Two years ago, in October 2018, Forbes contributor Neil Sahota, a United Nations artificial intelligence adviser and UC Irvine professor, warned that transhumanism is fast approaching—likely faster than you think.1 “In the past few years, there has been considerable discussion around the idea we are slowly merging with our technology, that we are becoming transhuman, with updated abilities, including enhanced intelligence, strength, and awareness,” Sahota writes.
The goal of the transhumanist movement, or “Human 2.0,” is to transcend biology into technology. Or, as Dr. Carrie Madej explains in the video above, to meld human biology with technology and artificial intelligence.
Two visible proponents of transhumanism are Ray Kurzweil (director of engineering at Google since 2012) and Elon Musk (founder of SpaceX, Tesla and Neuralink).
Standing at the Crossroads of Transhumanism
According to Madej, right now, today, we may be standing at the literal crossroads of transhumanism, thanks to the fast approaching release of one or more mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Many of the COVID-19 vaccines currently being fast-tracked are not conventional vaccines. Their design is aimed at manipulating your very biology, and therefore have the potential to alter the biology of the entire human race.
Conventional vaccines train your body to recognize and respond to the proteins of a particular virus by injecting a small amount of the actual viral protein into your body, thereby triggering an immune response and the development of antibodies.
This is not what happens with an mRNA vaccine. The theory behind these vaccines is that when you inject the mRNA into your cells, it will stimulate your cells to manufacture their own viral protein.2 The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine will be the first of its kind. No mRNA vaccine has ever been licensed before. And, to add insult to injury, they’re forgoing all animal safety testing.
Madej reviews some of the background of certain individuals participating in the race for a COVID-19 vaccine, which include Moderna co-founder Derrick Rossi, a Harvard researcher who successfully reprogrammed stem cells using modified RNA, thus changing the function of the stem cells. Moderna was founded on this concept of being able to modify human biological function through genetic engineering, Madej says.
Side Effects Should Be Expected
As mentioned, the mRNA vaccines are designed to instruct your cells to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the glycoprotein that attaches to the ACE2 receptor of the cell. This is the first stage of the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into cells.
The idea is that by creating the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, your immune system will mount a response to it and begin producing antibodies to the virus. However, as reported by The Vaccine Reaction, researchers have pointed out potential weaknesses:3
According to researchers at University of Pennsylvania and Duke University, mRNA vaccines have potential safety issues, including local and systemic inflammation and stimulation of auto-reactive antibodies and autoimmunity, as well as development of edema (swelling) and blood clots.4
Systemic inflammation, auto-reactive antibodies and autoimmune problems are not insignificant concerns. In fact, these are in large part why previous attempts to create a coronavirus vaccine have ALL failed.
Over the past 20 years, coronavirus vaccine research has been plagued by one consistent adverse outcome in particular, namely paradoxical immune enhancement. This is caused by the fact that coronaviruses produce two different types of antibodies—neutralizing antibodies5 that fight the infection, and binding antibodies6 (also known as nonneutralizing antibodies) that cannot prevent viral infection.
Incapable of preventing viral infection, binding antibodies can instead trigger paradoxical immune enhancement. What that means is that it looks good until you get the disease, and then it makes the disease far worse than it would have been otherwise. As detailed in my interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in one coronavirus vaccine trial using ferrets, all the vaccinated animals died when exposed to the actual virus.
According to Madej, animal studies have also found the type of mRNA technology introduced with this vaccine can increase the risk of cancer and mutagenesis (gene mutations).
What You Need to Know About the Delivery System
Madej goes on to discuss how this mRNA vaccine is going to be administered. Rather than a conventional injection, the vaccine will be administered using a microneedle platform. Not only can it be mass produced quickly, but it can also be administered by anyone. It’s as simple at attaching an adhesive bandage to your arm.
The adhesive side of the bandage has rows of tiny microneedles and a hydrogel base that contains luciferase enzyme and the vaccine itself. Because of their tiny size, the microneedles are said to be nearly painless when pressed into the skin.
The idea is that the microneedles will puncture the skin, delivering the modified synthetic RNA into the nucleus of your cells. RNA is essentially coding material that your body uses. In this case, as mentioned, the instructions are to produce the SARS-CoV-2 viral protein.
The problem with all of this, Madej notes, is that they’re using a process called transfection — a process used to create genetically modified organisms. She points out that research has confirmed GMO foods are not as healthy as conventional unmodified foods. The question is, might we also become less healthy? “Vaccine manufacturers have stated that this will not alter our DNA, our genome,” Madej says.
I say that is not true. Because if we use this process to make a genetically modified organism, why would it not do the same thing to a human? I don’t know why they’re saying that.
