DNA OF THE DEAD
MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
Beyond any talk of quantum entanglements and the arguments over whether you have existed before your birth, can be in two places at once , and, then live on after you are dead in some other dimension, the practical argument is either you are you or you are not.
We as humans experience the extremes which are birth and death.
You are either defected and with medicine we are told we can be perfected – in the future we can be designed like a toy.
Like it or not, the clichéd future has shocked us into this reality. A reality that we now fear is simulated and has been augmented to take our minds off the fact that our extinction can be avoided with genetic engineering.
But we have to also consider that genetic engineering can also contribute to our demise as rogue scientists continue to throw out ethics in order to get a taste of what it is to be a god.
In 1997, we started talking about the possibility that mankind was about to map the human genome. At the time we were all being subjected to a lot of predictive programming about the dangers and or obstacles that were already approximated to come with DNA or genetic sequencing.
When launched in 1990, the Human Genome Project was heralded as a scientific endeavor that would provide answers to some of the most vexing questions about how genetic makeup influences human health.
However, beyond the benefits of the project, there was always the slippery slope of knowing that in the future a technocratic dictatorship or a scientific authority would somehow get a hold of your DNA and misuse it for experimentation and for uses in creating biological weapons, vaccines, cloning procedures and other experimental procedures that are not yet foreseen.
Some of the work on the Human Genome Project was being done at the Cold Spring Harbor Labs in New York. This was the Old Station for Experimental Evolution and the Eugenics records office and was endowed with funds from the Rockefeller and Harriman families in 1910.
It was originally dedicated to the scientific research of racial differences.
The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory would hold secret meetings not unlike the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission.
Its Banbury Center meetings were about off the record discussions on molecular biology, and human genetics. There were many medical and scientific luminaries and technocrats that would dictate science policy at these meetings.
Alongside the physical science of genetic engineering emerged the social science of bioethics – the discipline which decides what is ethical medical practice and research.
UNESCO established an International Bioethics Committee in 1993. What used to be called genocide was masked as social engineering, which was carried out for political interests with pseudo-scientific ideas.
In matters of life and death, the ruling elite still have the final word.
In just a few short weeks, advanced genetics projects have been underway.
While many of these projects have not taken a lead in the mainstream news, they are very relevant as they are stepping stones towards a future that will have to rely on DNA to define the living and identify the dead in some grandiose holocaust or catastrophe.
First of all, there is the major news out of China. A Chinese scientist claims he helped create genetically-edited twins who are resistant to HIV. With this announcement comes the tsunami of dialogue about ethics and what this does to the overall gene pool of the human species.
Dr. He Jiankui says that he is proud of his work using a tool known as CRISPR to remove a gene from the embryos of twin girls, altering their DNA to make them resistant to HIV.
If it’s true, this is a violation of international agreements and ethical norms.
Even the co-creator of this technology, Jennifer Doudna said that what he did was extremely inappropriate.
Other scientists, are concerned that this kind of genetic editing could cause genetic defects that last generations or harm other genes.
Some are saying that critics of the trial suffer from “Frankenstein hysteria” and that the discovery is great boon to science as genetic tinkering with human DNA can and will eventually prevent diseases and if the babies have resistance to HIV this will be a major breakthrough.
The ability to edit human genes and, consequently, actually engineer a human being from birth, is something we’ve always thought of as Gattaca-style science fiction.
Growing an edited embryo into a fully fledged adult human wouldn’t just remove a health problem — or, in the dystopian future model, create an augmented human. It would leave lasting changes that are passed on; something that many scientists say is desirable in the case of awful health problems, but much more questionable in the case of enhancements.
In Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, society is rigidly split into five castes determined through embryonic modification. Much of the consternation surrounding the idea of “designer babies” is that germ line editing could make Huxley’s dystopian vision of the future a reality.
“The fear is that germ-line engineering is a path toward a dystopia of super people and designer babies for those who can afford it,” Antonio Regalado wrote in Technology Review. “Why not design a highly intelligent group of people who could be tomorrow’s leaders and scientists?”
At the moment, the prospect of a world populated by genetically modified humans is barely remaining only in the pages of science fiction. However the announcement from China about the genetically modified babies launches a debate into a nonfictional reality where artificial improvement will affect every living thing.
Recently genetics and DNA analysis has also taken a macabre front row seat in determining who died in the recent California wildfires as charred bodies can no longer be identified by their teeth.
Authorities doing the somber work of identifying the victims of California’s deadliest wildfire are drawing on leading-edge DNA technology.
With the death toll from the Northern California blaze continues to rise and missing people are expected to rise, officials said they have been setting up a rapid DNA-analysis system, among other steps.
Rapid DNA is a term for portable devices that can identify someone’s genetic material in hours, rather than days or weeks and more extensive equipment it can take to test samples in labs.
A 2017 federal law provided a framework for police to use rapid DNA technology when booking suspects in criminal investigations, and some medical examiners have started using it to identify the dead or are weighing deploying it in disasters.
The technology, and DNA itself, has limits. It is sometimes impossible to extract DNA from incinerated remains, and trying to identify remains through DNA requires having a sample from the person when alive or building a profile by sampling close relatives.
There are still the old school ways of identifying the dead but rapid sampling and a DNA data base is being proposed for events that include megadeath scenarios where a calamity plague or a disaster kills a large number of human beings and disfigures them beyond recognition.
MCI’s or Mass casualty incidents are becoming a grim reality in our world today.
The environmental conditions of a mass disaster often result in severe fragmentation, decomposition and intermixing of the remains of victims.
In such cases, traditional identification based on the anthropological and physical characteristics of the victims is frequently inconclusive. This is the reason why DNA profiling and DNA data bases will have to be set up and required for victim identification in mass-casualty incidents (MCIs) or any forensic cases where human remains are highly fragmented and/or degraded beyond recognition.
Changes taking place in the modern world make the use of weapons of mass destruction; both biological and chemical, an increasingly likely cause of disaster in an armed conflict and a terrorist act.
These two events, war and terrorism, are examples of intentional human actions; the other examples are civilization disasters which should be considered as the price which today’s society has to pay for what can be broadly defined as technological progress.
The death and destruction from the California wildfires have sparked conspiracy theories over whether or not advanced directed energy weapons have been used and that this advanced technology is the reason the bodies and buildings have been fragmented into ash and that many of those examining the rubble have had to try and detect any human casualties on a molecular level.
The very thought of this is probably more horrifying than finding and intact body part or skull for examination.
Disaster victim identification can be performed in several traditional ways, like the physical identification of documents, jewelry and other belongings. More reliable methods are associated with the collection of fingerprints, hair and/or dental data.
Until recently, in the vast majority of cases, traditional methods were used for disaster victim identification, while DNA-typing played a supporting role or was the last resort when other methods failed. Currently, disaster victim identification is based mainly on molecular methodology, which is considered to be the most effective approach in victim identification, both in small-scale disasters and in mass-casualty events.
It is a terrifying thought of being in a major disaster where the identification of the casualties has to be conducted on a DNA or molecular level.
Not since the 911 attacks have we had to resort to nontraditional methods of disaster victim identification—the California wildfires provided a reason for something known as the mandatory DNA database.
The idea of the government having access to every citizen’s DNA might sound like an Orwellian nightmare, but recent events suggest we’re not far from this being the ground truth.
The government is investigating the possibility of a universal genetic database that would contain only the limited genetic information; likely, a small subset of genetic markers with little medical relevance required for forensic identification.
It is being sold that such a registry would remove the bias associated with current collection methods, they say, as well as preventing the exposure of sensitive genetic information not relevant to law enforcement.
The government claims it can reduce well-documented reluctance to share useful genetic information among certain groups, particularly non-white ones already under-represented in biomedical research.
And limiting the scope of genetic records accessible by the government should also help head off concerns about Gattaca-esque genetic discrimination.
The truth is obvious – the government is eager for you to submit your DNA to them and they use scenarios such as the California wildfires as a reason that it is vital for your genetic identification.
When I hear things like this, I wonder if there are more incidents where bodies will have to be identified on a molecular or DNA level in the future.
The prevailing paranoia is that the elite are trying to kill the bottom feeders and they have many ways to do so. We have discussed Agenda 21 and also the Georgia guide stones and what is said to be the perfect agenda for population controls.
According to the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
Buried in the pages of the proposal are measures that can be taken to insure global sustainability, a world with less human resource depletion. Virtually all forms of human activity impact the environment. The United Nations plan is to take measures for sustainable development. One of the key elements of “sustainable development” is population control.
The global elite are absolutely obsessed with population control. In fact, there is a growing consensus among those who support global sustainability that they need to get rid of 80 to 90 percent of us.
The Georgia Guidestones tell us that we should strive to “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”
Mass death and destruction is a terrifying possibility and an intentional cull is the nightmare of Nazi like pogroms.
Just because the authorities can probably already access our genetic information doesn’t mean we should make absolutely sure that they can. And just because the current system means they’re likely to identify certain populations in mass death scenarios more effectively doesn’t mean we should make everyone more vulnerable.
The question isn’t whether our genetic data should be easily accessible; it seems it increasingly is. The question is whether it’s really sensible for control of it to be so centralized.
Forensic DNA databases are now well established in many countries in the world. Rules on what data can be collected and stored and how it can be used differ greatly between different countries. As DNA sequencing technology advances and becomes cheaper, there are plans to set up new databases or expand existing databases in many countries.
In some countries, databases that used to contain records only from people convicted of serious crimes are being expanded to include many innocent people who have been arrested but not convicted and people convicted or given police warnings or other sanctions for minor crimes. These people are treated as a ‘risky population’ who may commit future offenses. In other countries, a DNA database of the whole population is proposed. Data-sharing, involving the transfer of information across international borders is also on the increase.
Anyone who can access an individual’s forensic DNA profile can use it to track the individual or their relatives. Access to a DNA sample can reveal more detailed information about a person’s health. DNA evidence is not foolproof and mistakes can be made in laboratories or in court. However, there are currently no international safeguards that would protect people’s privacy and rights and prevent miscarriages of justice.
23andMe and Ancestry.com are being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission over their policies for handling personal info and genetic data, and how they share that info with third parties.
It was exposed that Ancestry and 23andMe can and frequently do sell your data to drug makers. The pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline announced it was acquiring a $300 million stake in 23andMe, making that connection much more explicit.
With all of this in mind, do you think that we should have mandatory DNA data base? Do you find it a bit uncomfortable to think that there may be a disaster so great in the future that we will have to identify our dead on a molecular level?
The gray areas on this topic are far reaching—and until a majority of Americans are affected, it will be long time before it becomes a mainstream concern.
However, those of us who are still here should take notice.