Stanford University recently announced work on a “groundbreaking ‘superhero’ vaccine inspired by the DNA code of Olympic athletes.”1 Euan Ashley is a professor of medicine and genetics at Stanford University, and the genetic scientist behind this attempt to use science to adjust your DNA, with unknown short-term and long-term consequences.
Science has been manipulating plant DNA for decades, culminating recently in the development of fake meat. Bill Gates and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are pushing for all people in Western nations to swap traditional, whole foods for mass-produced fake food grown in a laboratory.
Sadly, this is not how your body is designed to thrive, yet it is being pushed as a green and sustainable alternative to animal food. The fake meat industry is well-established, which consulting firm Kearney predicts will reach $450 billion by 2040. At that time, it would represent up to 25% of the meat market.2
The COVID-19 vaccine is another example of manipulating genetic material with poorly researched outcomes. The mRNA vaccine being pushed throughout the world is designed to trick your body into making spike protein inside your cells using genetic coding.3
The spike protein covers the COVID-19 virus and does not mutate as rapidly as the virus. This is supposed to trigger an immune response in your body, so you recognize the virus when you are exposed. The vaccine was released under emergency use authorization, long before scientists established that the vaccine held greater danger than they had potentially anticipated.
As the number of people injured and disabled from the vaccine continues to mount, some researchers have discovered it is the spike protein — used by the vaccine to trigger your immune system — that is causing widespread endothelial damage linked to many of the long-haul symptoms4 and likely responsible for developing blood clots, stroke and organ damage.
As the growing number of deaths and destruction of human lives from the COVID vaccine are revealed, Stanford University announced5 yet another DNA-driven “vaccine” designed to rewrite your genetic code to prevent diseases, many of which are preventable through lifestyle choices.
Scientists Take Aim at a Genetic Frankenstein Vaccine
The Stanford team of scientists believe the vaccine may be available in the not-so-distant future. Ashley said that his vaccine would use genetic traits from people such as Olympic athletes as a blueprint to repair cells.
He believes the vaccine could potentially protect people from some of the leading causes of death, including heart disease, liver disease and Alzheimer’s disease. He hopes that clinical trials of individual components would begin as early as 2026 and combination vaccines would then be available within the next 15 years.6
In a communication with the Daily Mail,7 Ashley told the reporter that his idea came while studying specific populations of people who appear to be more resilient to certain types of diseases. His idea is to study the genetics of people who are resilient to disease in order to create therapies, including gene editing, to make others more resilient, saying:8
“At the moment, these “resilience” genes have been identified for heart disease, for Alzheimer’s disease, and for liver disease. But in the future we might discover people resistant to a whole host of human diseases.”
Study Finds describes the shot as a treatment that delivers an “instruction manual” to help the body “repair, tweak and improve” its own versions. A single dose could lead to a “bodywide genetic upgrade” that would cut the risk of premature death in some adults by as much as 50 percent.”9
Ashley believes the vaccine would first be administered to adults with serious clinical conditions before being released to the general population. While this genetic experiment has all the earmarks of Frankenstein medicine, Ashley takes it to the next step as he anticipates the “superhero” vaccine will also be given to children.
Ashley anticipates the timeline for release may be as early as 10 years if breakthroughs in technology continue at the same rapid pace. He is quoted in British online news media Wales Online, saying:10
“Genomic medicine has been promised for decades, but thanks to advances in the field we are now reaching the stage where that promise is set to become reality, ushering in a bold new era of medical treatments. We will soon have the genetic engineering tools to repair, tweak and improve DNA associated with a host of life-limiting diseases, to make us all less prone to developing these illnesses across our lifetimes.
This isn’t, of course, to say that we can make people live forever, and we can’t guarantee life expectancy will increase, but it is likely premature deaths could be avoided in many cases. Advances in DNA modification mean the number of people with ‘superhuman’ genes — those who are more disease resistant — is no longer science fiction but, in the coming years, absolute science fact.
Potentially millions of people could be impacted by this technology – a superhero jab, for want of a better description. This has the potential to greatly reduce the burden of diseases with a genetic component such as Alzheimer’s disease, liver disease, coronary heart disease and associated conditions such as strokes, and vascular dementia.
It is not only possible, but probable, that such a jab will become available in the next 10 to 15 years, with the benefits of that treatment becoming apparent within the next two to three decades. If we modelled on fatal heart attacks alone then the new treatment could lead to as much as a 50 per cent reduction in incidence.”
Most Disease Is Not Controlled by a Single Gene
Ashley believes a single shot can alter an individual’s DNA enough to prevent heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease or liver disease. Yet, what the Human Genome Project was able to show us was that the causes of these chronic diseases are complex and that there are few that are caused by a mutation of a single gene.11
Most chronic diseases are influenced by a combination of mutations, each of which have a small effect and are themselves influenced by environmental factors. The microbial DNA from your gut microbiome also plays a role.12 Experts estimate that gene therapy for rare single-gene diseases, such as Huntington’s disease, may succeed. However, these must be tailored to the individual condition and their genetic makeup.
There were advances that came from the Human Genome Project and it had an impact on nearly every area of biological research. However, these advances have not led to a dramatic improvement in treatments, only a more accurate understanding of single gene conditions.
The Human Genome Project has also transformed technology and analytical tools, helping to merge the expertise of computer scientists and mathematicians with biologists and geneticists.13 The approach increased data sharing and established the foundation of sharing data across specialties.
Work on a CRISPR edit for heart disease was announced in 2018 by researchers from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.14 Their idea was to edit a genetic mutation that might lower an individual’s risk of heart attack by altering their cholesterol levels, namely low-density lipoproteins.
William Lagor is a molecular biologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. He believes the approach is feasible from a technological standpoint. However, he recognizes there is a philosophical question of whether you treat an individual who has not yet acquired the disease.15
Karel Moons, clinical epidemiologist at the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands, has a grasp on how a shot that promises to alter your DNA may in fact alter your outlook on life. He is concerned that gene therapy would hinder a person’s effort to help themselves, increasing the risk that people turn over their responsibility for health and wellness even further. He warns:16
“Changing lifestyle may be much more effective for a population than focusing on high-cost interventions. It is the way the human mind works. Take a pill and we think we are protected.”
Was COVID the Turning Point for Genetic Vaccines?
Has the acceptance of genetic manipulation using mRNA COVID vaccines created a turning point for genetic vaccines to treat chronic illness and disease? Governments have used fear to control and manipulate their citizens, especially during COVID-19. Fear is a strong motivational force that may trigger people to make decisions they would ordinarily not consider.
Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior (SPI-B), a subcommittee that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) in the U.K., admit governments are using fear. And they should know. They advocated for it, and now say it was a regrettable mistake. As reported by The Telegraph, May 14, 2021:17
“Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behavior during the COVID pandemic have admitted its work was ‘unethical’ and ‘totalitarian.’ Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior (SPI-B) expressed regret about the tactics in a new book about the role of psychology in the Government’s COVID-19 response.
SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase ‘the perceived level of personal threat’ from COVID-19 because ‘a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened.’
Gavin Morgan, a psychologist on the team, said: ‘Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government. By nature I am an optimistic person, but all this has given me a more pessimistic view of people.’”
For nearly a year and a half, governments around the world, with few exceptions, have fed their citizens a steady diet of frightening news. Even when it became clear that people weren’t dying in excessive numbers, the mainstream media continued to publish updates on the growing number of “cases,” without ever putting the numerical figures into context or explaining that the vast majority were false positives.
To read more about how governments have been using fear, see “Fear Is Contagious and Used to Control You.” As you think about the decisions that have been made by vast numbers of people in the past 18 months, consider whether these decisions would have been logical if there weren’t an overwhelming atmosphere of fear over a virus that demonstrably has not lived up to the number of deaths predicted.
