Tag Archives: Gene Editing

When is a genetic disease ACTUALLY a genetic disease? Ever?

February 19, 2024

(To join my email list, click here.)

I recently found this statement from the American Medical Library Association: “[There are] over 19,000 disease entries, which correspond with more than 13,000 genes…”

Really? 19,000 distinct genetic diseases?

Well, the Library says the diseases CORRESPOND WITH the genes.

Hmm. That means each one of these diseases has been found to be “associated with” specific genes.

To read the rest of this article and comment on it, click here.

(Episode 58 of Rappoport Podcasts — “COVID, the missing evidence” — is now posted on my substack. It’s a blockbuster. To listen to this podcast, go here. To learn more about This Episode of Rappoport Podcasts, go here.)

Jon Rappoport

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

If somebody smashed a few of your genes with a hammer, would you then have a “disease?”

February 16, 2024

(To join my email list, click here.)

People who took the COVID vaccines are now being diagnosed with “VEXAS Syndrome”. Researchers say their immune cells have mutated. It’s a “disease.”

I once visited a friend in a special ward devoted to patients who had suffered head injuries. She had been diagnosed with a CONDITION whose name I don’t remember.

You can find all sorts of people who have been affected by poisonous corporate pollution…and are then diagnosed with various medical conditions and diseases.

Huge numbers of children whose brains and nervous systems are damaged by vaccines are diagnosed with the disease called autism.

What’s going on here?

To read the rest of this article and comment on it, click here.

(Episode 58 of Rappoport Podcasts — “COVID, the missing evidence” — is now posted on my substack. It’s a blockbuster. To listen to this podcast, go here. To learn more about This Episode of Rappoport Podcasts, go here.)

Jon Rappoport

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

Genetic baloney in thick slices

by Jon Rappoport

July 8, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Gene research companies tend to come and go. They start out banging and popping like fireworks in the sky, and then they fade out—selling themselves to larger outfits who’ve hired better liars…

Once upon a time, it sounded easy. Start with a disease, find the gene responsible for the disease, and correct the problem.

Then, researchers wondered, was disease the result of one gene or a group of genes acting together?

Either way, the proof would be in devising cures for diseases using gene therapy. “Not yet, but soon…”

And regardless, the major need was: money. Lots and lots of money.

This need required good PR people. “We have to pump up the idea that we’re on the edge of tremendous breakthroughs. We’re always on that edge…”

This hype also needed to obscure the fact that there wasn’t (and isn’t) ANY gene cure for ANY disease.

As time passed, lack of cure could be a problem. In fact, it could mean curing disease was not a genetic undertaking at all. What about environment? Toxicity? Malnutrition? Poverty? In order to raise money, those factors would have to be pushed back out of view.

Instead, the PR people would need to flood the news with positive glow around the subject of gene research. Also known as exaggeration. Or bullshit.

You can spot the key terms in these articles. POSSIBLE, SHOULD, COULD, EXPECTED TO, SEEMS, ON THE HORIZON, MAY BE, COULD LEAD TO, EVENTUALLY, and of course, the ever-popular BREAKTHROUGH.

I dug back in my files and found a piece I wrote in 2011. As you’ll see, the “breakthroughs” touted then haven’t panned out so far. You don’t read about them in the press these days. The PR pros have moved on to other exaggerations.

The first 2011 article I cited was from Reuters, headlined: SCIENTISTS FIND “MASTER SWITCH” GENE FOR OBESITY. Here are a few choice tidbits. Note the key terms I just mentioned.

“…and say it should help the search for treatments…”

“…the regulating gene could be [a] target for drugs to treat…”

“…seems to act as a master switch…”

“We are working hard…to understand these processes and how we can use this information to improve treatment…”

Sure. You bet.

Zero results.

Next, a 2011 blockbuster piece in the Financial Times. The headline read: SCIENTISTS FIND GENETIC LINK TO DEPRESSION.

Standard trumpet blaring.

Here are the text nuggets. Again, note key terms.

“The discovery…is expected to lead to a better biological understanding of the condition and eventually to more effective antidepressants…”

“…as possibly for the first time we have found a genetic locus for depression.”

“…is likely to pin down the gene responsible…”

“…which may be the basis for designing more effective antidepressants…”

Sure. You bet.

