An Inconvenient Truth About COVID Injections
Part 10 of the Series, “Of Monkeys, Mice and Men: From Natural Bodies to Digitized Bots”
“Of all the new frontiers opening up for computation, perhaps the most startling is that of the human body. As both a rich source of information in itself and the vehicle by which we experience the world, it was probably inevitable that sooner or later somebody would think to reconsider it as just another kind of networked resource . . . The motivations for wanting to do so are many; to leverage the body as a platform for mobile services; to register its position in space and time; to garner information that can be used to tailor the provision of other local services, like environmental controls; and to gain accurate and timely knowledge of the living body, in all the occult complexity of its inner workings . . . In every moment of our lives, the rhythm of the heartbeat, the chemistry of the blood, even the electrical conductivity of the skin are changing in response to [the] evolving physical, situational, and emotional environment. If you were somehow able to capture and interpret these signals, though, all manner of good could come from it . . . Doctors could easily verify their patients’ compliance with a prescribed regimen of pharmaceutical treatment or prophylaxis; a wide variety of otherwise dangerous conditions, caught early enough, might yield to timely intervention . . . The information is there; all that remains is to collect it. Ideally, this means getting a data-gathering device that does not call undue attention to itself into intimate proximity with the body, over reasonably long stretches of time.”(p. 48-49)
~ Adam Greenfield, author of Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquitous computing
This is the final installment of a series I launched in December 2020 (see Endnote 1). Although I had intended to wrap up this series with a concentrated focus on transhumanism, given this topic saturation on the airwaves (see links in Endnote 2), I would like to circle back to what I touched upon (Singapore as a bioengineering propagator worldwide) in the Prologue and Part 1, and to which I promised I would return.
A Brief mRNA Refresher
In 2018, Moderna President, Stephen Hoge, stated, “Why are we so passionate about messenger RNA? . . . It starts with the question of life . . . And in fact, all life that we know flows through messenger RNA . . . In our language, mRNA is the software of life.” He elaborated that cells use messenger RNA (mRNA) to translate the genes of DNA into “dynamic” proteins, involved in every bodily function.
Theoretically, mRNA prompts proteins to be made in our bodies — thereby placing drug factories inside us. In a 2018 interview with C&EN, Moderna’s Hoge asserted, “You could ultimately use mRNA to express any protein and perhaps treat almost any disease . . . It is almost limitless what it can do.”
According to pharmaceutical giant GSK — which, like Moderna, also manufactures vaccines based on mRNA technology — messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) is a biological molecule that is naturally produced in human cells and carries genetic code for the cells to produce proteins. The company purports that synthetic mRNA vaccine technology is a new platform for vaccines — which will disrupt the field of vaccinology.
mRNA Mavericks in Singapore
For the record, I was not avoiding the most commonly discussed topic when it comes to the COVID injections — that of mRNA. Rather, I intended to complete this exploratory journey with discourse of mRNA, in my unique way, and I appreciate the patience exhibited by POM readers.
As I implied in my Prologue, the task of penning this series was to examine what I referred to as the “alchemical marriage of synthetic biology and COVID,” and to provide evidence that biotech tinkerers were re-imagining humanity in a quest for re-genesis. I suspected early on that the impending injections would not only be mandated, but would represent a covert method of re-assembling nature, thereby possibly re-defining what it means to be “human.” COVID was simply a commercialized catalyst — akin to a pitch deck — in marketing advanced technologies that were waiting in the wings, with mRNA playing a pivotal role. My guess is . . . we have not seen anything yet — at least in terms of where they intend to take a human being.
In reference to the slogan of the Great Reset — build back better — I posed the question, “Could building back — using a plethora of genetic modification projects — be a means to a dead end of humanity, and worse, to biological life itself?” I return to this question in this final installment, and to individuals who may have played (or continue to play) a central role in human genetic modification; and thus, may be considered progenitors of synthetic (or re-assembled) humanity, or perhaps may be more aptly termed “re-genitors.”
There are many players in the emerging field of synthetic biology, and readers can get a peek at an upcoming gathering of them here. In their own words, “After two years of digital meetings, we’re bringing synthetic biology’s leading community of innovators, investors, engineers, entrepreneurs, scientists, thought leaders, policy makers and academics together to Build Back Better With Biology! (my emphasis)”
So, it seems my initial premise (to launch the re-design of humans with COVID as the kick-starter) may have been accurate — as implied by these synthetic biology thought leaders themselves. Below is molecular biologist Sydney Brenner speaking on the topic of synthetic biology (recorded in 1994, transcript provided).
