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.

Warning: The FDA’s Approval of Genome Therapy Is Just the Beginning

(ANTIMEDIA) — On Monday morning, the FDA announced the approval of a novel gene therapy for a rare inherited disease that affects vision in children and adults. This is a historic moment as it is the first time the FDA has approved a directly administered gene therapy for a specific gene mutation.

“Today’s approval marks another first in the field of gene therapy — both in how the therapy works and in expanding the use of gene therapy beyond the treatment of cancer to the treatment of vision loss — and this milestone reinforces the potential of this breakthrough approach in treating a wide-range of challenging diseases,” read the department’s press release.

Luxturna (voretigene neparvovec-rzyl) targets the RPE65 gene mutation associated with inherited retinal dystrophy. People who have a biallelic mutation, meaning mutation in both maternal and paternal copies of the RPE65 gene, aren’t able to produce an enzyme in the retina that converts light into an electrical signal transmitted to the brain, which leads to progressive vision loss, and ultimately blindness.

The gene therapy works by utilizing an existing virus as a vehicle to deliver a normal copy of the gene directly to the retina. This technique, called adeno-associated virus vector-based genome therapy, has gained traction as one of the most reliable forms of genome therapy. Still, there are some risks involved with using viral vectors, including the possibility of the virus targeting the wrong cells and causing other diseases, such as cancer.

Luxturna reports few adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 5%) in their official product insert, but they admittedly have yet to study the potential carcinogenesis effects of the therapy. In addition, the Phase 3 clinical trial of Luxturna was relatively small. It included 31 enrolled subjects, just 21 of whom actually received the treatment — barely above the minimum of subjects typically required for a Phase 1 trial, per official FDA guidelines.

Aside from the safety concerns of genome therapy, there are also numerous ethical concerns whenever genome editing is considered. As explained by the National Human Genome Research Institute, “…researchers and bioethicists are concerned that any genome editing, even for therapeutic uses, will start us on a slippery slope to using it for non-therapeutic and enhancement purposes, which many view as controversial.”

There is also the concern of the financial accessibility of the gene treatment. As NPR reported in October, analysts have speculated that the cost for each patient would be hundreds of thousands of dollars…for each eye. This means a cost of up to $1 million per patient, a price tag that begs a lot of questions about how the insurance industry will respond in terms of coverage and premiums in this previously uncharted territory of expensive gene therapy development.

Regardless of the causes for concern, the gene therapy industry is moving forward with no indication of stopping soon.

Spark Therapeutics of Philadelphia, the company behind Luxturna, is already in the early clinical stages of developing viral vector genome therapies for liver diseases and neurodegenerative diseases. The FDA is also moving forward with plans for further investment in genome therapy development in 2018, according to the same press release:

“Next year, we’ll begin issuing a suite of disease-specific guidance documents on the development of specific gene therapy products to lay out modern and more efficient parameters — including new clinical measures — for the evaluation and review of gene therapy for different high-priority diseases where the platform is being targeted.”

Whatever the case may be for the future of genome therapy, one thing is certain: this is just the beginning.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Novartis Using HIV Virus as Part of Gene Therapy

[image: www.aranca.com]The promise of gene therapy has been circulating for nearly a quarter of a century, and the best that can be said of it is that its results have been very modest, and sometimes tragic.

In 1999, American teenager Jesse Gelsinger died in a clinical trial where gene therapy was used.

One year later, a team of French researchers treated 11 children with a severe immunodeficiency, achieving partial success, but two of the patients developed leukemia because of the virus -a retrovirus- used for Introducing the correct gene into their cells. Despite the great efforts of scientists, little else has been improved; at least publicly

Despite little or no success, the United States will approve in September the first form of gene therapy for commercial use.

It will be used against leukemias that do not respond to any another treatment, and this time the technique, developed by Novartis, is backed by an apparent good result in an international clinical trial.

Now hold your breath. The vector virus, used as a carrier, is a manipulated version of HIV, the AIDS virus.

Like the viruses most commonly used so far, HIV is a retrovirus. Scientists have taken copies of its genome and integrated them into the human genome. It is a special type, scientists say. It is called a lentivirus. And, unlike traditional retroviruses, modified lentiviruses have been shown to be incapable of causing leukemia, as was the case with the children’s bubble.

Scientists claim that, unlike traditional retroviruses, modified lentiviruses have been shown to be incapable of causing leukemia, as was the case with the children’s bubble.

