Remember when we were getting banned by their Big Tech lemmings for claiming have this capability? That was fun! 

It’s official: Gattaca is Earth, and Earth is no more. Ground-breaking news:

Published January 10, 2021, by Bloomberg TV.

More info:

Pfizer Deepens Commitment to Genetic-Drug Future

10 Jan 2022 (Bloomberg)

“Pfizer Inc. deepened its commitment to the genetic approach to disease underpinning its Covid-19 vaccine on Monday, striking deals that will give access to three smaller companies’ technology in the area.” 

Read more at: https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/pfizer-deepens-commitment-to-genetic-drug-future-with-deals

Remember this?

I rest my case.

Also worth checking these older reports:

WE WRITE NEW DNA USING RNA ONLY – STAR SCIENTIST FINANCED BY EPSTEIN, DARPA AND SCHWAB’S WYSS INST.

RNA USED TO ALTER DNA, BRAIN FUNCTIONS AND BEHAVIOR (BIOHACKING P.2)

PFIZER / BIONTECH AND BILL GATES / CHINA ARE LIKE TWO COUPLES OF SWINGERS IN A PERPETUAL ORGY


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Stupidity leads to inflated ego, which leads to bragging and ruining months and months of brainwashing efforts from The Great Reset Politburo.

UPDATE: THIS VIDEO LED TO THE DELETION OF OUR THIRD YOUTUBE CHANNEL, EVEN THOUGH IT’S SOURCED FROM YOUTUBE AND THEIR TOP AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES!

ORIGINAL 2H VIDEO:

We all knew this, but it’s good to have it on video from this inbred horse’s mouth. The funny part is that the Covidiocracy is already in panic mode, writing the most inane ‘debunks’, which can be, for the largest part, summed up as “you didn’t hear what you’ve just heard, you heard what we tell you you heard”. They’re literally trying to do Jedi mind tricks on us and I bet there’s weakminded Pharma-junkies out there that will fall for their potato-grade hypnosis.

I can’t stress enough that 95% figure and how easy it was to crash it.

Stefan Oelrich, president of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division and membr of the Bayer/Monsanto board, made these statements at the 2021 World Health Summit in Berlin. on October 24th.

Informed consent had the fate of an Epstein sex slave buried on his island. No one is even looking for it.
Without it, the whole Covidiocracy is just genocide and war crimes, covidiots’ masks are soaked in blood, and their survival now depends entirely on the mass ignorance.
While ours depends on mass-enlightenment.

Silview ‘SILVIEW’ Costinescu

There’s not much to add, if you want to learn more about Bayer’s dark past, suffice to say they made Zyklon-B, the gas allegedly used in the nazi camps, and more recently have acquired Monsanto. After that, they’ve become more discrete, but they still have their hands in everything that feeds you and everything that treats the diseases you got from their food and their pesticides.
And, of course, they’re top tier members of Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum, at the forefront of transhumanism and The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
But here’s more info:

COVID, HITLER, BLM, THE GREAT RESET – MANY BRANDS, ONE CARTEL. AUSCHWITZ PERFECTED AND GLOBALIZED

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

… and I’ll give you some more perspective on it after you watch it.

NEW YORK, NY (PRWEB) APRIL 30, 2012

<<The 2045 initiative has received the blessing and support from the Dalai Lama, as it prepares to announce the second Global Future 2045 Congress, being held in New York, June, 2013.

Dmitry Itskov, founder of 2045, met His Holiness Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, in his residence in Dharamsala, a small mountain town in northern India.

They discussed the three major steps of 2045 Avatar Project. First, the creation of a human-like robot dubbed “Avatar A,” and a state-of-the-art brain-computer interface system to link the mind with it. Next, it be created a life support system for the human brain, which connects to the “Avatar A,” turning into “Avatar B.” The third step, named “Avatar C”, is developing an artificial brain in which to transfer one’s individual consciousness with the goal of achieving cybernetic immortality.

Creating the “Avatar C” through developing an artificial brain and understanding the nature of human consciousness, says the Dalai Lama, could be attainable, and would be a great benefit to future development of science.

“In the last few years, scientists now begin to show an interest about consciousness, as well as brain specialists, neuroscientists, who also begin to show interest about consciousness or mind. I feel that over the next decades modern science will become more complete,” said the Dalai Lama. “So up to now the matter side of science has been highly technical, highly advanced, but the mind side has not been adequate. This project, definitely, is helpful to get more knowledge.”

Several months ago, DARPA – the Pentagon’s research arm – announced their own plans on creating a militarized avatar project, serving as a soldiers surrogate on the battlefield.

“My project has very different, humanitarian goals – it involves technologies that could mark a transition for humanity, with endless benefits in the future. But already in the next few years, we will be able to enhance the life of those who are disabled, radically improving their living standards. This is just the beginning. It’s my goal to ensure it is affordable and accessible for all people – not just for the elite and the military,” said Itskov.

The Dalai Lama also agreed that it is crucial to discuss the ethics behind these types of progressive technologies. “We should carry out these experiments with a full sense of responsibility and respect for life that will only benefit humanity, benefit others.”

Itskov has been reaching out to spiritual leaders to start a dialogue about how they could reach harmonious integration with scientists. “It’s important to establish a bridge between scientists and spiritual leaders for a successful transition to a new phase for humanity,” he said.

The 2045 initiative held its first Global Future 2045 Congress in Moscow, in February 2012. There, over 50 world-leading physicists, biologists, anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, and philosophers met seeking to develop a strategy for further development of the humankind. The initiative’s goal is to create a network with the world’s leading scientists who are focused on the development of cybernetic technology with the ultimate goal of transferring human’s individual consciousness to an artificial carrier. The network will act as an investment hub, contributing to various projects around the world.>>

This Dalai Lama acting like the Asian Pope, has officially been sponsored by Soros’ foundations some years ago. Maybe he still is, I can’t be bothered… Asset for hire, anyway.

Some of you may actually remember this story, the Russian billionaire who launched the 2045 Initiative got a lot of airtime in Western media about 10 years ago and then, again, in another media campaign, about five years later. And you probably thought what I thought: another Bill-Gates-wanna-be trying to buy some social or political relevance with a media stunt. But I’ve changed my perspective since. Twice.

I’ve first changed my perspective on this when I started to learn it’s not as far-fetched as it initially looked, from a scientific standpoint.

Forbes called this an ‘uber-sci-fi plot’ just to admit, a few paragraphs later, that DARPA is already on its way:

Take DARPA, the U.S. military’s blue-sky research agency, as an example. They’ve got their own “Avatar” program, with the ambitious goal of creating robots to operate as mind-controlled surrogates for human soldiers. Emerging research suggests that such a venture might one day succeed, given that scientists are making impressive strides towards brain-mediated limbs and exoskeletons, as well as robots able to respond to human vocal cues and movements. Itskov’s ideas (at least, stages two through four), however, essentially eclipse even the most cutting-edge elements of that ongoing research.

Forbes

Secondly, I’ve changed my mind just recently, when YouTube recommended a video about this and I’ve looked back at it with a late 2021 mindset and awareness.

What I’ve noticed now is that 2045 looks like a younger, more unhinged and reckless version of Klaus Schwab’s Fourth Industrial Revolution / Great Reset / Transhumanism.

Everyone in Western media framed it as “crazy rich Russian wants to make billionaires immortal’. That’s like commenting on the manicure of a finger that points at the moon,
Less than 5% of the ad deals with immortality / life extension.

THE REST OF THE 95% IS ABOUT BUILDING A NEW MANKIND, A NEW SPECIES AND A NEW SOCIETY. FOR ALL, AS A WAY TO AVERT A CATASTROPHE.
AS IF SCHWAB VISITED PUTIN AND MIXED TOO MUCH VODKA AND COKE.

All Schwab’s tropes are there, from nanobots to the Internet of Bodies and beyond, we even have “bodies made of nanobots”, all the Borg is there…

What I also know now is that we’re closer, technically, to the objectives, but far from keeping up with the 2045 agenda, and I suspect no one really hoped for more, it was just for the flashy graphics and the tv buzz. They knew better at all times. The ‘roadmap to immortality’ was never meant to be followed, that was a bait for normies, the switch must have been the rest of the message, an 7 minutes ad for Transhumanism followed by a huge media campaign.

You can’t sell Western Transhumanism in Russia, especially when delivered by a freaky German and his pedo-nerdish lemmings. You have to give it the local touch and add Russian pride to it. Well, everyone got served.

<<The Russian Cosmists were late nineteenth and early twentieth century thinkers, whose philosophy, according to anthropologist Anya Bernstein, proposed a “unique combination of scientific and occult ideas.” Cosmist writings were banned during the Soviet period, but those who protected their works were devoted to the idea of “transcendence of space, time, and the body, mastery of nature, settlement of the outer space, and even the resurrection of the dead.”

They were also, it’s worth noting, very, very into being Russian.

In the book The Russian Cosmists author George Young writes that many Cosmists believed their philosophy could satisfy the “Russian soul” and considered their ways of thinking to be patriotic. Cosmist theology — it has more than a tinge of the religious to it — centers around the idea of a bold, happy future controlled by Russia.

“If Cosmism is viewed by its prominent adherents as the most Russian and therefore most significant current of thought running from the nineteenth through the twenty-first century, outside Russia the movement and the figures associated with it are all but unknown,” writes Young. “The Western transhumanists, the cryonicists, the immortalists, and certain new age spiritual movements share some Cosmist idea and practices and present the closest foreign analog.”

OG Cosmist thinker Nikolai Federov.Wikimedia

A resurgence in the popularity of the Cosmist ideas and writings in Russia has led Bernstein to question whether the way of thinking is now “a nationalist movement, indeed, a new Russian idea.” She points to the recent firing of the editor of the journal Russian Planet for failing to use the platform to reflect Russia’s preeminence as a cultured nation. The firing offense? He didn’t reference the Cosmists enough.