“I think evolution will become an experimental subject which will be wonderful. I think with that sort of knowledge we will even start to make new animals, perhaps… I once gave a lecture on how to make a centaur by means other than transplantation surgery – which is the way the Greeks made centaurs – and what you would have to know in terms of developmental biology to create a six-limbed vertebrate, because that’s what centaurs are. But I think we will move on towards, I think, synthetic biology . . . So I think evolution is going to be the subject over the next 25 years. I think there are going to be amazing discoveries that are going to tell us quite a lot about the past, and I think we’re actually going to recapitulate the past. And that, I think, will be the most exciting thing, and I think it will bring a new kind of synthetic approach to the subject, which is now just being carved into smaller and smaller pieces. I think that in terms of the understanding of… I think the big subject that will develop, the subject that will have to be reinvented, is physiology. So that is, nobody knows how to connect up all these molecular events to the actual functioning of an organism, or an organ system, so I think physiology will have to be reinvented so that we can grasp how all this molecular stuff is embedded in the function of an organism. (my emphasis)”
In multiple interviews, Brenner emphasized that genetics was all about sequence and code (how genes produce proteins and use messenger RNA as the intermediary), and that in the 1960s, the focus was on cracking the code that translates DNA codons into amino acids. Brenner professedly coined the word, “codon” — and jointly discovered mRNA — paving the way for genetic engineering. Below is a short, whimsical presentation featuring Brenner’s pioneering efforts in this area.
So as not to beat a dead horse (see here, here, and here), let’s turn our attention to a close colleague of Sydney Brenner — Louis Lim (reportedly deceased due to COVID) — who, likewise, was deemed a maverick in mRNA technology, and based in Singapore. According to a February 2021 article in the The Straits Times, Professor Lim was also a key player in designing and constructing Biopolis, Singapore’s biomedical hub (see more on Biopolis below). As reported in that February 2021 article, “[Louis Lim’s] postdoctoral research included a stint at Yale University where he contributed to a key finding in molecular biology that allowed mRNA, a genetic material that cells read to make proteins, to be cloned. This finding forms the basis of some Covid-19 vaccines(my emphasis).”
A 2021 tribute by A*STAR to Louis Lim was quite revealing, but as of today, I am unable to access the document (apparently blocked due to a “plug-in” issue?). However, I will attach it here in case readers have accessibility (see Footnote below).
Fortunately, several months ago, I transcribed much of the tribute on paper, and I include herein a few excerpts:
“After graduating in Biochemistry at the University of Malaya, Singapore (1964), Louis Lim fled to the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London for his PhD (1967). Dr Lim’s research career in molecular biology took off with a fellowship to Yale University with Evangelos Canellakis. In a paper published in Nature (1970) they reported that mammalian mRNAs curiously contained an extensive poly(A) tail. This insight allowed purification of mRNA from any tissue, free of contaminating rRNA and DNA, which could then be translated into radio-labelled proteins using reticulocyte lysate. Louis returned to London in 1971 as a lecturer at the Institute of Neurology, now part of University College London (UCL), and began to apply these methods to neuroscience. During this time Louis’ lab moved to Wakefield Street near Kings cross, where he remained. With the discovery of reverse transcriptase by David Baltimore (IMCB scientific advisory board 1998-2002), mRNA could be converted to DNA in the lab for subsequent cloning and sequencing.”
“Louis used the reticulocyte lysate system to investigate abundant brain mRNAs (primarily synaptic metabolic enzymes), then began sequencing many uncharacterized brain-specific mRNAs, which became the focus of his interest.”
“Louis played a central role with another maverick Sydney Brenner, then Director of LMB Cambridge, in establishing and recruiting for IMCB from 1985 onwards. After IMCB was inaugurated Louis discussed with Richard Sykes, the Research Director of Glaxo PLC, possibilities for starting an R&D partnership in the biosciences. This led to the signing on 31March 1989 of the ‘Glaxo-IMCB research venture’, together with the EBD headed by Philip Yeo. This was an early international collaboration with industry R&D to support basic discovery research aimed at identifying molecular targets involved with neurodegeneration. The Glaxo-IMCB group made seminal discoveries in the area of signal transduction and neuronal architecture (my emphasis).”
Singapore’s Biopolis and Genetic Engineering “Stories”
As briefly referenced in the Prologue and Part 1 of my series (links above), this story of synthetic biology and bio-digital convergence (detailed in my ten installments) began — and now ends — with Biopolis in Singapore.
Biopolis is renowned as Asia’s premier biomedical hub. “With 13 buildings across 5 phases and a total floor area of more than 340,000 square metres, it is a thriving ecosystem home to more than 50 public and private biomedical research organisations such as Abbott, Procter & Gamble (P&G) as well as the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore’s lead agency for scientific research and development.”
It should be noted — in a rather timely manner — that one company residing in Biopolis is Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Takeda crossed the mainstream airwaves in late August 2021, with the publicized recall of 1.6 million doses of its Moderna COVID product due to “magnetic material contamination.” Subsequently, in September 2021, it was reported that another Takeda recall was instituted, due to two suspected related deaths and admission of “stainless steel contaminants” in the vials.
