Global banking 1% these few decades defunded---dismantled one of the best in world history US sovereign network with a few centuries of solid prevention and response to DISEASE VECTORS-----and is now outsourcing all this to GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH ----who are the one's building far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic extreme wealth extreme poverty DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE----tied to TRANSHUMANIST DEPOPULATION of natural humans.
A STRONG, DEVELOPED, INDUSTRIAL, DEMOCRATIC NATION DOES NOT NEED A FOREIGN CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL CORPORATION.
'Wojcicki married Google co-founder Sergey Brin in May 2007
Wojcicki attended Yale University, where she was a competitive ice skater and played on the varsity women's ice hockey team. She graduated with a B.S. in biology in 1996'.
We are not going to discuss the STEM of INFERNO'S plot of global pandemics of PLAGUE but we do always remind -----REAL left social progressive academics did the research-----we KNOW these genetic manipulations would not work back in 1990s====we knew because BASIC RESEARCH told us. We knew back in 1990s humans would not survive MARS planetary mining colonies -----
We spent a few decades with BIOMARKER TECHNOLOGY earliest being PROSTATE/BREAST and as this article states there is no belief these biomarker assays work.
KNOW WHAT ELSE HAS ALREADY SHOWN TO BE MORE HARMFUL TO CITIZENS THEN HELPFUL------THIS SELLING OF 23 DNA AS A SOURCE OF DISEASE VECTOR DIAGNOSIS.
The cancer biomarker conundrum: Too many false discoveries
Aug 12, 2010 04:11 PM By Staff Reporter
The boom in cancer biomarker investments over the past 25 years has not translated into major clinical success. The reasons for biomarker failures include problems with study design and interpretation, as well as statistical deficiencies, according to an article published online August 12 in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
OH, REALLY JOURNAL OF NATION CANCER INSTITUTE-----THAT'S THE PROBLEM AND NOT BASIC SCIENCE TO SUPPORT THESE APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES?
The National Institutes of Health defines a biomarker as "a characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biologic processes, pathogenic processes, or pharmacologic responses to a therapeutic intervention." In the past decade, there have been numerous biomarker discoveries, but most initially promising biomarkers have not been validated for clinical use.
To understand why so-called biomarker "breakthroughs" have not made it to the clinic, Eleftherios P. Diamandis, M.D., Ph.D., professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto and associate scientist at the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute of Mount Sinai Hospital reviewed some biomarkers initially hailed as breakthroughs and their subsequent failings.
Diamandis first describes the requirements for biomarkers to be approved for clinical use: A biomarker must be released into circulation in easily detectable amounts by a small asymptomatic tumor or its micro-environment; and it should preferably be specific for the tissue of origin. Also, if the biomarker is affected by a non-cancer disease, its utility for cancer detection may be compromised. For example, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) biomarker, which is used to detect prostate cancer, is also elevated in benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Diamandis looks at seven biomarkers that have emerged in the past 25 years, all of which were considered promising when they were first described. These include nuclear magnetic resonance of serum for cancer diagnosis; lysophosphatidic acid for ovarian cancer; four- and six-parameter diagnostic panels for ovarian cancer; osteopontin for ovarian cancer; early prostate cancer antigen-2 (EPCA-2) for prostate cancer detection; proteomic profiling of serum by mass spectrometry for ovarian cancer diagnosis; and peptidomic patterns for cancer diagnosis. Problems ranged from inappropriate statistical analysis to biases in case patient and control subject selection. For example, the problems with EPCA-2 included reporting values that were beyond the detection limit of the assay and using inappropriate reagents to test EPCA-2, such as solid surfaces coated with undiluted serum.
Diamandis concludes that "problems with pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical study design could lead to the generation of data that could be highly misleading."
