerical creatures with no bow whatsoever to traditional morality or ethics.The attitude of some people seems to be, if we can do it, let's do it, no matter the human suffering it might cause. And as always, the "hook" seems to be something like, "but in the long run it might help people" in this case, HIV sufferers.

Consider this:

The American Center for Law and Justice has submitted to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease a Freedom of Information Act a request for documentation of its “humanized mice” program, which uses the body parts of aborted babies for “HIV therapeutics development.”

“First, the creation of mice with human immune systems is horrific enough, but that these mice are being created using the body parts of innocent babies is unthinkable,” the organization said Tuesday.

“Second, in contracting with UCSF, the NIH is creating and maintaining a demand in the market for aborted baby parts.

“Remember, federal government funds are U.S. taxpayer dollars. That is our money,” the group said.

The group cited reports from just months ago detailing “the incredibly disturbing experimentation currently being conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH): Using the body parts of aborted babies, the NIH is creating ‘humanized mice’ for ‘HIV therapeutics development.'”

Ok, we've seen and read stories like this before. But now, with the State of New York passing abortion legislation essentially allowing abortions to be performed - by virtually anyone - even during birth itself, and with Virginia governor Ralph Northam (D-VA) advocating "post birth abortions" or outright infanticide, with several other states lining up (New Mexico, Vermont, &c) to pass similar "laws", we have truly entered the realm of genocide. I've made my opposition to abortion clear here, and in other contexts, so there's no need to rehearse it again here, nor to rehearse again what I think of these people. To put it bluntly, they're ghouls, and if they serve any god other than themselves, it's Moloch.

The real question is why is there such a rush to this death cult? And here I want to indulge in my high octane speculation. There has been much speculation on the internet lately about "parabiosis" and "adrenochrome" (oxidized adrenalin, obtained from blood of people undergoing trauma of some sort), which supposedly gives its "consumers" a veritable "fountain of youth," rejuvenating cells, and prolonging life spans. We've also seen, recently, the breaking of a story about "John of God," a Brazilian "faith healer" who allegedly has been literally using women to produce babies to sell on the black market, for almost any purpose, from performing sexual favors to the rich, to harvesting them for their bodies parts and for purposes of parabiosis. We've seen others of "the elite" pushing the parabiosis meme. (See, for example: Peter Thiel Wants to Inject Himself With Young People’s Blood)
So what's my high octane speculation, my suspicion? Briefly, and bluntly, it's this: these people are trying to "secure their supply" by passing such outlandish, and genocidal, laws. It seems more than a little coincidental that this happened shortly before the State of the Union address, in which the President called for Congress to pass laws that would effectively challenge such state laws. In any case, whatever one might think of that "coincidence", the disturbing reality is that these people think this latest "scientific vampirism" and "scientific human sacrifice" gives them potential longevity, ghoulish though it may be, and they're willing to upend both law and morality, and any institutions that stand in their way, to get it.
Yea, I know that sounds outlandish and right off the end of the twig, but try as I might over the past few weeks, I cannot exorcize the thought from my mind.
See you on the flip side...

“HMMM…”: DNA BANKS AND EPIGENETIC MEMORY

If you're new here, one thing you quickly learn about this website is that we Gizars love to make connections and indulge in "high octane speculation," and today is a classic case in point. And if you're new here, the other thing you'll also learn is that the blogs that appear on this site are to some extent "community driven" from the articles that people share. Because of that, every now and then people share articles which, while not becoming the subject of the blog, relate to other articles, and it's that link - howsoever tenuous - that becomes the subject of the blog. And that's the case today when Mr. V. T. sent along this article:

Research: Enough DNA samples will be collected to match every American

...and Mr. J.B. sent along this article from phys.org:

Study documents paternal transmission of epigenetic memory via sperm

Over the years I've speculated that there were hidden reasons for the human genome project, and one of my main "high octane speculations" has been that "they" are looking for "something," and that "something" has ranged the whole spectrum, from DNA confirmations of "ancient dynastic bloodlines" to a potential search to find any "genetic cousins" who may be living among us, i.e., for persons who look, walk, and act human, but whose DNA might be indicative of "same genus, different species." It would be, I have argued, a logical thing to do if one were in such a position of power, and if one took certain passages of the Old Testament or ancient Mesopotamian lore seriously, and looked at them with "scientific" spectacles.  And it's that context which made these two articles catch my eye.

