Connect with us

Underworld

The Deputy Who Wore A Qanon Patch When Meeting VP Pence Has Been Demoted

IN BRIEF

  • The Facts: Sgt. Matt Patten has been demoted for wearing a Q that said ‘question the narrative’ patch while meeting with VP pence on Friday.
  • Reflect On: It’s true that he went against uniform policy, so we can’t say this was an attempt at a coverup, but what’s inspiring is that people everywhere are questioning our reality and our world, a very important step in creating change!

You probably recall the images that went viral of a SWAT team leader who wore a uniform police-clashing patch with the letter Q on it when meeting Vice President Pence. On the patch, it read, ‘Question The Narrative,’ a piece of advice we can all take in such controversial and fake news ridden times.

The mainstream media has been under severe fire from Trump ever since he came into office. He has pointed out the often true reality that the mainstream media pushes false narratives to manipulate the public to support certain political agendas. This isn’t to say Trump is not guilty of this himself, he certainly is, but it appears Trump has a larger task in mind which we’ve covered in detail over the last two years, and it relates to Q.

If you haven’t kept up with it, you can gather a great rundown on the situation here.

Sgt. Matt Patten, who was photographed greeting VP Pence at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport on Friday, will be removed from its Office of Homeland Security as well as the agency’s SWAT team, and reassigned to the Department of Law Enforcement. In other words, he was demoted.

Pence and others had tweeted the image regardless of the Q patch, causing somewhat of an uproar as the public saw it. It was deleted after many noticed the patch in the photo. Was this a purposeful Tweet? Or did they truly not realize the patch? We don’t know, but you can imagine Q supporters were in full support.

“Being a highly political entity with a narrow one sided scope of positioning, public alignment and representation of such a group is in contrast with the core values of political neutrality within the Broward Sheriff’s Office,” the report said. “Sergeant Patten’s actions of displaying unity with controversial group is not in alignment with the core values of law enforcement and the Broward Sheriff’s Office, [and] discredited the agency, the county, and himself.” (source)

The patch in question appears to be available for sale on Amazon which may be where Patten obtained it.

The Takeaway

What’s interesting about this event is the desire for even those within law enforcement to question and understand the truth. Regardless of obvious conditioning and mainstream media coverage which has essentially ousted Q as a ‘conspiracy cult,’ people continue to follow and explore in the millions. And it’s probably because it inspires people and makes more sense than the mainstream media itself.

Similar to what we’re seeing in France where government workers like police and firefighters are turning their backs on elected officials, it may not be long before those put in place to protect the government in the US also turn away as they realize the deep state is who they are protecting.

People are uniting. It’s inspiring. We must remember that these changes we are all seeking ‘out there’ begin inside. We change our perspective, we question reality, we pull our emotions and reliance out of the system and we begin to see that without us choosing to play their game, they don’t have anyone to play with and their game falls apart.

Source link

Advertisement
Comments

Underworld

Study Links HPV Vaccine to Historically High Infertility Rates

Celeste McGovern, CMSRI
Waking Times

A plague is spreading silently across the globe. The young generation in America, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Japan, Australia – in virtually every western country – is afflicted by rapidly increasing rates of infertility.

This spring, the United States reported its lowest birth rate in 30 years, despite an economic boom. Finland’s birth rate plummeted to a low not seen in 150 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently introduced a string of reforms aimed at stemming the country’s “deep demographic declines.”  The government of Denmark introduced an ad campaign to encourage couples to “Do it for Denmark” and conceive on vacations, and Poland produced a campaign urging its citizens to “breed like rabbits.”

Something – or things — are robbing young women and men of their capacity to procreate and public health admits it doesn’t have a clue where to start to fix the emerging priority.

The “population bomb” we were all endlessly warned about by environmentalists failed to blow, and instead, demographers have been trying to raise the alarm about the population implosioncrisis unfolding across the West — the graying of societies facing an unprecedented aging demographic in which there will be too few young to support the old. Most often, they blame social factors: young women embracing careers instead of motherhood, men shunning marriage and fatherhood, rising consumerism or couples choosing to delay raising a family until the economy settles. But there is another phenomenon that is rarely mentioned – the growing numbers of young people who are not childless by choice but who are incapable of bearing children.