As stated by Pharma Boardroom In 2008, the biotech hub is the world’s “first integrated, purpose-build biomedical research complex, juxtaposing both public and private sector research laboratories.” “Every new religion needs its Mecca,” says Philip Yeo, who was the main promoter of the Biopolis concept and chairman of A*STAR in 2003, when Phase 1 of the project was completed. Pharma Boardroompronounced that Singapore has “been active in luring multinationals to locate their drug discovery facilities in the country.”
A*STAR seems to have even more tentacles then DARPA does, in that it is supported by ST Engineering (see Endnote 3), and it should be noted that the Singaporean government is, and has always been, operated by scientists and engineers. Further, the intimate confluence of smart cities/digital tech and biotech/genomics/bioengineering is exemplified by Singaporean public-private ventures.
One intriguing tentacle was reflected, strangely enough, in 2011, with an articledeclaring to be “fictional” and featuring Philip Yeo and his A*STAR program. While claiming to be a fictional account, it is curious that the 2011 analysis of Philip Yeo speaks of Yeo as one of the first Singaporean superhumans, and that the aim of his A*STAR program was to create an elite force of super soldiers forhomeland security purposes. The “fictitious” article implied that the goal was to select the most “genetically superior” Singaporeans and enhance them through artificial means. The article purports (again fictitiously) that Philip Yeo took over leadership of A*STAR with the goal of developing an army of 300 superhumans by 2020.
In reality, what does go on at A*STAR with regard to genetic and bioengineering enhancement? This inquiring writer would like to know . . .
Since this series cannot end without some talk of transhumanism (and the Singularity), and certainly its presumed authentic connection to Singapore . . . In this regard, we look to Miriam Ji Sun, foresight researcher and Chair of the German Transhumanist Association who stated in 2011:
“For many reasons, the tiny country of Singapore should be considered as a leading candidate to be the eventual epicenter of the Technological Singularity (my emphasis).”
“In 2009, the Boston Consulting group scored Singapore as the world’s most innovation-friendly country. In regard to biotech innovations, Singapore is ranked in the top fiveaccording to a study by Scientific American. One contributing factor, besides considerable governmental support (the government plans to invest $3 billion in Biomedical Sciences research for the period 2011–2015), is the very liberal biotech-related legislation . . .“
“Through its excellent position in biotechnology and chemistry, it is also heavily investing in nanotechnology, and has established an Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology.“
“Singapore also was accused in the 1980s of practicing a kind of eugenics, when Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew made the remark that the ‘well educated should have more children than the less educated to maintain economic standards.’ Singapore quickly tried to distance itself from such statements, but the idea continues to live on in special dating services for academics (my emphasis).”
“Because longevity is seen as very desirable in societies deeply influenced by Chinese culture, as is the case with Singapore, large shares of the population are likely to support research and development of technologies aimed at prolonging healthy life. Due to Singapore’s high capacities in biotechnology and related areas, the country could become a leading innovator in regenerative medicine and anti-aging science and technologies from which the elite of the country, at least, will benefit.”
“Singapore may not be the first country to have a supercomputer that exceeds human intelligence—and human intelligence and knowledge may also be just too much valued—but it may be a country with early life extension applications, humans augmented by computer technology and cyborgs, advanced tissue and organ engineering, and possibly even genetic enhancements for improving health and intelligence (my emphasis).”
“A hybrid of human and machine intelligence may develop in Singapore—as well as in other East Asian countries—in a kind of yin-yang unity that achieves transhuman transcendence through the fusion of complements, i.e. what humans are good at combined with what machines are good at. It would not be surprising to see cyborgs in the future Singaporean society, along with genetically and bio-technologically enhanced (post)humans with improved intelligence, health, and longevity (my emphasis).”
To circle back to my lead quote for this essay . . . Greenfield’s Everywarereflects the concept of ubiquitous and “invisible” computing — computing that does not live on a personal device, but is literally everywhere. In 1998, Nicholas Negroponte, founder and chairman Emeritus of MIT’s Media Lab (whom I previously quoted in my Prologue), predicted that “like air and drinking water, being digital will be noticed only by its absence, not its presence.”
Ostensibly, the everyware priests are implementing pervasive data aggregation and exploitation strategies in the name of health, defense, equity, sustainability, and resilience. In this context, according to Everyware’s author (Adam Greenfield), laptops and desktop computers will be phased out, and omnipresent computation will flourish, “becoming intimately intertwined with the stuff of everyday life.” As imagined by the bioengineers, wearable computing and body-implanted computing will be ever-present, such that it will not only be mobile (and invisible), but will connect all people, places, and things. Hence, the emerging phenomenon of everyware — which will be everywhere.