Now, this is the important STEM issue in all this DNA DISEASE VECTOR identification/treatment industry--------the term BASIC SCIENCE having been the platform of modern medicine and other technology industries for A THOUSAND YEARS ------has been dismantled. Global banking 1% in making our US universities PRODUCT PATENT MILLS has killed BASIC SCIENCE because it let's us know that all these products are NOT GOING TO WORK.
All scientific research conducted at medical schools and teaching hospitals ultimately aims to improve health and ability. Basic science research—often called fundamental or bench research--provides the foundation of knowledge for the applied science that follows. This type of research encompasses familiar scientific disciplines such as biochemistry, microbiology, physiology, and pharmacology, and their interplay, and involves laboratory studies with cell cultures, animal studies or physiological experiments. Basic science also increasingly extends to behavioral and social sciences as well, which have no less profound relevance for medicine and health'.
Basic vs. Applied Research
Berkeley National Laboratory)
Basic (aka fundamental or pure) research is driven by a scientist's curiosity or interest in a scientific question. The main motivation is to expand man's knowledge, not to create or invent something. There is no obvious commercial value to the discoveries that result from basic research.
For example, basic science investigations probe for answers to questions such as:
How did the universe begin?
What are protons, neutrons, and electrons composed of?
How do slime molds reproduce?
What is the specific genetic code of the fruit fly?
Most scientists believe that a basic, fundamental understanding of all branches of science is needed in order for progress to take place. In other words, basic research lays down the foundation for the applied science that follows. If basic work is done first, then applied spin-offs often eventually result from this research. As Dr. George Smoot of LBNL says, "People cannot foresee the future well enough to predict what's going to develop from basic research. If we
only did applied research, we would still be making be
Applied research is designed to solve
practical problems of the modern world, rather than to acquire knowledge for knowledge's sake. One might say that the goal of the applied scientist is to improve the human condition.
For example, applied researchers may investigate ways to:
improve agricultural crop production
treat or cure a specific disease
improve the energy efficiency of homes, offices, or modes of transportation
Some scientists feel that the time has come for a shift in emphasis away from purely basic research and toward applied science. This trend, they feel, is necessitated by the problems resulting from
global overpopulation, pollution, and the overuse of the
earth's natural resources.
There are fundamental STEM conditions ---we call this GOD'S NATURAL LAWS-----which tell scientists that millions of years of HUMAN EVOLUTION cannot be circumvented -----and if circumvented is highly likely to cause HAVOC in the human body system-----
CAUSE AND EFFECT-----
So, REAL left social progressives fight the FDA in allowing these PHARMA and MEDICAL PROCEDURES be mainstreamed into general population because we KNOW they do not meet the DO NO HARM credence of MODERN CIVIL SOCIETY MEDICINE.
We must have the BASIC RESEARCH showing these medical investigations are even POSSIBLE before we unleash trillions of dollars of APPLIED PRODUCTS.
F.D.A. Will Allow 23andMe to Sell Genetic Tests for Disease Risk to Consumers
By Gina Kolata
- April 6, 2017
The move on Thursday is a turnaround for the agency, which had imposed a moratorium in 2013 on disease tests sold by the company, 23andMe, which is based in Mountain View, Calif. The decision is expected to open the floodgates for more direct-to-consumer tests for disease risks, drawing a road map for other companies to do the same thing.
23andMe will now be reporting telltale markers for 10 diseases. Most, like factor XI deficiency, a blood clotting disorder, and Gaucher disease type 1, an organ and tissue illness, and celiac disease are rare. Anyone who buys the $199 Ancestry and Health test from the company will automatically learn if they have mutations increasing their risk for those diseases.
WOW! WHAT A WAY TO BUILD A GLOBAL GENETIC DNA DATA BASE ALL WITH FAKE SERVICES.
Risk genes for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s are treated separately. Customers will have to specifically say that they want that information. The company’s website offers links to genetic counselors for those who are weighing whether to be tested. If they want those results they will be included at no extra charge, though patients have to pay for the counseling separately.