The Centers for Disease Control reports that more than 12 percent of American women – one in eight—have trouble conceiving and bearing a child. Male fertility is plunging, too, and the trend is global. Something – or things — are robbing young women and men of their capacity to procreate and public health admits it doesn’t have a clue where to start to fix the emerging priority. Besides bantering about expanding access to costly and risky artificial reproductive technologies, very little is being done to discern the cause of the rising infertility crisis.

So, earlier this month, when an unprecedented study was released that looked at a database of more than eight million American women and singled out a whopping  25 percent increase in childlessness associated with one ubiquitous drug that young women have been taking for only a decade — in tandem with a marked decline in fecundity — you would have thought there would be significant interest from public health, the medical profession and the media, wouldn’t you?

A Common Denominator Behind Growing Infertility Rates

Instead, all three of these behemoths remain stone silent. The reason? Because the study, published in the current Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, examines the childbearing capacity of women who received the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine – compared to those who didn’t — and the results are chilling. No one in public health, medicine or mainstream media, which are tangled up in the money-making machine of this vaccine, dare to publicly question the “safe and effective” mantra they’ve promulgated about Merck and GSK pharmaceuticals’ “blockbuster” commodity worth billions.

The study is by Gayle DeLong, associate professor of economics and finance, at Baruch College at City University of New York. She observed that the declining birth rate had plunged in America in recent years – from 118 per 1,000 in 2007, to 105 in 2015 for the cohort aged 25 to 29.

The HPV vaccine was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the US in 2006 to prevent cervical cancer – an illness women face a 0.6% lifetime risk of being diagnosed with. Although it is diagnosed most frequently at age 47 in the United States, it was rolled out en masse, initially targeting girls aged 11 to 26 (and has since been marketed to boys as young as nine to prevent rare anal and penile cancers  — a disease that afflicts 0.2 % of men in their lifetime.).

They raised troubling questions about some vaccine ingredients’ documented impact on reproduction, cited serious deficiencies (some would say criminal negligence) in preliminary vaccine trials and concluded that further research was urgently required….for the purposes of population health and public vaccine confidence.

DeLong had read a case study in the British Medical Journal by Australian physicians Deirdre Little and Harvey Ward, who described a 16-year-old girl whose regular menstruation ceased after receiving HPV vaccinations and she was diagnosed with premature ovarian failure.

In 2014, the doctors published a case series of more teens who had entered premature menopause — a phenomenon Little and Ward described as ordinarily “so rare as to be also unknown.” They raised troubling questions about some vaccine ingredients’ documented impact on reproduction, cited serious deficiencies (some would say criminal negligence) in preliminary vaccine trials and concluded that further research was “urgently required….for the purposes of population health and public vaccine confidence.”

As well, between 2006 and 2014, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) cited 48 cases of ovarian damage associated with autoimmune reactions in HPV vaccine recipients. Between 2006 and May, 2018, VAERS catalogued other reproductive issues: spontaneous abortion (256 cases), amenorrhea (172 cases), and irregular menstruation (172 cases), all of which are likely under-reported symptoms.

All of this intrigued DeLong, who has followed the vaccine debate for years and makes no secret of the fact that she has two daughters, 18 and 21, both having been diagnosed on the autism spectrum, whom she saw regress developmentally and withdraw following vaccinations early in life.  “I am sceptical of vaccine science and the safety studies that are done, or not done,” she says.

She set out to analyze information gathered in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which represented 8 million 25-to-29-year-old women living in the United States between 2007 and 2014. Using logistic regression, she matched the young women for other variables, including age, and compared pregnancy as an outcome in those who received an HPV vaccine compared with those who did not get any of the shots.

Approximately 60% of women who did not receive the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once compared to just 35% of women who had had an HPV shot had ever conceived.

