WE Are Playing God, Berenson Says



Playing God (badly)Alex BerensonOct 29–Berenson is a well known American Journalist —His New Book Plandemia Comes Out Next Month.

AS I write this, I’m finishing A Shot to Save the World, the new book about the hunt for a Covid vaccine.Which – surprisingly – I don’t hate. Written by Gregory Zuckerman of the Wall Street Journal, the book is a serious look at the decades of scientific work that helped produce the mRNA and DNA/AAV Covid vaccines.

Even better, it contains this line about Stephane Bancel, Moderna’s chief executive, from Derrick Rossi: “He was asking me to steal from a hospital that treats children. Stephane is someone without a moral compass.”

Who’s Derrick Rossi? Some crazy ivermectin-loving anti-vaxxer, no doubt!Cofounder of Moderna? Oh, that was my second guess. Meantime, Stephane has $10 billion in Moderna stock to buy a new moral compass.

But to read this book is to see that these new biotechnologies are to ordinary small-molecule drug development as a manned mission to Mars is to a cross-country road trip.

They are so complicated that even explaining them coherently is hard.Old-school small-molecule drugs like aspirin are usually relatively simple chemicals with atomic structures that can be sketched out on a napkin.Aspirin:

In general, these drugs work in straightforward ways, by attaching to receptors on the surface of our cells and either activating them or blocking them from being activated.The body then breaks them down, usually quite fast, and their cellular effects wear off. They must be dosed again after a few hours or a day. At this point, after generations of developing them, scientists and physicians understand how they work quite well. Even so they need to be carefully tested because they can have off-target effects or be toxic in unexpected ways.But we’re pretty good at making them. In fact even 20 years ago we were so good at making them that we had hit most of the obvious targets for them, like cholesterol and blood pressure and diabetes.

Unfortunately, fiddling with cell receptors can only do so much. Most cancers, brain diseases, autoimmune diseases, and genetic disorders are simply not amenable to small-molecule treatments. Treating them requires larger and more complicated proteins and enzymes that mimic the body’s existing proteins, attach to specific parts of deranged cells (cancer or other), or have other effects.

For decades, those proteins were generally grown outside the body and then injected into it.Artificially produced erythropoietin, or EPO – a molecule our own kidneys make to help stimulate the production of red blood cells – is a relatively simple example of such a treatment.

But mRNA/LNP and DNA/AAV vaccines go still further.They involve not using a simple chemical to interfere with a single receptor or injecting a protein we have grown in specifically purified cells but hijacking the body’s own fundamental processes of biological creation.

AND OUR BODIES DO NOT LIKE HAVING THEIR FUNDAMENTAL PROCESSES OF BIOLOGICAL CREATION HIJACKED. NOT BY VIRUSES, AND NOT BY SCIENTISTS.

They fight the process at every step.

This is why we have immune systems.

Thus using mRNA or DNA to make our cells produce proteins carries risk at every stage.

At the moment of injection, the mRNA must be both disguised AND hidden inside a tiny ball of fat (and the DNA attached to a cold virus), or our bodies will likely destroy it before it can even reach our cells.As Zuckerman explains in his book,

“The [Moderna] scientists ran into a huge new problem… subsequent administrations saw the protein production plummet. It was as if the body’s defenses had learned to fend off the injected molecule and its genetic payload.

”Moderna wound up turning away from making mRNA drugs for repeated dosing and focusing on vaccines for just this reason; a successful vaccine should need only one or two doses to produce a sustained if not permanent immune response, thus eliminating the need for regular dosing.

But the problems don’t end there.

If the injected particles drop their genetic payload into the wrong cells, they can also do damage.

Scientists have also now repeatedly demonstrated that the spike proteins the mRNA Covid vaccines create can be toxic – especially to blood vessel cells – all by themselves, without the rest of Sars-Cov-2 attached. (See, for example: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2021.687783/full)

Which doesn’t matter, the Covid vaccine fanatics told us, because the spike protein the vaccines generate doesn’t circulate.Except it does.But wait, there’s more.We know that in the short run, mRNA vaccines lead to a drop in crucial white blood cells called lymphocytes – Pfizer and BioNTech themselves acknowledged this problem.(SOURCE: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2814-7)

Now the British government is warning that people who receive the vaccines appear to have a less complete immune response to Sars-Cov-2 after infection.

Maybe even more concerning, scientists now have found evidence the vaccines may produce worrisome longer-term changes in the immune system:The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses(SOURCE: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.03.21256520v1)To be clear, evidence is not proof.

These changes may not matter to our overall immune response. Even the severity of the risk is an immensely complex question that I am not qualified to discuss in depth. But neither is almost anyone else.

And many of the people who understand these issues best have an enormous financial stake in the success of the Sars-Cov-2 vaccines. Zuckerman’s book makes clear that Moderna was facing real problems in 2019, before Covid hit. Bancel had spent too many years making promises that hadn’t come true, and Moderna was burning through money at a stunning rate without any marketable drugs to show for the spending.

Now, of course, both Bancel and Moderna have no such worries.

As for the regulators, they had a hard enough time back in the small molecule days. In 1999, they were unable to figure out that Vioxx caused heart attacks even when Merck presented them with clear data showing that Vioxx caused heart attacks.

