Category Archives: Human Genetic Engineering

The existence of human life on this planet relies entirely on a biochemical process called photosynthesis, which enables green plants to convert sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide into chemical energy in the form of carbohydrates and plant proteins, which humans and and other animals consume in order to sustain their lives. Even among peoples who rely almost entirely on animal foods in their diets due to the extreme climates they live in, such as the Inuit (Eskimo) tribes in Alaska, who live on seal, walrus, and whale meat, survive because those mammals consume small fish, which in turn feed on plankton, algae, and other fish and their eggs. Without plants, there would be no life on this planet.

As I described in a blog in March of 2019, humans are believed to have raised the first domesticated plant species called emmer, an ancestor of modern wheat and barley varieties, about 10,000 years ago in the Middle East. Squash was the first crop domesticated in the Western hemisphere, in ancient Mexico, during the same period. Maize (corn) followed about 2,000 years later, also in meso-America, and rice was first cultivated in the Indus valley in Asia about 4,500 years ago. The youngest of the major food crops which dominate consumption and trade worldwide is soybeans, which was first cultivated in north China more than 3,000 years ago. Combined, corn, wheat, and rice account for about 60 percent of all calories and protein obtained by humans from plants.

When humans migrated across the globe in search of new places to live, they took their staple crops with them, but some of them also found and eventually adopted other crops being raised by the native populations, some of which over time became staple crops to them. As I described in my recently published book on the history of U.S. agricultural policy (co-authored with Dr. Steve Halbrook), many of the new arrivals from Great Britain who had farmed previously, especially those settling in the colonies in the middle Atlantic area such as Pennsylvania and Maryland, insisted on cultivating food crops they were familiar with, such as wheat, rye, and barley. In the northern colonies such as Massachusetts, where most of the new arrivals had not farmed previously, they adopted the crops their native neighbors had farmed for millennia--beans, squash, pumpkins, and maize (corn), using those crops in 3-5 year rotations. In the southern colonies, two of the most important crops were not produced for food--tobacco and cotton, both of which were first grown in the Jamestown settlement in Virginia in the 1610s with seeds brought from Caribbean islands.

While throughout history, farmers have sought to identify and preserve good performing seeds for their crops, the first scientifically based crop breeding work did not occur until after the groundbreaking work of Gregor Mendel in the middle of the 19th century. Mendel was an Austrian monk who demonstrated the rules of heredity by systematically cross-breeding pea plants and studying the traits which appeared in the offspring plants. However, the full significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until nearly the turn of the 20th century (more than three decades later) with the rediscovery and application of his laws to commercial plant breeding efforts. John Garton, an English agriculturalist, was one of the first to cross-pollinate agricultural plants and commercialize the newly created varieties. He began experimenting with the artificial cross pollination initially of cereal plants in the 1890s, then branched out to herbage species and root crops and developed far reaching techniques in plant breeding

The next major breakthrough came with the shuttle breeding approach developed by Dr. Norman Borlaug in his work on wheat at the institute that eventually became CIMMYT (International Wheat and Maize Research) outside of Mexico City, starting in the late 1940s. Working in a mild climate that allowed for multiple crops in a year in different growing conditions, he was able to relatively quickly identify and refine traits that led to high-yielding, disease resistant varieties of wheat that were eventually adopted in many parts of the world. This work earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, for for having given a well-founded hope - the green revolution.

The emergence of genetic engineering techniques led to the first genetically modified organisms (GMO's) to be developed and released for commercial use in the mid-1990s. The first wave of such crops, mainly utilizing popular row crops such as corn, soybeans, and cotton, to add new traits such as insect resistance and pesticide resistance through the insertion of genetic material from other organisms, most commonly the bacillus thuringiensis (BT) bacterium. More recently, new techniques have been developed to enable editing DNA segments of individual crops themselves, by turning on or shutting off certain genes that already exist within specific organisms. These techniques, known as CRISPR or CAS9, recently won recognition through the awarding of the 2020 Nobel Prize for chemistry to their developers, Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier from the Max Planck institute in Germany and Dr. Jennifer Doudna from U.C.-Berkeley.