From the first article, there is this:

DNA researchers are making a big prediction. In just a few years, they'll have enough DNA samples to match every person in the country. That's even if you've never taken one of those ancestry DNA tests.

This is all thanks to those ancestry test kits. If someone’s relative takes the test, enough information is provided for scientists to link to you.

"Yes, eventually everyone's going to be traceable through DNA," says Itsik Pe’er, an associate professor at Columbia University.

It also means solving crimes could get a lot easier. Police have already started taking DNA from unknown suspects and comparing it to DNA databases.

That information can lead to a match to a suspect’s relative.

"People want to connect to their long-lost second, third, fourth cousins and find those matches,” says Pe’er. “The flip side of that is that, yeah, investigators can find those matches due to DNA that have been sitting in these warehouses for decades."

Now, in a world where cloning is already happening, and human cloning is just around the corner (if indeed it has not already secretly happened), this raises some intriguing high octane speculations of its own, not the least of which is Ira Levin's Boys from Brazil scenario: with enough data, one might be able to genetically engineer almost anyone from "scratch" so to speak, including perhaps individuals from the past, given a sample of their DNA, or - as this article points out - enough DNA of an individual's close relatives. Of course, before we crawl right off the end of the twig, it's also worth recalling that in Levin's famous novel, the mad doctor Mengele's efforts to clone Adolf Hitler back into existence backfire, as one of the young Adolfs turns out not to be too interested in world domination and mass murder. The lesson is a restatement of St John of Damascus' prescient warning: person and nature are not the same thing. Identical twins - or clones - may have the same or nearly identical DNA, but are still different persons.

But that lesson takes us immediately to the second article, and this intriguing observation:

Studies of human populations and animal models suggest that a father's experiences such as diet or environmental stress can influence the health and development of his descendants. How these effects are transmitted across generations, however, remains mysterious.

Susan Strome's lab at UC Santa Cruz has been making steady progress in unraveling the mechanisms behind this phenomenon, using a tiny roundworm called Caenorhabditis elegans to show how marks on chromosomes that affect , called "epigenetic" marks, can be transmitted from parents to . Her team's most recent paper, published October 17 in Nature Communications, focuses on transmission of epigenetic marks by C. elegans .

In addition to documenting the transmission of by sperm, the new study shows that the delivered by sperm to the embryo is both necessary and sufficient to guide proper development of germ in the offspring (germ cells give rise to eggs and sperm).

...

Epigenetic changes do not alter the DNA sequences of genes, but instead involve chemical modifications to either the DNA itself or the histone proteins with which DNA is packaged in the chromosomes. These modifications influence gene expression, turning genes on or off in different cells and at different stages of development. The idea that epigenetic modifications can cause changes in gene expression that are transmitted from one generation to the next, known as "transgenerational epigenetic inheritance," is now the focus of intense scientific investigation.

This may require some unpacking. In the past decade or so, it has become increasingly evident to geneticists that the "genetic code" in and of itself does not contain "all the information" to create some individual organism. There was something "beyond" or "above" that code - hence the term "epigenetic" - acting as a kind of information field that also played a role, and that this left its traces on how the purely material and chemical interactions of individual DNA expressed itself. And apparently that is manifest or transmitted paternally. Needless to say, this casts an entirely different light on my speculations that "they" might be "looking for something", for evidently, they are looking for a precise understanding of this epigenetic memory and its transmission. That memory is nothing less than how DNA responds to its environment, including such non-material factors such as "stress."

So let's collectively crawl out to the end of the twig once again, and speculate. Suppose that they discover through much experiment how to reproduce those environmental factors and to recreate a specific epigenetic memory. Once again, Ira Levin's Boys from Brazil scenario comes to mind, for again, his fictional mad doctor Mengele trying to clone Adolf Hitler did not stop with the merely physical cloning of the Fuehrer's DNA. Levin's Mengele also sought to recreate the environment in which Hitler grew up: doting mothers spoiling their sons, a lower-middle class managerial type father given to manifestations of brutality and drunken fits of rage, and so on.