So, can readers perceive the crux of this all-embracing digital interface — possibly enabled by injectable operating systems comprised of mRNA and nanoscale biosensors? Is it too far-fetched to conceive of these jabs as data-gathering (and possibly thought-controlling) biomedical devices networking digital citizens? As Greenfield discusses, everything will connect, which would be the epitome of bio-digital convergence.
Discussed in March 2019, nano-bio-computing is one way to enable scientists the means with which to control biological processes: “Nanoparticles can be used as substrates for computation, with algorithmic and autonomous control of their unique properties . . .” To further elucidate, “Matter can be merged with computation . . . from the ability to algorithmically control the useful photonic, electrical, magnetic, catalytic and material properties of nanoparticles . . . nanoparticles equipped with computing capabilities can form nanoparticle circuits to autonomously perform complex tasks in response to external stimuli to combine the flow of matter and information at the nanoscale . . . An existing approach to use nanoparticles as substrates for computation is to functionalize the particles with stimuli-responsive ligands . . . The [cell] membranes can also allow parallel computing processes to occur and therefore materials scientists were inspired to rewire the biological phenomenon.”
It was reported on September 19, 2021 by Bloomberg that more than 5.95 billion doses of the deltoid-penetrated, nanotech-enabled COVID injections have been administered across 184 countries. That said, what I was attempting to convey in the syringe graphic (top of this essay) was the concept of a metaphorical injection. Accordingly, it is my position that there are numerous other ways we can also be (and may have already been) “inoculated” with biologically-altering digitalized sensors/software: from the air we breathe, to the water we drink, to the food we eat, and to the electronic devices we touch on a daily basis. As I have continually opined, the bioengineering sorcerers plan for the omnipresence of virtually seamless bio-digitalism, such that biological life will be fully immersed in a digitally convergent experience (AKA the Metaverse).
Due to their electronic and thermal properties, do graphene-based sensors — implanted in the human body — serve as the ideal nano-bio-computer interface (see here and here)? Indeed, graphene quantum dots have been used to enhance mRNA delivery platforms. Given my previous extensive coverage on graphene(despite contrary perspectives, including public refutations by graphene gurus), I will not belabor the issue herein.
Ribocomputing with a Twist
So now that we see how mRNA and transhumanism (and the Singularity) connect back to Singapore, how does mRNA coalesce (more specifically) with synthetic biology and transhumanism?
“In response to the ongoing emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 strains, Twist has expanded its Synthetic RNA Control portfolio, adding the following controls that cover the new strains that are rapidly becoming the dominant variants around the world. These highly infectious strains of SARS-CoV-2 exhibit significant changes across their genomes including changes to the spike protein coding region. These changes can render some RT-PCR probes used widely in COVID-19 testing invalid for detection of the S gene. Twist has added four new Synthetic Controls that cover these variants. The Synthetic RNA Controls provide quality control measures for a wide range of applications including the verification and validation of diagnostic tests of both next-generation sequencing (NGS) and RT-PCR assays.”
Here is more background from Twist Bioscience in 2017:
“One goal of synthetic biology is to engineer life to recognize desired inputs and in turn respond with desired outputs. Biocomputing is the management of this input/output system, designing genetic parts that allow life to perform logic based decisions in a manner not dissimilar to the computer you’re using to read this article.”
“Researchers at the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering and Arizona State University, in a recent article in Nature, demonstrated a novel method of programming cells to operate like computers. They call their method ribocomputing because their engineered cells carry out complex logic-based computations exclusively using ribonucleic acids, more commonly known as RNA.“
“Unlike the digital computers ubiquitous in the modern world, which use electricity to accomplish all higher-order functions, these ribocomputers perform logical operations on biological materials, such as proteins, toxins, and immune system molecules. Adding programmability to cells opens up exciting new possibilities for ways to control cells and their interactions with organisms and their environment. The ribocumputing researchers propose that using this new technique, cells and microorganisms can be programmed to accomplish tasks ranging from disease diagnostics and therapeutic drug delivery to green energy production and environmental cleanup (my emphasis).”
“Whereas coordinating diverse biocomputing elements to perform a computation is like herding cats, building operational circuits entirely from RNA is relatively simple and easy to scale into many different applications. All that’s needed to design ribocomputers is a careful circuit design and the ability to synthesize or express RNA in designated sequences (my emphasis).”
A June 2020 article by Biotech Connection Singapore detailed the role of COVID vaccines and Moderna, in particular, in terms of emerging advances in synthetic biology, and how medicine and bioengineering (more specifically, gene editing) will be transformed:
“Another prominent example now is that of developing vaccinations and treatments for the Covid-19 virus. Synthetic biology companies are at the heart of this movement, with companies such as Moderna Therapeutics being the frontline candidates for developing novel vaccination candidates via their unique RNA platform technology. Such advancements showcase the increasing impact that synthetic biology has, and will continue to have, on our daily lives (my emphasis).”
