CRISPR, Germline Editing and Market-Based Eugenics (S2, E8)

Not As Crazy As You Think Podcast published on March 31, 2021.

I want to share with you the following story because of my love of science, and also because I humbly respect human life in all its struggle and diversity.

First off, there is natural science, and there is applied science. Science is really a way of life. It’s knowledge gained through objective proof. It begins with a curiosity to explain the natural processes of life, from the materials around us to every molecule that makes up the universe, through observation and study. Applied Science is taking the principles of science and scientific knowledge and using it to create something new, that is hopefully beneficial to humans, as many medicines and technology products are. The drug industry is entirely an applied science, as well as genetic engineering.

My psychiatric bipolar label from the DSM bible is supported by the scientific idea that I am a defective gene. Rejecting this philosophy has been my lifelong fight as I continually hear the tone behind the geneticists who wants to eliminate people from the future with beautiful brains like me. Yes, the creative neuro-divergent brain. Unlike theirs and proud of it.

I had followed the news on the applied science of CRISPR for years, since it affects me personally. And it pained me to see that the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded last October to two women for their role in co-discovering CRISPR gene-editing technology– American biochemist Jennifer Doudna, who is professor of biochemistry, biophysics and Structural Biology at University of California, Berkeley, and French microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier, director of the Berlin-based Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens.

With the shared Prize money of a little more than $1.1 million, and a renewed worldwide gusto behind science as the hero out of this age of corona, and all the money in the world to support this transhuman vision of the future, there is no going back. While my bipolar kind and the schizophrenic mystics are doomed. Thanks to these fine ladies, as well as the many scientists who propped them up, the Eugenics genie is out of the bottle for scientists in sterile labs everywhere in the world to rewrite the code of life based on their view of the superior human being, and all by trial and error, and with the wild card of prediction-lack. “Let’s imagine it, invest in it, do it, then invent all the imaginative reasons how we took the moral high ground.” Puh-lease.

On October 7, 2020, Scientific American published the article entitled, “Nobel Prize in Chemistry Goes to Discovery of ‘Genetic Scissors’ Called CRISPR/Cas9.”Author Josh Fischman reports that while Emmanuelle Charpentier discovered the previously unknown molecule in bacteria that helped fight off viruses, at about the same time, Jennifer Doudna was mapping the cas proteins, a series of enzymes associated with CRISPR that snip apart DNA. After meeting at a conference in Puerto Rico, the two scientists began collaborating in 2011, and in 2012 they discovered the potential of CRISPR–Cas9, when they succeeded in making these genetic scissors in a laboratory, and in reprogramming them to cut DNA at whatever spot they selected.

So what is CRISPR?

CRISPR is short for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. It’s actually a natural mechanism within the bacterial immune system used to kill invading viruses by cleaving viral DNA and shredding its genetic material. CRISPR gene-editing technology specifically targets, cuts and replaces an “abnormal” gene, then introduces a “working” version of a defective gene into the DNA of an individual. It acts like scissors or a scalpel and uses the DNA-snipping precision to make any alteration, addition, or deletion. During this auto-repair process, scientists supply the desired sequence of genetic codes, which replaces the original sequence. The entire process is programmable.

In 2016, the journal Science named CRISPR its Breakthrough of the Year, and Time magazine announced Jennifer Doudna as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. In February 2018, the first edition of The CRISPR Journal was published eagerly promoting what they describe as the “extraordinary technology that gives scientists the power to cure disease and sculpt evolution.” CRISPR DIY genetic engineering kits aimed at students were popping up and by Christmas 2018, CRISPR was being spoon-fed to the masses on the 6 o’clock news as the very best way for humans to eliminate disease from our future. By 2019, news headlines were screaming: “Could CRISPR Gene Editing Help Cure Mental Illness?”

The thrust to fix defective genes to cure mental illness has been in high momentum since the Human Genome Project was completed in 2003. Billions of dollars of both government and  private funds were poured into the project to learn about our genome, only to have them now two decades later, slice it all up.

I had visions of this technology before it was even discovered. On the inside of the mental hospital in 2006, I saw the future. I saw geneticists slicing and dicing human genetic material, while aiming to annihilate the bipolars. So was I crazy? Of course not. Everyone else was just ignorant. But I still couldn’t imagine how we could possibly get there because the CRISPR explosion hadn’t yet happened. But now, everything is beautifully positioned for this nightmare bio-hacked universe to unfold. It is as I saw. And you have no idea what we are in for.

