Biotech Startup To Offer Gene Ediing Of Unborn Babies In Terrifying New Silicon Valley Lunacy

 

 

ChatGPT, Sam Altman, has become the latest recuite if the Silicon Vallley billionaire psychopaths association by joining a group of tech billionaires contributing to the $30million funding of a biotechnology business called Preventive which aims to ‘correct devastating genetic conditions for future children’. In othger words this is Genetic Engineering of human beings, the kind of warped science that caused the Nazis to have wet dreams about creating a master race.

The US startup claims it will be able to edit the DNA of babies before they are born, a process known as human germline genetic engineering, which is banned in 70 countries including most of the large economy - highy developed nations. Preventive is seeking a country which will give it permission to carry out its experiments. No doubt the New Zealand Gene Technology Bill, currently awaiting its Second Reading, which will liberalise decisions about gene technology experiments and place them in the hands of a single regulator, will have brought NZ to the attention of Preventive.

If such research projects were given the green light here, it would not be the first time that NZ has plyed host to highly controversial scientific research projects.  And we must not forget thr crimes against humanity committed by New Zealands bordretline insane socialt government during the COVID hoax pandemic. And we all know the outcome of the 100 per cent safe and effective claims made for gene editing vaccines forced on New Zealanders in the COVID era.

For the last two decades NZ scientists have carried out genetic experiments on animals with disastrous results. Reports of adverse outcomes of GE germline experiments on animals at AgResearch’s Ruakura facility document spontaneous abortions, cancers, deformities and sterility, requiring animals to be euthanised. Currently there are no surviving GE animals at Ruakura. The experiments have been terminated after repeated failures. Similar research in other nations has also been terminated after similarly catastrophic results. You can understand why such experiments on humans have been banned so far: the prospect of euthanising ‘human mistakes’ echoes the worst extremes of Nazi medical experimentation.

The alliance of tech billionaires pushing to allow risky experiments on humans is just one example of the huge pressure building to allow the wholesale editing of human DNA, and given the track records of Silicon Valley billionaire psychopaths its easy to see that while the stated amiton of correcting genetic defects may sound laudible. the creation of a master race or a race of indestructible, totally obedient humandroid warriors would not be far behind. For yeaars billionaire psychopaths have been using their money to buy influence on the GM debate. It is beyond doubt that they have an agenda relating to gathering more power to themselves. It is not hard to imagine what might be included in that agenda.

Why does anyone imagine the three largest countries in the world, India, China and the US, are graduating more than half a million students each year in the biological sciences, all of whom have been trained to edit DNA and sold on the naive idea that they will be improving the health, happiness and intelligence of the human race. Gene editing is about power and supremacy.

The rapid spread of the likely engineered covid virus around the world, the vaccination of 5.5billion people with experimental covid gene shots and the 30million excess deaths which resulted, provides a salutary example of what will happen to the world when the biotechnology regulatory dam finally breaks

Physical health is not all that is being risked: no one understands how physiology supports the expression of consciousness. If you think the risk that GE poses to mental health can be safely ignored or put on the back burner, consider it in the context of the strange case of Sonny Graham. In 1995 he received the heart and therefore about 6billion cells containing the DNA of a 33-year-old donor who had shot himself. 

Subsequently, Graham’s family friends noticed subtle changes in his personality, he developed a taste for beer and hot dogs, his donor’s favourite foods. Although happily married for almost 40 years with two children, he became restless and decided to meet his donor’s widow Cheryl, with whom he began a relationship. Graham admitted he fell madly and irresistibly in love with her the first time they met. Graham divorced his wife and married Cheryl in 2004. In 2008, 13 years after receiving his new heart, Graham committed suicide, shooting himself in circumstances remarkably similar to those of his donor.

Graham’s transplant journey was certainly extreme but the extensive influence a donor’s organ can exert on the recipient is not unusual. Fuly documented and peer reviewed scientific research on this phenomeno can be read under the title Can biotechnology control human behaviour? 

(You can find more extensive information about memory and transplants here.) Along with DNA, RNA, multiple distinct organelles contained in the cytoplasm and 42million proteins of 10,000 different types, there is evidence that cells contain memories capable of shaping personality and controlling behaviour in ways that are not understood. Editing DNA and/or RNA can certainly mediate mental states. Crucially, as has been reported previously, effects can include a loss of self or the development of mental illness. 

This close connection between our mind and body is not speculative: it is a well-established phenomenon. Its source is buried deep in our genetic makeup. Yet the Gene Technology Bill is proposing to deregulate many facets and types of genetic editing without understanding the scope of the interaction with our capacity for higher human thought and emotion. It is long past time for a public discussion of the limits of what is actually known about DNA and the risks to human life that are being recklessly hazarded.

 

EXPLORE:
[Daily Stirrer] ... [ Our Page on on Substack ]... [Boggart Aboad] ... [ Ian Thorpe at Quora ] ... [ Greenteeth Home ] ... [ Greenteeth on Minds.com ] ... [ Here Come The Russians ] ... [ Latest Posts ] ... [ Blog Bulletin ]

Genetically Modifed Crops Safe To Eat Say Monsanto Funded Scientists

A public outcry is developing over a new report that claims genetically modified (GE or GMO) foods are safe for human and animal consumption.