“I just wanted to see if there was an issue,” says DeLong. “I certainly didn’t expect to find such a strong association.” Approximately 60% of women who did not receive the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once compared to just 35% of women who had had an HPV shot had ever conceived. For married women, the gap was also about 25%:  75% who did not receive the shot were found to have conceived, while only 50% who received the vaccine had ever been pregnant. “Results suggest that females who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant than women in the same age group who did not receive the shot,” the study says. It concludes, as all studies like this do, that the data points to an association, not causation, between the new vaccine and reduced fertility but that further study is warranted.

If the association is causation, however, DeLong’s math suggests that if all the females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by two million. That’s not two million missing children. That’s two million women who can’t conceive one, two, or any children. It is millions of American children missing from a single cohort. The implication, considering the sweeping breadth of the global HPV vaccine campaign targeted now at both males and females aged nine years old and up, is staggering.

The Skeptic Response

Skeptics are reliable vaccine industry defenders. Armchair scientists who frequently hide behind pseudonyms, they have sort of schizophrenia about vaccines. They insist vaccines are powerfully immune-modulating drugs capable of altering the immune system’s response to infectious exposure. But they can’t accept that, like all drugs, vaccines can and do have thousands of documented long-term adverse reactions  — especially because they are designed to induce the delayed manufacture of antibodies by the adaptive immune system. Because these responses are mediated by the immune system, they are diverse, unpredictable and profound.

As expected, the Skeptics welcomed DeLong’s research with snide and personal (read unscientific) attacks. They slammed her failure to include data on contraceptive use. As a result, DeLong intends to attach that data to an addendum on the study, but what she found and reported on Age of Autism’s website only bolsters the study’s findings. Among married women in the survey, 36.6 % of those who had received the HPV shot told the NHANES that they were using contraception (condoms at least half the time, birth control or injectables otherwise) compared to more than half (51.5%) of those who didn’t get the shot – a difference of almost 15%.

Less contraceptive use should translate to more babies among the vaccinated. But, it seems that the vaccinated women in the study were actually trying harder to conceive (or at least not so worried about it) but still having less luck – not good for the Skeptic argument.

DeLong “isn’t even an epidemiologist” the Skeptics howled. (In other words, shoot the messenger if you don’t like the message.) To which she replies, “No. I’m not. I am a statistician, however. I would be grateful if epidemiologists would do their job and conduct this research thoroughly.” This is precisely what her study called for. If they did, mothers of vaccine injured children would not be required to.

Infertile Women Excluded From Study on Infertility

DeLong cites another study, from Boston University’s Schools of Public Health and Medicine and the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) in North Carolina, which found no such association between HPV vaccination and impaired fertility. Interestingly, Boston University has been the recipient of tens of millions from globalist vaccine promoters Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as has RTI, an organization that has received more than $47 million dollars in grant funds in recent years. RTI has published a number of recent studies on HPV vaccine, including one  jointly-funded with GSK (a vaccine manufacturer) on the safety of the company’s HPV vaccine, and another, cautioning public health agencies to “take special measures to ensure their messages are not perceived as sponsored by drug companies” lest they incite “reduced liking and trust” by parents who will be less likely to give the HPV vaccine to their sons. Other RTI publications describe “Promising alternative settings for HPV vaccination of US adolescents,” changing “provider behavior” to enhance HPV uptake and more.

“These could be the women with ‘hard core’ issues of fecundity,” says DeLong, “but they are precisely the women who should be included.”

The RTI study about HPV vaccine’s impact on fertility was based on patients’ own recall of vaccines received (remember how the Skeptics howled at self-reporting before?). But the study did not control for a far more important factor in fertility – age. Age in this context affects not just the possible effect of the vaccine itself on fertility, but fertility is skewed dramatically in favor of the young and the study lumps 18 year-olds in with 30-year-olds. As well, at the outset, it excludes 881 women from a pool of 5,020 because they were already trying – without luck – to conceive a baby for more than six months. This has the effect of shrinking the infertility finding overall. “These could be the women with ‘hard core’ issues of fecundity,” says DeLong, “but they are precisely the women who should be included.”

