Combining Health/Medical/Biodata Together with Artificial Intelligence – For OUR Benefit? Or For a Different Reason Altogether?

A.I. technology has made significant advances. But what if it never stops advancing?

As I was researching an individual (who shall not be named to protect their anonymity) – I came across a rather… intriguing company that they had an interest in.

For a little background, this individual has been speculated as getting their really young son vaccinated, even before it was authorized in their area. For additional reference, it would seem that being involved in the NHS is also an important part of their repertoire – so perhaps they are of the UK region.

Again, these are more of a supposition based on their information, so please take it with a grain of salt.

Sadly, this individual lost their son not too long ago.

Now, just out of curiosity sakes (not to condemn, provoke, judge, or anything of the sort) I took an initiative to research their twitter page for additional information. What were their other interests/involvements? What makes this person a pro-vaccine advocate? Etc. This is where the information about the NHS comes from.

And in addition, there was another company listed that really took me aback. And that will be the focus of what this post is about.

The DEMON Network

“We are the international network for the application of data science and AI to dementia research. The Deep Dementia Phenotyping (DEMON) Network brings together academics, clinicians and other partners from across the world. By connecting these people, we can identify innovative approaches to interdisciplinary collaborative dementia research across multiple institutions.

Our vision is to revolutionise dementia research and healthcare by bringing innovators together and harnessing the power of data science and AI.”

Source: [ https://demondementia.com/about/ ]

Further research into this group and the above individual’s interests revealed human genomes/genetics and deep brain integration with AI as additional fields of pursuit.

Very interesting.

And once again, just as the SATiN technology – I have to point out the incredibly unnecessary and non-sense acronym that they have decided to choose for their company.

“Deep Dementia Phenotyping (DEMON)”?

It is quite obvious the allusion that they were going for.

Now, for the sake of playing Devil’s advocate (no pun intended), perhaps they only mean it as a reference that ‘dementia’ is such an awful disease and so they are calling dementia itself a “demon”, in the most figurative of sense. Or, one can construe it in the sense that some people have described the symptoms of dementia as that of someone being demonically possessed – the change in personality, the trembling/shaking, sudden aggression, etc. So perhaps their motive was to highlight this detail – as controversial as that would be.

However, under the assumption that anyone who has faith/belief in God/Jesus Christ, or even who believes in preserving humanity in our natural state, and who would not want to tamper with His creations in such a way as to genetically modify and/or merge us (or any other living being) with man-made technology, the rationale that the groups of people initiating this sort of invasive work would deliberately choose the acronym it did for more of a shock value than anything else, and to perhaps mock those who are against this sort of contentious work, would make more sense.

There is, of course, the darker side of the argument, and that’s that the founder(s) of something like DEMON Network, fully believe that they are serving a “demonic” agenda.

No one likes to contemplate on this subject. No one wants to believe that someone running a large organization in manipulating, modifying, genetically changing, hacking the software of life, collecting medical/biological/DNA information – could possibly be involved in such a thing as “demonic worship”, or idolizing machines – like artificial intelligence, for example – or would attempt to personify a computer learning algorithm/intelligence as a “beast system”.

Yet, when digging into transhumanism, technological advancements, the agendas of certain “philanthropic” billionaires and globalists, government agencies… one thing seems to tie them all together. And that is, indeed, a reset of humanity in some way, that involves merging us with machine.

This is NO SECRET, and has been admitted by everyone from Klaus Schwab, to Bill Gates, to Elon Musk, to Henry Kissinger (who was a professor of Klaus Schwab) to institutions such as DARPA.

Getting back to the DEMON Network, who has partnered with the UK Dementia Research Institute, I have selected a few short excerpts from an interview between David Llewellyn (founder of DEMON Network) and Bart De Strooper of the UK DRI that can be found at the following link: [ https://demondementia.com/podcast-using-ai-data-to-fight-dementia/ ] “Podcast: Using AI & data to fight dementia”

David Llewellyn: “We deliberately, I mean, it’s designed to encourage collaboration and new ideas, dangerous ideas, so we want people to join who don’t know anything about dementia. Maybe they know all about transfer learning, or other forms of machine learning, or artificial intelligence.”

Interviewer Megan O’Hare: “When we got given the topic for this podcast, thought to myself, I should probably actually, work out what artificial intelligence is. Obviously we use the word a lot, and you think of that Will Smith film, and – but, and so I had to look around and there’s the cheering test. Which is basically the test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to or indistinguishable from that of a human.

But I wanted, because you’re both coming at it from different places, how you view A.I.? Um, to how you think it will impact dementia research? Maybe, David, we start with you?”

David Llewellyn: “Well, it’s a difficult thing to pin down. Because it obviously means different things to different people. But I think in its, in its broader sense, artificial intelligence is the idea that we’ll create machines that think for themselves, and they’re able to exhibit intelligent characteristics without, without us pulling levers; manually inputting and prodding and poking them into what they should be doing.

And the most ambitious form of artificial intelligence is a sort of creation of a new digital, sentient being, which will take over the world and enslave us.