For the last decade or so, plant scientists around the world have been working on ways to improve the photosynthetic process itself, by improving the efficiency with which plants convert water, sunlight, and carbon dioxide into plant growth. Much of that work is taking place through the RIPE project (Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency) headquartered at the University of Illinois, funded primarily by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR), and the U.K.s Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (formerly the Department for International Development, or DFID). In research published in 2019, efforts to engineer alternate pathways to refine the photosynthesis process were found to drastically shorten the trip and save enough resources to boost plant growth by 40 percent. This is the first time that an engineered photorespiration fix has been tested in real-world agronomic conditions. Other work is underway at a consortium of universities to develop rice varieties that use the more efficient C4 photosynthesis pathway such as is found in corn and sugarcane, eschewing the less efficient C3 pathway that rice plants currently utilize. A November 2020 article described their current work, which involved assembling five genes from maize that code for five enzymes in the C4 photosynthetic pathway into a single gene construct and installing it into rice plants.

Original post:
The History of Plant Breeding--Improving on Nature? - Agweb Powered by Farm Journal

Representative image of an explosion in space. Photo: Pixabay

At a time when humans are threatening the extinction of so many other species, it might not seem so surprising that some people think that the extinction of our own species would be a good thing. Take, for example, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, whose founder believes that our extinction would put an end to the damage we inflict on each other and ecosystems more generally.

Or theres the South African philosopher David Benatar, who argues that bringing people into existence always does them harm. He recommends we cease procreating and gradually desert the Earth.

But humans arent the only beings to feel pain. Non-human animals would continue suffering without us. So, driven by a desire to eliminate suffering entirely, some people have shockingly advocated taking the rest of nature with us. They recommend that we actively abolish the world, rather than simply desert it.

This disturbing and extremist position goes surprisingly far back in history.

Benevolent world-exploders

Around 1,600 years ago, Saint Augustine suggested that humans stop procreating. He endorsed this, however, because he wanted to hasten the Last Judgement and the eternity of joy thereafter.

If you dont believe in an afterlife, this becomes a less attractive option. Youd have to be motivated exclusively by removing suffering from nature, without any promise of gaining supernatural rewards. Probably the first person to advocate human extinction in this way was Arthur Schopenhauer. He did so 200 years ago, in 1819, urging that we spare the coming generations of the burden of existence.

Schopenhauer saw existence as pain so he believed we should stop bringing humans into existence. And he was clear about the result if everyone obeyed: The human race would die out.

But what about the pain of non-human animals? Schopenhauer had an answer, but it wasnt a convincing one. He was a philosophical idealist, believing that the existence of external nature depends on our self-consciousness of it. So, with the abolition of human brains, the sufferings of less self-aware animals would also vanish as they ceased to exist without us around to perceive them.

Even on Schopenhauers own terms, theres a problem. What if other intelligent and self-conscious beings exist? Perhaps on other planets? Surely, then, our sacrifice would mean nothing; existence and painful perception of it would continue. It fell to Schopenhauers disciple, Eduard von Hartmann, to propose a more complete solution.

Abolishing the universe

Hartmann, born in Berlin in 1842, wrote a system of pessimistic philosophy that was almost as lengthy as his impressive beard. Infamous in his own time, but completely forgotten in ours, Hartmann proposed a shockingly radical vision.

Writing in 1869, Hartmann rebuked Schopenhauer for thinking of the problem of suffering in only a local and temporary sense. His predecessors vision of human extinction by sexual continence would not suffice. Hartmann was convinced that, after a few aeons, another self-conscious species would re-evolve on Earth. This would merely perpetuate the misery of existence.

Hartmann also believed that life exists on other planets. Given his belief that most of it was probably unintelligent, the suffering of such beings would be helpless. They wouldnt be able to do anything about it.

So, rather than only destroying our own kind, Hartmann thought that, as intelligent beings, we are obligated to find a way to eliminate suffering, permanently and universally. He believed that it is up to humanity to annihilate the universe: it is our duty, he wrote, to cause the whole kosmos to disappear.

Hartmann hoped that if humanity did not prove up to this task then some planets might evolve beings that would be, long after our own sun is frozen. But he didnt think this meant we could be complacent. He noted the stringency of conditions required for a planet to be habitable (let alone evolve creatures with complex brains), and concluded that the duty might fall exclusively on humans, here and now.

