“What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty!”
I took the title of this article from Shakespeare’s Hamlet. It seemed appropriate considering the subject.
The passage below is excerpted from a research paper published in May of 2016, titled "Genetically Targeted Magnetic Control of the Nervous System,” funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
I reproduce it here, not only for the information value, but also for the exact opposite - it is noteworthy for its utterly opaque verbiage.
Figure 1
Remote control of calcium signaling using Magneto2.0
(a–e) In vitro calcium imaging micrographs of Fluo-4-loaded HEK293 cells before and after 3 pulses of 40–50 mT, 0.1 Hz, 90% duty cycle magnetic stimulation. (f) Quantification of calcium fluorescence fold change in response to the given condition. All experiments treated with magnetic fields except “no magnet” condition. Replicates are shown as individual coverslips equaling n=5 (TRPV4/ferritin), n=3 (No magnet), n=4 (Ruthenium red, (RR)), n=4 (Ca2+ free), n=5 (Magnet) coverslips per condition; total cells analyzed per condition are n=195 (TRPV4/ferritin), n=150 (No magnet), n=148 (RR), n=206 (Ca2+ free), n=396 (Magnet) with n>30 cells analyzed per coverslip. One-way ANOVA, Bonferroni post-test, (F4,16=7.268, p=0.0016). (g) Average temporal kinetics of all cells analzyed within a single coverslip per condition (n=48 (TRPV4/ferritin), n=50 (No magnet), n=45 (RR), n=45 (Ca2+ free), n=102 (Magnet)). Horizontal bar/horseshoe indicates magnetic field application. Two-way ANOVA, Bonferroni post-test, (F4,32490=199.1, p<0.0001), *p<0.05 for all time points from 250 s onward compared to “Magnet”. (h) Kinetics of calcium fluorescence fold change within mCherry+ cells in response to magnet in the presence or absence of the TRPV4 inhibitor, GSK205 (10 µM). n=3 coverslips per condition. Data represent all mCherry+ cells analyzed (n=88 GSK205-treated, n=57 untreated). Two-way ANOVA, Bonferroni post-test, (F39,5680=23.7, p<0.0001), ***p<0.0001 for all time points from 30 s onward. ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05. Data shown as mean±SEM.
The complexity of modern scientific inquiry is, to the layman, thoroughly incomprehensible. The base of knowledge required before one can even grasp what is being discussed above precludes the ordinary observer, regardless of innate intelligence, from assessing the validity of what is presented, much less the legitimacy of the work in terms of ethical and moral imperatives.
Certain avenues of inquiry are denied to the researcher, for good reason. Experimentation on human subjects comes with a high bar for necessity and safety. However, as our knowledge advances, so does the temptation to bypass policies enacted for the protection of both test subjects, and our collective humanity in general.
One such instance is found in the field of genetics.
The idea of "man-as-machine" is not new, but the overlay of "DNA-as-operating-software" is relatively recent, leading to a wildly inaccurate concept known as "genetic determinism," the idea that our behavior is determined by our genetics. It is believed by a distressingly large number of researchers, that man is a mechanism, and through biological reductionism, can be disassembled, examined, altered, and upgraded. This school of thought animated the Human Genome Project.
The mapping of the human genome was indeed a seminal achievement, but not a dispositive one. Knowing the genome is not the same as understanding it, and absent complete understanding, gross errors are inevitable when trying to make use of the knowledge.
Those who believe man to be an organic machine (body) with operating software (genes) and a central processor (brain) also believe mankind can be upgraded in each area.
Bill Gates is one such believer and has dedicated untold billions in pursuit of the tools necessary to "update" our biological system, reprogramming it via genetic manipulation.
Having mapped the genome, the genetic determinism crowd believed they had unlocked the answer key to the human being, erroneously believing the "genes make the organism." But they were soon to discover God's work is far more complex than they imagined.
As the late Molecular and Cellular Biologist Dr. Richard Strohman once said in an interview with journalist Celia Farber:
"First, you shouldn't expect that we could compute the organism from the genome, because the organism doesn't compute the organism from the genome.
The organism computes itself from a vast array of data, including genetic data."
Strohman, the long-time Head of Medical Sciences at University of California - Berkeley, did not subscribe to the "genes determine destiny" theory that undergirds a great deal of today's research.
His own experience in discovering the developmental basis and function of Muscular Dystrophy through analysis of gene expression in muscle tissue revealed the lunacy of a linear model of genetic expression in a complex biological organism.
Previously, "mono-genetic" linear expression was the norm, believing this or that gene controls this function, that behavior, etc.
Strohman, along with several others, most notably Peter Duesberg and Nobel Prize winner, Barbara McClintock, revealed that genes do not "mono-express," doing one thing only, but rather act in concert "poly-genetically" with other genes, and countless other factors both internal and external, to perform multiple, interacting tasks, with a range of possibilities for which we have no capacity to calculate. It is literally beyond even our computer-aided comprehension.
