Saturday, May 27, 2023

Medical Ethics and the potential misuse of genetic vaccines for nefarious purposes

Update: Dr Steven Pelech said that the idea of removing the God gene from human DNA through vaccines is complete lunacy. Yuval Harari is a historian and has no appreciation of the scientific and technical issues involved in such a complicated quest never mind the moral issues involved.

Now we need to have a conversation about medical ethics. Forced organ harvesting from political prisoners of conscience is unethical. If some medical doctors are willing to do that, what else are they willing to do? This is why ethics are important. Good and evil both coexist in the real world.

New technology can be used for good or bad. It's like nuclear energy. Are we going to use nuclear reactions to generate electricity or are we going to use them to make bombs and kill people? The potential for good or evil both exist with any new technology we develop.

It's the same with genetic vaccines. Bypassing the immune system and delivering medicine or cancer cures directly to the cells would be a step forward. Killing half the world's population from bypassing the immune system to create irreparable heart damage through myocarditis would not. The choice is ours as to what we will do with this new technology.
I want to take a look at three different video clips and connect the dots. We all know Bill Gates is very concerned with overpopulation and that he supports depopulation. In the first video Bill Gates goes on record to say we can address over population through vaccines. Now when most of us hear that we are left scratching our heads wondering what on earth he is referring to. He's making a statement in a public forum so surely he isn't suggesting anying nefarious. So just what is he suggesting? We can speculate but I want to find out what he really meant.

This is somewhat important when we look at the rise in all cause mortality after the genetic Covid vaccine rollout. In Nigeria, Bill Gates and the World Health Organization were accused of spiking a tetanus shot with a fertility drug. I'm not saying they actually did that. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and he was never charged and tried for that offense. I'm simply saying a group of Catholic Bishops made that accusation and filed a complaint.

The complaint obviously didn't go anywhere but it reinforces the need for a discussion about medical ethics. They could argue that starving people in Africa shouldn't have kids. We could argue, you have no right to say who can or cannot have children. That's not your choice to make. It would be unethical to do so. Spiking a vaccine with a sterilization drug without public knowledge would be both unethical and criminal. Medical procedures must be done with consent.

So there are two aspects of possible nefarious uses of genetic vaccines for the depopulation motive. One would be to increase sterilization, the other would be to increase all cause mortality. For example, say a new vaccine was fairly safe but for people who were at high risk to have a heart attack, it would increase the risk of a fatal heart attack by 5%. 5% isn't significant. It's hardly noticeable. Yet it would fulfill the depopulation objective by increasing all cause mortality.

There's another aspect to this moral dilemma we need to discuss and that involves altering human DNA. The question we are forced to ask is for what purpose? Do you want to alter human DNA to make a better athlete or do you have another purpose in mind?

In the second video I want to discuss, someone makes another controversial statement rationalized by the end justifies the means argument. He's talking about religious extremism and suicide bombing. Well no one likes that. He discusses the potential use of genetic vaccines to alter human DNA and remove the propensity for religious extremism and thereby prevent future suicide bombings. Wouldn't that be nice? It opens the door for another moral discussion.

I remember back in the day Lisa Evers was on her way to a demonstration supporting the mandatory castration of repeat sex offenders. I joked and said Awe Lisa, why you gotta be like that? Yet in that situation there was a valid moral argument supporting it. One could also ask are we going to try and alter human DNA so they no longer have a desire to commit crime or be pedophelies? We can have a scientific debate about those medical ethics.

Now back to Bill Gates and the suicide bombing. How do we define religious extremism and who defines it? Communism would declare all religion is extreme and should be abolished. Therefore a Communist would strive to remove any desire for religion whatsoever from the human DNA. Well at least a WEF Communist would. That brings us to the third video clip.

There are various videos from the World Economic Forum where they discuss removing the God gene from human DNA through genetic vaccines. What is the God gene? The God gene is what scientists call man's need or desire for religion and spiritual things.

Some could argue that the God gene specifically relates to man's desire for religion. Religion is bad therefore the God gene is bad and should be removed from human DNA. Yet man's desire for religion goes far beyond religion. It's about man's persuit of ethics and revolves around the concept of a conscience. Not a consciousness but a moral conscience that defines what is right and wrong from an ethical viewpoint.

It's about aspiring for peace in times of war. It's about striving for freedom and social justice. The World Economic Forum's brand of Communism wants to remove all that. They don't want to simply remove man's desire for religion, they want to remove man's desire for ethics. They want medical doctors who are willing to perform forced organ harvesting on political prisoners of conscience. They want to remove ethics from human DNA and turn us all into robots. That is what they want to do and that is why they are trying to develop this new technology to accomplish it.

1 comment:

  1. Regarding doubts about all these people and their intent....well, there shouldn't be, because most of them have out and out said it. Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, etc..It's at the local level where they can't say the quiet part loud, because the negative feedback would be immediate. So they lie. At the same time, they deny that they lie, (they have to of course, it is not a matter of honesty) and this has the effect of mitigating that negative feedback because people say, "How do we know for sure?" And then no action is taken, and they continue to get away with it. Well, here's how you completely nullify their exploitation of basic human nature, especially the group aspect that is in play here.

    "If there's any doubt, there is no doubt." Then you can reorder your understanding and they can't fool you. It's an awesome little saying really, works for pretty much anything.


Comments are moderated so there will be a delay before they appear on the blog.