All of which might be an indicator that, indeed, "they" might be "looking" for "something," or perhaps better put, for "someone."

See you on the flip side...

THE DANGERS OF AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS

Yesterday I blogged about the latest gimick coming down the pike, "spray on antennae." There's another thing coming down the pike; indeed, it's already here: robotics.  It is already transforming culture, finance, labor, politics. Imagine for a moment, the problem that robotics poses for a country like China, with over a billion mouths to feed, and an increasingly roboticized industrial base. In the USA, some restaurants already are heavily roboticized. And the trend will only continue. More recently, the trend has been toward automated robotic weapons systems, with the USA and Russia leading the trend.

With that in mind, consider this article shared by Ms. K.M.:

Robot manufacturers warned 'bug in AI code' will lead to MURDER SPREES

There's two things that leapt off the page here:

"At the same time they would pressure parliament or other legislative bodies to give them exemption from liability.

"There could be a bug in the code of the robot that promotes such behaviour."

His comments came after he previously told us: "Killer robots could easily go wrong.

"They may be used by crazed individuals or religious extremists to terrorise and kill people.

"They could go wrong due to a bug, or an unknown coding flaw that showed up as response to an unforeseen or unanticipated environment or situation.

"Or they could be hacked." (Emphasis added)

Ponder that first admission: the robotics corporations want to limit or altogether exempt themselves from liability if, or rather, when, their products create bodily harm to humans, or even murder. This, at the same time that some in Europe and elsewhere are proposing to give robots legal personhood. But such a step, in my opinion, is meant to sidestep a real possibility: if robotics corporations or, for that matter, "autonomous weapons systems" manufacturers were liable, they might think twice before releasing a shoddy, or worse, an insecure product if they were criminally and civilly liable for the actions of their creations.

It's that "insecurity" of all cyber products, however, that gives me real pause, and the article hints, but only hints, at yet another disturbing possibility. Imagine a bit of high octane speculation for a moment: you and your family go into your favorite McBurger joint and place your order with the McBurgerRobot.. Unbeknownst to you, the McBurgerRobot has been hacked by a "crazed individual" and its program has been altered to turn it into a killing machine.

In other words, the possibility of hacking raises the possibility that any robot could be turned into an "autonomous weapons system," and if I can think of it, and you can think of it, rest assured, "they" have already thought of it, and are busily engaged in figuring out both how to do it to an enemy, and how to protect against it.

Isaac Asimov's robot wars may have, and probably already has, begun.

See you on the flip side...

 

THE SHINING BORG CUBE CITY ON A HILL

I'm constantly amazed at the ability of technicians and engineers to invent things they think will be beneficial to humanity, that I cannot help but look at with horror. I suppose I've become conditioned by the transhumanist movement, which I view primarily as an anti-human movement. The fundamental premise of it, I suppose, is that "we" - meaning us humans - need improvement, and the technocrats and social engineers are just the people to do it. If that gives you comfort, then we part company right here and now, because to me, that's rather like turning all future human evolution over to George Soros.

The litany of "trans"(anti-)humanist things that give me horror is rather long, and I suspect most regular readers here already know what they are. Uploading people's memories into computers like we're the Borg from Star Trek, or cyber-implants so we can communicate "telepathically" with our smart meters, smart appliances, or each other - all of this appears monstrous to me; it would be rather like being perpetually plugged into Ma Bell back in the bad old days of AT&T, with a constant dialogue with Lilly Tomlin's  infamous caricature of a Ma Bell telephone operator, "Ernestine." Add to this Apple's recent roll out of "social credits" - i.e., Pavlovian awards for "correct" behavior, and holding "correct" opinions - and you get the idea.

Shining City on a Hill? I don't think so. More like the bewitching beckoning false light of a demon in disguise. It isn't manifest destiny, it's damnation.

If those seem like strong words, then consider this article shared by Mr. M.H.:

Spray-on antennas could unlock potential of smart, connected technology

Yes, they've now figured out how to spray on antennae:

The promise of wearables, functional fabrics, the Internet of Things, and their "next-generation" technological cohort seems tantalizingly within reach. But researchers in the field will tell you a prime reason for their delayed "arrival" is the problem of seamlessly integrating connection technology - namely, antennas - with shape-shifting and flexible "things."