Zero results.

Moving ahead in time—From immunology.org: “On 17 December 2015, the journal Science voted [gene-editing tool] Crispr-Cas9 ‘Breakthrough of the Year’, saying that it had ‘matured into a molecular marvel’. It is already being used in cancer immunotherapy to edit a patient’s own T-cell genome in order to remove the gene that ‘tells’ these immune cells not to target cancerous tissue.

It’s already being used—but where are the cures? Nowhere.

Anybody out there want to partner with me in launching a new company? This is a major winner. It covers a very broad area. Actually, there is no human endeavor it doesn’t cover. The name of the company? MAYBE COULD BE INC.

“We’re always on the edge and the frontier. We’re always breaking through. We’re always raising money. We’re always pumping our stock. We’re always ready to sell the company to a sucker with deep pockets.”

Let’s look at another type of gene research organization. This one happens to be the largest single medical research outfit in the world. It’s part of the US government: the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Their PR is different. They’re hedging their bets and covering their bases in every possible way. They’re saying YES, NO, AND MAYBE all at once. Of course, they can get away with it, because they run on taxpayer money. Their annual budget is a formidable $30 billion. Grit your teeth and read through their text that explains “genetic diseases”:

“A genetic disorder is a disease caused in whole or in part by a change in the DNA sequence away from the normal sequence. Genetic disorders can be caused by a mutation in one gene (monogenic disorder), by mutations in multiple genes (multifactorial inheritance disorder), by a combination of gene mutations and environmental factors, or by damage to chromosomes (changes in the number or structure of entire chromosomes, the structures that carry genes).”

“As we unlock the secrets of the human genome (the complete set of human genes), we are learning that nearly all diseases have a genetic component. Some diseases are caused by mutations that are inherited from the parents and are present in an individual at birth, like sickle cell disease. Other diseases are caused by acquired mutations in a gene or group of genes that occur during a person’s life. Such mutations are not inherited from a parent, but occur either randomly or due to some environmental exposure (such as cigarette smoke). These include many cancers, as well as some forms of neurofibromatosis.”

That is a DON’T BLAME US statement. “Don’t blame us if a disease we thought was genetic turns out to be something else. Don’t blame us if it’s 65.34 percent environmental, 4.52 percent genetic, and 30.14 percent who knows what. Don’t blame us if toxicity triggers genetic malfunctions and, in the absence of the toxicity, there would be zero cases of the disease. Don’t blame us if a disease has nothing to do with genes. We’re ready to jump in any direction. We may not know much, but we’re sitting on a pile of cash. Don’t blame us if we don’t have any solid genetic cures for anything. We’re working hard. That’s all you can ask us to do.”

If there is one disease the public tends to believe can be cured by gene therapy, it is sickle cell anemia. The PR pros have done a good job there. However, sicklecellanemianews.com states: “Gene therapy is an experimental technique that aims to treat genetic diseases by altering a disease-causing gene or introducing a healthy copy of a mutated gene to the body.”

Experimental. Aims to. Not an established cure. The confusion arises because, as with a number of diseases, the researchers and the PR flacks claim they’ve definitely traced the illness to a gene or two. They’ve struck gold. But, as you read further, you discover they’re just not ready to cure the patient. Clinical trials are underway. More work in the lab is necessary. The pudding is there, but the proof of it isn’t. They claim to know the cause; they just don’t know what to do with it.

In science, that’s known as a hypothesis. Or more simply, a speculation. You say you’ve found an answer, but you can’t apply it. This means: you don’t have an answer.

“There is no doubt. We went down into the mine and we found evidence of extraordinary amounts of gold. We just don’t know how to get it out. What’s that? You want to see the gold? No, I’m sorry. The public isn’t allowed down there. Only the professionals can enter. But don’t worry. We’re very close to a breakthrough. The gold will emerge soon. Trust us.”

Trust you? Sure. How much do you need to finish the job? Fifty million? A hundred million? Let me call my broker and sell some stock. I’ll write you a check. Just put a plaque with my name on the wall. Let me know how I’ll profit on this venture. I’m in. I’ve always wanted to invest in MAYBE COULD BE INC.