Until now, the only way for people to get such genetic tests was to see a medical professional who would order a test and later deliver the results to patients. Often, patients were required to see a genetic counselor before getting a test.
The process for customers is simple. A customer spits into a tube and then mails it to 23andMe. The company’s lab extracts DNA from the saliva cells and tests it with probes that find genetic markers using a special chip for genotyping. In about six to eight weeks the company sends the customer an email saying the results are in. By logging onto an online account, the customer can see the report and its interpretation. It will include not just the genes for disease risk, but also reports of ancestry and results on things like how much the person is likely to weigh and whether alcohol will elicit flushing of the face, shoulders and neck, or even the entire body.
This is not the first foray by 23andMe into direct-to-consumer disease risk testing; several years ago it marketed tests to consumers claiming it could provide genetic information for a variety of diseases from a simple saliva sample. But when the F.D.A. shut that endeavor down in 2013, it told the company it had to prove that its tests were accurate, and that customers understood their results. The F.D.A. established on Thursday what it called “special controls” to permit the company to sell the tests, and future ones, if it met those requirements. The company did that and Tara Goodin, a spokeswoman for the F.D.A., said the agency now intends to issue a new exemption allowing other companies to market similar tests under the same conditions.
While some applaud the F.D.A.’s move, saying people do not always need the intervention of medical professionals and genetic counselors to learn their risk for certain diseases, others worry that it sets a dangerous precedent.
People often need genetic counseling before deciding they want to know if they are at risk for Parkinson’s disease, said James Beck, chief scientific officer of the Parkinson’s Foundation.
“Once you get the test and read the results, there is no going back,” Dr. Beck said.
But Dr. Robert Green, a genetics professor at Harvard Medical School, said that most people who want to get such information on their own are able to handle it just fine. He has studied tests for Alzheimer’s risk in rigorous studies, asking if patients who simply got their results, without counseling, understood what they were doing and were able to handle the information. The vast majority were, he said.
“I do not want to be cavalier,” Dr. Green added. “In some cases people did not realize what they were saying yes to and others did not realize the psychological impact it would have on them. There is some potential for distress, but it is much, much smaller than was anticipated.”
The test’s results do not by any means guarantee that a person will get the disease. Instead, they mean the disease is only more likely.
With Alzheimer’s, for example, the test looks for a gene variant called ApoE4. Those with one copy of that gene have a threefold increased risk of Alzheimer’s. Those with two ApoE4 genes have a 15-fold increased risk. The actual risk depends on age, but even having two copies of ApoE4 does not foreordain the disease, Dr. Green emphasized.
For Parkinson’s disease, the company looks for two mutations, LRRK2 and GBA, each of which increases risk. The LRRK2 increases it by 25 percent and GBA increases it fourfold. But if a person of Ashkenazi Jewish background inherits LRRK2, the risk increases to eightfold.
But those risks must be put in perspective said Dr. Beck of the Parkinson’s Foundation. Parkinson’s disease is rare — about one million Americans, out of about 330 million — have it.
The new test approval comes just two years after 23andMe got approval for a different kind of testing that determines whether people carry certain gene mutations for diseases. In 2015, the F.D.A. allowed the company to tell customers if they had a copy of a mutated gene for a disease like cystic fibrosis that would not affect them — you need two copies of such mutated genes to get the disease — but could affect their future children. If a person with one copy of a cystic fibrosis gene, for example, has children with a partner who also has one copy of the mutated gene, each child has one chance in four of inheriting a mutated gene fromeach parent. If that happens, the child would get the disease.
But the new approval takes the testing a giant step forward.
“The difference between then and now is that we now have authorization to tell you about your personal risk,” said Anne Wojcicki, chief executive at 23andMe.
23andMe has been providing the same genetic tests the F.D.A. just authorized to customers in Britain and Canada, which have more lenient regulations, since 2014. The company says it has followed more than 20,000 customers in Britain who got their genetic risk results. “There were no untoward incidents,” Ms. Wojcicki said.
