Gene therapy and the trans-human agenda

Gene therapy and the trans-human agenda

Cure disease or alter humans?

by Jon Rappoport

June 5, 2018

“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around.


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

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

by Jon Rappoport

May 10, 2018

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.

Huge drug (pharma) money changes hands in high-level financial deals—why?

Huge drug (pharma) money changes hands in high-level financial deals—why?

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2018

These are notes on money-musical-chairs among drug companies. Big-time money.

Clues as to why there is such a tidal wave of cash:

One: Consolidation, of course. Fewer giant companies, who have greater control over the market, are too big to fail, and have more lobbying power with governments.

Two: The companies are making deals left and right to temporarily give stockholders and prospective investors the impression that “something good” is happening, while concealing the fact that numerous new drugs in the testing pipeline are failing to produce beneficial results, and are unsafe. Sleight of hand.

Three: The companies are making very favorable loan deals with banks, enabling them to buy out other drug firms. Before the loan repayments are completed, the companies will have sold themselves (and the debt) to bigger fish.

Four: A drug company knows its development of a new drug is fraudulent, and is riddled with illegal practices, such as lack of informed consent in recruiting volunteers for clinical trials. So it sells the research unit for that drug to another company, making it their problem.

Here are $$ details. Follow the astonishing money trails.

From: https://www.fiercepharma.com/m-a/sanofi-advent-international-nearing-eu2b-deal-for-european-generics-business-report:

“Other bidders may have dropped out of an auction for Sanofi’s European generics unit, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t found a buyer. The drugmaker is nearing an agreement and could announce a sale in the next several days, Bloomberg reports.

“Sanofi’s board could meet as soon as Monday to vote on a deal worth about €2 billion ($2.48 billion), according to the news service’s sources. Of course, the sources note that the deal isn’t final and that it could ultimately fail to materialize.

“The news follows previous decisions by private equity firm Nordic Capital and Indian drugmaker Torrent Pharma to bow out of negotiations, worried that the unit is too pricey, according to press reports. PE firm Carlyle Group and Brazil’s EMS remained in deal talks through final bidding, according to Bloomberg.

“And that’s not the only deal Sanofi has had in the works. The company has been toiling to reshape itself for several years, and as part of that effort on Monday sold 12 “noncore” pharma brands to Cooper-Vemedia for €158 million, a spokesperson confirmed.

“The drugmaker talked about selling the business in 2015, but CEO Olivier Brandicourt made other M&A moves after coming on board instead. In 2016, Brandicourt offloaded Sanofi’s animal health unit Merial in an asset swap with Boehringer Ingelheim, getting BI’s consumer health business in return.

“The drugmaker hasn’t only slimmed down, though. Sanofi purchased nanobody biotech Ablynx for $4.8 billion and hemophilia-focused Bioverativ for $11.6 billion in sizable deals early this year. Afterward, Brandicourt said the acquisitions “dramatically reshape our portfolio in specialty care” and boost the company’s R&D presence.”

Here is more: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/takeda-still-eyeing-a-buy-shire-casts-off-oncology-for-2-4b:

“With suitor Takeda circling Shire, the Dublin-based target has pulled off a deal of its own.

“On Monday, Shire announced it had agreed to hand its oncology business to France’s Servier for $2.4 billion, a move it said would sharpen its focus on rare diseases. And more streamlining deals are likely on the way.

“While the oncology business has delivered high growth and profitability, we have concluded that it is not core to Shire’s longer-term strategy,” CEO Flemming Ornskov said in a statement, adding that “we will continue to evaluate our portfolio for opportunities to unlock further value … with selective disposals of nonstrategic assets.”

“Meanwhile, Servier will land an “immediate presence” in the U.S. with products such as Oncaspar, which Shire nabbed in its Baxalta buyout. Baxter had bought the med to diversify its pharmaceutical portfolio before spinning it off into Baxalta, which Shire later picked up after a monthslong pursuit.