 Many even have the audacity to argue that it’s immoral for scientists not to use this technology to alleviate human suffering from brutal disease. Puh-lease. They don’t know the first thing about morality. Because they don’t care about it. It’s another line of their bullshit because the entire field is well aware of their business investments; which I’ll get to shortly. For those listeners who are investors thinking about putting their money behind companies focused on gene editing applications?

Understanding the moral dilemma is first and foremost. First off, there are 2 kinds of Human Genome Editing: Somatic and Germline, and most participants in this debate draw a distinct line between the two. Human somatic genome editing refers to all body cells, except reproductive cells. Germline genome editing refers to human reproductive cells and early-stage human embryos. The main distinction is that germline edits can be passed down to future generations, which is pretty huge since it messes with natural evolution.  You’re not just affecting those embryos, but rewriting the code of all their future descendants. And thus, you’re editing the entire future human race based only on the scientists’ best judgments and predictions. And yet, they are willing to be the modern-day gods to take on such a bold task.

Let me tell you a little bit more about this troublemaking CRISPR technology and all its controversial history…

According to an article in Nature published on April 29th 2015 researchers in China had used CRISPR/Cas9 in human embryos to alter a gene and published their work in Protein & Cell on April 18th.

The NIH (or The US National Institutes of Health), is a public supporter of biomedical research, and on April 29th, director Francis Collins, the man who is Anthony Fauci’s boss,  reiterated their ban on editing human embryo DNA and spelled out the agency’s long-standing policy against funding such research and the ethical and legal reasons for it.

2015 was also the year that CRISPR was the focus of an epic patent battle, but that didn’t stop the pharmaceutical and biotech companies from fully supporting CRISPR’s goals. In fact,

in a recent article in The Washington Post on March 12 2021, entitled “The Fierce Scientific Rivalry Over A Powerful Gene-Editing Technology,” Jennifer and Emmanuelle were not the only scientists acknowledged for their work with CRISPR. Another scientist was granted a patent for using the tool to edit human cells.

Although Doudna had won patents for her work, a team led by Feng Zhang at the Broad Institute—a private Harvard-MIT partnership genetics research institute—edited human cells first, which are far more lucrative, and which Zhang won the patent for—a decision that a furious Doudna challenged in court; which was still being resolved during the Corona outbreak in 2020, but the labs switched their focus to virus research so it was put aside for a time.

But even back in 2017, in a TIME magazine article published on JANUARY 9th, entitled “How Gene Editing Could Ruin Human Evolution,” author Jim Kozubek shares that philanthropist Ted Stanley gave The Broad Institute $650 million to investigate psychiatric disorders. The institute also boasts a robust patent portfolio of CRISPR systems, with a strong financial incentive to bring to market. Its director Eric Lander has referred to “a revolution in psychiatric disease” and NIH director Francis Collins said psychiatric genomics stands “poised for rapid advances.”

Numerous studies over the years have shown that thousands of genetic variants contribute to psychiatric risk, with some variants only increasing risk by a fraction of a percentage point. But CRISPR technology is being destined for use to alter code that merely suggests of risk.

However, through the lens of evolution, genetic variants that predispose us to risk are precisely the same ones that turn out to have small fitness advantages, and if they remain in the population in low frequencies and at stable rates, they contribute to genetic diversity.

Through the lens of natural selection through neutral evolution, there are no superior genes.

Marcy Darnovsky, director of the Center for Genetics and Society, describes the emerging landscape as “market-based eugenics.” Basically, who can we most profit from by getting rid of first? That’s the new disease. And that’s basically how the DSM—or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—works with Big Pharma. They develop the drugs first, and then find a new disorder that can be “treated” by the drug.

I’ve been living under their Eugenics program my entire adult life as a targeted bipolar gene under the racket of American psychiatry, and when I felt the natural urge to have a child in 2005, a band of psychiatrists discouraged me from motherhood with the same pressing tone that if they should allow me to pass on my bipolar gene to the next generation, they were violating the Hippocratic Oath. They tried to convince me that I didn’t deserve to be a mother, that if my horrendous genes were to show themselves one day in my offspring, they can only do harm and no good. In their science my existence on this Earth was determined by one gene on a DNA strand devoid of inherent value. Thank God, I rebelled, and took the “risk” of having a son—who is beautiful and healthy and a wondrous blessing in my life. And why shouldn’t I have been granted that as every other normal person has? Who else will be talked out of their right to reproduce in the future? Or pressed into experimental procedures that don’t have any concern if the technique might damage the fetus.

