Posted on

Technocratic control schemes of the parasite class

November 28, 2022 | Technocratic control schemes of the parasite class |

Technocracy can be defined as a scientific dictatorship.

The method of control is through a centrally organized, linked, and monitored monetary and economic system.

The 1938 Technocrat Magazine described technocracy as “The science  of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.”

The UN is the vehicle attempting to install technocratic world governance. In lockstep with Agenda 21/2030, 193 nations have collaborated to replace individual liberty, national sovereignty, and free enterprise, with collectivism, control and slavery.

One way to begin rejecting the technocrat control scheme is by turning off the “smart” phone, which functions as a globalist weapon for monitoring and enslavement.

Another way to unplug from the globalist agenda is by organizing locally, working with State and Local legislators to enforce the Constitution and protect individual and State sovereignty. -JD

 


 

By Iain Davis |  November 25, 2022  |  off-guardian.org  |

Totalitarianism is a form of government that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression. It does not permit individual freedom. Traditional social institutions and organizations are discouraged and suppressed, making people more willing to be merged into a single unified movement. Totalitarian states typically pursue a special goal to the exclusion of all others, with all resources directed toward its attainment, regardless of the cost.

That “special” goal is sustainable development and no cost, either financial or humanitarian, is too great to tackle the alleged “climate crisis.” In reality, climate change is simply the excuse for sustainable development and it is through the global policy commitment to “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) that technocracy is being installed.

A technocratic society is called a Technate and the world’s first Technate has emerged in China. In this two part exploration we will look at how this system was constructed, who was behind it and why technocracy is now being foisted upon all of us.

These articles are drawn largely from my 2021 publication Pseudopandemic. It is free to subscribers to my blog.

GLOBAL TECHNOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

In order for global technocracy to be rolled-out, authority needs to be centrally controlled at the global level. Governments, intergovernmental organisations and multinational corporations have collaborated to form a global public-private partnership  (G3P) for this purpose.

Throughout the 20th and 21st century the G3P network has sought to construct global governance. In turn, global governance enables the worldwide distribution of the technocracy that governments then convert into national policy commitments. Many components of global technocratic governance have already been established.

The World Heath Organisation (WHO) delivers global governance of public health; global access to technological development is meted out through the World Intellectual Property Organization; the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) works to coordinate economic policies between nation-states and global trade is monitored and controlled through the trade agreements overseen by the World Trade Organisation.

The Bank For International Settlements (BIS) coordinates global monetary policy and the flow of capital; the direction of education, academia, the sciences and cultural development is steered through the U.N Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the seizure of the global commons and the “financialisation” of nature—through natural asset companies and other mechanisms—is nearing completion.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are centrally controlled through global governance, primarily by the U.N Development and Environmental programs (UNDP & UNEP). The necessary global scientific consensus on climate change is centrally administered and the appropriate research funding streams allocated, by the U.N’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The powerful individuals, pushing the G3P project forward, are a collective of mass polluters, robber barons, land grabbers and the world’s leading exponents of worker exploitation, market manipulation, monetary extortion (usury) and oppression. They form what would otherwise be considered a criminal cartel but have greenwashed their reputations through their commitment to so-called “sustainable development.”

Often referred to as the elite, a more fitting description is “the parasite class.”

The G3P has managed to convince billions that it is committed to sustainable, net zero, environmentalism and wants to “save the planet.” It is actually determined to empower global governance and enforce technocracy upon humanity through SDGs and the associated policy Agendas. Regardless of what you think about the causes of climate change or the level of risk it presents, SDGs do nothing to address itand are designed to serve no-one and nothing other than the G3P and its interests.

In order to requisition, commodify, audit and ultimately divide up the Earth’s resources among themselves, the stakeholder capitalists, at the heart of the G3P, also need technocratic control. Once humanity figures out what has happened, technocracy will enable the G3P to shutdown resistance through literal population control.

Every human being will be individually monitored by Artificial Intelligence (AI) networks which will punish or reward them, depending upon their behaviour. Biosecurity and environmental concerns are set to provide the justification for this enslavement.

Much like the quack pseudo-science of eugenics, which many G3P “thought leaders” seem to believe, Technocracy was the social sciencecertainty of its day. Like eugenics, while it has subsequently faded from public consciousness, it is still avidly pursued by the G3P’s compartmentalised hierarchy.

TECHNOCRACY

In 1911, arguably the worlds first management consultant, Frederick Winslow Taylor, published The Principles of Scientific Management. His publication came at the culmination of the Progressive Era in the United States.

This was a period marked by the political activism of the US middle class who mainly sought to address the underlying social problems, as they saw them, of excessive industrialisation, immigration and political corruption. So-called “Taylorism,” fixated with the imminent exhaustion of natural resources and advocating efficient “scientific management systems,” was in the spirit of the age.

Taylor wrote:

In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first. [. . .] The best management is a true science, resting upon clearly defined laws, rules, and principles. [. . . ] The fundamental principles of scientific management are applicable to all kinds of human activities, from our simplest individual acts to the work of our great corporations.

 

Link To Full Article HERE


 

 

Image Source

Posted on

2019: Fauci Testimony on Self-assembling Nanoparticle V@xx

November 27, 2022 | ZeroMandatoryVaxx.com  | 2019: Fauci Testimony on Self-assembling Nanoparticle V@xx | Image Source

Investigation into harmful v@xx ingredients has revealed a wide range of hazardous contaminants including components that self assemble. Pandemic Timeline has provided documentation in substantiation, with 2019 testimony from Fauci and an Executive Order 13887, signed by Trump on September 19, 2019.

It’s notable that Fauci was in a leadership role at National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, serving in 7 presidential administrations.  -JD

 


 

By Pandemic Timeline | Source

Link To_Testimony – Fauci (NIH) 12.04.2019

Link To_Executive Order 13887_Trump 09.19.2019

See also, on this site:

 

Link To Article @ Source_HERE

 


 

 

“Teslaphoresis” is self-assembly at a distance.

 

 

April 14, 2016 | Mike Williams | Rice University |  Source |Link To Video

 


 

Design of Wireless Nanosensor Networks for Intrabody Application

LINK

 


 

NEUROWeapons: 5G + VAXX = WMD

LINK

 


 

Art of War: US-China-CDC Partnership

LINK

 


 

Posted on

Nanobots, Construction process of Microchips in C19 injectables, new insights on Shedding

November 15, 2022 |  ZeroMandatoryVaxx.com  | Re: The Operation Warp Speed War on Humanity

Groundbreaking research revealing self-assembling transbiologicals, synthetic biologicals and nanotech found in the blood and excretions of vaxxed – and also unvaxxed. -JD

 


Nanobots, Construction process of Microchips in C19 injectables, new insights on Shedding | By Ana Maria Mihalcea, MD PHD

Dr. David Nixon, Dr. Shimon Yanowitz, Electrical Engineer Matt Taylor and Dr. Ana Mihalcea Present Updates on Research Findings

In this video Dr. David Nixon presents new images evaluating the Nanorobots that are constructing the microchips. We discuss the light transmission of certain circuitry and possible explanations of optical communication. We discuss the hydrogel construction base that appears to carry the software imprint on the self assembly process. I present new images of Live blood Analysis in vaccinated people from Dr Nixon and unvaccinated showing similar self assembly structures. Dr. Yanowitz shows self assembly ribbons from C19 vials and how they are the same thing we see in the live blood from shedding and environmental exposure. Do not miss this information packed update!

Rumble:

Nanobots, Construction process of Microchips in C19 injectables, new insights on Shedding

Brighteon:

Nanobots, Construction process of Microchips in C19 injectables, new insights on Shedding

 

 

 


 

Aerosolized Nanobot Described in 2012 Geoengineering Business Model

LINK

 


 

Doctors find “shards” of graphene shedding from vaxxed to unvaxxed

Link

 


 

Detox Protocols

Graphene Oxide Detox Protocols For The Vaxxed and Unvaxxed

LINK

 


 

Design of Wireless Nanosensor Networks for Intrabody Application

LINK

 


 

Vaxx Tracking / US Patent 11,107,588 B2

LINK

 


 

Nano-tech in C19 Injections

Nano-Technology in C0v|d Injections – It’s for Communications, It’s Technological Parasitism

LINK

 


 

 

Vaccine nanotechnology

LINK

 


 

Posted on

7 Reasons Why Gene Editing is Dangerous and Unpredictable

Gene editing and GMO’s are another example where safety regulations and ethics need to be inserted into the fields of science and engineering. -JD

 


7 Reasons Why Gene Editing is Dangerous and Unpredictable

October 6, 2022 | By The Institute For Responsible Technology – IRT |  Gene editing threatens our food and the genetic integrity of all living things  | Image Source_Youtube

 

 

Gene editing is cheap, easy, prone to side effects, poorly regulated and can permanently alter nature’s gene pool-a recipe for disaster.

