Craig Venter of the NIH and Human Genome: Creating Synthetic Life | ” – trying to design what we want biology to do”

Agenda of the Human Genome Project: ” – for manufacturing and operating a complete human being.”

Playing God in Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Synthetic Biology and the Meaning of Life
– [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2837218/ ]

Thanks to a pingback post by the following site: There Is No Pandemic, it led me to a very interesting video featuring a Mr. Craig Venter, delving into an incredibly topical subject – even though the video was made in 2010.

Don’t think synthetic life-forms are possible in vaccines? Or that there’s even an agenda to do this?

Craig Venter, genetic researcher for the NIH and the Human Genome Project, would tell you otherwise…

“operating system”

“all the characteristics of the first species disappear”

“new species emerges from this software”

“making the flu vaccine each year by using these new synthetic techniques”

Click image for archived video. Original source can be found here: [ https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form ]
“Craig Venter creates synthetic life form”
Full transcript. Some embellishment has been added for emphasis.

Craig Venter: “Well this has been about a 15 year process. It started back in 1995, when we sequenced the first two genomes in history. Including the smallest genome, that of mycoplasma genitalium. And we set out a goal to try and understand what the smallest genome you can have as an operating system, to try and understand the basic components of life. It’s taken us through this long journey. Much longer than we ever anticipated. But that’s what happens when you enter into areas that nobody’s ever been before.

So at first we had to learn how to write the genetic code to synthesize pieces. Because the largest piece that ever has been synthesized other than our work has been only 30,000 letters. The first chromosome we were trying to make was over 500,000. And the one that we ultimately made and report in this paper is over 1,000,000 letters of genetic code. And we start with 4 bottles of chemicals, and the computer code in the computer, the digital code in the computer from DNA sequence. So, just learning how to do the synthesis was mastering a lot of chemistry that has never been done before. And we learned sequentially over the years how to build larger and larger molecules.

In 2003 we reported making a 5,000 letter bacterial virus, 5X174, and how to error correct the pieces. So, we start with pieces of DNA coming off DNA synthesizers; they’re only about 50-80 letters long. That’s pretty much the limit of what you can make with a chemical synthesizer. So everything we make from that has to be putting these little pieces together. Much like having a box of legos and having to assemble them back in the right order to get what you started with. So it’s been progressive over this entire time period. We thought we would have this almost 3 years ago. But we kept running into very significant biological roadblocks.”

Interviewer: “All right. And what do you ultimately hope to do with a method like this?

Craig Venter: “Well, this is an important step, we think, both scientifically and philosophically. It certainly changed my views of definitions of life and how life works. It’s pretty stunning when you just replace the DNA software in the cell, and the cell instantly starts reading that new software, starts making a whole different set of proteins. And within a short while, all the characteristics of the first species disappear. And a new species emerges from this software that controls that cell going forward.

When we look at life forms we see them as sort of fixed entities. But this shows, in fact how dynamic they are. That they change from second to second. And that life is basically a result of an information process, a software process. Our genetic code is our software. And our cells are dynamically constantly reading that genetic code, making new proteins, the proteins make the other cellular components, and that’s what we see. But it’s hard to imagine how dynamic it is until we found, simply by replacing the software, it started making a whole new cell, whatever is defined by that software. So that’s, that’s a pretty important change in how we approach and think about life.

Also this is now the first time where we’ve started with information in the computer, built that software molecule, now over a million letters of genetic code, put that into a recipient cell, and have this process start where that information converted that cell into a new species. So this becomes a very powerful tool for trying to design what we want biology to do.

As leaders of competing genome projects, Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and J. Craig Venter, president of Celera Genomics, were recognized, correctly, as the two most important players in the worldwide effort to spell out the 3 billion “letters” of the human genome–the biochemical recipe, encoded in our DNA, for manufacturing and operating a complete human being.

[ https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,998842,00.html ]

We have a wide range of applications, so at the biotech company that funded the synthetic genomics that Ham Smith and I started a few years back, we have a major deal with ExxonMobil to try and use algae to capture carbon dioxide and make new hydrocarbons that can go into the Exxon refineries. To try and replace taking the oil out of the ground.

