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

Why Does The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Own The Luciferase Patent?

Link To Patent_US10435695B2_FUSION PROTEIN COMPRISING GAUSSIA LUCIFERASE, TRANSLATION INTERRUPTER SEQUENCE, AND INTERFERON AMINO ACID SEQUENCES

 

Why Does The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Own The Luciferase Patent?

In 2019 the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was granted a patent for fusion proteins that contain luciferase. Wikipedia defines Luciferase as “a generic term for the class of oxidative enzymes that produce bioluminescence”, allowing for  tracking of cells. The original patent was filed in 2017. This enzyme has apparently been harnessed for use in CV-19 tests and vaxx research.

WHY would the United States government and DHS file a patent for a bio-surveillance protein 2 years before the CV-19 event?  -JD

 


 

September 12, 2022 |  By Emerald Robinson  | Source

Did The U.S. Government Kick Me Off Twitter?

Why is Luciferase in Patent US10435695B2? And why is that patent owned by the Department of Homeland Security?

[EXCERPT]:

Look at that initial filing date again: 2017.

What does this mean?

It means that COVID is a U.S. government operation. That’s why DHS is filing a bio-surveillance protein patent two years before the official outbreak of COVID. That’s why Obama’s deputy director of the CIA showed up at a coronavirus simulation exercise called Event 201 (sponsored by the WHO and the Gates Foundation!) in November 2019. That’s why DARPA (the R&D wing of the CIA) is “heavily invested” in vaccine development as if it’s some kind of healthcare provider.

The U.S. government funded the virus. The U.S. government funded the vaccine. The U.S. government illegally coerced Americans into taking experimental shots that have no long-term safety data and are extremely dangerous. That’s not just a massive conflict of interest. It’s an ethical and legal and medical disaster that may ultimately destroy our country.

It means that the “COVID plandemic” is an attempt to create a total biometric surveillance state. Don’t take my word for it: just listen to the World Economic Forum’s chief intellectual Yuval Harari explain it to you. “Maybe in a couple of decades, when people look back, the thing they will remember from the COVID crisis, is: this is the moment when everything went digital. This was the moment when everything became monitored — that we agreed to be surveilled all the time. Not just in authoritarian regimes but even in democracies. This was the moment when surveillance went under the skin.”

The COVID vaccines are actually an opportunity for governments and global corporations to create a total surveillance system around the world that will ultimately control every human being.

This sounds like science fiction. It is not. There are secret ingredients in the COVID vaccines like graphene oxide (that the corporate media tells you is a conspiracy theoryof course!) that can transmit data outside the body — like your heart rate. That’s why they’re full of rare metals and odd metallic structures that are toxic to human beings.

Link To Read Full Article HERE

 


 

DHS_Patent_Luciferase_US10435695

 

 


 

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

DOD mRNA Vaxx Mandate Is Injuring Soldiers

DOD mRNA Vaxx Mandate Is Injuring Soldiers 

The following article provides shocking testimonials from military whistleblowers, providing clear evidence that DOD leadership is failing to protect the health of American service men and women. The Biden Administration and DOD’s mandate to force our soldiers to be used as human test subjects for the experimental mRNA injection indicates that the United States military leadership may be severely compromised.

An immediate halt to mandated mRNA shots, an independent investigation into the current policy and accountability of top leadership is crucial to correcting what appears to be the intentional destruction of the American military’s health, morale and readiness. -JD

 


 

Military whistleblowers: DOD’s legally dubious mRNA mandate has harmed readiness, produced widespread injuries

Dozens of first hand testimonials and internal documents

August 17, 2022 | by  | The Dossier |

A group of active U.S. military pilots are coming forward as whistleblowers to challenge both the legal and moral nature of the Department of Defense mRNA mandate, and they’ve produced some shocking testimonials that challenge virtually all of the mainstream narratives about a supposedly “safe and effective” mRNA vaccine.