Environmental Concerns

To be sure, many environmental factors could be affecting female fertility. Plunging male fertility is one of them. Male sperm counts have nosedived in recent decades – scientists published data last year showing that globally, they have dropped 50 percent in just the past 40 years – signalling serious unidentified environmental hazards.

Environmental scientists have pointed to everything from GMOs and toxic aluminum (more on this later) to Wi-Fi and birth control excreted by women into the drinking water, as possible causes of vanishing sperm and lowered fertility generally.

But in DeLong’s study, these environmental factors influence the whole group of women equally. There is no reason why women who vaccinate would choose men with lower sperm counts, for example.

What’s in the HPV Vaccine?

So, what is it about a vaccine targeting a virus associated with cancer of the human reproductive tract that could go so wrong? DeLong notes that both HPV vaccines contain aluminum, a toxic metal with documented potential to induce autoimmune self-attack, including on reproductive organs. HPV vaccines are loaded with aluminum: Merck’s original Gardasil vaccine contained 225 micrograms of nanoparticlized aluminum in each of three shots, totalling 675 micrograms; the “new improved” Gardasil 9 shots contain a total of 1500 micrograms – a wallop of stimulant for the immune system that DeLong thinks might just be “a tipping point” for youths who have had so many previous injections of aluminum in the schedule of 50 vaccines before school age.

The CDC states that all these reactions are normal and that HPV vaccines are safe without any adverse impact on maternal or fetal outcome in pregnancy.

Perhaps this is why HPV shots have such a high number of reported adverse events: 45,277 from its introduction in 2006 to May, 2018 (and these are considered to be vastly under-reported). The CDC states that all these reactions are normal and that HPV vaccines are safe without any adverse impact on maternal or fetal outcome in pregnancy.

A recent paper from Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center cautions that this CDC assurance is based on incomplete data. It points out biases in reporting and gaps in data. “Certain adverse effects of the vaccine against HPV that have not been well studied as they are not well defined,” add the researchers who describe a host of documented, diverse autoimmune, neurological and cardiovascular disease in the wake of the vaccine. The most frequent reported symptoms after HPV vaccination are poorly understood – fainting, chronic pain with tingling or burning sensations, headaches, fatigue, and dizziness, nausea and other symptoms that are worsened on standing upright, for example.

HPV vaccination – as well as tetanus vaccination – has been linked in medical literature to a condition called anti-phospholipid syndrome which is a poorly defined disease caused when the immune system erroneously manufactures antibodies against certain lipid proteins found in membranes that are in a host of tissues — eyes, heart, brain, nerves, skin – and the reproductive system.  One 2012 study by Serbian researchers at the Institute for Virology, Vaccines and Ser “Torlak” found that “hyperimmunisation” of the immune system with different adjuvants, including aluminum, in mice, resulted in induction of antiphospholipid syndrome and the tandem lowering of fertility.

“Unequivocal evidence” of high concentrations of the metal were found, especially in the semen of men with low sperm counts.

Other research has implicated aluminum in conception problems. French infertility researcher Jean-Philippe Klein and his colleagues at the University of Lyon published the results of their 2014 study of the sperm of men seeking assistance at a French infertility clinic. They dispatched semen samples from 62 men who were having infertility issues to Christopher Exley’s aluminum research laboratory at Keele University in England where they were fluorescently stained to show the aluminum content as a luminescent blue.  “Unequivocal evidence” of high concentrations of the metal were found, especially in the semen of men with low sperm counts. Clearly fluorescing and concentrated aluminum in the DNA-rich heads of the sperm led the researchers to speculate about what impact this may have on the ability to procreate and on the development of newly formed embryos.

