Korona vaksine og transhumanisme – en advarsel


Den kvinnelig legen i videoen “Human 2.0”? A Wake-up call, Carrie Madej, plukker totalt fra hverandre påstandene til faktisk.no som sier at den nye Moderna vaksinen ikke kan skade vårt dna, og dokumentasjon på det hun sier ligger selvfølgelig også ved. Makkverket til faktisk.no kan du lese her 

 

“Human 2.0”? A Wake-up call

 

I utprøvinga av den nye vaksina til Moderna har de kun brukt data fra fire pasienter av 45 medvirkende noe som overhodet ikke er nok til en statistisk analyse, istedet har de brukt data fra mus for å komme til fase to og det er jo en himmelstor forskjell i fra mus til mennesker:

“Phase I clinical trials simply test the safety of a drug or vaccine in a small number of healthy volunteers — usually brave and naïve college students — while Phase II trials are responsible for testing its effectiveness in a larger number of subjects.

Such a hyped-up and exuberant response to a Phase I trial is rare and nearly unheard of, even in the extraordinary setting of Covid-19. This is especially the case since so little information is gleaned from an investigational drug in Phase I that has many more hurdles to overcome before it successfully gets to market.

In fact, 77 percent of vaccines for infectious diseases make it through Phase I, but only 33 percent make it through the entire process overall.

Moreover, upon examining Moderna’s non-peer reviewed press release, the actual data on the vaccine’s success is even more flimsy.

According to the document, of the 45 patients who received the vaccine, the data on “neutralising antibody data are available only for the first four participants in each of the 25-microgram and 100-microgram dose level cohorts.”

In other words, that means that when it comes to finding out whether the vaccine elicits an antibody response that could potentially fight the coronavirus, they only had data on eight patients. That’s not enough to do any type of statistical analysis and it also brings into question the status of the other 37 patients who also received the vaccine.

Moreover, when it comes to determining whether the “neutralising antibodies” were clinically effective against the coronavirus, the only data Moderna alluded to were from mice.

Not only are there huge differences between mice and men, but history also proves that success in animal models is often not replicated in human studies. This is especially the case for Moderna’s messenger RNA vaccine, which would be the world’s first to ever reach the market if it passes clinical trials.

If the undeserved investor and media hype for Moderna’s messenger RNA coronavirus vaccine allows it to overtake all competitors around the world, then we may be left with a potentially more dangerous and unknown vaccine that many of us may not even be able to afford.

So let’s have an even playing field here. Let’s base our excitement and exuberance on the actual facts and evidence and data rather than our labile emotions and feelings.

We are all in this together, and that includes poor people in America and poor people in poor countries around the world who deserve an eventual coronavirus vaccine that is safe, effective, and — last but not least — affordable.”

 

 

