DNA Downloaded from the Internet? Leading Geneticist Says Yes!

The digitizing of DNA in order to transform naturally evolving life forms into programmable computer code has been an ongoing mission of the elite. In 2010, the White House gave the all-clear to this type of research in the name of “clean energy, pollution control and medicine,” which included the ability to “manipulate DNA of organisms to forge new life forms.”

Craig Venter and his J. Craig Venter Institute is at the top of the pyramid which is directing this research. As far back as 2003, a BBC article titled “Warning on Gene ‘ID Cards'” cited Craig Venter as a leading scientist in gene mapping who, at the time, was offering the “very rich” a chance to buy their gene map for $710,000. This threatens to set up a division of gene class where elites would have access to potentially life-saving information, while the underclass could be discriminated against. The short above-linked article concludes with an even more critical warning by Dr. Helen Wallace of GeneWatch that, “What we could end up with is a massive DNA database by the back door.” (Source)

This warning clearly went unheeded as DNA database news comes out almost daily in 2013. Now Craig Venter has revealed his latest concept: “a gadget that could teletransport medicine and vaccines into our homes or to colonists in space.”

Venter aims to bring gene mapping and manipulation into the homes of everyone who is connected to the Internet:

It is a box attached to a computer that would receive DNA sequences over the internet to synthesise proteins, viruses and even living cells.

It could, for example, fill a prescription for insulin, provide flu vaccine during a pandemic or even produce phage viruses targeted to fight antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

On the more fanciful side, Venter also imagines the ability to transport the information to colonists on Mars, but even that apparently can’t be completely brushed aside. As he clearly states, “‘This isn’t a fantasy look at the future. We are doing the future.”

The prototype is called a Digital Biological Converter; it’s a concept he expounds upon in his new book Life at the Speed of Light: From the Double Helix to the Dawn of Digital Life. Venter’s central tenet is that all life is nothing more than a software program. This is the same assertion made by Transhumanists such as Ray Kurzweil who already feels we are heading toward Human Body 2.0 as we begin to receive upgrades via nanobots that can deliver drugs to specific cells and initiate the overwriting process.

The idea of a genetic overwrite also appeared recently when Yale and Harvard researchers announced their goal to re-code the genome. Now that they have decoded it, the next step can commence. The researchers reported:

“It’s expanding the chemical repertoire,” said Farren Isaacs, assistant professor of molecular, cellular, and developmental biology at Yale University. “By making these fundamental changes to the code, you can create organisms that are safer, . . . more useful for the biotechnology industry, and organisms with alternate genetic codes are actually resistant to viruses.”

On Thursday in the journal Science, Isaacs and George Church, a biologist at Harvard Medical School, reported in a pair of papers on new efforts to advance a technique developed a few years ago that enables massive editing of the genome.

[…]

In a second paper, the researchers were able to show the scope of genetic words they could tweak, not limiting themselves to a single sequence of three letters.

There have been a number of methods pioneered over the past few years to edit the genomes of organisms, giving biologists a large tool kit. Isaacs and Church used a technique that makes targeted changes to DNA and also takes advantage of the process of evolution to select the strains of altered bacteria that are most viable.

“There are different ways to skin the cat,” Isaacs said. “It’s pretty exciting right now — we’re suddenly in the past few years seeing this influx of new types of technologies that are allowing us to perform unprecedented changes to genomes, and that’s really exciting and powerful.” (Source)

This might indeed sound promising, until we recall another piece of recent news that the military is also looking to genetically engineer humans; they suggest to add a 47th chromosome:

So DARPA and its team of associated scientists want to introduce an entirely new 47th chromosome into human genetics as a vector platform for inserting bio-alterations and wholesale genetic “improvements” into our DNA.

The agency hopes that development of a new chromosome will allow a solution to the limitations of current “state-of-the-art” gene transfer technologies (including plasmids, adenovirus-, lentivirus-, and retrovirus-vectors, cDNA, and minigene constructs). The proposal explains that existing approaches must be improved due to known drawbacks in the scientists’ failure to control their results, causing a few minor major problems:

“These include random DNA insertion into the host genome, variation in stable integration sites between cell lines, variation in the copy number and expression level of DNA that is delivered, limitations on the number and size of DNA constructs that can be delivered, and immunological responses to foreign DNA.”