“When it comes to biomolecules, RNA doesn’t get a lot of love. Maybe you haven’t even heard of the silent workhorse. RNA is the cell’s de facto translator: like a game of telephone, RNA takes DNA’s genetic code to a cellular factory called ribosomes. There, the cell makes proteins based on RNA’s message.”
“But RNA isn’t just a middleman. It controls what proteins are formed. Because proteins wiz around the cell completing all sorts of important processes, you can say that RNA is the gatekeeper: no RNA message, no proteins, no life.”
“. . . synthetic biology promises far more than just a party trick—by tinkering with a cell’s RNA repertoire, scientists may one day coax them to photosynthesize, produce expensive drugs on the fly, or diagnose and hunt down rogue tumor cells.”
So, within the context of ribocomputing and synthetic biology, Shelly Fan speaks of the “software of life.” I think we have all now become accustomed, since early on in the COVID project, to this (now) iconic phrase.
Fan continued in her 2017 analysis, “This isn’t the first time that scientists hijacked life’s algorithms to reprogram cells into nanocomputing systems. Previous work has already introduced to the world yeast cells that can make anti-malaria drugs from sugar or mammalian cells that can perform Boolean logic. Yet circuits with multiple inputs and outputs remain hard to program. The reason is this: synthetic biologists have traditionally focused on snipping, fusing, or otherwise arranging a cell’s DNA to produce the outcomes they want (my emphasis).”
Fan sounded a few warnings:
“But DNA is two steps removed from proteins, and tinkering with life’s code often leads to unexpected consequences. For one, the cell may not even accept and produce the extra bits of DNA code. For another, the added code, when transformed into proteins, may not act accordingly in the crowded and ever-changing environment of the cell (my emphasis).”
“What’s more, tinkering with one gene is often not enough to program an entirely new circuit. Scientists often need to amp up or shut down the activity of multiple genes, or multiple biological “modules” each made up of tens or hundreds of genes.”
“It’s like trying to fit new Lego pieces in a specific order into a room full of Lego constructions. Each new piece has the potential to wander off track and click onto something it’s not supposed to touch.”
“Getting every moving component to work in sync—as you might have guessed—is a giant headache.”
“Because RNAs bind to others so predictably, we can now design massive libraries of gate and trigger units to mix-and-match into all types of nano-biocomputers.”
“Although the technology doesn’t have any immediate applications, the team has high hopes.”
“For the first time, it’s now possible to massively scale up the process of programming new circuits into living cells. We’ve expanded the library of available biocomponents that can be used to reprogram life’s basic code (my emphasis) . . .”
But here’s the kicker (as expressed by neuroscientist Fan) . . . and the punchline to this entire mRNA programming story:
“Because we’re using RNA, a universal molecule of life, we know these interactions can also work in other cells, so our method provides a general strategy that could be ported to other organisms . . . Ultimately, the hope is to program neural network-like capabilities into the body’s other cells. Imagine cells endowed with circuits capable of performing the kinds of computation the brain does . . . Perhaps one day, synthetic biology will transform our own cells into fully programmable entities, turning us all into biological cyborgs from the inside. How wild would that be? (my emphasis)”
Technocide, not Genocide
When I initially set out months ago to draft this final installment, I intended to title it “Baptism by Injection” to connote that those who were jabbed were initiates of a new cultish sect of religion — that of scientism. However, when watching two particular video clips, I surmise that many of the jabbed are not only initiated into a cult, but, rather, bewitched (accompanied by tribal fear and paranoia), and unfortunately, some may be unhinged. I know this is a strong declaration, but if you watch these two clips below, you may agree.
Despite evidence of significant — and potentially irrevocable — physical harm, this may not be suicide by injection, nor even genocide by injection, but rather, technocide by injection. Here, I am defining technocide as a new means of eugenics via technological means — namely genetic engineering. Read this astute analysis (dated August 15, 2021), “mRNA ‘Vaccines,’ Eugenics, and the Push for Transhumanism” at Dissident Voice. The author highlighted the concept of Eugenics 2.0, and here is one takeaway from this important read: “The rush to bring mRNA vaccines into the mainstream . . . is not about health or protection, but rather a step towards a much more sinister goal, which is to attain control over the human body itself.” This reflects the new and improved iteration of Eugenics, in which implantable nanoplatforms — synced to our hand-held smart devices — will collect biological data and provide “continuous physiologic monitoring.” In essence, we will be instituting this Eugenics program on ourselves. When will people wake up to this?