In case you need to be reminded, the RNA COVID vaccines are genetic treatments. The PR pros tell us they are working quite well. And they’re remarkably safe.

If you’re buying that line, I have electric cars for sale. And they have wings. One charge in your garage, and they’ll get you from Earth to Mars in just under two hours.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

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

The COVID vaccine; more genetic thunder

Don’t believe anyone who claims the vaccine is causing one and only one problem.

by Jon Rappoport

June 3, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Children’s Health Defense: “VAERS [US] data released today showed 227,805 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 4,201 deaths and 18,528 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and May 14, 2021.” [1]

Depending on which study you read, you can multiply reported adverse-effect numbers by 10 or 100, to arrive at a truer estimate of the human damage.

I’ve been warning readers about the inherent dangers of any genetic treatment. [2] The RNA COVID vaccines are just such a treatment—the first of its kind to be unleashed on the global population.

In this article, I’m using a mainstream piece from the BBC as a source for what can go wrong when genes are deployed “to work miracles.”

BBC, “The genetic mistakes that could shape our species,” 4/12/21 [3]:

“In fact, there have been no shortage of surprises in the field [of gene research]. From the rabbits altered to be leaner that inexplicably ended up with much longer tongues to the cattle tweaked to lack horns that were inadvertently endowed with a long stretch of bacterial DNA in their genomes (including some genes that confer antibiotic resistance, no less) – its past is riddled with errors and misunderstandings.”

“More recently, researchers at the Francis Crick Institute in London warned that editing the genetics of human embryos can lead to unintended consequences. By analysing data from previous experiments, they found that approximately 16% had accidental mutations that would not have been picked up via standard tests.”

And 16% is the estimate of unintended ripple effects in publicly available research results. Who knows what the error rate is in secret labs, where the obsession to create “different humans” would instigate throwing all caution to the winds?

The BBC article describes a criminally fraudulent experiment carried out by researcher He Jianku, in China, several years ago. After in utero genetic treatment, twin baby girls were born with the instruction to create a specific “CCR5 protein.”

Does that sound familiar? The current COVID RNA vaccines are supposed to force cells of the body to produce a specific spike protein.

But in the Chinese baby experiment, something went very wrong. The baby girls produced a variety of proteins.

BBC: “We’ve never seen these CCR5 proteins before and we don’t know their function in the context of a human being,” says [Krishanu] Saha [“a bioengineer at University of Wisconsin-Madison”]…”

Boom. Thunder.

Is the COVID vaccine is only forcing the production of the one intended spike protein? NO large-scale study of vaccinated people has been done to find out. It’s bad enough that the COVID shot is supposed to result in the spike protein. But what about unintended proteins, whose effects are entirely unknown?

Researcher Saha comments on a different type of genetic experiment, designed to edit the genes of the recipient—without passing that alteration on to the next generation.

“So let’s say we are injecting a genome editor into the brain to target neurons in the hippocampus,” says Saha. “How do we make sure that those genome editors do not travel into the reproductive organs and end up hitting a sperm or egg? Then that individual could potentially pass the edit on to their children.”

The COVID RNA injections are called vaccines, in order to conceal the fact that they are global genetic experiments. That’s what’s going on.

The huge mounting numbers (and variety) of injuries and deaths publicly reported are a signal of a catastrophe. Whether you choose to believe this is intentional, accidental, or both, the picture is clear.

The GENETIC EXPERIMENT currently launched against the human population is not what we are being told it is.

We’re GMO crops, GMO mosquitos; we’re the GMO cattle and rabbits; we’re the twin baby GMO girls in China.

Further reading: “Genetically modified people: what could go wrong?” [4] and “Vaccines: an ideal covert op to genetically re-engineer humans” [5]

SOURCES:

[1] https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-cdc-adverse-events-covid-vaccines-surpass-200000/

[2] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/05/18/covid-vaccine-and-genetic-thunder-nobody-is-listening-to/

[3] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210412-the-genetic-mistakes-that-could-shape-our-species

[4] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2017/02/21/genetically-modified-people-what-could-go-wrong/

[5] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2015/07/11/vaccines-an-ideal-covert-op-to-genetically-re-engineer-humans/

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

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

Breaking: It isn’t the genes; the genes don’t rule

by Jon Rappoport

May 10, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

In the grab-bag field of research involving human genes, some biologists have speculated that the 20,000 components of the genome are not enough to explain human function and behavior.

