Tal Zaks, Former Chief Scientist at Moderna, Speaks of Nanomedicine, Personalized Vaccines and Genetic Engineering in 2017

Scientist quote/unquote: “hacking the software of life.”

Tal Zaks, former Chief Medical Officer at Moderna (currently partnering with Orbimed) – gives us another look at their terminology of “hacking the software of life”, i.e. – changing/modifying our genes.

Piggybacking off of Klaus Schwab’s statements that gene-editing changes YOU, not to mention Craig Venter’s (of the Human Genome Project) admission that:

“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.”

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

– it is clear that, by definition, “rewriting the genetic code” changes what it means to be human – or changes whatever species is being modified. Craig Venter himself says that a “new species emerges from this software”.

So while these doctors and scientists try to sugarcoat these ill-conceived endeavors (even if they were born of good intentions initially… “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”), the attempts at genetically changing our DNA have grave consequences; not only on the physical-molecular level, but on the conscious-soul level as well.

Here, Tal Zaks, in a Tedx Talk from November 2017, specifically mentions vaccines (a total of 17 times in a 10 minute presentation) to administer this genetic-changing software. In addition, he also alludes to collecting DNA in order to make “personalized vaccines”. An endeavor that DARPA is also invested in:

DNA Script Partners with Moderna to Develop On-Demand Vaccines and Therapeutics for DARPA

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., and PARIS | April 27, 2021

[ https://www.dnascript.com/press-releases/dna-script-partners-with-moderna-to-develop-on-demand-vaccines-and-therapeutics-for-darpa/ ]

“Rewriting the Genetic Code” – Tal Zaks (2017)

Source: odysee | @RedPillman | Rewriting the Genetic Code

Full transcript below. Some embellishment has been added for emphasis.

Tal Zaks: “So I started my professional life about thirty years ago as a nurse and the pediatric intensive care unit.

And I remember this one infant, let’s call him Jonathan, who came in really really ill. Seemed to have a rare genetic defect, but in those days, gene diagnosis was still in its infancy so we couldn’t really figure out what’s wrong with him.

And in the years since, as I’ve trained as a physician scientist, we’ve been living in this phenomenal digital and scientific revolution. And I’m here today to tell you that we’re actually hacking the software of life. And that it’s changing the way we think about prevention and treatment of disease.

So here’s all the biology you need to know in 30 seconds. Our body is made out of organs, our organs are made out of cells, and in every cell there’s this thing called “messenger RNA” or mRNA for short, that transmits the critical information from the DNA, our genes, to the protein, which is really the stuff we’re all made of.

This is the critical information that determines what a cell will actually do. And so we think of it like an operating system. And it’s not just in every cell of our body. It’s actually in every cell of every organism of life. It’s the same thing.

And so, if you could actually change that, which we call the software of life, you could introduce a line of code, or change a line of code, it turns out that has profound implications for everything from the flu, to cancer. And I’m going to demonstrate that with three short examples.

Let’s start with the flu. So many of us get a vaccine. What is a vaccine? It is an injection in our arm where we get bits and pieces of the virus; the protein, and that teaches our immune system to recognize the virus and so when we get infected we’re not sick.

Now imagine if instead of giving the protein, we would give the instructions on how to make the protein. How the body can make its own vaccine. That’s an mRNA vaccine.

And here’s what it looks like from the cell.”

Image Source: Tal Zaks / Tedx Talks

“So the traditional approach has protein floating around your cells. An mRNA vaccine approach has the cells themselves in your own body making the vaccine.

What’s more alarming: a stranger prowling the neighborhood, or somebody who’s just broke into your ground-floor, and tripped the alarm?

That’s what happens with an mRNA vaccine. You’re tripped the alarm wire and now the cell is dialing 9-1-1. It’s calling the police at the same time as it’s making the protein and saying, ‘that’s the bad guy’.

That’s how an mRNA works. And for the last several years we’ve shown this actually works in a whole multitude of animal models. Earlier this year we published the first actual study in people. And it actually works in people.

We took a group of volunteers and injected them with a messenger RNA vaccine against a variant of flu/influenza. And all of these volunteers got the immune response we were hoping to see. The side-effect profile was pretty benign, what you would see with any normal type vaccine.

So we’ve proven the principle, this actually can work. It works in people and now we’re going to be developing a whole slew of vaccines against diseases for which we don’t have one. So that’s infectious disease.

Now for the second example, let’s talk for a minute about cancer. Horrible disease. Cancer has affected the lives of many of us and will affect the lives of many more of us as we age.

The problem with cancer at the cellular level is that the DNA is screwed up. You’ve got these mutation on this screwed up DNA, leads up to screwed up information that makes screwed up protein. And so the cell loses control.

Now, how do you figure out what is actually screwed up? Well, you got to figure out the whole sequence, right?

It took us decades and billions of dollars to sequence the human genome, and we’ve done that. We achieved that in 2003. And now we’re less than 15 years later, and it takes us a week. And we can do it for every patient. So now we can go and figure out what exactly is screwed up in a patient, and we can use that information to make a vaccine.

We take that information, say a patient with lung cancer, and we take it – we take the biopsy, we figure out the sequence, we figure out their immune system, we – and that all becomes information. It goes up in the cloud into a bioinformatic algorithm and then automatically makes a vaccine that we administer into their normal tissue; into the muscle to try and wake up their immune system.

Now the challenge, of course, is that every person’s cancer is different. Mutation happened by random chance. And so to do this you have to make it personalized.

So this is me, but if every patient is different, what we’re going to have to do is make a personalized cancer vaccine for every patient. And that’s exactly what we’ve started to do. Every patient gets a vaccine that’s based on the sequence and their own tumor.

So when we started to do this a couple years ago, my CEO stopped by one evening and said, “Tal, I get the idea but is this going to work?” And I said, “Look, Stefan. I don’t know, but we’ve got all the pieces to try and answer the question so we should try.”

And today I can tell you that I still don’t know if it’s going to work. But I know we’re able to actually run the experiment. Earlier this week the first patient was treated with a personalized cancer vaccine we made just for her.

So in the months and years to come we will know the answer of whether we can actually wake the immune system against somebody’s cancer with a personalized cancer vaccine so stay tuned.

I’m gonna finish with a third example of something called “methylmalonic acidemia” or MMA for short. Now the name doesn’t matter. Okay? This is just a disease that is caused by an enzyme that’s critical for metabolism. And children are born and they lack this one crucial gene. And so their body is not able really to fight infection properly or anytime they have any sort of stress, their body goes into crisis. They have one gene that’s gone awry and it causes a really significant disease.

If you look at what happens over time, for these children, about 1/3 of them don’t make it to the age of 10. You see here the survival curve whether the gene is completely lost or whether there’s just an aberration in it, the survival is impaired.

And, what do we do? Well there’s not much you can do because the missing protein is actually missing inside their cells. So what do we do? Well, here’s what we do. We take out their liver and we transplant the liver from a donor that is healthy and normal into these kids.

Think about it. They’re missing one critical piece of information and what we do is transplant an entire organ. Well, it fixes the problem, but what if there’s a better way? What if we could fix the missing information?

So based on innovations, nanomedicine, a new class of invention that Bob Langer across the river at MIT in Cambridge has been inventing, we’re now able to package this information and messenger RNA with a goal of giving it as an infusion, and then having it go to the liver to replace that missing information.

Is this going to work? Well we know the biology works. So together with the National Institutes of Health, we’ve studied this in a mouse model and this mouse has been engineered to have the exact same problem that the kids have. They’re lacking the one – the same gene. And you can see in the red line what happens to these mice when they’re born. Pretty much immediately they die. They cannot cope with stress. But if you inject messenger RNA that codes for the one missing protein that replaces that information, these mice, all of them survive, as you can see in the green line. And if you look at them they not only survive, they’re actually growing, they’re gaining weight, they look like they’re healthy littermates.

We’re hoping to start the clinical trial in the near future and the idea is the same thing here. If you think about what it is we’re trying to do, we’ve taken information and our understanding of that information and how that information is transmitted in a cell, and we’ve taken our understanding of medicine and how to make drugs and we’re fusing the two. We think of it as information therapy.

I started by telling you about Jonathan and 30 years ago, and I was a nurse in the intensive care unit, I worked two night shifts, and Jonathan came in when he was about 12 months old and very quickly became dependent on a ventilator. And for the next 15 months or so, every time I came into the unit he was my patient to care for. You know, bathe, feed, treat, play with – he couldn’t talk, he was on a ventilator, but he was very much alive and you could tell – you could play with him, his eyes would – would follow me. After a while he would recognize me. Until one day I came into the unit for my shift and he was no longer there. He had died because of an infection in between shifts.

Imagine a world where we cannot just diagnose, but we can actually use the information to create vaccines to wake up the immune system to something like cancer and to fix the missing information for children with diseases like Jonathan, so that they can leave the ICU and live a healthy life.

Thank you.”

What is “nanomedicine”?

“Nanomedicine is defined as the medical application of nanotechnology. Nanomedicine can include a wide range of applications, including biosensors, tissue engineering, diagnostic devices, and many others. In the Center for Nanomedicine at Johns Hopkins, we focus on harnessing nanotechnology to more effectively diagnose, treat, and prevent various diseases.”

[ https://cnm-hopkins.org/what-is-nanomedicine/ ]

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, Johns Hopkins was the organization that the WEF (World Economic Forum / Klaus Schwab – famous for the “Great Reset” agenda) chose to moderate the EVENT 201 Plandemic Pandemic exercise, with the help of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation…

And while, of course, Mr. Zaks ends his speech high-lighting the beneficial aspects of a “gene-editing vaccine” and reminds the audience that it is to “cure cancer” or any other number of diseases, we must be alert to alternative motives and the implications of what could arise from such technological tampering of the human genome, not to mention a collection of the population’s DNA in a database – to control and alter at their discretion.

Now aside from those chilling prospects, is it worth it to forever alter a human being, and what it means to be human, by injecting them with genetic changing software? What possibilities might arise from such an endeavor? Are we SURE that they have our best interest in mind? (that is a rhetorical question, by the way… because of course they don’t) If they can change us as a species, then it follows suit that it can change our emotions, our thoughts, even our very purpose.

There are some things in life which should not be meddled with. “Life” itself, is definitely one of them.

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 Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Klaus Schwab’s 4th Industrial Revolution/Great Reset: “You Will Own Nothing, And You Will Be Happy” – HOW THIS MAY BE ACHIEVED…

And maybe how we can avoid it.

After witnessing the events of the tragedy that occurred during the Astroworld Festival – seeing hundreds/thousands of people “raging” and a multitude of people breaking and entering the festival without following proper protocol, a couple of things came to mind.

One, due to the suspicious nature of the chief of police and Travis Scott and Co.’s marketing team to “let the wild ones in” – figured this may have been orchestrated on purpose for whatever means/motives to deliberately cause as much chaos and confusion as the night went on to help induce mass hysteria. There is no doubt in my mind that this was pre-planned, however the motives for it are still unclear.

The fact that several hundred young adults were all prepared to break into the festival at the same exact time cannot be a coincidence, and I have a hard time believing that all of them would have been able to come up with that plan by themselves – without a leadership of sorts directing them. Of course, I could be wrong, but the other events of this night lends credence that this was planned.

Secondly, while this post is not about the motives of that night, or necessarily how this specific event was pulled off, it did remind me of how a surge of panicked people in a tightly enclosed space could initiate a mass casualty of sorts.

Enter the following excerpt from the following video (@20:05):

Source: brandnewtube | unlistedDr007 | CORONA 5G AND PAST VACCINES

Fox Host: “DARPA has a new tool to ease tensions with crowds, but they’re not using it just yet. Peter Doocy in advance tries it out for himself.”

Peter Doocy narrating: “You can’t see it, hear it, or smell it, but it makes unruly mobs do this. [shows mob running away after being affected]

The defense department’s Active Denial System, a non-lethal weapon that can be used to control crowds, secure perimeters, and keep pirates at bay. It could be a game-changer.”

Col. Tracy Tafolla: “It’s one of the things that we can shoot first and ask questions later. Uh, normally you can’t do that.”

Peter Doocy: “The military says the Active Denial System is not radio-active, it’s not a microwave, and it’s not a laser beam. It’s instead a man-sized beam of millimeter waves that can be fired up to a thousand meters away that are designed to get the subject, whoever’s standing on this X, really really hot, so that they move. [waits for the beam as he personally demonstrates it, until he jumps back in shock and moves away]

And it’s about 50 degrees out here, right now, but I just felt like it was about a thousand, and I’ve never been inside a tub that somebody dropped a hairdryer in, but I would imagine that that’s what it feels like.”

Peter Doocy narrating: “After about 1.5 seconds, 1/64th of an inch of my skin was 130 degrees. But as soon as I stepped away, it was over, and the DOD says there aren’t any lingering effects.”

Stephanie Miller [Air Force Bio Effects Research Branch]: There’s no cancer risk, there’s no risk to a fetus, or reproductive capability – it’s just heat.”

Peter Doocy (narrating): “But the DOD admits, this system does have a drawback.”

Dr. Diana Loree [Asst. Chief Scientist, U.S. Air Force]: “We are propagating through the air. We are, therefore, relatively line of sight. And so, we need to be line of sight with targets – “

Now, what does this have to do with Klaus Schwab and the “Great Reset” agenda?

Well, I’m glad you asked.

In case you missed it, there is a video going around of Klaus Schwab proclaiming that the 4th Industrial Revolution is going to change YOU. Not what you’re doing – it changes WHO you are, on the INSIDE.

Here is a short excerpt of him stating this 6 years ago:

Klaus Schwab: “The difference of this 4th Industrial Revolution is it doesn’t change what you are doing, it changes YOU. If you take a genetic-editing, just as an example. It’s YOU who are changed.

And of course this has a big impact on your identity.”

Charlie Rose: “And offer certain kinds of possibilities that have to be careful about, you know, when you begin to – when you begin to do that kind of gene-editing. Some people worry that you are changing what it means to be human.”

Klaus Schwab: “That’s the problem. Of course. The new industrial revolution offers us many opportunities, but it raises many fold questions on the ethical, but even legal, implications. And we have to be prepared for it, and that’s what we want to do, and that was next year.”

Now, combine this with the infamous World Economic Forum prediction: “You’ll own nothing – and you’ll be happy about it.”

So, we have Klaus Schwab admitting that, as an example, gene-editing can change YOU – (make you happy even though you own nothing?), but is there anything else that can possibly change who you are? Without your knowledge? (While I do believe that Klaus Schwab’s agenda involves biologically changing a human being – perhaps by merging them with technology and/or through gene-editing/mRNA injections, etc., this post delves into other possibilities that may “change” a person as well.)

Well, that’s where a lady named Elizabeth Rauscher-Bise comes in. Who, perhaps predictably and suspiciously, passed away in 2019; from a respiratory illness, of all things… (Unironically, Mr. Kary Mullis, a huge critic of Anthony Fauci, also passed in 2019 from a respiratory illness…)

“For those who really want to know how governments or agencies change public behavior on a whim, the explanation is not too complicated, though obtaining details of the classified control brain frequencies is all but impossible. Various academics have actually demonstrated some of these effects quasi-publicly over the years, which provides hard reality for skeptics.

One of the leading lights in this field is Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher-Bise, who was a nuclear scientist and researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and at Stanford Research Institute, Professor of Physics at John F. Kennedy University of California, research consultant to NASA and the U.S. Navy, and a member of a litany of agencies IEE, APS, AAAS, MAA, ANA, AAMI.

Elizabeth Rauscher-Bise identified specific frequency effects to induce nausea, happiness and many other behavioral states decades ago. Clearly, Dr. Rauscher-Bise is an enthusiast: “Give me the money and three months”, she boasts, “and I’ll be able to affect the behavior of 80 percent of the people in this town without their knowing it. Make them happy – or at least they’ll think they’re happy. Or aggressive.”

For Your Mind . . .

Additional sections of the above article also mention the Rwandan genocide, Operation Crimson Mist, which used Electromagnetic Radiation to affect the tribe – inducing feelings of rage and aggression until it culminated into an outburst of horrendous violence.

Why is this important?

Because for all intents and purposes, considering that this was achieved using a type of Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) – it raises a question of whether a material suitable to enhance this augmented effect would be needed, as say an injection of nanoparticle material, for example, or if it solely influences a person’s behavior without the need for an injected stimulant.

Klaus Schwab’s example used a genetic-editing technique to change who someone is – but according to accounts of Elizabeth Rauscher, she was able to manipulate a crowd of students during a demonstration of how this directed energy would work:

“Many years ago during one memorable demonstration in California, she turned a specific brain wave on all students in the left-side of her auditorium, whereupon their teeth started chattering collectively and uncontrollably. When the unaffected students on the right-side of the auditorium suggested this might be some sort of trick, Elizabeth Rauscher-Bise calmly turned the specific brain wave on them instead. The right-side now suffered exactly the same fate, watched by the stunned, but no longer affected students on the left-side.”

For Your Mind . . .

If this account is true, then I highly doubt that every student in this auditorium was injected with a genetic-editing tool to help induce behavioral control. Which then obviously implies that these frequencies can affect people whether or not they are injected with such delivery systems.

But then this raises the question on why the “vaccines”/injections are such a huge push to the globalists. If they can adjust people’s moods, personalities, behaviors without the need for the injection, then why focus on this as the end-goal?

Just as a speculation, it may have something to do with complete control over the population. Their need to track, trace and ID absolutely EVERYONE on the planet. If they want these DEW technology to work, then according to the sources above, the population will need to be within the confines of the frequency waves. Perhaps why so many 5G towers and satellites are going up everywhere, particularly in large cities.

And if neuroscientists were able to figure out new technologies to legitimately fine-tune a person’s willingness to obey, for instance, then it goes without saying that these “globalist elites” would want their hands on it and to initiate it onto everybody else for utmost control. And if they cannot track their movements, they lose that surveillance/control over them. This would also be the catalyst for the “social credit score” – someone would always need to be under the surveillance of the government in order for this to work. And it would also induce behavior of compliance and obedience in order to keep their social credit score in good standing – which, of course, would cater to the government.

Now, because I am not a part of the billionaire’s club and their “philanthropist” ventures, I cannot say for sure if this is their motive or if this is how they will attempt to fulfill it. But considering all of the technological advances and admissions from the individuals and organizations involved in these types of endeavors, this kind of manipulation and control of people’s moods and behavior would not be off the mark for them to forcefully mandate it upon the people without their consent.

And it would seem, if they can indeed inject EVERY person with a TTID, and if the injections themselves carry a delivery system that can genetically change/modify a human being – as Klaus Schwab has discussed, then all that would be needed is a bioethic review and permission to continue this work on unsuspecting people – all in the name of “science” or “for the better good”. (According to whom?)

And as many people may know by now, a woman at the NIH who is head of the Bioethic Human Subjects Research Division, Christine Grady, is married to NIH/NIAID’s Anthony Fauci… a leading spokesperson on injecting every single person on the planet with a “COVID vaccine”… How convenient to have someone in such a high position of human experimentation research be married to purportedly the top-most paid employee in the U.S. government, and who also endlessly endorses the “vaccines” despite all of the data and evidence of its dangers and ineffectiveness…

So with these things in mind, I want to bring up an article I have mentioned before, because I believe it holds a wealth of knowledge in what may be the ultimate goal of the globalists to try and obtain complete control over the population:

“As the organisms cycle through their life, the team aims to manipulate the experimentally gene-edited segment of genetic material, or transgene, to perform programmed tasks, such as turning on and off and releasing an anti-pathogen antibody into the body.”

“We are thinking of parasitic helminths as internal molecular foundries, producing and delivering drugs within and throughout the body continuously, or on demand, if we so choose,” said Professor Loukas.”

Protective Biosystems: Parasites to Fight Chemical and Biological Weapons

Now this goes without saying, (parasites aside…), if they can introduce beneficial drugs into the human body – what is to stop them from introducing harmful/deadly substances into the body as well? To be “delivered” if a person steps out of line from what the dictatorship demands?

We then must also consider that it could be a means to deliver a cocktail of “happy” drugs: endorphins, serotonin, oxytocin, dopamine, etc. “You will own nothing and you will be happy.” So that there would be no desire to “step out of line”. If a person is witness to an awful atrocity, or is asked to do something uncharacteristic of them, under the influence of all of these drugs, would they even notice? Or would they happily go along with it because the amount of drugs pumped in their system prevents them from seeing the truth of the situation?

Again, this is under the assumption that a person is injected with these substances/parasites/genetically modified material to begin with. Though even now, “they” are working on how to induce the same effects without the need for injections – through contaminating the food and water supply, through the air, medication, etc. And along with all of these possibilities, is also the claim that specialized frequency tones can produce the same effect as well – or at least, initiate the trigger to release the drugs and/or alter the behavior once turned on.

So once again it’s interesting to note that while all of the “COVID” injections are going on worldwide, the suspicious timing of the 5G towers going up at the same time was also in full effect. While “fact-checkers” and the MSM were quick to try and shutdown any theories tying these two subjects together, it must be said that the two seemingly completely different topics DO have relations to each other.

For instance, if the “vaccines”, COVID or otherwise, have nanobots/nanoparticles/parasites within them, for the scientific excuse reason of delivering “life-saving” or behavioral modification drugs into the recipient, how would they be able to turn this technology on/off, as Professor Loukas mentions?

Perhaps by… remote control/frequency/sound waves?

Biologically inspired Nano Robots remotely controlled by Frequency

So not only can frequencies apparently affect our neurological/behavioral state alone, as Elizabeth Rauscher has purportedly demonstrated, including the Rwandan genocide, but it can affect the new technology that scientists are trying to implement into our systems as well. And did you know that frequencies also affect parasites to varying degrees? And according to some research, parasites are attracted to low-frequency beings… Indeed, frequencies may be more involved in our daily routine/biological outcomes than people give them credit for.

Understanding Vibrational Frequency: Cracking the Sound Code
New Way to Kill Viruses: Shake Them to Death

So through a combination of delivery drugs, frequency waves pumping through the air, and other influences, Klaus Schwab’s 4th Industrial Revolution/Great Reset agenda is indeed meant to change who we are and affect our behavior. Attempting to influence our emotions and make us a happy slave, whether we like it or not. (Or simply turn us “off” if we don’t comply.)


There is one more thing I’m not sure many are considering.

Throughout my research into this topic, there have been several implications that there will be some people that just WON’T be affected. For whatever reason, either their mind, their bodily frequency, their fortitude… whatever it is, will allow them to maintain their sensibilities, and be unable to be influenced through these means.

Earlier it was mentioned that Elizabeth Rauscher stated: “I’ll be able to affect the behavior of 80 percent of the people in this town without their knowing it.”

So… why 80 percent? Why not 100 percent? What does this mean, exactly? Has she stated specifically why 80 percent of the people will be affected as opposed to all 100 percent? If she has, I have not found this reference yet; but if found, I will make sure to update this post.

Now, maybe this means that it won’t affect little babies/children, or people who are already deeply involved with certain medication, perhaps it won’t affect people who already have certain neurological disorders – but it does shed an interesting light into the whys, whos, whats and hows of this technology, as well as each person’s character and individuality.

And Elizabeth Rauscher is not the only person to have stated something to this effect.

– It’s estimated from several Asch experiments done, that ~24% of the people tested with this study remained completely independent in their response instead of conforming to the rest of the group. The remaining 75% of the testers conformed at least once to the group.

– According to psychcentral, about hypnosis: “About 60 to 79 percent of people are moderately susceptible, and the remaining 25 to 30 percent are minimally susceptible.”

“Through the chips, a person will become completely under the control of the system. Persecution of people who did not want to lose their freedom will begin. Vyacheslav refers to such people as all those who sincerely believe in God. Faith will allow you to maintain a specific mindset that is not affected by information technology.Young Man Vyacheslav Krasheninnikov and His Prophecies

– Multiple articles mention parasites and their attraction to low-level energetic fields – including the ones we emit from our body. This website states: “#1 – HOW TO STOP ATTRACTING PARASITES: Because parasites seek low-energy cells, the key to stop attracting parasites is to keep your cells operating at a high energy frequency. This is possible by 1) increasing the bioenergetic frequency of your cells, AND 2) maintaining nutrient-sufficient cells so they can produce and operate at high frequencies.” – This is just one of many articles that delve into this topic and state the same thing.

– Going back to the Asch conformity experiment, for those who are not easily coerced into following the majority, may be less likely to conform to “mind control” techniques:

“In mind control, there may be no physical coercion or violence, but it can actually be much more effective in controlling a person.
That’s because coercion can change behavior, but coercive persuasion (mind control) will change beliefs, attitudes, thinking processes and behavior (basically a personality change). And the ‘victim’ happily and actively participates in the changes, believing it is best for them!”What Is Mind Control?

So would this be insinuating that if people are at a high enough frequency and/or awareness to outside influences trying to affect their consciousness/thought patterns, then they can possibly be immune to these techniques? Have some people evolved beyond this form of manipulation and attempted hijacking of their system, that they will literally not be affected at all from these forces?

And, is this something that most people can learn? Can people train themselves to be at a higher frequency – unaffected by these onslaughts on our body/mind and spirituality, no matter if they are injected with these substances, or blasted with certain frequencies, or induced with several drugs?

I believe it’s something worth pursuing and investigating deeper. If we can all evolve consciously and raise our own vibrations/frequency, and be aware of ourselves and our surroundings, then perhaps these agendas of the globalists will simply not work. At the very least, we can build up and train our intuition and immune system, so that we can avoid these techniques at all costs. Refuse the injections, stay away from 5G towers, and stay as mentally and physically healthy as we can be.

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 Gerd Altmann 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