|
by Jon Rappoport
November 28,
2018
from
JonRappoport Website
"Researchers say
they're well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by
tinkering with human genes. But is that true?
Or is their effort
really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the
dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and
make them into a new species?"
(The
Underground - Jon Rappoport)
With the onrush of new
gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is
beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making
genetic changes.
First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences.
A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient's
overall genetic structure.
This fact spells
danger...
Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases
caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease.
Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the
disease.
But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?
If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven't.
I'm not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a
single patient. I'm talking about curing a specific disease across
the board in many, many patients.
It hasn't happened.
Here is a very interesting quote from the book, "Understanding
Genetics - A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health
Professionals," published by the District of Columbia Department of
Health:
"Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic
fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…
However, despite
advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and
improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to
prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number
of these disorders."
Is it "a number of these disorders," or
"all these disorders"?
Let's see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY
disease across the board.
It isn't forthcoming...
and since it isn't, the hypothesis that there are single-gene
disorders is at best unproven. Speculative...
Let's say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every
case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning.
The
researchers claim,
"Well, that's it, we've found the cause of X."
But have they?
HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN'T OTHER ESSENTIAL
CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?
There is a simple test.
Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch
thousands of cures for X.
Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It's
interesting, it's suggestive, but it isn't verified. Not by a long
shot.
Consider this typically
absurd claim from medicinenet:
"There are more than
6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of
every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic
disorders (disorders of a single gene)."
Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly
6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?
Cure the disease by correcting the gene.
"Well, ahem, we don't have the technology to do that yet, because we
aren't sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about
dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…"
Fine. Then don't make the claim that you know a single gene is the
cause...
Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump
the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a
great deal of funding.
And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other
causes of disease, for example,
"No, no, no. Let's just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It
doesn't matter what else is happening."
The Holy Grail for genetic research would be:
"We can cure any
harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It's all in the
genes.
Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there
will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to
advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes.
And
now we're there."
They're not there. They're
not even close. Whether they will ever
get close is a matter of sheer speculation...
Here is an extreme but instructive analogy:
Imagine that when it
rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in
the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain
isn't the problem. It's the man's body. His body is built to "react
negatively" to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune
to the poison.
Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding
is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive.
So be it...
This approach is part and parcel of
the trans-human agenda. Don't
stop the poison. Make the human impervious.
If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and
free, that is just 'collateral damage'...
But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison
is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine - and then the
poison has no effect.
Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It
survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.
If you think I'm exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility,
contemplate this statement made by
Gregory Stock, former director of
the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the
UCLA School of Medicine:
"Even if half the world's
species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous
diversity would still remain.
When those in the
distant future look back on this period of history, they will
likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was
impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms - some
biological, some technological, some a combination of the two -
burst onto the scene.
We best serve
ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the
short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague
notions about the needs of the distant future."
The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that
The Individual
isn't important, and never was.
Whereas, The Individual is all-important.
A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.
It isn't the other way around...
| 