Now sit down for the following detail. The injection that is given to the patient costs between 250,000 and 500,000 euros.

The second key is that leukemia is a disease of the lymphocytes, or white blood cells, which are the incarnation of the immune system.

This avoids having to infect a solid organ, such as the liver or the lung, with the virus carrying the correct gene, which is extremely difficult. Instead, lymphocytes are removed from the patient and transported to Novartis laboratories, where virus infection is carried out with full assurance.

The cells are then selected and injected back into the patient. Scientists claim that two-thirds of them remain cancer-free two years after treatment. These would be a seriously relevant detail if they were true.

The main obstacle is now the economic one. The price of the injection is out of reach for most patients -250,000 to 500,000 euros- according to unofficial estimates.

Scientists say that if the patient heals, he does not need the medication again.

This is just the nightmare of any financial department at Big Pharma, and is often expressed with a cold statement: curing a disease is not profitable.

Unfortunately, it is going to be the big problem with the great advances of pharmacological research that are now waiting their turn in the industry’s production pipeline.

They are increasingly effective medicines, but also more expensive. A prologue of this type of situations has taken place with drugs against hepatitis C, which some administrations have resisted tooth and nail to fund despite its proven effectiveness against this serious disease.

This economic aspect is going to be our daily bread, and public health managers should already be preparing for what is coming. These are the lights and shadows of the future.

Novartis Using HIV Virus as Part of Gene Therapy

[image: www.aranca.com]The promise of gene therapy has been circulating for nearly a quarter of a century, and the best that can be said of it is that its results have been very modest, and sometimes tragic.

In 1999, American teenager Jesse Gelsinger died in a clinical trial where gene therapy was used.

One year later, a team of French researchers treated 11 children with a severe immunodeficiency, achieving partial success, but two of the patients developed leukemia because of the virus -a retrovirus- used for Introducing the correct gene into their cells. Despite the great efforts of scientists, little else has been improved; at least publicly

Despite little or no success, the United States will approve in September the first form of gene therapy for commercial use.

It will be used against leukemias that do not respond to any another treatment, and this time the technique, developed by Novartis, is backed by an apparent good result in an international clinical trial.

Now hold your breath. The vector virus, used as a carrier, is a manipulated version of HIV, the AIDS virus.

Like the viruses most commonly used so far, HIV is a retrovirus. Scientists have taken copies of its genome and integrated them into the human genome. It is a special type, scientists say. It is called a lentivirus. And, unlike traditional retroviruses, modified lentiviruses have been shown to be incapable of causing leukemia, as was the case with the children’s bubble.

Scientists claim that, unlike traditional retroviruses, modified lentiviruses have been shown to be incapable of causing leukemia, as was the case with the children’s bubble.

Now sit down for the following detail. The injection that is given to the patient costs between 250,000 and 500,000 euros.

The second key is that leukemia is a disease of the lymphocytes, or white blood cells, which are the incarnation of the immune system.

This avoids having to infect a solid organ, such as the liver or the lung, with the virus carrying the correct gene, which is extremely difficult. Instead, lymphocytes are removed from the patient and transported to Novartis laboratories, where virus infection is carried out with full assurance.

The cells are then selected and injected back into the patient. Scientists claim that two-thirds of them remain cancer-free two years after treatment. These would be a seriously relevant detail if they were true.

The main obstacle is now the economic one. The price of the injection is out of reach for most patients -250,000 to 500,000 euros- according to unofficial estimates.

Scientists say that if the patient heals, he does not need the medication again.

This is just the nightmare of any financial department at Big Pharma, and is often expressed with a cold statement: curing a disease is not profitable.

Unfortunately, it is going to be the big problem with the great advances of pharmacological research that are now waiting their turn in the industry’s production pipeline.

They are increasingly effective medicines, but also more expensive. A prologue of this type of situations has taken place with drugs against hepatitis C, which some administrations have resisted tooth and nail to fund despite its proven effectiveness against this serious disease.

This economic aspect is going to be our daily bread, and public health managers should already be preparing for what is coming. These are the lights and shadows of the future.

The End Of Oil Within 10 Years?

"We are on the cusp of one of the fastest, deepest, most consequential disruptions of transportation in history. By 2030, within 10 years of regulatory approval of autonomous vehicles (AVs), 95% of U.S. passenger miles traveled will be served by on-demand autonomous electric vehicles owned by eets, not individuals, in a new business model we call “transport- as-a-service” (TaaS).