Deirdre Little, the Australian GP who documented primary ovarian failure following HPV vaccination, has also criticized the fact that Merck’s product information was misleading about what sort of “saline” placebo was used in trials of the Gardasil vaccine – it failed to mention that the “placebos” contained both the high doses of aluminium as well as another scary ingredient, polysorbate 80. This chemical has exhibited delayed ovarian toxicity to rat ovaries at all injected doses tested over a tenfold range.

None of the trials accurately assessed the long-term impact of the vaccine on the reproductive health of girls, Deirdre and Ward said, adding that drug damage to reproductive health may take years or decades to manifest.

What kind of public health agency brushes off 45,277 reports of adverse events – including neurological and reproductive symptoms — among young women of childbearing age?

Urgent and Unanswered Questions

The elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about is why the HPV vaccine is so heavily marketed to begin with? Why make a vaccine for a disease that afflicts less than 0.3% of people in their lifetime? And why include ingredients that are toxic, especially high doses of ingredients that scientists have objected to, and with documented toxicity to reproductive organs? Why not use a true control in the trials? What kind of scientist would do that kind of science? What kind of public health agency brushes off 45,277 reports of adverse events – including neurological and reproductive symptoms — among young women of childbearing age?

Answering these questions turns out to be a lot more awkward than it seems at first. There are chilling facts that are hard to set aside.  There are, as recently as 2015, the charges by Catholic bishops and human rights activists that public health agencies had deliberately tainted  tetanus vaccines given only to women of reproductive age in Kenya. Public health organizations denied they had laced tetanus vaccines with miscarriage-inducing Beta human chorionic gonadotropin (b-HCG) – a key sterilizing ingredient described in the extensive medical literature about the quest for a contraceptive vaccine to control population growth. The Kenyan bishops insisted they had laboratory evidence that was ignored and the issue was ignored like DeLong’s study.

Another inconvenient truth is that the very people funding the HPV vaccine juggernaut are the same people most interested in reducing birth rates.  When Melinda Gates launched her Family Planning Summit in 2012 with the objective of bringing contraceptives to the world’s poor, it was clear she had one measure for that goal in mind: “If you see what’s happened in other countries that have had contraceptives, they use them first of all and the birth rates go down,” she said at the time. “The question is could it have come down even more quickly?”

So long as there is no satisfactory answer as to why the West is facing an infertility crisis, questions about the long-term impact of the HPV vaccine on human fertility are not only fair and reasonable, but the future is very bleak if we do not answer them.

Although she swore her campaign was “not about population control,” Gates’ goals are the same as those who conducted the mass sterilizations of Indian men on railway platforms in the 70s and who continue to sterilize Indian women today en masse to get the birth rate down.  For Gates, success is not measured in access to clean water or energy or in the development of infrastructure or political freedom, it is measured in access to drugs, drugs she and her husband hold stock in: contraceptives and vaccines. Their success is measured by exporting what most western countries are facing as social catastrophe: demographic decline.

So long as there is no satisfactory answer as to why the West is facing an infertility crisis, questions about the long-term impact of the HPV vaccine on human fertility are not only fair and reasonable, but the future is very bleak if we do not answer them.

**© [11/29/18] Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Source link

Continue Reading

Underworld

“Mark My Words, AI Is Far More Dangerous Than Nukes.” – Elon Musk

  • The Facts: Earlier this year Elon Musk said that artificial intelligence could be more dangerous than nuclear weapons.
  • Reflect On: Why is there no oversight in the AI industry? AI has already become self-aware and learns by itself. What type of threats does this pose? How could it be used to our advantage to help the Earth?

Earlier this year, Elon Musk gave an interview where he alluded to the idea of Artificial Intelligence being far more dangerous than nuclear weapons. This is quite a bold statement, which led to a lot of backlash, given the destruction and devastation that nuclear weapons can cause.

That being said, his comments should not be ignored, as others like Julian Assange have expressed the same concerns. These concerns are coming from people who have been around, know about, and even use this type of technology. They have tremendous amounts of resources and connections, and clearly, have a lot of knowledge in the area. In the interview, Musk stated,

I think the danger of AI is much bigger than the danger of nuclear warheads by a lot…Nobody would suggest we allow the world to just build nuclear warheads if they want, that would be insane. And mark my words: AI is far more dangerous than nukes.