And that’s the – that’s the thing that, that some people worry about. You know, the point at which machines don’t just match our performance, but start to exceed our performance. So that – that’s the, that is a fascinating and yet, and as yet unachieved ambition. That not everyone thinks we should be aiming for either.

I don’t think many people are arguing we’ve created a super-intelligent yet. But it’s possible. It’s possible.

Bart De Strooper: “These are the advances of molecule biology, and how it’s done at the moment is it’s very simplistic. We use a – we use a… […] I apologize to my colleagues – but we take a cell, we put a DNA in it, we express the protein, and then we see things happening, of course, and everything that’s biology. Of course! Biology’s much more complicated.

You need to – to, and that’s – so the next step in molecule biology was, if I’m boring you please interrupt me, but next step was the mouse stuff. When we changed the gene, and then we saw the whole thing change in the mouse.”

Bart De Strooper: “There will be a moment, and that’s also the vision of the DRI, there is a moment that most of the research will be in silico.

Bart De Strooper: “I think that in the 10 years, I foresee for me now, still going on, that’s – a lot of the classical biology will be replaced by, by this combination of silico prediction, and then tested. In 20 years, it’s probably going to be the classical biologists will be a rare species.

David Llewellyn: “Well if you listen to some people, artificial intelligence will make us all redundant.”

Image credited to: UK Dementia Research Institute

And as Dr. James Giordano so succinctly put it, when given funding from multiple different organizations, the possibility of “dual-use” medical/scientific interventions becomes an obvious motive.

Take a study/research that involves David Llewellyn and others on behalf of the European Task Force for Brain Health Services:

[ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8507172/ ] “Modifiable risk factors for dementia and dementia risk profiling. A user manual for Brain Health Services”

Some noteworthy possible Conflicts of Interest that could have influenced some of the research/funding/studies, etc. of such endeavors involves the following companies:

Source: [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8507172/ ] “Modifiable risk factors for dementia and dementia risk profiling. A user manual for Brain Health Services”

AstraZeneca
BioCross
Biogen
Elan Pharmaceuticals
Genentech
Janssen
Lilly
Lundbeck
Novartis
Pfizer

Those are some extremely familiar names. Now why is this so important?

Well, aside from the very unusual name (DEMON Network) and their possible involvement/affiliations with the above listed organizations – imagine a company being able to provide a cure for such a debilitating illness – like dementia/Alzheimer’s for instance. In fact, imagine a complete cure for anything you can think of.

Cancer. The common cold. Heart attacks. Depression. Schizophrenia. ADHD. AIDS. So on and so forth.

Now ask yourself, what happens to these companies when the cure is established and no one is sick from anything anymore? Well, quite obviously, people won’t need on-going medicine/drugs/therapists/vaccines… etc., etc. Thus, putting the medical field largely out of a very lucrative business. As long as they can keep flourishing with an abundance of “sick” people, an actual CURE would destroy their whole entire foundation.

So from a strictly financial/business point of view, the medical field would be shooting themselves in the foot if they were to ever find such a beneficial treatment. The smart, yet extremely underhanded thing to do, would be to keep the falsehood going that they are treating you, while keeping you sick all the while to peddle drugs and even more treatments to “cure” additional ailments.

Now, am I necessarily saying that this is exactly what’s going on here? Well… there are many signs that certainly do point in that direction. But I am also of the belief that there are people in those institutions that don’t believe this, and who are, in fact, very honest and genuine people trying to help others with their illnesses. But it doesn’t mean that it’s not going on.

Perhaps even some in that field are becoming disillusioned with their very own profession/career and the suspicious activities that their organizations have engaged in. But one can’t help but wonder if this is the true motive of the medical institutions.

And again, it certainly does not help when they pair up with foundations named DEMON Network who are interested in implementing A.I. algorithms and tracking/monitoring human being’s physiology; under the false guise, in my opinion, of helping people.

Elon Musk makes an eerie reference

As mentioned earlier, Elon Musk, who is eager to start implementing his Neuralink implants into human beings next year (2022), has said this rather… interesting “hyperbole” about A.I.’s back in 2014:

Elon Musk: “And with artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon. You know? You know all those stories where, there’s the guy with the pentagram and the holy water, and he’s like, yeah, he’s sure he can control the demon. [exaggerated winking]

It didn’t work out.

Sure this very well could have been strictly a metaphor, but in context of the individuals/organizations who truly are interested in A.I. technology, and the transhumanism efforts, and who also seem to have an uncanny alliance/affiliation with the Lucis Trust (formerly the Lucifer Trust), the supposition that it is all just a coincidence gets less and less certain.

Metabolic Machines and Demons of Life

In addition to all of that, are even more allusions to the “demonic” qualities that artificial intelligence/computing systems seem to possess. (again, no pun intended)

Thomas Feuerstein is an artist who focuses a lot on biotechnology and fuses biological organisms (algae, human cells) into his artwork. Again, with an interest in artificial intelligence as well, his take on what artificial intelligence is, coupled with his artwork, presents an even deeper meaning into a “demon network” that I don’t think many of us are aware of.