Also Read: How Humanity Came To Contemplate Its Possible Extinction a Timeline

Euthanasia shockwaves

Hartmann was convinced this was the purpose of creation: that our universe exists in order to evolve beings compassionate and clever enough to decide to abolish existence itself. He imagined this final moment as a shockwave of deadly euthanasia rippling outwards from Earth, blotting out the existence of this cosmos until all its world-lenses and nebulae have been abolished.

He remained unclear as to exactly how this goal would be achieved. Speaking vaguely of humanitys increasing global unification and spiritual disillusion, he hinted to future scientific and technological discoveries. He was, thankfully, a metaphysician not a physicist.

Hartmanns philosophy is fascinating. It is also unimaginably wrong. This is because he confuses the eradication of suffering with the eradication of sufferers. Conflating this distinction leads to crazy visions of omnicide. To get rid of suffering you dont need to get rid of sufferers: you could instead try removing the causes of pain. We should eliminate suffering, not the sufferer.

Indeed, so long as there are intelligent beings around, theres at least the opportunity for a radical removal of suffering. Philosophers such as David Pearce even argue that, in the future, technologies like genetic engineering will be able to entirely phase it out, abolishing pain from the Earth. With the right interventions, Pearce contends, humans and non-humans could plausibly be driven by gradients of bliss, not privation and pain.

This wouldnt necessarily need to be a Brave New World, populated by blissed-out, stupefied beings: plausibly, people could still be highly motivated, just by pursuing a range of sublime joys, rather than avoiding negative feeling. Pearce even argues that, in the far future, our descendants might be able to effect the same change on other biospheres, throughout the observable universe.

So, even if you think removing suffering is our absolute priority, there is astronomical value in us sticking around. We may owe it to sufferers generally.

Thomas Moynihan, researcher, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

See the article here:
To End Suffering, Blow up the Universe: A Dodgy Philosophy of Human Extinction - The Wire Science

At a time when humans are threatening the extinction of so many other species, it might not seem so surprising that some people think that the extinction of our own species would be a good thing. Take, for example, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, whose founder believes that our extinction would put an end to the damage we inflict on each other and ecosystems more generally.

Or theres the South African philosopher David Benatar, who argues that bringing people into existence always does them harm. He recommends we cease procreating and gradually desert the Earth.

But humans arent the only beings to feel pain. Non-human animals would continue suffering without us. So, driven by a desire to eliminate suffering entirely, some people have shockingly advocated taking the rest of nature with us. They recommend that we actively abolish the world, rather than simply desert it.

This disturbing and extremist position goes surprisingly far back in history.

Around 1600 years ago, Saint Augustine suggested that humans stop procreating. He endorsed this, however, because he wanted to hasten the Last Judgement and the eternity of joy thereafter.

If you dont believe in an afterlife, this becomes a less attractive option. Youd have to be motivated exclusively by removing suffering from nature, without any promise of gaining supernatural rewards. Probably the first person to advocate human extinction in this way was Arthur Schopenhauer. He did so 200 years ago, in 1819, urging that we spare the coming generations of the burden of existence.

Schopenhauer saw existence as pain so he believed we should stop bringing humans into existence. And he was clear about the result if everyone obeyed: The human race would die out.

But what about the pain of non-human animals? Schopenhauer had an answer, but it wasnt a convincing one. He was a philosophical idealist, believing that the existence of external nature depends on our self-consciousness of it. So, with the abolition of human brains, the sufferings of less self-aware animals would also vanish as they ceased to exist without us around to perceive them.

Even on Schopenhauers own terms, theres a problem. What if other intelligent and self-conscious beings exist? Perhaps on other planets? Surely, then, our sacrifice would mean nothing; existence and painful perception of it would continue. It fell to Schopenhauers disciple, Eduard von Hartmann, to propose a more complete solution.

Hartmann, born in Berlin in 1842, wrote a system of pessimistic philosophy that was almost as lengthy as his impressive beard. Infamous in his own time, but completely forgotten in ours, Hartmann proposed a shockingly radical vision.