            So, it is extremely important to now have this conversation with all the current glamour and pomp associated with this technology since the Nobel Prize was distributed to two women of science, finally. Which feels so awesome for the women’s movement right? Not when they are willing to sacrifice women’s wombs of the future through embryonic genetic engineering.

So this is a conversation in the area of “applied science” NOT natural science—that needs to be had NOW. Especially with all the latest hype following Walter Isaacson’s new book entitled: The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race.

Isaacson was interviewed about his book by Corinne Cardina, which aired on Fool Live on March 10, 2021, and it was also published on The Motley Fool website.

Referring to the morality of germline editing, Isaacson states:

“We now have the power to design our children and all of our descendants not to have certain traits, or maybe to enhance certain traits like height or hair color or IQ, whatever you may do in the future. That becomes ethically questionable to some people. Certainly, we’d want to do it in order to fight off dreaded diseases like Huntington’s or cystic fibrosis or sickle cell, but should the rich be allowed to buy better genes for their kids to make them taller and make them smarter or give them greater muscle mass? Not something we could do right now, but in the next few decades, that’ll be possible. Will we want to edit out some of the diversity of our species? … If we start editing our children, are we going to lose some of our diversity? Are we going to lose this notion that we’re all created equal? These are the things that Jennifer Doudna, after she makes this discovery, she has a nightmare that somebody wants to learn about it, in which he goes into the room to meet the person, in her nightmare, it’s Adolf Hitler.”

I’m glad Hitler’s presence is following Jen in dreamland too. Because he often hangs back in my mind as well, especially when in my journey to be a mom, his words from Mein Kampf clamored daily in my own mind:  “He who is not healthy bodily or mentally is not allowed to perpetuate his malady in the body of his child. The right of personal freedom recedes before his duty to preserve the race.”

The biggest concern to everybody should be how EASY-peasy it is to do….

Isaacson states:

“In the book, I describe going to Jennifer Doudna’s lab in Berkeley, and within two days, with just two graduate students helping me, I was able to edit human genes. Now, don’t worry, we took them after I’d edited the cells, and we mixed it with chlorine and killed them and flushed them down the drain. I didn’t unleash them on the world, but it’s going to be something that in the next couple of decades will become easy enough for any graduate student to do, and eventually, people will be able to do it like they create webcasts in their own house. So we have to learn what the rules should be.”

            These rules are often spoken about as if it’s a sports game and in order to agree upon winning, each team has to play by the rules. But what are the results of cheating and doing the wrong thing? Even sports games penalize players when they cross the line.

Describes Isaacson:

“Jennifer Doudna was pursuing CRISPR out of curiosity. What are these weird little repeated sequences? How do they help bacteria fight off viruses? But as soon as she discovered the essential components of the CRISPR system and could engineer them to cut DNA at any spot she decided to target, she realized there’s an important application here; gene editing.”

An important application? For who? The master race?

Isaacson also comments on the communities to be affected by inheritable edits,

“I think that we have to understand what is a disability, what do we call disabilities, and whether some things that we might say are disabilities are actually society not accepting people who have different abilities to be part of society.”

            Yeah that’s basically how the DSM works.

So Jen’s big thing is her process of inquiry is curiosity-driven. I get it. That’s what led my research my whole life. Curious, I thought. What leads them to believe that my genes are inferior and the geneticists’ genes are superior? Why would they think such a thing?

Over the years I combed through literature from the early 20th century when Eugenics was making a big splash right here in America, and now, the past trash of yesteryear has finally caught up to the present as it marches forward into the ominous future.

The practice of Eugenics became an acceptable goal for our society, as promoters of the Eugenics movement in both America and Great Britain called for policies issued by the government that limited reproduction in the “undesirable population” (Bowler 1).

Eugenics took a lead in medical and welfare policies, immigrant control and eugenic sterilization for mental defectives and social misfits (Weindling 644). Advocated by scientists, physicians, and lawmakers, Eugenics would soon become a public health strategy so that conditions like psychiatric illness, feeblemindedness, and physical disabilities would be eliminated from our future.

Genetics soon became the science to technologically pave the way for Eugenics, as it provided “scientific” evidence that undesirable human traits were inherited, and prediction was possible.

The Nazis tried it and failed. But I guess it’s time to forget about the past and make a fresh start with the same philosophy that wiped out millions. I guess we haven’t learned anything from our mistakes.

Doudna admitted as far back as 2016 that in time, this technology will be used to edit human embryos in an article published on February 14th on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), (entitled, “Jennifer Doudna Answers Questions on CRISPR, Gene Editing’s Future).”