Bernstein also raises the point of Vladimir Putin. While neither President Putin or the Russian government has ever offered official support of the Cosmist way of thinking, some truthers have taken to analyzing the Russian leader’s public statements. In a December speech the President announced, “We all want the same thing: well-being for Russia. So the relations between business and the state should be built on the philosophy of the common task, partnership, and equal dialogue. The Philosophy of the Common Task was the title of collected works of Cosmist icon Nikolai Fedorov so in the words of conspiracy theorists everywhere, you do the math. Actual endorsement notwithstanding, a philosophy that encourages cracking the code to live forever certainly seems on brand for Putin. Some cartoonists have joked that Putin supports Cosmist/transhumanist initiatives so that he can extend his life enough to keep running for President.

While Putin has stayed mum on his Cosmist leanings, other Russians blurring the line between Cosmist and transhumanism have been more upfront with their support of a cyborg future. Russia 2045 is the project of millionaire media mogul Dmitry Itskov, whose initiative to replace biological bodies with artificial avatars may seem insane but not not-insane enough to not be profiled in the business section of The New York Times.

In a hype video that would make Michael Bay proud, Russia 2045 declares that our civilization has become like an “uncaptained ship sailing on rough seas with neither chart nor compass.” What society with our imperfect biological bodies need is the technology that will extend our lives — and could very well mean that we live forever. While the organization’s website notes that a “100 percent guarantee of implementation within a specific time cannot be provided” it does encourage people to start thinking about what robotic avatars they will prefer — a robotic copy of a human body with a brain-computer interface, a robotic body that will carry your head once your first body runs out of steam, or a “completely non-biological” body and brain onto which your consciousness has been uploaded.

Russian-identifying martial-artist Steven Seagal is a supporter of the 2045 project, and personally wrote to Vladimir Putin requesting that he support what he describes as a “social movement.” Inverse has reached out to Seagal to see if his support for the project still stands.

“For me it is obvious that this initiative will strengthen Russia’s position in world science, [and] underline Russia’s role in the international community as the country claiming leadership in setting and solving global problems for the betterment of mankind,” writes Seagal in his letter.

Bernstein proposes that Cosmism has the possibility to strengthen Russian national identity in the same way the country got jazzed about Eurasianism in the early 2000s. But with its’ blending of occult-like philosophies and reliance on technology it’s still very taboo in more conservative circles, especially among the Russian Orthodox church who aren’t ready to concede that transhumanism is the “religion of the 21st century.”

Part of the underlying tenets of Cosmism is that Russia will have a active role in controlling the future; of managing the cosmos — basically the most Kremlin-ready philosophy ever.>> – Inverse Mag

You’re nowhere on this map yet, but on the other ones…

And while many people still regard Russia through 50year old Cold War lenses and think Putin is opposed to the new global regime, I know better.

Davos and the WEF are filled with Russians, their Cyberpoygon is organized by a Russian bank and cybersecurity company in Russia, and I’ve shown you earlier that Klaus Schwab refers to Putin as a former disciple and early member of his youth organization, the ‘Young Global Leaders’.

Also, when 2045 got launched, it only took a celebritard like Steven Seagal to get prime-minister Putin’s support.

In Dmitry Itskov’s own words:

“On 16 May, 2011 Hollywood actor and martial arts master, Steven Seagal, publicly endorsed our movement and personally proposed that Mr. Putin consider a partnership with the “Russia 2045” movement.  Later we sent the prime minister a letter requesting that he support the international scientific research center which we are now establishing that will specialize in extending human life and improving its quality using cybernetic technology.  As a result a panel discussion was held at the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and protocol that supported several initiatives of the 2045 Movement.

We have merely proposed that the Russian authorities consider partnering with our movement because participation in such a project is strategically important for our country.  However, “Russia 2045” has never been a project personally initiated by Vladimir Putin, nor has it ever been an initiative of any other ministry of the Russian government.  The goal of our project is to create accessible cybernetic technology to radically extend the lives of all people.  It has never been connected to the secret machinations of influential politicians and wealthy businessmen.

We believe that the goal of bringing about the immorality of all mankind may require the help of not just government and its leader, but the help of the whole international community.  We are now seeking the partnership of Russia, the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations, as well as other nations and organizations and will openly announce any kind of partnership on our movement’s website.”

Wham-bam, spasiba m’am!

Bottom line, 10 years later:

No one seems stressed with that roadmap

No notable scientific progress emerged from all this.

What has emerged was a ton of buzz for Transhumanism and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, with click-baits for both the East and West. Russians were surely made more aware of it, and they got sold a globalist agenda while their patriotism seemed to be catered, at a superficial glance.

Also, Russia appears as having technological ambitions and capabilities that rival or get ahead DARPA’s, it all sounds much like the space race during the Cold War.

Doesn’t seem likely that this is by accident or took anyone by surprise.

AND THIS IS, LADIES AND GENTS, LOOKS VERY MUCH LIKE THE COGNITIVE WARFARE I WAS TALKING ABOUT IN MY PREVIOUS REPORT.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them


You thought Magnetogenetics are scary? Optogenetics are a similar thing, but using light instead of electromagnetism, non-invasive and non-detectable. Both stem from DARPA’s BRAIN Initiative.
And you may be able to avoid EMF radiation, but you can’t avoid light.

(BIOHACKING P.6)

This actually touches on a wide array of concerns, from LEDs to vaccines, The Great Reset and the smart grid.
I am very confident that if you pay attention to this video presentation from start to end, you will spend one hour, but you will save incommensurably more hours of guessing, wondering and researching. Not just the many hours I spent doing this, but the many more hours I learned where to look for and how to connect things.
You’re still supposed to not take my word and do your own research, but this will give you some of the best tips on the topic.

Oh, so much wow! just hours after putting this out I find out they will be spraying us with viruses. Shocker!

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

OBAMA, DARPA, GSK AND ROCKEFELLER’S $4.5B B.R.A.I.N. INITIATIVE – BETTER SIT WHEN YOU READ

THE INTERNET OF BODIES AKA THE BORG IS HERE, KLAUS SCHWAB SAYS (BIOHACKING P.5)

FOIA RELEASE: REMOTE MIND CONTROL LINKED TO DARPA’S BRAIN MAPPING. IN 2018

MAGNETOGENETICS, CO-FINANCED BY DARPA, GATES, ROCKEFELLERS, ZUCKERBERG! ISN’T THIS WHY VAXXERS TURN INTO FRIDGE DOORS AND MAGNETS STICK ON THEM?!

HOW CAN PATTERNED ILLUMINATION BE USED IN OPTOGENETICS EXPERIMENTS?

Brain Control With Light: It’s Possible With Optogenetics

Lighting the Brain

Karl Deisseroth and the optogenetics breakthrough.

By John Colapinto, The New Yorker, May 11, 2015

By rendering individual neurons photosensitive Deisseroths technique brings a once unthinkable level of precision and...
By rendering individual neurons photosensitive, Deisseroth’s technique brings a once unthinkable level of precision and control to experiments designed to determine how the brain processes information and drives behavior.

DARPA Awards $21.6M to Develop Optogenetic ‘Read-Write’ Neural Interface

July 24, 2017, Biosciences

Ehud Isacoff of the Molecular Biophysics and Integrated Bioimaging (MBIB) Division is the project lead on a $21.6 million grant awarded to UC Berkeley as part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA’s) Neural Engineering System Design program. The team led by Isacoff, director of the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute at UC Berkeley, aims to develop a novel brain-machine interface that uses light to monitor and modulate the activity of thousands to millions of individual neurons in the cerebral cortex.

To communicate with the brain, the team will first introduce a gene encoding a fluorescent protein into neurons, making the cells flash when they fire an action potential. This will be accompanied by a second gene encoding a light-activated protein that stimulates neurons in response to pulses of light. The reading device Isacoff’s group is developing is a miniaturized light field microscope, which captures light through an array of lenses and reconstructs images computationally in any depth of focus. For the writing component, they are developing a means to stimulate groups of neurons by projecting three-dimensional light patterns onto them.

The researchers’ goal during the initial four-year funding period is to create a prototype device using model organisms—such as zebrafish larvae and mice—in which neural activity and behavior can be simultaneously detected and controlled. But DARPA’s ultimate goal is to accelerate the development of biocompatible neural implants for use in humans to compensate for sensory deficits or to control prosthetic devices. Read more from the UC Berkeley News Center.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

An MIT scientist helps with the concocts and Oprah with the promo

Remember the outrage at the recent news that China uses popular pregnancy tests to harvest DNA from around the world? Hardly.
You probably remember even less about this story. It has been first revealed by The Intercept in 2016, at the peaks of the Trump hysteria (first edition), so no one paid it any real attention, even though a good chunk of mainstream media picked up on it, I even found it on CBS News.
Now we’re in the middle of the Afghanistan ‘debacle’, but I hope some of us learned a few things in the meantime and will receive this as it deserves, because first fires shot landed in no-man’s land and you can bet a finger this business model has since been improved and diversified.

SOURCE

Below you have the original Intercept article that broke the story:

CIA’S VENTURE CAPITAL ARM IS FUNDING SKIN CARE PRODUCTS THAT COLLECT DNA

by Lee Fang
The Intercept, April 8 2016, 1:04 p.m.

SKINCENTIAL SCIENCES, a company with an innovative line of cosmetic products marketed as a way to erase blemishes and soften skin, has caught the attention of beauty bloggers on YouTube, Oprah’s lifestyle magazine, and celebrity skin care professionals. Documents obtained by The Intercept reveal that the firm has also attracted interest and funding from In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The previously undisclosed relationship with the CIA might come as some surprise to a visitor to the website of Clearista, the main product line of Skincential Sciences, which boasts of a “formula so you can feel confident and beautiful in your skin’s most natural state.”