But nothing is easy in this new world of direct to consumer genetics, noted Dr. Gail P. Jarvik, head of the division of medical genetics at the University of Washington, in an email.
“If people know what they are purchasing and understand the results, then I support such tests,” she said. “It is in the execution that my concerns lie and I will be following that. We have seen patients who did not understand tests they purchased from this company in the past. Hopefully, this information will be delivered in a way that has value to the person purchasing the service and does not cause unneeded medical visits. Many of these tests indicate risk of getting disease, not the certainty of getting it.
And that, she said, “can be a challenging concept to communicate.”
The Western nations have for centuries had some of the most talented research scientists ----our modern medicine became the BEST IN WORLD HISTORY because of our strict morals and ethics in SCIENTIFIC METHOD----DO NO HARM.
Our US Federal agencies tied to DISEASE PREVENTION ----as CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL worked wonders in eliminating deadly disease vectors---not only in developed nations but globally as well. THAT was real PUBLIC INTEREST PUBLIC HEALTH. Here in US all that PUBLIC HEALTH infrastructure was defunded and dismantled---just as our US public schools. The US today does not have the capacity to fight what might be an epidemic/pandemic-----what we will be told is this:
The US is a third world nation without the capacity to protect its 99% of citizens from global pandemic-----the US therefor needs a global WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION -----with its global military complex to do what our US Federal, state, and local public health agencies have done through modern history.
Our History - Our Story
Laboratory at 291 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia, 1945.
Aimee Wilcox & Laboratory Director, Dr. Seward Miller.
On July 1, 1946 the Communicable Disease Center (CDC) opened its doors and occupied one floor of a small building in Atlanta. Its primary mission was simple yet highly challenging: prevent malaria from spreading across the nation. Armed with a budget of only $10 million and fewer than 400 employees, the agency’s early challenges included obtaining enough trucks, sprayers, and shovels necessary to wage war on mosquitoes.
As the organization took root deep in the South, once known as the heart of the malaria zone, CDC Founder Dr. Joseph Mountin continued to advocate for public health issues and to push for CDC to extend its responsibilities to other communicable diseases. He was a visionary public health leader with high hopes for this small and, at that time, relatively insignificant branch of the Public Health Service. In 1947, CDC made a token payment of $10 to Emory University for 15 acres of land on Clifton Road in Atlanta that now serves as CDC headquarters. The new institution expanded its focus to include all communicable diseases and to provide practical help to state health departments when requested.
Although medical epidemiologists were scarce in those early years, disease surveillance became the cornerstone of CDC’s mission of service to the states and over time changed the practice of public health. There have been many significant accomplishments since CDC’s humble beginnings. The following highlights some of CDC’s important achievements for improving public health worldwide.
Today, CDC is one of the major operating components of the Department of Health and Human Services and is recognized as the nation’s premiere health promotion, prevention, and preparedness agency.
Here we have the reason why today in US we would have the same GLOBAL MILITARY COMPLEX coming into our US communities tied to WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION instead of our 99% WE THE PEOPLE as public health and community employees-----BUSH era enfolded our strong US CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL into HOMELAND SECURITY------HOMELAND SECURITY is controlled by far-right wing, global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY OF MALTA------not AMERICAN.
'Homeland Security law leaves HHS in control of bioterrorism ...
Homeland Security law leaves HHS in control of bioterrorism preparedness ... now administered by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease ... The CDC this year awarded roughly $1 billion in grants to state and local health ...'
Tying our sovereign US CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL to HOMELAND SECURITY bring the US to a colonial status regarding its FREEDOM, LIBERTY, JUSTICE AND POWER TO LEGISLATE -----how our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE will handle VITAL DISASTER protocol.