Has this fear, and the subsequent acceptance of genetic therapy experts insist on calling a “vaccine,” been the driving force behind large numbers of people who have taken the shot without question? What are the consequences of this decision in the coming years? Some experts believe there will be mass numbers of people who die prematurely from conditions triggered by the vaccine.
Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ Came to Her in a Nightmare
The concept behind “superhero” vaccine research is reminiscent of Frankenstein medicine. The story of “Frankenstein” was written by Mary Shelley after a particularly vivid nightmare during a dark and stormy night.18 Shelly was 18 when she wrote “Frankenstein,” which some believe is the “first major work in the science fiction genre.”19
The story has captured the imagination of generations of readers and one which medical schools have used as a framework for examining ethics, science and technology. Anesthesiologist Dr. Audrey Shafer writes in Stanford Medicine:20
“But, as the frontiers are pushed further and further, the unintended consequences of how science and technology are used could affect who we are as humans, the viability of our planet and how society evolves.”
No doubt, the push for discovery has revealed scientific secrets that have helped lengthen human life. But without moral and ethical oversight these discoveries cause great harm and suffering.
Shafer warns that caution is needed in fields that are fascinating, such as “genetic engineering, tissue engineering, transplantation, transfusion, artificial intelligence, robotics, bioelectronics, virtual reality, cryonics, synthetic biology and neural networks.”
Two hundred years have passed since Shelley penned “Frankenstein,” which has since become a ubiquitous figure and featured regularly as a symbol of the danger of tampering with nature. As Julian Koplin and John Massie point out in a paper written in The BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics,21 the scientist Victor Frankenstein wasn’t just arrogant, but he also failed to take responsibility for what he created.
Frankenstein’s obsession was achieving a breakthrough, but he did not consider the repercussions of what he brought to life. Shelley aptly described a scientific community bent on discovery while neglecting the moral obligations attached to that discovery. In their paper, Koplin and Massie discuss the unprecedented powers that scientists have recently gained to develop life and create chimeras. They wrote:
“These strands of research bear some resemblance to Frankenstein’s own. In each case, scientists are creating entirely new forms of life … And in some cases, scientists are confronting these questions in the absence of robust regulatory oversight; many of the novel entities described above do not fit neatly within existing regulatory frameworks.”
Health authorities used the recent outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 to create an environment of fear, which in turn has driven acceptance of genetic jabs without pharmaceutical liability and a growing evidence of human damage. You can read more in “COVID Vaccine Deaths and Injuries Are Secretly Buried.”
Scientists Want to Replace Healthy Decisions With a Shot
Approximately 655,000 people in the U.S. die each year from cardiovascular disease.22 In 2013, the CDC estimated that at least 200,000 of those deaths, or a about a third, were preventable by making changes in your health habits.23 By 2016, federal health officials bumped that statistic, saying 80% of all heart attacks and strokes could be prevented by making lifestyle changes.24
According to Ashley, the most they could hope for from a genetic therapy “superhero” shot is a 50% reduction in cardiovascular disease.25 In real numbers, if 655,000 people die each year from heart disease, then the shot may save 327,500 people who would then potentially be open to a host of side effects, diseases and premature death from the vaccine.
On the other hand, health authorities say that there could be 524,000 fewer deaths each year if people stop smoking, eat healthy, exercise and sleep well. But the benefits of making those changes do not stop with having fewer deaths from cardiovascular disease.
Those same lifestyle changes also reduce your risk of several other chronic illnesses, including obesity, Type 2 diabetes and some cancers. In other words, the benefits of one expensive shot do not outweigh the risks or the benefits of lifestyle changes that could improve millions of lives, reduce the risk of a host of chronic diseases and lower health care costs across the board.
Scientists are excited by new technology and the potential it may have to improve life. However, as Mary Shelley so aptly illustrated, science is about more than experiments, technology and pushing the boundaries. It must also be balanced by moral and ethical standards that hold human life precious and take care to consider the ramifications of discovery.