9/12/23: ENTITY INTENSITY

Scientists, through genetic engineering, have grown an entity that closely resembles an early human embryo, without using sperm, eggs, or a womb. The methodology of manipulating a specific part of a DNA chain to change human embryos is based on flawed scientific reductionism, which ignores the complexity of biophysical reality and the fundamental laws of nature. We have truly entered a Brave New World, grappling with the morality of life and death in the age of medical technology. Devaluing life is now commonplace. Eugenicists are “reimagining” the evolution of society…and the human race. Tonight on Ground Zero, Clyde Lewis talks about ENTITY INTENSITY.

SHOW PREVIEW: 

SHOW SAMPLE: 

SHOW PODCAST:

9/12/23: ENTITY INTENSITY

SHOW TRANSCRIPT: 

I received an email the other day that my show needs to focus more on political topics because when I do alien stories or paranormal shows they just seem trivial.

Well sometimes I am concerned about being trivial but even I need an escape from the stupidity of our political system — you can get that from any run-of-the-mill radio show.

I focus on real life and death issues because the world is a scary place — and yes that includes those strange entities that tap on your window at night.

When future generations look back on this moment in history, will they remember the daily political fights — or will everything just look like a sideshow compared to humans and how they will be transformed into genetic messes and entities that resemble aliens or demons in the future?

Yes, werewolves and vampires, modern adrenochrome drinkers and genetic Frankenstein monsters will eventually become normal things in the brave new world.. but of course, some may think it is trivial as opposed to a stupid election where we fight over whether or not a bumbling octogenarian and another old guy that has been beaten by the legal system is going to lead us further in the 21st century.

I guess daily political tension is far more relevant than humans being able to edit the genetic code and become monsters.

There are always unintentional consequences that negatively affect society when boundaries are crossed; with modern science, scientists do their best to map out contingency plans to deal with successes and failures, including what to do with a synthetic material that doesn’t meet the guidelines established for it.

These concerns were expressed in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

Shelley was 17 years old when she wrote Frankenstein 200 years ago and although young, her perceptions of what is good or evil, what is beautiful or monstrous, are topics today that are discussed in relation to genetic engineering, gene manipulation and mutation.

And as cliché as a Frankenstein comparison is — the reality is becoming so common now — that we are not even facing the truth about what a mutant creation in a lab can do to an ecosystem.

We as humans experience the extremes which are birth and death. You are either defective and with medicine we are told we can be perfected – in the future, we can be designed like a toy.

Unfortunately, in matters of life and death, the ruling elite still have the final word.

It also looks as if the ruling elite and mad science will have the final word on creation as well.

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 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 who would dictate science policy at these meetings.

Alongside the physical science of genetic engineering emerged the social science of bioethics – the discipline that 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.

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.

Genetic Engineers have also found ways to create life without the act of procreation.

Scientists have grown an entity that closely resembles an early human embryo, without using sperm, eggs, or a womb.

The Weizmann Institute team says their “embryo model”, made using stem cells, looks like a textbook example of a real 14-day-old embryo.

It even released hormones that turned a pregnancy test positive in the lab.

There is now a rapidly developing field mimicking natural embryo development.

This research, published in the journal Nature, is described by the Israeli team as the first “complete” embryo model for mimicking all the key structures that emerge in the early embryo.

It is a textbook 14-day embryo.

The embryo models were allowed to grow and develop until they were comparable to an embryo 14 days after fertilization. In many countries, this is the legal cut-off for normal embryo research.

The work also raises the question of whether embryo development could be mimicked past the 14-day stage.

They arrived at this limit based on the point in time at which the nervous system begins to develop.

This would not be illegal, even in the UK, as embryo models are legally distinct from embryos.

They are merely classified as Black Box Entities.

Though the announcement is couched in terms that make it seem humanitarian, as potentially a huge advance in science, an agency tied to the British government is encouraging efforts in gene-editing of the DNA of human embryos. It belongs in the category of eugenics. Not surprisingly, the footprints of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller eugenics circles.

The focus is the use of new technologies for gene editing, including CRISPR-Cas9, to “alter the DNA sequences of an embryo, or of a sperm or egg cell prior to fertilization. The aim would be to influence the inherited characteristics of the resulting entity –whether or not it becomes a human is not exactly certain.

The problem is that the technology of gene editing is anything but precise, contrary to what its advocates like Bill Gates may claim. The methodology of manipulating a specific part of a DNA chain to change human embryos is based on flawed scientific reductionism, which ignores the complexity of biophysical reality and of the fundamental laws of nature.

The altered DNA may be passed to future generations?… And what if the altered DNA goes awry and that too is passed to future generations?

The scientist who first suggested developing gene drives in gene editing, Harvard biologist Kevin Esvelt, has publicly warned that development of gene editing, in conjunction with gene drive technologies, have alarming potential to go awry. He notes how often CRISPR messes up and the likelihood of mutations arising, making even benign gene drives aggressive. He stresses,

Just a few engineered organisms could irrevocably alter an ecosystem.

Gene editing itself is hugely flawed and unregulated by governments. It has been shown repeatedly that only a small minority of cells into which CRISPR is introduced, usually by a virus, actually have their genomes edited as intended. Indeed, the risks of human embryo gene editing are such that an open appeal published in Nature magazine from Edward Lanphier, Fyodor Urnov and a number of other leading gene editing researchers declared,

“Don’t edit the human germ line.”

The appeal of the scientists stated,

“There are grave concerns regarding the ethical and safety implications of this research… In our view, genome editing in human embryos using current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future generations. This makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable. Such research could be exploited for non-therapeutic modifications.”

The gene scientists added the alarming warning,

“The precise effects of genetic modification to an embryo may be impossible to know until after birth. Even then, potential problems may not surface for years.”

They called for a voluntary scientific moratorium on human gene editing.

\The term “non-therapeutic modifications” might very well include genetic editing of certain “undesirable” human races, to program them for biological extinction, the eugenics ultimate dream for over a century.

Is that unthinkable?

Not if you are attempting a depopulation agenda where you replace certain people that you consider bottom feeders.

The researchers stress it would be unethical, illegal and actually impossible to achieve a pregnancy using these embryo models – assembling the 120 cells together for these entities goes beyond the point an embryo that could successfully be implanted into the lining of the womb.

We could eliminate the need for mothers. We could ensure that only the right kind of embryos develop. Newspeak paves the way. The United Nations’ European Union and U.S. delegations have neutered mother and father to “parents” and declared that “various forms of family exist.”

Crazy? Social Justice Warriors are “reimagining” the evolution of our society.

Why not reimagine humans?

Things like genetics, genotyping, epigenetics, gender reassignment– All of it blurring the lines of what it means to be human.

Sterilization is also being carried out in the guise of gender-affirming care.

The requirement for sterilization has dark echoes of eugenics. In the early 1970s, Sweden became the first country in the world to allow transgender people to reassign their sex legally. It enforced a strict sterilization policy though, on the grounds that such people were mentally ill and unfit to care for a child.

The World Health Organization still lists “transsexualism”, which it describes as “a desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex”, as a mental and behavioral disorder.

The nationwide eugenics program ended in 1976 after 42 years, but sterilization remained a condition for sex reassignment until 2013; it had already spread to other countries when they started tackling the same issue.

Today’s strange trans ideology with its cruel medical interventions, including surgical mutilation, to affirm subjective gender identity strongly resembles the eugenics movement of the past.

The latter is now recognized as a malevolent and abusive force; but like evolution-based pseudoscientific racism, it was hailed in its day as the best and most responsible science, cheered on by the mainstream media, public school teachers, and the government. All that is true of our contemporary transgender ideology.

There’s more.

Endorsed by prestige academic opinion, eugenics focused on surgical sterilization for the “unfit.” Similarly endorsed by prestige opinion, transgender ideology welcomes the surgical removal of genitalia and even provides “eunuch” as a new possible trans identity. In the case of eugenics, sterilization was coerced, not a matter of personal preference.

But even in the 20th century — there were those who believed that science — no matter how cruel was warranted to eliminate defectives — and now as much as science is a champion of gender tinkering they too are supporting the sterilization of the gender confused.

Pushing trans theory on vulnerable young children, molding their brains before they’ve reached the age of consent, is hardly giving them a free choice in how they think of gender.

It is also cruel and unusual punishment to remove any sexual desires whatsoever — while in the process of dulling sexual desires and puberty.

It is a guaranteed win for those who support depopulation.

We have truly entered the brave new world, grappling with the morality of life and death in the age of medical technology. Devaluing life is now commonplace.

Freshly obtained aborted fetal tissue is being used to create “humanized mice” on the taxpayers’ dime, no less.

Not surprisingly, COVID-19 is the justification. Moreover, there is evidence that upstanding organizations and suppliers are making profits from the illegal sale of human fetuses.

This week, we got the news that many of us expected – but that we feared nonetheless – the FDA has granted emergency authorization to another round of experimental COVID-19 vaccines, just as we got the news that COVID infections were on the rise.

We know that lockdowns, masks and vaccine passports don’t work – and it’s clear that despite the failure of the policies before, our government is planning a repeat of these catastrophic failures.

Although the numbers of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths have slowed over the last year, the virus has evolved and mutated into more than two dozen different variants. CDC now says most people’s immunity has also waned.

Less than 20 percent of Americans got the previous booster — a bivalent shot that arrived last fall and was designed to protect against the original virus as well as Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5.

The bivalent shots that target the COVID subvariants are being pushed out for the onslaught of winter diseases — But were these new shots tested rigorously enough before they are injected into people?

Depends on who you ask — fact-checkers last year were scrambling to get down to the bottom of a rumor that these new boosters were only tested on 8 mice.

The basic fact is actually true — the preliminary findings presented by Pfizer were based on tests in eight mice.

However, fact-checkers trying to save face by saying that the concern has been blown out of proportion. That new vaccines are safe and effective.

Yes safe and effective just like the last vaccines.

Now we are seeing more people go back to being COVID zombies wearing masks and bolting to their nearest pharmacies to drink the Kool-aid.

You may recall that, during the thick of it in 2020-2021, Covidians were immune—no, that’s not the right metaphor—they were allergic to facts. They did not respond well even to the common sense statement that, since the C0Vld-19 shots hadn’t been through long-term trials, it might be unwise to take one.

Now, if you happen to say, I will not comply with any new mask or vax mandates, they will imagine that you are the Nazi fascist enemy.

That’s just how the conditioning of the brain works now.

The zombies have become intense entities of the state.

 

Written by Ron Patton