 

 


 

Exposing The Fraud

 

According to the world’s most prestigious journals, gene editing creates damage to the genome. Nature describes it as “Chromosomal Mayhem”. So how does the biotech industry get away with claiming the opposite?

We are witnessing a well-funded disinformation campaign, reminiscent of the tactics used by Monsanto for decades. They feed scripted talking points and ghostwritten materials to a coordinated chorus of promoters, front groups, paid scientists, captured regulatory agencies, and biotech friendly media. Government sanctioned pro-GMO committees are often comprised of industry-approved members with clear conflicts of interest. On the other hand, highly credentialed, independent experts are not invited to share their evidence of potential harm from gene editing.

Link To Read More HERE

 

 

 

Link To Full Article HERE

Link To Video HERE

Link To Join IRT in the fight against GMOs HERE

 


Zero-GMO.com

Posted on

Federal government ramps up research to manipulate the human brain and engineer DNA

Federal government ramps up research to manipulate the human brain and engineer DNA

September 30, 2022 |

Acting president Biden recently intensified his war against Americans with an executive order ramping up genetic modification and brain manipulation. This blatant violation of ethics and human rights is clearly unconstitutional, however these kinds of policies seem to be the standard from corporate politicians serving in Washington, D.C.  -JD

 


 

 


 

Karen Kingston Warns That Joe Biden’s Executive Order Makes Crimes Against Humanity Mandatory

September 22, 2022 | By

Link To Video

 

 


 

Source: https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/29/federal-research-on-manipulating-brains-and-rewriting-dna-should-worry-us-all/

 

The future of evolution is now in our hands. Or rather, the godlike power to alter biology rests in a few scientists’ hands, and we’re all going to pay for it, one way or another. The U.S. government is pouring billions of dollars into understanding genetics and the human brain, and most consequentially, how to manipulate those systems.

Last week, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched its “BRAIN 2.0” initiative (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnology), ramping up an existing program started eight years ago. Comparable to the Human Genome Project in scope and scale, BRAIN 2.0 grants $600 million to fully map our 86 billion neurons and their uncounted connections. The project is expected to reach a grand total cost of $5 billion by 2026.

In theory, once scientists have created this detailed brain atlas in silicothey can directly alter neural function using digital devices. The director of the BRAIN Initiative, John Ngai, exhibits a troubling fixation on this method.

In a recent interview with Stat News, Ngai noted two concrete results of his current neuro-mapping efforts. One is an advanced brain-computer interface — implanted last year at the University of California, San Francisco — that allows for astounding thought-to-text communication. The other is a major breakthrough in deep brain stimulation at Baylor University, where electrodes are implanted to alter mood and behavior, relieving depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Ngai’s cyborg obsession is shared by his close government partner, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), where “man-computer symbiosis” has been a longstanding paradigm. The defense agency’s involvement in the BRAIN Initiative is open and well documented. However, beyond the NIH’s declared mission to heal, our top military minds also have a deep interest in human enhancement.

“DARPA has been a pioneer in brain-machine interface technology since the 1970s, but we began investing heavily in the early 2000s,” boasted Justin Sanchez, the director of DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office. “We’ve laid the groundwork for a future in which advanced brain interface technologies will transform how people live and work.”

This transformation involves neural implants, to an extent, but also non-invasive devices, such as wearable neuro-bands or skull caps. “Imagine what will become possible when we upgrade our tools to really open the channel between the human brain and modern electronics,” said DARPA program manager Phillip Alvelda, whose goals include “Bridging the Bio-Electronic Divide” and developing a “High-Resolution, Implantable Neural Interface.”

If successful, the atlas created by BRAIN 2.0 will be a crucial bridge across this “bio-electronic divide.” The neural territory will be mapped and ready to conquer.

‘The Century of Engineered Biology’

This mad quest to alter basic biology extends all the way down to the genome. Two weeks ago, the White House announced that $2 billion will go to reshaping life as we know it by way of the National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative. “We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques,” the executive order reads, “to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers.” Another $1 billion will go toward creating the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), with a full $6.5 billion requested for its “high-risk, high-reward” projects.

Last Wednesday, the new agency’s inaugural director, Renee Wegrzyn, reminded her colleagues that humans now have the ability to alter DNA at will. But because gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR have become so inexpensive and widespread, she warned, the specters of accidental pathogens or intentional bioweapons pose a grave threat to humankind.

“We’re ushering in the century of engineered biology,” Wegrzyn declared with a weird fake-smile, “whether it’s through gene-editing, or it’s through engineering of living medicines that will be in our gut — or in soil to promote fertilization and growth, especially as we face challenges like climate change.”

What else does this “century of engineered biology” hold in store? According to Wegrzyn, a former DARPA program manager, this revolution will lead to “human-machine convergence” and the creation of “Human 2.0.”

“These are things that are somewhere on the horizon,” she told the Long Now Foundation in 2017, “that genome engineering and gene-editing will be a part of. So how do we make sure we can pursue this future in a safe manner?”

Taking up the transhumanist torch, Wegrzyn lauded “defensive enhancement,” citing the example of mass vaccination to enhance our immune systems. She also addressed “offensive enhancement,” such as improvements in human “performance” and “cognitive state.”

“It’s evolution on steroids,” she said flippantly, “now in our control.” With a strange chuckle, she assured the audience that “we’re solidly on the defensive side.” If that’s the case, her DARPA projects were outliers at the agency.

Thinking about that culture of radical enhancement partnered with the vaccine-crazy NIH, it’s easy to imagine a dark future of increasingly unhinged “safe and effective” campaigns. The creation of ARPA-H appears to be an official marriage of the military-industrial complex to the biomedical establishment, with BRAIN 2.0 standing by the altar like a ring-bearing stepchild.

Federally Funded Transhumanism

Various skeptics, myself included, call this federally funded transhumanism for good reason. The resonance is obvious. In his “Letter to Mother Nature,” penned in 1999, the OG transhumanist Max More declared humanity’s freedom from our natural inheritance:

Through genetic alterations, cellular manipulations, synthetic organs, and any necessary means, we will endow ourselves with enduring vitality and remove our expiration date. … Not content with that, we will seek complete choice of our bodily form and function, refining and augmenting our physical and intellectual capabilities beyond any human in history. … While we pursue mastery of our own biochemistry, we will increasingly integrate our advancing technologies into our selves.

We’ve entered a bizarre era where sculpting human brains and bodies — and the underlying genes — may soon be as commonplace as nose jobs and genetically modified tomatoes are today. The crucial decision to move from healing to enhancement is just over the horizon, and your tax dollars are laying the foundation.

Today, it’s selective abortions and smartphone-symbiosis. Tomorrow, it will be designer babies and wearable brain-computer interfaces. To their credit, both Renee Wegrzyn and John Ngai have said we need public debates about how far we go with these technologies. Up till now, all we’ve seen are trans children, cringy metaverse ads, and vaccine mandates.

Maybe you’re enthusiastic about our transhuman trajectory. Or maybe, like me, you’re appalled by the hubris behind it. My purpose here is not to convince you of which position to take.

What’s important is that you’re thinking about where we’re at, right now, and where these efforts to rewrite DNA and irradiate brains are going. To the extent our voices are heard, we have to insist on making our own plans for the future — because regardless of our opinions, reckless technocrats are busy making those plans for us.

Link To Read Full Article HERE

 


Image Source

Posted on

Flying Syringes: Scientists Genetically Engineer V@xx-Injecting Mosquitos

Flying Syringes: Scientists Genetically Engineer V@xx-Injecting Mosquitos

September 28, 2022 | The Counter Signal  | Technocracy News

In  recent clinical trials[1], mosquitoes were used to see if they could “vaccinate” humans. The experiments involved 26 participants who were paid $4,100 to put their arm in a box filled with hungry mosquitoes. The genetically modified insects deliver live malaria-causing Plasmodium parasites which are claimed to not make people sick.  The trials were funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  Lead author of the study[2], Dr. Sean Murphy said, “We use the mosquitoes like they’re 1,000 small flying syringes”.

If you’re thinking that this sounds just like a Bill Gates scheme[3] you’re correct.  Back in 2008, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded $100,000 to Hiroyuki Matsuoka of Jichi Medical University in Japan, to research  genetically modified mosquitoes that could deliver “vaccines”.  There are numerous ethical problems with this concept, one of which is the question of consent in the real world. How could assurance be made that these genetically modified flying syringes would stay in the lab?