Appnanas? GM Fruit - (image source: sangrea.net free cartoons )

Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects (pdf), released on Tuesday (17 May, 2016) by the federally-supported organisation US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, National Research Council (NRC) states not only that GMO crops are safe to eat, but that they have no adverse environmental impacts and have cut down on pesticide use. There are two statements in the preceding sentence that are hotly disputed by independent scientists. Its publication comes as U.S. Congress — which founded the institution—considers making GMO labeling mandatory on consumer products.

 There is always some controversy attached to these reports but in this instance the subject is a highly controversial one and information has emerge that NRC, the  organization that produced the report has ties to the biotechnology industry in general and in particular has taken corporate grants from Monsanto, the biggest player in the GM crop seeds business.

“There clearly are strong non-safety arguments and considerable public support for mandatory labeling of products containing GE material. The committee does not believe that mandatory labeling of foods with GE content is justified to protect public health,” the report states.
However, on the day before publication of the report, the independent environmental watchdog group Food & Water Watch (FWW) reported in an issue brief (pdf) that the National Research Council (NRC)—the National Academy of Sciences’ research arm has deep ties to the biotech and agricultural industries, which FWW says have “created conflicts of interests at every level of the organization.”

The NRC and the National Academy of Science take millions of dollars in funding from corporations like Monsanto, and other biotech firms including DuPont, and Dow Chemical, FWW reported in its issue brief, Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs (pdf).

Representatives from those companies—along with big food wannabe monopolists Cargill, ADM,  General Mills, and Nestlé Purina, among other GMO-friendly corporate members of the big food cartel —  sit on the NRC’s board that oversees GMO projects, thus making the NRC's work in biotech vulnerable to lobbying from vested interests. NRC has not publicly disclosed those ties, FWW said. This is damning enough in itself and when you know that more than half of the invited authors of the new report have proven ties to the industry it makes the report worthless.

According to the FWW brief, not only does the NRC have a history of bias toward the biotech industry, it has also worked to suppress criticism of GMOs, the dodgy scientific work that declares them safe and of the companies that have placemen on its board.

“While companies like Monsanto and its academic partners are heavily involved in the NRC’s work on GMOs, critics have long been marginalized,” said Wenonah Hauter, FWW executive director. “Many groups have called on the NRC many times to reduce industry influence, noting how conflicts of interest clearly diminish its independence and scientific integrity.”

The FWW document states:

Weak, watered-down or biased findings from the NRC have a very real impact on our food system. Policy makers develop “science-based” rules and regulations on GMOs based on what the science says—especially what the NRC says, because it is part of the National Academy of Sciences, chartered by Congress to provide scientific advice to the federal government.
And this is where science can become politicized. Companies like Monsanto need favorable science and academic allies to push their controversial products through regulatory approval and on to American farms. Corporate agribusinesses pour millions of dollars into our public universities, play a heavy hand in peer-reviewed scientific journals and seek to influence prestigious scientific bodies like the National Research Council.

Despite these criticisms, the NRC has continued to conceal its connections to biotech and big food corporations and the true influence the industry wields over research in this field.

“Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the NRC is required to form balanced committees of scientists to carry out its research—and to disclose any conflicts of interest,” Hauter continued. “Yet the NRC failed to disclose even the conflicts of the members of this deeply unbalanced committee.”
“Agribusiness companies like Monsanto have an outsized role at our public universities, at peer-reviewed journals, and the NRC,” Hauter concluded. “We won’t have good public policy on new technologies like GMOs until these rampant conflicts of interest are exposed.”

So more corporate corruption exposed. This blog does not have an issue with humans eating produce from genetically modified seed stock, plenty of scientists have disputed the industry funded studies that declare it safe, but we are not qualified to comment knowledgeably on such issues. What we are qualified to comment on and what concerns us and ought to concern all consumers is the eagerness of the US government and the European Union (EU) to collaborate with global food corporations with established reputations for unethical behaviour of the corporations that have acquired patents on seeds for the most important staple food plant species the and the risk to public welfare of putting control of the worlds supply of staple foods into the hands of some very untrustworthy corporate pirates.

RELATED POSTS:

UK's First GM crops enriched with nutrients ready for harvest

With public opinion and a significant (but ignored by mainstream media strongly opposed to the introduction of Genetically Modified foods one would think that politicians, having lost the trust of voters, might hold back on this one. But no, as usual they are sidelining the public interest and ignoring public opinion in order to push the interests of the corporate cronies.

GM biotech lieotech
GM crops bannned in Mexico
Corporate fascism: Consequences of switch to GM food crops
March against Monsanto: Global protests
GM global takeover
GM crops will not feed the world
Genetically modified food will never be safe says geneticist
GMO corporate lies

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] ... Daily Stirrer ...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]... [ Ian's Authorsden Pages ]... [Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [Ian at Minds ] ... [ Authorsden blog ] ... [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]