So, we have a FAR-RIGHT WING pre-Christian NERO/CATO/SENECA OLD WORLD KINGS taking the US to colonial status being handed our STRONGEST in world history FEDERAL CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL knowing these global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS have thousands of years of using BIOLOGICAL WARFARE while SACKING AND LOOTING CIVIL SOCIETIES.
All of these public policies are being installed at our LOCAL city/county council MAYOR -----our state ASSEMBLIES Governor level-----none of this can MOVE FORWARD without those global banking 5% freemason/Greek players black, white, and brown players because GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS have no POWER inside the US without these players.
WHAT WILL GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH DO IN MOVING FORWARD CIVIL UNREST CIVIL WAR INSIDE US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES?
Well, THAT is BASIC SCIENCE ------history repeating itself.
History of biological warfare
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Various types of biological warfare (BW) have been practiced repeatedly throughout history. This has included the use of biological agents (microbes and plants) as well as the biotoxins, including venoms, derived from them.
Before the 20th century, the use of biological agents took three major forms:
- Deliberate contamination of food and water with poisonous or contagious material
- Use of microbes, biological toxins, animals, or plants (living or dead) in a weapon system
- Use of biologically inoculated fabrics and persons
- Bacterial agents: Anthrax, Brucella, Tularemia, etc.
- Viral agents: Smallpox, Viral hemorrhagic fevers, etc.
- Toxins: Botulinum, Ricin, etc.
The earliest documented incident of the intention to use biological weapons is recorded in Hittite texts of 1500–1200 BC, in which victims of tularemia were driven into enemy lands, causing an epidemic. Although the Assyrians knew of ergot, a parasitic fungus of rye which produces ergotism when ingested, there is no evidence that they poisoned enemy wells with the fungus, as has been claimed.
According to Homer's epic poems about the legendary Trojan War, the Iliad and the Odyssey, spears and arrows were tipped with poison. During the First Sacred War in Greece, in about 590 BC, Athens and the Amphictionic League poisoned the water supply of the besieged town of Kirrha (near Delphi) with the toxic plant hellebore. During the 4th century BC Scythian archers tipped their arrow tips with snake venom, human blood, and animal feces to cause wounds to become infected.
In a naval battle against King Eumenes of Pergamon in 184 BC, Hannibal of Carthage had clay pots filled with venomous snakes and instructed his sailors to throw them onto the decks of enemy ships. The Roman commander Manius Aquillius poisoned the wells of besieged enemy cities in about 130 BC. In about AD 198, the Parthian city of Hatra (near Mosul, Iraq) repulsed the Roman army led by Septimius Severus by hurling clay pots filled with live scorpions at them.
There are numerous other instances of the use of plant toxins, venoms, and other poisonous substances to create biological weapons in antiquity.
The Mongol Empire established commercial and political connections between the Eastern and Western areas of the world, through the most mobile army ever seen. The armies, composed of the most rapidly moving travelers who had ever moved between the steppes of East Asia (where bubonic plague was and remains endemic among small rodents), managed to keep the chain of infection without a break until they reached, and infected, peoples and rodents who had never encountered it. The ensuing Black Death may have killed up to 25 million in China and roughly a third of the population of Europe and in the next decades, changing the course of Asian and European history.
During the Middle Ages, victims of the bubonic plague were used for biological attacks, often by flinging fomites such as infected corpses and excrement over castle walls using catapults. In 1346, during the siege of Kafa (now Feodossia, Crimea) the attacking Tartar Forces which were subjugated by the Mongol empire under Genghis Khan, used the bodies of Mongol warriors of the Golden Horde who had died of plague, as weapons. An outbreak of plague followed and the defending forces retreated, followed by the conquest of the city by the Mongols. It has been speculated that this operation may have been responsible for the advent of the Black Death in Europe. At the time, the attackers thought that the stench was enough to kill them, though it was the disease that was deadly.
At the siege of Thun-l'Évêque in 1340, during the Hundred Years' War, the attackers catapulted decomposing animals into the besieged area.