Though the public-facing side of the company touts a range of skin care products, Skincential Sciences developed a patented technology that removes a thin outer layer of the skin, revealing unique biomarkers that can be used for a variety of diagnostic tests, including DNA collection.

Skincential Science’s noninvasive procedure, described on the Clearista website as “painless,” is said to require only water, a special detergent, and a few brushes against the skin, making it a convenient option for restoring the glow of a youthful complexion — and a novel technique for gathering information about a person’s biochemistry.

clearista-1

A screen grab from the Clearista website.

In-Q-Tel, founded in 1999 by then-CIA Director George Tenet, identifies cutting-edge technology to support the mission of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and provides venture funding to help grow tech firms to develop those solutions.

“Our company is an outlier for In-Q-Tel,” Russ Lebovitz, the chief executive of Skincential Sciences, said during an interview with The Intercept. He conceded that the relationship might make for “an unusual and interesting story,” but said, “If there’s something beneath the surface, that’s not part of our relationship and I’m not directly aware. They’re interested here in something that can get easy access to biomarkers.”

Still, Lebovitz claimed he has limited knowledge of why In-Q-Tel selected his firm.

“I can’t tell you how everyone works with In-Q-Tel, but they are very interested in doing things that are pure science,” Lebovitz said. The CIA fund approached his company, telling him the fund shares an interest in looking at DNA extraction using the method pioneered by Skincential Sciences, according to Lebovitz.The CIA fund has described human skin as a “unique, underutilized source for sample collection.”

Beyond that, Lebovitz said he was unsure of the intent of the CIA’s use of the technology, but the fund was “specifically interested in the diagnostics, detecting DNA from normal skin.” He added, “There’s no better identifier than DNA, and we know we can pull out DNA.”

Perhaps law enforcement could use the biomarker extraction technique for crime scene identification or could conduct drug tests, Lebovitz suggested.

Carrie A. Sessine, the vice president for external affairs at In-Q-Tel, declined a media interview because “IQT does not participate in media interviews or opportunities.”

(Officials at the venture capital firm have, in fact, given interviews in the past.)

Though In-Q-Tel operates in the open, it has often kept key details of its activities out of public view, beyond required annual reports. After a SecureDrop source told The Intercept about a gathering in San Jose for In-Q-Tel executives and start-up companies backed by the fund, The Intercept attempted to attend, but was denied access.

Skincential Sciences was among several presenting companies.

The shroud of secrecy around In-Q-Tel belies a 17-year effort to build ties between the CIA and the biggest names in Silicon Valley. Gilman Louie, a video game executive known for publishing best-sellers such as Tetris, Falcon, and Civilization II, was brought on as the first chief executive of In-Q-Tel. The popular mapping tool Google Earth was created around technology developed by Keyhole Corp., an In-Q-Tel-backed company that was later acquired by Google.

physiological_intelligence-3

A graphic from the “IQT Quarterly” summer 2010 issue on the new modalities in sampling and sensing collection.

Graphic: IQT Quarterly

Still, little is publicly revealed about the use of In-Q-Tel-backed ventures and their relevance to the goals of intelligence agencies. Many of the fund’s investments are not publicly revealed. The fund is reviewed by the CIA’s inspector general and reports directly to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which frequently conducts business through classified briefings.

David Petraeus, while serving as the director of the CIA in 2012, remarked, “Our partnership with In-Q-Tel is essential to helping identify and deliver groundbreaking technologies with mission-critical applications to the CIA and to our partner agencies.”

Despite the association with computer and satellite technology, In-Q-Tel also maintains a long-running interest in developing advanced genetic analysis, biological technologies for detection and diagnostics, as well as research into what is known as physiological intelligence, which, in a 2010 article, the fund described as “actionable information about human identity and experience that have always been of interest to the Intelligence Community.”

The article, which is no longer available on the fund’s website but is preserved by a cache hosted by the Internet Archive, argues that advances in medical research into biomarkers can be leveraged by intelligence agencies for a variety of uses, from airport security to next-generation identification tools.

A diagram in the article calls human skin the body’s largest organ and a “unique, underutilized source for sample collection.” The author, Dr. Kevin O’Connell, then a “senior solutions architect” with In-Q-Tel, notes, “The DNA contained in microorganisms in a person’s gut or on a person’s skin may contain sequences that indicate a particular geographical origin.”

clearista_process

A screen grab from the Clearista website describing the resurfacing process of its product.

Image: Clearista.com

In-Q-Tel has invested in several companies working in this realm, in addition to Skincential Sciences. In 2013, In-Q-Tel publicly announced a strategic partnership with Bio-NEMS, a firm that developed a semiconductor device used to analyze DNA for a variety of diagnostic and human identification applications. Claremont BioSolutions, a diagnostics firm, and Biomatrica, a firm that specializes in preparing biological samples for DNA testing, are also backed by In-Q-Tel.

Skincential Sciences did not start out as a beauty company. The firm was founded in 2010 as DX Biosciences, which was developed around a patent by a team of scientists including Dr. Samir Mitragotri of the University of California, Santa Barbara. Mitragotri has published research into the use of biomarkers as a “window to body’s health.”

The company gained early backing from Frontier, a venture capital company, among other investors.

While the technology has potential for a variety of medical diagnostics, including early melanoma detection, Lebovitz said the company quickly realized it had immediate value as a cosmetic. The application of the detergent developed by the firm could be used easily to diminish blemishes and dark patches on the skin. And unlike similar treatments at aesthetic spas, the technology developed by Dr. Mitragotri and his colleagues did not require acid or any discomfort.

In 2013, the firm relaunched and recapitalized as Skincential Sciences, with Clearista as its primary brand of beauty products.

Lebovitz says he intends to continue developing the technology so that it may be medically relevant, but he is also focusing on breaking into the multibillion-dollar skin care market. While Skincential has won measured success for its Clearista brand products by landing coverage on television and through social media, the company has not yet been able to compete with mainstream skin care companies.

Jamie Walsh, a blogger who runs Glam Latte, a beauty website, endorsed a Clearista product on her YouTube channel, noting that with only one application of the cream, her skin improved and was “glowing.” Walsh said Skincential Sciences sent her the product for a testimonial, and noted that like many independent brands, she did not know about the company’s funding.

Skincential hopes to license its product with a major distributor, or even one day become acquired by a larger beauty company. “We’ll take any of those,” said Lebovitz.

The chief executive noted that he is proud of the In-Q-Tel support, calling the fund “great partners.”

At the gathering in February for In-Q-Tel portfolio companies, Lebovitz joined a crowd that included a number of In-Q-Tel executives, along with senior members of the intelligence community. Presenting speakers included Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, and John Maeda, design partner of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a leading Silicon Valley investment firm.

“Not only was I the odd man out,” Lebovitz said, “but almost every woman at the conference wanted to come up to me to talk about skin care.
– The Intercept

FAST FORWARD TO 2021

Nothing changed on this stage, the show goes on undisturbed. Here’s some coupons for you!

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

How can you call yourself “intelligent” when you can’t understand simplest concepts like “consent” and you’re completely disconnected from human nature and feelings?
What better proof that the system is broken than the broken souls it produces industrially?

Fake news from Breitbart, Tucker didn’t tie him to human engineering, Tucker observed he’s so tied he barely speaks about anything else. More evidence below

You may have seen this show, yet Carlson gave you but a peak. I give you more than you can carry.
Warning: The only people who will not lose sleep over this are those who paid attention to this scandal when it started, almost a decade ago, highest echelon elites and the pseudo-people who clap at Jimmy Kimmel’s IQ-19 brainfarts.

This video has been recorded in 2013, but the guys was already making waves since 2012, see below.

Note from TED’s YouTube channel, under this video: Comments are disabled on this video. We made this difficult decision for the TED Archive because we believe that a well-moderated conversation allows for better commentary from more people and more viewpoints. Studies show that aggressive and hateful comments silence other commenters and drive them away; unfortunately, YouTube’s comment moderation tools are simply not up to the task of allowing us to monitor comments on so many videos at once. (We’d love to see this change, YouTube.) So for now, if you’d like to comment on this talk, please use Facebook, Twitter or G+ to discuss with your networks”

Dude’s credentials are almost as spectacular as his talk. Meaning this is what it takes to prosper in the scientific environment lately.

2007

He’s always been this freaky and obsessed with shortening people, he must be the polar opposite of tall.

The Ashley Treatment: Best Interests, Convenience, and Parental Decision-Making

by S. Matthew Liao , Julian Savulescu , and Mark Sheehan

“As a general point, it is entirely conceivable that in some natural, social, or psychological circumstances, having a normal body may be a disadvantage. In H.G. Wells’ short story “The Country of the Blind,” Nunez, a mountaineer in the Andes, falls and comes upon the Country of the Blind. Nunez has normal vision, but in this society of blind people, he is disadvantaged, and he eventually consents to have his eyes removed. Similarly, in a world of loud noise, being able to hear could be a disadvantage. In the case of apotemnophilia—a body dysmorphic disorder in which the patient feels incomplete possessing all four limbs—doctors justify amputation by reasoning that the patient’s psychology demands it. In Ashley’s case, having a normal-sized body could be a disadvantage.”

SOURCE

2012

Bioengineer humans to tackle climate change, say philosophers

Posted by Leo Hickman, Wednesday 14 March 2012 @ theguardian.com

Authors defend controversial academic paper saying their online critics have misunderstood nature of philosophical inquiry

Leo blog : Xbox game Deus Ex which is bio-modification of humans
Screen grab of a character from the computer game Deus Ex : Human Revolution, which is about bio-modification of humans. Photograph: deusex.com

Earlier this week, The Atlantic ran an eye-catching, disturbing interview with a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University called S. Matthew Liao. He was invited to discuss a forthcoming paper he has co-authored which will soon be published in the journal Ethics, Policy & Environment.