It’s important to note that expert eugenist Bill Gates is not a licensed medical doctor nor was he ever elected to make health decisions for the human population. -JD

 

Reference

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/09/21/1112727841/a-box-of-200-mosquitoes-did-the-vaccinating-in-this-malaria-trial-thats-not-a-jo

[2] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.abn9709

[3] https://sarahwestall.com/flying-syringes-bill-gates-wants-to-release-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-to-inject-you-with-vaccines/

 


 

Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Vaccinate A Human

Mike Campbell | September 27, 2022 |  The Counter Signal

A box full of genetically modified mosquitos successfully vaccinated a human against malaria in a trial funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH).

Genetically modified mosquitoes vaccinate a human 

The study involved about 200 hungry mosquitos biting a human subject’s arm. Human participants placed their arms directly over a small box full of the bloodsuckers.

“We use the mosquitoes like they’re 1,000 small flying syringes,” said researcher Dr. Sean Murphy, as reported by NPR.

Three to five “vaccinations” took place over 30-day intervals.

The mosquitos gave minor versions of malaria that didn’t make people sick, but gave them antibodies. Efficacy from the antibodies lasted a few months.

“Half of the individuals in each vaccine group did not develop detectable P. falciparum infection, and a subset of these individuals was subjected to a second CHMI 6 months later and remained partially protected. These results support further development of genetically attenuated sporozoites as potential malaria vaccines,” researchers concluded.

Carolina Reid was one of twenty-six participants in the study.

“My whole forearm swelled and blistered. My family was laughing, asking like, ‘why are you subjecting yourself to this?’”

Reid enjoyed her experience so much that she says she wants to participate in as many vaccine trials as she can. For this research, each participant received $4,100 as an incentive.

Adverse reactions were what one would expect after getting bit by hundreds of mosquitos and nothing more.

Dr. Kirsten Lyke calls the research “a total game changer.”

Lyke led the phase 1 trials for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine and was a co-investigator for Moderna and Novavax COVID vaccines.

Link To Full Article HERE

 

 


 

 

2017 Flying syringes
Gates_US military

 

 


 

Posted on

Executive Order: Biden Unleashes Transhuman, Genetic Modification Firestorm On America

President Eisenhower WARNING 1961: “Public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Joe Biden’s Executive Order[1] to advance biotechnology is another[2] example of the technocratic war he is waging against the American People and the natural world.

This unethical policy provides funding of alphabet agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security[3][4][5] for unconstitutional engagement with “international partners” in potential biowarfare[6] programs[7] such as genomics,[8] that violate human rights, individual sovereignty, and God-given freedom. -JD

 


Executive Order: Biden Unleashes Transhuman, Genetic Modification Firestorm On America

Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

 

September 13, 2022 | Technocracy News

Transhumanists and Technocrats in Big Pharma have cracked the U.S. government wide open to flood the bioeconomy with taxpayer money and labor to push the frontier of genetic modification of all living things and especially humans. This will ultimately spark the biggest public backlash in modern history. 

Biden pledges not only funding but an all-of-government transformation to support this anti-human scheme from top to bottom. It also automatically blocks any agency or department from dissent. ⁃ TN Editor


 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.  It is the policy of my Administration to coordinate a whole-of-government approach to advance biotechnology and biomanufacturing towards innovative solutions in health, climate change, energy, food security, agriculture, supply chain resilience, and national and economic security.  Central to this policy and its outcomes are principles of equity, ethics, safety, and security that enable access to technologies, processes, and products in a manner that benefits all Americans and the global community and that maintains United States technological leadership and economic competitiveness.

Biotechnology harnesses the power of biology to create new services and products, which provide opportunities to grow the United States economy and workforce and improve the quality of our lives and the environment.  The economic activity derived from biotechnology and biomanufacturing is referred to as “the bioeconomy.”  The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the vital role of biotechnology and biomanufacturing in developing and producing life-saving diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines that protect Americans and the world.  Although the power of these technologies is most vivid at the moment in the context of human health, biotechnology and biomanufacturing can also be used to achieve our climate and energy goals, improve food security and sustainability, secure our supply chains, and grow the economy across all of America.

For biotechnology and biomanufacturing to help us achieve our societal goals, the United States needs to invest in foundational scientific capabilities.  We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers; unlock the power of biological data, including through computing tools and artificial intelligence; and advance the science of scale‑up production while reducing the obstacles for commercialization so that innovative technologies and products can reach markets faster.

Simultaneously, we must take concrete steps to reduce biological risks associated with advances in biotechnology.  We need to invest in and promote biosafety and biosecurity to ensure that biotechnology is developed and deployed in ways that align with United States principles and values and international best practices, and not in ways that lead to accidental or deliberate harm to people, animals, or the environment.  In addition, we must safeguard the United States bioeconomy, as foreign adversaries and strategic competitors alike use legal and illegal means to acquire United States technologies and data, including biological data, and proprietary or precompetitive information, which threatens United States economic competitiveness and national security.

We also must ensure that uses of biotechnology and biomanufacturing are ethical and responsible; are centered on a foundation of equity and public good, consistent with Executive Order 13985 of January 20, 2021 (Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government); and are consistent with respect for human rights.  Resources should be invested justly and equitably so that biotechnology and biomanufacturing technologies benefit all Americans, especially those in underserved communities, as well as the broader global community.

To achieve these objectives, it is the policy of my Administration to:

(a)  bolster and coordinate Federal investment in key research and development (R&D) areas of biotechnology and biomanufacturing in order to further societal goals;

(b)  foster a biological data ecosystem that advances biotechnology and biomanufacturing innovation, while adhering to principles of security, privacy, and responsible conduct of research;

(c)  improve and expand domestic biomanufacturing production capacity and processes, while also increasing piloting and prototyping efforts in biotechnology and biomanufacturing to accelerate the translation of basic research results into practice;

(d)  boost sustainable biomass production and create climate-smart incentives for American agricultural producers and forest landowners;

(e)  expand market opportunities for bioenergy and biobased products and services;

(f)  train and support a diverse, skilled workforce and a next generation of leaders from diverse groups to advance biotechnology and biomanufacturing;

(g)  clarify and streamline regulations in service of a science- and risk-based, predictable, efficient, and transparent system to support the safe use of products of biotechnology;

(h)  elevate biological risk management as a cornerstone of the life cycle of biotechnology and biomanufacturing R&D, including by providing for research and investment in applied biosafety and biosecurity innovation;

(i)  promote standards, establish metrics, and develop systems to grow and assess the state of the bioeconomy; to better inform policy, decision-making, and investments in the bioeconomy; and to ensure equitable and ethical development of the bioeconomy;

(j)  secure and protect the United States bioeconomy by adopting a forward‑looking, proactive approach to assessing and anticipating threats, risks, and potential vulnerabilities (including digital intrusion, manipulation, and exfiltration efforts by foreign adversaries), and by partnering with the private sector and other relevant stakeholders to jointly mitigate risks to protect technology leadership and economic competitiveness; and

(k)  engage the international community to enhance biotechnology R&D cooperation in a way that is consistent with United States principles and values and that promotes best practices for safe and secure biotechnology and biomanufacturing research, innovation, and product development and use.

The efforts undertaken pursuant to this order to further these policies shall be referred to collectively as the National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative.

Sec. 2.  Coordination.  The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy (APEP) and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), shall coordinate the executive branch actions necessary to implement this order through the interagency process described in National Security Memorandum 2 of February 4, 2021 (Renewing the National Security Council System) (NSM-2 process).  In implementing this order, heads of agencies (as defined in section 13 of this order) shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, consult outside stakeholders, such as those in industry; academia; nongovernmental organizations; communities; labor unions; and State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments to advance the policies described in section 1 of this order.

Sec. 3.  Harnessing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing R&D to Further Societal Goals.  (a)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the heads of agencies specified in subsections (a)(i)-(v) of this section shall submit the following reports on biotechnology and biomanufacturing to further societal goals related to health, climate change and energy, food and agricultural innovation, resilient supply chains, and cross-cutting scientific advances.  The reports shall be submitted to the President through the APNSA, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the APEP, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy (APDP), and the Director of OSTP.

(i)    The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Secretary, shall submit a report assessing how to use biotechnology and biomanufacturing to achieve medical breakthroughs, reduce the overall burden of disease, and improve health outcomes.