They have gone to another level—there must be additional programming that directs the genes to carry out multiple tasks.

This is all about cause and effect. In this case, the effect is everything a human does or thinks or feels. The cause would be whatever controls genetic activity.

When rare critics point out that explaining human life is different from explaining, say, a consecutive series of billiard balls striking each other on a table, researchers shrug it off.

One biologist I interviewed several years ago told me, “This is the way science works. We start with a simple model of causation, and then, over time, we adjust that model so it can account for a wider range of effects.”

I said, “But suppose you eventually run up against the idea that an individual has free will? He can unilaterally decide to take an action, without any prior genetic determination.”

“That’s impossible,” he said.

“What makes you so sure?”

For that, he had no answer.

Genetic theory is just the latest in a long line of ideas proposed to lock the human being into a structure. The will of the gods, the divine right of kings, demons, Oedipus Complex, brain chemistry, etc.

Every era and age has its preferred hypothesis about causation—which tries to shrink down what a human can accomplish.

And each of these explanations for human behavior is aimed at submerging the individual into an overall context that is far more important than he is.

Now, in the first flush of widespread computer use, many people have concluded that “the human species” is basically a design group. We build machines that think and solve and collate and organize. Soon, those machines will design other devices. And so on and so forth.

If you follow this line of reasoning far enough, you will come to the place where human beings are pictured as machines whose final function is to re-design THEMSELVES…to become better automatic machines.

Then the absurdity is complete.

For centuries, philosophers and pundits and propagandists have debated the question of free will, which is like debating whether there is a sky and clouds. Free will and choice are obvious.

But when people tie themselves up in the issue of cause and effect, and when they exaggerate its importance beyond any rational boundary, and when they are looking for a way to remain entirely passive, they “discover” there is no freedom. They say that every thought and action has a cause, and that cause is beyond human control.

Then they rest. Then they decide that all power stands outside themselves.

Then they act like robots.

Then they play that role.

They never stop to think that playing the robot-role implies they can be phased out—because, face it, non-human machines make much better robots than humans do.

If you want a full robot, you don’t pick a human.

On the other end of the spectrum, a free human making free choices and knowing he is making those choices—well, that explodes the whole lock-and-key myth of cause and effect.

That is a refutation. Some might even call it a revelation.

I’ve written a number of articles about The True Rebel. The Rebel stands outside the dominant myths. He rejects ideas and thoughts that claim he is less and less powerful. He refuses to knuckle under when the “robot makers” come calling. He sees the system that wants to absorb him. He sees how freedom is being managed and buried. I’m not talking about “crazy and irresponsible rebels.” Quite the opposite. The True Rebel is the sane one.

The question is, what is he going to do with his sanity?

Answering that question has been an ongoing action of mine for the past 35 years. My three Matrix collections form a major, major answer. My articles take apart various components of limiting myths and knock them over. I’m on the side of the true rebel. I want him to succeed. I want him to bloom in all his glory.

Every highly technological civilization eventually founders on the rocks of its own ideas. Particularly those ideas which eat into freedom and substitute determinism. Naturally, it is science which leads the way into the blind alley of brick walls and the vapid desert of passivity. Science is hijacked to explain why humans are pawns.

Scientists are enlisted to act like buffoons. They are essentially saying, “I’m here to freely explain to you that there is no freedom.”

Cue the laughter. Thunderous laughter.

Many, many years ago, in my youth, a dour psychiatrist told me he was “driven” to accept the human brain as the bottom-line cause of all action and perception, because, otherwise, he wouldn’t be a psychiatrist. Somehow, I wasn’t impressed by his approach. I asked him how he felt about his “position.”

“Rather depressed,” he said.

I then asked him if he was taking medication to treat his condition.

He said no. He would press on with his work, which was: upholding the scientific establishment.

Rather grim.

The emperor really doesn’t have any clothes.

I told him that, for me, freedom was electric.

He nodded sadly.

The robot psychiatrist…

Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

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

Firefight breaks out over gene-editing dangers

Firefight breaks out over gene-editing dangers

by Jon Rappoport

March 30, 2018

We have claims that a recent study highlighting gene-editing dangers was sloppily done, incompetent, and wrong.