But within just a few hours of the interview going live a torrent of outrage and abuse was being directed towards him online. As I tweeted at the time, the interview was indeed “unsettling”. Liao explained how his paper – entitled, “Human Engineering and Climate Change” – explored the so-far-ignored subject of how “biomedical modifications of humans” could be used to “mitigate and/or adapt to climate change“. The modifications discussed included: giving people drugs to make them have an adverse reaction to eating meat; making humans smaller via gene imprinting and “preimplantation genetic diagnosis”; lowering birth-rates through “cognitive enhancement”; genetically engineering eyesight to work better in the dark to help reduce the need for lighting; and the “pharmacological enhancement of altruism and empathy” to engender a better “correlation” with environmental problems.

Both the interview and the paper itself include a prominent disclaimer. As the paper says:

To be clear, we shall not argue that human engineering ought to be adopted; such a claim would require far more exposition and argument than we have space for here. Our central aim here is to show that human engineering deserves consideration alongside other solutions in the debate about how to solve the problem of climate change. Also, as we envisage it, human engineering would be a voluntary activity – possibly supported by incentives such as tax breaks or sponsored health care – rather than a coerced, mandatory activity.

However, that wasn’t enough to prevent an extremely hostile reception to such ideas. Climate sceptics were the first to vent their anger. Somewhat inevitability, terms such as “eugenics”, “Nazis” and “eco fascists” were quickly being bandied around. One sceptic blogger said that the “sick” Liao and his co-authors should be “kept in Guantanamo”. Another said the paper “presages the death of science, and indeed the death of reason, in the West”.

But prominent environmentalists were also keen to denounce the paper. Bill McKibben tweeted that the paper contained the “worst climate change solutions of all time”. Mark Lynas tweeted that he thought it was an “early April Fool”. It was hard to disagree.

So, were the philosophers who co-wrote the paper surprised by the reaction? Or had all their critics misunderstood what they were trying to achieve? I contacted each of the authors in turn, and a co-editor of the journal, and asked them.

Liao was the first to respond:

First, I think that our paper/position is being grossly misrepresented by some people online. As we specifically say in our paper, a) we are not necessarily endorsing any of the solutions we have canvassed; and b) if these solutions were available, it should be up to individuals to adopt them voluntarily. Ross Anderson, the writer of the Atlantic interview, also makes this clear.
Secondly, the term “eugenics” often gets brought up whenever people mention human enhancements. This is unfortunate because my co-authors and I are positively against any form of coercion of the sort the Nazis had done in the past (segregation, sterilization, and genocide). The way the term ‘eugenics’ is used by some of the people who are against our proposal, it seems that voluntary use of contraception would be a form of eugenics.
Finally, many people who are against our proposal explicitly deny that climate change is really a problem. Given this, it is not surprising that they would find our solution to what they perceive as a “non-problem” incredible. Indeed, some of these people have also said that encouraging people to drive less is an overreaction to climate change. Our paper is intended for those who believe that i) climate change is a real problem; and ii) who, owing to i), are willing to take seriously geoengineering. All bets are off if someone doesn’t accept i).

I then sent the following questions to Liao’s co-authors, Dr Anders Sandberg and Dr Rebecca Roache, both based at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute. (Roache was at the institute when the paper was first being drafted 18 months ago, but has since left to be a “full-time mum”.)

Has your paper been misrepresented online? If so, how and why?

Sandberg: Most reactions are not based on what we actually wrote. People who comment on anything online have usually not read it, and then people comment on them, and so on. You are lucky if people remember the original topic, let alone any argument.
People seem to assume we are some kind of totalitarian climate doomsters who advocate biotechnological control over people. What we are actually saying is that changing our biology might be part of solving environmental problems, and that some changes might not just be permissible but work well with a liberal ethics.
Climate change and many other problems have upstream and downstream solutions. For example, 1) human consumption leads to 2) a demand for production and energy, which leads to 3) industry, which leads to 4) greenhouse gas emissions, which lead to 5) planetary heating, which leads to 6) bad consequences. One solution might be to try to consume less (fix 2). We can also make less emissive industry (fix the 3-4 link), remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (reduce 4), geoengineering that cools the planet (reduce 5) or adapt to a changed world (handle 6). Typically people complain about the downstream solutions like geoengineering that they are risky or don’t actually solve the cause of the problem, and say we should go for upstream solutions (where a small shift affects the rest of the chain). So, what would be the most upstream solution? Change human desires or consumption. While this can be done partially by persuasion and culture, there are many strong evolved drivers in human nature that act against it. But we can also affect the drivers.
For example, making people smarter is likely to make them better at solving environmental problems, caring about the environment, adopting a more long-term stance, cooperate better and have fewer children. It is of course desirable for a long list of other reasons too, and many people would freely choose to use enhancements to achieve this even if they cared little about the world. If there was a modification that removed the desire for meat, it would likely have not just green effects but also benefit health and animal welfare – again many might decide to go for it, with no external compulsion.

Roache: Yes. We argue that it might be worth considering making available some seemingly bizarre solutions to climate change, for people to use or not as they wish. We have been represented as arguing – among other things – that people should be forced to adopt these bizarre measures for the good of the environment. I imagine that this is partly because people assume that nobody would dream up such bizarre solutions to climate change unless they believed that they should be implemented. Philosophers, however, spend a lot of time discussing views that they do not necessarily endorse – it’s part of the learning process.

What do you say to those who are claiming you and your fellow authors are “eco Nazis”, “eugenicists” etc, for publishing this paper?

Sandberg: Well, none of us are deep greens or totalitarian. We are fairly typical liberal academics thinking about the world. In fact, in my normal work with global catastrophic risks at the Future of Humanity Institute, climate change is at the lower end of concern. Certainly a problem, but unlikely to wipe out humanity. That probably disqualifies me from being an eco Nazi.
Certainly one can imagine nasty governments imposing various green policies on the population, forcing them to act in ways that benefit the environment. But our paper doesn’t give them any particular ethical support: if you are willing to infringe on people’s reproductory liberty, why not just prevent them from consuming as much as they want? Green totalitarianism might be possible, but it is hardly moral – because it is totalitarian and doesn’t respect individual rights.
Of course, to many people even a hint that our biology might be subject to political considerations is horrific. Yet they do not seem to worry much about the political decisions that are constantly being made about our reproduction (laws against reproductive cloning are political decisons about the desired form of human reproduction), nutrition or health. We are living in an era of biopolitics. It is better to make the issues explicit and discuss them than assume they will go away if we ignore them.
I think parents should be allowed to select genes for their children (“liberal eugenics” in the term of Nicholas Agar) – the reason eugenics in the past has been such a bad thing was because it was 1) coercive, 2) imposed centrally by the state, and 3) often based on bad science. If one can avoid these problems I do think it could be useful: in that sense I am an eugenicist. However, I suspect other technologies are going to change our species faster than genetics.

Roache: I say that they haven’t read the paper! We explicitly state that we do not endorse coercion, and that we envisage human engineering to be a voluntary activity. The solutions we discuss may seem bizarre and unrealistic, but that does not entail they are not worth exploring.

Did you predict this level/type of response?

Sandberg: A bit. When I wrote the paper I felt I was to some extent trolling – I admit I was delighted when some of my normally rather bio-radical colleagues protested against the idea after a presentation we gave here in Oxford. I was a bit more surprised that the blogosphere and popular press took notice of the paper.
The problem with arousing emotions is that most people then become very stimulus-response driven. They don’t think very deeply about the issue, they react instead. We hoped the paper would be exciting enough to stimulate discussion but not to preclude thinking.
You could claim this paper is a reductio ad absurdum of the idea that we should aim for upstream solutions to environmental problems rather than downstream solutions. I’m not convinced about that: there might indeed be win-win enhancements that are both good for us individually, for society and for the environment, and they should be supported. What the paper does is to take environmental goals and collide them with some common bioethical intuitions (the sacredness of the natural, that human biology must not be touched, etc.) – that hopefully produces an uncomfortable itch that will stimulate some real thinking about what we want to give prioritiy. Could there be ethical reasons not to do things that would help the environment? Could there be environmental needs so pressing we would be forced to budge our biological policies?

Roache: It was always a possibility. Our normally unflappable bioethicist colleagues were shocked by the idea of human engineering, so the wider public was bound to find it ghastly. The fact that we presented it as a response to the widely-discussed problem of climate change is also relevant here: it’s not unusual for philosophers to write about wacky and horrifying ideas, but non-philosophers are rarely interested in them because they often have no obvious bearing on real life. For example, I was working on this paper at around the same time as I was working on a paper about whether it is conceptually possible for more than one person to inhabit a single body; but the publication of the latter passed without comment from the Daily Mail.

Ultimately, what were you trying to achieve with the paper? Are
people interpreting it too literally, namely, believing you personally
would advocate for these ideas?

Sandberg: People are unused to ethical analysis. In philosophy we take ideas and test them to destruction. This means that we often bring up concepts or lines of thought we do not personally believe in and then argue them as strongly as possible to see where they go and what we can learn. This is very different from everyday life where most people who state an idea or belief also believe in it – and it makes people misunderstand this kind of thinking. To make matters worse most people debating it will not read the paper and see how we discuss the ethical problems or why even we think it is a preposterous idea… they will just think some eggheads blithely promote eugenics.
The core idea is that we should not imagine that our biological nature is exempt from being part of a potential solution to environmental problems. In our opinion methods of changing people, habits, technology or the environment are all possible approaches, and what matters is whether they work, have good effects, are acceptable and practical, not what kind of method they are.
My personal view is that human engineering on its own is unlikely to fix climate change. The methods we mention are all too weak, indirect and slow. But thinking about out-of-the-box approaches is useful: too much of the climate debate has been forced into doctrinaire camps where any consideration of alternatives is heresy. Big complex problems are unlikely to have simple and neat solutions: we need to investigate (and perhaps use) a lot of approaches.
I do think that in the long run humanity has to become posthuman if it wants to be truly sustainable. I have a little essay about it here:
http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2009/03/a_really_green_and_sustainable_humanity.html
But this is not feasible for the next few decades, at the very least.