(ii)   The Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Secretary, shall submit a report assessing how to use biotechnology, biomanufacturing, bioenergy, and biobased products to address the causes and adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change, including by sequestering carbon and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

(iii)  The Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Secretary, shall submit a report assessing how to use biotechnology and biomanufacturing for food and agriculture innovation, including by improving sustainability and land conservation; increasing food quality and nutrition; increasing and protecting agricultural yields; protecting against plant and animal pests and diseases; and cultivating alternative food sources.

(iv)   The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of HHS, and the heads of other appropriate agencies as determined by the Secretary of Commerce, shall submit a report assessing how to use biotechnology and biomanufacturing to strengthen the resilience of United States supply chains.

(v)    The Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Director, shall submit a report identifying high-priority fundamental and use‑inspired basic research goals to advance biotechnology and biomanufacturing and to address the societal goals identified in this section.

(b)  Each report specified in subsection (a) of this section shall identify high-priority basic research and technology development needs to achieve the overall objectives described in subsection (a) of this section, as well as opportunities for public-private collaboration.  Each of these reports shall also include recommendations for actions to enhance biosafety and biosecurity to reduce risk throughout the biotechnology R&D and biomanufacturing lifecycles.

(c)  Within 100 days of receiving the reports required under subsection (a) of this section, the Director of OSTP, in coordination with the Director of OMB, the APNSA, the APEP, the APDP, and the heads of appropriate agencies as determined through the NSM-2 process, shall develop a plan (implementation plan) to implement the recommendations in the reports.  The development of this implementation plan shall also include the solicitation of input from external experts regarding potential ethical implications or other societal impacts, including environmental sustainability and environmental justice, of the recommendations contained in the reports required under subsection (a) of this section.  The implementation plan shall include assessments and make recommendations regarding any such implications or impacts.

(d)  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined through the NSM-2 process, shall perform a budget crosscut to identify existing levels of agency spending on biotechnology- and biomanufacturing-related activities to inform the development of the implementation plan described in subsection (c) of this section.

(e)  The APNSA, in coordination with the Director of OMB, the APEP, the APDP, and the Director of OSTP, shall review the reports required under subsection (a) of this section and shall submit the reports to the President in an unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

(f)  The APNSA, in coordination with the Director of OMB, the APEP, the APDP, and the Director of OSTP, shall include a cover memorandum for the reports submitted pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, along with the implementation plan required under subsection (c) of this section, in which they make any additional overall recommendations for advancing biotechnology and biomanufacturing.

(g)  Within 2 years of the date of this order, agencies at which recommendations are directed in the implementation plan required under subsection (c) of this section shall report to the Director of OMB, the APNSA, the APEP, the APDP, and the Director of OSTP on measures taken and resources allocated to enhance biotechnology and biomanufacturing, consistent with the implementation plan described in subsection (c) of this section.

(h)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology shall submit to the President and make publicly available a report on the bioeconomy that provides recommendations on how to maintain United States competitiveness in the global bioeconomy.

Sec. 4.  Data for the Bioeconomy.  (a)  In order to facilitate development of the United States bioeconomy, my Administration shall establish a Data for the Bioeconomy Initiative (Data Initiative) that will ensure that high-quality, wide-ranging, easily accessible, and secure biological data sets can drive breakthroughs for the United States bioeconomy.  To assist in the development of the Data Initiative, the Director of OSTP, in coordination with the Director of OMB and the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Director of OSTP, and in consultation with external stakeholders, shall issue a report within 240 days of the date of this order that:

(i)    identifies the data types and sources, to include genomic and multiomic information, that are most critical to drive advances in health, climate, energy, food, agriculture, and biomanufacturing, as well as other bioeconomy-related R&D, along with any data gaps;

(ii)   sets forth a plan to fill any data gaps and make new and existing public data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable in ways that are equitable, standardized, secure, and transparent, and that are integrated with platforms that enable the use of advanced computing tools;

(iii)  identifies — based on the data types and sources described in subsection (a)(i) of this section — security, privacy, and other risks (such as malicious misuses, manipulation, exfiltration, and deletion), and provides a data-protection plan to mitigate these risks; and

(iv)   outlines the Federal resources, legal authorities, and actions needed to support the Data Initiative and achieve the goals outlined in this subsection, with a timeline for action.

(b)  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce (acting through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)), the Secretary of HHS, the Secretary of Energy, and the Director of OMB, shall identify and recommend relevant cybersecurity best practices for biological data stored on Federal Government information systems, consistent with applicable law and Executive Order 14028 of May 12, 2021 (Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity).

(c)  The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Director of NIST and in coordination with the Secretary of HHS, shall consider bio-related software, including software for laboratory equipment, instrumentation, and data management, in establishing baseline security standards for the development of software sold to the United States Government, consistent with section 4 of Executive Order 14028.

Sec. 5.  Building a Vibrant Domestic Biomanufacturing Ecosystem.  (a)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the APNSA and the APEP, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of HHS, the Secretary of Energy, the Director of NSF, and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), shall develop a strategy that identifies policy recommendations to expand domestic biomanufacturing capacity for products spanning the health, energy, agriculture, and industrial sectors, with a focus on advancing equity, improving biomanufacturing processes, and connecting relevant infrastructure.  Additionally, this strategy shall identify actions to mitigate risks posed by foreign adversary involvement in the biomanufacturing supply chain and to enhance biosafety, biosecurity, and cybersecurity in new and existing infrastructure.

(b)  Agencies identified in subsections (b)(i)-(iv) of this section shall direct resources, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, towards the creation or expansion of programs that support a vibrant domestic biomanufacturing ecosystem, as informed by the strategy developed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section:

(i)    the NSF shall expand its existing Regional Innovation Engine program to advance emerging technologies, including biotechnology;

(ii)   the Department of Commerce shall address challenges in biomanufacturing supply chains and related biotechnology development infrastructure;

(iii)  the Department of Defense shall incentivize the expansion of domestic, flexible industrial biomanufacturing capacity for a wide range of materials that can be used to make a diversity of products for the defense supply chain; and

(iv)   the Department of Energy shall support research to accelerate bioenergy and bioproduct science advances, to accelerate biotechnology and bioinformatics tool development, and to reduce the hurdles to commercialization, including through incentivizing the engineering scale-up of promising biotechnologies and the expansion of biomanufacturing capacity.

(c)  Within 1 year of the date of this order, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Secretary, shall submit a plan to the President, through the APNSA and the APEP, to support the resilience of the United States biomass supply chain for domestic biomanufacturing and biobased product manufacturing, while also advancing food security, environmental sustainability, and the needs of underserved communities.  This plan shall include programs to encourage climate-smart production and use of domestic biomass, along with budget estimates, including accounting for funds appropriated for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 and proposed in the President’s FY 2023 Budget.

(d)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Secretary, shall:

(i)   provide the APNSA with vulnerability assessments of the critical infrastructure and national critical functions associated with the bioeconomy, including cyber, physical, and systemic risks, and recommendations to secure and make resilient these components of our infrastructure and economy; and

(ii)  enhance coordination with industry on threat information sharing, vulnerability disclosure, and risk mitigation for cybersecurity and infrastructure risks to the United States bioeconomy, including risks to biological data and related physical and digital infrastructure and devices.  This coordination shall be informed in part by the assessments described in subsection (d)(i) of this section.

Sec. 6.  Biobased Products Procurement.  (a)  Consistent with the requirements of 7 U.S.C. 8102, within 1 year of the date of this order, procuring agencies as defined in 7 U.S.C. 8102(a)(1)(A) that have not yet established a biobased procurement program as described in 7 U.S.C. 8102(a)(2) shall establish such a program.

(b)  Procuring agencies shall require that, within 2 years of the date of this order, all appropriate staff (including contracting officers, purchase card managers, and purchase card holders) complete training on biobased product purchasing.  The Office of Federal Procurement Policy, within OMB, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall provide training materials for procuring agencies.

(c)  Within 180 days of the date of this order and annually thereafter, procuring agencies shall report previous fiscal year spending to the Director of OMB on the following:

(i)    the number and dollar value of contracts entered into during the previous fiscal year that include the direct procurement of biobased products;

(ii)   the number of service and construction (including renovations) contracts entered into during the previous fiscal year that include language on the use of biobased products; and

(iii)  the types and dollar values of biobased products actually used by contractors in carrying out service and construction (including renovations) contracts during the previous fiscal year.

(d)  The requirements in subsection (c) of this section shall not apply to purchase card transactions and other “[a]ctions not reported” to the Federal Procurement Data System pursuant to 48 CFR 4.606(c).

(e)  Within 1 year of the date of this order and annually thereafter, the Director of OMB shall publish information on biobased procurement resulting from the data collected under subsection (c) of this section and information reported under 7 U.S.C. 8102, along with other related information, and shall use scorecards or similar systems to encourage increased biobased purchasing.

