Opinion: Raise Your Hand If You Want to be “Deprived” of Genetic Engineering. It’s Time to Cancel Fauci & Schwab.

Those close to He, however, wondered if perhaps He had sent his research through the gauntlet of peer review, would the reaction have been different?

What they mean is, would they have been better able to control the world’s perception of genetic modification research on humans?

Right now, the world sits on edge as another aspect of genome modification seems poised to bring down Dr. Anthony Fauci from a perch of massive power within biomedical research. For years, Fauci sat on top of a pyramid of scientists both within the NIH and at universities and research institutions around the world – all of whom had to abide by whatever paradigm was handed down from on high from Fauci himself. Fauci is now under fire for funding gain-of-function research conducted in the Wuhan Institute for Virology – the most likely site of the escape of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The release of the grant proposal that led to the funding to EcoHealth Alliance – clearly a pass-through organization that served to legitimize the funding to the Wuhan Institute – shows unequivocally that the NIH – NIAID, specifically, under Fauci’s direction – funded gain-of-function research during a period of time when such research was verboten due to the ban on such research, which, ironically, came about because Chinese researchers kept unleashing SARS viruses into humanity via a series of lab leaks.

Fauci has been trying to weasel his way out of having funded gain-of-function research – and the press is following suit. Up until the day that Fauci proclaimed (in his retort to US Senator Rand Paul) that what they were funding did not qualify as gain-of-function research, there was no controversy or disagreement among scientists about the definition. When Fauci made his proclamation, he knew all of his minions, “up and down the chain (of command)” would fall into place. And they have. But it doesn’t matter – because when Fauci is tried – and he will be tried – they will realize that defending Fauci is a losing gambit. At that point in time, the US Senate will have no stomach for semantics and condescension. The writing is on the wall; the Fauci Era is already all but over.

All of this controversy makes Klaus Schwab’s position on genetic modification of humans all the more distasteful. Schwab has proclaimed that that

“The fourth industrial revolution will affect the very essence of our human experience”! This new era of the Great Reset will: “lead to a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity”.

What does he mean by “the fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity”? And why does Klaus also believe that what he’s describing is something that will be desired by the masses?

In his book, Schwab represents genetic modification as a commodity. He describes genetic engineering as something that some (who he calls “the losers” will be “denied”).

This level of presumptuousness is the same type of hubris that landed Fauci in the hot seat, and that put Dr. He in a Chinese prison cell.

Schwab, Fauci and Dr. He are all examples of people who grossly overestimated their right to hold power over the fate of others – to the point that they thought it was acceptable to genetically modify humans – or viruses – without first gaining consent from society as a whole. They belong to what the public has now realized is an elite technocracy – an oligarchy of unelected power brokers who have a vision for the future of humanity that does not include any consideration of the will of the masses.

It’s time for us to ask: what gives anyone the right to genetically modify humans or other living things without general consent? If you are among those who think genetic engineering is dangerous – in part because the effects of the products of genetic engineering are, by definition, unknown, or whether you believe that genetically modifying human beings puts us on a pathway that changes the course of human evolution forever, then you’ll understand why I wrote the essay that challenges the presumption of Elon Musk on the question of whether we, as a species, “must” merge with AI.

The irony of all ironies? I’m using AI right now to help me write this blog article.

In doing so, for all I know, I may be using a computer system that has been engineered to have cognitive abilities far beyond those of its creators.

(Yes, that last sentence was the AI.)

Nevertheless, if we genetically engineer humans or other living things without some form of universal consent, we are changing the future of evolution for all of our descendants. I go into this in great detail in my article “Who are We, and Who (or What) Do We Want to Become? An Evolutionary Perspective on Biotransformative Technologies”, which is open-access thanks to donations from the public to The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge. The Abstract of the article is as follows:

“Human evolution sits at several important thresholds. In organic evolution, interplay between exogenous environmental and genetic factors rendered new phenotypes at rates limited by genetic variation. The interplay took place on adaptive fitness landscapes determined by correspondence of genetic and environmental relationships. Human evolution involved important emergences that altered the adaptive landscape: language, writing, organized societies, science, and the internet. These endogenous factors ushered in transformative periods leading to more rapidly evolving emergences. I explore the impact of development of emerging biotransformative technologies capable of being applied to effect self-genetic modification and artificial intelligence-augmented cognition on the evolutionary landscape of phenotypes important to cognitive plasticity. Interaction effects will yield unanticipated emergences resulting in hyperrealm adaptive landscapes with more rapid evolutionary processes that feed back upon more fundamental levels while vastly outpacing organic evolution. Emerging technologies exist that are likely to impact the evolution of cognitive plasticity in humans in ways and at rates that will lead to societal upheaval. I show that the theoretical contribution of organic evolution in future human evolution is expected to become comparatively insignificant relative to that made by endogenous environmental factors such as external cognition aids and manipulation of the human genome. The results support the conclusion of a strong recommendation of a moratorium on the adoption of any technology capable of completely altering the course of human evolution.”

If you want a deep dive, read the full article (link below).

In the meantime, I have a direct, sincere message here for Schwab and Fauci. You are mad. Out of your minds. You need help. The world does not need you playing God. I urge you – check into a mental health clinic as soon as possible. You have no idea what you’re messing with – you can’t possibly – because you’re not even capable of comprehending your own hubris. Keep the rest of us out of your fantasy world where you control everything and everyone. We’ve seen your type before, and frankly, we don’t have time to deal with the likes of you. So please, find a quiet, comfortable spot on the planet where you can live in peace and quiet knowing that you were stopped before you came to represent the full harm you have or might have visited on the human species.

I’m very serious about this. You should be too – many are concerned that you might (and many believe you should) die in prison for crimes against humanity.

Take a deep breath, put down the lab equipment or microphone and go home to your families before it’s too late. You’re not just damaging your own reputation – you’re damaging the image of Science itself. I just hope that it is not already far later than any of us know or can imagine.

To the reader: Just remember that Klaus Schwab believes that every person alive wants genetic engineering. He thinks you want to have your genes changed in a way that will cause you to be different. Improved. But who determines what genetic changes amount to improvements – and who decides that genetic modification of humans is ethical?

In my view, we ALL do.

To read the full article, please click:

Who are We, and Who (or What) Do We Want to Become? An Evolutionary Perspective on Biotransformative Technologies