According to writer Becky Ham, earlier in January of 2015, Jennifer Doudna had gathered a group of scientists in Napa, California to discuss how to move forward cautiously with CRISPR human genome editing, which led to an international gene-editing summit, convening at the end of 2015 in December with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Its participants released a statement concluding that it would be “irresponsible” for researchers to move forward with clinical human germline editing until its risks and benefits were better known, and there was “broad societal consensus” on its use.

And who are traditionally among the first humans assigned for experimentation? Naturally the mentally ill.  And a mental patient, and I know this for a fact, cannot refuse treatment if the psychiatrist says it’s needed.

Well maybe I have a few more good years. As Jennifer said: “We don’t know yet, what changes do you make, if you want to affect addiction or schizophrenia? These are all potentially multigenic disorders that have a lot of genetic components. I think it’ll be quite a while before we can sort that out.”

She describes her biggest fear: “waking up one morning and reading about the first CRISPR baby, and having that create a public backlash where people ban or regulators shut this down, and I think that could be very detrimental to the progress of the field.”

And so, Jennifer was also a visionary, for only 2 years later, CRISPR baby girl twins were born, which produced the Scandal heard around the scientific world.

Published on November 30, 2018, an article in the journal Science, shares that a few weeks prior, Chinese researcher He Jianku from Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, revealed the birth of gene-edited twin girls at the International Summit On Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong. In an attempt to make them genetically resistant to HIV, Jianku was the first to use CRISPR to human embryos destined for life. The world was shocked and condemned the act. NIH’s Francis Collins immediately called the action: “an epic scientific misadventure” that “flouted international ethical norms” with “utterly unconvincing” justifications.

On December 30 2019, Jiankui was sentenced to three years in prison, but just after his rogue stunt, the rest of the world needed to respond. 2019 seemed to be the year to take care of that task. Because many of the top scientists seemed to grow in consensus that there needs to be a halt of such research. NIH’s Francis Collins wrote an article in Discover published on December 29, 2019 to review the year in genetic engineering, with the title: “We Must Never Allow Our Technology to Eclipse Our Humanity.”

Collins explained that the world has an obligation to use such technology for appropriate use, which would involve thoroughly analyzing if there is “medical need” as he admits: “the current arguments—that the benefits outweigh the risks—are surprisingly uncompelling”

In March 2019 with the support from NIH, leading scientists from seven countries—led by Eric Lander president and founding director of the Broad Institute, and including CRISPR’s Emmanuelle Charpentier and Feng Zhang–called for a five-year international moratorium on the use of germline gene editing. (Collins 2019). It seemed clear that leading scientists agreed: let’s not do this right now.

Scientific American announced the conference in their article: Scientists Call for a Moratorium on Editing Inherited Genes on March 13, 2019. Said Eric Lander, clearer lines have to be drawn, agreeing that calling for a temporary moratorium is a first step. Scientists want a global governance process overseeing such research involving germline editing that could be passed to future generations.

But Marcy Darnovsky, who heads an advocacy organization called the Center for Genetics and Society, says germ-line editing is “not safe, it’s not needed and it’s way too dangerous from a social point of view,” and favors a permanent prohibition.

And I agree. Because my visions are coming true. And it is coming upon us fast. And it’s ugly.

And Jennifer Doudna wants rules for the human GMO game she’s created before her nightmare in having her labs shut down comes true. She agrees there should be standards to ensure the edits are accurate, parents are properly informed of the risks and benefits, and gene-edited children will be monitored so scientists can learn from their experiences. Whoever violates the rules, she says, should be deprived of research funding, and be penalized by closing their academic labs and denying them the ability to publish any findings in a scholarly journal. Kind of like a timeout for mad scientists.


What was discussed? And is this an existential threat in our lifetimes? You betcha.

So, the WHO assembled the first Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing and the conference was held on March 18th and 19th in 2019.

A background paper was commissioned by the World Health Organization from Dr Giulia Cavaliere from the  Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, King’s College London, in London, U.K. The paper is titled “The Ethics of Human Genome Editing

Firstly, Jianku’s unsafe intervention was strongly condemned. But the paper presents both sides of the issue. Overall, concerns were brought up on safety, the need for a thorough ethical review process, proper informed consent signed by the prospective parents; and the consideration of  a proportionate harm/benefit ratio. The paper ranges from some scientists exclaiming that we have a moral imperative to sacrifice our free will and hand it over to the geneticists’ imaginations to create the race of the post-human future,  to those who point out the many slippery slope concerns:

First, that allowing basic gene-editing research in human embryos may lead to future clinical research regarded as ethically troubling. And also, that allowing basic clinical research with genome editing on human somatic cells may lead to research on the germline.

Another main concern was moving from ‘therapeutic’ to ‘enhancing’ uses of genome editing….

The large question was:

Is there a Need for Germline Genome Editing considering the risks involved and the availability of other technologies? This is a matter of wide debate.

            Those in favour of using CRISPR to edit harmful mutations in embryos responsible for monogenic disorders such as sickle cell disease, argue that the medical need is so compelling that proceeding with this use of genome editing is a moral imperative and would ‘lighten the burden of human existence.”

This is the God complex at its best. Allow them to play with and do anything they wish and they will save the world from its sorrows. These are the same people that simplify the human being down to roughly 20,000 genes, and all the bipolar personality traits into a couple of letters that can be knocked out and snipped with genetic scissors.

The paper explains that every year, there are several hundred cases worldwide which exist where germline genome editing would be the only option to create unaffected embryos.

This is not an insignificant number for those in favor of pursuing germline genome editing. But those who oppose it, counter that it would only benefit a very limited number of couples, and thus question the need for such gene editing.

But if this is medical research aren’t concerns of safety and uncertain outcome big factors?

Currently, several major limitations of genome editing technologies are known, including: inaccurate both on-target and off-target editing.

With the possible long-lasting effects on future generations, how safe is safe enough before they move forward? Because they’re raring to go.

The conference concluded with the decision that it would currently be irresponsible to make heritable edits to the genome in humans, and that germline genome editing in the future should be employed only to edit harmful mutations or for wider scopes. Further, according to Nature writer Heidi Ledford, the decision was that  “we must achieve broad societal consensus before making any decisions.” That was the same terminology used back in December 2015 at the international gene-editing summit when Collins had first called out for a moratorium.

The truth is, some scientists focus more on gaining speedy regulatory approval rather than waiting around for societal consensus. And how do they gain such a thing if the public isn’t presented openly with this information? And even if the majority of us are against such a move, we cannot stop them. Ultimately, their undemocratic system will allow them to continue to do as they wish because they want to have fun with science play toys and dabble with the devil with no limits whatsoever.

One month after the WHO advisory committee met, world scientists continued to organize, and on April 24, 2019, according to an article published later that year on November 6th, on the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy website, a group of over 60 individuals—scientists, bioethicists, and biotechnology executives across industry and academia called for a binding global moratorium on human clinical germline experimentation in a letter to US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.

            The smartest people in the world on this subject know the science in reality is nowhere ready. So at least their conversation has begun, but it may be too late, as geneticists everywhere in the world want to use their CRISPR play-tools in their D-I-Y kits, and they are getting ancy.

Nature writer Heidi Ledford in a JUNE 19th 2019 article entitled: “CRISPR Babies: When Will The World Be Ready?” asks the question: With off-target edits, how many mistakes are too many?

They are already realizing that “off target” cuts could result in health problems: a change to a gene that suppresses tumor growth, for instance, might lead to cancer.

But human experimentation has always been psychiatry’s approach. They went from lobotomy to neuroleptics to electroshock to more fine-tined anti-psychotics, without ever involving consent of the public nor the individual patient. And the same anti-depressants that were supposed to help with suicide, actually stimulated more suicidal thinking. People died from their aggressive experimentation and off-estimations. Medical management, which is often not by patient consent, for psych meds requires continual tweeking and takes months to even years to get a sense of some stability. It is all done by trial and error, and without major regard for the discomfort of the patient as long as they stay on their meds so they can collect data. And countless lives have been ruined by psych meds.

In the case of genetic engineering, they need to do their best to know what the results will be because they are permanent. They should be dead-on precise since there’s no going back.

A bigger problem than off-target effects, explains Ledford, might be DNA changes that are on-target but unwanted. After Cas9 or a similar enzyme cuts DNA, it is up to the cell to heal the wound. But the cell’s repair processes are unpredictable.

And then there’s mosaicism when too many cells remain uncorrected which results in a mix of mutated cells with edited cells, a mosaic of tinkering of which the results are completely up for grabs.

What we know is that only a few years after Jianku disabled a gene called CCR5 in his gene-edited twins, a study was published in June 2019 using data from the UK Biobank, that the deletion might also shorten lifespan.

But these scientific men and women would defend human experimentation with flippancy declaring they are saving the generations of the future by discounting the generations of today. Guidelines still needed to be in place.

             On August 12, 2019, Scientific American published the article: “Scientists Call for Do-Over for Rules on Creating “CRISPR Babies””: which shares that an international group was organized—the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing—by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and the U.K. Royal Society—to discuss less ambiguous guidelines for human embryo editing.

In Francis Collins’ 2019 Discover article I aforementioned , even though research groups in gene-editing therapeutics issued a statement that germline editing is currently inappropriate for use in human clinical studies, at the World Health Organization’s August meeting, the widely called-for moratorium was “sidestepped” as Frances Collins described it, and only a global registry was established to track all kinds of human gene-editing research instead (Collins 2019).

They are cursing this emerging gene-edited generation to lives of being tracked from birth to death for the purpose of monitoring transgenerational effects, to ultimately, further future genetic engineering. Talk about taking away free will. Meanwhile, in the field, they are still going at it, albeit without US government funded money.

In Nature, Heidi Ledford follows up on the subject on JUNE 25th 2020 with an article: CRISPR Gene Editing In Human Embryos Wreaks Chromosomal Mayhem, with the subtitle: Three studies showing large DNA deletions and reshuffling heighten safety concerns about heritable genome editing.

Said Fyodor Urnov, who studies genome editing at the University of California, Berkeley, “If human embryo editing for reproductive purposes or germline editing were space flight, the new data are the equivalent of having the rocket explode at the launch pad before take-off.”

Developmental biologist Kathy Niakan of the Francis Crick Institute in London used CRISPR–Cas9 to research 18 genome-edited embryos; she found that about 22% contained unwanted changes including DNA rearrangements and large deletions of several thousand DNA letters. And in stem-cell biologist Dieter Egli’s research from Columbia University in New York City, half of the embryos tested lost large segments of the chromosome. (Ledford)

CRISPR technology is not proven for success because only in time passing will we see the results of elaborate genetic tinkering. This technology is only useful when working with monogenic diseases—when there is a well-known single gene that causes the disorder, such as Huntington’s or sickle cell, diseases of the blood or immune system, for which they have eager volunteers.

On the Morning Edition podcast on NPR is a story shared on December 15, 2020: “1st Patients To Get CRISPR Gene-Editing Treatment Continue To Thrive.”

Victoria Gray is the first person in the United States to be treated for her genetic disorder of Sickle Cell disease by CRISPR. Since her milestone treatment on July 2, 2019, she continues to improve.

Analyses of samples of bone marrow cells from Gray showed the gene-edited cells had persisted a full year after treatment — a promising indication, the researchers concluded, that the approach has permanently altered her DNA and could last a lifetime.

With this success, researchers have become increasingly confident that the approach is safe not only for diseases like sickle cell and thalassemia but others like heart disease and AIDS, and can even be used for treating cancer, restoring vision, and who knows what else?

“This gives us great confidence that this can be a one-time therapy that can be a cure for life,” says Samarth Kulkarni, the CEO of CRISPR Therapeutics. I guess it’s time to invest.

In an interview with Motley Fool, Doudna claims after watching Victoria Grey’s progress for only a few months, was “cured” by CRISPR genome editing. What a miracle! And with such prediction certainty, it’s a guaranteed return on investment.

And as for germline editing, it’s only just begun, even if a little earlier than expected based on safety and morality. Still, aside from an international academic outcry, not much is stopping people from doing germline editing and implantation on their own. What of independent researchers who don’t need federal grants? Who can police them?

Josiah Zayner, for instance, a self-pronounced biohacker who is CEO of The ODIN, a company that teaches people how to do genetic engineering in their homes, states in an article on on Jan 2, 2020 entitled: CRISPR Babies Scientist He Jianku Should Not Be Villainized—Or Headed To Prison:

“The requirements of embryo injection are minimal: a microinjector, micropipette, and microscope… All of these can be purchased on eBay and assembled for a few thousand dollars. Or if you have $43,500, just buy this “IVF ready” setup on eBay.

“If companies like Synthego won’t sell you the Cas9 protein, you can easily purify it and make your own guide RNA for a few hundred dollars. … CNY Fertility sells donor embryos for $1,000 each, and that doesn’t even include bulk pricing.

“You can probably have the embryo transferred to a human by a medical doctor in the U.S. if you don’t tell him or her what you’ve done, or you can do it in another country.”

The emerging underground rape and slave trades of the future will be ghastly.  

And only a couple months later, we have a worldwide pandemic. Talk about an unpredictable shift of focus! These biohackers have not vanished, especially now that the Nobel Prize put CRISPR’s future in the limelight.

This freedom to do whatever they damn well want is NOT their God-given right. Especially when they don’t believe in one. I’d love to have the freedom to play with my brushes and paints all day everyday and get paid a hefty sum for it, but instead I’ve been forcibly drugged by their kind my whole adult life and thrown into mental institutions against my will based on their stupid genetic philosophies, so they can collect data on people like me to continue to defend the things they unethically do. It comes down to a belief system. To remain on this planet as a human being alongside this new emerging race, we need to remember that environment is an equal part of this equation, if not, far superior, to that of genetic sequences as an influencer because it also incorporates free will.

You may have the “diabetic” gene but would it ever be triggered if you eat healthy and avoid foods like McDonalds your whole life? Who knows? Maybe that “defective” gene would then become an unaccounted for asset for your genomic sequence in some way, or protect you in an unpredictable way from unexpected environmental factors. This dogma of genetic determinism is an old Nazi favorite. A thought form that itself is a virus. Feeding on everything else with no life of its own. And the promise that we can use genetic modification to eliminate psychiatric disorders is ridiculous. And genetic determinism is not scientific. It’s religious. I’ve fought this insanity my whole life, and still to this day people doubt me. But I am NOT as crazy as you think. I don’t believe they can predict the future. Especially when I stand before them in the present day as a beautiful complex human being, and they will confidently look at me in the eye and only see a defective gene, and with century-old Eugenics data to back it up.

So the 2020 Nobel Prize came and went, and everyone is all in a thrill because two women won it. Well then I am going full-out transgender neutral on this one, because they still represent the wishes of the white man to me.

From the Associated Press on October 29, 2020, Marilynn Marchione writes the article, “Lab Tests Show Risks Of Using CRISPR Gene Editing On Embryos” only weeks after the Nobel Prize was announced. She reports that leading scientists say it’s too unsafe. Published in an article that week in the journal Cell, researchers from Columbia University led by once again, stem-cell biologist Dieter Egli, who continues to experiment of the germline, this time on 40 embryos with a gene mutation, a single letter missing in the DNA alphabet that causes blindness. They used CRISPR gene-editing technology at various stages of development, including fertilization. In more than half the cases, the editing caused unintended changes, “what we found,” said Dieter, “is that instead of the mutation being fixed, the chromosome carrying the mutation is gone.”

As the NIH continues to reiterate throughout this drama, federal funds cannot be used for research on human embryos, that didn’t stop these Columbia researchers who used private money from two foundations; and several of the scientists also had ties to gene therapy or analysis companies.

Meanwhile, as they take the “prudent path forward” instead of being deterred by a global moratorium, without any “broad societal consensus,” scientists decided to commercialize and found companies and investments were made. With this tremendous technology with no pressing need, they will need to create the problem so their technology can fix it.

Jennifer’s making the rounds to business news networks, including The Motley Fool, sharing with all the big investors her inside tips in what companies to invest in.

In an article in U.S. News & World Report published on Dec. 2, 2020 entitled, “Gene editing may be the future of medicine, but which stocks in the industry are worth buying?”, the news piece lists the Top Gene-Editing Companies to buy now, if you want to sell your soul. There’s Editas Medicine (EDIT)–Gene editing can be done in both in vivo and ex vivo. Editas Medicine does both, and they have 3 areas of focus: blood diseases, cancers and ocular diseases. There’s also Beam Therapeutics (BEAM). These guys focus on base editing, a technique, which changes the very chemical compounds that make up a strand of DNA. “If existing gene editing approaches are ‘scissors’ for the genome, our base editors are ‘pencils,’” they boast. Beam has a whopping 12 programs in various preclinical stages that have a lot of potential.

And of course our two girl-power rock stars are cashing in most of all! Crispr Therapeutics (CRSP), was founded by nobel prize winner Emmanuelle Charpentier, and Intellia Therapeutics (NTLA) was co-founded by Nobel Prize winner Jennifer Doudna, who incidentally, also co-founded Mammoth Biosciences and Caribou and Scribe Therapeutics. And she recently launched the Innovative Genomics Institute at Berkeley, all of which have slated research for an unending slew of therapies in the works, any of which could be incredibly profitable for their shareholders.

Well, Ms. Jennifer Doudna, this Jennifer doesn’t like your curious imagination.

The code breaker? Wow, yippee! Scissors! Let’s make everyone white!

Try breaking the code I had to break, which was how you and your kind created in detail within the same philosophy of psychiatry, an x,y matrix of behaviours that can be tagged as crazy and thus, genetically defective, with the very worst being bipolar or schizophrenic, so that you can have a free-for-all eugenics party erasing all the nutjobs from existence. So I hope you are having fun with your play toys, while I am sitting here on this side of the scissors.

And there’s one more thing… what if you’re wrong? Have you ever thought of that? Based on my life, your predictions of certainty are grossly flawed, and yet I’m one of the first diseases you want to fix.

And for all you VR-techno-loving, brain-interface futurists and unethical cyborg wannabes who want to support this agenda, Fuck you! I’m staying human.

My entire life I have been demanding to be seen by them as something other than an undesirable defective gene. We are not predetermined by our genetics. But their sciences do not work without their claim to prediction. And yet, they don’t believe in personal destinies. Their scientific discipline only permits them to see structural imperfections, gene-slicing mechanisms, and superior white genes.

See, they don’t want you to believe in something larger than yourself that bestows upon you free will. You have them for that. They have the only free will in our new world. Unless of course, as human beings, we demand otherwise.

The species wars have already begun, my friends. And we can thank the transhumanists for that. Which I’ll talk about on a future podcast….

If I need to be a leader in this rebellion, I can only do so with my words, so please join me again here on Wed nights at 6pm.

Works Cited:

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).  “Jennifer Doudna Answers Questions on CRISPR, Gene Editing’s Future).”, 14 February 2016.

American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy (ASGCT) Staff. “NIH’s Collins Calls for Germline Gene Editing Moratorium at Policy Summit.”, 6 Nov 2019.

Begley, Sharon. “Scientists Call for Do-Over for Rules on Creating “CRISPR Babies.” Scientific American, 12 August 2019.

Bowler, Peter J. “How the History of Genetics Charts the Rise and Fall of Eugenics.” The British Academy, 1 Aug 2019.

Cardina, Corrine.  “Walter Isaacson, Author of ‘The Code Breaker,’ On Dr. Jennifer Doudna and CRISPR Gene Editing.”., recorded 10 March 2021.

Cohen, Jon. “An ‘Epic Scientific Misadventure’: NIH Head Francis Collins Ponders Fallout from CRISPR Baby Study.”, 30 Nov 2018.

Collins, Francis. “NIH Director on Human Gene Editing: ‘We Must Never Allow Our Technology to Eclipse Our Humanity’.”, 29 Dec 2019.

Fischman, Josh. “Nobel Prize in Chemistry Goes to Discovery of ‘Genetic Scissors’ Called CRISPR/Cas9.” Scientific American, 7 Oct 2020.

Guedim, Zayan. “Could CRISPR Gene Editing Help Cure Mental Illness?” Edgy Labs, 21 Apr 2019.

Isaacson, Walter. The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race. Simon & Shuster, USA, 2021.

Kozubek, Jim. “How Gene Editing Could Ruin Human Evolution.”  TIME, 9 January 2017.

Ledford, Heidi. “CRISPR Babies: When Will The World Be Ready?” Nature 19 June 2019.

Ledford, Heidi. “CRISPR Gene Editing In Human Embryos Wreaks Chromosomal Mayhem.” Nature, 25 June 2020.

Kean, Sam. “The Fierce Scientific Rivalry Over A Powerful Gene-Editing Technology.”  The Washington Post, 12 March 2021.

Molteni, Megan. “A New Crispr Technique Could Fix Almost All Genetic Diseases.”, 21 Oct 2019.

Reardon, Sara, “NIH reiterates ban on editing human embryo DNA.” Nature, 29 April 2015.

Weintraub, Karen. “Scientists Call for a Moratorium on Editing Inherited Genes.”  Scientific American, 13 March 2019.

Cavaliere, Giuli. “The Ethics of Human Genome Editing.” Commissioned by WHO for Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing Conference. 18, 19 March 2019.

Stein, Rob. Morning Edition Podcast. “1st Patients To Get CRISPR Gene-Editing Treatment Continue To Thrive.” NPR public radio, 15 Dec 2020.

Marchione, Marilynn. “Lab Tests Show Risks Of Using CRISPR Gene Editing On Embryos.” The Associated Press. ABC News, 29 October 2020.

Reeth, Mark. “Gene Editing May Be The Future Of Medicine, But Which Stocks In the Industry Are Worth Buying?” U.S. News & World Report, 2 Dec 2020.

Weindling, Paul. “The Survival of Eugenics in 20th Century Germany.” American Journal of Human Genetics, 53, 1993, pp. 643-649.

Zayner, Josiah. “CRISPR Babies Scientist He Jianku Should Not Be Villainized—Or Headed To Prison.”, 2 Jan 2020.

Leave a Comment