Lovers of the revolutionary gene-editing tool, CRISPR, are crowing over a “victory,” but as usual the verdict is far from in.

The other day, I highlighted a 2017 study and quoted from a phys.org article, as follows:

“…a new study published in Nature Methods has found that the gene-editing technology can introduce hundreds of unintended mutations into the genome.”

“The researchers determined that CRISPR had successfully corrected a gene that causes blindness, but Kellie Schaefer, a PhD student in the lab of Vinit Mahajan, MD, PhD, associate professor of ophthalmology at Stanford University, and co-author of the study, found that the genomes of two independent gene therapy recipients [mice] HAD SUSTAINED MORE THAN 1500 SINGLE-NUCLEOTIDE MUTATIONS AND MORE THAN 100 LARGER [GENE] DELETIONS AND INSERTIONS. None of these DNA mutations were predicted by computer algorithms that are widely used by researchers to look for off-target effects.” (Emphasis is mine.)

Now, just in yesterday (March 29, 2018), Gizmodo reports: “Now, the authors [of that study] have published a preprint paper with some very different results: In a new mouse experiment, the authors did not find an excess of unintended genetic mutations, as they had in their initial work.”

“[The authors of the study state]: ‘Our previous publication suggested CRISPR-Cas9 editing at the zygotic stage might unexpectedly introduce a multitude of subtle but unintended mutations, an interpretation that not surprisingly raised numerous questions’…[But now we say] These whole-genome-sequencing-level results support the idea that in specific cases, CRISPR-Cas9 editing can precisely edit the genome at the organismal level and may not introduce numerous, unintended, off-target mutations’.”

Sounds like a partial, carefully worded mea culpa. On the other hand, perhaps the authors were leaned on and told to retract their work.

The point is, this conflict over CRISPR gene-editing is not going away. In my previous article on the subject, I also pointed out a quote from technologynetworks.com (“CRISPR: Emerging applications for genome editing technology”):

“CRISPR-Cas9 systems, tools and basic methodology are very accessible as ready to go toolkits that anyone with lab space and an idea can pick up and start working with…In response to a growing need, companies such as Desktop Genetics have developed open access software to accelerate CRISPR experimentation and analysis.”

That’s good to know. “Anyone with lab space and an idea” can jump on board and have at it.

Yes, indeed. Scientists of various calibers with various motives—to say nothing of groups determined to wreak biological havoc—have access to the gene-editing tech—and if you think this is a good idea, you should think again.

Then we have a cautionary statement from one of the key researchers who helped discover CRISPR, Jennifer Doudna:

“I guess I worry about a couple of things. I think there’s sort of the potential for unintended consequences of gene editing in people for clinical use. How would you ever do the kinds of experiments that you might want to do to ensure safety? And then there’s another application of gene editing called gene drive that involves moving a genetic trait very quickly through a population. And there’s been discussion about this in the media around the use of gene drives in insects like mosquitoes to control the spread of disease. On one hand, that sounds like a desirable thing, and on the other hand, I think one, again, has to think about potential for unintended consequences of releasing a system like that into an environmental setting where you can’t predict what might happen.”

Lovers of CRISPR want to believe the controversy is all over. They’re so, so wrong.

There’s more. The study which has provoked a firestorm is not the only one which reports “unintended consequences” from the use of CRISPR. Here is another one, published in Nature Communications on May 31, 2017, titled, “CRISPR/Cas9 targeting events cause complex deletions and insertions at 17 sites in the mouse genome.” As the title indicates, researchers found genetic “deletions and insertions” in the genome of mice as a result of CRISPR.

And how about this study? It was published in Genome Biology on June 14, 2017, and is titled, “CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing induces exon skipping by alternative splicing or exon deletion.” An exon is “a segment of a DNA or RNA molecule containing information coding for a protein or peptide sequence.” So you can see that exon skipping or deletion might not be a good idea.

But perhaps corporations involved in monetizing CRISPR would like to see these studies retracted, as well as the study I described at the beginning of this article.

Let’s apply a NEWS version of CRISPR and delete all negative reporting on gene-editing. Then we can learn to accept what we’re told by the mainstream and poof, there will be no unintended consequences.

Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so? However, after 35 years of working as a reporter, I can tell you that editing out dissent has a way of coming around to bite the Ministry of Truth.

Quite painfully.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

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

Artificial embryo created: no egg, no sperm, no problem

Artificial embryo created – no egg, no sperm, no problem

by Jon Rappoport

March 29, 2018

Over the past 35 years, I’ve been showing how elements of the Brave New World are coming together.

Lately, I’ve been focusing on 5G wireless, the Internet of Things, gene-editing, and DNA-altering vaccines. We now have a very important piece of the puzzle: artificial embryos. A chilling prospect.

MIT Technology Review has the story: “In a breakthrough that redefines how life can be created, embryologists working at the University of Cambridge in the UK have grown realistic-looking mouse embryos using only stem cells. No egg. No sperm. Just cells plucked from another embryo.”

“The researchers placed the cells carefully in a three-dimensional scaffold and watched, fascinated, as they [the cells] started communicating and lining up into the distinctive bullet shape of a mouse embryo several days old.”

“’We know that stem cells are magical in their powerful potential of what they can do. We did not realize they could self-organize so beautifully or perfectly,’ Magdelena Zernicka¬-Goetz, who headed the team, told an interviewer at the time.”

Zernicka-Goetz says her ‘synthetic’ embryos probably couldn’t have grown into mice. Nonetheless, they’re a hint that soon we could have mammals born without an egg [or sperm] at all.”

“…The next step, she says, is to make an artificial embryo out of human stem cells, work that’s being pursued at the University of Michigan and Rockefeller University.”

“Synthetic human embryos would be a boon to scientists, letting them TEASE APART EVENTS early in development. And since such embryos start with easily manipulated stem cells, labs will be able to employ a full range of tools, such as GENE EDITING, to investigate them as they grow.” [Emphasis is mine.]

Do not doubt for a second that scientists will edit genes in these embryos, in order to see what fundamental changes they can make in human beings.

And do not doubt that, in a lab off the beaten track, researchers will try to bring a synthetic human embryo to term, as a living breathing baby.

The Technocrats’ Holy Grail? Engineered births without parents, without sex, without inherited traits—but instead, intentionally programmed traits.

In his 1932 novel, Brave New World, Aldous Huxley presented many portraits of the plan. For example:

By the time they were decanted the embryos had a horror of cold. They were predestined to emigrate to the tropics, to be miners and acetate silk spinners and steel workers. Later on their minds would be made to endorse the judgment of their bodies. ‘We condition them to thrive on heat,’ concluded Mr. Foster. ‘Our colleagues upstairs will teach [program] them to love it’.”

The underlying theme of the “new society”: create both the environment and the humans who inhabit the environment.

Technocracy is that system of systems. It cannot tolerate natural life or the free individual.

Which is why it must be rejected.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

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

New CRISPR gene-editing: the extreme dangers

by Jon Rappoport

March 27, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Technologynetworks.com (6/26/17): “CRISPR gene editing is taking biomedical research by storm. Providing the ultimate toolbox for genetic manipulation, many new applications for this technology are now being investigated and established. CRISPR systems are already delivering superior genetic models for fundamental disease research, drug screening and therapy development, rapid diagnostics, in vivo editing and correction of heritable conditions and now the first human CRISPR clinical trials.”

All hail.

It’s called CRISPR, a much faster, more precise, and cheaper technique for editing genes. Researchers are in love with it. You can find hundreds of articles and studies fawning over the innovation.

At phys.org, however, we have this, ahem, warning note (5/29/17): “…a new study published in Nature Methods has found that the gene-editing technology can introduce hundreds of unintended mutations into the genome.”

Oops.

“In the new study, the researchers sequenced the entire genome of mice that had undergone CRISPR gene editing in the team’s previous study and looked for all mutations, including those that only altered a single nucleotide.”

“The researchers determined that CRISPR had successfully corrected a gene that causes blindness, but Kellie Schaefer, a PhD student in the lab of Vinit Mahajan, MD, PhD, associate professor of ophthalmology at Stanford University, and co-author of the study, found that the genomes of two independent gene therapy recipients [mice] HAD SUSTAINED MORE THAN 1500 SINGLE-NUCLEOTIDE MUTATIONS AND MORE THAN 100 LARGER [GENE] DELETIONS AND INSERTIONS. None of these DNA mutations were predicted by computer algorithms that are widely used by researchers to look for off-target effects.” (Emphasis is mine.)