The Dossier got in contact with the whistleblowers and acquired a series of documents that showcase the damage wrought by the mRNA mandate. It serves as a troubling account of a Biden Administration Defense Department that has damaged military readiness, alienated those who challenge the arguably illegal mandate, and created an environment in which many are deciding to not come forward with additional vaccine injuries, for fear of being sidelined from the service.

In the PDF files below you will find two separate reports dozens of accounts solicited from this small group of whistleblowers within their military network. These files have been submitted to select Congressional offices, but unfortunately, legislators have not yet taken action on the information.

Examples Of Vaccine Injury Within The Dod
188KB ∙ PDF File

Read now

Congressional Injury Report
13MB ∙ PDF File

Read now

 

Below you’ll find a few accounts from the first report, from direct testimony and internal documents provided from active service members to the whistleblowers. I encourage you to read the whole thing. Again, Congress has this information and can act upon it should they so choose.

Again, this evidence was provided to The Dossier by a small group of whistleblower pilots in the military. It all comes from a network of hundreds of active service members. It is a tiny sample size of the undoubtedly widespread post-mRNA injection issues faced by service members.

Military service members are not seriously threatened by the novel coronavirus, and the Defense Department was well aware of that prior to issuing its legally contested mandate in August of 2021, on the fraudulent basis that there was an FDA approved (not under emergency use authorization) vaccine available to service members.

The DOD’s own numbers have attributed 95 military service member deaths to COVID-19 since early 2020. Mysteriously, the vast majority of these deaths occurred shortly after they instituted the vaccine mandate for all service members. Prior to the mandate, the active military was registering about one COVID death per month on average.

 

Link To Read Full Article HERE

 

 

Link To Article: Biden Admin officials scramble to escape blame for unlawful Pentagon order mandating mRNA for troops

 

 


 

LINK

 


 

 

DOD Hides CV-19 V@xx Injuries as U.S. Military is Decimated by the Mandatory Shots

LINK

 


 

 

VACCINE SYNDROME: HOW THE EXPERIMENTAL ANTHRAX VACCINE KILLED 35,000 MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN

VACCINE SYNDROME: HOW THE EXPERIMENTAL ANTHRAX VACCINE KILLED 35,000 MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN

LINK

 

 

 


 

Posted on

Dr Merritt on V@ccines, Gene Editing, Depopulation & Rockefellers

Image Source

Gene Drive & The Great DNA War: Dr Merritt on V@ccines, Gene Editing, Depopulation & Rockefellers

August 6, 2022 | http://TheMedicalRebel.com

“This is clearly a depopulation thing, by whom? That’s where you get to the real evil here.”

 

Link To Video

Link To Full Interview

 


 

The Truth About Bill Gates

Link

 

 


 

1974: UN WHO Action to Create Conditions for Fertility Decline

 

 

Posted on

Is Monkeypox Induced by the CV-19 Vaxx?

Is Monkeypox Induced by the CV-19 Vaxx?

 


 

“we may not be witnessing a worldwide outbreak of monkeypox at all, but rather a huge cover-up of the consequences of administering an experimental injection to millions of people”

 

July 26, 2022 |  BY   | PDF

Official Documents suggest Monkeypox is a coverup for damage done to Immune System by COVID Vaccination resulting in Shingles, Autoimmune Blistering Disease & Herpes Infection

Do you not find it curious how in the space of 50 years, monkeypox has never really gotten off the ground outside of a couple of countries in Africa, but then within two years of the alleged emergence of Covid-19, monkeypox is suddenly in every Western nation and being hyped up by public health authorities and the mainstream media?

Even the Director General of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has just overruled the World Health Organization and single-handedly declared monkeypox a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.

If you don’t find any of the above curious then you won’t want to read this because you may miss the latest episode of BBC News at 6 pm. But if you do, you may or may not be surprised to find that evidence suggests the alleged monkeypox outbreak could actually be a result of the Covid-19 vaccination programme.

How?