Roache: We wanted to encourage people to think about a group of solutions to climate change that have so far been ignored, despite the fact that in many cases it would be scientifically possible to implement them. Human engineering may seem bizarre and unrealistic, but this does not mean it could not turn out to be feasible and promising: telephones, “test tube babies”, and personal computers are all important aspects of modern life that were once regarded as bizarre and unrealistic. Of course, human engineering may ultimately be unworkable; but this should be because it is impossible to implement, or because its costs outweigh its benefits. It should not be rejected merely because, at first glance, it seems unappealing. And discussing it is itself valuable: it is by exploring and assessing potential responses to a problem that we make progress towards solving it.

I also asked Benjamin Hale, assistant professor of philosophy and environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and co-editor of Ethics, Policy & Environment, why the paper is being published and whether the journal anticipated this sort of response. He said:

We accept submissions from scholars across the academic community. The article went through the same double blind peer reviewed process that all of our articles go through. We haven’t received any questions on it yet. You’re our first. By publishing this article, we are not endorsing it at all. We have circulated the paper widely and are publishing between seven to nine critical responses from ethicists across the field.
The things I’ve seen written on it so far appear to miss the point. The article was clearly not a positive policy proposal. Instead, it was a series of Swiftian philosophical thought experiments more designed to contextualize actively discussed schemes like geoengineering, written by a professor who is not otherwise engaged with the climate community. In the same issue, we will be publishing several other articles critical of geoengineering.

In total, the responses indicate that both the authors and journal stand squarely behind the controversial paper and believe its critics have woefully misinterpreted its contents and the reasons for publishing it. One thing is sure: they have certainly been successful in courting attention (not to be sniffed at in the world of academic publishing, or any form of publishing, for that matter).

But if their aim was to generate a pensive, wide-ranging philosophical debate on the subject of human engineering and climate change I’m not convinced they have been successful. Well, not yet at least, if the online reaction is anything to go by. There remains a danger, too, that the paper will be used in the future as a stick to attack any suggestion of environmental action: “Let them do this, and this will be next on their agenda.” However, I agree with the authors that we should not fear debating such ideas – even if the end result is that we still roundly reject them.

2015

2017

He returns to TED with optogenetics and other DARPA-funded nightmares. Remember optogenetics, because you’ll hear a lot about it in the near future, at least from us.

Also this shameless thing:

2018

SOURCE

2021:

Tucker Carlson: Is Google Funding “Human Engineering” Scientific Research?

 Fox News
On Date June 23, 2021

TUCKER CARLSON: How many other dangerous, potentially world-altering experiments are going on right now, in this and other counties, funded by the secretive daisy-chain of government health agencies, and powerful NGOs? Experiments you’ve never heard of but that could change your life forever? If they can engineer bat viruses to make them more infectious, and oops, they escaped from a lab, what else are they doing? You’re not supposed to ask of course. You’ve been commanded to “trust the science,” and get back to watching Netflix. Only a Neanderthal asks questions. That’s been the arrangement in science for quite a while now. You pay for it, we do it, it’s all good. But why should that continue? Now that we know liars and moral pygmies — people like Tony Fauci, and the soulless bots at Google HQ — and running global science, maybe it’s worth being slightly more inquisitive about what’s happening in labs around the world. Why not? It could affect us.

For example, take a look at this tape. It’s from an annual conference called the “World Science Festival.” A few years ago, the conference featured a professor of bioethics and philosophy at New York University named Mathew Liao.

Liao is among the most influential bioethicists in the world — a fact that will amaze you. Liao explained that climate change can be solved with something called “human engineering.”

MATTHEW LIAO: My view is that what we need is a really robust ethical framework and within this ethical robust framework I think there’s a way going forward where we can do this ethically. But there’s actually a lot of opportunities for this to solve big world problems, one thing is climate change. Climate change is a really big problem we don’t really know how to solve it but it turns out we can use human engineering to help us address climate change.

Here’s a tip: anyone who uses the phrase “robust ethical framework” wouldn’t know ethics if they got in the shower with them. And you know that for a fact because he uses the phrase “human engineering.”

Human engineering? The name alone should make you pause. People aren’t bridge improvements. You can’t just add rebar, pour a few yards of concrete, and improve the human condition, much less the human soul. People are living beings. They’re alive. They can’t be engineered. Liao the eminent bioethicist seems unaware of this. He outlined some of his proposals in a recent paper in the Journal of “Ethics, Policy & Environment.” In that paper, Liao suggests a solution to the problem, the pressing problem, of people eating hamburgers. People like hamburgers, it turns out. How can we get people to stop eating hamburgers? Not by convincing them that hamburgers are bad. That was the old way. That’s how democracy worked. You would tell people something, if they believed they did it, if they didn’t believe you, they didn’t. But it turns out that’s too time-consuming. The new model is we just use pharmaceuticals. Your kids are getting uppity? Dope them out, and they’ll obey. Liao proposes a nationwide system like that, a pill that would make people nauseous at the sight of red meat. Given that climate change is an “existential threat,” that’s limiting our time on earth to 20 years, or 12 years, or 6 months, or pick your exaggeration, it’s hard to imagine a pill like that would soon become mandatory. Sound like a dystopian fantasy? It’s not. Liao is deadly serious. He said so at the “World Science Festival.”

MATTHEW LIAO: So here’s a thought, we have this intolerance for example I have milk intolerance, some people on intolerant to fish so possibly we can use human engineering to make it the case where we are intolerant to certain types of meat, certain types of bovine proteins, so that’s something we can do through human engineering, possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.

TUCKER CARLSON: “Human engineering.” Why do we laugh at Alex Jones again? Sincere question.

Again, says the bioethicist, “human engineering” is the answer. But wait a second, you ask. Human engineering? That’s kind of creepy. Didn’t we decide this kind of thing in Europe 80 years ago, and at the time, didn’t we agree we’re not going to do that ever again? True. But bioethicists have short memories apparently. And in any case, climate change is a pressing emergency. We don’t have time to consider the consequences of our response to this existential crisis.

So here’s an idea, said Liao at the World Science Festival: let’s fiddle with the human genome to see if we can make human children smaller than they are now. A race of dwarfs. They’d eat less, and be cheaper to transport. And that would reduce greenhouse gasses.

MATTHEW LIAO: So it turns out the larger you are, think of the lifetime of greenhouse gas emissions that are required, the energy that’s required to transport larger people rather than smaller people right. But if we are smaller just by 15cm, I did the math that about mass reduction of 25%, which is huge. And 100 years ago we’re all on average smaller, exactly about 15 cm smaller. So think of the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions if we had smaller children. So that’s something we can do.

Imagine if we had smaller children. Little tiny children. Think of how little they would emit in greenhouse gasses. Think about how easy it would be to pick them up, juggle them around, control them. All we need to do is experiment on human children. And we can solve climate change. That was at a public conference five years ago. Nobody said anything. That’s where we are. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. In fact, it’s less ghoulish than some of the things happening in labs right now.

This is what science looks like when it’s been completely decoupled from wisdom, decency and Christianity. It’s a science fiction novel come to life, except it’s real. In fact, Google might be funding it right now.

Same day Carlson picked on him and he responded with this tweet, guess what else he spent two hours on?
Discussing anti-natalism on YouTube with the Romanell Center for Clinical Ethics, who has three subscribers. Numerically.
As the name suggests, anti-natalism is hardcore eugenics that would make Hitler frown.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

I’m trying to advance the discussion, but apparently most are still stuck at “these are not even vaccines”. Yeah, we knew that the moment we visited a manufacturer’s website, which is among the first reasonable things to do. I hope this will help closing that debate and will ease stepping further down the rabbit hole. Watch how many will find out these things from me rather than from the original source!

mRNA doesn’t alter DNA?

mRNA is just as critical as DNA.

source: Moderna

Without mRNA, your genetic code would never get used by your body. Proteins would never get made. And your body wouldn’t – actually couldn’t – perform its functions. Messenger ribonucleuc acid, or mRNA for short, plays a vital role in human biology, specifically in a process known as protein synthesis. mRNA is a single-stranded molecule that carries genetic code from DNA in a cell’s nucleus to ribosomes, the cell’s protein-making machinery.

Moderna

Our Operating System

Recognizing the broad potential of mRNA science, we set out to create an mRNA technology platform that functions very much like an operating system on a computer. It is designed so that it can plug and play interchangeably with different programs. In our case, the “program” or “app” is our mRNA drug – the unique mRNA sequence that codes for a protein.

We have a dedicated team of several hundred scientists and engineers solely focused on advancing Moderna’s platform technology. They are organized around key disciplines and work in an integrated fashion to advance knowledge surrounding mRNA science and solve for challenges that are unique to mRNA drug development. Some of these disciplines include mRNA biology, chemistry, formulation & delivery, bioinformatics and protein engineering.

Our mRNA Medicines – The ‘Software of Life’

When we have a concept for a new mRNA medicine and begin research, fundamental components are already in place.

Generally, the only thing that changes from one potential mRNA medicine to another is the coding region – the actual genetic code that instructs ribosomes to make protein. Utilizing these instruction sets gives our investigational mRNA medicines a software-like quality. We also have the ability to combine different mRNA sequences encoding for different proteins in a single mRNA investigational medicine.

We are leveraging the flexibility afforded by our platform and the fundamental role mRNA plays in protein synthesis to pursue mRNA medicines for a broad spectrum of diseases.

Within a given modality, the base components are generally identical across development candidates – formulation, 5’ region and 3’ region. Only the coding region varies based on the protein/s the potential medicine is directing cells to produce.

Learn how our Research Engine and Early Development Engine are enabling us to fully maximize the promise of mRNA to meaningfully improve how medicines are discovered, developed and manufactured.

‘Life is just a flow of information. And we’re interfering with it”

Overcoming Key Challenges

Using mRNA to create medicines is a complex undertaking and requires overcoming novel scientific and technical challenges. We need to get the mRNA into the targeted tissue and cells while evading the immune system. If the immune system is triggered, the resultant response may limit protein production and, thus, limit the therapeutic benefit of mRNA medicines. We also need ribosomes to think the mRNA was produced naturally, so they can accurately read the instructions to produce the right protein. And we need to ensure the cells express enough of the protein to have the desired therapeutic effect. 

Our multidisciplinary platform teams work together closely to address these scientific and technical challenges. This intensive cross-functional collaboration has enabled us to advance key aspects of our platform and make significant strides to deliver mRNA medicines for patients.

MODERNA

SOFTWARE OF LIFE™ Research and Design Services

Our mRNA RESEARCH ENGINE™ services enable us to advance new product ideas into development candidates via our drug discovery efforts, and includes infrastructure to enable rapid supply of thousands of preclinical mRNAs for research involving in vitro and in vivo experiments in order to accelerate programs from idea to development candidate designation.

 

mRNA Design Studio™ – Digital Design and Ordering of mRNA for Research

Our mRNA Design Studio enables rapid design of multiple mRNAs.

As our scientists create new mRNA concepts, they can design mRNAs for research and testing, within days, using our proprietary systems. As the Digital Biotech Company™, we utilize the software-like property of mRNA in our proprietary, web-based mRNA Design Studio. Our scientists request mRNAs for a specific protein, and the protein target is automatically converted to an initial optimized mRNA sequence. Using our Sequence Designer module, they can tailor entire mRNAs from the 5’-UTR to the coding region to the 3’-UTR based on our ever-improving proprietary learnings. The mRNA sequence is then further optimized using our proprietary bioinformatics algorithms. Our digital ordering then ensures rapid and accurate transmission of sequences to our modular synthesis robotics.

Our proprietary in-house digital application suite contains a Sequence Designer module to tailor an entire mRNA, with ever-improving rule sets that contain our accumulated learning about mRNA design. Drug Design Studio utilizes cloud-based computational capacity to run various algorithms we have developed to design each mRNA sequence. The utility of cloud-based capacity allows us to provide flexible computational capacity on demand, allowing the Research Engine to power parallel intake and design of multiple mRNA sequences.

Moderna’s Research Engine

Our Research Engine combines proprietary digital drug design tools and a highly automated production facility to enable Moderna and our strategic collaborators to move mRNA medicines swiftly through the research stage, from idea to development candidate nomination.

Scientists can begin by selecting any protein in the human proteome to be further engineered, including antibodies, or they can design novel proteins like traps, fusion proteins, or completely novel scaffolds and sequences. All can be designed to explore previously undruggable pathways.

The Drug Design Studio integrates with Moderna’s automation platforms – directing orders through each phase of mRNA synthesis. Once the order is placed, Moderna’s high-throughput mRNA pre-clinical production facility manages the manufacturing of mRNA constructs and delivers them in just weeks.

MODERNA

Is Humanity even trying to survive?!

PS: Some people wonder why the vids above are available on their website but unlisted on their Youtube.
It’s because they know you won’t look for them on their site, mostly potential partners will.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness.
Get it here!

If you’re familiar with our reports, George Church is no stranger to you either. He’s a founder figure for the Human Genome Project, CRISPR and The BRAIN Initiative. But he’s totally not getting the deserved attention, seeing that he’s just turned our world upside down. Not by himself, of course.

Remember when Fauci and Big Tech joined efforts to keep us in the dark in regards to the mRNA impact on our genetics and DNA?


We’ve shown that there’s an entire new field of science that does just that: argues what Fauci said using RNA to reprogram DNA.
But we’ve just reached a deeper level of the rabbit hole that we didn’t even know it’s there already. It’s been there for a while. As in 2020 minus “three years of stealth operations”. If you read carefully below, it will all make much more sense.

George M. Church biography as per Harvard website

Professor at Harvard & MIT, co-author of 580 papers, 143 patent publications & the book “Regenesis”; developed methods used for the first genome sequence (1994) & million-fold cost reductions since (via fluor-NGS & nanopores), plus barcoding, DNA assembly from chips, genome editing, writing & recoding; co-initiated BRAIN Initiative (2011) & Genome Projects (GP-Read-1984, GP-Write-2016, PGP-2005:world’s open-access personal precision medicine datasets); machine learning for protein engineering, tissue reprogramming, organoids, xeno-transplantation, in situ 3D DNA, RNA, protein imaging.

SEE MORE

George Church is Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Director of  PersonalGenomes.org, which provides the world’s only open-access information on human Genomic, Environmental & Trait data (GET). His 1984 Harvard PhD included the first methods for direct genome sequencing, molecular multiplexing & barcoding. These led to the first genome sequence (pathogen, Helicobacter pylori) in  1994 . His innovations have contributed to nearly all “next generation” DNA sequencing methods and companies (CGI-BGI, Life, Illumina, Nanopore). This plus his lab’s work on chip-DNA-synthesis, gene editing and stem cell engineering resulted in founding additional application-based companies spanning fields of medical diagnostics ( Knome/PierianDxAlacrisAbVitro/JunoGenosVeritas Genetics ) & synthetic biology / therapeutics ( JouleGen9EditasEgenesisenEvolvWarpDrive ). He has also pioneered new privacybiosafetyELSIenvironmental & biosecurity policies. He is director of an IARPA BRAIN Project and NIH Center for Excellence in Genomic Science. His honors include election to NAS & NAE & Franklin Bower Laureate for Achievement in Science. He has coauthored 537 papers156 patent publications & one book (Regenesis).

THIS IS BGI
THIS IS ILLUMINA

PhD students from (* = main training programs for our group):
Harvard University: Biophysics* , BBS* , MCB , ChemBio* , SystemsBio* , Virology
MIT: HST*ChemistryEE/CSPhysicsMath.
Boston Universty: BioinformaticsBiomedical Engineering
Cambridge University, UK: Genetics

PublicationsCVs-resumesLab members , Co-author netELSI
Technology transfer & Commercial Scientific Advisory Roles
Personal info — News — Awards — Grant proposals
Director of Research Centers: DOE-Biotechnologies (1987), NIH-CEGS (2004), PGP (2005), Lipper Center for Computational Genetics (1998), Wyss Inst. Synthetic Biology (2009). Other centers: Regenesis Inst. (2017), SIAT Genome Engineering (2019), Space Genetics (2016), WICGR, Broad Inst. (1990), MIT Media Lab (2014)

Updated: 15-Jan-02021

The BRAIN initiative[edit]

He was part of a team of six[80] who, in a 2012 scientific commentary, proposed a Brain Activity Map, later named BRAIN Initiative (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies).[81] They outlined specific experimental techniques that might be used to achieve what they termed a “functional connectome“, as well as new technologies that will have to be developed in the course of the project,[80] including wireless, minimally invasive methods to detect and manipulate neuronal activity, either utilizing microelectronics or synthetic biology. In one such proposed method, enzymatically produced DNA would serve as a “ticker tape record” of neuronal activity.Wikipedia

SEE THE NAZI ORIGINS OF WYSS HERE

Wyss Institute Will Lead IARPA-Funded Brain Mapping Consortium

January 26, 2016

(BOSTON) — The Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University today announced a cross-institutional consortium to map the brain’s neural circuits with unprecedented fidelity. The consortium is made possible by a $21 million contract from the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) and aims to discover the brain’s learning rules and synaptic ‘circuit design’, further helping to advance neurally-derived machine learning algorithms.

The consortium will leverage the Wyss Institute’s FISSEQ (fluorescent in-situ sequencing) method to push forward neuronal connectomics, the science of identifying the neuronal cells that work together to bring about specific brain functions. FISSEQ was developed in 2014 by the Wyss Core Faculty member George Church and colleagues and, unlike traditional sequencing technologies, it provides a method to pinpoint the precise locations of specific RNA molecules in intact tissue. The consortium will harness this FISSEQ capability to accurately trace the complete set of neuronal cells and their connecting processes in intact brain tissue over long distances, which is currently difficult to do with other methods.

Awarded a competitive IARPA MICrONS contract, the consortium will further the overall goals of President Obama’s BRAIN initiative, which aims to improve the understanding of the human mind and uncover new ways to treat neuropathological disorders like Alzheimer’s disease, schizophrenia, autism and epilepsy. The consortium’s work will fundamentally innovate the technological framework used to decipher the principal circuits neurons use to communicate and fulfill specific brain functions. The learnings can be applied to enhance artificial intelligence in different areas of machine learning such as fraud detection, pattern and image recognition, and self-driving car decision making.

See how the Wyss-developed FISSEQ technology is able to capture the location of individual RNA molecules within cells, which will allow the reconstruction of neuronal networks in the 3-dimensional space of intact brain tissue. Credit: Wyss Institute at Harvard University

“Historically, the mapping of neuronal paths and circuits in the brain has required brain tissue to be sectioned and visualized by electron microscopy. Complete neurons and circuits are then reconstructed by aligning the individual electron microsope images, this process is costly and inaccurate due to use of only one color (grey),” said Church, who is the Principal Investigator for the IARPA MICrONs consortium. “We are taking an entirely new approach to neuronal connectomics_immensely colorful barcodes_that should overcome this obstacle; and by integrating molecular and physiological information we are looking to render a high-definition map of neuronal circuits dedicated first to specific sensations, and in the future to behaviors and cognitive tasks.”

Church is Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School, and Professor of Health Sciences and Technology at Harvard and MIT.

To map neural connections, the consortium will genetically engineer mice so that each neuron is barcoded throughout its entire structure with a unique RNA sequence, a technique called BOINC (Barcoding of Individual Neuronal Connections) developed by Anthony Zador at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Thus a complete map representing the precise location, shape and connections of all neurons can be generated.

The key to visualizing this complex map will be FISSEQ, which is able to sequence the total complement of barcodes and pinpoint their exact locations using a super-resolution microscope. Importantly, since FISSEQ analysis can be applied to intact brain tissue, the error-prone brain-sectioning procedure that is part of common mapping studies can be avoided and long neuronal processes can be more accurately traced in larger numbers and at a faster pace.

In addition, the scientists will provide the barcoded mice with a sensory stimulus, such as a flash of light, to highlight and glean the circuits corresponding to that stimulus within the much more complex neuronal map. An improved understanding of how neuronal circuits are composed and how they function over longer distances will ultimately allow the team to build new models for machine learning.

The multi-disciplinary consortium spans 6 institutions. In addition to Church, the Wyss Institute’s effort will be led by Samuel Inverso, Ph.D., who is a Staff Software Engineer and Co-investigator of the project. Complementing the Wyss team, are co-Principal Investigators Anthony Zador, Ph.D., Alexei Koulakov, Ph.D., and Jay Lee, Ph.D., at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Adam Marblestone, Ph.D., and Liam Paninski, Ph.D. are co-Investigator at MIT and co-Principal Investigator at Columbia University, respectively. The Harvard-led consortium is partnering with another MICrONS team led by Tai Sing Lee, Ph.D. of Carnegie Mellon University as Principal investigator under a separate multi-million contract, with Sandra Kuhlman, Ph.D. of Carnegie Mellon University and Alan Yuille, Ph.D. of Johns Hopkins University as co-Principal investigators, to develop computational models of the neural circuits and a new generation of machine learning algorithms by studying the behaviors of a large population of neurons in behaving animals, as well as the circuitry of the these neurons revealed by the innovative methods developed by the consortium.

“It is very exciting to see how technology developed at the Wyss Institute is now becoming instrumental in showing how specific brain functions are wired into the neuronal architecture. The methodology implemented by this research can change the trajectory of brain mapping world wide,” said Wyss Institute Founding Director Donald Ingber, M.D., Ph.D., who is also the Judah Folkman Professor of Vascular Biology at Harvard Medical School and the Vascular Biology Program at Boston Children’s Hospital and Professor of Bioengineering at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. – WYSS Institute

IARPA is CIA’s DARPA.
DARPA IS RAN BY PENTAGON AND IARPA BY CIA.
IARPA IS EVEN MORE SECRETIVE, DARING AND SOCIOPATHIC.

Machine Intelligence from Cortical Networks (MICrONS)

Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA)

Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies. (BRAIN)

Background
The science behind Obama’s BRAIN project. (BrainFacts, 15Apr-2013 | Jean-François Gariépy)
Wyss Institute Will Lead IARPA-Funded Brain Mapping Consortium (Wyss, 26-Jan-2016 |)
Project Aims to Reverse-engineer Brain Algorithms, Make Computers Learn Like Humans (Scientific Computing, 4-Feb-2016 | Byron Spice)
The U.S. Government Launches a $100-Million “Apollo Project of the Brain” (Scientific American, 8-Mar-2016 | Jordana Cepelewicz)

Grant Proposal
Tasks 2 & 3 PDF Harvard, Wyss, CSHL, MIT.
Task 1. CMU.


Molecular TickertapeRelated Projects:

Full Rosetta brains in situ
A. Activity (MICrONS = Ca imaging) (Alternative=Tickertape, see figure to right)
B. Behavior (MICrONS & Alt = traditional video)
C. Connectome (MICrONS & Alt = BOINC via Cas9-barcode)
D. Developmental Lineage (via Cas9-barcode)
E. Expression (RNA & Protein via FISSEQ)

Building brain components, circuits and organoids.
Busskamp V, Lewis NE, Guye P, Ng AHM, Shipman S, Byrne SS, Sanjana NE, Li Y, Weiss R, Church GM (2014)
Rapid neurogenesis through transcriptional activation in human stem cells. Molecular Systems Biology MSB 10:760:1-21

SOURCE

Flagship Pioneering’s Scientists Invent a New Category of Genome Engineering Technology: Gene Writing

Tessera Therapeutics emerges from three years of stealth operations to pioneer Gene Writing™ as a new genome engineering technology and category of genetic medicine

(PRNewsfoto/Flagship Pioneering)

NEWS PROVIDED BY Flagship Pioneering 

Jul 07, 2020, 08:00 ET


CAMBRIDGE, Mass., July 7, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — Flagship Pioneering today announced the unveiling of Tessera Therapeutics, Inc. a new company with the mission of curing disease by writing in the code of life. Tessera is pioneering Gene Writing™, a new biotechnology that writes therapeutic messages into the genome to treat diseases at their source.

Tessera’s Gene Writing platform is a potentially revolutionary breakthrough for genetic medicine that addresses key limitations of gene therapy and gene editing. Gene Writing technology can alter the genome by efficiently inserting genes and exons (parts of genes), introducing small insertions and deletions, or changing single or multiple DNA base pairs. The technology could enable cures for diseases that arise from errors in the genome, including monogenic disorders. It could also allow precise gene regulation in other diseases such as neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune disorders, and metabolic diseases.

“While profound advancements in genetic medicine over the last two decades had therapeutic promise for many previously untreatable diseases, the intrinsic properties of existing gene therapy and editing have significant shortcomings that limit their benefits to patients,” says Noubar Afeyan, Ph.D., founder and CEO of Flagship Pioneering and Chairman of Tessera Therapeutics. “Our scientists have invented a new technology, called Gene Writing, that has the ability to write therapeutic messages into the genomes of somatic cells. We created Tessera to pioneer its applications for medicine. However, the breakthrough is broad and could be applied to many different genomes from humans to plants to microorganisms.”

A New Era of Genetic Medicine

Geoffrey von Maltzahn, Ph.D., an MIT-trained biological engineer; Jacob Rubens, Ph.D., an MIT-trained synthetic biologist; and other scientists at Flagship Labs, the enterprise’s innovation foundry, co-founded Tessera in 2018 to create a platform that could design, make, and launch Gene Writing medicines. A General Partner at Flagship Pioneering, von Maltzahn has co-founded numerous biotechnology companies, including Sana Biotechnology, Indigo Agriculture, Kaleido Biosciences, Seres Therapeutics, and Axcella Health.

“DNA codes for life. But sometimes our DNA is written improperly, driving an enormous variety of diseases,” says von Maltzahn, Tessera’s Chief Executive Officer. “We started Tessera Therapeutics with a simple question: ‘What if Nature evolved a better solution than CRISPR for inserting curative therapeutic messages into the genome?’ It turns out that engineered and synthetic mobile genetic elements offer the potential to go beyond the limitations of gene editing technologies and allow Gene Writing. Our outstanding team of scientists is focused on bringing the vast promise of this new technology category to patients.”

Mobile genetic elements, the inspiration for Gene Writing, are evolution’s greatest genomic architect. The first mobile genetic element was discovered by Barbara McClintock, who won the 1983 Nobel Prize for revealing the mobile nature of genes. Mobile genetic elements code for the machinery to move or copy themselves into a new location in the genome, and they have been selected over billions of years to autonomously and efficiently “write” their DNA into new genomic sites. Today, mobile genetic elements are among the most abundant and ubiquitous genes in nature.

Over the past two years, Tessera has been mining genomes to discover novel mobile genetic elements and engineering them to create Gene Writing technology.

Tessera’s Gene Writers write therapeutic messages into the genome using RNA or DNA templates. RNA-based Gene Writing uses an RNA template and Gene Writer protein to either write a new gene into the genome or guide the rewriting of a pre-existing genomic sequence to make a small substitution, insertion, or deletion. DNA-based Gene Writing uses a DNA template to write a new gene into the genome.

By harnessing the biology of mobile genetic elements, Gene Writing holds the potential to overcome the limitations of current genetic medicine approaches by:

  • Efficiently writing small and large alterations to the genome of somatic cells with minimal reliance upon host DNA repair pathways, unlike nuclease-based gene editing technologies.
  • Permanently adding new DNA to dividing cells, unlike AAV-based gene therapy technologies.
  • Writing new DNA sequences into the genome by delivering only RNA.
  • Allowing repeated administration of treatments to patients in order to dose genetic medicines to effect, which is not possible with current gene therapies.

Tessera has licensed Flagship Pioneering’s intellectual property estate, which was begun in 2018 with seminal patent filings supporting both RNA and DNA Gene Writing technologies.

Tessera’s Scientific Advisory Board includes Luigi Naldini, David Schaffer, Andrew Scharenberg, Nancy Craig, George Church, Jonathan Weissman, and John Moran, who collectively have decades of experience in developing gene therapies and gene editing technologies, and also have commercial expertise from 4D, UniQure, Casebia, Cellectis, Magenta, and Editas. Tessera’s Board of Directors includes John Mendlein, Flagship Executive Partner and former CEO of multiple companies; Melissa Moore, Chair of Tessera’s Scientific Advisory Board, Chief Scientific Officer of Moderna, member of the National Academy of Sciences, and founding co-director of the RNA Therapeutics Institute; Geoffrey von Maltzahn; and Noubar Afeyan. The 30-person R&D team at Tessera has deep genetic medicine and startup expertise, including alumni from Editas, Intellia, Beam, Casebia, and Moderna.