(f)  Within 1 year of the date of this order and annually thereafter, procuring agencies shall report to the Secretary of Agriculture specific categories of biobased products that are unavailable to meet their procurement needs, along with desired performance standards for currently unavailable products and other relevant specifications.  The Secretary of Agriculture shall publish this information annually.  When new categories of biobased products become commercially available, the Secretary of Agriculture shall designate new product categories for preferred Federal procurement, as prescribed by 7 U.S.C. 8102.

(g)  Procuring agencies shall strive to increase by 2025 the amount of biobased product obligations or the number or dollar value of biobased-only contracts, as reflected in the information described in subsection (c) of this section, and as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 7.  Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Workforce.  (a)  The United States Government shall expand training and education opportunities for all Americans in biotechnology and biomanufacturing.  To support this objective, within 200 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, the APDP, the Director of OSTP, and the Director of NSF shall produce and make publicly available a plan to coordinate and use relevant Federal education and training programs, while also recommending new efforts to promote multi-disciplinary education programs.  This plan shall promote the implementation of formal and informal education and training (such as opportunities at technical schools and certificate programs), career and technical education, and expanded career pathways into existing degree programs for biotechnology and biomanufacturing.  This plan shall also include a focused discussion of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and Minority Serving Institutions and the extent to which agencies can use existing statutory authorities to promote racial and gender equity and support underserved communities, consistent with the policy established in Executive Order 13985.  Finally, this plan shall account for funds appropriated for FY 2022 and proposed in the President’s FY 2023 Budget.

(b)  Within 2 years of the date of this order, agencies that support relevant Federal education and training programs as described in subsection (a) of this section shall report to the President through the APNSA, in coordination with the Director of OMB, the ADPD, and the Director of OSTP, on measures taken and resources allocated to enhance workforce development pursuant to the plan described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 8.  Biotechnology Regulation Clarity and Efficiency.  Advances in biotechnology are rapidly altering the product landscape.  The complexity of the current regulatory system for biotechnology products can be confusing and create challenges for businesses to navigate.  To improve the clarity and efficiency of the regulatory process for biotechnology products, and to enable products that further the societal goals identified in section 3 of this order, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, in coordination with the Director of OMB, the ADPD, and the Director of OSTP, shall:

(a)  within 180 days of the date of this order, identify areas of ambiguity, gaps, or uncertainties in the January 2017 Update to the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology or in the policy changes made pursuant to Executive Order 13874 of June 11, 2019 (Modernizing the Regulatory Framework for Agricultural Biotechnology Products), including by engaging with developers and external stakeholders, and through horizon scanning for novel products of biotechnology;

(b)  within 100 days of completing the task in subsection (a) of this section, provide to the general public plain-language information regarding the regulatory roles, responsibilities, and processes of each agency, including which agency or agencies are responsible for oversight of different types of products developed with biotechnology, with case studies, as appropriate;

(c)  within 280 days of the date of this order, provide a plan to the Director of OMB, the ADPD, and the Director of OSTP with processes and timelines to implement regulatory reform, including identification of the regulations and guidance documents that can be updated, streamlined, or clarified; and identification of potential new guidance or regulations, where needed;

(d)  within 1 year of the date of this order, build on the Unified Website for Biotechnology Regulation developed pursuant to Executive Order 13874 by including on the website the information developed under subsection (b) of this section, and by enabling developers of biotechnology products to submit inquiries about a particular product and promptly receive a single, coordinated response that provides, to the extent practicable, information and, when appropriate, informal guidance regarding the process that the developers must follow for Federal regulatory review; and

(e)  within 1 year of the date of this order, and annually thereafter for a period of 3 years, provide an update regarding progress in implementing this section to the Director of OMB, the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the APNSA, the ADPD, and the Director of OSTP.  Each 1-year update shall identify any gaps in statutory authority that should be addressed to improve the clarity and efficiency of the regulatory process for biotechnology products, and shall recommend additional executive actions and legislative proposals to achieve such goals.

Sec. 9.  Reducing Risk by Advancing Biosafety and Biosecurity.  (a)  The United States Government shall launch a Biosafety and Biosecurity Innovation Initiative, which shall seek to reduce biological risks associated with advances in biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and the bioeconomy.  Through the Biosafety and Biosecurity Innovation Initiative — which shall be established by the Secretary of HHS, in coordination with the heads of other relevant agencies as determined by the Secretary — agencies that fund, conduct, or sponsor life sciences research shall implement the following actions, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law:

(i)   support, as a priority, investments in applied biosafety research and innovations in biosecurity to reduce biological risk throughout the biotechnology R&D and biomanufacturing lifecycles; and

(ii)  use Federal investments in biotechnology and biomanufacturing to incentivize and enhance biosafety and biosecurity practices and best practices throughout the United States and international research enterprises.

(b)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of HHS and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with agencies that fund, conduct, or sponsor life sciences research, shall produce a plan for biosafety and biosecurity for the bioeconomy, including recommendations to:

(i)   enhance applied biosafety research and bolster innovations in biosecurity to reduce risk throughout the biotechnology R&D and biomanufacturing lifecycles; and

(ii)  use Federal investments in biological sciences, biotechnology, and biomanufacturing to enhance biosafety and biosecurity best practices throughout the bioeconomy R&D enterprise.

(c)  Within 1 year of the date of this order, agencies that fund, conduct, or sponsor life sciences research shall report to the APNSA, through the Assistant to the President and Homeland Security Advisor, on efforts to achieve the objectives described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 10.  Measuring the Bioeconomy.  (a)  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of NIST, shall, in consultation with other agencies as determined by the Director, industry, and other stakeholders, as appropriate, create and make publicly available a lexicon for the bioeconomy, with consideration of relevant domestic and international definitions and with the goal of assisting in the development of measurements and measurement methods for the bioeconomy that support uses such as economic measurement, risk assessments, and the application of machine learning and other artificial intelligence tools.

(b)  The Chief Statistician of the United States, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Director of NSF, and the heads of other appropriate agencies as determined by the Chief Statistician, shall improve and enhance Federal statistical data collection designed to characterize the economic value of the United States bioeconomy, with a focus on the contribution of biotechnology to the bioeconomy.  This effort shall include:

(i)   within 180 days of the date of this order, assessing, through the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, the feasibility, scope, and costs of developing a national measurement of the economic contributions of the bioeconomy, and, in particular, the contributions of biotechnology to the bioeconomy, including recommendations and a plan for next steps regarding whether development of such a measurement should be pursued; and

(ii)  within 120 days of the date of this order, establishing an Interagency Technical Working Group (ITWG), chaired by the Chief Statistician of the United States, which shall include representatives of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, OSTP, the NSF, and other appropriate agencies as determined by the Chief Statistician of the United States.

(A)  Within 1 year of the date of this order, the ITWG shall recommend bioeconomy-related revisions to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the North American Product Classification System (NAPCS) to the Economic Classification Policy Committee.  In 2026, the ITWG shall initiate a review process of the 2023 recommendations and update the recommendations, as appropriate, to provide input to the 2027 NAICS and NAPCS revision processes.

(B)  Within 18 months of the date of this order, the ITWG shall provide a report to the Chief Statistician of the United States describing the Federal statistical collections of information that take advantage of bioeconomy-related NAICS and NAPCS codes, and shall include recommendations to implement any bioeconomy-related changes as part of the 2022 revisions of the NAICS and NAPCS.  As part of its work, the ITWG shall consult with external stakeholders.

Sec. 11.  Assessing Threats to the United States Bioeconomy.  (a)  The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) shall lead a comprehensive interagency assessment of ongoing, emerging, and future threats to United States national security from foreign adversaries against the bioeconomy and from foreign adversary development and application of biotechnology and biomanufacturing, including acquisition of United States capabilities, technologies, and biological data.  As part of this effort, the DNI shall work closely with the Department of Defense to assess technical applications of biotechnology and biomanufacturing that could be misused by a foreign adversary for military purposes or that could otherwise pose a risk to the United States.  In support of these objectives, the DNI shall identify elements of the bioeconomy of highest concern and establish processes to support ongoing threat identification and impact assessments.

(b)  Within 240 days of the date of this order, the DNI shall provide classified assessments to the APNSA related to:

(i)   threats to United States national and economic security posed by foreign adversary development and application of biomanufacturing; and

(ii)  foreign adversary means of, and intended usages related to, acquisition of United States biotechnologies, biological data, and proprietary or precompetitive information.

