Vatic Note: If your wondering why this is up, check out this link and see the connection. They are collecting our DNA for no reason that is rational, or even within their scope of caring. Its certainly not to protect us, given what we are learning about the tortured Iraqi's being groomed and used for acts of terror by our government intel agencies.
I brought that up years ago under Bush when we found out so many of them were innocent. Then, why are we torturing them? I asked if it was to build assassins for internal upheavel to prevent the population from unifying which would kick our butts. So why are they massively collecting DNA from our prisoners??
Read this aticle and maybe we can figure it out. Saves them from having to do it the hard way. They can just hardwire in what they need. I swear, you have to rent the movie "The Soldier" with Kurt Russell. Its exactly what they did with the second generation soldiers, after doing what we are doing with the first generation soldiers. It lays out for you what they have planned. They always tell us in movies, books etc. Its part of their satanic religion to tell their victims in advance what they plan.
Just listen to this scientist and see the seriousness and danger of this in the hands of the wrong people. Remember, he admits he is funded by private foundations and we already know many of those foundations are either controlled, funded or run by various nasty organizations like the Tavistock group, CIA, Mossad, etc. My question is how will they do this?
Through those vaccines they talked about that they made mandatory? If globalized under this new fascist system, we will literally have no say in any of it. This is truly getting out of hand and out of the realm of reality as we have known it. Watch his video and listen in light of what we already know and you will see it for yourself. I said a long time ago, they were coming after our DNA and now here it is.
BBC News - 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm
By Victoria Gill Science reporter, BBC News
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Provided to vatic by Gypsy, Australia
The synthetic cell looks identical to the 'wild type' Scientists in the US have succeeded in developing the first living cell to be controlled entirely by synthetic DNA.
The researchers constructed a bacterium's "genetic software" and transplanted it into a host cell. The resulting microbe then looked and behaved like the species "dictated" by the synthetic DNA.
The advance, published in Science, has been hailed as a scientific landmark, but critics say there are dangers posed by synthetic organisms.
Some also suggest that the potential benefits of the technology have been over-stated.
But the researchers hope eventually to design bacterial cells that will produce medicines and fuels and even absorb greenhouse gases.
The team was led by Dr Craig Venter of the J Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) in Maryland and California.
Craig Venter defends the synthetic living cell
BBC Media Player
BBC Media Player v.2.18.13034.142078696148 vp6 AK 3.5 (1) 512x288
(if this does not show as a video, please go to live link above to the article and play this video. It will show his total lack of understanding of what he is doing or his deflection while knowing what he is doing, we are not sure which, remember, those that fund these things control how its used, not the scientist who created it.)
He and his colleagues had previously made a synthetic bacterial genome, and transplanted the genome of one bacterium into another.
Now, the scientists have put both methods together, to create what they call a "synthetic cell", although only its genome is truly synthetic.
Dr Venter likened the advance to making new software for the cell.
The researchers copied an existing bacterial genome. They sequenced its genetic code and then used "synthesis machines" to chemically construct a copy.
How a synthetic cell was created
The scientists "decoded" the chromosome of an existing bacterial cell - using a computer to read each of the letters of genetic code.
They copied this code and chemically constructed a new synthetic chromosome, piecing together blocks of DNA.
The team inserted this chromosome into a bacterial cell which replicated itself. Synthetic bacteria might be used to make new fuels and drugs.
Dr Venter told BBC News: "We've now been able to take our synthetic chromosome and transplant it into a recipient cell - a different organism.
"As soon as this new software goes into the cell, the cell reads [it] and converts into the species specified in that genetic code."
The new bacteria replicated over a billion times, producing copies that contained and were controlled by the constructed, synthetic DNA.
"This is the first time any synthetic DNA has been in complete control of a cell," said Dr Venter. (VN: Oh, my Gawd, that is a scary thought since its within the cells that "consciousness" exists)
'New industrial revolution'
Dr Venter and his colleagues hope eventually to design and build new bacteria that will perform useful functions.
"I think they're going to potentially create a new industrial revolution," he said.
"If we can really get cells to do the production that we want, they could help wean us off oil and reverse some of the damage to the environment by capturing carbon dioxide."
WATTS WHAT...
Continue reading the main story Even some scientists worry we lack the means to weigh up the risks such novel organisms might represent, once set loose
Susan Watts BBC Newsnight Read Susan Watts's thoughts Analysis from around the world Send us your comments
Dr Venter and his colleagues are already collaborating with pharmaceutical and fuel companies ( VN: the two worst offenders owned by the international bankers who have killed more people and animals with their products and false flags (oil blow and tainted vaccines & drugs, than the combined wars we are in) to design and develop chromosomes for bacteria that would produce useful fuels and new vaccines.
But critics say that the potential benefits of synthetic organisms have been overstated.
Dr Helen Wallace from Genewatch UK, an organisation that monitors developments in genetic technologies, told BBC News that synthetic bacteria could be dangerous.
"If you release new organisms into the environment, you can do more harm than good," she said.
"By releasing them into areas of pollution, [with the aim of cleaning it up], you're actually releasing a new kind of pollution.
(VN: my emphasis in the bold of this comment he made below, we don't know how these organisms will behave in the human body either or on our DNA or our brain or our consciousness, especially in the hands of the satanists running our globe.)
"We don't know how these organisms will behave in the environment."
The risks are unparalleled, we need safety evaluation for this kind of radical research and protections from military or terrorist misuse
Julian Savulescu Oxford University ethics professor Profile: Craig Venter Q&A: The meaning of synthetic life Ethics concern over synthetic cell
Dr Wallace accused Dr Venter of playing down the potential drawbacks.
"He isn't God," she said, "he's actually being very human; trying to get money invested in his technology and avoid regulation that would restrict its use."
But Dr Venter said that he was "driving the discussions" about the regulations governing this relatively new scientific field and about the ethical implications of the work.
He said: "In 2003, when we made the first synthetic virus, it underwent an extensive ethical review that went all the way up to the level of the White House.
"And there have been extensive reviews including from the National Academy of Sciences, which has done a comprehensive report on this new field.
"We think these are important issues and we urge continued discussion that we want to take part in."
Ethical discussions
Dr Gos Micklem, a geneticist from the University of Cambridge, said that the advance was "undoubtedly a landmark" study.
But, he said, "there is already a wealth of simple, cheap, powerful and mature techniques for genetically engineering a range of organisms. Therefore, for the time being, this approach is unlikely to supplant existing methods for genetic engineering".
The ethical discussions surrounding the creation of synthetic or artificial life are set to continue.
Professor Julian Savulescu, from the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, said the potential of this science was "in the far future, but real and significant".
"But the risks are also unparalleled," he continued. "We need new standards of safety evaluation for this kind of radical research and protections from military or terrorist misuse and abuse.
"These could be used in the future to make the most powerful bioweapons imaginable. The challenge is to eat the fruit without the worm."
The advance did not pose a danger in the form of bio-terrorism, Dr Venter said.
"That was reviewed extensively in the US in a report from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and a Washington defence think tank, indicating that there were very small new dangers from this.
"Most people are in agreement that there is a slight increase in the potential for harm. But there's an exponential increase in the potential benefit to society," he told BBC's Newsnight.
"The flu vaccine you'll get next year could be developed by these processes," he added
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
No comments:
Post a Comment