The TaaS disruption will have enormous implications across the transportation and oil industries, decimating entire portions of their value chains, causing oil demand and prices to plummet, and destroying trillions of dollars in investor value — but also creating trillions of dollars in new business opportunities, consumer surplus and GDP growth."

Let me say for the record that I"m often skeptical of published reports by academia. Too often academics live in a world where the number of letters behind their name is inversely correlated with real world experience, leading to all sorts of silly and often dangerous theories. Just look at Krugman... I rest my case.

Fortunately Tony Seba, the author, comes from the real world, having spent a couple decades successfully building, running, and managing businesses. As far as I can tell, he"s got a lot of practical knowledge and understands the real world:

• The impact of the collapse of oil prices throughout the oil industry value chain will be felt as soon as 2021.


• In the U.S., an estimated 65% of shale oil and tight oil — which under a “business as usual” scenario could make up over 70% of the U.S. supply in 2030 — would no longer be commercially viable.


• Approximately 70% of the potential 2030 production of Bakken shale oil would be stranded under a 70 million barrels per day demand assumption.


• Infrastructure such as the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines would be stranded, as well.


• Other areas facing volume collapse include offshore sites in the United Kingdom, Norway and Nigeria; Venezuelan heavy-crude elds; and the Canadian tar sands.


• Conventional energy and transportation industries will suffer substantial job loss. Policies will be needed to mitigate these adverse effects.

I can already hear the dismissive crowd. This Tony is loony?

But Before We Dismiss the Idea...

Consider...

"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?" - The Quarterly Review, March, 1825

Or...

"There"s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share." - Steve Ballmer, USA Today, April 30, 2007

Below is a detailed chart of the growth of iPhone market share ever since:

The fact is history is replete with examples of stodgy old men in chunky jumpers scoffing at new technology and being taken seriously by the establishment, only to find themselves years later being laughed at as "the old fart who got it so wrong". The consequences, other than their progeny having to change their names and move to Venezuela, have been profound.

This list of man made life changing technologies which were never "seen" is not a short one.

The internal combustion engine, the printing press, penicillin, wave theory, surgery, public key cryptography, gene therapy, crypto currencies, parabolic geometry, biochemistry, computational fluid dynamics, physics, graphene, satellites, the string bikini. Life changing stuff.

Clearly it happens. Is Tony onto something?

Proof

There are two main factors the report points to though:

1. The economics of transport-as-a-service (TaaS), and that it offers a vastly lower-cost transport alternative — four to ten times cheaper per mile than buying a new car and two to four times cheaper than operating an existing vehicle in 2021.

Sure, we can point to Peach and her husband Storm, raising their 2.4 snowflakes in an off-the-grid house made of hemp and recycled toilet rolls, being desirous of air they don"t chew before swallowing it. They"re simply modern age hippies.

Plus, on the other end of the spectrum we can argue that there is no way that Billy-Bob will take Betty-Sue out in anything other than something that when accelerating is the closest thing to a mobile orgasm you"ll find. Neither of these people matter when subjected to the gravity of economics.

More than a move towards electric vehicles the main economic driver suggested in the report is that of transport-as-a-services (TAAS).

Essentially, this is Uber and any transportation-on-demand service. If we look at how readily and rapidly internet users have adopted to using the cloud then we can see the same process potentially unfold.

In 2012, ride sharing was when you asked your buddy for a lift to work because he was going that way and you were too hungover to drive yourself. It wasn"t an industry. Today, it"s a billion dollar industry which has gone global.

As I was reading through the report I recalled a conversation I"d recently had with my sister in law who no longer owns a car and instead regularly uses something called GoGet. Here is a screen grab which shows what they"re doing.

They simply station a number of vehicles around the city and you search for the closest one to you in order to book it for your day out or whatever you need. Indeed, why own the damn thing if you don"t need to?

This brings me to the second factor:

2. The rise of use of electric vehicles

The report also argues that insurance of autonomous vehicles will be lower as they are proved safer. This is already happening, causing the spread between human driven and autonomous vehicles insurance premiums to widen.

Ramifications?

Jesus, where do I start?

Geopolitical: What happens to the Middle East, Venezuela, Russia, Norway?

Industry: What happens if demand collapses for personal cars? The entire value chain, auto loans, auto servicing, dealerships, vehicle insurance... Poof! We"re not talking small numbers here.

What do you think?

Cast your vote here and also see what others think the future holds