For those who think they are witnessing a massive culling operation and impending death camps, I would ask, where is the evidence? Moreover, could these fear-porn pushers be similarly hexed like their bewitched COVID-paranoid counterparts (as noted above)? Thus far, what I am observing is a highly advanced design-build project (or more accurately, a redesign-rebuild project), and our injected brethren are not being intentionally murdered, but rather, rebuiltfrom the bottom up, and the inside out — and yes, tragically, collateral damage seems to be occurring along the way. Nevertheless, why spend all this time, money, and effort, when mass murder could be a whole lot quicker and simpler?
While we may have been tiptoeing into a post-human future in which we could be managed like digitally-tagged livestock, this rush to inject the global population — come hell or high water, come cheesy commercial or burger-and-fries pimping propaganda — may have been the ideal tipping point into their long-coveted Singularitarian reality. Please read a relevant and insightful May 2020 monologue (articulating the merging of technology and humans) written by Clyde Lewis (host of Ground Zero) here.
Disruptive Lords of the Biosphere
Will you sync with the transhumanists as a post-human (most likely in an unknowing fashion), or will you consciously choose to swim against the transhumanist tide as a bonafide human “original?” If you choose the latter, moving forward, it will demand that you be proactive in your stance and deliberatein your actions. It may be time for non-Singularists to unite.
It is my opinion that this injectable nano-biologic is a literal ticket into becoming a mechanized, mineable, and programmable commodity amidst bio-digital slavery, and the adjoining QR-coded geofencing passport is simply the window dressing. We are staring down the barrel of a loaded gun, and the ammo is the transhumanist cocktail leading in only one direction — toward imperialistic-steered extinction of currently-defined humans (a soft genocide, if you will).
Make no mistake, this presumably nanotoxin-laced, genetic-altering serum may be a novel baptism vehicle into a not-so-holy cult of transhumanism. The emerging technology platform may be poised to replace the sacred structured water that sustains us and our DNA — which seems to reflect the true science and source of life.
While I stated that I did not wish to be redundant in this essay, I feel compelled to return to one self-proclaimed professional biohacker, in particular, (whom I previously featured in Part 3). As Chairman and Co-founder of Genome Project-write (GP-write), Andrew Hessel is not only prominent and influential in the field of synthetic biology, he is a strong voice within the Singularity movementas well. He openly admits to desiring to rewire and reprogram organisms “to do jobs they can’t do in their natural state.” Hessel aims to merge human with machinevia nanotechnology and programmable software (AKA synthetic messenger RNA). We should keep in mind that programmable RNA (of which mRNA is one form) is a living computationalnano-device.
In March 2021, Hessel had this to say on the topic of mRNA technology and how it “might kick-start a new age of vaccines”: “I wonder how people that are resistant to vaccines today would feel when they could potentially in a decade have a vaccine printer right in their home, and daily or regular updates to their protections, in much the same way as we get antivirus updates for our computer.” He continued, “So we can start to see a path where we have really precise detection, computational tools for automatic analysis and driving a design process that can produce vaccines, which are preventative or therapeutic for acute disease, pretty much as a value chain. And I think that’s just going to lead not only to better public health, better medicine, but the national defense against Mother Nature . . . (my emphasis)”
On July 20, 2021, the Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors posted a high-tech virtual presentation by Hessel, titled “Human Genomics: Mapping the genome — programming our lives in the future.” Hessel opened the discussion with, “The world is digitizing . . . Our cells are actually quite digital as well . . . and they are programmable like our computers . . . If you drill into the cell, there’s digital code.” He continued, “So, in general, I think of biology as a self-assembling nanotechnology, that is alien in its sophistication; and all of the diversity that we have in nature . . . are expressions of biological software . . .”
Jade Prévost-Manuel of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) wrote in August 2021 in his article, “Meet Scientist Andrew Hessel, a Surfer Riding the Waves of Innovation in Synthetic Biology”: “It’s the potential for scientific advances that Hessel says is why he looks at synthetic biology as the next big field to serve humanity — a topic he explores in a new book he co-wrote with author Amy Webb called The Genesis Machine: Our Quest to Rewrite Life in the Age of Synthetic Biology. ‘Programming biology is just going to take us to the next level of manufacturing, recycling and producing materials that nature gives us the hardware to do essentially, but was never selected to do,’ he says. Synthetic biology isn’t without its critics, and no one knows that better than Hessel. Some would say that to dare to synthesize a virus or even consider rewiring the DNA of a bacterium is to play the role of a god. His answer? Playing deity is something we do all the time, and not just in biology . . . Anytime we take control of any system, we’re playing the gods,’ he says. ‘I wear glasses and without these, I’d be useless, so our technology gives us godlike powers, you know, to shape our lives and our world.’ (my emphasis)”
In conclusion, we may be able to infer some final hints from notable transhumanist, futurist, and biotech entrepreneur, Peter Diamandis, executive founder of Singularity University. In his 2020 book (co-authored with Steven Kotler), The Future is Faster Than You Think, Diamandis reflects on the quickening that I sense we are experiencing in relation to the acceleration in bio-digital convergence: “In the 1990s, Ray Kurzweil, the director of engineering at Google and [my] cofounding partner in Singularity University, discovered that once a technology becomes digital— that is, once it can be programmed in the ones and zeroes of computer code — it hops on the back of Moore’s Law and begins accelerating exponentially.” Diamandis continued, “. . . formerly independent waves of exponentially accelerating technology are beginning to converge with other independent waves of exponentially accelerating technology. For example, the speed of drug development is accelerating, not only because biotechnology is progressing at an exponential rate, but because artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and a couple other exponentials are converging on the field. In other words, these waves are starting to overlap, stacking atop one another, producing tsunami-sized behemoths that threaten to watch away most everything in their path.”
Heed my warning . . . Do not be swept away by the tsunami wave of disruptive innovation tempting the unsuspecting with talk of revolutionary bionanotechnology, with goals to combat Mother Nature. Do not become assimilated by this swarm of alluring gadgetry, with its explicit aims to converge biology and computers via digital genetic engineering.
In the words of John Robert McNeill in Something New Under the Sun — and in the context of what he described as the massive scale of human impact on the ecosystems in the 20th century (via science and technology) — he somberly asserted that through this unnatural human-dominated regime, we have become “what most cultures long imagined us to be: lords of the biosphere.” Who the heck gave us this right? One bio-technologically spellbound individual, Stewart Brand, put forth in his Whole Earth Catalog in 1968, “We are as gods, so we might as well get good at it.” Who deemed him a god?!
Instead, I suggest there may be natural and humble ways to build back better — or at the very least, fortify ourselves and our loved ones — and we can discuss these alternative means moving forward. I cannot see into the uncertain and potentially topsy turvy future being driven by techno-smitten humans, but I leave you with a recent quote from my dear friend, Alison McDowell: “I’m choosing to inhabit the space of possibility rather than inevitability.” In my heart, I know we got this, and I am confident we have each others’ backs. Onward we go . . . Hold steady and centered, and true to your heart and your nature-endowed humanity . . .
1) Following is a complete list of the installments comprising this series, in addition to six stand-alone posts I wrote that are relevant to the topic of bio-digital convergence.
Stand-alone posts (but no less relevant):
2) Accordingly, readers can explore these pertinent offerings regarding COVID injections and transhumanism:
“According to Dr. Miklos Lukacs de Pereny, a research professor of science and technology in Peru, the COVID-19 pandemic was manufactured by the world’s elites as part of a plan to globally advance “transhumanism” — literally, the fusion of human beings with technology in an attempt to alter human nature itself.”
3) Steven R. Leonard was founding CEO of SGInnovate, and is now CEO of Singularity University. According to crunchbase, Leonard was also Adviser at the National Research Foundation (NRF), a speaker at 5G Asia 2017, and a speaker at Internet of Things World Asia in 2018. He is still Executive Deputy Chairman at Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (iDA)
Incidentally, I had begun to research Singapore’s SGInnovate (and its partnership with ST Engineering) and Leonard in January 2019 — popping up on my radar with the reported incident of the Covington boy, Nicholas Sandmann. Do readers recall that story (see here and here)?
In any case, as I had discovered in 2019, Nick Sandmann’s father, Ted, worked forVT Hackney, which is a VT Systems company (aerospace, electronics, land systems and marine sectors, including satellite-based IP communications technology and weapons/munitions systems.). Headquartered in Alexandria, Va., VT Systems operates globally and is a wholly owned subsidiary of ST Engineering — headquartered in Singapore. So readers may grasp why I already had Singapore on the brain, so to speak; and may be curious, as I am, with regard to the potential connections (albeit by connecting a few dots) between the Covington boy event (and his dad) and the Singularity. In an uncanny (or planned?) way, these phenomena do seem to connect.
“Who Discovered Messenger RNA (mRNA)?” May 12, 2020
“Biography: From grasshopper to grand old man” Nature, September 22, 2010
“What was the most ‘elegant’ experiment ever? Many molecular biologists, who were active during the so-called ‘golden age’ of the 1950s and 1960s, might opt for the 1958 experiment of Mathew Meselson and Franklin Stahl, which demonstrated the semiconservative replication of DNA (1). My choice is the 1960 experiment by Sidney Brenner, Francois Jacob, and Matt Meselson, which established the existence of messenger RNA (mRNA) (2). The story behind the discovery is an appropriate topic for the blog since bacteriophage T2 had a key role to play. It is told here, largely through the words of one of its contributors, Pasteur Institute scientist and Nobel laureate, Francois Jacob (3)“
“Imagine for the moment that we are back in the late 1950s, at a time when the precise role of RNA was not yet known. However, pertinent evidence was accumulating, which implied that RNA had a role in protein synthesis. For example, cellular RNA levels correlated with the levels of protein synthesis.”
“But what might the role of RNA be? The example of eukaryotic cells seemed to indicate that DNA could not directly serve as the template for protein synthesis. The DNA in those cells is contained within the membrane-bounded nucleus, whereas protein synthesis occurs in the cytoplasm. Might RNA then serve as an intermediate information carrier?”
“Ribocomputing devices for sophisticated in vivo logic computation” (abstract only from a conference proceeding), 3rd ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication, ACM NANOCOM 2016 – New York, United States, September 2016
“Synthetic biology aims to create functional devices, systems, and organisms with novel and useful functions taking advantage of engineering principles applied to biology. Despite great progress over the last decade, an underlying problem in synthetic biology remains the limited number of high-performance, modular, composable parts. A potential route to solve parts bottleneck problem in synthetic biology utilizes the programmability of nucleic acids inspired by molecular programming approaches that have demonstrated complex biomolecular circuits evaluating logic expressions in test tubes. Using a library of de-novo-designed toehold switches with orthogonality and modular composability, we demonstrate how toehold switches can be incorporated into decision-making RNA networks termed ribocomputing devices to rapidly evaluate complex logic in living cells . . . The compact encoding of ribocomputing system using a library of modular parts is amenable to aggressive scale-up towards complex control of in vivo circuitry towards autonomous behaviors and biomedical applications.”
“Synthetic biologists at Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineeringand associates have developed a living programmable ‘ribocomputing’ device based on networks of precisely designed, self-assembling synthetic RNAs (ribonucleic acid). The RNAs can sense multiple biosignals and make logical decisions to control protein production with high precision.”
“As reported in Nature, the synthetic biological circuits could be used to produce drugs, fine chemicals, and biofuels or detect disease-causing agents and release therapeutic molecules inside the body. The low-cost diagnostic technologies may even lead to nanomachines capable of hunting down cancer cells or switching off aberrant genes.”
“Similar to a digital circuit, these synthetic biological circuits can process information and make logic-guided decisions, using basic logic operations — AND, OR, and NOT. But instead of detecting voltages, the decisions are based on specific chemicals or proteins, such as toxins in the environment, metabolite levels, or inflammatory signals. The specific ribocomputing parts can be readily designed on a computer.”
“Ultimately, researchers hope to induce cells to communicate with one another via programmable molecular signals, forming a truly interactive, brain-like network, according to lead author Alex Green, an assistant professor at Arizona State University’s Biodesign Institute.“
“Wyss Institute Core Faculty member Peng Yin, Ph.D., who led the study, is also Professor of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School.”
“The study was funded by the Wyss Institute’s Molecular Robotics Initiative, a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Living Foundries grant, and grants from the National Institute of Health (NIH), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA).”
“A Nano-biosensors model with optimized bio-cyber communication system based on Internet of Bio-Nano Things for thrombosis prediction” (abstract only), Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2020
“Thrombosis is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Out of four, one person is dying of thrombosis; yet, the seriousness of this disease is underappreciated. Its early prediction and prevention continue to be a dilemma that confuses researchers. Nevertheless, a light can be seen at the end of the tunnel; thanks to nanoscience which has led to the development of new generations of nanostructure with different applications in bio-medicine and bio-engineering. The key paradigm for the Internet of Nano Things (IoNT) has allowed for new medical data to be collected which potentially helps achieve more accurate disease prediction. It has enabled real-time health services and turned the physical space of a patient into a smart space. While an enabler for several applications, the artificial nature of Internet of Nano Things devices can be harmful where the implementation of Nano Things may lead to unintended health effects. To overcome this issue, researchers have suggested the novel paradigm of the IoBNT that combines nanotechnology with tools from synthetic biology to provide reengineering of biological embedded computing devices. IoBNT promises many medical applications, such as intra-body sensing and actuation networks, based on biological cells and their characteristics in the biochemical field. In this paper, a novel IoBNT-based model with an optimized Bio-Cyber communication interface that helps predict and analyze blood vessel clots is introduced. The model utilizes a bio-interface to collect information on the blood vessels and convert it into an electrical equivalent format. Furthermore, the optical or thermal responsiveness excites the release of definite nano-carrier molecules such as liposomes which may be devised across the bloodstream and enter the targeted area passively to stimulate suitable nano-devices to predict the clots. The Bio-Cyber interface is used for linking the traditional electromagnetic wave to the Bio-Signaling Network based on the bioluminescence concept. Lab-scale simulation analysis shows prominent outcomes in the prediction of blood vessel clots with 97.66% accuracy and 12.22% tolerance level in error rate.”