“AstraZeneca innrømmet feil – nå stiller eksperter spørsmål ved vaksinens effektivitet
Nyheten i forrige uke om at AstraZeneca og Oxford Universitys felles koronavaksine kan være opp mot 90 prosent effektiv ble møtt med jubel i markedene.
Men siden de foreløpige resultatene ble offentliggjort har AstraZeneca innrømmet at de gjorde en vesentlig feil, ved at noen av forsøkspersonene ved et uhell fikk en mindre vaksinedose.
En gruppe fikk først en halv dose og deretter en hel. I denne gruppen har vaksinen vist seg å være 90 prosent effektiv. I en større gruppe, som fikk to fulle doser, var effektiviteten 62 prosent.
Nå har eksperter begynt å tvile på effektiviteten til vaksinen, skriver The New York Times.
Vitenskapsansatte og industrieksperter sier at den innrømmede feilen og en serie andre uregelmessigheter i måten AstraZeneca i utgangspunktet avslørte datene på har gjort dem mer skeptiske til resultatene som er fremlagt. Blant annet er man usikker på om de lovende resultatene også reflekterer data fra eldre forsøkspersoner.
Michele Meixell, som er talsperson for AstraZeca, sier imidlertid til NYT at prøvene er gjennomført i henhold til de høyeste standarder.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/business/coronavirus-vaccine-astrazeneca-oxford.html?fbclid=IwAR1ctfkDNPlvZ9uRoORDIXRxSV_2D46f1JHYcY0GGcoaDF-kjSvZyOJNSVY
“De siste ukene har vi fått oppløftende vaksinenyheter fra flere produsenter. Nyhetene tas godt imot, men professor Terje Ingemar Traavik advarer mot å ha for stor optimisme rundt vaksinene.
Nå reagerer professor i virologi og genøkologi, Terje Ingemar Traavik. Koronavaksinene som nå søkes hastegodkjent kan bidra til at færre får alvorlige sykdom eller dør av koronaviruset. Han mener imidlertid at myndighetene unnlater å fortelle hele historien.
– Når vaksinerte personer infiseres med viruset kan de fortsatt skille ut virus og smitte andre. Vaksineprodusentene har ikke hevdet noe annet, og nylige fagfelle-vurderte forskningsartikler understreker dette, sier Traavik til TV 2.
Folkehelseinstituttet skriver på sine hjemmesider at hensikten med vaksinasjon er for å forebygge sykdom, eller å gjøre sykdomsforløpet mildere uten å bli utsatt for alvorlig bivirkninger.
– Men de vaksinene som nå søkes hastegodkjent bidrar ikke til å hindre smittespredning, sier Traavik.
Han forklarer at en ideell vaksine skal beskytte den enkelte mot sykdom og samfunnet mot smittespredning.
– Man har oppnådd et av tre ideelle målsetninger knyttet til en vaksine. Det handler om at folk ikke blir alvorlig syk, sier professoren og legger til at vaksinen ikke stopper eventuell smittespredning.
– Man burde stille spørsmålet om vaksinen vil stoppe pandemien. Man burde understreke at 90-95 prosent effekt gjelder hindret sykdomsutvikling, ikke virusspredning, sier han.
Han mener at det ikke er avklart om vaksinene gir alvorlige bivirkninger.
– De har testet alt for kort tid til at de kan trekke endelige slutninger om dette, sier Traavik.” https://www.tv2.no/a/11784905/?fbclid=IwAR3Gift3SSVneH9xX7yKE5bo87B7m1NbvoK3J5_3liwgsh8VOwtoJCkcta0

 

 

CRISPR-Cas9: Gene Drives

Luciferase gene-loaded CS-Qdots as self-illuminating probes for specific hepatoma imaging


Dr. Madej nevner Matrix filmene som gode eksempler på transhumanisme, men filmen Upgrade fra 2018  med Logan Marshall-Green i hovedrollen er et bedre eksempel og en skremmende realistisk advarsel mot transhumanisme.

 

“Politicians are dreaming of a “Manhattan Project-style effort” to develop and distribute a coronavirus vaccine “for most Americans by year’s end.” To accomplish this dramatic cut in vaccine development time, “the program will pull together private pharmaceutical companies, government agencies and the military.” Normal vaccine development time is significantly longer.

Fourteen potential coronavirus vaccines are vying to be selected as the winner of “Operation Warp Speed.” Government will shield pharmaceutical companies from liability for damages that their vaccines may inflict. Taxpayers will reimburse companies for development costs for vaccines that don’t make it to market.

If you’re cheering the government for cutting red-tape, think again. Liability shields for crony capitalists and no cost for failure policies guarantee errors will be made. Without market safeguards significant injuries to human beings are highly likely. Errors will be exacerbated if medical tyranny prevails with legal mandates requiring the COVID-19 vaccination for employment and travel. 

Haven’t we learned there was no such thing as efficient food distribution in the Soviet Union? Haven’t we learned there was no such thing as a safe East German Communist Trabant automobile? There is no such thing as efficient and safe, centrally planned pharmaceutical development. As we will see later in this essay, the last time government sought a “warp speed” vaccine, dead and paralyzed vaccine recipients were the tragic consequences.

Limits on Liability 

Pharmaceuticals, including vaccines, have benefits and costs. We don’t have to resolve our cognitive dissonance by denying the benefits of vaccines or denying the harm they can do. 

Faced with “challenges to vaccine orthodoxy, scholars, commentators, and public health officials are quick to characterize dissent as mere propaganda of ‘anti-vaxxers,’” writes law professor Efthimios Parasidis in his Boston University Law Review article “Recalibrating Vaccination Laws.” 

Parasidis wrote his essay a mere three years ago. Could he have imagined what is happening today, just a few years later? A group affiliated with the FBI is labeling those who question the vaccine orthodoxy as a “threat to national security.” In a similar vein, California State Senator Dr. Richard Pan claims that those demanding an end to lockdowns and those who question vaccines “have the same message: We want you to get sick.” Demonizing dissenters is rhetoric straight out of a totalitarian playbook. People who threaten “national security” and who “want you to get sick” will be ideal “devils” for politicians to blame when their own policies fail.

Parasidis wrote that such tactics obfuscate safety and legal issues, “Focusing contemporary vaccine policy debate on anti-vaxxer rhetoric detracts from adequate consideration of important vaccine-related issues.” In his article, Parasidis points to both “the health benefits of vaccines” and “the shortcomings of the legal framework governing immunizations.”  

The shortcomings of the legal framework to which Parasidis refers stem from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act). 

The Vaccine Act granted pharmaceutical manufacturers broad legal immunity from lawsuits for vaccine injuries. Further, Parasidis writes, “once a vaccine is approved and made available to the public, a manufacturer does not have a statutory obligation to actively collect and analyze safety and efficacy data, nor are manufacturers obligated to update vaccine formulas in light of new scientific advancements.” 

On top of the protections in the 1986 Vaccine Act, vaccine manufacturers have received additional liability protections under a February 2020 declaration by Alex Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services. Azar claims his authority to make such a declaration is granted by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act)

Azar’s order makes “immune from suit and liability…to all claims of loss,” for all those who “manufacture, distribute, administer, prescribe or use” any treatments or vaccines. Administer a rushed-to-market vaccine to healthy individuals at no particular risk from COVID-19 and the government will shield you from liability. Lobby to make the vaccine mandatory and government will shield you from liability.

Noted vaccine advocates and developers such as Dr. Paul Offit have expressed alarm that “warp speed” developers might ignore standard vaccine development safeguards. “Remember,” Offit cautioned, “You’re giving this vaccine, likely, to healthy people — who are not the people typically dying from this infection.”

Liability shields warp decision-making and increase risk. Having to pay insurance premiums provides incentives to reduce risk. Think of insurance premiums on cars. Insurance premiums might help us decide against the sports car we have been coveting for years in favor of a sedate sedan. High insurance premiums for drivers involved in crashes or caught driving drunk or frequently speeding help those drivers make needed behavioral changes.

If the government indemnified us from damages from driving, risky driving would become more common. Those taking added risks would fool themselves with an illusion of competency. They might be indignant when charged with endangering others.

Libertarian law professor Richard Epstein has explored the problem in limiting liability. Writing about the 2010 BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, he explained why “the best way to deter future spills is to expose drillers to the full costs of any mistake and not let any company without proper insurance near an oil derrick.”

Let’s rewrite Epstein’s observations: the best way to ensure vaccine safety is to expose pharmaceutical companies to the full costs of any mistake and not let any company without proper insurance near a human body.

Epstein was adamant:

“The legal system should never allow self-interested parties to keep for themselves all the gains from dangerous activities that unilaterally impose losses on others—which is why the most devout defender of laissez-faire must insist, not just concede, that tough medicine is needed in these cases.” 

As Epstein explained, insurance companies are the best regulators:

“A tough liability system does more than provide compensation for serious harms after the fact. It also sorts out the wheat from the chaff—so that in this case companies with weak safety profiles don’t get within a mile of an oil derrick. Solid insurance underwriting is likely to do a better job in pricing risk than any program of direct government oversight. Only strong players, highly incentivized and fully bonded, need apply for a permit to operate.”

Epstein’s logic applies to the Vaccine Act. Pharmaceutical companies are highly incentivized to produce the safest vaccines when they are subject to the discipline of obtaining insurance coverage.

Those advocating in favor of liability shields say that protecting public health requires this waiver. Without the waiver, they claim, too few vaccines would be produced.

The case against liability shields is not a case against vaccines; it is a case against the distorted production of vaccines. Limits on liability override the risk-reducing incentives provided by having to pay insurance premiums and thus result in vaccines that are less safe than they would otherwise be.

Swine Flu Lessons 

In his book, The Myth of Scientific Public Policy, economist Robert Formaini challenges the view that elite experts can evaluate public policy objectively “while remaining neutral on troublesome ethical issues.”

Formaini looks at lessons we should have learned from the 1976 swine flu outbreak. The outbreak began at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The flu outbreak was not unusual; it was winter, and in the close quarters of army barracks, respiratory illnesses and flu were common. Formaini writes, “The outbreak may have passed unnoticed except for a bet between two doctors about the nature of the disease.” Throat cultures were sent to multiple health organizations; the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found swine flu.

The CDC asked Congress “for a $134 million program to vaccinate virtually every person within the United States.” 

Formaini writes, “Private drug companies did not want to make the vaccine unless they were statutorily protected from liability from torts.” Congress granted such protection despite warnings from some such luminaries as polio vaccine pioneer Dr. Albert Sabin. Sabin “castigated the rush to vaccinate everyone and urged that vaccines be stockpiled for ‘high risk’ groups.” Sabin also derided “scare tactics” used to get people to vaccinate.

Within months, a swine flu vaccine was produced and approved. The CDC failed “to alert the public to any serious potential side effects other than a possible case of ‘mild’ flu.” Even a mild flu can lead “to fatal complications” for “high-risk groups.” 

Within days, 33 people who received the vaccine died. Health officials refused to acknowledge the connection between the vaccine and the deaths. “Walter Cronkite chastised his media colleagues” for covering the deaths. Vaccinations continued, and an alarming number of Guillain-Barré syndrome cases, a known potentially fatal side effect of flu vaccines, appeared.

Shortly after that, the CDC director resigned, and government shelved the vaccination program.

Formaini raised pointed questions that should be asked again today in the rush for a COVID-19 vaccine. Among those questions were:

1. Why did “experts immediately decide” that “universal vaccination was the only option?”

2. “Why were the drug companies released from liability if the ‘risks’ were so small?”

3. “Why was disengagement so difficult when the program’s consequences began to materialize?”

4. “Who ought to have been liable for this policy?” 

Today’s experts are like the experts in the 1970s who were full of hubris and overconfidence. Policy analysts who later examined the 1976 swine flu concluded among other things:

1. “There was overconfidence by medical specialists in theories ‘spun’ from ‘meager evidence.’”

2. “Conclusions were reached ‘fueled by conjunctions’ with pre-existing ‘personal agendas.’”

3. “There often was ‘premature commitment’—deciding more than had to be decided.” 

4. There often was “insufficient questioning of scientific logic and implementation prospects.” 

Distorted decision-making was driven by “rent-seeking” by public officials during this crisis where “the heads of bureaucratic departments or agencies,” sought expansion of “their personal empires within the government.”

Reading Formaini, it is easy to see the same mistakes of 1976 repeated in 2020. In his Meditations, Marcus Aurelius observed of politics, “All of this has happened before. And will happen again—the same plot from beginning to end, the identical staging.”

Biochemical Individuality 

The late biochemist Roger J. Williams is famed for his study of the implications of biochemical individuality. His research explains the importance of understanding that “real people exhibit individuality and in a sense are always exceptional people.” Biochemical individuality explains why, for some, a coronavirus vaccine may help to maintain health; for others, it may prove deadly.

In his essay “Individuality and Its Significance in Human Life” contained in the Liberty Fund book Essays on Individuality, Williams writes: “Concerning the ubiquity of individuality, we can, I believe, accept without danger of contradiction the categorical statement that every human individual (even in the case of identical twins) is distinctive and different.”

Yet, in medicine, often only lip service is paid to individuality. We like “the idea of distinctiveness,” yet, as Williams observes, we are “all the time being ignorant about the character of the differences and perhaps even assuming they are inconsequential.” 

Williams explores startling differences in our organs: “Although the textbook picture of the human stomach, for example, is well stereotyped, there are enormous variations in shape and about a sixfold variation in size.” Even the position of the stomach in the body may vary by up to eight inches. 

Similar differences in size and position are found in livers and intestines. Should we be surprised, Williams asks, “that people exhibit individuality in their eating?” 

Williams explains that “Each individual has a highly characteristic breathing pattern,” and “has a distinctive heart action.”

“Endocrine glands vary widely from individual to individual.” Williams adds that “our entire nervous system is subject to the same wide variation, which is not only anatomic but physiological as well.

If you’re thinking all these differences even out and most people are average, you would be wrong. The chance that we have an average anatomical makeup, according to Williams, is only about one in 1024. 

Physiological individuality is also the norm. For example, there are up to “100 fold variations in the taste sensitivity of different individuals for such common substances as sugar [and] salt.” Nutritional needs vary up top fivefold for vitamins, minerals, and amino acids.

In short, Williams writes, “Whether we consider heart action, brain waves, circulation, breathing, the endocrine functions, the blood, temperature regulation, or a multitude of other facets of physiology, the story is the same—abundant evidence of individuality involving differences of great magnitude.” 

Biochemical individuality has great significance for the administration of drugs or vaccines. Since body chemistries differ among individuals, reactions to pharmaceuticals also differ. 

According to Williams, “Some specific chemical reactions may be taking place 10 times as fast in one individual as in another.” Consider that “Using objective tests 10.5 percent were intoxicated when the alcohol blood level was 0.05 percent, whereas 6.7% were sober when the alcohol blood level was eight times this high or 0.4 percent.”

There is no “normal man” for which a particular reaction is guaranteed.    

Williams emphatically rejects the assumption of “every recognized treatise in the fields of biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, and physiological psychology… that normal man, the prototype of all humanity, is the primary if not the exclusive object of study—he, above all is to be fathomed and understood.” 

Caution is warranted. Previous attempts to develop “SARS coronavirus vaccines” led to “pulmonary” issues in animal testing. Vaccines against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) led to enhanced disease response among infants and toddlers. “Frequent hospitalization” was the result; an unacceptable result since RSV illnesses are usually mild. Despite “expert” assurances to the contrary, medical research suggests receiving a flu vaccination “may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference.”

The Greater Good?

Some might say, yes, mandatory vaccines may harm some, but the greater goal of protecting public health is worth the price. This “greater good” mindset led to the famed New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty covering up Stalin’s atrocities. Duranty was fond of saying, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”

Immunization levels thought to generate herd immunity, “magic numbers,” have never been proven as public health historian James Colgrove reports in his book State of Immunity: The Politics of Vaccination in Twentieth-Century America. 

In 2009, during another swine flu outbreak, in their essay, “Does the Vaccine Matter?” Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer report of doctors challenging the medical orthodoxy about flu vaccines and antivirals. They provided evidence that “flu vaccines do not protect people from dying—particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu.”

Vaccination may have unintended psychological consequences as well. Brownlee and Lenzer observe a connection between vaccinating and “breeding feelings of invulnerability, and leading some people to ignore simple measures like better-than-normal hygiene, staying away from those who are sick, and staying home when they feel ill.” Feelings of invulnerability lead people to eschew responsibility and become potential breeding grounds for disease. 

Nothing we can do will guarantee health, but there are steps we can take that tilt the odds in our favor. Sugar-laden diets suppress the immunological system, while exercise boosts it. This year, the average American will eat nearly 200 pounds of disease-promoting sugar and corn syrup and will consume only about 6 pounds of disease-fighting broccoli and a mere “2 to 3 cups of kale every year — one of the healthiest foods on the planet.”

Biochemical individuality explains why, for some, a coronavirus vaccine may help to maintain health; for others, it may prove deadly. Biochemical individuality also explains why there is no one best way to a healthy immune system. Some thrive on keto diets, while others thrive on vegan diets. Others seek a middle ground in a Mediterranean diet.

For some, perhaps those in crowded urban environments, taking a COVID-19 vaccine may seem like a wise choice. Individuals choosing to be vaccinated deserve the safest possible vaccine, a vaccine for which insurance companies insuring vaccine manufacturers will provide liability protection. 

For those who wish to avoid a COVID-19 vaccine, fundamental natural rights guarantee that freedom. No individual should be forcibly injected with a vaccine because of policy mandates from self-interested and zealous “expert” decision-makers. 

Williams is clear: “Among the myriad of potentialities with which every individual is born, there still are an infinite number of possibilities of development—provided this ability to order one’s own life exists.” “In medicine,” Williams writes, “recognition of the scope and importance of individuality is indispensable to progress.” 

For a central planner, individuality is a meaningless idea. Central planners will ignore Williams’s admonition at our peril.”  https://www.aier.org/article/why-operation-warp-speed-could-be-deadly/

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread

Bill Gates predicts 700,000 victims from corona vaccination

Gene Drive Files Expose Leading Role of US Military in Gene Drive Development

Moderna’s Mysterious Coronavirus Vaccine Delivery System

‘Gene drive’ research to fight diseases can proceed cautiously, U.N. group decides

Bill Gates caught on video admitting vaccine will CHANGE our DNA FOREVER.

BILL GATES | NO CHOICE | VACCINATE THE ENTIRE PLANET

Bill Gates Predicted Corona Virus on Tedx

NOVIO’s COVID-19 DNA Vaccine INO-4800 Demonstrates Robust Neutralizing Antibody and T Cell Immune Responses in Preclinical Models

What you always needed to know about electroporation based DNA vaccines

AstraZeneca to be exempt from coronavirus-vaccine liability claims in most countries

20 Things You Didn’t Know About… DNA

Gene-editing, Moderna, and transhumanism

A nanomaterial path forward for COVID-19 vaccine development

RNA virus vectors: Where are we and where do we need to go?

This potential coronavirus vaccine could be as easy as sticking on a bandage

Quantum Dots Deliver Vaccines and Invisibly Encode Vaccination History in Skin

Nanorobot Hardware Architecture for Medical Defense

Venomous snake fangs inspire new microneedle drug-delivery system


Scientists Propose ‘Tattoos’ To Solve Vaccination Issues

What is transfection?

Broadly defined, transfection is the process of artificially introducing nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) into cells, utilizing means other than viral infection. Such introductions of foreign nucleic acid using various chemical, biological, or physical methods can result in a change of the properties of the cell, allowing the study of gene function and protein expression in the context of the cell.

In transfection, the introduced nucleic acid may exist in the cells transiently, such that it is only expressed for a limited period of time and does not replicate, or it may be stable and integrate into the genome of the recipient, replicating when the host genome replicates. 

Introduction to Transfection

 

Injectable Body Sensors Take Personal Chemistry to a Cell Phone Closer to Reality

 

Transhumanism And The Future Of Humanity: 7 Ways The World Will Change By 2030

A nanomaterial path forward for COVID-19 vaccine development Nanotechnology’s role in the race to find a Covid-19 vaccineInvisible Ink Could Reveal whether Kids Have Been Vaccinated. The technology embeds immunization records into a child’s skin

Biocompatible near-infrared quantum dots delivered to the skin by microneedle patches record vaccination

“New Fluorescent Substrate Enables Quantitative and High-Throughput Examination of Vesicular Monoamine Transporter 2 (VMAT2) Considering the continuing interest in VMAT2 as a drug target, as well as a target for the design of imaging probes, we have developed a fluorescent substrate well suited for the study of VMAT2 in cell culture. Herein, we report the synthesis and characterization of a new fluorescent probe, FFN206, as an excellent VMAT2 substrate capable of detecting VMAT2 activity in intact cells using fluorescence microscopy, with subcellular localization to VMAT2-expressing acidic compartments without apparent labeling of other organelles. VMAT2 activity can also be measured via microplate reader.” https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cb400259n

Synthesis and Discovery of Arylpiperidinylquinazolines: New Inhibitors of the Vesicular Monoamine Transporter Methamphetamine, a human vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) substrate, releases dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine from vesicles into the cytosol of presynaptic neurons and induces reverse transport by the monoamine transporters to increase extracellular neurotransmitters.
(APQs) are potent inhibitors of reserpine binding at recombinant human VMAT2 These compounds are bio-diaster-eo-selective and bio-enantio-selective (opposite or mirrored life selective). Novel APQ ligands have high potency and may be useful tools for characterizing drug-induced effects on human VMAT2 expression and function. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.8b00542