In 1422, during the siege of Karlstein Castle in Bohemia, Hussite attackers used catapults to throw dead (but not plague-infected) bodies and 2000 carriage-loads of dung over the walls.
English Longbowmen usually did not draw their arrows from a quiver; rather, they stuck their arrows into the ground in front of them. This allowed them to nock the arrows faster and the dirt and soil was likely to stick to the arrowheads, thus making the wounds much more likely to become infected.
We identified remote controlled contraception microchips implanted and releasing PHARMA as what is likely the MODEL for DAN BROWN'S INFERNO ---------global PLAGUE VIRUS creating STERILITY in all the Earth's humans. We KNOW the science for treatment by genetically modified DNA sequence fighting public health disease vectors has not been developed. What we also KNOW is --------using GENETIC DELETIONS to create VIRAL VECTORS------is more likely to create global human harm-----collapse then it will help in disease prevention.
When a disease vector VIRUS is released into a population aimed at GENETIC DELETION----it can and will create HUMAN EPIDEMICS/PANDEMICS simply because it is easier to FOUL a system than to repair a system.
This is why our 99% WE THE PEOPLE do not have to sit around in FEAR of a coming BIOLOGICAL WARFARE attack by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH------these genetic manipulations and viral vectors have yet to be made functional in a way that could be used for epidemic/pandemic
One of the first barriers that viral vectors have to bypass in the human organism is the immune response'.
Hmmmmmm, global banking 1% has really been attacking our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE immune system these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
What are Viral Vectors?
- Download PDF Copy
By Tomislav Meštrović, MD, PhD
Regardless of their origin and family, viruses have evolved elegant strategies to reach and enter specific target cells where they seize the cellular machinery to express viral genes and assemble progeny particles. In the same way, viral vectors represent the most effective means of gene transfer to modify specific cell type or tissue, and can be manipulated to express therapeutic genes.
Viral vectors are usually derived from parental wild type viruses whose viral genes (essential for replication and virulence) have been replaced with the heterologous genes intended for cell manipulation. They can be used as in vitro tools for biomolecular and gene functional studies, but also to accomplish more demanding tasks such as treat genetic disorders, fight cancer, drive tissue regeneration and monitor cell function.
In vitro and clinical use of viral vectors is based on RNA and DNA viruses that differ in their genomic structures and host range. Specific viruses have been picked as gene delivery vehicles according to their capacity to carry foreign genes, as well as their ability to conveniently deliver genes that are linked to efficient gene expression.
Key properties of viral vectors
Each viral vector system is characterized by an inherent set of properties that affect its suitability for gene therapy or other specific applications. To generate a vector, coding genes and so-called cis-acting regulatory sequences must be separated into distinct nucleic acid molecules in order to prevent their reconstitution and formation of productive viral particles.
Like all replication-incompetent vectors and viruses, viral particles can only be constructed if missing functions are superseded. This can be in a form of a helper virus, but a single helper plasmid encoding for a full-length defective helper virus genome can also be utilized.
Selection of the best-suited vector is pivotal and requires focused in-depth knowledge of the delivery systems and their performances. There is no one-fits-all multipurpose viral vector appropriate for all demands; rather, each of the vectors has its own advantages, limitations and range of applications.
Five classes of viral vector can be categorized in two principal groups, according to whether their genomes integrate into host cellular chromatin (lentiviruses and oncoretroviruses) or persist in the cell nucleus predominantly as extrachromosomal episomes (adenoviruses, adeno-associated viruses and herpes viruses).
Aforementioned distinction is an important determinant of the suitability of each vector for particular applications. In short, non-integrating vectors can facilitate persistent transgene expression in cells that do not proliferate, whereas integrating vectors represent a right choice if there is a need for stable genetic alteration in dividing cells.