“The oncology move makes things interesting for Japanese drugmaker Takeda, which late last month made its buyout interest in Shire public.

“The deal should … boost Shire’s negotiating position on asking price in the current offer period with Takeda, in our view,” Jefferies analyst Peter Welford wrote in a note to clients.”

And more: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/mylan-s-advanced-talks-for-merck-kgaa-s-4b-plus-otc-unit-report:

“Pfizer may have run into snags trying to sell its consumer health business, but Merck KGaA may be in advanced discussions with a player over its own for-sale unit. And that player is Mylan, according to reports.

“The two companies are negotiating a price between $4.3 billion and $4.9 billion, Reuters says, although there’s no certainty they’ll lock down a deal. The German drugmaker has also reportedly chit-chatted with private equity groups about a sale, according to the news service.

“Mylan, for its part, denies the report. “Although it’s Mylan’s policy to not comment on rumors or speculation, given the egregious inaccuracy of reports issued this morning, the company is compelled to confirm that the Reuters article is untrue,” the company said in a statement.

“It’s not the first time Mylan has gone after a deal in the consumer biz. It spent the better part of 2015 in hostile pursuit of store-brand specialist Perrigo, whose shareholders ultimately rejected Mylan’s offer. And in the wake of that offer, it snapped up Sweden’s Meda.

“It’s also not the first time Mylan and Merck KGaA have talked transaction, Reuters noted. Back in 2007, Mylan took Merck’s generics unit off its hands in a $6.7 billion deal that also sent severe allergy blockbuster EpiPen over to the copycat.

“Meanwhile, Pfizer, which boasts a larger OTC business than Merck’s, has been watching its own sale options dwindle as retail kings such as Amazon threaten OTC drugmakers’ sales. Late last month, both Reckitt and GlaxoSmithKline withdrew from the bidding process, though rumor has it there’s a small chance the New York drugmaker could still unload the asset to Procter & Gamble.”

And now, here is a list of top pharma mergers and acquisitions in the past several years:

10. Abbott-Alere, $5.8bn, 2016
“At the start of February American pharmaceutical giant Abbot agreed to buy Alere Inc. for $5.8bn or $56 a share to become the lead holder in the market for medical tests and diagnostics. Alere which has annual sales of about $2.5bn makes tests for infections such as malaria, HIV, dengue fever and tuberculosis. Abbott stated that at the end of 2015 its diagnostic sales were $4.6bn, a figure which would now exceed the $7bn-a-year mark. Abbott currently has more than 73,000 employees and revenues in 2015 reached $20.405bn.”

9. Mylan-Meda, $7.2bn, 2016
“February, 2016 saw Mylan agree a takeover of Swedish drug maker Meda for $7.2bn. The new company is expected to have 2015 sales of $11.8bn, and the deal also boosts Mylan’s range of branded and generic medications and gives it an additional leg-up in the area of over-the-counter medications that will now achieve sales of around $1bn a year. Mylan had been in pursuit of Meda for a while before the deal closed, having two offers rejected in 2014 that were valued at $6.7bn. Mylan is a global generic and specialty pharmaceutical company registered in the Netherlands with headquarters in the UK. It currently provides more than 30,000 pharmaceutical jobs.”

8. Celgene-Receptos, $7.2bn, 2015
“In August, 2015, American biotechnology company Celgene acquired Receptos for $7.2bn and its phase III autoimmune treatment for ulcerative colitis and multiple sclerosis. If all goes to plan the drug could end up bringing in peak sales as high as $6bn. Celgene was founded in 1986 and currently has more than 4,100 employees. In 2015 the company achieved a 21% year-on-year growth in product sales reaching $9.2bn.”

7. Endo International-Par Pharmaceutical, $8.1bn, 2015
“Endo International, headquartered in Ireland and the USA, is a global specialty pharmaceutical company employing more than 6,200 people. In September last year, it completed its buyout of Par Pharmaceutical in a deal worth $8.1bn. The acquisition firmly establishes Endo as one of the world’s fastest growing and notable generics businesses and will help the company to position itself for strong growth in the years to come.”

6.Alexion Pharmaceuticals-Synageva BioPharma, $8.4bn, 2015
“In June, 2015 Connecticut-based Alexion Pharmaceuticals successfully completed its acquisition of Synageva BioPharma for $8.4bn. The acquisition strengthened Alexion’s global leadership in devastating and rare diseases, and created one of the strongest rare disease portfolios in the biotech industry. Alexion was founded in 1992 and employs more than 3,000 people serving 50 countries worldwide.”

5. Valeant-Salix Pharmaceuticals, $15.8bn, 2015
“March, 2015, saw Canadian-based Valeant acquire Salix Pharmaceuticals for $15.8bn, adding to its portfolio of gastroenterology drugs. The $158-per-share deal came after reports that Valeant had been competing with Shire for a takeover of Salix. In addition to the $15.8bn price tag, Valeant would absorb $5bn in debt and the merger would provide $500m a year in cost-saving opportunities and cut the tax paid on Salix revenues which stood at 35%. Valeant currently employs around 17,000 individuals and achieved revenues of $10.5bn in 2015.”

4. Pfizer-Hospira, $17bn, 2015
“US-based pharmaceutical giant Pfizer agreed to buy Hospira in a $17bn takeover that would expand its portfolio of drugs and add Hospira’s portfolio of sterile injectable treatments and biosimilar drugs to Pfizer’s broad offerings. At the time Hospira had 11 biosimilar molecules in its pipeline, with the market value for biosimilars and sterile injectables set to reach around $90bn by 2020. The deal was expected to provide around $800m a year in cost-savings by 2018. Pfizer achieved revenues of $49bn last year and currently provides more than 78,000 pharmaceutical jobs.”

3. AbbVie-Pharmacyclics, $21bn, 2015
“In May, 2015, AbbVie closed a deal to buy California-based Pharmacyclics for $21bn. The massive deal would boost AbbVie’s cancer portfolio substantially. AbbVie currently relies heavily on its ageing $10bn-a-year auto inflammatory drug Humira, and 2 years earlier split from its partner Abbott in the hopes of finding large merger deals to fill its sparse drugs pipeline. One of the driving factors for the merger was Pharmacyclics blood cancer drug, Imbruvica, which is expected to achieve worldwide sales of $5.8bn by 2020. AbbVie achieved revenues of $22bn in 2015 and currently employs more than 28,000 people.”

2.Shire-Baxalta, $32bn, 2016
“In January 2016 Shire finally closed a deal to acquire Baxalta for $32bn after 6 months of negotiations. Shire stated that the new firm would be able to achieve double-digit sales growth to over $20bn by 2020, with about two-thirds of this revenue coming from immunology, neuroscience, haematology, lysosomal storage disorders, gastrointestinal diseases and heredity angioedema. Both companies are predicting around $500m in annual cost-savings within the first 3 years, with the combined tax rate down 7% to 16%.”

1.Teva-Allergan Generics, $40.5bn, 2015
“July, 2015, saw Israeli firm Teva buy Allergan’s generics unit for a massive $40.5bn in cash and stock. The deal meant that Allergan received $33.75bn in cash and Teva shares valued at $6.75bn, giving it a 10% stake in Teva. Investors had been pressuring Teva to make a major deal as generics erosion meant that the firm could face severe losses from its $4.2bn a year multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone. Teva hopes that the deal with Allergan generics will establish a foundation for long-term sustainable growth and assist in building a strong portfolio of products in both generics and specialty areas. Teva achieved revenues of around $20bn in 2014, and currently employs more than 40,000 individuals.”


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.

Gene therapy and the trans-human agenda

Gene therapy and the trans-human agenda

Cure disease or alter humans?

by Jon Rappoport

April 17, 2018

“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around.


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.

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.

New CRISPR gene-editing: the extreme dangers

New CRISPR gene-editing: the extreme dangers

by Jon Rappoport

March 27, 2018

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.

Shocking victory for proponents of alternative medicine

Shocking victory for proponents of alternative medicine

by Jon Rappoport

March 8, 2018

Breaking: In Australia, an effort to label all alternative (traditional, complementary) medicine products as “based on pseudoscience” has failed.

Traditional remedies (much older than mainstream medicines) are defended as appropriate, and can include health claims.

The Crazz Files, a major defender of health freedom in Australia, reports: “In a major win, the Federal Government has ignored the Australian Greens and anti-complementary medicine activists like Doctor Ken Harvey…and passed a reform package that protects traditional medicine.”

“The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill, which passed Parliament on February 15, supports positive claims for complementary medicines based on traditional evidence, and abolishes the current complaints system.”

“Greens voters were shocked to learn Greens Leader and General Practitioner, Senator Dr Richard Di Natale was aligned with skeptics, whose platform is: ‘There is no alternative to [modern] Medicine’.”

“One of his [Dr. Di Natale’s] ‘concerns’ was that people were being ‘misled’ by traditional claims about the effectiveness of complementary medicine. He, and the skeptics, wanted labels on complementary and traditional medicines to state: ’this traditional indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and there is no scientific evidence that this product is effective’.”

“The Minister for Rural Health, Senator Bridget McKenzie, told Di Natale: ‘I think it is offensive and disrespectful to those who practice traditional medicine’.”

“’For some, particularly those using Chinese medicine, the history of practising in that traditional medicine paradigm goes back thousands of years. It’s been extensively refined, practised and documented and in many cases incorporated into mainstream medicine. So, a statement required by the Australian Government that the indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and that there is no scientific evidence will be seen as arrogant and insensitive to those practising and using traditional Chinese medicines,’ Senator McKenzie said.”

Boom.

All right. Now I want to treat readers to a brief analysis of “modern medicine,” the so-called scientific system that is the “only valid system.” It is the system employed in Australia, America, and virtually all countries in the world.

People who watch the news or read mainstream news have the impression that “scientific” medical research is remarkably valid and always progressing.

Doctors and medical bureaucrats line up to confirm and ceaselessly push this view.

But they are concealing a dark truth.

Let’s go to the record. Here are two editors of two of the most prestigious and respected medical journals in the world. During their long careers, they have read and scrutinized more studies than any doctor, researcher, bureaucrat, or so-called medical blogger. And this is what they have written:

ONE: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)

TWO: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)

There are many ominous implications in these two statements. I will point out one.

Incompetent, error-filled, and fraudulent studies of medical drugs—for example, published reports on clinical trials of those drugs—would lead one to expect chaos in the field of medical treatment. And by chaos, I mean: the drugs cause widespread death and severe injury.

Again, if a person obtains his news from mainstream sources, he will say, “But I see no evidence of such a vast scandal.”

That is a conspiracy of silence. Because this widespread death and grievous harm HAS been reported. Where? In open-source medical literature.

For example: On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when one of its most respected public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings on healthcare in America. Starfield was associated with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

The Starfield study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), came to the following conclusion, among others:

Every year in the US, correctly prescribed, FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 people. Thus, every decade, these drugs kill more than a MILLION people.

On the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, media reporting was rather perfunctory, and it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.

All in all, those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this ongoing tragedy preferred to ignore it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here is an excerpt from that interview.

Q: What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

A: The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

Q: In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

A: The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Q: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

A: NO.

Q: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

A: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

Q: Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

A: It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

—end of interview excerpt—

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the medical literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TWO ESTEEMED MEDICAL EDITORS I QUOTED ABOVE—MARCIA ANGELL AND RICHARD HORTON—ARE SAYING.

If you know a doctor who enjoys sitting up on his high horse dispensing the final word on modern medicine, you might give him the quotes from Dr. Angell and Dr. Horton, instruct him to read them, and suggest he get in touch with Angell and Horton, in order to discover what has happened to his profession.

As in: DISASTER.


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.