Well, it has something to do with herpes, shingles, auto-immune blistering disease and the fact that Covid-19 vaccination greatly damages the natural immune system.

Here’s a map showing countries where “confirmed” cases of monkeypox have been reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) since the middle of May 2022 –

Only joking. The above is actually a map showing the main distributions of the Pfizer vaccine.

 

Here’s the actual map showing countries where “confirmed” cases of monkeypox have been reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) since the middle of May 2022 –

 

Here’s both maps together so you can play a game of spot the difference with them –

Apart from a couple of countries, there isn’t really any difference, and every country that has reported alleged cases of monkeypox since May 2022 where it was not already endemic, is a country that also distributed the Pfizer Covid-19 injection.

Now, this could of course just be another coincidence in a long line of “coincidences” that have occurred since early 2020. But unfortunately, evidence suggests otherwise.

Human monkeypox was first identified in humans in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of Congo in a 9-year-old boy. Since then, human cases of monkeypox have been reported in 11 African countries. It wasn’t until 2003 that the first monkeypox outbreak outside of Africa was recorded, and this was in the United States.

According to a scientific study published in 1988, between 1981-1986, 977 persons with skin eruption not clinically diagnosed as human monkeypox were laboratory tested in Zaire (now known as the Democratic Republic of Congo).

The Scientists who conducted the study stated the following –

The diagnostic difficulties were mainly based on clinical features characteristic of chickenpox: regional pleomorphism (in 46% of misdiagnosed cases), indefinite body-distribution of skin eruptions (49%), and centripetal distribution of skin lesions (17%). Lymph-node enlargement was observed in 76% of misdiagnosed patients. In the absence of smallpox, the main clinical diagnostic problem is the differentiation of human monkeypox from chickenpox.’

In Layman’s terms, distinguishing monkeypox from chickenpox is incredibly difficult, and chickenpox is caused by a type of herpes virus.

The chickenpox virus is technically known as the varicella-zoster virus, and just like its close relative the herpes simplex virus, it becomes a lifelong resident in the body.

And like its other cousin, genital herpes, varicella may be silent for many years, hiding out inside nerve cells and can reactivate later, wreaking havoc in the form of the excruciating skin disorder, shingles, which is a blistering, burning skin rash.

Unfortunately, or fortunately; depending on whether you chose to get the Covid-19 injection, official Government data and confidential Pfizer documents strongly suggest the Covid-19 injection may be reactivating the dormant chickenpox virus or herpes virus due to the frightening damage it does to the immune system.

This means we may not be witnessing a worldwide outbreak of monkeypox at all, but rather a huge cover-up of the consequences of administering an experimental injection to millions of people.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years despite approving the injection after only 108 days of safety review on December 11th, 2020.

But in early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered them to release 55,000 pages per month. They released 12,000 pages by the end of January.

Since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents on its website. The latest drop happened on June 1st 2022.

One of the documents contained in the data dump is ‘reissue_5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf’. Page 21 of the confidential document contains data on adverse events of special interest, with one of these specifically being herpes viral infections.

According to the document by the end of February 2021, just 2 months after the Pfizer vaccine was granted emergency use authorisation in both the USA and UK, Pfizer has received 8,152 reports relating to herpes infection, and 18 of these had already led to multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.

Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) is a systemic, dysfunctional inflammatory response that requires long intensive care unit (ICU) stay. It is characterized with a high mortality rate depending on the number of organs involved. It can be caused by herpes infection as this scientific study found here proves.

Further evidence published by the U.S Government, but more specifically the Centers for Disease Control shows that cases of herpes, shingles and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome really exploded in the USA following the administration of the Covid-19 injection.

The following chart shows the number of herpes infections/complications that have been reported to VAERS as adverse reactions to all vaccines (including the Covid-19 jabs) by the year reported, and the Covid-19 vaccines only by the year reported –

The following chart shows adverse events to the Covid-19 injections reported to the CDCrelating to herpes, shingles and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome up to 13th May 2022.