(c)  Within 120 days of receiving the DNI’s assessments, the APNSA shall coordinate with the heads of relevant agencies as determined through the NSM-2 process to develop and finalize a plan to mitigate risks to the United States bioeconomy, based upon the threat identification and impact assessments described in subsection (a) of this section, the vulnerability assessments described in section 5(d) of this order, and other relevant assessments or information.  The plan shall identify where executive action, regulatory action, technology protection, or statutory authorities are needed to mitigate these risks in order to support the technology leadership and economic competitiveness of the United States bioeconomy.

(d)  The United States Government contracts with a variety of providers to support its functioning, including by contracting for services related to the bioeconomy.  It is important that these contracts are awarded according to full and open competition, as consistent with the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-369, 98 Stat. 1175).  In accordance with these objectives, and within 1 year of the date of this order, the Director of OSTP, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of HHS, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the DNI, the Administrator of NASA, and the Administrator of General Services, shall review the national security implications of existing requirements related to Federal procurement — including requirements contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement — and shall recommend updates to those requirements to the FAR Council, the Director of OMB, and the heads of other appropriate agencies as determined through the NSM-2 process.  The recommendations shall aim to standardize pre-award data collection to enable due diligence review of conflict of interest; conflict of commitment; foreign ownership, control, or influence; or other potential national security concerns.  The recommendations shall also include legislative proposals, as relevant.

(e)  The Director of OMB shall issue a management memorandum to agencies, or take other appropriate action, to provide generalized guidance based on the recommendations received pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.

Sec. 12.  International Engagement.  (a)  The Department of State and other agencies that engage with international partners as part of their missions shall undertake the following actions with foreign partners, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law — with a specific focus on developing countries, international organizations, and nongovernmental entities — to promote and protect both the United States and global bioeconomies:

(i)     enhance cooperation, including joint research projects and expert exchanges, on biotechnology R&D, especially in genomics;

(ii)    encourage regulatory cooperation and the adoption of best practices to evaluate and promote innovative products, with an emphasis on those practices and products that support sustainability and climate objectives;

(iii)   develop joint training arrangements and initiatives to support bioeconomy jobs in the United States;

(iv)    work to promote the open sharing of scientific data, including genetic sequence data, to the greatest extent possible in accordance with applicable law and policy, while seeking to ensure that any applicable access and benefit-sharing mechanisms do not hinder the rapid and sustainable development of innovative products and biotechnologies;

(v)     conduct horizon scanning to anticipate threats to the global bioeconomy, including national security threats from foreign adversaries acquiring sensitive technologies or data, or disrupting essential bio-related supply chains, and to identify opportunities to address those threats;

(vi)    engage allies and partners to address shared national security threats;

(vii)   develop, and work to promote and implement, biosafety and biosecurity best practices, tools, and resources bilaterally and multilaterally to facilitate appropriate oversight for life sciences, dual-use research of concern, and research involving potentially pandemic and other high-consequence pathogens, and to enhance sound risk management of biotechnology- and biomanufacturing-related R&D globally; and

(viii)  explore how to align international classifications of biomanufactured products, as appropriate, to measure the value of those products to both the United States and global bioeconomies.

(b)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the USTR and the heads of other agencies as determined by the Secretary, as appropriate, shall submit to the APNSA a plan to support the objectives described in subsection (a) of this section with foreign partners, international organizations, and nongovernmental entities.

Sec. 13.  Definitions.  For purposes of this order:

(a)  The term “agency” has the meaning given that term by 44 U.S.C. 3502(1).

(b)  The term “biotechnology” means technology that applies to or is enabled by life sciences innovation or product development.

(c)  The term “biomanufacturing” means the use of biological systems to develop products, tools, and processes at commercial scale.

(d)  The term “bioeconomy” means economic activity derived from the life sciences, particularly in the areas of biotechnology and biomanufacturing, and includes industries, products, services, and the workforce.

(e)  The term “biological data” means the information, including associated descriptors, derived from the structure, function, or process of a biological system(s) that is measured, collected, or aggregated for analysis.

(f)  The term “biomass” means any material of biological origin that is available on a renewable or recurring basis.  Examples of biomass include plants, trees, algae, and waste material such as crop residue, wood waste, animal waste and byproducts, food waste, and yard waste.

(g)  The term “biobased product” has the meaning given that term in 7 U.S.C. 8101(4).

(h)  The term “bioenergy” means energy derived in whole or in significant part from biomass.

(i)  The term “multiomic information” refers to combined information derived from data, analysis, and interpretation of multiple omics measurement technologies to identify or analyze the roles, relationships, and functions of biomolecules (including nucleic acids, proteins, and metabolites) that make up a cell or cellular system.  Omics are disciplines in biology that include genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics.

(j)  The term “key R&D areas” includes fundamental R&D of emerging biotechnologies, including engineering biology; predictive engineering of complex biological systems, including the designing, building, testing, and modeling of entire living cells, cell components, or cellular systems; quantitative and theory-driven multi-disciplinary research to maximize convergence with other enabling technologies; and regulatory science, including the development of new information, criteria, tools, models, and approaches to inform and assist regulatory decision-making.  These R&D priorities should be coupled with advances in predictive modeling, data analytics, artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, high-performance and other advanced computing systems, metrology and data-driven standards, and other non-life science enabling technologies.

(k)  The terms “equity” and “underserved communities” have the meanings given those terms by sections 2(a) and 2(b) of Executive Order 13985.

(l)  The term “Tribal Colleges and Universities” has the meaning given that term by section 5(e) of Executive Order 14049 of October 11, 2021 (White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Native Americans and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities).

(m)  The term “Historically Black Colleges and Universities” has the meaning given that term by section 4(b) of Executive Order 14041 of September 3, 2021 (White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity Through Historically Black Colleges and Universities).

(n)  The term “minority serving institution” has the meaning given that term by 38 U.S.C. 3698(f)(4).

(o)  The term “foreign adversary” has the meaning given that term by section 3(b) of Executive Order 14034 of June 9, 2021 (Protecting Americans’ Sensitive Data From Foreign Adversaries).

(p)  The term “life sciences” means all sciences that study or use living organisms, viruses, or their products, including all disciplines of biology and all applications of the biological sciences (including biotechnology, genomics, proteomics, bioinformatics, and pharmaceutical and biomedical research and techniques), but excluding scientific studies associated with radioactive materials or toxic chemicals that are not of biological origin or synthetic analogues of toxins.

Sec. 14.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 12, 2022.

 

Link To EO

Link To Article

 


 

Reference

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/09/12/executive-order-on-advancing-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-innovation-for-a-sustainable-safe-and-secure-american-bioeconomy/

[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/03/09/executive-order-on-ensuring-responsible-development-of-digital-assets/

[3] https://reason.com/2019/09/10/the-department-of-homeland-security-is-a-mess-of-misconduct-and-ineptitude/

[4] https://www.cato.org/commentary/make-america-safer-shut-down-department-homeland-security

[5] https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b9/1d/51/d9409f4a53eec7/US10435695.pdf

[6] https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a468243.pdf

[7] https://jdfor2024.com/2021/03/bill-gates-foundation-funded-genomics-firm-mining-dna-data-through-covid-tests/

[8] https://jdfor2024.com/2022/09/cybersecurity-expert-china-creating-digital-twin-of-americans/

 


 

 

 

 


 

Posted on

Cybersecurity Expert: China Creating ‘Digital Twin’ of Americans

 Cybersecurity Expert: China Creating ‘Digital Twin’ of Americans

Digital twins are virtual clones that can simulate any kind of object, device or structure, merging the digital and physical world with the internet of bodies, internet of things, data analytics and artificial intelligence.

Genomics is the study of the complete set of DNA including all genes in a person or other organism. The DNA of Americans was collected in Covid-19 tests, providing key information for potential biowarfare.

BGI Genomics, a firm with ties to the CCP military has been accused by U.S. intelligence officials, of mining the DNA and medical data of Americans. The Obama-Biden administration and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation played a critical role in BGI’s American expansion.

Wireless infrastructure (4G-5G-6G+AI) standardized by the UN ITU, is the foundation of the global technocratic digital prison. -JD

 

 


 

September 6, 2022 | By Hannah Ng and Tiffany Meier | Epoch Times

China Creates ‘Digital Twin’ of Americans: Cybersecurity Expert

As reports have emerged that Chinese military-linked firms gather American DNA, these firms are now capable of creating digital replicas of Americans, according to John Mills, former director of cybersecurity policy, strategy, and international affairs at the Department of Defense.

“They have the capacity to create these complex models of each of us. They’re making digital twins of us,” Mills told the “China in Focus” program on NTD News, sister media outlet of The Epoch Times.