The complexity is so vast, mathematics has given such problems a name – “trans-calculational,” meaning “mind-boggling.” According to mathematics, there exists no computer capable of calculating the possibilities, nor is it likely there will ever be a computer capable of doing so.
This knowledge undercuts the concept of genetic therapy, where it is believed malfunctioning genes can simply be replaced by corrective genes, thus curing the disease.
While the idea is breathtaking in its potential, it has proven unworkable in practice.
Science may be able to identify a particular gene responsible for a genetic disorder (such as they have done in my own Grandson's case) but when attempting to replace that gene, or alter its expression in the body, they have no way of determining the consequence of doing so.
As Barbara McClintock proved, the human genome adapts and alters itself continuously in response to circumstances affecting it. Consequently, there is no way of predicting the countless ensuing interactions within the genome, sparked by the insertion of the “corrective” gene. The attempt is the equivalent of sharpshooting wearing a blindfold, at a transparent, ever-changing, moving target.
Moreover, the crude insertion of a gene coded for a particular expression doesn’t remain an isolated intervention, expressing in only the desired cells. It results in that gene expressing at a level and scope that has never before existed in the host organism, setting off yet another cascade of unknown and unintended and incalculable consequences.
Suddenly, the organism is awash in an artificially encoded genetic expression when it was designed to harbor a mere fraction of it. The results can be (and have been!) catastrophic.
So, what's the point? That we don't know nearly as much as we think we do? Nothing new there...
Hubris isn't new, nor exclusive to one vocation, but in the field of medicine, it can be lethal on an unimaginable scale.
Take the case of young Jesse Gelsinger, 18 years old when he volunteered for a clinical trial at Penn State to test the effect of gene therapy on a rare metabolic disorder from which he suffered.
Within hours of being infused with “corrective genes” encased in an adenovirus as delivery mechanism, Jesse suffered multiple organ failure, with his blood almost completely coagulated. He soon became swollen beyond recognition, brain dead, and finally deceased. All within four days.
The "corrective genes" disrupted the grand biological design composed by our Creator, resulting in a grotesque, malformed dysfunction, and death.
The Moderna and Pfizer shots are genetic therapies, (specifically, a synthetic, experimental programming biologic) using the capabilities of messenger RNA (mRNA) to deliver a DNA payload coded to express the particular spike protein that is found in SARS-CoV-2, hoping to stimulate a response from our natural immune system.
But, as we are now discovering, the spike protein is not just a feature of the Covid pathogen, it is the pathogen itself. And it is showing up in all areas of the body, when it was intended to be "muscle-bonded,” remaining localized to the injection site.
Regarding the advisability of applying the “genes as destiny” model to actual therapies, world-renown Molecular Biologist, Professor James A. Shapiro once noted:
"Molecular analysis has confirmed the generality of Barbara McClintock's revolutionary discoveries of internal systems for genome repair and genome restructuring. I would add that such repair systems do not stop at the borders of a cell in multicellular organisms – they extend to the whole of the organism.
Cells produce clouds of 'hundreds of' defensive vesicles whenever they are challenged, 'in response to danger signals.'
The expectation of its pioneers was that molecular biology would confirm the reductionist, mechanical view of life. However, the actual result of molecular studies of heredity, cell biology, and multicellular development has been to reveal a realm of sensitivity, communication, computation and indescribable complexity."
From an infinite intelligence comes an infinite design. A design that is “trans-calculational.” We are but slightly advanced primates thrusting wrenches and bolts into the equivalent of a Swiss watch work, then standing mystified when its operation becomes unpredictable or ceases altogether.
Now, back to the original research paper from which I excerpted the Graph and abstract above. What is that research all about?
As the study authors write:
“In total, we have engineered and optimized a genetically encoded magneto-genetic actuator, Magneto2.0, and applied it to the nervous system in freely behaving animals.
This is the first demonstration of bona fide magnetic control of the nervous system using engineered actuators, which we confirmed electrophysiologically and behaviorally using both zebrafish and mice.
We have shown that Magneto2.0 remotely controls both neural firing rates and behavior on a rapid and physiologically relevant timescale.
Our single-component magneto-genetic system represents a significant advance in the ability to study neural circuits with relative ease as broad populations of genetically defined cells can be remotely activated in freely behaving animals."
The eerily named “Magneto2.0” actuator permits the “reward” system of the brain to be controlled remotely, influencing behavior with the application of magnetism.
The payload magneto-genetic actuator is introduced to the body via a ferritin nanoparticle, capable of holding and transporting a magnetic charge.
Guess what mechanism is used to deliver the mRNA payload that encodes the spike protein in Covid vaccines?
A ferritin nanoparticle magneto-genetic actuator.
Is there an additional purpose behind the mRNA vaccines, aside from generating an immunity to Covid-19? How the hell would I know? As I mentioned early on, the specifics of this level of scientific inquiry lie beyond my ability to assess.
However, the mind is designed to detect patterns and to evaluate risk based on reasoned understanding. The pattern evident in this entire tragic episode certainly justifies a deeper investigation by men like the late Richard Strohman, with the ability to decode the data, and isolate the intent.
Sooner, rather than later.