It is often said that if it can be imagined, it will inevitably be done. And such a sentiment could not be any truer in terms of applying genetic engineering and synthetic biology to the genomes of our planet’s organisms including humans themselves.
While the process of synthesizing and arranging genetic code has many processes, perhaps none has been as promising as the CRISPR-Cas system. From laboratory experiments to emerging software used to create code genetically almost as easily as code for a computer, gene editing has never been easier, opening the door to never-before-possible applications.
Perhaps no technology yet has been poised to change the world so profoundly. All life on Earth, every living organism, now stands the possibility of potentially being “edited” on the most basic genetic level, enhancing or degrading it, but forever changing it.
Gene editing or “gene therapy” performed on children or adults changes the genetic makeup of targeted cells after which and upon dividing, impart this new genetic material on each subsequent new cell. This is why treatments for diseases using gene therapy often are successful with only a single shot. The “treatment” self-replicates perpetually within the patient’s body. Everything from leukemia to congenial genetic defects have been overcome in clinical trials using this method.
As far as science knows, these changes cannot be passed onto the offspring of patients. However, changing the genetic makeup of a human at their earliest stages of development can be passed on, spreading genetic changes made in labs onto the greater population.
The Biggest Threats: The Jab and Slow Kill
Talk of gene editing usually revolves around its use to treat diseases and produce super-crops and livestock to “save the world.” But as history has shown us, any technology is but a double edged sword. Whatever good it is capable of, it is proportionally capable of just as much bad.
The first and foremost danger of human gene editing in particular is its use in weaponized vaccines. Such fears are founded upon what was revealed by the United Nations during the apartheid government in South Africa where a government program named “Project Coast” actually endeavored to produce vaccines that were race-specific in hopes of sterilizing or killing off its black population.
The United Nations in a report titled Project Coast: Apartheid’s Chemical and Biological Warfare Programme would admit:
One example of this interaction involved anti-fertility work. According to documents from RRL [Roodeplaat Research Laboratories], the facility had a number of registered projects aimed at developing an anti-fertility vaccine. This was a personal project of the first managing director of RRL, Dr Daniel Goosen. Goosen, who had done research into embryo transplants, told the TRC that he and Basson had discussed the possibility of developing an anti-fertility vaccine which could be selectively administered—without the knowledge of the recipient. The intention, he said, was to administer it to black South African women without their knowledge.
At the time, the technology to accomplish such a feat never materialized. Now it has.
Another danger is “slow kill.” This would be the process of using gene editing to affect individuals directly or through a genetically modified food supply subtly, infecting or killing off targeted demographic groups over a longer period of time. The advantage of this method would be the ambiguity surrounding what was causing upticks in “cancer” and other maladies brought on by degraded immune systems and overall health.
And while some might be tempted to claim the dangers of this technology being used against populations remains solely in the realm of “Nazi eugenicists” and racist South African regimes, the truth of the matter is even Washington has penned policy papers advocating weapons deployed amid the “world of microbes.”
Mentioned in the US Neo-Conservative Project for a New American Century’s (PNAC) 2000 report titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses it stated:
The proliferation of ballistic and cruise missiles and long-range unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will make it much easier to project military power around the globe. Munitions themselves will become increasingly accurate, while new methods of attack – electronic, “non-lethal,” biological – will be more widely available. (p.71 of .pdf)
Although it may take several decade for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and “combat” likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and perhaps the world of microbes. (p.72 of .pdf)
And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool. (p.72 of .pdf)
Biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes is precisely what is now possible in the advent of improved gene editing. While many may suspect profit alone drives large pharmaceutical corporations to push vaccines on the global population, in reality, what it may also represent is an attempt by these very conspirators to create a well established globalized medium through which to administer their targeted bioweapons, yet another reason why the matter of human healthcare and biotechnology (and specifically vaccines) is a matter of not just business, but of national security as well.
Overwriting the Planet’s Genetic Heritage
Recently, Chinese scientists have crossed what many Western commentators, scientists and others have claimed is an “ethical line” by applying gene editing to human embryos. Critics have condemned the move specifically because any human “edited” while at their embryonic stage would likely transfer those genetic changes to any offspring they had upon becoming an adult. …
US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter is meeting today at the headquarters of the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany with two dozen US military commanders and European diplomats to discuss how to escalate their economic and military campaign against Russia. They will assess the impact of current economic sanctions, as well as NATO’s strategy of exploiting the crisis in eastern Ukraine to deploy ever-greater numbers of troops and military equipment to Eastern Europe, threatening Russia with war.