“’Researchers who aren’t using whole genome sequencing to find off-target effects may be missing potentially important mutations,’ Dr. Tsang says. ‘Even a single nucleotide change can have a huge impact’.”

Genetic roulette is alive and well.

Spin the wheel, see what numbers come up. Good effects, bad effects, who knows? Step right up and take your chances.

Of course, researchers who admit these tremendous problems remain optimistic. They look forward to “refining the method.” That’s a cover for: “we really don’t know what we’re doing right now.”

Unfortunately, much science operates in this fashion. Launch a new technology, and turn a blind eye to the consequences. For example, place mercury, a devastating neurotoxin, in vaccines. What harm could result—aside from the destruction of children’s brains.

Here is more gushing PR, otherwise known as throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks:

“There are weekly press releases and updates on new advances [in CRISPR] and discoveries made possible with this technology; the first evidence is now emerging that CRISPR-Cas9 could provide cures for major diseases including cancers and devastating human viruses such as HIV-1.” (technologynetworks.com, “CRISPR: Emerging applications for genome editing technology”)

The train has left the station.

And just in case you think only the most careful and competent leading lights of the genetic research community would be permitted to get within a mile of CRISPR, here is more from technologynetworks.com:

“CRISPR-Cas9 systems, tools and basic methodology are very accessible as ready to go toolkits that anyone with lab space and an idea can pick up and start working with…In response to a growing need, companies such as Desktop Genetics have developed open access software to accelerate CRISPR experimentation and analysis.”

That’s good to know. “Anyone with lab space and an idea” can jump on board and have at it.

Do your own cross breeding of the pregnant phrases, “What could possibly go wrong,” and “Nothing to see here, move along,” and you’ve summarized the situation.

“They say they cured my anemia, but now I turn green and purple and I keep falling down.”

If all this isn’t enough to make you see the dangers of CRISPR, consider this statement about engineering human immune cells (T-cells) in a “safer” way. From statnews.com (June 23, 2016):

“The experiment would alter the immune system’s T cells only after they’re removed from a patient. That gives scientists the chance to screen the CRISPR’d cells to make sure only the three intended genes, all involved in making T cells find and destroy tumor cells, are altered. But after those T cells are infused back into a patient to fight melanoma, sarcoma, or myeloma, the CRISPR system can keep editing DNA, and tracking such edits becomes like following a polar bear in a snowstorm.”

Not very comforting. Once set in motion, even under the most protected and limited conditions, CRISPR can keep on working, scrambling genes in unknown ways.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

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

Zika: the gene-editing fix that will blow you away

It’s real, and it’s ready

by Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2016

“Logic students used to learn: you can have a perfectly valid argument, even if your premises, your first assumptions are completely false. Well, if the argument is about politics, your conclusion will be insane. Implementing the conclusion will earn you praise as you destroy lives. What we’re talking about here is a species of mind control.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

What’s the latest solution to the virus that causes nothing?

Here we go.

Punch line: MIT Technology Review, 2/8/16: “We have the technology to destroy all Zika mosquitoes.”

“A controversial genetic technology able to wipe out the mosquito carrying the Zika virus will be available within months, scientists say.

“The technology, called a ‘gene drive,’ was demonstrated only last year in yeast cells, fruit flies, and a species of mosquito that transmits malaria. It uses the gene-snipping technology CRISPR to force a genetic change to spread through a population as it reproduces.

“Three U.S. labs that handle mosquitoes, two in California and one in Virginia, say they are already working toward a gene drive for Aedes aegypti, the type of mosquito blamed for spreading Zika. If deployed, the technology could theoretically drive the species to extinction. (emphasis added)

“’We could have it easily within a year,’ says Anthony James, a molecular biologist at the University of California, Irvine.

“Any release of a gene drive in the wild would be hotly debated by ecologists…But with Zika sowing fear across Latin America and beyond, the technology is likely to get a closer look. ‘Four weeks ago we were trying to justify why we are doing this. Now they’re saying “Get the lead out,”’ says James. ‘It’s absolutely going to change the conversation.’”