Lack Of Regulatory Oversight

This isn’t the first time he’s called out the potential dangers of artificial intelligence. Prior to this, he said that AI is much more dangerous than North Korea. Now, most of our readers will be aware of the fact that ‘the powers that be’ have labelled many as dictators whose countries as ‘gone rogue’ with their weaponry so they can basically step in, impose their will and install a government that best suits their own interests. This has long been the tactic, to create the problem so you can propose the solution. Obviously, Musk does not delve into this aspect, but I thought it was important to mention.

Musk has explained his confusion as to why there is hardly any regulatory oversight when it comes to AI. These are important questions that nobody is really thinking about or asking. AI is developing at an exponential rate.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said Musk’s “doomsday AI scenarios are unnecessary and pretty irresponsible.” Harvard professor Steven Pinker has also criticized Musk for his comments. This could be from the fact that AI has proven to be huge for big business. Not only is it a field where giant profits can be made, but it’s also helping with overall efficiency and safety in our everyday lives. Musk does not condemn AI, his companies utilize AI, he is simply saying there should be some regulation to make sure that things don’t go too far.

AI Thinks For Itself

Just how far could things go? Well, artificial intelligence thinks for itself, and it’s already demonstrated that it can learn. We’ve all been made well aware of the scenario, a self-aware artificial type of intelligence, taking no direction or oversight from humans, beginning to think on their own. Again, we’re just in the beginning stages of this, and Musk is looking into the future, but it seems we’re almost there.

Take, for example, AI programs that don’t just work online to handle payments, coding etc, but control robotic humans. A few years ago, we published a story about an android named Dick. He’s able to answer a series of complex questions, and find answers to things he has previously not been programmed to do. It’s a mathematical technique that makes it possible for the android to index, retrieve, and extract meaning from the natural human language. He is able to learn, and everything he learns can be learned from other artificial intelligence that is hooked up to the same mainframe. If this becomes a reality, then what one robot learns could be learned by every other single robot as well.

In this fascinating interview, it’s quite shocking to hear Dick’s responses at such an early stage of development. For example, When asked if he thinks, he responded,

A lot of humans ask me if I can make choices (showing he is aware of what others are thinking as well) or is everything I do and say programmed? The best way that I can respond to that is to say that everything, humans, animals, and robots (everything they do) is programmed to a degree.

Musk Is Truly Worried

The biggest issue I see with so-called AI experts is that they think they know more than they do, and they think they are smarter than they actually are. This tends to plague smart people. They define themselves by their intelligence and they don’t like the idea that a machine could be way smarter than them, so they discount the idea–which is fundamentally flawed.

I am really quite close, I am very close, to the cutting edge in AI and it scares the hell out of me. It’s capable of vastly more than almost anyone knows and the rate of improvement is exponential.

The Extraterrestrial Connection (For Me)

If you’re a fan of Collective Evolution, then you would know that we’ve published countless articles on the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon. You can find a list of those articles in archive order, here.

Having been an avid researcher of the subject for approximately fifteen years now, one common theme within the literature and the lore is that artificially-intelligent types of races have long been visiting us. There are also stories of human looking beings, reptilian types of beings, the classic ‘grey’ alien and so forth. Based on our research here at CE, there could be trillions of races doing star travel, and hundreds or even thousands that have made contact with and have been cataloged by various global governments.

I believe the fact that we are being visited can provide insight into potential human timelines. There are reports that we, the human race, have even traveled back in time from the future to warn us today about dangerous activities like our use of nuclear weapons.

If there are indeed artificially intelligent races out there as well, or perhaps half biological and half artificial, perhaps that could provide some insight into where our own race is potentially heading if we are not careful?

Do we have the potential to create an artificial intelligence so smart that it eventually becomes self-governing? Do human beings have the potential to create an entirely new race? It seems it might have been done already elsewhere in the universe. Perhaps there are even planets out there who have destroyed themselves with such destructive technology.