Yet these techniques are already in use? How reassuring. (Source)

And isn’t it reassuring that DARPA is also supporting Venter’s new prototype? The connection between DARPA and mad science has been long established and always needs to raise our level of concern and limit our susceptibility to their promises of virus eradication and cures for cancer.

Meanwhile, the digitizing of anything is playing out in revelation after revelation of security issues and the ability to hack any and all digital systems. Why would Venter’s DNA box on your computer be any different? In fact, the possible misuse by Venter and crew became clear in 2006 when collaboration between the J. Craig Venter Institute and Google resulted in a ZDNet article titled Google Accused of Bio-Piracy. Plans were revealed to “create a searchable online database of all the genes on the planet.” The source of this story came from a Pulitzer Prize winner, David Vise, but to this day it seems that neither the J. Craig Venter Institute, nor Google have acknowledged any ongoing partnership.

The Institute announced in May 2010 that it finally had created the first self-replicating, synthetic bacterial cell, dubbed Synthia by the media. Most people probably concluded that this was a rather innocuous, self-promoting announcement designed to receive funding. However, if one looks deeper into this press release, one should notice the words “synthetic genome.” This is an admission that goes beyond simply altering an existing life form, as the Institute asserts, but illustrates the ability to replicate the entirety of an organism’s hereditary information.

The assertions that the J. Craig Venter Institute has found the “software of life” and can rewrite it is clearly being taken seriously at a time when revelations about how computing, medicine, technology, and the police state are converging on an almost daily basis.

In the case of Synthia, one goal was “faster vaccine production.” And, here again, we see the interest in vaccine delivery systems for Venter’s new prototype:

The current prototype can produce only DNA, not proteins or living cells, but even that could be enough to make the device practical. Some vaccines are made using just DNA molecules, points out Venter. “If there is a pandemic, everyone around you is dying and you cannot go outdoors, you can download the vaccine in a couple of seconds from the internet,” he says. That digital file would allow DBCs in homes, hospitals and companies to “just spit out a loaded syringe”. His researchers believe their current prototype is already capable of producing DNA precisely enough that it could be used as a vaccine.

However, as self-assured (many have said maniacally arrogant) Craig Venter is about the ability of full re-writes and upgrades of the human genome via the Internet, there is one area of slight doubt which may hold the clue to humanity retaining its identity and freedom: consciousness.

Although Venter works on single cells, he says he believes it holds true for even the most complex organisms. “I can’t explain consciousness yet, but like anything else it will be explainable at the molecular level, the cellular level and therefore the DNA coding level.”

This is firstly an admission that should quiet anyone who denies that this type of research intends to be merged with what is simultaneously being pursued in the area of brain mapping (mind control).

But is it just wishful thinking from the power mad?

Jon Rappoport has written extensively about the how the reductionist model is doomed to fail when encountering the boundless:

The titanic complexity of brain activity is always changing, moment to moment. So even a perfect snapshot, frozen in time—which scientists have no idea how to execute—means almost nothing in the next split-second. The adage about never stepping the same river twice applies perfectly to the brain. (Source)

So perhaps we won’t lose our minds, even if our bodies are incrementally taken from us. Meanwhile, we should not ignore all of the stresses upon our DNA that we are encountering, especially in the area of genetically modified food. As this plays out, we should be on alert for any solutions coming from the halls of establishment science who suggest easy ways to correct that damage. We must remember the documented history of discriminatory programs and depopulation initiatives that tend to override the sales pitch of the “public good.”

The new breed of mad scientist has more access than ever before to our information and our health. As these two areas continue to merge, our blood and life force is being targeted by those who long ago distanced themselves from the concerns of the average man and woman. This doesn’t bode well for our health or our sanity, unless we can become informed enough to steer this powerful technology away from our biggest threat.

Article source:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/13/craig-ventner-mars

Recently From Nicholas West: