New Biden Executive Order: 'Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy': what say you? Frightening?
New Biden Executive Order: 'Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy': what say you? Frightening?
I need to read this slowly to study it more; 'We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells'??? Why do we need a Presidential EO for this?
New Biden Executive Order: 'Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy': what say you? Frightening?
1- the CDC and FDA obscuring the colossal failure and seemingly ignoring the pharmacovigilance safety signals of the covid vaccines is not an oversight, it is completely intentional because
2- the vaccines are the landmark achievements held up as the examples of biotech success. if they were viewed as a failure this executive order would be viewed. with suspicion.
and
3- the goal is to facilitate the pipeline pathways for biotech to be ‘the final solution’ to all natural life on this planet.
4- Biden has no plans to be reelected as the fallout from this abomination will be the next administration’s mess to manage and mitigate.
5- the industry pathways for transhumanism run by technocratic monopoly have been established by presidential executive order. the ethical hurdles have been removed. the path is paved in freshly printed fiat currency.
That is why they have been doing the "cure cancer" set-up. They are going to introduce this transhumanist satanic garbage through desperate cancer patients. It will "cure" them, but what happens next will shock you.
This executive order is unbelievable, and it adds up with a lot of other scary things. Please see what I wrote yesterday and try to share it. G-d willing, we need a global awakening. https://truth613.substack.com/p/from-my-heart
“program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers;”This part of a sentence is particularly frightening, the rest is word salad which in its full meaning is probably terrifying.
Ryan Christiansen had a great show a day or two ago on this EO. His show is called The Last American Vagabond. Highly recommend his shows for great news and commentary.
So is he suggesting perhaps that a fetus could be rewired invitro so that when its born it can talk and walk and do all manner of 'Strange Things at the push of a button🤔 Holy Macarolly
Dark Brandon has been/has allowed himself to be steered off the deep end. He has put his signature to some extremely troubling EO. Shameless and shameful.
This is EXACTLY why people are injured and die. Both for Covid and Vax injury. Those undeclared ingredients, nano technology, graphene and other materials have been used.
Studies from 2018 and 2019 clearly state that there is TOXICITY and IT CANNOT BE USED. But they went ahead to inject everybody. I wrote about it this my article on substack: https://outraged.substack.com/p/to-create-a-superior-brain-a-perfect - as they do it for blockchain, etc.
So studies from 2018 state:
Frontiers | Interfacing Graphene-Based Materials With Neural Cells | Frontiers in Systems
How to Reach the Brain: G-Based Nanocarriers and the Blood-Brain Barrier Graphene Nanosheet Interaction With Neural Cells Common mechanisms of cytotoxicity of G nanosheets have been reported in literature on different cell types, and include the physical interaction with cell membranes (Seabra et al., 2014); disruption of cell cytoskeleton (Tian et al., 2017); oxidative stress due to production of reactive oxygen species (ROS; Chen M. et al., 2016; Mittal et al., 2016);
mitochondrial damage (Pelin et al., 2017); DNA damage, such as chromosomal
fragmentation, DNA strand breakages, point mutations and oxidative DNA alterations
(Akhavan et al., 2012; Fahmi et al., 2017); autophagy (Chen et al., 2014); and apoptosis
and/or necrosis (Lim et al., 2016).
Few studies have been carried out in neuronal-like cell lines, showing some toxic effects of G at high doses. In particular, both G and carbon nanotubes induced toxic responses in PC12 cells in a concentration- and shape-dependent manner (Zhang et al., 2010). Upon G exposure, ROS were generated and evidences of apoptosis were noticed at a concentration of 10 μg/ml. In agreement with this study, GO nanosheets induced no obvious cytotoxicity at low concentration, but dose and time-dependent cell death was observed in the human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cell line (Lv et al., 2012).
In summary, the current data on G nanosheet biocompatibility are still controversial.
This is due to the high heterogeneity of materials present on the market and the large variety
of synthesis methods. Depending on the graphite source (starting material), the synthesis
method, the use of chemicals and the dispersion form (solution or powder) of the final
product, G can present different sizes, thickness, chemical surface and aggregation state,
which all affect to various extent its interaction with the biological systems. It is clear,
however, that G nanosheets may cause adverse environmental and health effects, leaving open the debate about their use as biomedical platform
Surprisingly, the GO concentration in the CNS increased with time, while remaining almost absent in other organs. Thus, the study suggests a slow accumulation of G in the CNS and long-term persistency of the material, that is encouraging from the point of view of the drug delivery system, but also raises safety concern on long-term toxicity of G nanosheets (Baldrighi et al., 2016), an issue that still needs to be assessed.
As with all novel medicines, significant proof of efficacy and safety is required before even small trials with human patients can begin. The main concerns with nanovaccine technologies are:
variations in toxicity/biocompatibility with nanoparticle size and shape
reproducibility of nanoformulations on a large scale
toxicity issues, particularly long-term accumulation in organs
The toxicity of nanoparticles is hard to assess, particularly when trying to rapidly screen a number of nanoformulations for vaccines or other drugs. Many of the adverse effects of nanoparticles on humans are likely to result from long-term, low-level exposure, which is difficult to measure, and requires very long trials to determine.
Researchers are trying to develop higher throughput tests for chemical signatures which appear in the short term which could be indicators of longer-term problems. These are difficult to get accurate, however, and our understanding of the long term effect of nanoparticle exposure is still limited.
But with any emerging technology comes potential risk. How much do we really know about the impacts on society and on health of the tiny nanoscale particles that are being churned for commercial and scientific purposes? Are nanoparticles released as we use those products causing harmful effects to the environment? The application of nanotechnology seems limitless, but where could these powerful ideas lead?
The idea was first raised by Eric Drexler in his 1986 book, Engines of Creation. For those worried about nanotechnology, grey goo is a good reason to pause any progress until we can confirm we completely understand the process and its implications. Fortunately, Drexler's scenario is highly improbable (IT IS BEING DONE NOW, WITH NO CONSENT, NO EVEN AWARENESS) – fast-replicating nanorobots would need so much energy and produce so much heat that they would become easily detectable to policing authorities who could stamp out the threat. In 2004, Drexler himself made public attempts to play down his more apocalyptic warnings. But no technology is entirely safe, and the scientists working in any new field have a burden of responsibility as they step into the unknown.
"As societies have become wealthier, they have traditionally become more risk-averse," says
Gabriel Aeppli, professor of physics at the London Centre for Nanotechnology (LCN). "But they've also become rich enough to be able to take steps to reduce the risks of exploring new chemistry. My sense is that we simply have to treat all of the things that haven't been tested yet in the same way that we deal with anything that a synthetic chemist might produce." In 2004, the UK government asked the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering to carry out an inquiry into the safety of nanotechnology. "We need to understand whether it raises new ethical, health and safety or social issues, which are not covered by current regulations," said the UK's then science minister, David Sainsbury. "Nanotechnology could cover an enormous area. It is a bit like asking a committee at the time the first computer was designed to say: what is the impact of computers and IT going to be on the world in the future? The ability to predict far ahead is quite limited."
Ann Dowling, a mechanical engineer at Cambridge University, chaired the study and, in the resulting report, raised several pressing concerns about the possible health effects of the small particles being made by the nanotechnology industry. These are made by grinding metals or other materials into an ultrafine powder – in sunscreens, for example, nanoparticles are used to absorb and reflect UV rays while appearing transparent to the naked eye.
"Where particles are concerned, size really does matter," wrote Dowling. "Nanoparticles can behave quite differently from larger particles of the same material. There is evidence that at least some manufactured nanoparticles are more toxic than the same chemical in its larger form, but mostly we just don't know. We don't know what their impact is on either humans or the environment." Although many questions remain regarding the toxicity of nanoparticles, the scientific community is now working hard in addressing this knowledge gap and, already, some conclusions can be derived from the data. Scientists know, for instance, that the toxic effects largely depend on type, size and shape of nanoparticles, on the amount of exposure and, importantly, on how and where that exposure occurs.
I can go on and on regarding toxicity and safety issue of this graphene based nano technology. It has been currently used and this is the causation behind those adverse reactions.
We should have legal inquiry into it and we must have legal regulations so people, individuals are NOT SUBJECTED to those coercive and mandatory harmful dangerous, killing and maiming technologies being SECRETLY INJECTED.
New Biden Executive Order: 'Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy': what say you? Frightening?
He needs a new chip in his brain.
Frightened to see the speed of the globalist pulling Biden puppet strings
Globalists are pushing their trans humanist agenda very hard and fast now.
i see a few interlocking puzzle pieces:
1- the CDC and FDA obscuring the colossal failure and seemingly ignoring the pharmacovigilance safety signals of the covid vaccines is not an oversight, it is completely intentional because
2- the vaccines are the landmark achievements held up as the examples of biotech success. if they were viewed as a failure this executive order would be viewed. with suspicion.
and
3- the goal is to facilitate the pipeline pathways for biotech to be ‘the final solution’ to all natural life on this planet.
4- Biden has no plans to be reelected as the fallout from this abomination will be the next administration’s mess to manage and mitigate.
5- the industry pathways for transhumanism run by technocratic monopoly have been established by presidential executive order. the ethical hurdles have been removed. the path is paved in freshly printed fiat currency.
That is why they have been doing the "cure cancer" set-up. They are going to introduce this transhumanist satanic garbage through desperate cancer patients. It will "cure" them, but what happens next will shock you.
This executive order is unbelievable, and it adds up with a lot of other scary things. Please see what I wrote yesterday and try to share it. G-d willing, we need a global awakening. https://truth613.substack.com/p/from-my-heart
Recklessly written, amateurish. Rather shockingly incompetent and open-ended; utterly riven with hubris and naiveté.
And what about those super-cheesy sophomoric platitudes? Did Bill Gates draft this himself?
“program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers;”This part of a sentence is particularly frightening, the rest is word salad which in its full meaning is probably terrifying.
Ryan Christiansen had a great show a day or two ago on this EO. His show is called The Last American Vagabond. Highly recommend his shows for great news and commentary.
Corn pop needs a new power leverage
Insanity
False premise
Layered by lies
With poop on top
Served with ice cream pies
They will never stop
Until they are held for the greatest scam
Of crimes medical tyranny
Their days on top
Fragile
Coming soon you’ll see
So is he suggesting perhaps that a fetus could be rewired invitro so that when its born it can talk and walk and do all manner of 'Strange Things at the push of a button🤔 Holy Macarolly
Dark Brandon has been/has allowed himself to be steered off the deep end. He has put his signature to some extremely troubling EO. Shameless and shameful.
What say me? FRIGHTENING! — Terrifying!
But how to undo all this treachery against mankind?
This is EXACTLY why people are injured and die. Both for Covid and Vax injury. Those undeclared ingredients, nano technology, graphene and other materials have been used.
Studies from 2018 and 2019 clearly state that there is TOXICITY and IT CANNOT BE USED. But they went ahead to inject everybody. I wrote about it this my article on substack: https://outraged.substack.com/p/to-create-a-superior-brain-a-perfect - as they do it for blockchain, etc.
So studies from 2018 state:
Frontiers | Interfacing Graphene-Based Materials With Neural Cells | Frontiers in Systems
Neuroscience Front. Syst. Neurosci., 11 April 2018 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2018.00012
How to Reach the Brain: G-Based Nanocarriers and the Blood-Brain Barrier Graphene Nanosheet Interaction With Neural Cells Common mechanisms of cytotoxicity of G nanosheets have been reported in literature on different cell types, and include the physical interaction with cell membranes (Seabra et al., 2014); disruption of cell cytoskeleton (Tian et al., 2017); oxidative stress due to production of reactive oxygen species (ROS; Chen M. et al., 2016; Mittal et al., 2016);
mitochondrial damage (Pelin et al., 2017); DNA damage, such as chromosomal
fragmentation, DNA strand breakages, point mutations and oxidative DNA alterations
(Akhavan et al., 2012; Fahmi et al., 2017); autophagy (Chen et al., 2014); and apoptosis
and/or necrosis (Lim et al., 2016).
Few studies have been carried out in neuronal-like cell lines, showing some toxic effects of G at high doses. In particular, both G and carbon nanotubes induced toxic responses in PC12 cells in a concentration- and shape-dependent manner (Zhang et al., 2010). Upon G exposure, ROS were generated and evidences of apoptosis were noticed at a concentration of 10 μg/ml. In agreement with this study, GO nanosheets induced no obvious cytotoxicity at low concentration, but dose and time-dependent cell death was observed in the human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cell line (Lv et al., 2012).
In summary, the current data on G nanosheet biocompatibility are still controversial.
This is due to the high heterogeneity of materials present on the market and the large variety
of synthesis methods. Depending on the graphite source (starting material), the synthesis
method, the use of chemicals and the dispersion form (solution or powder) of the final
product, G can present different sizes, thickness, chemical surface and aggregation state,
which all affect to various extent its interaction with the biological systems. It is clear,
however, that G nanosheets may cause adverse environmental and health effects, leaving open the debate about their use as biomedical platform
Surprisingly, the GO concentration in the CNS increased with time, while remaining almost absent in other organs. Thus, the study suggests a slow accumulation of G in the CNS and long-term persistency of the material, that is encouraging from the point of view of the drug delivery system, but also raises safety concern on long-term toxicity of G nanosheets (Baldrighi et al., 2016), an issue that still needs to be assessed.
https://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3070 from 2012:
Potential Issues with Nanovaccines
As with all novel medicines, significant proof of efficacy and safety is required before even small trials with human patients can begin. The main concerns with nanovaccine technologies are:
variations in toxicity/biocompatibility with nanoparticle size and shape
reproducibility of nanoformulations on a large scale
toxicity issues, particularly long-term accumulation in organs
The toxicity of nanoparticles is hard to assess, particularly when trying to rapidly screen a number of nanoformulations for vaccines or other drugs. Many of the adverse effects of nanoparticles on humans are likely to result from long-term, low-level exposure, which is difficult to measure, and requires very long trials to determine.
Researchers are trying to develop higher throughput tests for chemical signatures which appear in the short term which could be indicators of longer-term problems. These are difficult to get accurate, however, and our understanding of the long term effect of nanoparticle exposure is still limited.
https://www.theguardian.com/nanotechnology-world/dangers-of-nanotechnology-toxic
But with any emerging technology comes potential risk. How much do we really know about the impacts on society and on health of the tiny nanoscale particles that are being churned for commercial and scientific purposes? Are nanoparticles released as we use those products causing harmful effects to the environment? The application of nanotechnology seems limitless, but where could these powerful ideas lead?
The idea was first raised by Eric Drexler in his 1986 book, Engines of Creation. For those worried about nanotechnology, grey goo is a good reason to pause any progress until we can confirm we completely understand the process and its implications. Fortunately, Drexler's scenario is highly improbable (IT IS BEING DONE NOW, WITH NO CONSENT, NO EVEN AWARENESS) – fast-replicating nanorobots would need so much energy and produce so much heat that they would become easily detectable to policing authorities who could stamp out the threat. In 2004, Drexler himself made public attempts to play down his more apocalyptic warnings. But no technology is entirely safe, and the scientists working in any new field have a burden of responsibility as they step into the unknown.
"As societies have become wealthier, they have traditionally become more risk-averse," says
Gabriel Aeppli, professor of physics at the London Centre for Nanotechnology (LCN). "But they've also become rich enough to be able to take steps to reduce the risks of exploring new chemistry. My sense is that we simply have to treat all of the things that haven't been tested yet in the same way that we deal with anything that a synthetic chemist might produce." In 2004, the UK government asked the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering to carry out an inquiry into the safety of nanotechnology. "We need to understand whether it raises new ethical, health and safety or social issues, which are not covered by current regulations," said the UK's then science minister, David Sainsbury. "Nanotechnology could cover an enormous area. It is a bit like asking a committee at the time the first computer was designed to say: what is the impact of computers and IT going to be on the world in the future? The ability to predict far ahead is quite limited."
Ann Dowling, a mechanical engineer at Cambridge University, chaired the study and, in the resulting report, raised several pressing concerns about the possible health effects of the small particles being made by the nanotechnology industry. These are made by grinding metals or other materials into an ultrafine powder – in sunscreens, for example, nanoparticles are used to absorb and reflect UV rays while appearing transparent to the naked eye.
"Where particles are concerned, size really does matter," wrote Dowling. "Nanoparticles can behave quite differently from larger particles of the same material. There is evidence that at least some manufactured nanoparticles are more toxic than the same chemical in its larger form, but mostly we just don't know. We don't know what their impact is on either humans or the environment." Although many questions remain regarding the toxicity of nanoparticles, the scientific community is now working hard in addressing this knowledge gap and, already, some conclusions can be derived from the data. Scientists know, for instance, that the toxic effects largely depend on type, size and shape of nanoparticles, on the amount of exposure and, importantly, on how and where that exposure occurs.
I can go on and on regarding toxicity and safety issue of this graphene based nano technology. It has been currently used and this is the causation behind those adverse reactions.
We should have legal inquiry into it and we must have legal regulations so people, individuals are NOT SUBJECTED to those coercive and mandatory harmful dangerous, killing and maiming technologies being SECRETLY INJECTED.
This is INSANE
Catch Bannon's earlier segment with Joebot explaining humans 2.0. That's the end game.