If you look at the definition of transfection, it will tell you that it can be a temporary change in the cell. And I think that is what the vaccine manufacturers are banking on.
Or, it’s a possibility for it to become stable, to be taken up into the genome, and to be so stable that it will start replicating when the genome replicates. Meaning it is now a permanent part of your genome. That’s a chance that we’re taking. It could be temporary, or it could be permanent.
Patentable DNA, Luciferase and Nanotechnology
Naturally, we won’t find out the truth about whether the vaccine causes a temporary or permanent change for many years after the experimental vaccine is introduced, and that’s an important piece of information.
Why? Because synthetic genes can be patented. So, if inserting a synthetic RNA ends up creating permanent changes in the genome, humans will contain patentable genes. What will that mean for us, seeing how patents have owners, and owners have patent rights?
Another part of the delivery system that raises its own set of questions is the use of the enzyme luciferase, which has bioluminescent qualities. While invisible under normal conditions, using a cellphone app or special device, you will be able to see a glowing vaccination mark.
As described in the journal RSC Advances7 in 2015, luciferase gene-loaded quantum dots “can efficiently deliver genes into cells.” The abstract discusses their use as “self-illuminating probes for hepatoma imaging,” but the fact that quantum dots can deliver genetic material is interesting in itself.
The hydrogel, meanwhile, is a DARPA invention that involves nanotechnology and nanobots. This “bioelectronic interface” is part of how the vaccination mark will be able to connect to your smartphone, Madej says, providing information about blood sugar, heart rate and any number of other biological data.
“It has the potential to see almost anything that goes on in your body,” Madej says. This will have immediate ramifications for our privacy, yet no one has yet addressed where this information will be going. Who will collect and have access to all this data? Who will be responsible for protecting it? How will it be used?
Also, if your cellphone can receive information from your body, what information can your body receive from it, or other sources? Could transmissions affect our mood? Our behavior? Our physical function? Our thoughts or memories?
Stepping Into Transhumanist Territory
In his Forbes article,8 Sahota quotes Kurzweil’s book “The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology,” in which Kurzweil states:
The Singularity will represent the culmination of the merger of our biological thinking and existence with our technology, resulting in a world that is still human but that transcends our biological roots.
If Madej turns out to be correct, and the mRNA vaccine ushers in the ability to alter not only our genes but also opens the door for nanotechnology-driven interfacing between our bodies and programmable technology, aren’t we in fact stepping over the line into transhuman territory?
The Truthstream Media video above discusses the larger issues of transhumanism and the race to merge man with machine and artificial intelligence. There are even ongoing attempts to upload the human mind into the cloud, ultimately creating a form of “digital hive mind” where everyone communicates via “Wi-Fi telepathy.” This, despite the fact we still do not fully understand what “the mind” actually is, or where it’s located.
Neuralink—A Psychiatric Disaster in the Making?
Another transhumanist that has recently brought us to a brand-new precipice is Elon Musk, with his latest venture, Neuralink, described in the video presentation given in late August, above. Neuralink is a transcranial implant that uses direct current stimulation. For now, the device is aimed at helping people with brain or spinal injuries.
Ultimately, the goal is to merge the human brain with computers. I have strong reservations about this. There’s tremendous room for unintended psychological and psychiatric consequences. In an interview that I did with psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin that has not yet been published, he discussed his concerns with this technology, saying:
What’s interesting to me is that while Musk is so brilliant, he’s stupid about the brain. That’s probably because the neurosurgeons and psychiatrists he consults are stupid about the brain. I mean they’re just stupid.
He wants to put in multiple threadlike electrodes into the brain, into webs of neurons, and put in low voltage stimulation. This is insane. The brain can’t tolerate this. He hopes to [be able to] communicate but there’s not going to be any communication.
The brain isn’t going to talk to these electrodes. That’s not how the brain works. The brain talks to itself. It’s not going to talk to Elon Musk [or anyone else] and he’s going to disrupt the brain talking to itself. It’s a terrible thing to do.
I wish somebody who knows Elon Musk would say, ‘You ought to talk to Peter Breggin. He says your consultants are stupid.’ He’s already planning to try to get FDA approval for some neurological disorders and that’ll be the beginning of the onslaught.
Is Transhumanism Inevitable?
Getting back to the mRNA vaccines, time will tell just how hazardous they end up being. Clearly, if the changes end up being permanent, the chance of long-term side effects is much greater than if they end up being temporary.
In a worst-case scenario, whatever changes occur could even be generational. The problem is these issues won’t be readily apparent any time soon. In my view, this vaccine could easily turn into a global catastrophe the likes of which we’ve never experienced before.
We really should not be quick to dismiss the idea that these vaccines may cause permanent genetic changes, because we now have proof that even conventional vaccines have the ability to do that, and they don’t involve the insertion of synthetic RNA.
Fast-Tracked Swine Flu Vaccine Caused Genetic Alterations
After the H1N1 swine flu of 2009, the ASO3-adjuvanted swine flu vaccine Pandemrix (a fast-tracked vaccine used in Europe but not in the U.S. during 2009-2010) was causally linked9 to childhood narcolepsy, which abruptly skyrocketed in several countries.10 11
Children and teens in Finland,12 the U.K.13 and Sweden14 were among the hardest hit. Further analyses discerned a rise in narcolepsy among adults who received the vaccine as well, although the link wasn’t as obvious as that in children and adolescents.15
A 2019 study16 reported finding a “novel association between Pandemrix-associated narcolepsy and the non-coding RNA gene GDNF-AS1”—a gene thought to regulate the production of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor or GDNF, a protein that plays an important role in neuronal survival.
They also confirmed a strong association between vaccine-induced narcolepsy and a certain haplotype, suggesting “variation in genes related to immunity and neuronal survival may interact to increase the susceptibility to Pandemrix-induced narcolepsy in certain individuals.”
In addition to that, there’s the research17 showing that the H1N1 swine flu vaccine was one of five inactivated vaccines that increased overall mortality, especially among girls. A swine flu article I wrote 11 years ago, in 2009, turned out to have a rather prophetic warning at the end:
The swine flu vaccine has not been tested for safety or efficacy, but we DO know it will contain harmful additives. The choice, to me, is obvious. And in the future, anytime a new ‘pandemic’ appears and officials urge you to rush out and get a shot, please remember this article and ask yourself if it’s really you who stands to benefit from their advice.
The Swine Flu Fraud of 1976
We can also learn from the swine flu fiasco of 1976, detailed in this 1979 60 Minutes episode. Fearing a repeat of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, “the government propaganda machine cranked into action,” 60 Minutes says, telling all Americans to get vaccinated.
According to 60 Minutes, 46 million Americans were vaccinated against the swine flu at that time. Over the next few years, thousands of Americans filed vaccine damage claims with the federal government.18 As reported by Smithsonian Magazine in 2017:19
In the spring of 1976, it looked like that year’s flu was the real thing. Spoiler alert: it wasn’t, and rushed response led to a medical debacle that hasn’t gone away.
“Some of the American public’s hesitance to embrace vaccines—the flu vaccine in particular—can be attributed to the long-lasting effects of a failed 1976 campaign to mass-vaccinate the public against a strain of the swine flu virus,’ writes Rebecca Kreston for Discover.
This government-led campaign was widely viewed as a debacle and put an irreparable dent in future public health initiative, as well as negatively influenced the public’s perception of both the flu and the flu shot in this country.
A 1981 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office to Sen. John Durkin, D-N.H., reads, in part:20
Before the swine flu program there were comparatively few vaccine-related claims made against the Government. Since 1963, Public Health Service records showed that only 27 non-swine flu claims were filed.
However, as of December 31, 1979, we found that 3,839 claims and 988 lawsuits had been filed against the Government alleging injury, death, or other damage resulting from the 45 million swine flu immunizations given under the program.
A Justice official told us that as of October 2, 1980, 3,965 claims and 1,384 lawsuits had been filed. Of the 3,965 claims filed, the Justice official said 316 claims had been settled for about $12.3 million …
The devastating side effects of the Pandemrix vaccine should be instructive. No one anticipated a flu vaccine to have genetic consequences, yet it did. Now they’re proposing injecting mRNA to make every single cell in your body produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
It seems outright foolish not to assume there will be significant consequences.
This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. It was originally published on Dr. Mercola’s website at www.mercola.com.
1 Forbes October 1, 2018.
2 Horizon Magazine April 1, 2020.
3 The Vaccine Reaction May 25, 2020.
4 Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2018; 17: 261-279.
5 Science Direct Neutralizing Antibody.
6 Science Direct Binding Antibody.
7 RSC Advances 2015; 37.
8 See Footnote 1.
9 Eurosurveillance June 30, 2011; 16(26).
10 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control September 20, 2012.
11 CIDRAP January 30, 2013.
12 PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33536.
13 BMJ 2013;346:f794.
14 See Footnote 9.
15 See Footnote 11.
16 EBioMedicine. 2019 Feb; 40: 595–604.
17 Science News DK December 27, 2019.
18 GAO.gov, Report to US Senator Durkin, January 14, 1981 (PDF).
19 Smithsonian Magazine February 6, 2017.
20 See Footnote 18.