Connect with us

Underworld

Research Exposes New Health Risks of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes & Salmon

Research Exposes New Health Risks of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes & Salmon 88

This article was written By Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo.com. For more news from them, you can sign up for their newsletter here

Just when genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes got their approval by the Cayman Islands and the government of Canada’s Prince Edward Island is trying to approve GM salmon, new research reveals unexpected and potentially dangerous effects of genetic engineering.

Unfortunately, neither the makers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) nor their regulators conduct the studies that are necessary to protect the public. Being bitten by GM mosquitoes and eating GM salmon remains a serious gamble.

The new discomfiting research published in Nature Methods examined the unintended impacts of gene editing on the DNA of mice. Gene editing is touted by its promoters as the safer, more precise version of genetic engineering. The earlier version that was used to create the GM crops we all know about (soy, corn, etc.) forced genetic material from bacteria or viruses into plant DNA. Gene editing, on the other hand, does not necessarily introduce genes from foreign species. Rather, it cuts the DNA in a predetermined location. The cell’s DNA repair mechanisms are then activated to repair the cut.

Of all the gene editing techniques, the one that is easiest, least expensive, and most popular is called CRISPR-Cas9. Proponents claim it is so safe and predictable, it should not be regulated. They want to put their gene-edited products on the market without informing governments or consumers. And they don’t even want it to be called genetic engineering, since consumers have largely weighed in against GMOs. That is why the recent research is so damning.

Gene Editing Creates Predictable Mutations

The tools used for gene editing are designed to recognize and make changes only on specific DNA sequences.  In the Nature Methods research, for example, the engineers designed their tools to fix a defective DNA sequence that could restore sight to blind mice. But the defective DNA sequence that governs sight is also repeated in other places throughout the mouse genome—unrelated to vision. Therefore, the gene editing tools can also make unintended changes in these “off-target” locations.

The unwanted mutations do not come from cutting the DNA. Rather, they occur when the cut ends are rejoined by the cells’ repair mechanisms. It results in either the loss of some DNA base units or the insertion of a few base units at the cut site.

If the mutation occurs in the middle of a known gene (or in a portion of the DNA that controls a gene) it can severely disrupt its function. Gene editors, therefore, rely on computer models of the genome to identify where the similar sequences are that are likely to become mutated and to predict what level of collateral damage that could create. If the risk is considered low enough, they proceed with editing.

Widespread Unpredicted Mutations Discovered

There is a joke that says molecular biologists don’t understand just two things: molecules and biology. Too often, the complex 3-D world doesn’t cooperate with their computer model predictions. This was again confirmed by the work of Stamford’s Dr. Kellie Schaefer, along with her colleagues from Stamford, Columbia, and the University of Iowa.

Instead of letting the computer guess which off-target changes would take place, Schaefer’s team actually sequenced the genome of the two gene-edited mice after they had undergone CRISPR-Cas9. They did find insertions and deletions (indels), which is the type of mutation that the computer predicts. One mouse had 164 indels; the other 128. But of the top 50 sequences that a computer would identify as most likely to be mutated, none were changed at all. Far more importantly, however, the computer model would totally miss their other finding: point mutations throughout the genome. One mouse had 1,736; the other 1,696.

A point mutation is the replacement of a single nucleotide along the DNA. But don’t let its smallness fool you. These so-called single-nucleotide variants (SNV) can have huge consequences. They can lead to many types of changes, including disease.

According to Dr. Michael Antoniou, a London-based molecular geneticist who routinely uses genetic engineering in his research, “Many of the genome editing-induced off-target mutations [both the point mutations and the indels] . . . will no doubt be benign in terms of effects on gene function. However, many will not be benign and their effects can carry through to the final marketed product, whether it be plant or animal.”  This could translate into possible toxins, allergens, carcinogens, or other changes that could affect those eating a GMO.

Dr. Michael Hansen, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer Reports, wrote, “While genome editing has been portrayed in the media as an incredibly precise process, where one can go in and literally only intentionally change one or a small number of nucleotide bases, the reality is that there can be large numbers of off-target effects.” He says, “This study raises troubling concerns.”

Another recently published study in Nature Communications used CRISPR/Cas9 to make 17 edits in the mouse genome. They too sequenced the genome and found unexpected insertions and deletions in all 17 places. Whereas deletions of approximately 9 base pairs are predicted, the actual size of the deletions was as high as 600 base pairs. No computer model predicts DNA damage this extensive.

third study published this year also found deletions of more than 500 base units. The researchers also confirmed that proteins produced by these mutated sections were altered. Such changes could theoretically transform a beneficial protein to a harmful one.

Hansen says the long deletions of DNA material “may not be routinely identified without whole genome sequencing.” But whole genome sequencing is rarely done by gene editors. Instead, they rely on their computers.

Even if they did sequence the genome, science doesn’t yet have the capacity to predict what the real-life consequences of all the mutations would be. Therefore, according to Antoniou, “it is also essential to ascertain the effects of these unintended changes on global patterns of gene function.” For this, both Antoniou and Hansen (as well as the National Academy of Sciences and the international standard setting body Codex Alimentarius) agree that the scientists must also analyze the changes in RNA, proteins, and metabolites.

Armed with this data, certain problems would be obvious—an increase of a known allergen or toxin, for example. But even if no red flags are raised at this point, according to Antoniou, “it is still necessary to conduct long-term toxicity studies” using animals. That’s because, once again, science is still not competent to figure out the complex interactions and side effects that can occur.

Antoniou concludes, “In the absence of these analyses, to claim that genome editing is precise and predictable is based on faith rather than science.”

And it is mere faith that supports the claims that GM mosquitoes and salmon are safe. Although they were not produced by the CRISP-Cas9 technique, they are the product of earlier gene-insertion techniques, which are also fraught with unpredictable mutations and altered gene expressions.

Research Exposes New Health Risks of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes & Salmon 89

Earlier Research Warnings Ignored by GMO Makers

Just because this year’s research on gene editing shows unintended and potentially dangerous side effects does not mean that companies using the technology will change the way they operate. Indeed, back in 1999, a study showed widespread changes in the DNA due to gene insertion; but many GMO companies conveniently ignored the findings and continue to do so.

In that study, scientists studying cystic fibrosis inserted a gene into human cells. Using a microarray, they discovered that the insertion “significantly affect[ed] up to 5% of the total genes in the array.” This means that the presence of a single foreign gene might change the expression of hundreds, possibly thousands of genes. In the case of the human cell being studied, the scientists were at a loss to determine the impact. “In the absence of more biological information,” they wrote, “we cannot discern which directions are better or worse, since any of these may have positive or negative effects.”

Just like the recent gene editing studies, this 1999 discovery contradicted the assumptions of an entire industry, which marched forward on the false assumption that their GMOs were predictable and safe.

The Untested Danger of a GM Mosquito Bite

In January 2014, I testified at the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District, opposing their planned release of GM mosquitoes. Also testifying was Derric Nimmo, a principal scientist at Oxitec, the UK company that produces the mosquitoes.

Oxitec had already conducted limited releases with millions of Aedis Aegypti mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands, Brazil, Panama, and Malaysia. The male insects were engineered to mate with natural females and produce offspring that die before reaching adulthood. Their plan was to reduce the population and thereby reduce the incidence of dengue and other diseases that this type of mosquito carries.

The company had widely publicized that they were only releasing males, which don’t bite. But it turns out that their method of sorting males from females is flawed, and thousands of biting female mosquitoes are released. In addition, their method to create non-viable offspring is also flawed. Between 3%-15% of the offspring survive and prosper. This can easily translate into millions of biting females, born from a genetically engineered family tree.

After the Florida hearing was over, I asked Derric if they ever analyzed the saliva from their GM mosquitoes, since the saliva enters the bloodstream of the people who are bitten. He said that they were just now doing research to see if the protein produced by the inserted gene was found in the saliva.

Realizing that they had already exposed the population of four countries to their mosquito saliva before doing this research, I was unimpressed. Then…

I explained to Derric the findings of the cystic fibrosis study, showing that a single inserted gene can create widespread changes, including new toxins, allergens, or carcinogens. Shouldn’t his company analyze everything in the saliva, I asked? Derric responded, “Good idea.”

ln Derric’s defense, Oxitec is not the only company that is tampering with nature’s gene pool in spite of the fact that it is wholly unprepared and unqualified to do so. Other GMO makers also fail to use the modern molecular profiling techniques that reveal unintended side effects. However, when independent scientists conduct that type of research on GMOs, the results are sobering.

For example, long after Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn had been consumed by hundreds of millions of people, a team led by Dr. Antoniou found more than 200 significant changes in its proteins and metabolites, compared to non-GMO corn of the same variety. Two of the compounds that increased are aptly named putrescine and cadaverine, because they produce the horrific smell of rotting dead bodies. More worrisome; they are also linked to higher risks of allergies and cancer. Another Monsanto GM corn has a new allergen and their cooked soy has up to seven times the level of a known soy allergen, compared to cooked non-GMO soy.

The Typical Biotech Response: Ignore or Attack

If regulators and medical authorities knew in advance that a proposed GMO contained new or higher levels of dangerous allergens, it is unlikely that the GMO would have been introduced. (I’m being optimistic.) But once a GMO variety is released, grown on millions of acres and eaten by millions of people, somehow the crop enjoys a bizarre immunity. Confronted with hard evidence of allergens, GMO makers and government regulators typically ignore the problem. The offending GMOs are still on the market, and they don’t carry any warnings on the package to protect those who might react.

If independent scientists discover an adverse finding that might threaten their bottom line, companies like Monsanto enlist a veritable army of supporters to drum up opposition—often using unscientific excuses that are repeated so often that they appear to be facts.

Two gene-editing companies whose stocks plummeted after the Nature Methods article came out quickly mounted their attack. But according to GMWatch.org, “the findings reported in the article, along with other recent research papers that also report unintended effects of CRISPR gene editing, show that the companies are arguing on the wrong side of the science.”

The main argument used by the company Intellia was that the mutations were not from the gene editing at all. They claim that “the more plausible conclusion is that the genetic differences reflect a normal level of variation between individuals in a colony.” But the scientific literature does not support this conclusion, given that:

  1. Most of the mutations (117 indels and 1397 SNVS) were exactly the same in the two mice. According to GMWatch.org, “This indicates a targeted and non-random process.” If it were “a normal level of variation,” as Intellia insists, there would be much greater difference between the mice.
  2. Another study looked at the genomes of 36 different strains of mice. None of the point mutations that were found in the gene-edited mice were in any of these strains. Thus, they don’t appear to be naturally occurring at all.
  3. In fact, the sheer number of mutations in the edited mice was higher than scientists find among natural strains.

Perhaps the most strained logic used by Intellia to attack the research was that “there is no known mechanistic basis for Cas9 to induce SNVs.” In other words, the journal should not have published research showing unpredicted changes in the DNA simply because no one yet has figured out why those changes take place.

But if these widespread mutations exist in Crispr-Cas9 edited organisms, according to Antoniou they are likely happening with all the new gene editing techniques, which haven’t yet been studied in such detail.

Real Dangers and Perceived Dangers are Both Dangerous

If we apply these lessons to GM mosquitoes, there are serious consequences. If the saliva contains a new toxin or allergen, it might elicit mild or even deadly reactions. Since there are no human clinical trials and no public health surveillance related to the mosquito, the cause of any associated health problems could go unnoticed. It would require a large-scale outbreak of a serious reaction for health authorities to even mount an investigation, let alone consider the mosquito as a potential source.

Whether or not the GM mosquito causes harm, there is another problem that the Cayman authorities have surely overlooked. Suppose a girl who is vacationing on the island has a sudden onset of a serious health issue without an apparent cause. And suppose that her parents notice that she has also been bitten by mosquitoes. Now suppose that they draw the conclusion, correctly or incorrectly, that her condition is caused by the bite of a GM mosquito and that story is picked up by the media.

It doesn’t have to be a prominent media source for it to inspire some supermarket tabloid to dream up alarming headlines about the serious threat to American tourists by deadly engineered mosquitoes. The results could be disastrous for Cayman tourism.

The Cayman government is not only gambling that GM mosquitoes are safe (which cannot be guaranteed at this point), but also that no one draws the conclusion that they got harmed from being bitten by one. Who would want to vacation on an island where a mosquito bite could lead to who knows what?

It’s the who-knows-what that is the main point here. No one knows. But now that we understand that the generic genetic engineering process that created the mosquito also creates unpredictable and potentially dangerous changes, who in their right mind would release them? Oxitec would, obviously. And they still haven’t published any research on the composition of their GM mosquito saliva.

Oxitec is also planning to release genetically engineered moths in upstate New York. The male moths, like the mosquitoes, mate with natural males and produce larvae that don’t make it to maturity. But that larvae will inevitably be deposited into cabbage, cauliflower, and broccoli. What if the genetic engineering process alters the larvae and creates a toxin or allergen? Eating that vegetable might trigger a reaction. And just like the mosquito bite, it would be hard to trace, and the perception of harm (real or unreal) could damage produce sales from regions near the moths’ release.

Oxitec is owned by Intrexon, which also owns AquaBounty—the maker of GM salmon. The research on the salmon did show indications of off-target effects, with higher amounts of a cancer promoting hormone (IGF-1) and larger allergenic potential. But the number of fish used in the study was so small that the changes were not statistically significant. On behalf of Consumers Union, Hansen wrote to the FDA, “Because FDA’s assessment is inadequate, we are particularly concerned that this salmon may pose an increased risk of severe, even life-threatening allergic reactions to sensitive individuals. Instead of approving this product, FDA should be requiring studies with data from many more engineered fish, not the tiny sample of six fish on which it currently bases its conclusions. Unfortunately, even the data from those six fish raises concerns.” The FDA did not heed Hansen’s warning and instead approved the salmon for consumption.

At this point, there are no comprehensive analyses or feeding studies on any of these Intrexon GMOs. Their release might not only affect human health, they can permanently alter the gene pool. If the salmon escape confinement into the ocean, if the surviving GM mosquitoes or moths persist, there is no technology on earth to recall them. Any side effect can be with us for generations.

Although GMO companies like to argue that GMOs with built-in sterility will not persist in the environment. Given the fact that a percentage can survive, however, their argument is deceptive. In addition, studies confirm that after several generations, genetically engineered traits in insects can fail. A recent study, for example, showed that newly introduced traits in engineered mosquitoes failed in just 25 generations.

Intrexon can’t pretend it doesn’t know about the dangers and problems with genetic engineering technology, both real and perceived. Robert Shapiro has been on their board since 2011. He was the CEO of Monsanto who arranged to fast track the release of GMOs into the food supply. Monsanto inserted the company’s attorney into the FDA, where he pioneered the policy that allows GMOs onto the market without a single adequate safety study. Since then, numerous studies have pointed to serious health impacts, all of which are ignored or attacked.

Many of us who study the research on GMOs are convinced that they contribute to rising disease rates in the US. But even if we’re wrong, no one can pretend that the GMOs have been safe for the economy. All over the world and especially in the US, consumer rejection of GMOs has exacted a heavy economic toll on food companies and agribusiness.

But even if the regulators in the Cayman Islands and Prince Edward Island are ignoring the trends, others are wising up. According to Friends of the Earth, “more than 79 grocery retailers with more than 11,000 stores have now made commitments to not sell the GMO salmon,” if it gets introduced into the market. Major brands are already racing to eliminate derivatives of GM crops, even advertising on TV that their products are non-GMO. And many countries and regions that had considered Oxitec’s GM mosquitoes have said no and are opting for safer alternatives. And as long new studies continue to demonstrate serious unpredicted side-effects from genetic engineering, more consumers will take the necessary precautions.

The leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non-GMO choices, Jeffrey Smith’s meticulous research documents how biotech companies continue to mislead legislators and safety officials to put the health of society at risk and the environment in peril. His work expertly summarizes why the safety assessments conducted by the FDA and regulators worldwide teeter on a foundation of outdated science and false assumptions, and why genetically engineered foods must urgently become our nation’s top food safety priority. Mr. Smith’s feature-length documentary Genetic Roulette — The Gamble of Our Lives was awarded the 2012 Movie of the Year (Solari Report) and the Transformational Film of the Year (AwareGuide).

Source link

Comments

Underworld

Raised by Wolves: Microsoft has been tasked with developing a global digital passport

Raised by Wolves: Microsoft has been tasked with developing a global digital passport 90
Photo: Raised by Wolves, directed by Ridley Scott and Aaron Guzikowski

According to the Hill, a coalition of medical and technology organizations is working to develop a digital COVID-19 vaccination passport that will allow businesses, airlines and countries to check whether people have received the vaccine. 

The vaccination initiative, announced Thursday, is developing technology to confirm vaccinations, with the likelihood that some governments will require people to provide proof of their vaccinations to enter the country.

The organization hopes the technology will enable people to “demonstrate their health to safely return to travel, work, school and life, while protecting the privacy of their data.”

The initiative, which includes members such as Microsoft, Oracle and the American non-profit Mayo Clinic, is using the results of the Commons Project’s international digital document confirming a negative COVID-19 test, according to the Financial Times.

The Commons Project technology, created in partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation , is already being used by three major airline alliances.

The coalition is reportedly in talks with several governments to create a program requiring either negative tests or proof of vaccination, Paul Meyer, executive director of The Commons Project, told the Times.

“The goal of the Vaccine Initiative is to give people digital access to their vaccination records so they can use tools like CommonPass to safely return to travel, work, school and life while protecting the privacy of their data ,” Meier said in a statement. …

People who have been vaccinated are currently receiving a sheet of paper confirming their vaccination, he said, but the coalition could develop a digital certificate using electronic health records.

The technology should allow patients to keep their data safe by being available in a digital wallet or physical QR code so that they can regulate who sees the information.

The Vaccine Initiative assumes that certain businesses, such as event organizers and universities, will require their consumers, students and employees to provide proof of vaccination , the Times reported.

Mike Sicily, executive vice president of Oracle Global Business Units, says in a statement that a passport “should be as simple as online banking.”

“We are committed to working together with the technology and medical communities, as well as with global governments, to ensure that people have safe access to this information, no matter where and when they may need it,” he added.

The project is also evolving as new strains of COVID-19 emerge around the world, including the spread of a more contagious variant that has been found in the United Kingdom.

It should be understood that only those travelers who received the RIGHT vaccine will receive permission to fly and cross borders.

Are people really vaccinated? Are we being raised by wolves?

The material is taken from the public website of this biotech giant, founded in 2010 to develop drugs and vaccines based on messenger RNA (mRNA) technologies. The company became known to our readers due to the launch of the eponymous vaccine against the Covid-19 virus on the market.

Quotes:

“Recognizing the wide potential of mRNA science, we decided to create a technological platform for mRNA that is very similar to the operating system on a computer. It is designed so that it can be connected and interchangeable with various programs. In our case, the “program” or “application” is our mRNA preparation – a unique mRNA sequence that encodes a protein.

“May 1, 2020 Moderna, Inc. and Lonza Ltd. today announced a 10-year strategic collaboration agreement to enable large-scale production of Moderna mRNA vaccine (mRNA-1273) against the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) .

The primary conclusion is that the so-called Moderna vaccine is not at all like traditional vaccines, which use live or dead, natural or engineered parts of the RNA of the virus, designed to induce an immune response and form antibodies in the body.

The drug “mRNA-1273” is not a vaccine against a virus, but, in fact, is an artificial bioprogrammed virus.

Based on the author’s definition of the mRNA platform as an analogue of a computer operating system, if you adhere to the declared letter, it should be recognized: the drug is intended for (re) programming the human body by (re) coding its protein. In other words, the masks are off, the mRNA platform is the place where Big Pharma teams up with Big Tech, justifying the darkest predictions yesterday by science fiction writers, and today by realists.

If you take a good walk around the Moderna website, you will find very interesting things.

For example, the company clearly recognizes that a healthy immune system poses a threat to mRNA, since an intense immune response can destroy the platform before it even starts to act and which can lead to negative results, which can include molecular deficiency and hormonal defects, and cause seizures, allergic reactions, infertility and other side effects, but at the same time it does not form a targeted immune response to coronavirus proteins at all. 

In addition, the self (re) programming of cells is necessary in order for them to be open for the reception and delivery of various drugs, the effectiveness of which is often significantly reduced due to rejection by the body.

What this means: a healthy immune system after the introduction of the drug “mRNA-1273” is (re) programmed either unpredictably or predictably, but for the further purposes of the Moderna company, which is vitally interested in the fact that the human body is further open for access to pharmaceutical companies … The immune system actually breaks open, opening the door for any biotechnological experiments on the human body.

Due to the fact that such biotechnologies are at the beginning of the path, which is always associated with a great risk to life, the Moderna company at the legislative level is exempted by the US Congress from liability for the consequences of the use of its drugs. Also, by the way, like the Pfizer company.

Is this an explanation of the reason for the planned mass vaccination of all people in 2021, as well as the “sharp aggravation of the pandemic” in the world media?

Continue Reading

Underworld

Freemasonry calendar for 2021 and the next 25 years: Earthlink & BrainTrust

Freemasonry calendar for 2021 and the next 25 years: Earthlink & BrainTrust 91

With the onset of the covid pandemic, vaccinations, immunization passports and other such miracles, conspiracy theorists were surprised to find that all this was written in plain text on the Internet many years ago. The people who determine the strategic course of the world have communicated their plans quite openly. Until a certain moment, no one paid attention to these plans.

However, now that everything that is happening has become more or less clear, many enthusiasts began to re-read the texts with great interest and revise the videos of 2010 and earlier years, trying to find in them both indications of the events taking place around the current events and the events that will follow. The next discovery of this kind was a video from 2008 from Casaleggio Associati – a small Masonic organization somehow connected with Gianroberto Casaleggio.

From the first visit, the conspiracy theorists did not manage to dig very deeply, but, according to the first impression, we are talking about regional masonry of a not very high level of management, so there is clearly not all the information there, especially information for showing the general public.

Nevertheless, some crumbs of knowledge are still better than its complete absence, so we will retell the video in general terms. The first five minutes there is an introductory one, which tells about the great thinkers of the Renaissance who opposed Genghis Khan and wanted to arrange the world correctly and justly. This desire lasted for centuries, until the baton passed to the US Democratic Party and the Bilderberg Club. Then, from the middle of the fifth minute of the video, the most interesting part begins.

In 2018, according to the forecast from 2008, the world will be divided into two blocks – the block of good guys who live in Europe, and the block of bad guys who live in China and its satellites: The war between the blocks begins in 2020 with the use of bacteriological weapons. The war will last 20 years. During the war, such cultural monuments as Reims Cathedral, St. Peter’s Square and the Sagrada Familia will be destroyed, which suggests that there will be no stone unturned from Italy, France and Spain.

Also, in addition to biological weapons, at the first stage of the war, climate weapons will be used, which will cause a rise in ocean level by 12 meters with all the ensuing consequences. There will also be a world famine and a rejection of fossil fuels – tanks by the end of the war will be some kind of electric. As a result of this, the West will win by 2040, but there will be no more than a billion people on the planet who will be offered a single electric passport and a networked democracy, which will be controlled by the World Government and Earthlink Artificial Intelligence.

Earthlink will start operating in 2043, a single passport will be issued in 2047, and in 2050 there will be the so-called BrainTrust – collective social intelligence: When BrainTrust starts working, people will connect their brains into a network and collectively choose the World Government, which will lead them, proclaiming the coming of the Era of the New World Order. It will appear in 2054. Here is such an interesting Masonic tale of the 2008 model. Oddly enough, but so far the chronology is being observed and the prophecy is coming true.

Continue Reading

Underworld

Covid-19: The Great Reset -Pandemic targets declared

Covid-19: The Great Reset -Pandemic targets declared 92

The working class of the United States is in despair. This was stated by Senator Bernie Sanders on his Twitter page. He also wrote that the US Congress should listen to the people and provide a one-time payment of $ 1,200 to each member of the working class.

“Maybe – just maybe – it’s time for Congress to listen to the American people and send out survival checks for $ 1,200 to working-class Americans who are now in such despair,” Sanders said.

On March 25, the U.S. Congress approved a one-time payment of $ 1,200 to every adult U.S. citizen. The purpose of the payment was to mitigate the social impact of quarantine measures and the coronavirus pandemic.

Sanders is in favor of re-payment, as the crisis caused by the quarantine and pandemics is not only not overcome, but is developing.

However, it is quite possible that not only American workers will receive benefits soon. 

The FGC website spoke about the book “Covid-19: The Great Reset”, published in the summer of 2020 in Europe. The authors of the book are Klaus Schwab, founder and permanent leader of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and Thierry Mallre, who is presented as a futurist.

By the end of 2020, the book should be published in German, French, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese and Korean.

The main ideas of the book about “great reset” are already diverging.

First , the COVID-19 pandemic is a “unique window of opportunity.” It is through this window that humanity must be introduced into the future. No return to the past! “Many people ask: when will we return to normal life? The short answer is never. Our story will be divided into two parts: before the coronavirus and after. “

Secondly , the “bright future” is a world where the distinctions between rich and poor countries will be erased, and over time state borders will be destroyed. A single planetary state with a single government will emerge: “The question of the World Government is at the center of all issues.” Further, Schwab writes: “With the introduction of lockdown, our attachment to loved ones increases, we value more those whom we love – family members and friends. But the downside here is that it causes a rise in patriotic and national feelings, along with dark religious beliefs and ethnic preferences. And this toxic mixture brings out the worst in us … “Schwab makes it clear that” dark religious beliefs and ethnic preferences “will be declared war.

Third , the economy of the Brave New World must be centrally run by giant monopolies. Private property will wither away, its place will be taken by the “economy of use”, “the economy of participation”. There will be no cash, digital currencies will be introduced everywhere.

Fourthly , there will be a transition to “green” energy, it will replace hydrocarbon energy. Limits will be imposed on the consumption of water, electricity, some “environmentally hazardous” types of products (eg meat) or industrial products (eg cars). And the most radical means of reducing the burden on the natural environment will be to reduce demographic growth or even to reduce the population: “The greater the demographic growth … the higher the risk of new pandemics.”

Fifth , robotization will be completed in all spheres of the economy and public life. The book “The Great Reset” says many times about the sharp job cuts: “Until 2035, up to 86% of jobs in restaurants, 75% of jobs in trade and 59% in the entertainment industries can be automated.” “Up to 75% of restaurants can go broke due to lockdowns and subsequent social distancing measures.” “Not a single industry, not a single enterprise will remain unaffected.” It is proposed to introduce an unconditional basic income (UBI) for people who will be replaced by robots, but only if the person confirms that he is vaccinated.

Sixth , digitalization of all spheres of the economy and society will continue. An effective system will be created to monitor the behavior and movement of people, including using face recognition technologies. Quote: “To end the pandemic, a worldwide digital surveillance network must be created.”

Seventh , the new health care model will provide for regular testing, compulsory vaccination, issuance of a sanitary passport, and the establishment of restrictions and punishments for persons who evade the rules of medical discipline.

Eighth , in the spirit of transhumanism, a person will be “improved”.

The goals of the “pandemic” have been declared. With the support that the “great reset” receives from the camp of globalism, there is no doubt that the notorious “pandemic” is the beginning of the operation of the transition to the “brave new world.” Will there be forces capable of resisting the reset-globalists? .. This is an open question.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

DO NOT MISS

Trending