About Tessera Therapeutics
Tessera Therapeutics is an early-stage life sciences company pioneering Gene Writing™, a new biotechnology designed to offer scientists and doctors the ability to write and rewrite small and large therapeutic messages into the genome, thereby curing diseases at their source. Gene Writing holds the potential to become a new category in genetic medicine, building upon recent breakthroughs in gene therapy and gene editing, while eliminating important limitations in their reach, utilization and efficacy. Tessera Therapeutics was founded by Flagship Pioneering, a life sciences innovation enterprise that conceives, resources, and develops first-in-class category companies to transform human health and sustainability.

About Flagship Pioneering
Flagship Pioneering conceives, creates, resources, and develops first-in-category life sciences companies to transform human health and sustainability. Since its launch in 2000, the firm has applied a unique hypothesis-driven innovation process to originate and foster more than 100 scientific ventures, resulting in over $34 billion in aggregate value. To date, Flagship is backed by more than $4.4 billion of aggregate capital commitments, of which over $1.9 billion has been deployed toward the founding and growth of its pioneering companies alongside more than $10 billion of follow-on investments from other institutions. The current Flagship ecosystem comprises 41 transformative companies, including Axcella Health (NASDAQ: AXLA), Denali Therapeutics (NASDAQ: DNLI), Evelo Biosciences (NASDAQ: EVLO), Foghorn Therapeutics, Indigo Ag, Kaleido Biosciences (NASDAQ: KLDO), Moderna (NASDAQ: MRNA), Rubius Therapeutics (NASDAQ: RUBY), Sana Biotechnology, Seres Therapeutics (NASDAQ: MCRB), and Syros Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: SYRS). – Flagship Pioneering

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Our Great Awakening looks more and more like a snooze button lately, few people really get up and make progress. We are still too “shy” to even look truth in the face say it like it is. So I will try, because silence can be murder, genocide and even extinction now. And I don’t want my hands bloodied like any normie’s.

Here’s a bunch of premises I find to be factual:

1. We can’t trust any of their reports, but we can observe that a massive chunk of society has been injected with artificial mRNA technology. By the order of hundreds millions. Even if this graph is 100% exaggerated…

If your nightmare is not Covid, but covidiots with their insane genetic modification and transhumanist spree…

The Centers for Disease Control define an epidemic as “an increase, often sudden, in the number of cases of a disease above what is normally expected in that population in that area.”

If mRNA jabbing is infection to you, as it is to me, the current campaign is an extinction level event.

2. All COVID-19 vaccines are in the clinical trial stage, and, according to the ethical principles of clinical research, subjects of experimental medical treatments cannot be blood donors.
For blatantly obvious reasons:

“Experimental Medication or Unlicensed (Experimental) Vaccine is usually associated with a research study, and the effect on the safety of transfused blood is unknown” – Mayo Clinic

Example:

Prion diseases can be transmitted by blood transfusion: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12388826/

RNA based vaccines and risk of prion diseases: 

3. Despite some reality-denialists, RNA modification does alter our genetics and can program more genetic modifications, there’s a whole field of science dealing with just that, as I’ve already reported.

And we can’t even guess what new effects on our genetics will be discovered in the future. This is just the earliest phase of the trials. We’re on uncharted territory, the data they have collected so far is jack-shit compared to the infinite range of possibilities ahead, basically few sci-fi scenarios are excluded now.
They needed 10-20 years for a traditional vaccine, and they still kept coming out disastrous. This one is not just a new type of injection, it’s a whole new science in which they’ve just made first baby-steps. They’re toddlers crying and begging to compete in the grown-ups Olympics. No can do!

SOURCE

The spike protein that altered humans will produce non stop is already proven or suspected to cause several types of damage; most importantly, in my view:

The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein alters barrier function in 2D static and 3D microfluidic in-vitro models of the human blood–brain barrier

SARS-CoV-2 spike protein alone may cause lung damage

The spike protein produced by the new COVID-19 vaccines may also affect the host cells. We should monitor the long-term consequences of these vaccines carefully, especially when they are administered to otherwise healthy individuals. Further investigations on the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on human cells and appropriate experimental animal models are warranted.”

Scientists reveal the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19, creates long-lasting changes to human gene expression.”

3. The mRNA technology is transmissible in more than one way, and it will be made even more contagious, they’re already priming us for that. “Second hand vaccination” has been a thing for over 50 years, under different names. Now it’s set for a turbo-boost.

https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2020/11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020_Pfizer_BioNTech.pdf#page67

Either this or “vaccines don’t shed”. You can’t have both.

ALL OF THE 7 FACT-CHECKERS dealing with the mRNA jab shedding that I’ve read discuss VIRAL shedding only. IDGAF about that, we’re talking about shedding modified DNA / RNA and the spike protein, So, as per usual, they debunk jack shit, just their own straw men.

Source

Even sex with mutants is risky:

FVCK VAXXERS? SCIENCE SAYS THAT’S PROBABLY THE WORST IDEA

UPDATE:

PFIZER CONFIRMS MRNA SHOTS SHED AND THAT’S A SCIENTIFIC CONCERN

And I’m pretty sure that’s what’s just killed my father!

4. There are more methods available right now for contaminating people who refuse vaccination and they will use them if they need to, they are on a self-authorization spree.

COVID-19 cure: Scientists plan to develop ‘self-spreading’ coronavirus vaccine

NOT A TYPO, NOT A MISTAKE – THE AUSTRALIAN “AUTHORISATION TO ADMINISTER A POISON”

SOURCE

Even test swabs are very likely to have been used for contamination. If they haven’t, they can be.

Yes, they CAN vaccinate us through nasal test swabs AND target the brain (Biohacking P.1)

5. The only significant difference between the Walking Dead and our lives right now is that our lives also have Star Trek elements, such as the Borg that assimilates everyone and subjugates them to its program.
Un-funnily enough, one of the main methods for the Borg to take over other organisms was a DNA-altering injection which also served as a communication device with the hive-mind (cloud / Internet of All Things ). I’ve started to wonder if The Borg wasn’t predictive programming too. Regardless, the Borg is here and it’s covidiotic. There’s really a lot to learn from this parable.

Later edit: I’m not alone lol

Quite a good vid, actually, click to watch!

I thought I’m starting to divagate here, but quite the opposite is true. Plazma hit me back later with more goodies, he is a very aware guy, and he’s gonna blow your mind even beyond this.


At least the Walking Dead were free and independent, subjugated only by their thirst for blood.

UPDATE:

6. Denial of reality is what brought us here. No citation.

From the verifiable premises above, I infer:

Altered genetics are already so widespread, as of May 2021, that no conceivable scenario can stop them from 100% contamination. Quite the opposite.

Half a billion mutants are only encouraged to infect more. This is beyond any movie script we’ve ever seen.

What’s slowed the Great Resetters down so far is that the people who don’t test also don’t vaccinate. But they were prepared for this.

There is nowhere to hide, there is no “outside” anymore, there is no antidote and no alternative option. Not for plebs like myself anyway.

Blood and organ banks for transfusions are compromised too.
No one has tried to prevent contamination in these banks and I’m afraid now it’s too late, another fundamental rule has been broken. Another genie that can’t be shoved back in the lamp.
They haven’t even shown consideration to the thought of giving us an option here.
Any transfusion or transplant is a Russian roulette now.

The afore-mentioned reality-denialism is also on steroids, not trending favorably to Mother Nature.

An mRNA jab, like any vaccine, but to a deeper extent, has no undo button.
And there’s no “detox”.
Once you did that, we don’t know who you are anymore, the old you has been fundamentally altered, for ever. Whatever follows may turn out better or worse, but the persona before the shot gets discontinued. This may not be detectable in many, may happen gradually over a long time span, or may be attributed to something else, any option is on the table. So many options that this technology turns lottery.

Even if we find a way to protect natural humans from mutagens, mutants will terminate us “manually” eventually, because we will be a reminder of everything they’ve lost.

I’d love to hear about any viable antidote, but I’m afraid the virus is in more heads than vaccinated, it’s ideologic.

We have already crossed the Rubicon, and only covidiots await on the other side

And it’s not like we haven’t been warned.

Now we can only make the best of what we have left. Let’s do just that!

At least that…

PS: This is taking steam. The least we can do

More resources:

“Vaccine Shedding”

https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1166062

https://genuineprospect.com/2021/04/28/we-should-have-the-right-to-refuse-blood-transfusion-from-vaccinated-for-covid-19-but-can-we-part-2/

Spike Protein

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7547916/

https://www.studyfinds.org/covid-alters-genes-long-haulers/

eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-04/eb-gcm041621.php

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-04-sars-cov-spike-protein-lung.html

http://hmi-us.com/publications/sars-cov-2-prion-like-domains-in-spike-proteins-enable-higher-affinity-to-ace2.html

https://greatgameindia.com/mrna-vaccines-degenerate-brain-prion/amp/

Self-Spreading Vaccines

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1340352/coronavirus-vaccine-covid19-self-spreading-vaccine

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4732410/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/

Self-Amplifying mRNA Vaccines

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25620012/

https://sputniknews.com/world/202104231082693859-is-pfizer-quietly-targeting-other-vaccines-while-holding-back-on-its-own-safety-record-/

https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2021/01/16/vaccins-ce-que-disent-les-documents-voles-a-l-agence-europeenne-des-medicaments_6066502_3244.html

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/cyberattack-ema-update-5

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32698494/

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/32/eaba5068

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine#Self-amplifying_RNA

file:///Users/ryancristian/Downloads/vaccines-09-00097.pdf

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04776317

Spike Protein

https://www.studyfinds.org/covid-alters-genes-long-haulers/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33300001/

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/1/36

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them