Writing in 1869, Hartmann rebuked Schopenhauer for thinking of the problem of suffering in only a local and temporary sense. His predecessors vision of human extinction by sexual continence would not suffice. Hartmann was convinced that, after a few aeons, another self-conscious species would re-evolve on Earth. This would merely perpetuate the misery of existence.

Hartmann also believed that life exists on other planets. Given his belief that most of it was probably unintelligent, the suffering of such beings would be helpless. They wouldnt be able to do anything about it.

So, rather than only destroying our own kind, Hartmann thought that, as intelligent beings, we are obligated to find a way to eliminate suffering, permanently and universally. He believed that it is up to humanity to annihilate the universe: it is our duty, he wrote, to cause the whole kosmos to disappear.

Hartmann hoped that if humanity did not prove up to this task then some planets might evolve beings that would be, long after our own sun is frozen. But he didnt think this meant we could be complacent. He noted the stringency of conditions required for a planet to be habitable (let alone evolve creatures with complex brains), and concluded that the duty might fall exclusively on humans, here and now.

Hartmann was convinced this was the purpose of creation: that our universe exists in order to evolve beings compassionate and clever enough to decide to abolish existence itself. He imagined this final moment as a shockwave of deadly euthanasia rippling outwards from Earth, blotting out the existence of this cosmos until all its world-lenses and nebulae have been abolished.

He remained unclear as to exactly how this goal would be achieved. Speaking vaguely of humanitys increasing global unification and spiritual disillusion, he hinted to future scientific and technological discoveries. He was, thankfully, a metaphysician not a physicist.

Hartmanns philosophy is fascinating. It is also unimaginably wrong. This is because he confuses the eradication of suffering with the eradication of sufferers. Conflating this distinction leads to crazy visions of omnicide. To get rid of suffering you dont need to get rid of sufferers: you could instead try removing the causes of pain. We should eliminate suffering, not the sufferer.

Indeed, so long as there are intelligent beings around, theres at least the opportunity for a radical removal of suffering. Philosophers such as David Pearce even argue that, in the future, technologies like genetic engineering will be able to entirely phase it out, abolishing pain from the Earth. With the right interventions, Pearce contends, humans and non-humans could plausibly be driven by gradients of bliss, not privation and pain.

This wouldnt necessarily need to be a Brave New World, populated by blissed-out, stupefied beings: plausibly, people could still be highly motivated, just by pursuing a range of sublime joys, rather than avoiding negative feeling. Pearce even argues that, in the far future, our descendents might be able to effect the same change on other biospheres, throughout the observable universe.

So, even if you think removing suffering is our absolute priority, there is astronomical value in us sticking around. We may owe it to sufferers generally.

See the original post:
Solve suffering by blowing up the universe? The dubious philosophy of human extinction - The Conversation UK

As the science of brain-computer interfaces (BCI) and other neurotechnologies progresses, researchers are calling for ethical guidelines to be established now before the technology fully matures.

Why it matters: Were still far away from technologies that fully access and even read the human brain, but the sheer power of such tools and the highly personal data they could gather means society needs to determine what they should do before they actually can do it.

Whats happening: Columbia Universitys NeuroRights Initiative held a symposium today in conjunction with IBM on the scientific, security and social issues raised by neurotech.

The big picture: In the future, BCIs could provide an unprecedented view of the human brain at work, which in turn could unlock new clinical insights into largely untreatable mental and neurological diseases, as well as change how humans interface with the world.

What theyre saying: The ethical issues raised by that power were the focus of IBM director of research Daro Gils symposium remarks, which touched on first-generation ethical principles for neurotech developed by the company.

Details: Many of the ethical issues created by BCI questions of transparency and fairness resemble those raised by AI or even social media, only intensified.

To that end, Gil says IBM is committed to respecting mental privacy and autonomy, being transparent in its neurotech work, and ensuring that people have an equal opportunity to choose whether or not they want to use the technology.

The catch: Scientific codes of ethics may not mean that much to notoriously independent players like Elon Musk, who has made promises about the potential for the BCI technology developed by his company Neuralink to eventually allow AI symbiosis, as he said at an event in August.

The bottom line: BCI could be a revolution for humanity, as Yuste put it. But revolutions have a way of getting out of hand.