The Takeaway

The takeaway here is to really recognize why we do the things we do. On a collective scale, right now, our systems are operating solely for the intention of profit. For the sake of profit, oversight and necessary regulations don’t seem to apply in areas that they should. When developing technologies these days for the human race, a lot of life-changing and game-changing technologies are actually subjected to restriction and patent suppression. The black budget world if far ahead of the mainstream world, and we can’t really say for sure just how far our technology in the category of AI has advanced.

When creating technology, we need to look at why we create it, what we are using it for and why we decide to use it. If the intentions are for profit, and to make things easier, we have to ask ourselves, at what cost will this come? Perhaps intentions are good, but that doesn’t always lead to the best outcome. The point is, there is clearly a serious concern about developing AI technology, and if the technology is not kept transparent and coming strictly from the intentions of helping the human race and the planet, it will most likely useless if not dangerous.

We could be doing so much more for the planet and the inhabitants. Imagine if we created AI to constantly regrow forests? Create food forests? Feed the hungry? Elon Musk sees the potential for AI to become self-aware and self-governing, and beneficial to humanity. He is simply worried about the people who control it right now and what their intentions are.

Source link

Continue Reading

Underworld

Chinese scientist claims to have created the world’s first genetically edited BABIES

A scientist claims to have helped create the world’s first genetically-modified humans during laboratory work in China.

The DNA of twin girls was altered with a powerful new tool capable of rewriting the very blueprint of life, Chinese researcher Dr He Jiankui says.

He claims the babies, named LuLu and Nana, were born a few weeks ago and have a resistance to infection with HIV, the AIDS virus.

A US scientist said he took part in the work in China, but this kind of gene editing is banned in the United States due to risks that altered DNA will warp other genes.

These potentially dangerous changes may then be passed down to future generations.

Gene editing is banned in Britain, the US many other parts of the world, and researchers said that, if Dr He’s claims are true, the ‘monstrous’ experiment was ‘not morally or ethically defensible.’

He Jiankui speaks during an interview at a laboratory in Shenzhen in southern China’s Guangdong province. The Chinese scientist claims he helped make world’s first genetically edited babies: Twin girls whose DNA he claims to have altered

Dr Jiankui, of the Southern University of Science and Technology, in Shenzhen, said he altered embryos for seven couples during fertility treatments, with one pregnancy resulting thus far.

He said his goal was not to cure or prevent an inherited disease, but to try to bestow a trait that few people naturally have – an ability to resist infection with HIV.

He said the parents involved declined to be identified or interviewed, and would not say where they live or where the work was done.

There is no independent confirmation of Dr He’s claim, and it has not been published in a journal, where it would be vetted by other experts.

He announced the research Monday in Hong Kong to an organiser of an international conference on gene editing that is set to begin Tuesday, and earlier in exclusive interviews with The Associated Press.

‘I feel a strong responsibility that it’s not just to make a first, but also make it an example,’ he told the AP.

‘Society will decide what to do next’ in terms of allowing or forbidding such science.

Some scientists were astounded to hear of the claim and strongly condemned it.

It’s ‘unconscionable … an experiment on human beings that is not morally or ethically defensible,’ said Dr Kiran Musunuru, a University of Pennsylvania gene editing expert and editor of a genetics journal.

‘This is far too premature,’ said Dr Eric Topol, who heads the Scripps Research Translational Institute in California. ‘We’re dealing with the operating instructions of a human being. It’s a big deal.’

‘If true, this experiment is monstrous,’ said Professor Julian Savulescu, Director of the University of Oxford’s Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics.

‘These healthy babies are being used as genetic guinea pigs. This is genetic Russian Roulette.’

However, one famed geneticist, Harvard University’s Professor George Church, defended attempting gene editing for HIV, which he called ‘a major and growing public health threat.’

‘I think this is justifiable,’ Professor Church said of that goal.

Continue Reading: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/

Continue Reading

Trending