There’s no natural algaes that we know that can do this at the scale it’s needed. So we’re going to have to use our synthetic genomic techniques to either heavily modify existing algaes or develop whole new ones from scratch that have all the parameters that we want. These same tools, these same processes can be used for making chemicals, for making food substances, we hope for cleaning up water.

But perhaps the most important immediate application is we’re already working at the Venter Institute and working with Novartis to try and make new vaccines very quickly; we think we can shorten the process by 99% for making the flu vaccine each year by using these new synthetic techniques. But I think it’s going to be one of those situations I tell audiences I talk to that ‘we’re entering a new era we’re limited mostly by our imaginations’.”

Interviewer: “Could you ever use a method like this with a higher organism? Something more complex than bacteria?

Craig Venter: “Well, it’s certainly not in the immediate future. Bacteria have much more simplified genetic systems. They don’t have the same complex regulation that higher organisms have. But there are a number of single cell eukaryotes.

So we’re eukaryotes because we have a nucleus, I think one of the key things we mastered with our studies, particularly since 2003, and we reported the latest results a few months ago in Science at the end of last year, is we can move chromosomes across the branches of life. So we can move from bacteria into eukaryotes, we use yeast for all these processes. We can take the chromosomes out of yeast and move them back into bacteria to create new life forms.

So a next step would be try to make a simplified eukaryote. Yeast is very key for bio-manufacturing, for ethanol production, etc. And if we can have even a more efficient yeast cell, and at the same time, try and understand all its components, I think we’ll be able to make synthetic eukaryotes. Higher animals, multi-cellular systems are, I think, projects for the much more distant future.”

Interviewer: “Actually I have a couple more questions. Just about how we distinguish between any sort of synthetically – organisms with synthetic genomes versus the natural ones? One question I guess would be about containment.”

[Interview cuts out a section]

Craig Venter: ” – we were when we first started down this process, what could be an artifact that could fool us into thinking we had created synthetic life, when in fact it was just a contaminate of the native chromosome? And, where would even a single molecule of native chromosome could fool us into thinking we had created a new cell?

So early on we started designing a process of putting watermarks in the genetic code. We did this in the first chromosome we reported two years ago, basically all of us that helped build the genetic code signed the DNA, coded our names into the chromosome.

With this genome we’ve gone a little bit further; we’ve put 4 major watermarks in. We’ve developed a new code for writing English language, other languages, with punctuation and numbers into the genetic code. In the first watermark we actually have this code that needs to be decoded for people to read the rest. We even have a website built into the genetic code that if people solve it they can let us know that they’ve been able to read it.

“- and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”Revelation 13:17

All the authors of this study over the… certainly the last decade, our names are all encoded in this first genome. And we have three quotations built in there of adding a little philosophy to the genetic code at the same time. Which I think the chance of finding any of these in a naturally occurring genome is about as close to zero as you can get. So we can absolutely prove from the genetic changes, that we’ve been built in to the design of the chromosomes that it’s unquestionably the synthetic DNA that we made, not some natural contaminant.

A containment, that’s a really critical issue, and it’s one of the most important issues to us, and one of the number one questions I get asked in all my litera- all my lectures around the globe. And when we look at molecular biology for the last several decades, we all use e. coli in the laboratory, that genes from multiple species have been put in it over the years – probably tens of millions of experiments. And there’s not been a single accident. And the reason for that is that e. coli has a chemical dependency for growing in the laboratory.

So these are things we can start to build in to the design of synthetic genomes, we can build in suicide genes so they can’t escape. And so we can use artificial amino acids. There’s a number of approaches that we’re developing and other labs are developing to guarantee absolute containment.

And this first proof of principle, we’ve largely copied the mycoides genome, because as a control, if we couldn’t boot up something that was already known, we could never get to the design phase. We deleted 14 genes from this genome, and made all these other genetic modifications. This cell only grows on extremely rich [media(sp?)] on the laboratory.

The only other place it goes, the mycoides genome is a minor goat pathogen that causes mastitis in goats. We think we’ve eliminated the genes associated with that, but it will not grow outside of the laboratory unless it’s deliberately injected or sprayed into a goat. So, we don’t work with goats, so we think we have pretty good containment systems in the lab.