Link:
The tricky ethics of neurotechnologies - Axios

Researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis have identified a molecule that protects mice from brain infections caused by Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV), a mosquito-borne virus notorious for causing fast-spreading, deadly outbreaks in Mexico, Central America and northern South America. As the climate changes, the virus is likely to expand its range and threaten more countries in the Americas, including the U.S.

Public health officials have struggled to contain such outbreaks in the absence of effective drugs and vaccines. As a potential drug, the molecule -- described in a paper published Nov. 18 in the journal Nature -- could serve as a much needed tool to control the deadly virus.

"This virus can infect many species of wild mammals, and every few years it jumps from animals to humans via mosquitoes and causes thousands of infections and many deaths," said senior author Michael S. Diamond, MD, PhD, the Herbert S. Gasser Professor of Medicine and a professor of molecular microbiology, and of pathology and immunology. "There's concern that with global warming and population growth, we'll get more outbreaks."

Once injected under the skin by mosquitoes, the virus homes in on neurons. People start experiencing symptoms such as headache, muscle pain, fatigue, vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, sore throat and fever within a week. In the most serious cases, the virus gets past the blood-brain barrier, causing encephalitis -- brain inflammation that can be fatal in up to a quarter of patients.

To find the potential drug, Diamond and colleagues -- including first authors Hongming Ma, PhD, an instructor in medicine, and Arthur S. Kim, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher -- began by searching for the protein "handle" on the surface of animal cells that the virus attaches to and uses to get inside cells. A drug that stops the virus from grabbing that handle, the scientists reasoned, could stymie infection and prevent disease.

But first they had to make a form of the virus they could work easily with. During the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union attempted to weaponize the virus, and it is still classified as a select agent, meaning only certain high-security labs are allowed to work with it. So instead, the researchers and their colleagues took Sindbis virus, a related virus that causes mild fever and rash, and swapped out some of its genes for some from VEEV. The resulting hybrid virus, called Sindbis-VEEV, infects cells like authentic VEEV but is unable to cause severe disease.

Using a genetic engineering technique known as genome-wide CRISPR screening, the researchers deleted genes in mouse neuronal cells until they found one -- called Ldlrad3 -- whose absence kept Sindbis-VEEV from infecting cells. The missing gene codes for a little-studied surface protein.

Further experiments verified the importance of Ldlrad3. Adding the gene back to neuronal cells restored the virus's ability to infect cells. The human LDLRAD3 gene is almost identical to its mouse equivalent, and knocking out the human gene also reduced infection in multiple cell lines. When the researchers added Ldlrad3 to a different cell type that is normally resistant to infection, the virus was able to infect the cell. Co-author William Klimstra, PhD, at the University of Pittsburgh, separately replicated the findings using authentic, highly virulent VEEV.

Ldlrad3 doesn't appear to be the only way the virus gets inside cells, since a small amount of virus is able to infect cells lacking the protein. But it is clearly the primary way in. Since Ldlrad3 is naturally on our cells and can't be removed, the scientists decided to create a decoy handle using a piece of the Ldlrad3 protein. Any virus particles that mistakenly latch onto the decoy handle would fail to infect cells and instead would get destroyed by the immune system.

To test their decoy in a living animal, the researchers injected mice with authentic virulent VEEV in two different ways: under the skin to mimic a mosquito bite, or directly into the brain. They gave the mice the decoy handle or a placebo molecule for comparison, either six hours before or 24 hours after infection. In all experiments, all of the mice that received the placebo died within a week. In most cases, all of the mice that received the decoy molecule survived, although in the most stringent experiment -- in which the virus was injected into the brain -- two of the 10 mice died despite receiving the decoy.

"In an outbreak situation, you may be able to use a drug like this as a countermeasure to prevent transmission and further spread," Diamond said.

A major advantage to an antiviral drug based on a human -- rather than a viral -- protein is that it is unlikely the virus could evolve resistance to it. Any mutation that enables the virus to avoid the decoy probably would make it unable to attach to cells, too, the researchers said.

Read the original here:
Lethal brain infections in mice thwarted by decoy molecule - Science Codex

Belize City, Nov. 2, 2020 Most people in Belize are either taken up these days with finding a job/income, with fears of COVID-19, or with anticipation of the General Elections of Nov. 11, 2020. But lurking in the shadows is a much more dangerous foe.