 

Digital Twins

He pointed to BGI Group, formerly Beijing Genomics Institute, which is the leader of the CCP’s genome project, as well as a leading producer of COVID-19 tests.

In 2017, the company’s leader boasted that it had reached an industrial level of success in progressing through genetic reform and gene editing, to gene synthesizing, and mass-producing multiple viruses, bacteria, and large yeasts.

“They can do all kinds of nefarious things with no constraint or loss. They have our data.” That data could be used to tailor a follow-up virus to target certain non-Han ethnicities, Mills warned.

Mills referred to Beijing’s military-civil fusion policy, calling Chinese companies “extensions of state security, state intelligence.”

That includes every Chinese company and every company that is incorporated in China, even if it is American in origin, he stressed. “They are the eyes and the ears and the collectors.”

That means when Americans give information to these companies, their data is essentially going to Chinese intelligence, Mills said.

Link To Read The Full Article HERE

 

 


 

Bill Gates Foundation Funded CCP Genomics Firm ‘Mining’ American’s DNA Data Through COVID Tests

Bill Gates Foundation Funded CCP Genomics Firm ‘Mining’ American’s DNA Data Through COVID Tests.

Link

 


 

US National Security in a New Era of Intense Global Competition

US National Security in a New Era of Intense Global Competition

Link

 


 

Posted on

Transcript of Evidence / Vaxx Analysis By Prof. Dr. Antonietta Gatti – Nano-pathologist

Transcript of Evidence / Vaxx Analysis By Prof. Dr. Antonietta Gatti – Nano-pathologist

In case you missed Day 4 of the CoVid Grand Jury Trials, Dr. Antonietta Gatti’s testimony below provides verification of the chemical composition and contamination of 42 standard “vaccines”. She discusses the nanotechnological content of the mRNA products and concludes that the direct nano-bio-interaction of nano particles with DNA is very dangerous. Dr. Gatti states, “I don’t see the possibility for the body to counter-act against these stimuli.”

@ 2:32.32:

 

Link To_@ 2:32.32: Transcript of Evidence / Vaxx Analysis By Prof. Dr. Antonietta Gatti with images

 

 

 


 

Posted on

Insects As Flying Syringes For Genetic Modification, Eugenics And Population Control

 

July 28, 2022 | By TESSA LENA VIA MERCOLA.COM | Technocracy News | PDF

Insects As Flying Syringes For Genetic Modification, Eugenics And Population Control

My presentation for the Crimes Against Humanity Task Force documents and explains the history behind “the takeover of all genetic material on earth”. The manipulation of life on earth is an old dream but technology has now provided the means to accomplish it, and Technocrat/Transhuman scientists are working day and night to change the world’s DNA. My forthcoming book, The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism, will connect all the dots to this mad program. It being serialized on https://patrickwood.substack.com/

⁃ TN Editor


 

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

> Irresponsible use of new and very advanced technologies by the military is life-threatening

> Engineered viruses can be used to edit genes in a target species, including in a heritable manner

> “Insect Allies” is a DARPA program designed to genetically modify mature plants in a live environment by releasing insects infected with genetically modified viruses

> Some scientists, although on board with genetic modification in principle, are questioning DARPA’s motives and raising concerns

> Researchers in Singapore, as well as DARPA in the U.S. have developed “remote-controlled insects”

BREAKING NEWS: The craziest crazies have somehow escaped the asylum and installed themselves in high positions of power. Insane, they are coming up with one bad idea after another and barking orders at us, mad shine in their eyes and saliva coming out of their mouths. They are crazy — and in charge of institutions, schools, newspapers and armies.

They are running around with their high-tech pistols filled with high-tech poisons and their little sadistic CRISPR scissors. They are crazy — yes, they are crazy — and they are killing us slowly, and sometimes not so slowly. Welcome to the future where toxicity is health and the old crazy is the new normal. We are not crazy — they are crazy — and they have been from the beginning. And in 2020, they stopped pretending. What now?

Project “Insect Allies”

You may think that you have seen it all but here is a great idea. Take some insects, infect them with a genetically modified virus designed to genetically edit mature plants in real time, and release them. Release them into wild and repeat, “it’s safe and effective.”

Sweet idea, right? Well, DARPA thought so, and so in 2016, they started a project called “Insect Allies” that is designed to do that. (This is a different project from Oxitec’s controversial release of GM mosquitos.) DARPA’s official story is that in the name of national security, a good way to protect the American crops from potential threats is to genetically modify them using GM viruses as genetic modifiers and insects as flying syringes. And that they just need to test it!

In a 2016 release titled, “DARPA Enlists Insects to Protect Agricultural Food Supply,” the agency stated:

“A new DARPA program is poised to provide an alternative to traditional agricultural threat response, using targeted gene therapy to protect mature plants within a single growing season.

DARPA proposes to leverage a natural and very efficient two-step delivery system to transfer modified genes to plants: insect vectors and the plant viruses they transmit. In the process, DARPA aims to transform certain insect pests into ‘Insect Allies,’ the name of the new effort.”

“‘Insect Allies’ three technical areas — trait design, insect vector optimization, and selective gene therapy in mature plants — layer together to support the goal of rapidly transforming mature plants to protect against natural or intentional agricultural disruption without the need for extensive infrastructure. The foundational knowledge and generalizable tools developed under the program could also support future agricultural innovation.”

Some suspicious peasants may foolishly wonder: What will happen in the short term and in the long term to the people who eat those plants, to the people and animals possibly bitten by those insects, to the wild insects who mate with the infected insects, and to all other life in the area and beyond that may get impacted? What ridiculous nonsense. Here is the answer, peasant: No one knows — and importantly, no one cares. Any more questions?

The first Insect Allies funded paper, titled, “Multiplexed heritable gene editing using RNA viruses and mobile single guide RNAs,” was published in 2020. Please note the word “heritable” in the headline. The paper stated:

“Mutant progeny are recovered in the next generation at frequencies ranging from 65 to 100%; up to 30% of progeny derived from plants infected with a virus expressing three sgRNAs have mutations in all three targeted loci.”

DARPA never disclosed if they tested this program outside of greenhouses.

Objections From the Scientific Community and Even the Pre-2020 Media

Actually, it turned out that a few scientists care — and at least during the pre-COVID era, they have objected.

Here is a short 2019 educational animation made by the German Max Planck Society (formerly the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History). Their main objection is the potential weaponization of the technology, they don’t mind the gene editing in principle.

But our standards for health and dignity are so low that this objection is better than no objection, and even this limited kind of objection and questioning DARPA takes some courage (even though it’s unknown if they would have objected in 2020).

 

And here is what Vice (!!) had to say in 2018 about the outcry from scientists:

“In the editorial, published on Thursday in Science Magazine, scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology and the University of Freiburg in Germany, and France’s Université de Montpellier, requested more transparency and opportunities for public discussion regarding the project and its implications.

‘Easy simplifications could be used to generate a new class of biological weapons,’ a press release reads, ‘weapons that would be extremely transmissible to susceptible crop species due to insect dispersion as the means of delivery.’”

What did DARPA say?

“In an email to Motherboard, a DARPA spokesperson rebutted the thesis of the Science Magazine piece and denied any intent to deploy technology developed through Insect Allies in an offensive setting.

‘We created Insect Allies specifically to develop technology that can deliver positive, protective traits to plants to help them survive unanticipated and/or fast-moving agricultural threats,’ the spokesperson wrote. ‘We see it as a critical addition to the national security toolkit, part of a layered strategy to preserve the security of the food supply.’”

“The Insect Allies program is a collaboration between the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Environmental Protection Agency, US Army, and other agencies. According to a DARPA slide presentation, the goal of Insect Allies is to “stably transform multiple mature crop plants in a complex, multi-species plant and insect community with enhanced trait(s) of agricultural interest” by mid-2021.”

Newsweek covered it, too. In a 2018 article, they said that “the U.S. government’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been accused of trying to create a new class of biological weapons that would be delivered via virus-infected insects.”

“Scientists with DARPA are looking at introducing genetically modified viruses that can edit chromosomes directly in fields — these are known as horizontal environmental genetic alteration agents (HEGAAs). The DARPA program is using the principles of HEGAAs but, unlike traditional methods of dispersal — like spraying fields with them — it wants to spread them through insects.”