A US defense official told Reuters that the main purpose of the meeting was to “assess and strategize on how the United States and key allies should think about heightened tensions with Russia over the past year.” The official also said Carter was open to providing the Ukrainian regime with lethal weapons, a proposal which had been put forward earlier in the year.
Most provocatively, a report published by the Associated Press yesterday reports that the Pentagon has been actively considering the use of nuclear missiles against military targets inside Russia, in response to what it alleges are violations of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty. Russia denies US claims that it has violated the INF by flight-testing ground-launched cruise missiles with a prohibited range.
Three options being considered by the Pentagon are the placement of anti-missile defenses in Europe aimed at shooting Russian missiles out of the sky; a “counterforce” option that would involve pre-emptive non-nuclear strikes on Russia military sites; and finally, “countervailing strike capabilities,” involving the pre-emptive deployment of nuclear missiles against targets inside Russia.
The AP states: “The options go so far as one implied—but not stated explicitly—that would improve the ability of US nuclear weapons to destroy military targets on Russian territory.” In other words, the US is actively preparing nuclear war against Russia. …
How many of these people are MK-Ultra drones? How many of them rape children at secluded elite mansions? Do they drink infant blood for kicks? These are the kinds of questions that seriously need to be asked.
Investigative reporter Trevor Aaronson- executive director of the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, author of The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism – has spent years researching and writing about FBI terrorism “stings” on mentally retarded and destitute Muslims orchestrated by informants convicted of rape and child molestation, who make some $100,000 per sting.
The FBI is responsible for more terrorism plots in the United States than any other organization. More than al Qaeda, more than al Shabaab, more than the Islamic State,more than all of them combined.
I’ve spent years pouring through the case files of terrorism prosecutions in the United States, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the FBI is much better at creating terrorists than it is at catching terrorists.
Aaronson points out that the FBI hasn’t denied his reports:
We used the court file to find out whether the defendants had any connections to international terrorist groups, whether an informant was used, and whether the informant played the role of an agent provocateur by providing the means and opportunity. And we submitted that to the FBI and we asked them to respond to our database. If they believed there were any errors, we asked them to tell us what they were and we’d go back and check and they never challenged any of our findings. Later, I used that data in a magazine article and later in my book, and on appearances on places like CBS and NPR, they were offered that opportunity again to say, “Trevor Aaronson’s findings are wrong.” And they’ve never come forward and said, “These are the problems with those findings.” So the data has since been used by groups like Human Rights Watchon its recent report on these types of sting operations. And so far, the FBI has never really responded to these charges that it’s really not catching terrorists so much as it’s catching mentally ill people that it can dress up as terrorists in these types of sting operations.
And see this.
Clinton and Bush’s top counter-terrorism czar – Richard Clarke – said:
A lot of the cases after 9/11 were manufactured or enormously exaggerated and were announced with great trumpets by the attorney general and the FBI director so that we felt that they were doing something when, in fact, what they were doing was not helpful, not relevant, not needed.
We noted in 2011:
- The Washington Post ran a story about one alleged threat entitled “Was it a terror sting or entrapment?“, showing that the U.S. government lent material support to the wanna-be terrorists, and put violent ideas in their heads
- Raw Story reports that the alleged terrorist group that is alleged to have planned to blow up Chicago’s Sears Tower was non-violent before a government informant infiltrated the group and planted violent ideas in their heads
- PBS’ Frontline ran a special report focusing on the the alleged Al Qaeda plot in Lodi, California, which showed — based upon interviews with top law enforcement officials involved in the case — thatthe bust amounted to little more than entrapment and coerced and fabricated confessions from two men who, in fact, had nothing to do with the terrorist group
There are numerous other instances of entrapment of peaceful or mentally incompetent people who are then arrested as “terrorists”. For example, the “mastermind” of the terrorism plot was a self-confessed “pothead” , another was a crackhead, and that they were all semi-retarded. And see this,this and this
Efforts to limit seizures of money, homes and other property from people who may never be convicted of a crime are stalling out amid a wave of pressure from prosecutors and police.