In the past it was called The New World Order, but that has been so discredited, that the wizard behind the curtain had to change the name to The Great Reset. What is this Great Reset?

The Great Reset is a new social contract that ties you to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, and a social credit ID that will dictate every facet of your life. While the COVID-19 pandemic is being used as a justification for the Great Reset movement, the agenda has nothing to do with health and everything to do with a long-term plan to monitor and control the world through digital surveillance and artificial intelligence.

The Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution are rebranded terms for the old New World Order, melded with the trans-humanist movement. Technocracy (which is the new name for Fascism) is an economic system of resource allocation that revolves around computer technology in particular artificial intelligence, digital surveillance, and Big Data (5G) collection and the digitization of industry and government, which in turn allows for the automation of social engineering and social rule, thereby doing away with the need for democratically elected leadership.

While the real plan is to usher in a tech-driven dystopia free of democratic controls, the elites speak of this plan as a way to bring us back into harmony with nature the Green New Deal. Importantly, the pandemic is being used to destroy local economies around the world, which will then allow the World Economic Forum to come in through the IMF and rescue debt-ridden countries through facilitated financial bailouts.

However, the price for this salvation is your personal freedom and liberty. And, again, one of the aspects of the Fascist plan is to eliminate national borders and nationalism in general.

Who are the main actors behind the Great Reset?

Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum, along with the United Nations (which keeps a relatively low profile), appear to be at the heart of the big boys agenda. Gates is also the largest money-bag for the World Health Organization the medical branch of the U.N. Other key partners that play important roles in the implementation of the elites/globalists agenda include foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Ford Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the UN Foundation, and George Soros Open Society Foundation; companies such as: Avanti Communications, a British provider of satellite technology with global connectivity, and 2030 Vision, a partnership of technology giants that is aimed at providing the infrastructure and technology solutions needed to realize the U.N.s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. 2030 Vision is also partnered with Frontier 2030, which is a partnership of organizations under the helm of the World Economic Forum.

These organizations include the major Wall Street bankers/financiers; Google, the No. 1 Big Data collector in the world and a leader in AI services; MasterCard, which is leading the globalist charge to develop digital IDs and banking services, and Salesforce, a global leader in cloud computing, the internet of things and artificial intelligence.

Incidentally, Salesforce is led by Marc Benioff, who is also on the World Economic Forums board of directors, and Professor Klaus Schwab, chairman of the World Economic Forum.

Most Belizeans know little or nothing about the trans-humanist movement, or Human 2.0, which is geared at transcending biology through computer technology. Or, as Dr. Carrie Madej of USA explains in a blog, their goal is to meld human biology with computer technology and artificial intelligence. Two visible proponents of trans-humanism are Ray Kurzweil (director of engineering at Google since 2012) and Elon Musk (founder of SpaceX, Tesla and Neuralink). According to Dr. Madej, today we may be standing at the literal crossroads of trans-humanism, thanks to the fast approaching release of one or more mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Many of the COVID 19 vaccines https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/22/coronavirus-vaccine-timetable.aspx are not conventional vaccines. Their design is aimed at manipulating your very biology, and therefore have the potential to alter the biology of the entire human race. Conventional vaccines train your body to recognize and respond to the proteins of a particular virus by injecting a small amount of the actual viral protein into your body, thereby triggering an immune response from your body and the development of antibodies.This is not what happens with an mRNA vaccine. The theory behind these vaccines is that when you inject the mRNA into your cells, it will stimulate your cells to manufacture their own viral protein. The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine will be the first of its kind. No mRNA vaccine has ever been licensed before. And, to add insult to injury, theyre forgoing all animal safety testing.

Madej has reviewed the background of certain individuals participating in the race for a COVID-19 vaccine, which include Moderna co-founder Derrick Rossi, a Harvard researcher who successfully reprogrammed stem cells using modified RNA, thus changing the function of the stem cells. Moderna was founded on this concept of being able to modify human biological function through genetic engineering.

The mRNA vaccines are designed to instruct your cells to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the glycoprotein that attaches to the ACE2 receptor of the cell. The idea is that by creating the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, your immune system will mount a response to it and begin producing antibodies to the virus.

However, as we now know, Moderna is having problems, because both the CEO and CFO have, according to the Wall Street Journal, dumped their shares and sold everything, making some $350 million + dollars.

But the biggest insult by the globalists to our intelligence is the censorship of the news about the research done by genetic analysis using the Oak Ridge National Lab supercomputer called the Summit which has revealed an interesting new hypothesis that helps explain the disease progression of COVID-19. A September 1, 2020 Medium article1 by Thomas Smith reviewed the findings of what is now referred to as the Bradykinin hypothesis.

As reported by Smith, the computer crunched data on more than 40,000 genes obtained from 17,000 genetic samples.

Summit is the second-fastest computer in the world, but the process which involved analysing 2.5 billion genetic combinations still took more than a week. When Summit was done, researchers analysed the results. It was, in the words of Dr. Daniel Jacobson, lead researcher and chief scientist for computational systems biology at Oak Ridge, a eureka moment.

Bradykinin is a chemical that helps regulate your blood pressure and is controlled by your renin-angiotensin system (RAS). As explained in the Academic Press book on vitamin D (which has a significant impact on the RAS):

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is a central regulator of renal and cardiovascular functions. Over-activation of the RAS leads to renal and cardiovascular disorders, such as hypertension and chronic kidney disease, the major risk factors for stroke, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, progressive atherosclerosis, and renal failure.

The Bradykinin hypothesis provides a model that helps explain some of the more unusual symptoms of COVID-19, including its bizarre effects on the cardiovascular system. It also strengthens the hypothesis that vitamin D plays a really important role in the disease.

Your ACE2 receptors are the primary gateways of the virus, as the virus spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor. As explained2 by Smith:

COVID-19 infection generally begins when the virus enters the body through ACE2 receptors in the nose The virus then proceeds through the body, entering cells in other places where ACE2 is also present But once Covid-19 has established itself in the body, things start to get really interesting The data Summit analysed shows that COVID-19 isnt content to simply infect cells that already express lots of ACE2 receptors. Instead, it actively hijacks the bodys own systems, tricking it into up-regulating ACE2 receptors in places where theyre usually expressed at low or medium levels, including the lungs.

In this sense, COVID-19 is like a burglar who slips in your unlocked second-floor window and starts to ransack your house. Once inside, though, they dont just take your stuff they also throw open all your doors and windows so their accomplices can rush in and help pillage more efficiently.

The end result is a Bradykinin storm, and according to the researchers, this appears to be an important factor in many of COVID-19s lethal effects, even more so than the Cytokine storms associated with the disease. As Bradykinin accumulates, the more serious COVID-19 symptoms appear. Mounting clinical data suggest COVID-19 is actually primarily a vascular disease rather than a respiratory one, and runaway Bradykinin build-up help explain this.

The good news is that since Bradykinin storms are to blame, there are a number of already existing drugs (Icatibant, Danazol, Stanozolol) that can help prevent Bradykinin storms, and there are many other safe, inexpensive strategies like nebulized peroxide, ozone, molecular hydrogen, steroids, exogenous ketones, and Quercetin with zinc, vitamin D, and high-dose vitamin C.

And there are two reports by the American CDC. One says that 70.6% of COVID-19 patients always wore a mask3. The other says only 6% of all COVID-19 deaths were due ONLY to coronavirus4. And yet another said that the common seasonal flu caused more deaths than COVID-19.

So, if COVID-19 deaths are not what is being reported by the mass media, if the SAR CoV-2 virus is not as deadly to humans, then why the lockdowns, the face masks, the social distancing, the destruction of the way we live, of our economies? Why? Why?

But not all men are blind. On Oct 25, 2020, the Archbishop of Ulpiana, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, Carlo Maria Vigano, wrote an open letter (which over 100 million Americans have read) to President Donald Trump. The letter is long and is all over the internet. This is some of it:

at this hour in which the fate of the whole world is being threatened by a global conspiracy against God and humanityin the midst of the silence of both civil and religious authoritiesthis historical moment sees the forces of Evil aligned in a battle against the children of Lightwe see heads of nations and religious leaders pandering to this suicide of Western culture and its Christian soul, while the fundamental rights of citizens and believers are denied in the name of a health emergency that is revealing itself more and more fully as instrumental to the establishment of an inhuman faceless tyranny.

A global plan called the Great Reset is underway. Its architect is a global lite that wants to subdue all of humanity, imposing coercive measures with which to drastically limit individual freedoms and those of entire populations Behind the world leaders who are the accomplices and executors of this infernal project, there are unscrupulous characters who finance the World Economic Forum and Event 201, promoting their agenda.

The purpose of the Great Reset is the imposition of a health dictatorship aiming at the imposition of liberticidal measures, hidden behind tempting promises of ensuring a universal income and cancelling individual debt. The price of these concessions from the International Monetary Fund will be the renunciation of private property and adherence to a program of vaccination against Covid-19 and Covid-21 promoted by Bill Gates with the collaboration of the main pharmaceutical groups. Beyond the enormous economic interests that motivate the promoters of the Great Reset, the imposition of the vaccination will be accompanied by the requirement of a health passport and a digital ID, with the consequent contact tracing of the population of the entire world. Those who do not accept these measures will be confined in detention camps or placed under house arrest, and all their assets will be confiscated.

Mr President, I imagine that you are already aware that in some countries the Great Reset will be activated between the end of this year and the first trimester of 2021. For this purpose, further lockdowns are planned, which will be officially justified by a supposed second and third wave of the pandemic. But this world, Mr. President, includes people, affections, institutions, faith, culture, traditions, and ideals: people and values that do not act like automatons, who do not obey like machines, because they are endowed with a soul and a heart, because they are tied together by a spiritual bond that draws its strength from above, from that God that our adversaries want to challenge, just as Lucifer did at the beginning of time with his non serviam.

Until a few months ago, it was easy to smear as conspiracy theorists those who denounced these terrible plans, which we now see being carried out down to the smallest detail. No one, up until last February, would ever have thought that, in all of our cities, citizens would be arrested simply for wanting to walk down the street, to breathe, to want to keep their business open, to want to go to church on Sunday. Yet, now it is happening all over the world.

Mr. President, you have clearly stated that you want to defend the nation One Nation under God, fundamental liberties, and non-negotiable values that are denied and fought against today. It is you, dear President, who are the one who opposes the deep state, the final assault of the children of darkness.

For this reason, it is necessary that all people of goodwill be persuaded of the epochal importance of the imminent election Your adversary is also our adversary: it is the Enemy of the human race, He who is a murderer from the beginning (Jn 8:44).

And yet, in the midst of this bleak picture, this apparently unstoppable advance of the Invisible Enemy, an element of hope emerges. The adversary does not know how to love, and it does not understand that it is not enough to assure a universal income or to cancel mortgages in order to subjugate the masses and convince them to be branded like cattle. This people, which for too long has endured the abuses of a hateful and tyrannical power, is rediscovering that it has a soul; it is understanding that it is not willing to exchange its freedom for the homogenization and cancellation of its identity; it is beginning to understand the value of familial and social ties, of the bonds of faith and culture that unite honest people.

This Great Reset is destined to fail because those who planned it do not understand that there are still people ready to take to the streets to defend their rights, to protect their loved ones, to give a future to their children and grandchildren. The levelling inhumanity of the globalist project will shatter miserably in the face of the firm and courageous. To be an instrument of Divine Providence is a great responsibility, for which you will certainly receive all the graces of state that you need, since they are being fervently implored for you by the many people who support you with their prayers.

Meanwhile, here in Belize, we kill our so-called COVID-19 patients. Ventilators will kill you. Doctors of Belize, read the report of the US Oak Ridge National Lab on COVID-19. NO one needs to die anymore from COVID-19. US President Trump, who is 74 years old, was cured after 3 days of COVID-19.

And by the time you read this article, the world will know who won the elections in the United States.

Curfew on Nov. 11, election night in Belize, is part of the Globalist agenda. Let the people celebrate their victory. Open the churches, the schools, the bars; open the society. Send the globalist/elites back to Hell with Lucifer.

(Footnotes)1https://elemental.medium.com/a-supercomputer-analyzed-covid-19-and-an-interesting-new-theory-has-emerged-31cb8eba9d63

2ibid3https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htmRead the table at the end.4https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.html

See more here:
The great reset: new danger on the horizon - Amandala