It also shows the number of adverse events reported against the Flu Vaccines, all vaccines combined (excluding Covid-19 injections) and the HPV/Smallpox vaccines between 2008 and 2020 –

As you can see the Covid-19 injections have caused the most herpes related infections, and this is within 17 months. When comparing these to the number of flareups reported against the HPV/Smallpox vaccines in 13 years, these numbers are extremely concerning.

This isn’t because so many people have been given a Covid-19 injection either. Official CDC numbers actually show 1.7 billion doses of influenza vaccine alone were administered between 2008 and 2020. Whereas, as of 6th May 2022, 580 million doses of Covid-19 vaccine had been administered in the USA.

The following chart shows the rate per 1 million doses administered of adverse events related to herpes, shingles and multiple organ syndrome –

The rate of herpes-related infections reported as adverse reactions to the Flu jabs is 0.75 adverse events per 1 million doses administered. But the rate of herpes-related infections reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections is 31.31 adverse events per 1 million doses administered.

That’s a 4,075% difference, and indicative of a very serious problem. A serious problem that is being caused by the fact the Covid-19 injections decimate the immune system.

The following chart shows the Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness among the triple vaccinated population in England in the UK Health Security Agency Week 3, Week 7 and Week 13Vaccine Surveillance reports of 2022 –

Data shows that vaccine effectiveness fell month on month, with the lowest effectiveness recorded among 60-69-year-olds at a shocking minus-391%. This age group also experienced the sharpest decline, falling from minus-104.69% in week 3.

But one of the more concerning declines in vaccine effectiveness has been recorded among 18-29-year-olds, falling to minus-231% by Week 12 of 2022 from +10.19% in Week 3.

A negative vaccine effectiveness indicates immune system damage because vaccine effectiveness isn’t really a measure of the effectiveness of a vaccine. It is a measure of a vaccine recipient’s immune system performance compared to the immune system performance of an unvaccinated person.

The Covid-19 injection specifically instructs cells to produce the alleged SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The immune system is supposed to take care of the rest and then remember to do it again if it ever encounters the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So when the authorities state that the effectiveness of the vaccines weakens over time, what they really mean is that the performance of your immune system weakens over time.

The following chart shows the Covid-19 death rates per 100,000 by vaccination status across England in March 2022 based on data published by the UKHSA

As you can see, most vaccinated age groups have a higher Covid-19 death rate than the unvaccinated age groups. That’s not indicative of an effective vaccine, it’s indicative of damage done to the immune system by having the Covid vaccine. How else can you explain the fact the vaccinated are more likely to die of Covid-19 than the unvaccinated?

 

Link To Read The Full Article Here

 


 

 

Twitter Censors Pfizer-Injured Israeli COVID Vaccine Director

“Prof. Shmuel Shapira MD MPH (Col.), who served as Director of the Israel Institute for Biological Research between 2013 and 2021, suggested that the monkeypox outbreak was connected to mRNA vaccines.

Last week, Twitter censored Prof. Shapira—who was “physically injured” after his third Pfizer vaccine—and forced him to remove a post which said: “Monkey pox cases were rare for years. During the last years a single case was documented in Israel. It is well established the mRNA vaccines affect the natural immune system. A monkey pox outbreak following massive covid vaccination: *Is not a coincidence.”

Link To Article

 

 


 

Posted on

10,000% Increase in Cancers Following COVID-19 Vaccines as Doctors and Scientists Worldwide Sound the Alarm

Confocal microscopy study showing the spiker protein (green) proliferating the cell nucleus (blue)

10,000% Increase in Cancers Following COVID-19 Vaccines as Doctors and Scientists Worldwide Sound the Alarm

August 2, 2022 | by Brian Shilhavy Editor, Health Impact News |

Pathologist Dr. Ute Krueger. Screenshot from video interview (see below).

 

Rates of cancer have exploded following the COVID-19 mass vaccination programs, with doctors and scientists all over the world now sounding the alarm.

