Gene Therapy and the Trans-Human Agenda

By Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News | 

Cure disease or alter humans?

“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around.

---

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The post Gene Therapy and the Trans-Human Agenda appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Gene Therapy and the Trans-Human Agenda

By Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News | 

Cure disease or alter humans?

“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around.

---

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The post Gene Therapy and the Trans-Human Agenda appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Biohacking: Turning Humans Into Cyborgs One Convenient Reason At A Time

(The Real Agenda) You’ll be surprised to know that there is little difference between being human and being a cyborg. In fact, from very young, humans are already transformed into something else than a being of flesh and bone.

Apparently, a cyborg is a human who has been subjected to the intrusion of any foreign body.

One example of this is vaccinations.

After being injected, humans are carriers of attenuated and most often than not, live viruses purported –although never proven– to help the human body create a resistance or immunity against disease.

We now know that vaccinations actually impair the human immune system as they prevent it from naturally developing such resistance or immunity.

After vaccinations came the implantable microchips, which more and more people are now adopting out of convenience.

Opening a door, for example, is much more convenient, chip supporters argue, because people don’t need to carry a key in their pockets. It is simply a matter of waving their hand in front of a radio frequency reader that recognizes the person chip.

Another example is shopping. People’s implantable chip can be linked to financial information which enables them to pay at any store by waving their hand on a radio frequency scanner in order to pay for their purchases.

Pets, passports and even credit cards are now fitted with chips which are linked to a person’s name, address, bank account information, job, social security information, pension fund and so on.

Leaving aside privacy concerns, which many people seem to take for granted despite the very real dangers of being hacked into by consumer RFID readers that anyone can get their hands on, most people who embrace implantable microchips as the next great fad are becoming subjects of technology in the same way in which cell phone users were back in the 80s and 90s. In fact, implantable microchips are the next step after cell phones.

Another way in which microchips are commonly sold is in the medical field. Chips are often pushed as great ways to deliver pharmaceutical drugs into the body. The chips can be controlled remotely from outside the human body to release a dose of the drug that a patient may need at the time he or she needs it. Sounds convenient, doesn’t it?

“The implantable technologies are the technologies of the future,” says Hannes Sjoblad, who promotes implantable chip technology by traveling all over Europe and the United States to show people how easy and simple it is to “be part of the future now”. He says implanting a chip is more useful than carrying keys and other things that people usually forget and lose. “This implant I will never lose it,” he says.

For most people, implanting a chip will be all about unlocking their car or enabling their phones, but the more companies produce the chips and those who will have the capability to trace and hack the chips implanted under people’s skin, it will be all about control.

If hackers are now able to break the code to get into a car’s computer to stop, accelerate and even drive the vehicle, imagine what can malicious hackers can do to chips implanted in humans.

Some doctors and medical researchers are already salivating about the possibility of implanting RFID chips in human brains. In fact, many people argue that these type of experiments have been conducted already.

The question is, where will the search for convenience take people who have little or no understanding of the full consequences of having their bodies hacked after implanting a chip under their skin?

The post Biohacking: Turning Humans Into Cyborgs One Convenient Reason At A Time appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Biohacking: Turning Humans Into Cyborgs One Convenient Reason At A Time

(The Real Agenda) You’ll be surprised to know that there is little difference between being human and being a cyborg. In fact, from very young, humans are already transformed into something else than a being of flesh and bone.

Apparently, a cyborg is a human who has been subjected to the intrusion of any foreign body.

One example of this is vaccinations.

After being injected, humans are carriers of attenuated and most often than not, live viruses purported –although never proven– to help the human body create a resistance or immunity against disease.

We now know that vaccinations actually impair the human immune system as they prevent it from naturally developing such resistance or immunity.

After vaccinations came the implantable microchips, which more and more people are now adopting out of convenience.

Opening a door, for example, is much more convenient, chip supporters argue, because people don’t need to carry a key in their pockets. It is simply a matter of waving their hand in front of a radio frequency reader that recognizes the person chip.

Another example is shopping. People’s implantable chip can be linked to financial information which enables them to pay at any store by waving their hand on a radio frequency scanner in order to pay for their purchases.

Pets, passports and even credit cards are now fitted with chips which are linked to a person’s name, address, bank account information, job, social security information, pension fund and so on.

Leaving aside privacy concerns, which many people seem to take for granted despite the very real dangers of being hacked into by consumer RFID readers that anyone can get their hands on, most people who embrace implantable microchips as the next great fad are becoming subjects of technology in the same way in which cell phone users were back in the 80s and 90s. In fact, implantable microchips are the next step after cell phones.

Another way in which microchips are commonly sold is in the medical field. Chips are often pushed as great ways to deliver pharmaceutical drugs into the body. The chips can be controlled remotely from outside the human body to release a dose of the drug that a patient may need at the time he or she needs it. Sounds convenient, doesn’t it?

“The implantable technologies are the technologies of the future,” says Hannes Sjoblad, who promotes implantable chip technology by traveling all over Europe and the United States to show people how easy and simple it is to “be part of the future now”. He says implanting a chip is more useful than carrying keys and other things that people usually forget and lose. “This implant I will never lose it,” he says.

For most people, implanting a chip will be all about unlocking their car or enabling their phones, but the more companies produce the chips and those who will have the capability to trace and hack the chips implanted under people’s skin, it will be all about control.

If hackers are now able to break the code to get into a car’s computer to stop, accelerate and even drive the vehicle, imagine what can malicious hackers can do to chips implanted in humans.

Some doctors and medical researchers are already salivating about the possibility of implanting RFID chips in human brains. In fact, many people argue that these type of experiments have been conducted already.

The question is, where will the search for convenience take people who have little or no understanding of the full consequences of having their bodies hacked after implanting a chip under their skin?

The post Biohacking: Turning Humans Into Cyborgs One Convenient Reason At A Time appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.