There’s selectable markers that’s dependent on a specific antibiotic. So these are early attempts, I think. These containment approaches would get far more sophisticated with the next versions of what we and others do.”

Interviewer: “All right. Well, are there any final points you’d like to make before we close?”

Craig Venter: “Well, this is the first synthetic cell that’s been made and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome made from 4 bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer. Starting with information in the computer.

Before we did these experiments starting back in the late 90’s, we asked for a complete bioethical review, knowing we were going into uncharted territory, trying to create new species. The review group at the University of Pennsylvania published the results in Science in 1999. Since then there’s been lots of different review processes around the world. The Sloan Foundation funded my institute, the Venter Institute, along with MIT, and a Washington think tank, to look at the security issues concerning this. That report was published and can be downloaded from JCVI.org.

There’s been ongoing discussions in the U.S. government, in the E.U., the National Academy of Sciences has done reports on this. So I think this is the first incidence in science where the extensive bioethical review took place before the experiments were done. And it’s part of an ongoing process that we’ve been driving, trying to make sure that the science proceeds in an ethical fashion, that we’re being thoughtful about what we do, and looking forward to the implications to the future.”

End of transcript.

So here is undeniable proof, that the folks at the NIH and Human Genome Project have been trying to synthesize organisms for the sole purpose of creating new species/life forms, and using these techniques for vaccines, AND states that these synthetic substances WILL CHANGE DNA.

It all ties back to the NIH and the HUMAN GENOME PROJECT. The theory that the COVID vaccines are an attempt at a worldwide genome experiment project is becoming clearer every single day, backed up with all of the data that has come forward, backed up with all of the studies pointing to this very agenda, backed up with countless interviews, positions and documentations of the likes of Anthony Fauci, Christine Grady, Bill Gates, Craig Venter, Eric Lander, Klaus Schwab, Francis Collins, their institutes and cohorts GAVI, WEF, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, NIH, Human Genome Project, World Health Organization, United Nations, MIT, Harvard, etc., etc., etc.

“Venter and colleagues published their paper about creating a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome in the journal Science in May 2010.

“Some of you are asking, why do this? It’s great basic science, but there are some more compelling reasons,” he said, noting that synthetic DNA can be used to develop genomics-based vaccines.

“The National Institutes of Health has funded my institute to create synthetic pieces of every known flu virus, so anytime we need a new vaccine, we can just take these pieces off the shelf, and go through the assembly and have flu vaccine stocks in a very short time,” he said. “In the next year or two, you might get the first synthetic DNA vaccines.”

Web archive version: Synthetic life forms can produce vaccines, gobble up CO2 and more, says expert

Although the below excerpt specifies “intranasal”, there are also endeavors of injectable live attenuated vaccines as well:

“The company’s breakthrough Synthetic Attenuated Virus Engineering (SAVE) platform utilizes a computer algorithm to recode the genomes of viruses and construct live-attenuated vaccines to prevent viral infections or treat solid tumors.”

Web archive version: Codagenix and Serum Institute of India Announce Commencement of First-in-Human Trial of COVI-VAC, A Single Dose, Intranasal Live Attenuated Vaccine for COVID-19

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16778323/ ] “Genetically modified live attenuated parasites as vaccines for leishmaniasis” (2006)

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28620583/ ] “Engineering of Genetically Arrested Parasites (GAPs) For a Precision Malaria Vaccine” (2017)

[ https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/investigational-malaria-vaccine-gives-strong-lasting-protection ] “Investigational Malaria Vaccine Gives Strong, Lasting Protection” (2021)“The vaccine combines live parasites with either of two widely used antimalarial drugs—an approach termed chemoprophylaxis vaccination.”

Now, with all of that being said, and with this outright admission by Craig Venter about their agenda, I have to bring up one of Richard Fleming’s latest criticism of ALL the doctors that have claimed to find what seems to be graphene oxide, nanobots, and/or parasitic-like organisms in the vaccines.

Firstly, this should have been approached in a more scientific approach to researching the vaccine’s contents.