Just today a reader contacted us with the following tragic story:

Subject: Cancer after Pfizer vaccine

Hello,

My husband prior to the vaccine was fit and healthy, strong, active. We both had the vaccination on 12.11.2021. about 10 hours kater we spitted first swollen node in his left armpit. Doctors ignored the symptom. Then second node, third… With 6 swollen nodes he was diagnosed with Mantle cell lymphoma. He’s during very aggressive chemotherapy called Nordic regime. He’s only 36 in May, so he was 35 when it all has started. MCL affects people after 60 usually.

Before the vaccination our children brought from school many different viruses, from common flu, tummy bug, chicken pox, ear infections to covid.

My husband was totally fine that time. His immune system worked brilliantly during September and October when me and our daughters suffered from mentioned diseases. He was working and taking care of us at that time. If he would have MCL then he wouldn’t be able to fight all these viruses. Everything has changed within the hours from the first dose of Pfizer.

At first my husband was ignored by GP as he claimed it was typical side effect which should disappear. When more nodes started swilling gp still claimed we should wait yet in January my husband was advised not to have second dose of the vaccination due to the side effects.

In March I requested blood test to check whether it was cancer. Results returned completely fine. I immediately booked next blood test. Also returned completely fine. So without hesitation I booked appointment with go but this time I asked for different gp. During this appointment my husband was referred for ultrasound scan. From there to cancer clinic. 3 days later biopsy took place. Couple if days later we learnt the diagnosis mantle cell lymphoma.

At this stage we were told it has nothing to do with the vaccination, yet for months we were expected to wait for side effects to disappear.

Also, if the cancer is not in connection to vaccinate then how come my husband survived the 8 waves if different diseases starting from September ? In August we spent holidays in Scotland. Lots of walking and driving. My husband was in a very good shape.

Let me say it again, prior to the vaccination my husband was strong, fit, active and healthy.

Our life as a family has been literally ruined.

We cannot go anywhere, we can’t work, my husband us to weak, I have to care for him now and children. We are facing financial difficulties heading to a place where we won’t be able to cover winter bills.

MCL is incurable. Only treatable.

If we are lucky, we may be back to temporary normality by March/April 2023. MCL comes back. Noone knows when. Second time it hits stronger…

We can’t take girls for holidays, we can’t mix with other people as my husband’s immune system is compromised. I am on standby all the time as I may need to take him to hospital in emergency like it happened already. Most of days we travel to hospital anyway. Sometimes even twice a day.

I have never returned to myself after COVID and vaccination. Before I was very active and fit. Now Im not even at 50% of what I used to be.

Our children will never be vaccinated!

I did a search in the U.S. government Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) to see how many cases of the most common cancers had been reported following COVID-19 vaccines, and it returned a result of 837 cases of cancer, including 88 deaths, 66 permanent disabilities, and 104 life threatening events. (Source.)

And this not an exhaustive list, as I tried to include ALL cancers listed in VAERS, but the database could not handle the query.

I listed the cases by age, and of the 837 cases, 375 of them had no recorded age, although often the age can be found in the description.

So I put those 375 cases on the first page of the results, and starting on the second page you can see how young some of these cancer patients are following COVID-19 vaccines. (Source.)

It begins with a 12-year-old girl and a 15-year-old boy, followed by many young adults in their 20s.

Using the exact same search terms for cancer, I then searched ALL FDA-approved vaccines for the previous 30 yearsand found only 140 cases of cancer reported. (Source.)

That result is for 360 months (30 years), whereas the 837 cases following the experimental COVID-19 vaccines were reported in just 20 months, since the roll out of the COVID-19 shots beginning in December of 2020.

That is an increase of 10,661.4%!

A pathologist who lives in Sweden was just interviewed recently about the increasing rates of cancer she is seeing in her patients following the COVID-19 vaccines.

Her name is Dr. Ute Krueger, and the video is found on the Doctors For Covid Ethics Rumble Channel.

This is an amazing interview! Dr. Krueger is highly credentialed in her field, and yet few of her colleagues are willing to follow where the evidence leads, even though everyone is seeing a huge surge in cancer cases, and her reports to the Swedish Drug Administration have not been addressed. She states:

I studied medicine because I wanted to help people.

But now it feels like I am watching people being killed, and there’s little I can do.


The Exposé has also just published an excellent review of some of the scientific literature showing how the spike proteins are interfering with “the DNA repair mechanism in lymphocytes.”

The COVID-19 mRNA “Vaccines” cause Cancer; here’s the evidence…

by Joel Smalley; Professional Data Analyst
The Exposé

The homologous recombination DNA repair pathway is one of the mechanisms that the body uses to stop your cells turning cancerous in response to environmental stress.

One of the most important components of this pathway is Tumor protein P53 (p53), the “guardian of the genome”. It protects our cells from cellular damage. Under cellular stress, p53 jumps into action, regulating gene expression to control DNA repair, cell division and cell death. It is the most commonly mutated gene in cancer.

In October 2021, two revered scientists, called Jiang and Mei, had a paper published, after peer review, in MDPI, showing that the SARS-Cov-2 spike protein obliterated the DNA repair mechanism in lymphocytes.

Effect of the SARS-CoV-2 virus on homologous repair (HR) efficiency in lymphocytes

The viral spike protein was so toxic to this pathway that it knocked 90% of it out. If the whole spike protein got into the nucleus (in the ovaries), and enough of it was produced and hung around long enough before the body was able to get rid of it all, it would cause cancer. Fortunately, in the case of naturally infection, this is unlikely to occur.

Unfortunately, the experimental mRNA toxshot induces spike protein to be produced (the full length spike exactly matching – amino acid for amino acid – the full length of the viral spike protein¹) in and around the cell nucleus² and is produced for at least 60 days and almost certainly longer³.

“Fact checkers” said the viral spike protein doesn’t get in the nucleus despite the expert scientists showing that it absolutely does.

Confocal microscopy study showing the spiker protein (green) proliferating the cell nucleus (blue)

Public health authorities and regulators said the vaccinal spike protein doesn’t get in the nucleus despite the mRNA manufacturers submitting pictures of it doing so to them as part of their emergency use application.

OK, so it gets into the nucleus but the official narrative says it doesn’t stay in the body for more than a few hours. But, a huge study by one of the most respected molecular biology groups in the world at Stanford university⁴ showed that the mRNA (producing the vaccinal spike antigen) was still present and active in the body after 60 days.

Jiang and Mei, quite logically and reasonably, cautioned that the mRNA spike protein would likely have the same effect as the viral spike protein on p53 and therefore cause cancer.

Two months after this revelation was highlighted by my friend, Jikky the Mouse, the Jiang and Mei paper was retracted due to spurious “expressions of concern” (EOC) about the methods of the study despite them being standard practice.

Moreover, the authors of the EOC were Eric Freed, the head of the US National Institute of Health (NIH) that funded Moderna, the patent holder of the COVID mRNA toxshot⁵ and Oliver Shildgen, the actual editor of the journal that originally accepted the paper! And neither of them declared the conflicts of interest.

Well, despite the retraction, the spike protein circulating in large quantities, in the direct vicinity of the cell nucleus, for elongated periods of time, still has the potential to induce cancer in those cells (ovary, pancreas, breast, prostate, lymph nodes). These cancers can take years to develop and so it’s possible that we don’t see much of a safety signal for 5 or 10 years.

Sources/References

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/spike-proteins-covid-19-and-vaccines/

https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-2183-09.pdf

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35148837/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8786601/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/moderna-covid-vaccine-patent-dispute-national-institutes-health/

Read the full article at The Exposé.

 

Link To Read Full Article Here

 


 

 

Smoking Gun Covid Vaccine is a Bio-Weapon Doctor Michael McDowell

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