This is not to say that the mRNA (and DNA/AAV) Covid vaccines are necessarily dangerous, or that their risks outweigh their benefits.

But we should all understand just how radical these therapies are, and how many unknowns they carry.

The only solution to these unknowns is very large trials conducted for long periods.A 40,000-person clinical trial may sound large, it is not, not in the context of a drug that governments are going to give (or more accurately force) on BILLIONS of healthy people.

In 1954, the Salk polio vaccine trial covered almost two million children – yes, 2,000,000 – including 400,000 who received the vaccine. And polio was far more dangerous to children than Sars-Cov-2.

But an equally large sin against science was the fact that regulators allowed Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna to unblind and thus destroy their pivotal trials within weeks after they presented early data.

Now we are stumbling in the dark.And that might not matter much if the Covid vaccines had ended the Covid epidemic. But they have not. Not even in places where nearly every adult has received them – like Waterford, Ireland, where 99.7 percent of all adults are fully vaccinated.

Now the public health authorities and the rest of the media are pushing “boosters” – again, for a biotechnology that was repurposed as a vaccine BECAUSE IT FAILED UPON REPEATED DOSING. 

Meanwhile, they are simply ignoring the odd increase in all-cause non-Covid mortality that many countries are now seeing. 

Where this journey ends I do not know.But I know this: we invented about the most complex product imaginable, tested it in a relative handful of people for a few months, a far shorter timetable than is typical for drug development.

Now we are shoving it on every human we can reach – to prevent (or more accurately fail to prevent) an illness that is not particularly dangerous to most of them.

Not aspirin: What could go wrong?

2 thoughts on “WE Are Playing God, Berenson Says

  1. Reblogged this on In defense of human freedom and commented:
    This topic reminds me of the field of academic study called the ethics of technology. One of the terms used is “technological optimism.” There is a criticism implicit in the term: that those who believe technology can solve every problem are overly optimistic.

    They are ignoring the risks and possible negative side-effects, which can be potentially enormous with some technologies. They can be world-ending (e.g., nuclear technology). Genetic engineering and nanotech are like that also. This is why they’re often used in the setup of dystopian science fiction plots.

    Do technological optimists consider these risks? Not really. I recall when I was studying this field in grad school, I asked students of nano-tech if they were taught ethics. No, they were not. I made presentations before committees on nuclear techology. They too were not too concerned with risks. They simply believed that if there’s a problem the technologists can solve it with another technical fix.

    Ethics is subordinate to technique, in their worldview. It comes after the fact, in the form of regulatory committees tasked with approving what’s already happened. In practice, if something can be done, it will be. The precautionary principle is not employed for prevention in our world. This has been the case since modern science and technology emerged as a world force in the 17th century.

    Bill Gates is a technological optimist re: global warming, disease, and world hunger. Geo-engineering for example is his solution — but also population control. And since the public did not accept the straightforward moral argument for climate mitigation, he and others devised a deception with which to introduce social controls necessary to reduce net consumption and GHG emissions. Except that as with all such complex and dangerous technologies, there are enormous risks and potential of disaster.

    For example, the human element: how does Gates know that the CCP won’t achieve world domination (as they openly wish to) and ruin the environment anyway with their massive fossil fuel consumption and desire for endless economic growth? They view it as their turn, now that the West has done it. Gates really can’t be sure of that, even with population reduction and reduced consumption for the time being. And the issue of individual rights is thrown away completely in the Great Reset plan.

    On top of that, as Berenson points out in this article, we don’t know the long-term risks of this new mRNA technology. Things will change in ways we can’t fully anticipate. Theodore Kaczynski (of Unabomber fame) warned us of this. No one in their right mind could agree with his tactics, but his so-called Manifesto is worth reading. It’s coming true before our eyes.

    Kaczynski predicts the emergence of a technological and bureaucratic elite who look down on the masses — who in the future are out of work because they lack the skills and there is no need for them in a world of robots and computers.

    On top of that, we’re seeing the emergence of positive eugenics and designer babies, leading to “superior” humans who are smarter, faster, live longer, etc. This is sometimes called transhumanism. After that happens, it’s a simple matter to get rid of the “inferior” masses through some ruse, such as a mandatory injection for some supposed disease (real or imagined) — slowly, of course, so as to not arouse too much suspicion as to the true intent.

    Or it could just be that things run away from the technologists, creating results they can’t anticipate. Maybe they have good intentions that get out of hand — because the precautionary principle is certainly not being employed with these so-called ‘vaccines.’ But it keeps the vaccinologists employed and the elites busy and the corporations profitable. It ensures unlimited power for a few.

    With allopathic medicine, pharmaceutical solutions are preferred over healthy diet and exercise, and natural immunity, keeping the pharma companies profitable. What’s going on now follows the same model, but accelerated beyond anything before it. Berenson and others critical of medical tyranny are providing some valuable insights into the risks, both in medical and political terms. As the title says, they’re playing God.

    Like

    • p..s. I mean to say that they (the medical technologists) are playing God, as the title suggests. We heard this statement when technologists were doing such things as cloning. And it’s true of that also. We don’t know the long-term social, political, medical, and ethical implications of such new technologies. Those doing it might hope it will be used for some good, but they have no idea. So often things created for good have ended up being used for evil — or went wrong somehow.

      Like

Leave a comment