In the course of reading up on RNA and genetic engineering, I happened across an article that proves SARS was potentially the result of an engineered virus. This abstract from the Journal of Virology, entitled “Strategy for Systematic Assembly of Large RNA and DNA Genomes: Transmissable Gastroenteritis Virus Model” or the TGEV (a common intestinal swine virus) shows how the researchers made a synthetic infectious and transmissable virus and published their success in the spring of 2000. “Full-length infectious constructs of TGEV will permit the precise genetic modification of the coronavirus genome” –the virus identified in SARS and the ‘common cold’. http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/74/22/10600 More on the subject of SARS as the forerunning event for pandemic management is in an article here called “Quarantine”. I found this abstract on a tangent, searching for material to pad out a review of a Nature magazine article that struck me as a classic bit of scientific spin. Here’s a link to that piece, called “A New Code For Life”, and I’ll be back to share some thoughts about it and see if I can update the state of the research… Btw, Nature’s piece treats bioengineering as if it’s breakthrough technology in this decade and mentions only two ‘lifeforms’ developed by its (then 2004) publication. If you read the piece, know that “minimal genome” experiments were very successful in the 1970s….. http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v5/n4/full/7400131.html
Big Science is a Big Game like Poker and the propagandists always play from the same deck no matter how dog-earred the cards. They’ve been at it for over a century since the chemical giants took their seats at the table, all vying for the public purse. The public never got dealt a hand but betting was encouraged and as the Game progressed with new players coming and going, demand for fairness in the public-eye saw to it that ‘neutral dealers’ were installed to shuffle and manage the rules –welcome the Ethicists, those professional dealers who ‘call the game’ and distribute the deck. Like casino dealers, the ethicists are experts at how to play. They know about the odds as initiates of the casino that hired them. They know the House always wins, and no matter the outcome of one game or another, they get paid and their job is to make the players feel good and keep them interested. For the sake of the Ruse they get to hold all the cards at the start of every play. This is the Ethical approach and every player today needs to know how to also deal and be versatile. At any time, the roles may shift and players/dealers have to be ready to take on a multitude of jobs –most especially for the ‘educating’ of the public to keep them interested –otherwise the chips might dry up.
Amazing, isn’t it, that we can play so many games with the same deck. The main difference between now and then, as I see it, is that players want to win with All Four Aces all of the time and eliminate any equivocation . This is how you know its rigged. Not clever –not like it used to be when one could easily win a hand with a pair of face cards. The Aces didn’t actually exist until WWII and our entree into the Atomic Age. Before that, science wasn’t playing with a full deck.
The Aces of Big Science game propaganda, complete with ‘suit’ assignments:
(Diamonds) –”solve environmental problems”, or the Ace of Sustainability
(Hearts) –”treat human diseases”, or the Ace of Humanism
(Clubs) — “create useful products”, or the Ace of Prosperity
(Spades) –”cooperate with international agencies”, or the Ace of the Great Society
The rest of the deck is face cards (governments, banks, churches, agencies, and institutions that serve up big ideas) and numbered cards (officials and experts by rank, including our families and the ‘pre-set’ buttons we filter reality with).
Nature magazine plays All Four Aces in the article “A New Code For Life”, which makes it such a good example of the rigged game and comparable to current propaganda from Big Science’s other game: Climate Change –in fact Climate Change is in there, so its all really the same game.
The salient points of “A New Code For Life” are that biologists have learned to use artificial amino acids to create new lifeforms and while they were perfecting their techniques, a team of bioethicists was hired (by the biologists themselves) to concurrently construct an approval platform. The ethicists spent more than a year drawing up a report on this “Godlike activity” and “concluded that manipulating organisms has long been a part of human tradition” and therefore “not violat[ing] any fundamental moral precepts or boundaries”. They gave the project a “green flashing light” and it’s up to the readers to decide if the long tradition of manipulating organisms equates to the practice of breeding, or if this is the research community giving itself permission to carry on in the manner to which it’s grown accustomed. As for the non-violations of fundamental morals, we’ll have to suspend the present doctrine that altering nature is causing climate change and species die-off rooted in the immoral activities of humans. As the opening lines indicate, nature is only known to use 20 amino acids in the synthesis of the entire spectrum of genomes and the scientists admit that “the origin of the genetic code..remains an enigma”.
The article never raises the moral questions –no need, by gosh, the ethicists settled it– nor does it address the question it poses, “What is life?”, but it does touch on the subject of “misuse”, principally in the words of Eckard Wimmer, the team leader at Univ. of NY at Stony Brook, who used these methods to make infectious poliovirus, accomplished in 2002. Wimmer said,”The reason we did it was to prove it can be done…Now people have to take it seriously”. Wimmer didn’t stop there; he played a major face card for the establishment, “Any threat from bioterrorism will arise only if mass vaccination stops…The potential of virus synthesis is an important factor for consideration in..the poliovirus eradication campaign”. In other words, if we stop vaccinating, someone will whip up the pathogen anew and release it. Wimmer made a point with other interviewers during his moments in the spotlight to name off a list of scourges he thought were easy to make, influenza among them. Nature magazine adds that others have said the chances were “remote, as few people in the world would have the skills to achieve this”. That was also true of the A-bomb in 1943 and yet those ‘few people’, 40 or 50 of them, were ensconced within the heart of their various governments’ programs with virtually unlimited funding to experiment. Logistically, this doesn’t even compare, though today there are thousands of people who could devise working nuclear weapons. Nature magazine is thumbing it’s nose at us –this article, though not the first word on artificial biology by a longshot, was published years after the fact, and it doesn’t take long for international scientists to all catch on with active technology transfer programs in education and business –the “thorny” contractual issues of intellectual property rights that the ethicists spent their time on. That’s their game, as long as the House wins. A “few” competent people would comprise merely one team on one project, and as the coronavirus construct mentioned above illustrates, there are and were teams working on this science that the public never heard about.
These are the people who gave the green light to J. Craig Venter’s team, hired in advance to give the researchers a stamp of approval, which appears to have green-lighted their careers as well:
– U Penn (1999) http://kepplerspeakers.com/speakers.aspx?name=David+Magnus
; current Director of Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics; assoc. editor of the American Journal of Bioethics; Advisor California Human Stem Cell Research; Advisor to US Sec. of Agriculture’s Committee on Biotechnology in the 21st Century
– U Penn, Director http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Caplan
, author of 25 books, chair of the UN Committee on Human Cloning and co-director on UN Study group on organ trafficking; chair of bioethics for Glaxo pharmaceuticals 2005-2008; Advisory member Nat’l Institute of Mental Health on human experimentation, President’s Committee on Gulf War Syndrome, Dept. of HHS on Blood Safety and Availability
Daniel B. McGee – Baylor (Waco, TX), affliliated with the School of Religion
-team members from the Ethics of Genomics Group-
Charles L. Bosk -author
Paul R. Wolpe – rabbi’s son
Nature magazine points out that Richard Chamberlin (UC Irvine) and Peter Schultz (Scripps) paved the way for synthesizing new amino acids. Both men are University of California indoctrinaires working for the US Dept. of Energy. The Human Genome Project is the DoE –mid-wife of Big Science– that started as the Manhattan Project.
Peter Schultz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_G._Schultz
, directs The Schultz Lab at Scripps and has founded not less than 8 pharmacology laboratories. Lei Wang is Schultz’s student. Schulz directs the Genome Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation in San Diego.
This article has instructive information on the science http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20011029/schultz1.html
indicating the researchers initial interest in creating “fluorescent probes” to tag DNA/RNA which allows them to track the chemical interactions in protein synthesis and allow them to master the processes of artificial life.
…”Every organism in nature has been using the same 20 amino acids since the primordial soup. Organisms have to maintain fidelity in replication, and so life has evolved myriad mechanical ways of making sure only those 20 amino acids get incorporated into proteins”…”When a protein is expressed, an enzyme reads the DNA bases of a gene (A,G,C,and T) and transcribes them into RNA (A,G,C,and U). This so-called “messenger RNA” [mRNA] is translated by another protein-RNA complex, called the ribozome, into a protein. The ribozome requires the help of transferRNA molecules (tRNA) that have been “loaded” with an amino acid. Protein specificity comes from the fact that the tRNA recognizes only one codon and gets loaded with only the one amino acid that is specific for that codon”…
RNA is the key to fabricating life –and the function of the infectious viruses that concern us. The eugenicists can not only infect us with new pathogens, but they can break down the whole existing order of nature (and it WILL) in time from the bottom up, and perhaps not very much time at that, busy as they are.
If the authors of Forbidden Archeology are right, “nature” has preserved our RNA transcription mechanism for many millions of years –check them out!– we humans have existed in our modern form for AEONS, subject only to the variability of a shifting environment and regional differentiation. Something should tell us that the ‘evolutionary advantage’ has always favored us on this planet and that this is a Sacred heritage encoded in our genes –our original covenant. Nature magazine has raised a Grand Spector to frighten us –yes, it frightens me!– to announce the impunity of Science and scientists to break our sacred bonds and there is nothing more immoral than that!! No one in this world can predict the consequences of the new primordial soup, only that “you” won’t be “you” and neither will I.
more on RNA:
The word “moral” from my Webster’s dictionary, preferred meaning: conforming to a standard of right behavior (as in ethical, virtuous, noble, etc.) –for this purpose applied to cellular automata in the same way that the word ‘noble’ is applied to metals
more on SARS:
“Albert Osterhaus is no small fish. He stands at the global nexus of every major virus panic of the past two decades from the mysterious SARS deaths in HongKong, where current WHO Director Margaret Chan got her start in her career as a local health official. According to his official bio at the European Commission, Osterhaus was engaged in April 2003, at the height of the panic over SARS (Severe Acquired Respiratory Syndrome) in Hong Kong. The EU report states, “he again showed his skill at moving fast to tackle a serious problem. Within three weeks he had proved that the disease was caused by
a newly discovered coronavirus
that resides in civet cats, other carnivorous animals or bats.” 5
The official U.S. response to SARS in May 2003:
…”Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Jerome M. Hauer, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public Health Emergency Preparedness. I appreciate this opportunity to share our Department’s response to the SARS virus within the context of public health emergency preparedness… we have reason to be encouraged by the response to SARS for several reasons. First, the identification of the agent that causes the disease was completed in record time. CDC identified the coronavirus within a few short weeks of receiving the first specimens… We are partnering with industry to organize a full-court press on vaccine development… The Command Center maps the distribution of SARS cases across the globe with geographic information system software for use during our planning discussions. The Command Center did not exist a year ago – it became operational last November… I recently co-chaired a meeting of the Council of Governments with Mike Byrne of the Department of Homeland Security to bring together health professionals from across the national capital region to aggressively prepare for an outbreak of the SARS virus here… the Department is implementing an aggressive research and development program to develop and acquire biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological countermeasures… The most exciting news in the R&D arena is, of course, Project BioShield, announced by the President on February 3, 2003.” http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/05072003hearing917/Hauer1433.htm