While the other doctors are investigating these vaccines and are questioning its contents, even inviting other scientists and researchers to help them identify what these substances are, Dr. Fleming is undermining their research and dismissing their conclusions. Even implying, at one point, the mention of “credentials” as to whether or not to take one seriously.

Secondly… isn’t that precisely why we’re in the mess we’re in right now? Because SO many people decided to trust the likes of Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins? Does it matter how many so-called credentials one has to determine their sincerity and integrity or even professionalism? Doesn’t look like it to me. As long as a researcher is honest and looking for the truth, I will take their word over an overpaid “expert” any day. Especially ones who conduct inhumane, atrocious experiments on other living beings.

Then, of course, when addressing anything in a scientific approach, and certainly before reaching concrete conclusions and dismissing any other research (like the fraudulent Lancet paper did, for example…) one must consider ALL variables. Take the following for consideration:

how many vials total did Richard Fleming test?

were they from the same batch, or all different batches? Different brands, or all the same brand?

were all these vials from the same country? – it is becoming more and more apparent that different countries are getting different doses/batches

at what magnification did Fleming conduct his tests compared to all of the other doctors/scientists?

are we considering that some batches/doses will contain certain substances while others consist of saline solutions only – as what has already been theorized?

if different countries are getting different batches, there is a chance that there will be different substances for each country – to perhaps test a wider set of material/organisms and/or to target certain people’s DNA/ethnicity/etc.?

what is the “garbage” and “debris” that Fleming is referencing? “Garbage” has to be something. Was there an attempt to identify these compositions? Or just label them all with the term “debris” and “garbage”?

Fleming also mentions the term “crystalline” on more than one occasion… does he realize that there are indeed nanocrystal-graphene hybrid material that has been synthesized? Does he know every possible thing that can be synthesized or genetically modified using either Venter’s DNA genetic modification technique or the CRISPR technology?

“Nanocrystal-graphene have been proposed as a new kind of promising hybrid for a wide range of application areas including catalysts, electronics, sensors, biomedicine, and energy storage, etc. Although a variety of methods have been developed for the preparation of hybrids, a facile and general synthetic approach is still highly required.”

“A rich library of highly crystalline nanocrystals, with types including noble metal, metal oxide, magnetic material and semiconductor were successfully grown on chemically converted graphene (CCG), which is simultaneously reduced from GO during the synthesis.”

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22699842/ ] “Generalized syntheses of nanocrystal-graphene hybrids in high-boiling-point organic solvents”

Is Mr. Fleming aware of all the technological and biological advancements and agendas in the arena of nanotechnology in combination with virus-based particles?

“Genetically modified viruses offer a general route for the production of materials with complex nanoscale detail, for use either directly or as templates. It appears likely that modified viruses will feature prominently in the nanotechnology of the immediate future. The possible commercial exploitation of virus-templated materials includes nanowires, high surface area materials for battery electrodes, detectors, catalytic material, light harvesting devices, quantum dots, and tunable photonic devices.”

[ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9783527671403.hlc094 ] “7 Virus Particle-Based Liquid Crystals”

Will Mr. Fleming attempt to identify these so-called “garbage” and “debris” and conduct further studies with a higher magnification, or continue to shoot down other’s legitimate attempts at trying to figure out exactly what these particles are? Notice he never tries to identify what ANYTHING in the vaccine is, other than mentioning “lipid nanoparticles”. Only giving his opinion of what it’s not.

And with all of the evidence showing that genetically modified organisms is not only highly probable but also incredibly likely, considering the NIH’s many, many, MANY horrific experiments and crimes against humanity (and animal life), and Craig Venter’s ventures, not to mention Bill Gates’ very own admission and extensive funding in this matter, I am ultimately left questioning Fleming’s motives.

Bill Gates: “You know, is there something to worry about with medicines, that is might – some of them might have side effects? Do we need safety testing? I mean and we’re taking things that are… you know, genetically modified organisms and we’re injecting them in little kids arms. We just shoot them right into the vein.”

Bottom line: yes, these vaccines are extremely dangerous. And if the ones in control of pushing these worldwide vaccines are also in control of the Human Genome Project and attempts at re-writing our DNA, our best bet would be to avoid these at all costs and address these as the crimes they are.

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay

I'd love to hear your thoughts: