Remember folks, without oppression, there cannot be resistance, bear with me, im recovering from a nasty, influenza, probably a bio weapon, supposed to let me go quit into the not so much existing darkness.
Dig in my pages there should be enough to fend you off until i can excavate the (news)-flow as normal.
Good spirits and pray to Jesus. If ill survive, i did it on vitamin C and sunshine (D Hormone) If else they stepped to microwave killer weapons or x ray band beams for cancer from above.
Game was up for them any hows, like it always was, ill just keep wissle past the …….
Huge information being put out by RFK Jr on vaccines and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)! The CDC owns 57 patents for vaccines and is not a government agency at all but a private company that is basically a subsidiary of Big Pharmaceuticals! The CDC corporation makes over $4 billion a year and is run by Big Pharma executives. This is the biggest scam in history and hardly nobody knows about it! No wonder they push us to get their vaccines, it’s not about keeping you and your children safe, it’s about making the company CDC and their scumbag owners billions of dollars per year! Spread this information everywhere to destroy the lies of the fake news!
Do research and search for “vaccine religious exemptions” for your state! They lie to you and tell you Johnny must get his shots to attend school but it’s not true! Spread the word and let’s start taking billions out of their pockets! When you see the clip of RFK Jr showing you the number of safety studies they did on the vaccines you’re going to get furious! This is one thing everybody needs to be telling Trump at his rallies and to his twitter. Trump has done nothing relating to vaccines and his own child was damaged by them! We aren’t asking Trump anymore we are DEMANDING action on vaccine freedom! This will hurt the deep state plan of dumbing us all down once the truth comes out about this!
Tell Trump to make it a Federal law nobody can be forced to take any vaccine for any reason period! If they want to be stupid and take the poison fine but they don’t have to and they have to tell the truth about the damage they’ve done! That will kill the demonic scum making money while giving our kids autism. The Amish have ZERO autism and give zero vaccines but the liars at the CDC company tell you it’s not connected! Don’t be a fool! Don’t believe liars who have patents on the vaccines they say you have to take to earn them billions! When I was a kid nobody knew anybody with Autism and the rate was one in 40,000 and now it’s about one in 87 children! But the fake news liars tell you there was no change at all and it’s only because we have more accurate reporting! Total hogwash only an idiot who doesn’t do research would believe.
Here’s the scoop – get this information everywhere and let’s rip the mask off the vaccine monsters who love to give kids autism while they make billions with their poison vaccines.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claims the CDC owns patents on at least 57 different vaccines, and profits $4.1 billion per year in vaccination sales.
According to RFK Jr., the CDC is not an independent government agency but is actually a subsidiary of Big Pharma.
Greenmedinfo.com reports: Mr. Kennedy told EcoWatch, “The CDC is a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry. The agency owns more than 20 vaccine patents and purchases and sells $4.1 billion in vaccines annually.”
When I contacted Blaxill to ask how to run a patent search, he was kind enough to do it for me. He found 57 granted US patents with the CDC listed as an assignee. You can see the search results here.
In adults, vitamin D deficiency can lead to osteoporosis, and a severe deficiency can lead to aches, pain and weakening of the bones.
Vitamin D is a tool for calcium absorption… and thus strong bones.
Why, then, has the incidence of osteoporosis continued to rise?
There is one big reason why vitamin D and calcium awareness has not been sufficient to prevent declining bone health, a largely overlooked factor: the need for vitamin K2.
Without Vitamin K2 Calcium Ends up Clogging Your Arteries
D3 helps your body to absorb calcium, but without Vitamin K2
the calcium can end up in your arteries, kidneys or your heart.
If calcium accumulates in the soft tissues or your arteries it can narrow your blood vessels and set you up for a heart disaster!
Researchers call it “the calcium paradox.”
It is ESSENTIAL to take Vitamin D WITH Vitamin K2
Vitamin K2 acts like a shuttle service that directs calcium in your body to your bones where it belongs! When you’re deficient in Vitamin K2 — calcium goes rogue and ends up in the walls of
your arteries — causing “calcified” — or rigid arteries!
It turns out that vitamin K2 releases a protein hormone called osteocalcin, which locks calcium into the structure of your bones.
Most D3 Supplements are NOT absorb able.
When D3 cannot be absorbed, your body is unable to assimilate and you will not get the benefits. So you still end up with the symptoms.
The folks at PuraTHRIVE have spent the last year to come up with
a solution… a highly specialized liposomal formula that will deliver the highest quality D3 + Vitamin K2 directly to your cells and optimize your health!
In this special report, you’ll discover a unique delivery mechanism that shuttles this essential nutrient directly into your cells.
Vitamin D deficiency is a silent epidemic.
The vast majority of the population is deficient, and there’s reason to believe it underlies a wide range of major health challenges.
Are You Deficient?
Unfortunately, there’s a good chance that you or a loved one are already being affected in some way by vitamin D deficiency.
If you often feel achy, tired, sick, or “blue,” your body may be crying out for vitamin D.
Some experts estimate that as high as 90% of the American population are vitamin D deficient, and even more conservative sources place the number above 50%. Here are some symptoms to watch out for.
Aching or Weak Bones
Fatigue or Weakness
The odds are stacked against you when it comes to avoiding vitamin D deficiency, simply because there are so many factors that put you at risk. If you fall into any of the following categories, you’re even more likely to be vitamin D deficient.,,,,,,,,,
Why Vitamin D Deficiency Is So Dangerous
The symptoms listed above are just the tip of the iceberg—a landmark study conducted by the world’s top vitamin D researchers demonstrated that deficiency in this critical vitamin raises your risk of developing serious health conditions.
This is because vitamin D is absolutely invaluable for ensuring the body works properly.
It’s so essential that every cell in your body has a receptor for it. Your body needs vitamin D to maintain cellular integrity, so vitamin D deficiency jeopardizes the functioning of nearly all your body’s major systems.
The medical establishment used to think that vitamin D was only useful for regulating the level of calcium in the blood and keeping bones strong. While this is one of its many roles, we now know that there’s way more than just bone health at stake.
Vitamin D deficiency can wreak havoc on all of the following:
Bone and muscle health
Hearing and vision
Blood pressure and circulation
Mood and emotional balance
If you consistently feel unmotivated, sad, and low, vitamin D may be able to offer you dramatic benefits. Researchers have discovered that people with low vitamin D levels (especially those over the age of 40) very often suffer from mood imbalance.
Health experts are shocked that “no international health organization or governmental body has declared a health emergency to warn the public about the urgent need” of maintaining optimal blood levels of vitamin D.
But you’ll never see vitamin D get nearly the coverage it deserves from mainstream medicine…mostly because it’s not a prescription drug. If you could take full control of your health simply by combatting a vitamin deficiency, how would Big Pharma make any money?
This is the secret they don’t want you to know: optimizing your vitamin D levels could be one of the most important health steps you’ve ever taken.
Why Are We So Deficient?
The situation may sound dire, but remember: if you’re deficient in vitamin D, it’s not your fault.
We live in a stressful, polluted, and nutrient-depleted world. Our stores are filled with foods that have been stripped of their vitamin content by sterile and mechanized production processes. Worst of all, we’re taught to be afraid of the sun (a primary source of vitamin D), and told to slather chemicals on our skin for “protection.”
Getting outside and soaking up the sun’s rays is only the beginning of the solution, though. And if you live any further north than Atlanta, Georgia, you’re out of luck…your body just won’t be able to manufacture vitamin D from sunlight most months of the year.
And don’t think those “fortified foods” will save you either. They contain woefully small quantities of vitamin D, usually in an inferior, hard-to-absorb form.
In a windowless London basement, behind three sets of locked steel doors and a wall of glass, thousands of Anopheles gambiaemosquitoes cling like Marvel supervillains to the sides of white mesh cubes. The room is negatively pressurized, so air is constantly sucked inward to ensure that the mosquitoes, which have been subjected to a new and astonishingly powerful kind of genetic engineering, never escape.
If the modifications to these whining mosquitoes were perfected, and they were somehow able to make their way to sub-Saharan Africa, they would have an effect on their kin unlike any animal that has ever existed. The Anopheles are equipped with a genetic tool that ensures that they are either sterile—they can’t produce viable eggs—or, if fertile, that they will pass that sterility gene on to nearly every offspring. And the same would be true for their descendants, which would continue to spread the genetic sabotage into future generations.
If some future version of the mosquitoes were released, these deadly modifications could spread through the African tropics, crashing the population as they went. And because Anopheles is the primary African vector for the parasite that causes malaria, its collapse would likely take down malaria with it. Within a few years, the last great scourge of humanity, which kills upwards of half a million people per year, would be vanquished on the African continent. It would be one of the greatest health achievements of all time. And yet the intentional eradication of a species is not something we should pursue without a lot of foresight, and the release of highly invasive genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the wild is itself deeply disturbing.
Many traditional conservationists were horrified by the prospect, yet other groups embraced it. The Gates Foundation made gene drive a centerpiece of its anti-malaria efforts, and the eco-warriors at Island Conservation, who have long used poison to combat invasive mice and rats, seized on gene drive as a more precise weapon in their war to save native species. New Zealand is considering using a gene drive in its push to eliminate invasive rodents, weasels, and possums by 2050. Kevin Esvelt wants to engineer mice that are immune to the bacterium that causes Lyme disease, whose cycle of transmission goes from mice to ticks to people. Dengue, Zika, and several other mosquito-borne diseases are promising gene-drive targets. A lab in California is working to limit the damage caused by an invasive species of fruit fly, and labs in Australia and Texas are developing “daughterless mice” (capable of conceiving only male offspring). The first gene-drive field trials are anticipated within the next decade.
With earlier-generation GMOs, such as Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops, arguments often hinged on the potential for those genes to escape into the environment. Conservationists believed escape was inevitable, while corporations downplayed the risk, but nobody was suggesting that GMOs be let loose in nature—until now.
When I first heard about gene drive, I thought of “ice-nine,” the form of water in Kurt Vonnegut’s 1963 novel Cat’s Cradle that is solid at room temperature and acts as a seed crystal for adjacent water molecules, turning them solid. At the end of Cat’s Cradle, the frozen body of a man who has committed suicide by drinking ice-nine falls into the sea, and all the world’s oceans and rivers are forever frozen, extinguishing most life on Earth. Gene drives have similar dystopian potential. In theory, a single lab could alter the entire planet. And the technology has arrived far quicker than our ability to grapple with its staggering implications.
Gene drives work by gaming inheritance, forcing their way into the genetic make-up of future generations. Sexually reproducing species usually have two versions of each of their genes, one inherited from each parent, and they randomly pass one of those to each offspring. Individuals that inherit more useful genes thrive, and are therefore more likely to reproduce and pass on those good genes, while individuals that inherit disadvantageous genes are less likely to get the chance to reproduce. In this way, evolution causes detrimental genes to disappear from the gene pool.
Conventional genetic engineering is limited by the rules of reproduction. Most engineered traits have a 50/50 chance of being passed down, and unless a trait confers some advantage to the organism, it should eventually disappear. Since most genetic engineering to date has bred traits that benefit people, not the organisms themselves, so far no GMOs have made significant inroads into nature. But a gene drive can practically guarantee inheritance. And since beneficial genes are favored by natural selection anyway, the unique value of engineering a gene drive lies in propagating a detrimental trait, possibly even all the way up to extinction.
To make a gene drive, you start with the gene-editing tool CRISPR, which consists of two parts: a gene-slicing enzyme and a string of genetic code that tells the enzyme where to cut. CRISPR is shockingly easy to use. You don’t need a world-class lab, and you don’t have to be a genius. I’ve created antibiotic-resistant bacteria in a friend’s kitchen. You just order your CRISPR from a DNA-synthesis company (the going rate is $65 plus shipping), specifying the exact 20-letter sequence of DNA you want it to target. It arrives as a few drops of liquid in a test tube. You add that liquid to another test tube containing cells of the organism you want to modify, along with any new DNA you want inserted, then heat it up. The CRISPR finds the spot, makes the cut, and the new DNA gets stitched in place.
Kevin Esvelt was part of the team at Harvard that helped develop CRISPR, and he was the first to realize that the CRISPR mechanism itself could be inserted directly into an organism’s genome to create a gene drive. Once there, the CRISPR would eliminate the natural counterpart of the gene it is attached to, and the cell would copy the functioning, genetically engineered version of the gene (containing the CRISPR) in its place. The organism would then have two working copies of the CRISPR gene, one of which would be guaranteed to be passed down to each of its offspring, where the process would repeat, until virtually every individual in a population carried the engineered trait.
It was a brilliant insight, with enormous implications. According to the unwritten rules of science, Esvelt’s next move should have been to quietly create a gene drive in his lab and then publish a paper announcing the achievement to the world and staking his claim to it. Instead, he paused to consider the consequences.
When I first met Esvelt in 2017 at Editing Nature, a summit convened at Yale University’s Institute for Biospheric Studies to weigh the ramifications of engineering the wild, I was struck by his demeanor. He seemed haunted and tightly wound, as if he’d just come from a dark future he was hoping to save us from. His boyish smile and wispy blond hair reminded me of Tintin, but his gravelly, leading-man’s voice vibrated in an unusual timbre. Like the long dungchen horns of Tibetan monks, it seemed to resonate with both awe for the world and sorrow for its eventual passing.
As soon as Esvelt realized how easy it would be to build a gene drive, he knew he had a potential ice-nine on his hands. “This thing self-scales,” he told the biologists, conservationists, and ethicists gathered at Yale that day. “You can’t run a field trial. You can’t introduce it anywhere in the endemic environment without having it spread probably to every population.”
After his 2013 discovery, Esvelt knew others would soon hit upon the same insight, and he felt that the runaway nature of gene drive was not something that could be trusted to biotech specialists working in isolation. “Your decision to go ahead and build it in the lab means that you are performing an experiment that could affect other people,” he said. “And if you don’t tell them that you’re doing it in advance, you’re actively denying them a voice in the decision. And frankly, that’s wrong.”
Esvelt pictured the headline sure to follow an accidental gene-drive release: “Scientists Convert Entire Species to GMOs. Is CRISPR to Blame?” He feared that a botched trial could turn the public against the technology and destroy its vast potential. So shortly after their breakthrough, he and his colleagues at the Wyss Institute called a meeting of top ecologists, biologists, ethicists, and national security experts. They explained the technology to the group, and discussed the best plan of action. And their remarkable conclusion was that the only way to ethically explore the potential of gene drive was to change the culture of science. “We need to at least tell other people what we are thinking of doing before we even begin experiments,” he explained. “This is difficult, because every incentive in science points against it. If you share your brilliant idea, you’re inviting some larger, better-funded lab with spare hands to steal it, get it working first, publish, and get the credit.”
Esvelt decided to make an example of himself. He published his paper before doing any experiments, with the hope that all gene-drive research would follow the precautions and protocols he laid out, the most important of which was pre-registration of all experiments so they could be vetted by all potential stakeholders. Since then, he has spent as much time lobbying against the unwise use of gene drives as he has advocating for them, sometimes using language that distresses his fellow scientists. “We are walking forwards blind,” he said in a 2016 interview that is frequently cited by gene-drive opponents. “We are opening boxes without thinking about consequences. We are going to fall off the tightrope and lose the trust of [the] public.”
Not since Robert Oppenheimer has a scientist worked so hard against the proliferation of his own creation. “When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success,” Oppenheimer said in 1954. “That is the way it was with the atomic bomb.”
And that is how it has been with gene drive. Esvelt now runs something called the Sculpting Evolution group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. When I sat down in his office and asked him if he had convinced many scientists to forego the technical sweets, he shrugged. “It will never happen unless we change the incentives,” he said. “Most scientists, however supportive in theory, say they just can’t take the risk.” The allure of scientific immortality—or at least tenured professorship—is simply too strong, and while those working with gene drives claim to follow rigorous safety protocols, few are willing to openly share what they are inventing behind the closed doors of their labs.
We are on the cusp of a gene-drive explosion. Many agricultural pests are potential targets, as are weeds that have evolved resistance to Roundup. California’s cherry growers are funding gene-drive research to eliminate the spotted-wing fruit fly, which lays its eggs in soft fruits. Tata Trusts of India recently gave the University of California–San Diego $70 million to train a new generation of Indian scientists to use gene drives for agriculture and disease control. And in the fall of 2017, the biotech firm Oxitec released genetically engineered diamondback moths (which infest broccoli, cabbage, and other brassicas) in a field trial in upstate New York. The moths carry a gene that kills females in the larval stage, and though there is no gene drive involved at present, it would be a logical next move.
The most vocal critics of gene drives have been two conservation organizations, Friends of the Earth and the ETC Group. Jim Thomas, co-executive director of ETC, told me that, for all the emphasis on curing disease and saving endangered species, he sees “Big Ag” lurking in the background. “Ultimately, I think that’s where this technology lands,” he said. “It becomes a kind of insecticide. If there’s money to be made here, that’s what’s going to drive it.” Thomas sees potential for abuse in the developing world. “How does a powerful technology shift power relations? And what does that mean for those that are marginalized and vulnerable?”
In September of 2016, 30 environmental luminaries, including Jane Goodall, David Suzuki, and Vandana Shiva, joined with ETC to publish an open letter calling for a moratorium. “We believe that a powerful and potentially dangerous technology such as gene drives, which has not been tested for unintended consequences nor fully evaluated for its ethical and social impacts, should not be promoted as a conservation tool,” they wrote. “Given the obvious dangers of irretrievably releasing genocidal genes into the natural world, and the moral implications of taking such action, we call for a halt to all proposals for the use of gene drive technologies.”
Friends of the Earth joined ETC in bringing the call for a moratorium to the December 2016 meeting of the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity, which covers the equitable use and regulation of biological resources, including genetically modified organisms. The Convention has previously halted controversial technologies such as ocean fertilization and sterile-seed crops by establishing moratoria, but with gene drive it merely called for better risk-assessment. Friends of the Earth and ETC vowed to continue to rally support for a moratorium, which will be debated in Montreal this July and then voted on at the next meeting in Egypt this December.
Most gene-drive scientists accuse these groups of exaggerating the risks of genetic engineering and playing to the public’s fears, but Natalie Kofler, who founded Yale’s Editing Nature initiative to facilitate public deliberation around gene editing, thinks it’s vital to take their point of view seriously. “The followers of those groups share a worldview with many people that I discuss this with on a daily basis,” she told me. “They feel deeply that it is wrong to tamper with the DNA of wild things. There’s a sacredness to it that we shouldn’t mess with. And that is a worldview that is very quickly dismissed by scientists and technologists. And because it’s not being acknowledged as something valid for discussion, I think it’s creating a huge polarization.”
Still, Kofler finds the idea of a ban on research “totally ridiculous.” This is a brand-new technology, she said. “Right now we don’t know nearly enough about how it works, how the public perceives it, or how it will impact the environment to take stances of opposition or support. Right now, we need to be comfortable to stay in the gray zone—to comprehensively explore this issue with the degree of openness and transparency that it deserves. So, if anything, more research—scientific and sociological alike—needs to take place.”
Jim Thomas points out that there’s a difference between a moratorium and a perpetual ban: “There’s a feeling that taking a judicious pause and taking the time to think carefully means nothing is ever going to move forward. But that’s not what a moratorium is.”
When the stakes are as high as they are with gene drive, who could argue with a judicious pause? People in Africa, Esvelt says. Every year you delay work on gene drives, another half-million people die. “Who am I to tell somebody who’s lost children to malaria, and has more children at risk, that they can’t do it because somebody else doesn’t agree? Why should some people get veto power over a technology that could save the lives of other people’s children?”
And yet, despite that sentiment, Esvelt keeps making things more difficult for his colleagues. Last November, I along with several other journalists received an unusual email from him. “I’m writing because we have a couple of papers coming out next week that are personally embarrassing for me, but are likely consequential enough for gene drive, conservation, and science policy that you might find them interesting,” he wrote. What followed was a surprising statement: “My decision to list invasive species control as a potential application of gene drive in our original 2014 eLife paper was an embarrassing mistake…. It was profoundly wrong of me to even suggest it.” Additional modeling, he explained, showed that gene drives were even riskier than he’d thought. For that reason, one of his new papers concluded, with the possible exception of malaria, “we should not even consider building drive systems likely to spread indefinitely beyond the target area.”
The new papers triggered a wave of fresh panic in the media. “‘Gene Drives’ Are Too Risky for Field Trials, Scientists Say” reported the New York Times. Most of the coverage focused on Esvelt’s mea culpa, and when we met in his MIT office shortly after, I asked him if that was the reaction he’d expected.
“Of course!” he responded. “I’m not totally naive. ‘Inventor tries to stuff genie back in bottle’—that’s a story. It doesn’t happen very often that a scientist says, ‘I was wrong.’ Maybe it should happen more often.”
Esvelt believed that other researchers were underestimating the risk of engineered organisms escaping a field test, even on an isolated site, in part because of a wild card beyond the scope of any mathematical model—human nature. “You build it, you try it anywhere, and someone who has an interest is going to move it illegally to take advantage. It would be totally cost-effective for someone to hire mercenaries to fly in, capture mice, and fly out again. But that’s not the sort of thing most scientists think about.”
I was reminded of Jeff Goldblum’s chaos mathematician in Jurassic Park. “If there’s one thing the history of evolution has taught us,” he warns the park’s designers, “it’s that life will not be contained. Life breaks free. It expands to new territories and crashes through barriers painfully, maybe even dangerously…. Life finds a way.”
Some of Esvelt’s colleagues saw the move as a publicity stunt: Instead of drives “likely to spread indefinitely,” Esvelt was recommending a new, self-limiting type called Daisy Drive that he had recently designed. In Daisy Drive, multiple drives are linked in an organism’s genome in a kind of daisy chain. Drive A drives Drive B, and B drives C, and C drives D, and so on. But because nothing drives A, it follows normal inheritance patterns and gets quickly diluted in the gene pool. Those individuals who don’t inherit A have nothing to drive B, which then gets diluted in subsequent generations. Like the stages of a rocket, the drives continue to fall away until the whole system stops working after a set number of generations. In theory, Daisy Drive allows you to affect a local population for a set amount of time.
Esvelt now hopes to use a self-limiting drive such as Daisy to combat Lyme disease in the northeastern United States, where it has become so prevalent that many people no longer risk walking in the woods and fields. Almost 40 percent of Nantucket residents have reportedly contracted Lyme disease, and that is where Esvelt has proposed to begin his “Mice Against Ticks” experiment, as well as on neighboring Martha’s Vineyard. To make sure the local stakeholders understand the implications, Esvelt has been holding community forums on the islands since 2016, and most residents seem open to the idea. After an initial field test on an isolated and uninhabited island, he would release thousands of Lyme-resistant mice on Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard. If all went well, the eventual goal would be to release Daisy Drive mice on the mainland. The Lyme infection cycle would then be broken, and eventually the Daisy Drive would disappear as well. After a few generations, the mice would revert to normal.
A number of self-limiting drives have now been proposed by Esvelt and other researchers, but so far they exist only on paper, which makes Jim Thomas skeptical. “Precision in biology and ecosystems is a bit of a pipe dream,” he told me. Ecosystems are remarkably complex, and viruses and parasites have tremendous capacities to evolve.
When I mentioned this critique to Esvelt, he gave me a knowing nod. “The thing everyone is overlooking is, how do you know your gene drive is going to behave over time the way you intend? We’ve never before engineered something that we anticipate to evolve out of our control. Perfect prediction is impossible.” But unlike the skeptics, he believes you can get close enough to proceed with confidence. “You need to model very large populations over multiple generations. We can’t do that in mice or mosquitoes, but we can in worms.”
And they are. This winter, on the sixth floor of a nondescript MIT office building, behind a locked door with a black-and-orange Biosafety Level 2 warning sign, I held up dozens of petri dishes filled with what looked like twitching, emaciated commas. These were roundworms, C. elegans, also known as nematodes, and there were 5,000 to 10,000 of them per dish, reproducing every three days. “We can do 100 generations in a year with a population of 100 million,” Esvelt told me. “If we really wanted to push it, we could probably do a population of a billion. I can’t think of another organism that would let us do that.”
One of Esvelt’s postdocs placed a dish of worms under a microscope and turned on a black light. Through the lens, I could see the silvery squiggles snaking through the agar, eating bacteria. Each had a glowing red esophagus thanks to a fluorescent gene (originally from a jellyfish) that made it easier to track which ones had received the genetic modifications.
These worms will be the first organisms on Earth to harbor a Daisy Drive. Their lives will be confined to thousands of test tubes managed by a liquid-handling robot that can be programmed to move precise amounts of liquid between tubes. Each test tube will harbor an isolated population of worms, so the Sculpting Evolution team can test what happens when Daisy Drive worms invade a new, unmodified population. They can also test whether an engineered drive evolves into something unexpected, given enough time and population growth, and whether an “immunizing reversal drive” can be built that will target such a runaway drive and reset it.
Eventually, the worms could have enough genetic diversity to serve as a decent stand-in for any wild population, and all experiments on them will be pre-registered for feedback from the scientific community. To keep life from finding a way, Esvelt told me the project has five layers of safety containment: physical (the roundworms are kept in a locked lab, and they aren’t nearly as mobile as mice, mosquitoes, or fruit flies), ecological (there are no wild C. elegans to breed with on the mean streets of Cambridge), reproductive (most wild C. elegans are hermaphrodites and aren’t interested in sex anyway), molecular (the self-limiting Daisy system), and more molecular (the gene drive targets a unique DNA sequence that has been engineered into the Sculpting Evolution worms but isn’t found in wild worms).
If all gene-drive research hewed to these standards, I’d sleep better at night. But despite the recommendations from Esvelt, as well as the National Academy of Sciences, there are currently no binding rules in place. And even if everyone currently working on gene drives behaves responsibly—and they seem to be—it’s easy to see how, eventually, as the technology spreads, someone, somewhere along the way, will get sloppy.
Public alarm grew louder in December of 2017, with the release of a cache of 1,200 emails between scientists and other gene-drive proponents that had been obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. “Gene Drive Files Expose Leading Role of U.S. Military in Gene Drive Development,” announced a press release, which noted that most gene-drive projects—including the London mosquitoes, Texas mice, and MIT roundworms—were being funded by the Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) as part of its Safe Genes program. Although DARPA had publicly announced it was funding the projects months earlier, this was not well known to the general public, and a number of news outlets ran with the story. The Guardian‘s headline read, “U.S. Military Agency Invests $100m in Genetic Extinction Technologies.”
In its response, DARPA pointed out that its goals were defensive: “Our feeling is that the science of gene editing, including gene drive technology, has been advancing at a rapid pace in the laboratory,” wrote the agency’s chief of communications. “These leaps forward in potential capability, however, have not been matched by advances in the biosafety and biosecurity tools needed to protect against potential harm if such technologies were accidentally or intentionally misused.”
The Safe Genes projects focus on learning to limit the reach of gene drives and on ways to detect and disable them, but none of that comforts Jim Thomas. “This has been the history of bioweapons research,” he told me. “It’s always presented as supposedly defensive: ‘We have to develop these tools so we can respond in case someone else develops them.'” Thomas fears the agency’s agenda may be much broader. “They’re putting a finger in every single major gene-drive project so they can be close to them. So they can understand how these things work.” Thomas worries that Daisy Drive is the equivalent of small-scale, tactical nukes. “Once you have this illusion that you can locally control a gene drive, then that opens the door for using it in agriculture or as a weapon.” But few experts believe gene drives could make an effective weapon against other people—they are just too slow and obvious. There are easier ways to wage war.
During my most recent visit with Esvelt, I asked if he could imagine some situations where the technologies were too risky to pursue, even in a confined environment. Easily, he said. “There are areas where I would say, no research. And have!” It was after hours on a cold winter night in Cambridge, and Esvelt was looking even more pale and ragged than usual. Still, I pressed him for details. What kind of technology would be too dangerous for research? He shook his head and said, “There are some things I’ve thought of that I’m never going to tell another living soul.”
When any new technology arrives, the debate veers toward the best- and worst-case scenarios, the big dreams and the big fears. Gene drives are going to cure malaria. Gene drives are going to become bioweapons. That’s our nature. But it’s easy to forget how rarely the extremes come to be.
The real test will be after we have a few minor successes controlling diseases or agricultural pests with gene drive. Suddenly we will have one of the greatest hammers ever invented, and we will go looking for nails. Every fast-reproducing plant or animal whose behavior we don’t like will be a candidate for redesign. Cockroaches that hate the scent of garbage. Poison ivy that doesn’t cause a rash. Fire ants with no fire. There are loose nails everywhere that just need a few whacks to make our lives more comfortable.
“Why not?” goes the counterargument. We’ve been hammering nature for years. Pollution, habitat destruction, pesticides, insecticides, greenhouse gases. Yale doesn’t convene an ethics panel every time somebody clear-cuts a forest or dynamites a reef to harvest the fish. Why is it different once genes are involved?
And yet it is.
Anyone who’s ever taken the time to hike to the pristine valley or paddle to the uninhabited island knows the sublimity of finding oneself in a place where the agenda is non-human. It’s a reminder that there are ways of being in the world that have little or nothing to do with human ways, patterns of existence that get us out of our own heads and expand the conversation of what it means to be a quivering coil of DNA on the third planet from the sun. It’s a form of diversity, and every species is a kind of culture, a cohesive and elegant web of quirks, predilections, and traditions.
We’ve dammed Glen Canyon. We’ve littered Everest with ropes and oxygen tanks. Our pawmarks are all over even the wildest places. But we have yet to conquer the DNA of wild things. For the time being, that frontier has been visited by only a handful of early explorers.
In deciding if we have the right to drive a gene through a species, we might think of each genome as a national park, an untrammeled space in a non-geographical dimension. A refuge from an increasingly humanized world. I can hate the whine of a mosquito in my tent and still revere the pristine landscape of its genome. Engineering that genome would be like putting a road system through the Gates of the Arctic. There would be some obvious benefits—and something less obvious would be lost forever.
With every new technology, we tend to shoot first and ask questions later. It’s a dynamic built into the DNA of our culture, which rewards the intrepid individuals who plant their flag on the virgin coast. Those ice-nine mosquitoes in their negative-pressure vault may end up being hugely important. They may, in fact, be a gift. A living metaphor of interconnectedness and of consequences, they may force us to consider if the time has come to throw out the Age of Exploration model and create a new system of science that rewards wisdom over cleverness.
That’s a big ask, and it may seem absurd right now, as we survey the vast genetic frontier stretching away before us. How could we not poke around just a little? But we have a lot of experience with lost frontiers at this point, so perhaps there’s still time to ask what we ought to do with this one. What if, after gazing from the decks of their caravels at the towering forests and teeming estuaries of the New World, the early explorers went back to their funders in Europe and said: Sure, we could make the place safe and productive. We could fill it with cities and farms and factories. But here’s the thing: It isn’t bad the way it is. It’s full of mysteries and other ways of being. So … this is going to sound crazy, but what if we just left it alone?
A “new” strain of deadly bird flu dubbed “Disease X” by the World Health Organization (WHO) has killed hundreds of people in China, and is just three mutations away from becoming transmissible between humans, according to experts.
The strain, H7N9, circulates in poultry and has killed 623 people out of 1,625 infected in China – a mortality rate of 38.3%. While first identified in China in 2013, H7N9 has recently emerged as a serious threat seemingly overnight.
Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, deputy chief medical officer for the UK, told The Telegraph that H7N9 could cause a global outbreak.
“[H7N9] is an example of another virus which has proven its ability to transmit from birds to humans,” said Van-Tam, who added “It’s possible that it could be the cause of the next pandemic.”
The WHO says N7N9 is “an unusually dangerous virus for humans,” and “one of the most lethal influenza viruses that we’ve seen so far”
“H7N9 viruses have several features typically associated with human influenza viruses and therefore possess pandemic potential and need to be monitored closely,” said Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Researchers led by James Paulson of the Scripps Research Institute in California have been studying the mutations which could potentially occur in H7N9’s genome to allow for human-to-human infection.
The team’s findings, published in the journal PLoS Pathogens on Thursday, showed that in laboratory tests, mutations in three amino acids made the virus more able to bind to human cells — suggesting these changes are key to making the virus more dangerous to people. –Japan Times
That said, the mutations would need to occur relatively close to each other to become more virulent, which has a low probability of happening according to Fiona Culley, an expert in respiratory immunology at Imperial College London.
“Some of the individual mutations have been seen naturally … these combinations of mutations have not,” and added: “The chances of all three occurring together is relatively low.”
Wenday Barclay, a virologist and flu specialist also at Imperial College says the study’s findings reinforce the need to keep the H7N9 bird flu under close surveillance.
“These studies keep H7N9 virus high on the list of viruses we should be concerned about,” she said. “The more people infected, the higher the chance that the lethal combination of mutations could occur.”
According to the CDC, Human infections with bird flu viruses can happen when enough virus gets into a person’s eyes, nose or mouth, or is inhaled. This can happen when virus is in the air (in droplets or possibly dust) and a person breathes it in, or when a person touches something that has virus on it then touches their mouth, eyes or nose.
The reported signs and symptoms of avian influenza A virus infections in humans have ranged from mild to severe and included conjunctivitis, influenza-like illness (e.g., fever, cough, sore throat, muscle aches) sometimes accompanied by nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and vomiting, severe respiratory illness(e.g., shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress, viral pneumonia, respiratory failure), neurologic changes (altered mental status, seizures), and the involvement of other organ systems –CDC
Rare human infections with some avian viruses have occurred most often after unprotected contact with infected birds or surfaces contaminated with avian influenza viruses. However, some infections have been identified where direct contact was not known to have occurred. Illness in people has ranged from mild to severe.
VIDEO: In a TedX lecture titled “Analog Supercomputers: From Quantum Atom to Living Body” Rahul Sarpeshkar suggests that analog is the perfect medium to initiate a connection between the digital and physical world.
He even shows a diagram called the Analog Circuit Pentagon of science that suggests the same. Ultimately, this verifies everything we have been warning about on this channel.
Chlorogenic acid, a major bioactive compound found in coffee may have a profound effect in stimulated vascular function in moving blood, some studies suggested.
Vascular function is the action of arteries and veins, involving blood circulation in provided nutrients and fluids to the body cells and tissue, through adjusting the blood flow.
Abnormal vascular function found in image of PR interval in electrocardiography may associate to increase risk of cardiovascular diseases(3).
The normal of PR interval or period measured in milliseconds, is between 120 and 200ms in duration.
However, “PR-interval length, even in the conventionally normal range, is independently associated with endothelial dysfunction and increased arterial stiffness in healthy subjects free of atherosclerotic disease” said, Dr. Chan YH, the lead scientist.
According to medical literature, abnormal vascular function may increase risk of vascular disease, affecting the circulatory system in induction of peripheral artery, carotid artery and venus disease and blood clot.
The causes of abnormal vascular function are unknown. But researchers agreed that hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, smoking, diabetes mellitus, and obesity are risk factors to the onset of abnormal vascular function.
Although, there are numbers of mechanism contributed to risk of abnormal vascular function, aging is also considered as an independent risk factor, which can lead to progressive worsening of vascular function and structure.
Coffee, a popular and social beverage all over the world, particularly in the West, is a drink made from roasted bean from the Coffea plant, native to tropical Africa and Madagascar.
According to the study lead by the University of Reading, chlorogenic acids isolated from coffee roasted bean, acutely improved vascular function, partly due to mediation of 5-CQA, a member in the group in regulated the normal function of arteries and veins.
Chlorogenic acid (CGA) is the ester of caffeic acid and (−)-quinic acid with function in modulated lignin biosynthesis in binding to cellulose fibers and hardens and strengthened the plant cell walls.
An acute randomized, controlled, cross-over human intervention trials is conducted by researchers at the University of Reading to examine the impact of coffee intake, matched for caffeine but differing in CQA content (89, and 310 mg) on flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) in 15 healthy male subjects, in compared a second intervention trial conducted with 24 healthy male subjects.
Observation of he impacts of pure 5-caffeoylquinic acid (5-CQA), the main CGA in coffee(5-CQA; 450 mg and 900 mg) on FMD, found that
*. Low and high CGA(89 mg and 310 mg CGA) intake, show a significant effect on vascular function 1 hour after injecting coffee.
*. Coffee intake is closely associated to the paralleled to the appearance of CGA metabolites in regulated the normal function of arteries and veins at 5 hours
*. 5-CQA (450 mg) expressed an improvement by FMD assay after 1 hour of administration.
The information suggested that coffee has a strong effect in activated vascular function through expression of CGA and its metabolites in plasma and numbers of other phytochemicals including 3-, 4- and 5-feruloylquinic acid and ferulic-4′-O-sulfate at 1 h and isoferulic-3′-O-glucuronide and ferulic-4′-O-sulfate.
Interestingly, in the further illustration of coffee and its CGA effect on vascular abnormality, researchers at the joint study lead by the Bioactive Substance Research Group, University of Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia, launched an investigation of participant including 38 men and 37 women with a mean ± SD age of 38.5 and body mass index of 24.1 and randomly assigned to 3 groups* A control group that did not consume coffee or a placebo
*Group consumed 400 mL coffee/d for 8 wk containing a medium (MCCGA; 420 mg) or
*Group consumed 400 mL coffee/d for 8 wk containing a medium high CGA content,
At the end of the experiment, researchers concluded
*. Coffee consumption over the period indicated and after 1 hours, show a significant presence of caffeic and ferulic acid concentrations in the coffee-drinking groups, with different values in 2 coffee injection group.
* At the same time, the levels of antioxidant expression increased substantially in 2 coffee intake group, but undetectable in control group or placebo.
* All amount of antioxidants and phytochemicals creased to exist after 8 weeks.
These results indicated the efficacy of tested acid not only has a strong implication in promoted vascular function in blood circulation but also exerted a similar function of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) in decreased inflammation and prevented blood clots through its antioxidant properties.
The evidences in the study demonstrated a acute effect of coffee in promoting of vascular function in improved nutrients and fluids transportation by arteries and vessels.
Taking together, there is no doubt that coffee consumption have an enormous effect in improved vascular function in reduced risk of vascular diseases and diseases’ complications.
Back to Kyle J. Norton Home page http://kylejnorton.blogspot.ca
Kyle J. Norton, Master of Nutrients
Health article writer and researcher; Over 10.000 articles and research papers have been written and published on line, including world wide health, ezine articles, article base, healthblogs, selfgrowth, best before it’s news, the karate GB daily, etc.,.