The researchers raising the alarm asked specifically why, for agricultural use, it was so important to use insects as gene modification vectors, given that spraying was available. In response to Newsweek at the time, DARPA denied all allegations of military use and reiterated that the project’s aim was to protect American crops. In 2022, another paper was published where researchers expressed their concerns:

“The hazard and exposure potential of an HEGAA approach can vary greatly depending on the viruses, vector insects, target plant species, and genetic modifications selected and their effects. However, at the current stage of development, the most critical aspect is the compromised reliability of the HEGAA approach, owing mainly to its complex design with three different species …

They are a cause for concern because of the numerous effects that can increase the potential for hazard and exposure. Combined with the current inadequacy of corrective measures, it is clear that there is an urgent need for early analysis of whether HEGAA approaches can be inherently contained and controlled by their specific technology design.”

“Horizontal Environmental Genetic Alteration Agents”

What are HEGAAs? According to Wikipedia, the term “genetic alteration agent” first appears in 2016 in relation to this project, in a “work plan by DARPA describing a tender for contracts to develop genetically modified plant viruses for an approach involving their dispersion into the environment. The prefixing of ‘horizontal environmental’ to the former to generate the acronym HEGAA was first used in the [aforementioned] 2018 scientific publication.”

“Agents such as pathogens, symbionts or synthetic protein assemblages that can be acquired through horizontal transmission in the environment can potentially be engineered to become HEGAAs. This would be achieved using biotechnology methods to confer to them the capacity to alter nucleotides in the chromosomes of infected individuals through sequence-specific editing systems like CRISPR, ZFNs or TALENs.

No known infectious agent naturally has the capacity to gene edit eukaryotes in a manner that can be flexibly targeted to specific sequences (distinct from substantially random natural processes like retroviral integration).”

By definition, HEGAA induced gene editing events are intended to occur outside of contained facilities such as laboratories or hospitals.

While genetically modified viruses with CRISPR editing have been successfully used as research tools in laboratories or for gene therapy in clinical settings, all gene editing events are intended to physically occur within contained facilities. By contrast, HEGAAs for their intended mode of action relies on inducing gene editing events that occur largely or exclusively in the environment.”

There are two types of HEGAAs: somatic and germline. Somatic HEGAAs are not inheritable, while germline ones “impact somatic cells and also cell lineages from which germline cells can be ultimately generated (e.g. sperm, oocytes, pollen, ovules, zygotes or seeds).”

When it comes to the “Insect Allies” project, it’s a gray area. The original assumption was that “Insect Allies” involved somatic HEGAAs but the aforementioned 2020 paper shows that the genetic changes in plants were heritable. Here is more detail:

  • HEGAAs are viruses which have been genetically modified to gain a capacity to edit the chromosomes of a target species (e.g. plant or animal) when intentionally released into the environment
  • The word “horizontal” comes from their ability to be transmitted in the environment by infection
  • The word “environmental” comes from the intention for these genetically modified viruses to be dispersed into the environment
  • The words “genetic alteration agents” comes from the capacity to alter the chromosomes of a target species. This might be through causing a random mutation or introducing a new DNA sequence
  • The specificity of HEGAAs is dependent on two things (1) the range of species the genetically modified virus can infect AND (2) the presence of the suitable DNA sequences in the plant chromosomes of cells that become infected
  • An example of an insect dispersed viral HEGAA which disrupts a specific plant gene is illustrated in this figure below

insect dispersed hegaa

Image source: web.evolbio.mpg.de/HEGAAs/available-illustrations.html

 

All in all, this informational Max Planck Society affiliated website, whose purpose is “to contribute towards fostering an informed and public debate about this type of technology,” is one of the best sources of information on HEGAAs and the “Insect Allies” project. Incidentally, this particular website covers self-spreading vaccines as well. Here is a little video promo of the Euroscience Open Forum 2020:

 

 

And here it the actual 2020 panel (some of it is already outdated but very educational):

“Project Coast”

One of the panelists above mentions “Project Coast” is South Africa — and while it is not directly related to “Insect Allies,” it kind of is.

Project Coast” was a toxin and bioweapon development project that took place in South Africa during the apartheid era. As a part of that project, scientists developed covert assassination tools and methods of covert sterilization, intended against the black population of South Africa. A warning? No really, a warning?

Back to DARPA

Here is more from the MPS-affiliated informational website:

“Even as the halfway point of the Insect Allies program approaches, DARPA has chosen not to publicly describe in its response to our Science article what is the basis of their having concluded that a developmental pathway exists that circumvents the early proliferation of biological weapons (described by the black development path in the accompanying image).

This is in addition to explaining in detail why their developmental plan is easier to develop than alternative paths (described by the red paths). As our Science article makes clear, this is central to justifying the wisdom of embarking on the development of HEGAAs, and many other types of GM viruses.

Over the next five years, only a minority of anticipated CRISPR-inspired innovations will involve intentional environmental releases (see recent NAS report). HEGAAs, and some other GM viruses, have the property of an early-stage biological weapons proliferation risk that is not shared with most other proposed techniques (including avant-garde ones like gene drive).

Choosing not to clearly address these obvious issues of global concern, as detailed in the Science article, makes their current model of develop first and explain later an especially unwise path, particularly for this insect-delivered program, that in many ways appears to be designed to get carried away.”

Living Foundries

To provide a backdrop for the “Insect Allies” project, here is a brief look at the DARPA “Living Foundries” bioengineering program, launched in 2010.

DARPA’s Living Foundries program aims to “enable adaptable, scalable, and on-demand production of critical, high-value molecules by programming the fundamental metabolic processes of biological systems to generate a vast number of complex molecules.”

“Programming Biological Systems”

In order to orient ourselves in this attempted new normal, we need to understand the mindset. Please note the use of term “engineer” all throughout this benevolent-sounding presentation:

DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office

DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office was founded in 2014. Here is an informational video on, in their own words, “DARPA’s way of thinking about biological technology to defend the homeland.”

According to DARPA’s website:

“DARPA has enjoyed a strong relationship with Silicon Valley since the early 1960s, working with innovators to lay the groundwork for new industries built around Agency investments in semiconductors, networking, artificial intelligence, user interfaces, programming, materials, microsystems, and more.

[We knew that!!!] Biotech is now emerging as a breakthrough opportunity space and it represents an area that is ripe for fresh collaboration among DARPA, the nation’s top researchers, venture capitalists, and entrepreneurs.”

Here are some of the listed topic of interests:

  • Building with Biology Using Engineered Living Materials, which focused on programming DNA to grow materials to specifications at the sites where they are needed and developing living materials that are responsive to their environments and can heal when damaged;
  • Staying on Target: Minimizing Off-Target Effects in Gene Editing, which focused on making personalized medicine feasible by conducting rapid, low-cost screens of an individual’s likely responses to tailored gene therapy;
  • Creating a Pandemic-free World, which focused on DARPA’s vision of distributed healthcare that combines technology to detect pandemic outbreaks, rapidly identify and grow potent antibodies to fight infectious disease, and response tools for creating a pandemic firebreak;
  • Immunity on Demand [emphasis mine], which focused on rapidly developing and delivering nucleic-acid-based protections against infectious disease;
  • Failing Faster: De-Risking the Path to FDA Approval, which focused on using organ-on-chip technology to better predict the efficacy of new drugs in the development pipeline;
  • A Real-time Window into Your Body’s Chemistry, which focused on tissue-integrating in vivo biosensors to continuously monitor physiology over the long term to predict the onset of disease;
  • Reinventing Psychiatry Using Neurotechnology, which focused on using implanted, closed-loop neural systems to record and stimulate the brain to treat neuropsychiatric illness;
  • MindFlight: Your Brain Will Be Your Pilot Today, which focused on direct neural control of complex physical systems;
  • Memory Enhancement in Everyday Life, which focused on non-invasive electrical and auditory stimulation technology to enhance memory by facilitating the neural replay process

Is it me, or is it that the crazies are running the asylum?

Remote-Controlled Insects

If you think that you have now seen it all, well, you haven’t. Here is a video of scientists in Singapore torturing live insects and turning them into cyborgs. Horrifying.

And here is, you guessed it, DARPA:

“Through a DARPA-funded program, scientists at the University of California invented a tiny rig that connects to an insect’s brain and flight muscles. Once implanted, the device takes over the insect’s body, turning it into a remote control cyborg capable of receiving flight commands wirelessly from a nearby laptop.”

It’s all good and fun (not really, more like a horror movie), and we could close our eyes — but will it be fun if the emboldened crazies try to remote-control your children?

About the Author

To find more of Tessa Lena’s work, be sure to check out her bio, Tessa Fights Robots.

 

Link To Read Full Article Here

 

 


 

 

 

“The vision is that a small number of individuals in the target population could be vaccinated, and the vaccine strain would then circulate in the population much like a pathogenic virus.” p.45

Self-spreading vaccines

LINK