Their effort, at least at the state level, appears to be working. At least a dozen states considered bills restricting or even abolishing forfeiture that isn’t accompanied by a conviction or gives law enforcement less control over forfeited proceeds. But most measures failed to pass.
– From the Wall Street Journal article: Efforts to Curb Asset Seizures by Law Enforcement Hit Headwinds
The fact that civil asset forfeiture continues to exist across the American landscape despite outrage and considerable media attention, is as good an example as any as to how far fallen and uncivilized our so-called “society” has become. It also proves the point demonstrated in a Princeton University study that the U.S. is not a democracy, and the desires of the people have no impact on how the country is governed.
Civil asset forfeiture was first highlighted on these pages in the 2013 post, Why You Should Never, Ever Drive Through Tenaha, Texas, in which I explained:
In a nutshell, civil forfeiture is the practice of confiscating items from people, ranging from cash, cars, even homes based on no criminal conviction or charges, merely suspicion. This practice first became widespread for use against pirates, as a way to take possession of contraband goods despite the fact that the ships’ owners in many cases were located thousands of miles away and couldn’t easily be prosecuted. As is often the case, what starts out reasonable becomes a gigantic organized crime ring of criminality, particularly in a society where the rule of law no longer exists for the “elite,” yet anything goes when it comes to pillaging the average citizen.
One of the major reasons these programs have become so abused is that the police departments themselves are able to keep much of the confiscated money. So they actually have a perverse incentive to steal. As might be expected, a program that is often touted as being effective against going after major drug kingpins, actually targets the poor and disenfranchised more than anything else.
Civil asset forfeiture is state-sanctioned theft. There is no other way around it. The entire concept violates the spirit of the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments to the Constitution. In case you have any doubt:
The 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The 6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Civil asset forfeiture is a civil rights issue, and it should be seen as such by everyone. Just because it targets the entire population as opposed to a specific race, gender or sexual orientation doesn’t make it less important.
The problem with opposition in America today is that people aren’t seeing modern battle lines clearly. The greatest friction and abuse occurring in these United States today comes from the corporate-fascist state’s attack against average citizens. It doesn’t matter what color or gender you are. If you are weak, poor and vulnerable you are ripe for the picking. Until people see the battle lines clearly, it will be very difficult to achieve real change. Most people are divided and conquered along their superficial little tribal affiliations, and they completely miss the bigger picture to the peril of society. Which is why women will support Hillary just because she’s a woman, not caring in the least that she is a compromised, corrupt oligarch stooge.
In case you have any doubt about how little your opinion matters when it comes to the rights of police to rob you blind, read the following excerpts from the Wall Street Journal:
Efforts to limit seizures of money, homes and other property from people who may never be convicted of a crime are stalling out amid a wave of pressure from prosecutors and police. ……
Barbarians? Yes, people who have no knowledge of history but only exist to please themselves in the present are of course barbarians because they cannot be expected to understand the most basic principles of social organization. They live under a pre-magna-carta worldview, a very dangerous outlook for someone with a gun. Such ignorance is a terrible indictment of our school system. No society can survive such educational malfeasance.
This is robber baron education.
At midnight on Sunday, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act expired because activists like you fought back and forced a showdown in the Senate over unconstitutional spying on Americans.1 And for a moment, one of the government’s worst domestic surveillance authorities lapsed. This was a battle won for our movement.
Then yesterday, less than 48 hours later, the Senate undid everything. Senators voted overwhelmingly to reauthorize unconstitutional spying creating sweeping new authorities for the government to conduct unconstitutional mass surveillance of Americans by passing the USA FREEDOM Act.2 That reauthorization, via passage of the USA FREEDOM Act, is not something we call a victory. …
At best, the current version of the bill will place some restrictions on the bulk collection of telephone records, curtailing somewhat the use of a handful of the government’s many surveillance authorities. It by no means will end mass, suspicionless spying on Americans, though it could reduce somewhat the number of Americans impacted by certain surveillance programs at any given time. The NSA may have to collect merely huge numbers of records about large numbers of Americans – instead of nearly all domestic telephone records. The bill also makes some reforms to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – which may be a little more transparent under this bill.
At CREDO, we don’t believe that these relatively superficial changes, some of which may hamper the NSA’s suspicionless spying somewhat but won’t end mass surveillance, are worth reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act, nor are we confident that the government will interpret the law in the same way as reformers – after all, agencies like the NSA and FBI have an egregious track record of ignoring or distorting laws they find inconvenient. The USA FREEDOM Act is far worse than simply allowing section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to expire. …
What we got with the USA FREEDOM Act was dangerous fake-reform. Now we can go two ways. We can let Congress off the hook, fall for the line that they’ve actually done something and let the Obama White House continue it’s massive spying operation. Or we can fight back and build on our victory getting section 215 to sunset, if only for a couple of days.
The public proved it was well ahead of the politicians, strongly opposes mass surveillance and supports ending PATRIOT Act abuses. This fight demonstrates that the public can win battles in Congress that just a few years ago we were barely able to fight at all. We’re showing the world that standing strong can win big things, and that the more support we have for going big, the more we can win in the fights that are to come. …
Some members of Congress responded, and fought powerfully to end mass surveillance. In the Senate, Rand Paul led the opposition to the USA FREEDOM Act with a game-changing filibuster that helped force a temporary sunset of the PATRIOT Act.7 In the House, champions like Reps. Mark Pocan, Barbara Lee, Mark Takano, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, and Ted Poe led the charge to rein in the surveillance state.
But sadly, most Democrats in both the House and Senate failed to show the same commitment to our civil liberties as Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul, and Reps. Massie, Amash and Poe and Democratic Reps. Mark Pocan and Barbara Lee. The overwhelming majority of Democrats ultimately voted in favor of more mass surveillance. Even more disappointing, President Obama is competing with George W. Bush in using fear mongering to champion making PATRIOT Act powers permanent. …
While we see passage of the USA FREEDOM Act as a temporary setback, we will have other opportunities to fight to restore our civil liberties – and we’re better positioned than ever to win.
Coming up, we’ll have opportunities to support strong reform legislation that civil libertarians in Congress will try to attach to appropriations bills and other must-pass legislation, and to speak out in support of stand alone reform bills like Reps. Mark Pocan and Thomas Massie’s Surveillance State Repeal Act.
We also believe that too often in D.C. personnel is policy. So we will continue to call for the ouster of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who perjured himself in Congress lying through his teeth about the existence of the bulk surveillance program later exposed by Edward Snowden. And we’ll follow the money, working to defund the agencies and federal contractors who want to keep these unconstitutional programs with no track record of success because they yield rapacious profits underwritten by taxpayers like you and me.
We’ll be in touch soon about all of that soon. But for now, thank you for your activism. The only thing protecting our civil liberties is organized resistance to power grabs by our rogue surveillance agencies – in other words, you.
Does BORDC support a real investigation of 9/11?
The British security service shielded and blackmailed child sex abusers involved in a paedophile ring at a notorious Belfast care home, the High Court heard on Monday.
Counsel for one victim claimed new evidence of the extent of state collusion and cover-up in the Kincora scandal must now be examined by a wider Westminster inquiry.
Gary Hoy is seeking to judicially review the decision to keep the investigation within the remit of a Stormont-commissioned body.
But opening his challenge, Ashley Underwood QC argued the ongoing Historical Institutional Abuse (HIA) Inquiry sitting in Banbridge, Co Down lacks the power to properly scrutinise the “appalling, systematic abuse” Mr Hoy suffered at Kincora Boys Home.
He said: “There’s now substantial evidence that the Security Service were condoning that, they knew of it and made use of it so as to blackmail the abusers and prevent some of the abusers being brought to book at the time.”
Senior politicians, businessmen and high-level British state agents are alleged to have connived in the molestation and prostitution of vulnerable youngsters throughout the 1970s. …
In March, the federal government removed the latest vaccine injury court statistics—more than a year’s worth of data—from one of its publicly reported charts. It was an abrupt departure from the normal practice of updating the figures monthly.
Wiping the latest data means the “adjudication” chart on a government website no longer reflects the recent, sharp rise in court victories for plaintiffs who claimed their children were seriously injured or killed by one or more vaccines.
Since January of 2014, twice as many victims have won court decisions than the previous eight years combined. In these court decisions, a judge ruled the evidence showed vaccines “more likely than not” caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
Also on the rise is the number of vaccine injury cases the government has “conceded”: up 55% in a little over one year.
As a result of the recent website changes, neither of these trends is reflected on the current “adjudication” chart. …