No kidding.

Unforeseen consequences? Unpredicted results? Ecological domino effect? Transfer of genes from mosquitoes to humans? Don’t be silly. All is well. Don’t worry, be happy. Move straight ahead with your mouth shut and your eyes closed.

In previous articles, I’ve been reviewing the basics of covert ops, because Zika fits the bill. In this case, take a virus that causes nothing, falsely link it to a tragic condition (babies born with small heads and brain damage), and then slide in the real agendas. I’ve already spelled out some of those plans, which are materializing in front of our eyes.

Gene editing is a towering plan: technocrats don’t like a species—wipe it out.

Build up the threat with lies and obfuscations and false science and wall-to-wall propaganda—then introduce the grand solution.

Depopulation turns out to be easy. Just reconfigure genes. Snip-snip.

The Zika virus isn’t “sowing fear,” as the MIT Review claims. The World Health Organization is inventing that fear. In the 70 years since Zika was discovered, it has, at worst, caused mild transient illness. Now, suddenly, it’s supposed to be creating radical birth defects. Of course, the Brazilian researchers can only find a possible correlation between Zika and the birth defect in 17 cases. Seventeen. Maybe.

But never mind. Wipe out all the mosquitoes that may be carrying Zika. Wipe out the whole species.

And come to think of it, could a case be made that certain human populations are destructive and, well, superfluous? There are people who think so. They also think that, in the onrush of automation and AI, efficient robots could replace those useless populations.

Face it. Despite all the warnings about viruses running out of control and wiping out half the world, the depopulation freaks just haven’t been able to put a dent in the global population. They hope, they pray, but no dice.

However, they have been able to produce one result: planting fear of viruses in humans. They’re adequate to that task. So wake up and smell the cover story.

“In order to destroy the imminent threat of viruses and save the human race, we must turn to cutting-edge technology: gene editing. That’s our ultimate hope.”

Destroy the village in order to save it.

Here are the final paragraphs of the MIT article:

“But a gene drive [gene editing] can also make mosquito populations disappear. The simplest way to do that is to spread a genetic payload that leads to only male offspring. As the ‘male-only’ instructions spread with each new generation, eventually there would be no females left, says Adelman. His lab discovered the Aedes aegypti gene that determines sex only last spring. The next step will be to link it to a gene drive.

“Kevin Esvelt, a gene-drive researcher at MIT’s Media Lab who has been outspoken about the need to proceed cautiously, also thinks Aedes aegypti eradication should be the goal, so long as the public is onboard and the safety of the idea proved.

“’Technologically, we could probably do it in a couple of years,’ says Esvelt. ‘I’m sure we’ll be able to do it before people can agree if we should.’”

Did you get that last piece? The “cautious” scientist says: what the hell, let’s eliminate a whole species if “the public is onboard” and we prove it’s safe.

How to prove safety before launch? Hard to say. Basically, try it and then we’ll know. Vote for the bill and then you can read what’s in it. Allow a global explosion of GMO crops based on zero science about health and economic consequences, and see what happens. Expand the list of mandated vaccines for children from six to 60 and see what happens. Spray poisonous pesticides all over the planet and see what happens.

power outside the matrix

Only cranks and conspiracists and rubes and yokels and Luddites and tree huggers and bitter clingers oppose the march of science. How about editing their genes? It would make things so much easier.

Wipe out the mosquitoes. One small step for man, one giant step for mankind. Today, the mosquito, tomorrow the (fill in the blank).

The mind plays tricks:

“Listen, we’re not talking about depopulation in general. Don’t be silly. We’re just going to wipe out one species of very troublesome insect that’s wreaking havoc. Come on. It’s just once. We’ll never do it again. We’re not crazy. We’re researchers. Just give us a chance. Please. We want to launch the experiment and watch it with joy. That’s what we do. Just once. It’s our present under the Xmas tree.”

Why not? All you have to do is forget the giant clue that’s clubbing you on the head:

The virus they’re going to stop causes nothing.

What are they counting on? They’re counting on you not being able to believe the virus causes nothing. They’re betting on that.

They’re betting you’re in the trance they created.

Jon Rappoport

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