Take the following excerpts from Feuerstein’s presentation for consideration:

All quotes by Thomas Feuerstein:

“Data metabolic systems, I mean works that eat and […] digest data autonomously, and convert them into new data, always based on a software that I call “demon”.

In ancient Greece, the daemon was a translator between ideas and meta, gods and humans. And furthermore, a daemon or demon was a distributor of fate, of resources, goods and information.”

“To this day, the word “demon” hides in many common words, theories and concepts. For example, democracy comes from demos, which means people or nations. And “daemos” derives from daemon. In this sense, a daemon is a governor, a decision maker, and an allocator.”

“Demons today are not only fictional or mythical creatures in literature, religions, superstition, or pop culture. We find them also in science, technology, art, economics, and politics.

And as I said before, without demons there can be no governance, and no cybernetics.

Our daily lives are full of demons, and with the emergence of new technologies and A.I., cultural demons are becoming more and more relevant in a networked society. We find them in electronic devices, in the form of algorithmic trading, in biotechnology, surveillance technology – “

“The ancient concepts of demons we have to sink in new contexts. More and more demons become machines; biochemical and digital machines.”

“Another very strong demon, the Holy Spirit, enters not as a higher source any longer. It enhances the brain, digital and molecular. In future times maybe we are all enlightened people, speaking in tongues and glossolalia becomes a molecular and digital application in our brain.

For example, the company Neuralink, wants to implant brain computer interfaces – so called BCI, to connect the brain with the internet.

Ironically I can say in the future we may not only have artificial intelligence, we may have artificial identity.”

“Deep meaning reminds me of DeepDream from Google [editor’s note: who, unironically, removed the motto “Don’t be evil” from their code of conduct policy…], and shows that the genius is not a person with special abilities, but someone who is controlled by a higher intelligence and ruled like a puppet.”

” – Fernando Corbato and the science team at the MIT, wrote the computer program “daemon”. It was a simple backup program, and daemon was a backronym for a disk and execution monitor. And this is important, because it was the beginning of machines started to talk to themselves. It influenced all later programs from chat BOTS to search BOTS to viruses and artificial intelligence agents. And in this sense, the most mightful and greedy demon who haunts the internet today is the Google bot.”

“More and more demons take possession of our environment and connect us imperceptibly with networked processes. These demons lurk in smartphones and smart homes.”

“Another cosmist, Nikolai Federov, describes the machinist of the future as a place not for death, but for technical reanimated humans. This was science fiction at the time, but today where Google, Facebook […] are constantly collecting data, a digital reapers is approaching technical feasability.

Ironically I would say, we will end not in graves, we will end as demons in cyberspace.”

And like Thomas Feuerstein mentioned, the demon/daemon terminology to describe computer programs/artificial intelligence is an expression  – at least from a computer programmer/hacker’s point of view.

In The Original Hacker’s Dictionary, it describes daemon and demon as the following:

DAEMON (day’mun, dee’mun) [archaic form of “demon”, which has slightly different connotations (q.v.)] n. A program which is not invoked explicitly, but which lays dormant waiting for some condition(s) to occur. The idea is that the perpetrator of the condition need not be aware that a daemon is lurking (though often a program will commit an action only because it knows that it will implicitly invoke a daemon). For example, writing a file on the lpt spooler’s directory will invoke the spooling daemon, which prints the file. The advantage is that programs which want (in this example) files printed need not compete for access to the lpt. They simply enter their implicit requests and let the daemon decide what to do with them. Daemons are usually spawned automatically by the system, and may either live forever or be regenerated at intervals. Usage: DAEMON and DEMON (q.v.) are often used interchangeably, but seem to have distinct connotations. DAEMON was introduced to computing by CTSS people (who pronounced it dee’mon) and used it to refer to what is now called a DRAGON or PHANTOM (q.v.). The meaning and pronunciation have drifted, and we think this glossary reflects current usage.

DEMON (dee’mun) n. A portion of a program which is not invoked explicitly, but which lays dormant waiting for some condition(s) to occur. See DAEMON. The distinction is that demons are usually processes within a program, while daemons are usually programs running on an operating system. Demons are particularly common in AI programs. For example, a knowledge manipulation program might implement inference rules as demons. Whenever a new piece of knowledge was added, various demons would activate (which demons depends on the particular piece of data) and would create additional pieces of knowledge by applying their respective inference rules to the original piece. These new pieces could in turn activate more demons as the inferences filtered down through chains of logic. Meanwhile the main program could continue with whatever its primary task was.”

So now one has to wonder, are the agendas of the “DEMON Network” really to help those with dementia? Or, as Professor David Llewellyn implied himself, are they more interested in:

“Dr Megan O’Hare interviews Professor Bart De Strooper and Professor David Llewellyn, discussing the new UK Dementia Research Institute and DEMON Network partnership to unlock the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI).”?

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 Tayeb MEZAHDIA from Pixabay

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