But a breakthrough by researchers in Drexel's College of Engineering, could now make installing an antenna as easy as applying some bug spray.

In research recently published in Science Advances, the group reports on a method for spraying invisibly thin antennas, made from a type of two-dimensional, metallic material called MXene, that perform as well as those being used in mobile devices, wireless routers and portable transducers.

Isn't that wonderful? They figured out how to keep you totally connected, 24/7, with flexible spray-on antennae in your clothes.

Now, stop for a moment, and imagine the very next step. Someone might, of course, decide that one's ability to take off one's clothes might not be that 24/7 full spectrum dominance that the Shining City on a Hill wants to have. Now, imagine taking the next step; imagine making this into a spray on skin, your permanent cladding.

Oh, wait, they already have thought of that:

The group initially tested the spray-on application of the antenna ink on a rough substrate - cellulose paper - and a smooth one - polyethylene terephthalate sheets - the next step for their work will be looking at the best ways to apply it to a wide variety of surfaces from glass to yarn and skin.

Imagine, using someone's own skin to enclose them in a perpetual prison of "interconnectivity". We all know that some such euphemism will be used to "sell" the idea. We can all predict the other selling point: imagine being able to monitor someone's medical condition from home. "Won't that be wonderful? Think of the lives that will be saved."And of course, the idea of "spray on" antennae will eventually become a quest for a more permanent "installation."

And of course, the unspoken text here is probably the most important bit: antennae, as envisioned by the article, are transmitters. If you think you have no privacy now, just remember what I said in Microcosm and Medium, organisms are transmitters, and as such, the National Security Agency believes that those signals are fair game for "sigint", signals intelligence. And don't forget those electroencephalographic dictionaries that began to be composed in the 1970s.

But the other problem is, of course, that those antennae can be receivers, too. Think Ernestine. Think Ma Bell. Think the Borg. "Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated."

I'm reminded of something else. These developments were predicted by science fiction writers decades ago. What is intriguing to contemplate is that most - not all - of them viewed those developments with cynicism and skepticism. Asimov formulated the three laws of robotics; The Federation fights the Borg. Perhaps it's time to heed their warnings.

See you on the flip side...

UK “ETHICS EXPERTS” OK GO AHEAD FOR GENETIC ALTERATION OF ...

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...

CRISPR-CANCER LINK SUSPECTED

Yesterday, you'll recall, I blogged about an article by our friend and colleague Jon Rappoport, who has raised the alarm about the latest vaccine gimick coming down the pike, the "universal flu vaccine" whose potency relies upon reprogramming a recipient's DNA as a means of fighting all types of flu. As Rappoport indicated, this technology is being touted without any sort of long-term inter-generational science which could indicate potential problems with the technology.

Well, look no further than this story shared by Ms. M.W. and Mr. H.B. and Mr. B.G.:

CRISPR Crashes After Study Highlights Potential Cancer Risk From Gene-Editing

There Could Be a Dangerous Problem With Using CRISPR on Humans, New Research Shows

Ponder the opening two paragraphs from this article again, and in the context of yesterday's blog about gene-therapy drugs:

Crispr Therapeutics led gene-editing stocks lower after new studies published by Nature Medicine found that cells whose genomes are edited with the CRISPR-Cas9 technology have the potential to cause cancer, Stat News reports.

Editing cells’ genomes with CRISPR-Cas9 might increase the risk that the altered cells, intended to treat disease, will trigger cancer, two studies published on Monday warn — a potential game-changer for the companies developing CRISPR-based therapies.

Could we be looking at a wider phenomenon, namely, that genetic modification itself increases the risks of cancer? While it's probably too early to tell, let us recall once again that independent studies of GMOs  - largely done in France and the rest of Europe - have indicated beyond any doubt increased risks of cancers from regular consumption of GMOs. If one is in the presence of a general phenomenon, then the dangers of which Mr. Rappoport wrote yesterday take on a specific potentiality: a "universal vaccine" intended to inoculate against one thing might end up increasing the risks of another.

But now ponder the last paragraphs of the story:

Given the massive interest in this company and its gene-editing applications, Stat News asks an obvious question - if successfully CRISPR’d cells can seed cancers, why hasn’t this been seen before, and why haven’t the many CRISPR’d mice developed tumors?

Karolinska’s Haapaniemi said the effect shows up in large-scale experiments like hers and Novartis’ “but can be missed in small-scale studies where people only focus on editing one gene in one cell type.” In speaking to other scientists, she said, “it seems that other teams have noticed the effect of p53 on editing,” but have not highlighted it.

Now here comes the high octane speculation, for what is being alleged is that the safety evaluations of CRISPR technology were tested on a small group, and a narrow cellular tissue sample, whereas their study suggesting increased cancer risk from CRISPR editing were done on a larger group and presumably different types of tissue samples. The question is, were those initial studies on a narrow base done deliberately? Was something already known and covered-up? I don't know, but given the malfeasance of big agriculture and big pharma on GMOs and their endless vaccines, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

And there's another high octane speculation, but this time, it's not mine, but Mr. B.G.'s: could we be looking at some sort in in-built defense mechanism in the human genome against such editing. And perhaps (here's my contribution to Mr. B.G.'s speculation) we will discover that these types of mechanisms might be epigenetic. If that latter speculation about epigenetics should prove to be the case, then it should be a warning to the over-confidence placed in "universal gene therapy vaccines," for until such epigenetic influences on the genome development of any species is adequately understood, then tinkering with genes would seem a sure bet to invite disaster.

See you on the flip side...

 

THE LATEST VACCINE GIMICK: “UNIVERSAL FLU VACCINES”

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...

DARPA’S TRANSHUMANIST PLANS

This story is such an odd one, and so pregnant with implications, and was sent by so many people, that I have to blog about it. The problem is, I don't know where to start. So I'm including Zero Hedge's summary of the article as well, since it outlines some of the implications:

Dialing Up the Body’s Defenses Against Public Health and National Security Threats

Resident Evil? DARPA Unveils Genetic "Tuning" To Fight Chemical, Radiation Attacks

First in the list of things that piqued my interest in this story was the back-handed admission that GMOs might not be as safe as the GMO "agribusiness" industry would like to convince us. I've blogged endlessly about this issue on this site, so there is no need to rehearse once again what those concerns are. The USA's version of Nazi Germany's Kammlerstab, the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency - or as we like to call it here, following a suggestion of Mr. J.B., the Diabolically Apocalyptic Research Projects Agency - now wants to "genetically tune" humanity to withstand a host of ills, including, it seems, GMOs. Got your microchip implant? Good, then line up for your anti-GMO vaccine.

In other words, DARPA's approach is not to fix the problem, but rather, to buttress the defenses of the ultimate target, humanity itself.

The approach is illustrative of the out-of-the-box thinking that is a requirement at the agency (and incidentally, which was also a requirement of the Kammlerstab). Rather than indulge in high octane speculation today (after all, DARPA is already doing that at taxpayer expense), I want to propose a Gedankenexperiment, a thought experiment, for the purposes of illustrating the implications of what they're "up to." Imagine a situation in which the world is confronted with a whole plethora of thermonuclear powers, and not just the "superpowers" of the Cold War, the USSR and the USA. Back then, of course, we were told that the doctrine of MAD, or "Mutually Assured Destruction" was what kept the world from blowing itself up in an orgy of hydrogen bomb bombardments. Using the weapons would guarantee their use by the opposing power, and if the gigantic explosions didn't get you, the radioactive fallout would. Major wars were unthinkable because they were unwinnable, and movies like War Games with Dabney Coleman and Matthew Broderick drove home the point.

The nuclear club has expanded rather dramatically since then, with new thermonuclear powers, Great Britain, France, and China, joining the very exclusive club of nations that could with the push of a button destroy the world. Since then, other nuclear nations - Pakistan, India, and yes, North Korea - have joined the club, and they each have the capability of going for the "big bomb", the hydrogen bomb. Add to this list the list of "turnkey" nuclear and thermonuclear powers, i.e., nations with the capability to become nuclear or thermonuclear powers almost overnight if they wanted to - nations such as Germany, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, Japan, even Canada and South Africa and Sweden and Israel and Iran - and you get the idea: in spite of the best intentions of the Cold War superpowers and great powers, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and everyone wants "the Bomb." One recalls, in this respect, the satirical song of 1960s and 1970s political satirist Tom Lehrer, who complained of Alabama even getting the bomb at the height of the civil rights struggle. (And for reasons I've articulated elsewhere, I believe Israel, South Africa, and Germany have already joined that nuclear club and are not simply "turnkey" nuclear powers; and there's suggestive evidence that Japan has as well.)

This began the search for ways to do an end run around the MADness: for new weapons that could render nuclear bombs and ICBMs and bombers obsolete: Reagan's "Star Wars" was born, and the search for directed energy defensive (and offensive) weapons, for kinetic bombardment weapons or "rods of God", began. (and again, in the USA's case, that search actually began under Eisenhower. Reagan merely made it "public". Similarly, the Soviet search for an end run around the MADness began under Stalin.) Those efforts, I suspect, were much more successful than we've been told. After all, scientists working on elements of those projects back then had a disconcerting habit of dying under mysterious circumstances. Everyone then, as now, blamed the Russians for this, and viewed it as a last ditch effort to forestall Star Wars and save the Soviet Union from economic collapse. No one wanted to consider the Kammlerstab alternative that the scientists were murdered by their project overlords to "keep their mouths shut."

But there was another way around the MADness, and it appears, with this press release, that DARPA has finally admitted to pursuing it, though I don't believe for a moment that it is just beginning the effort. Indeed, if one follows the procedures of the Kammlerstab, after which I believe DARPA was modeled, or the procedures of Nazi Germany in general, such authorizations or announcements do not begin the process, the merely herald or acknowledge a process long under way. The V-2 rockets, for example, which rained down on London in 1944 and 1945, were under development before the war even broke out, so when Hitler authorized the program in 1942 by decree, he merely was recognizing something already underway, and prioritizing its development as the "proof of concept" had already been amply demonstrated.

So what is that "other way" around the MADness? In typical military fashion, it's to "harden the target," i.e., humanity itself, by making it impervious to the effects of a general nuclear war, to make it impervious to what are now lethal doses of radiation. The utility for application to manned space travel is thus also apparent. Indeed, there is suggestive evidence both from Israel and from the former Soviet Union that those countries were engaged in similar research, and may have found ways to reverse the organic effects of radiation, if not to reverse radiation itself, so to speak. The goal? To ensure that humanity itself survives amid the radioactive rubble, howsoever that rubble may have come about: hydrogen bombs, or "rods of God."

Put the two approaches together, and an even bigger picture emerges, because such an "impervious humanity" could conceivably or potentially survive directed energy weapon attacks by particle beams and so on through the simple expedient of medical nano-bots repairing cells at the cellular level.

The implication? Wars are "fightable" and winnable again, and that means, in my opinion, that "they" are preparing for "something."

See you on the flip side...

LIFE-EXTENSION STUDIES AND CRONY CRAPITALISM

Mr. L.B. sent this article, and I want to speculate about it in terms of yesterday's article about DNA-backed crypto-currencies:

The startup that wants you to 'live to 130 in the body of a 22-year-old' - and has already begun experimenting on DOGS

Why view this article from the standpoint of yesterday's blog about DNA-backed crypto-currencies?

Bear with me here as I try to outline briefly the context for today's high octane speculation.

In 2008 the world watched as the bailout hearings were under way. Bankster after bankster, crony crapitalist after crony crapitalist, paraded across the television screens. Then came the stunner: we were informed that, though we'd be bailing out these criminals, they insisted there be no congressional oversight of how they used the money they were being given. At the time, I thought this was a very unusual request. It reminded me of kidnapping victims: "We need x amount of dollars; but we can't have any oversight from the police or other authorities." In other words, it struck me that not only was criminality involved, but that these people were under some sort of threat or duress. A few countries like Iceland had the chutzpah to throw them in jail. But for the most part, the kleptocracy paid a few fines, and got away with it. A few gave themselves huge bonuses, coincidentally enough after the bailout money was made available.

Over the years I have not modified that basic view that some sort of duress or threat was in evidence, though I have entertained various modifications of the details of what sort of duress or threat it may have been. For example, missing trillions of dollars has been much in the news lately, and I have to wonder if we're looking at an undisclosed component - a covert component, in whole or in part - of that bailout.

Over time, it emerged that various large banks had engaged in "robo-signing" documents - literally committing fraud and forgery - to pump and dump the housing market.SOme banks even established accounts for various clients without their knowledge or consent. At the same time, it also emerged that these same "financial institutions" had become exposed to derivatives to the tune of quadrillions of dollars: more than the entire GDP of the planet, several times over.

Do the calculation: divide the quadrillions of dollars in derivatives by the population of the planet. At the time the number of 14 quadrillion dollars was being oft-cited, though I suspect that that number was very conservative. That's 14,000,000,000,000,000. Divide that by the approximate current population of the Earth, seven billion, or 7,000,000,000. Under that calculation, every single human being is exposed to the derivatives bubbles to the tune of 2,000,000 dollars. And remember, that's the conservative estimate.

This means, in effect, that the labor of every last man, woman, and child on the planet - from the banksters' point of view, this is, after all, crony crapitalism - is under indenture beyond the typical human lifespan. From their "we want to restore slavery and own slaves" perspective, life-extension is not - as is usually supposed in the alternative research community - a privilege of the wealthy, it's a sentence on the poor. How to harvest an individual's labor and productivity (and hence, wealth)? Extend their lives, even make clones. Erase the bad paper and bad ledger entries that way.

In short, harvest their DNA. Collateralize it.

And isn't it interesting that they're starting with dogs, man's best friend, to keep us all company while we toil away on some asteroid mine.

Granted, it's high octane speculation, but like most regular readers here, I put nothing past our "elites".

See you on the flip side...

 

 

FEDOROV AND OTHER RUSSIAN COSMISTS A STEP CLOSER TO REALITY?

"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...

 

 

THE TRANSHUMANIST SCRAPBOOK: ARTIFICIAL BODIES WAITING FOR ...

Just when you thought the transhumanist craze had died down and was a "passing" fad of science fiction prognostication, this article from the U.K.'s Daily Mail comes along to dispel all the calm (shared by Mr. V.T.):

Bodies kept alive in plastic bags and lifeless 'blank' humans ready for a new consciousness to be uploaded: Controversial booth at CES claims to offer IMMORTALITY - but is all as it seems?

Now, the article is clear: this is all just a "marketing gimick" to promote a "new television show":

Murmurs of ‘I don’t like this,’ and ‘no, this is too much for me,’ could be heard as CES attendees crowded around the Psychasec setup, greeted by what appeared to be lifeless human forms on display in large glass cases.

During a brief tour through the booth, exhibitors dressed in all white sold the idea of immortality, through a plan to upload human consciousness to ‘human sleeves’ of whatever design you desire – before concluding around the display of ‘Joel,’ a fresh ‘sleeve' in a vacuum sealed bag, breathing and eating through a tube.

All is well, however, since the whole exhibit and booth was nothing but a marketing scheme for a new series on Netflix:

It may be one of the most bizarre Netflix marketing schemes yet, going as far as plastering posters with ‘Boycott #Psychasec’ and ‘Immortality is Immoral’ along the outside of the booth (though an exhibitor insisted to Dailymail.com that this had been done by anti-Psychasec protestors).

The dystopian sci-fi Altered Carbon is set to premier on Netflix February 2.

But I have to wonder, is it really the case that all is well? Frankly, I find the idea of such a "marketing scheme" to be almost as abhorrent as the reality.

Why?

Because notice what is being done: downloading and uploading of "consciousness" is now being promoted as a service to be performed: it is being made a commodity which, to be downloaded and uploaded, means ultimately that it can be bought and sold. Similarly with the "sleeves," the "genetically engineered bodies", are reduced to so much material to be bought and sold - perhaps organ-by-organ.  And with these possibilities comes another: that one enters into contractual arrangements with a mega-corporation encompassing all physical and non-physical (or spiritual if you will) aspects of human existence itself.

In other words, the meme is being planted, and given the nature of such television shows, a platform is being created not only to explore all these implications and speculations but more importantly to drive the conversations in a certain way toward the goal of making humanity itself, in all its parts, a commodity to be bought and sold and "serviced" by the corporate world.

So in other words, folks, transhumanism is no longer a rarefied academic or hypothetical discussion. It is now going to be promoted and driven into the public consciousness. I've pointed out several times, beginning with my very first book in this strange world of "alternative research," The Giza Death Star, that virtual immortality, or even a drastic improvement of human longevity to, say, hundreds of years, has a moral implication, for long ago, the Christian Church Father, St. John Chrysostom, pointed out that death, really, is an antidote to endless progress in evil. His point was, as I observed in that book, and as I have observed in prior blogs about this and related subjects, is that one can imagine an Albert Schweitzer or a Mother Teresa, having not decades, but perhaps centuries, to do their good works. But similarly, one can imagine a Chairman Mao or Joseph Stalin, or other genocidal mass murders having a similar opportunity to "perfect" their particular "inclinations."

See you on the flip side...

 

HELPING ALONG THAT VACCINE… ELECTRONICALLY

If you're like me you probably suspect there's a whole lot more going on with the push to get everyone vaccinated against...well, just about everything. They still haven't come up with a vaccine for autism, but if the data is to be objectively believed, they've certainly been working on it. THey've at least figured out how to induce it.

And if you're like me, you have probably suspected that there's some strange connection between this vaccine agenda and all the spraying. Victims of the "non-existent" but very real phenomenon of Morgellon's know this all to well, as some research conducted By Dr. Hildegard Stavenger and others suggests that the Morgellons' lesions are full of particulate and very non-organic material that is nonetheless "growing" inside the victims' bodies. And that suggests to some people. some sort of strange connection with the chemtrail phenomenon. Then there's the GMO-vaccine phenomenon which I've blogged about: why not simply put the crud you want to put into people into their food supply, and "vaccinate" them without their consent.  It wouldn't be the first time the goobernment or corporations have resorted to foul play to experiment on humans.

In short, what we might be looking at, as some have argued, is a pattern of seemingly discrete phenomena that are being increasingly linked together.

Well, in that vein, consider this article that was spotted and shared by Ms. J.D.F.:

First human trial of DNA-based Zika vaccine shows promise

There's much here that disturbs, but let's start with this:

GLS-5700 contains synthetic DNA, which mounts an immune response against specific Zika virus antigens. Pablo Tebas, MD, the lead study author and a researcher at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, said the results of the trial are promising.

"We saw neutralizing antibodies mount in participants after 14 weeks," Tebas said in an interview. "And with DNA-based vaccines, it only took 7 months to develop and manufacture this vaccine for the trial. So we could have a Zika vaccine very quickly with this method."

Yes, you read that correctly, the vaccine contains "synthetic" DNA designed to target the Zika virus specifically. And here we're chin to chin with the whole GMO issue, in a different guise: What are  the long term inter-generational effects - if any - to the steady ingestion of synthetic DNA? We don't know; such studies simply have not been done, particularly in this instance. We're simply "assured" that it's safe.

But then comes what - for me - is a whopper doozie of a statement and admission. Indeed, it is this statement that caused Ms. J.D.F. to pass along the article:

To conduct the study, Tebas and colleagues recruited 40 adults in the summer of 2016 to receive either 1- or 2-milligram (mg) doses of the vaccine intradermally at 0, 4, and 12 weeks. Accompanying each shot was treatment with Cellectra, a device that uses pulsed electric fields to introduce the DNA sequence into cells. (Emphasis added)

So electrical pulses are being used to assist the vaccine to introduce the synthetic DNA into human cells to produce the antigens and Zika immune-response. So here's the high octane speculation: This means it might be possible to stimulate other specific immuno-responses - or perhaps even a lack thereof - by a combination of genetic alteration technologies, "vaccines", and "electrical pulses." One might even speculate further and suggest that a particular device need not be locally present to generate the necessary "electrical pulses" to create the phenomenon. Crawling out a little farther onto the twig of high octane speculation, it might be possible to use such combined technologies to alter the genome itself.

Put it all together, and what do we have? We have this: (1) the possibility of introducing vaccines into populations without their knowledge of consent (but they'd never do that, right?) via the engineered food supply, environmental spraying, and so on, and (2) an "assisting" technology in the form of electrical pulses which conceivably might also be used covertly to "assist" the process.

But don't worry, there's a veritable army of technocrats to assure us that it's all perfectly safe, and that our concerns are unfounded...

See you on the flip side...