Since the discovery of DNA, governments all over the world have poured money into the education of biotechnologists. Biotechnology gets the lion’s share of financial support at universities.
A whole generation of young biotech professionals has been created with a mission to change the world and a need to ensure that the funding of their research aspirations and their profession continues.
Going back to the nineties, genetically engineered crops were perceived as the future of biotechnology—they would revolutionise agricultural production and feed the world.
This promise was hype, it has not been realised in practice and crucially most people didn’t want scientists messing with their food.
The push back against engineered food was strong and successful.
Overnight biotechnologists became a cohort of highly trained individuals without a mission and with an uncertain future.
The intense debate surrounding GM food was skillfully redirected, whilst food might be a sacred cow, surely everyone could agree upon the medical application of biotechnology?
The new mission was an end to ill health, prevention of diseases, longer lifespans, and the correction of inherited genetic defects.
This was eagerly welcomed in all quarters and led to an accelerated growth in medical biotech experimentation.
This switch in direction was accompanied by carefully planned lobbying of governments and regulators, public relations full of rosy promises, and the development of commercial alliances.
Aware that their push to take over global agriculture had been scuppered by ‘natural’ activists, biotech moved to undermine the natural health products sector.
Draconian regulation of natural products was promoted and instituted in many countries and the myth that biotech medicines were more uniform and safer than natural herbs was promoted.
During this phase of the biotech campaign, global networks of regulators and cooperative data sharing were instituted.
For example, the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) was formed, an extra-governmental body closely allied with pharmaceutical companies and WHO.
This body openly sought to harmonise and incentivise the use of biotech medicines.
The problem with all these preparations was the ineffectiveness of the biotech technologies that were being researched and their dangerous side effects.
New medical biologic technologies consistently failed to meet established safety standards and also failed to adequately address the health problems they were designed to fix.
In one area, they were able to push ahead—biotech began to investigate the plethora of viruses that exist in nature and learned how to manipulate them.
Military involvement and funding of this endeavour was inevitable.
This research was promoted as a way to head off future pandemics.
The dark truth was the opposite—new viruses were secretly being created in unsafe laboratories and they posed threats to global health.
The story of the Wuhan Virology Institute and ‘gain of function’ experimentation has been widely explored.
The whole truth about it may never be known, but certainly, its lessons have not been learned.
Come the covid crisis all the careful planning of the biotech industry swung into action.
Early on it became apparent that covid was primarily a disease of the already unhealthy.
The single most important factors leading to serious incidence of the illnesses were comorbidities and exhaustion, including exhaustion of the immune system.
The vast majority of people were going to recover, so the obvious response at this point was to vigorously research medical interventions that eased the severity of symptoms AND to encourage natural approaches to improve general health including diet, meditation, and exercise. Neither of these happened.
The big money was to be made in universal mandated vaccination which was, long before covid, already the goal of the biotechnology juggernaut.
The public relations machine ramped up—alternative treatments were attacked, fear of the covid was promoted through exaggerated statistics and news items of individual tragedies.
Big money was spent lobbying and contributing to political parties. Through ICMRA, the only acceptable regulatory response mooted was universal vaccination.
Genetic vaccines were developed and the existing medical regulatory safety structure was dismantled overnight as emergency approval was granted.
The very use of the term ‘vaccine’ was designed to allay suspicion of what was essentially a completely novel and risky genetic intervention that fundamentally differed from traditional vaccines.
Researcher Blows the Whistle on Integrity Issues in Pfizer’s Vaccine Trial
The manipulation of government policy and public perception is continuing. mRNA vaccines cause adverse effects almost 60 times that of traditional vaccines, but this has been swept under the carpet (including, as the BMJ revealed on 2 November, through falsification of data at one of the test sites).
The relief of those who have the vaccine and feel generally healthy is played upon as an uncritical acceptance cue, while the stories of those injured by the vaccine are suppressed.
Unlike traditional vaccines, mRNA vaccines readily allow transmission aiding in the development of new mutations, yet public pronouncements continue that vaccines stop transmission.
The effectiveness of the vaccines has been overhyped, 95% might be measured within the first two months after vaccination, but by five months this has dropped below 50%, necessitating booster shots.
No matter, this is the ultimate cash cow of biotechnology, a vaccine that everyone in the world must take every six months.
The real fear of this biotechnology roll out is the unknown and unresearched long-term effects of mRNA and DNA medical interventions—a predicted nightmare we have yet to face.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Where is the research effort to discover what it is about the lifestyles and diet that support those who recover easily?
What is being done to encourage healthy lifestyles—surely the most promising solution to the long-term challenge of the pandemic? How can the highly funded public relations hype surrounding vaccination be aligned with truth?
How can the biased information channels which have been plumbed into governments be sanitised and aligned with real-world data?
Why are young children being vaccinated for an illness that has little effect on them?
It is a time to stand up, speak up and be counted.