“The polymer, known as a Pedot, has exactly the properties needed to interface electronic hardware with human tissue without causing scarring while also dramatically improving the performance of medical implants.
The versatile Pedot polymer was also recently discovered to be capable of transforming standard house bricks into energy storage units, due to its ability to penetrate porous materials and conduct electricity.
The latest research used a Pedot film with an antibody that stimulates blood vessel growth after injury and could be used to detect early stages of tumour growth in the body.
Pedot polymers could also be used to help sense or treat brain or nervous system disorders, while versions could theoretically attach peptides, antibodies and DNA.
“Name your favourite biomolecule, and you can in principle make a Pedot film that has whatever biofunctional group you might be interested in,” Dr Martin said.
The researchers made a polymer with dopamine, which plays a role in addictive behaviours.
Several companies and research institutions are already working on technology to connect brains to computers, with Elon Musk’s Neuralink perhaps the closest to achieving a commercial product.
The startup plans to reveal more details about its brain chips later this month, which could one day provide “full-bandwidth data streaming” to the brain through a USB-C cable.
Mr Musk has made several claims about Neuralink’s technology, stating earlier this year that it “could extend range of hearing beyond normal frequencies” and even allow people to stream music directly to their brains.
Such technology is essential for humans to compete with advanced artificial intelligence, according to Mr Musk. Last month he warned that humans risk being overtaken by AI within the next five years.”

 

“Proposals to the Neural Engineering System Design program (DARPA-BAA-16-09) are due April 14, 2016. The program seeks to develop implantable neural interfaces to connect the human brain with the digital world.

Specifically, the NESD program aims to develop an implantable neural interface able to provide unprecedented signal resolution and data-transfer bandwidth between the brain and electronics. The interface would serve as a translator, converting between the electrochemical language used by neurons in the brain and the ones and zeros that constitute the language of information technology. The goal is to achieve this communications link in a biocompatible device no larger than one cubic centimeter in size, roughly the volume of two nickels stacked back to back.

The program stands to dramatically enhance research capabilities in neurotechnology and provide a foundation for new therapies. Among the program’s potential applications are devices that could compensate for deficits in sight or hearing by feeding digital auditory or visual information into the brain at a resolution and experiential quality far higher than is possible with current technology.” https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/bridging-the-bio-electronic-divide

 

 

“In today’s post, returning guest bloggers Mr. Joseph DeFranco and Dr. James Giordano examine the ramifications of Neuralink moving forward with Brain-Machine Interfaces, posing five tough questions on what the crossing of this neuroscience frontier means from medical, ethical, legal, and geo-political perspectives.  Read their compelling post — will “neuro-modified human actors be considered weaponized biological agents?” https://madsciblog.tradoc.army.mil/168-linking-brains-to-machines-and-use-of-neurotechnology-to-the-cultural-and-ethical-perspectives-of-the-current-global-stage/

“Mad Scientist Laboratory welcomes back returning guest blogger and proclaimed Mad Scientist Dr. James Giordano and newcomer Mr. John Wallbank with their timely post exploring a way forward from the systemic decoherence wrought by the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic. With our post-industrial, digital age mindset, we often focus exclusively on the scientific and technological solutions to any given problem or crisis. Dr. Giordano and Mr. Wallbank remind us that cognitive coherence is what binds us together and is the key to resilience, enabling us to transcend adversity, confusion, and conflict. Sustaining this cognitive coherence will be essential in weathering an increasingly disruptive Operational Environment — Enjoy!” https://madsciblog.tradoc.army.mil/256-the-covid-crisis-and-beyond-systemic-biosecurity-lessons-to-be-learned-about-decoherence-coherence-and-hope/

“Biostasis is the ability of an organism to tolerate environmental changes without having to actively adapt to them. Biostasis is found in organisms that live in habitats that likely encounter unfavorable living conditions, such as drought, freezing temperatures, change in pH levels, pressure, or temperature. Insects undergo a type of dormancy to survive these conditions, called diapause.

Diapause may be obligatory for these insects to survive. The insect may also be able to undergo change prior to the arrival of the initiating event. Biostasis is also used as a synonym for the terms cryostasis or cryonics. Cryonics is medical procedure concept that may be used for individuals who are terminally ill, in the future. The patients are frozen in what is know as cryonic suspension.

The patients are suspended so that when technology advances, they can be re-animated and their disease can be cured or treated, accordingly. Medical biostasis can be put to use in humans to help repair brain damage. There is evidence that suggests, in the next decade medical biostasis procedures can be performed by trauma surgeons by 2026….. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PHaXZAKdA0

 

“Biostasis is investigating novel applications of polymer chemistry, protein engineering, and deep cell activity monitoring to alter the time course of pathological processes associated with tissue damage and infection to delay the onset of irreversible damage. Researchers are investigating approaches that are not dependent upon reducing temperature and that scale from preservation of simple biological therapeutics such as antibodies and enzymes to whole cells and tissues.

The program seeks to generate proof-of-concept, benchtop technologies and experimentally validate them in simple biological systems. DARPA will work with federal health and regulatory agencies as the program advances to develop a pathway for potential, future human medical use of successful Biostasis technologies. By the end of the program, DARPA hopes to have multiple tools for reducing the risk of permanent damage or death following acute injury or infection. Biostasis technologies could also extend the shelf-life of temperature-sensitive therapeutics, such as blood products, enzyme preparations, and drugs.” https://www.hdiac.org/podcast/biostasis/

https://www.darpa.mil/program/biostasis

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2019-09-11

“DARPA created the Biostasis program to develop new possibilities for extending the golden hour, not by improving logistics or battlefield care, but by going after time itself, at least how the body manages it. Biostasis will attempt to directly address the need for additional time in continuously operating biological systems faced with catastrophic, life-threatening events. The program will leverage molecular biology to develop new ways of controlling the speed at which living systems operate, and thus extend the window of time following a damaging event before a system collapses. Essentially, the concept aims to slow life to save life.” https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2018-03-01

Dr. Amy Jenkins joined DARPA as a program manager in the Biological Technologies Office (BTO) in June 2019. Her interests include the development of platforms for combatting infectious disease threats as well as novel manufacturing methods to enable rapid response.

Prior to joining DARPA, Jenkins was a senior scientist at Gryphon Technologies, where she contributed to development of programs targeting infectious disease threats within BTO. Previously, Jenkins studied the virulence factors of, and antibodies targeting, multi-drug resistant bacterial pathogens at MedImmune. She also served as a National Research Council postdoctoral fellow at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, where she studied virulence mechanisms of biodefense pathogens.

Jenkins received her Doctor of Philosophy in chemistry and chemical biology from Cornell University and her Bachelor of Science in chemistry and biomolecular science from Clarkson University. https://www.darpa.mil/staff/dr-amy-jenkin

 

Dr. Amy Jenkins https://www.google.com/search?q=dr+amy+jenkins+google&oq=dr+amy+jenkins+google&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160.5127j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Who controls the British Government response to Covid–19?

Part One

COVID–19: The Big Pharma players behind UK Government lockdown

Part 2 of ‘Who controls the British Government response to Covid–19?’

UPGRADE Official Trailer (2018) Logan Marshall-Green

Ufrivillige prøvekaniner – Her har jeg tatt et tilbakeblikk på svineinfluensavaksinen og dokumentert hvor mange som ble syke av den.

 

Vitenskapen er det beste verktøyet vi har til å finne sannheten med, men hvis de som bruker dette verktøyet ikke har rent mel i posen, så vil dette verktøyet bli deretter, i verste fall så kan det brukes til å fremme usannheter og propaganda. Vitenskapen vil være særlig utsatt for dette når økonomien sitter i førersetet, og når vitenskapsmenn og kvinner vet at de kan miste jobben hvis de ikke viser til resultater som støtter det oppdragsgiveren forventer seg. Og at forskningen mere og mere har blitt et verktøy for politisk og økonomisk vinning og ikke et verktøy for å finne sannheten, det finnes det dokumentasjon på i bøtter og spann: https://olehartattordet.blogg.no/nar-forskning-blir-et-verktoy-for-politisk-og-okonomisk-vinning.html

 

Relatert lesing (klikk på linkene under her):

 

KUNSTIG INTELLIGENS, GAME OVER FOR MENNESKEHETEN ?

KORONA KAVALKADE – HVOR MYE AV DETTE HAR DU GLEMT?

NÅR FAKTASJEKKERNE MÅ TY TIL HERSKETEKNIKKER

 

MYNDIGHETENE PROMOTERER C 19 VAKSINA TIL PFIZER SOM HAR ET KRIMINELT RULLEBLAD SOM FÅR EN HVER HERDET FORBRYTER TIL Å BLI MISUNNELIG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 kommentarer

Siste innlegg