Named TOP 50 MEDICAL ESSAYS FOR ARTISTS & AUTHORS TO READ by Disilgold.com Named 50 of the best health Tweeters Canada – Huffington Post
Nominated for shorty award over last 4 years
Some articles have been used as references in medical research, such as international journal Pharma and Bio science, ISSN 0975-6299.
(1) Mediation of coffee-induced improvements in human vascular function by chlorogenic acids and its metabolites: Two randomized, controlled, crossover intervention trials by Mills CE1, Flury A2, Marmet C3, Poquet L3, Rimoldi SF2, Sartori C4, Rexhaj E2, Brenner R2, Allemann Y2, Zimmermann D3, Gibson GR1, Mottram DS1, Oruna-Concha MJ1, Actis-Goretta L3, Spencer JP5.(PubMed)
(2) Coffee Consumption Increases the Antioxidant Capacity of Plasma and Has No Effect on the Lipid Profile or Vascular Function in Healthy Adults in a Randomized Controlled Trial by Agudelo-Ochoa GM1, Pulgarín-Zapata IC2, Velásquez-Rodriguez CM3, Duque-Ramírez M4, Naranjo-Cano M5, Quintero-Ortiz MM5, Lara-Guzmán OJ6, Muñoz-Durango K2.(PubMed)
(3) Abnormal vascular function in PR-interval prolongation by Chan YH1, Siu CW, Yiu KH, Li SW, Lau KK, Lam TH, Lau CP, Tse HF(PubMed)
Hello… (State Of Oregon) I tried to call (Oregon State University) earlier to hopefully speak to an Oceanographer about my recent trip to Seaside Oregon.
Being from Honolulu & Northern California I am pretty familiar with the Ocean and the vast species it is a habitat for.
So, on a several day trip to Seaside, Oregon, I was astonished to see NO Marine Plants, NOTHING living at the High Tide Line and the complete lack of Mussels, Oysters, Plankton, Sea Lions, Sea Otters, Starfish, Crabs & 100s of other things I can’t think to name.
It also seems there is no more Sea Weed, Kelp, and other Sea Plants.
Can someone please enlighten this OLD Man?
It looked ‘Biblical’ in nature to me. I am Astonished, Concerned, and find it beyond belief how BARREN the stretch from Astoria, Oregon to almost Newport is. All the roadside stops, beaches and places that used to have LIFE in huge ABUNDANCE were BARREN and DESOLATE.
There were no Birds to speak of and just a couple dozen Sea Gulls on the Beach. There were NO BUGS, either. I looked for ANYTHING alive and only found a couple of land snails in the brush behind the hotel. The ONLY thing alive beside the People were the dogs at the Hotel.
I am serious, it was all eerily SILENT. The only thing that appeared alive was some sort of THING that was blue in color, round, a little bigger than a Silver Dollar and has a translucent ‘hood’ it had raised. It was like a coin flipped on end. There were 2 of them. They were near High Tide line and the Tide was OUT.
The high tide line was littered with corpses of crabs, 2 or 3 of them, about 4 inches across. Just the tops of the shells were left, maybe a dozen and they were just about 2 inches across. If a Man was hoping to fish or eat from the Ocean now…HE will DIE.
OH…and there were NO BOATS…no Fishing Boats AT ALL…
The Observation Effect, is a phenomenon found in quantum theory that suggests that the act of observation stabilizes atomic states. This can be studied, and has been studied for decades, it suggests that the conscience observer plays a part in the physical world. This study by Ángel Rubio of the University of the Basque Country and the Max Planck Institute is even able to use this effect towards quantum tech,
“One of the most peculiar aspects of quantum theory is the observer effect, the idea that the very act of observing and measuring something – just observing and measuring, nothing more – can actually change it in some way.
Now researchers have determined via theoretical modelling that this effect can change the flow of energy particles in a current, so that they move against it.
The idea was famously demonstrated in a 1998 paper by researchers at the Weizmann Institute, who demonstrated that the act of observation changes the way electrons behave when passing through openings. When not observed, they behave as particles and waves; when observed, they can only behave as particles.
The area has been well studied by researchers, including one 2011 paper that also demonstrated that the momentum of a photon moving through openings is disturbed when measurements are taken of its position.
What happens is that the fact of looking, of inserting an observer into the system, acts as an obstacle, as if you were to close off the channel in a pipeline through which the water is flowing,” he explained.
This discovery could be used for quantum transportation with directional control, with potential applications in nanoscale systems covering fields such as thermoelectrics, spintronic injection, phononics, and sensing.” (Science Alert)
To say this is a fact and is observed at the fundamental levels of creation isn’t hyperbole. The Observation Effect rules are so predictable, that they can now develop quantum systems that manipulate this effect towards usable technologies.
The Eyes of God are Watching You
When you couple this with the macro findings of cosmologists who are saying that their own analysis of the ancient microwave radiation in our universe is projected, you have a real case for what is being called the Holographic Universe.
“It’s similar to watching a 3-D movie in a cinema, according to the study. While we see the pictures as having height, width and depth, they in fact all originate from a flat two-dimensional screen.
The study authors say they found the evidence for a holographic universe by studying the “afterglow” of the Big Bang with powerful new telescopes.
The telescopes detected a vast amount of data hidden in the “white noise” or microwaves left over from the moment the universe was created. Theoretical physicists and astrophysicists first identified the concept of a holographic universe in the 1990s, and this discovery is the best evidence yet for that theory.” (USA Today)
The tech elite are horrified by the implications. Why? Because our minds immediately jump to the concept of God.
“As a recent New Yorker profile of Altman explains, “people in Silicon Valley have become obsessed with the simulation hypothesis, the argument that what we experience as reality is in fact fabricated in a computer.” As a result, a second “tech billionaire” is now putting their money where their (hopefully real) mouth is by paying scientists to find the simulation’s emergency exit.
Musk told Code Conference attendees that, given the exponential technological improvements we’re seen since Pong and expect to see in the near future, “it would seem to follow that the odds that we’re in ‘base reality’ is one in billions;” in order words, the Independent clarified, he believes we are “probably” already in a simulated world today.” (Forbes)
From the quantum to the cosmic, evidence for a self-aware and constructed universe has become highly probable. It is like the universe is staring back at us, waiting to register our conscience observation, shaping reality incrementally based on the findings of our internal observations.
While the vast majority of the scientific fields are in the dark ages, hypothesizing creation and life arrived spontaneously. Tech Moguls and Billionaires are convinced we live in a matrix, purposely created to entrap each one of us.
A Tri-Une Godhead Revealed
While Elon Musk and his billionaire pals are cluelessly looking for ways to break out of the matrix, Bible believing Christians already know exactly who we are dealing with in terms of the grand architect of creation. Jehovah God.
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. Isaiah 45:18
The author of creation isn’t some universal, impersonal, kooky force new agers want to believe in, nor is it a computer grand simulator, that tech billionaires fathom. The Creator has identified Himself and has made Himself known unto mankind in the past through the collective testimony of the Bible.
Now this finding, that shows creation is dependent on the role an observer plays actually substantiates what the Bible stated 2000 years ago before scientists began to observe this effect on the quantum level.
It demonstrates that the Godhead itself; which is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are organized in a way that is consistent to the fundamental findings at the particle level of creation. That creation exists and gets its genesis from mutual observation. In fact, that is exactly what we read 1 John,
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7
While Elon Musk says we are not in “base reality,” we get a picture of what base reality truly looks like in this verse. “Base reality” would be the reality in which the originator of creation would reside. The God-point or the place of ultimate Truth. Or, in terms that most people understand, simply Heaven.
According to this verse, Base Reality occurs when the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost bear witness of one another. It is from this observation of one another within the Godhead that all of Creation emanates. A single consciousness is not enough for the entire universe to come into being, it takes the interactions between the Father and the Son and the observance of the Holy Spirit to come into being.
To illustrate this concept, we can think in terms of particles.
The matrix of interacting particles is what creates the known, physical universe. If we were to rewind time and be able to peer into the fabric of particle physics, we would see these particles collide at certain places and certain times, it is these interactions that produce the necessary energetic bursts of energy to create the perception of solid matter.
Now scientists are actually trying to reverse engineer this process and create matter from light. The magnitude of energy needed to create just a little bit of matter is huge. Here we read about the Breit-Wheeler process, being tested right now by professors at the Imperial College London,
“The theory of the Breit-Wheeler process says it should be possible to turn light into matter by smashing two particles of light (photons) together to create an electron and a positron. However, past attempts to do this have required the addition of other high-energy particles. Professor Rose said: “This would be a pure demonstration of Einstein’s famous equation that relates energy and mass: E=mc2, which tells us how much energy is produced when matter is turned to energy. What we are doing is the same but backwards: turning photon energy into mass, i.e. m=E/c2.”
The system involves two high-power laser beams, which are being used to create the photons of light to be smashed together. One of the photons has about 1000 times the energy of photons that produce visible light, and the other has 1,000,000,000 times the energy.
If they are successful, they will detect positrons, but they will have to undertake a careful analysis of the data before those positrons can be confirmed as originating from the Breit-Wheeler process and not from other background processes, proving the success of turning light into matter.” (Phys.org)
If we were able to extrapolate this process out, we can see that the entire physical world is an infinitely complex, controlled interaction between light and the observer. The Bible says that God is light, and thus the originator of these interactions.
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 1 John
The interesting thing about the Observer Effect, particle physics, and the Bible is that it truly does suggest that the Triune Godhead is a necessary feature of existence. The ability of God to observe Himself through the 3-part nature of the Godhead, allows him to be totally separate from creation. God is self-contained and stabilized by virtue of the 3 persons in the Trinity who bear witness of one another.
Creation then comes about by the interactions these 3 persons have with one another, much like a complex computer program comes alive through the clever manipulation of the binary code of 1’s and 0’s. 0 representing the state of Off and 1 represents the state of On, but when put into a string, that string of on’s and off’s become data, and that data can grow until it weaves a complex creation like a computer program. From these simple states, very complex systems are created.
When we think about the opening passages of Genesis, we begin to get a picture as to how all this came about, and how God can truly be the force that moves and that move is observed which then stabilizes into the created order or what the Bible calls Jesus, or the Word.
Thus, the statement in the opening passages of Genesis, when God does something then says it was good it all starts to make sense. This is the Observer effect at work,
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good… Genesis 1:3-4
God states something, something exists, and then it is observed to be good.
It truly is a mystery, but our understanding is enhanced by scientific observations that truly look as if to verify what God has said about His own nature thousands of years in the past.
These findings should also end the debate among Christians as to whether or not God is a Triune God called the Trinity in Christian doctrine, or if he is One God acting in different modes throughout creation, which people call the Oneness Doctrine or Modalism.
If Modalism where to be true, God would be like One particle that is moving so fast through time and space that it interacts with itself creating the fabric of the universe. This would mean that God is within creation itself (pantheism) and not the cause of creation. This doesn’t make sense on its face and is impossible relative to our understanding about quantum and particle physics. Particles interact with other particles, they cannot act on themselves. In this Oneness model of the Godhead there is no one there to observe this interaction and therefore, the stabilization that occurs when an observer is present never happens. In this model there can be no God, nor could there be creation. The state of the universe would be “OFF.”
“On” the contrary what we see in nature is the important role that the observer plays, and is critical, because the observer stabilizes a particle when a measurement occurs. Our understanding of physics suggest the Bible is correct in saying that God is stabilized through His own observations of Himself, allowing Himself to reside outside of creation, and is then creating this physical world through a series of observed actions of the Godhead by the Holy Spirit.
This profound Truth brings to life statements that the Apostle John made, like this verse in the opening of His Gospel, where he tried to explain and give light to this concept of the Observer Effect we see in Quantum Physics.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1: 1-3
John had been given insight into creation, and the nature of the Godhead, who Jesus was and how the fundamental principles of nature and physics would demonstrate these facts way ahead of his time. There is no way he could understand these things outside of divine revelation. That is why we call the Apostle John, John the Revelator, He truly was favored by Jesus in a way none of the other Apostles were. The mystery of creation and the prophetic scripture that had been given to Him by God is nothing short of mind blowing relative to what our modern scientists are finding out about the nature of creation. Yet none of these scientists will ever, frame their findings in terms of theological understandings even though it is obvious that is exactly what they are doing. The study of God Himself. Here is a list of verses about the Trinity, a concept replete throughout scripture.
Please follow and like us:
Other articles of interest:
Trump Touring a Chemtrail Plane?
Did you know the Rothschilds own a 70% stake in Weather Central, a major weather data supplier to news networks. Good place to manipulate the data...
Do You Want The Chemtrails Gone?
“Trump Promises End of Chemtrails”
Chemtrails CONTINUE across the nation NOW comes the time of revelation to Trump that he is NOT a ‘presiden...