One of the first barriers that viral vectors have to bypass in the human organism is the immune response. Problems that may arise with gene transfer vectors include acute toxicity from the introduction of foreign materials, cellular and humoral immune responses directed against the transduced cells and products, as well as the potential for insertional mutagenesis by certain integrating vectors.
Furthermore, human trials have thus far used vectors that integrate into a relatively small percentage of cells within a target tissue. As more efficient vectors will target more cells, there is a possibility of inadvertent transmission into stem cells that capable of clonal growth and self-renewal, which subsequently raises important safety and ethical issues.
In conclusion, there is still a tremendous amount of work to be done in viral vector research. Continuous identification of potential hurdles and maintenance of a strong focus to improve vector systems will improve the promise gene therapy holds in treating a myriad of different diseases.
Here we have global banking 1% desperate to keep those global 2% and 5% freemason/Greek players black, white, and brown continuing to MOVE FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% public policies. As we have shouted throughout last century-----when far-right wing installed REAGAN/CLINTON to fast-forward goals of ONE WORLD----we listened first to Clinton era massive employment leaving a 20% of US citizens as WINNERS-----then we listened to Bush era telling us there would be a 10% of US citizens as WINNERS----and Obama era of course telling us there would be a 5% of US citizens as WINNERS.
This same progression over these few decades of fast forwarding ONE WORLD hit nations globally. When we say those global banking 5% freemason/Greek players are LANGDON in INFERNO-----being hit from all sides with THE PROVOST MENDACIUM FAKE information----this is what we mean. We KNOW those 5% freemason/Greek players choosing to be EMPIRE ALICE WE DON'T CARE ---know all these policies are MOVING FORWARD-----they simply believe the continuing propaganda over HOW MANY WILL SURVIVE A MANUFACTURED DEPOPULATION.
So, we are seeing all kinds of articles telling us that global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS are going to allow several hundred thousand-----to one billion NATURAL HUMANS to survive depopulation. We also are very, very, very SURE that is FAKE NEWS/DATA.
Illuminati: One Billion is enough!
Nothing troubles the secret elite powers quite so much as the world’s growing population. Their goal is to reduce this number to a billion—and by any means possible: wars, famine, epidemics, disease and vaccines that make women infertile.
The Georgia Guidestones: a mysterious monument that was erected by an anonymous group of wealthy people encourages a drastic reduction in the world’s population.
On a hilltop in Elbert County in the US state of Georgia stands a huge granite monument built in March 1980. The identity of the architect is still unknown, for the well-dressed and eloquent man who entered the offices of the Elberton Granite Fishing Company in June the year before and announced his plan to erect a monument with a message to humanity gave a false name. R. C. Christian remains a phantom, as do the men who financed the construction of this “American Stonehenge”. Yet it is said that the monument is still an important ceremonial site for the occult secret society that aspires to world domination.
The four granite plaques surrounding the central columns are engraved with messages in eight languages, and call mankind to unity and respectful communion with Nature, in harmony with the Infinite. Critics, however, see in it the blueprint for a planned world dictatorship, which, for many people, could mean death. Hewn in stone, just as the Ten Commandments once were, these ten modern “guides” call for moderation in different aspects of life. The last point on the stone plaques admonishes: “Be not a cancer on the earth—Leave room for nature”! A request that good-willed and well-meaning people could hardly oppose. Yet what about the first and most important message on the Georgia Guidestones, which simply reads:
WOW! THE GLOBAL 1% CARE ABOUT NATURE!
Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature? Following this instruction would mean killing twelve out of thirteen people currently living on the planet.
Mankind—No More Than a Pox and a Commodity
After the fall of Communism, Mikhail Gorbatchev, the first and last President of the Soviet Union, dedicated himself to environmental protection and became the co-founder of Green Cross International. He also made a considerable contribution in formulating the so-called Earth Charter. According to Wikipedia, “The Earth Charter is an international declaration of fundamental values and principles considered useful by its supporters for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century. Created by a global consultation process, and endorsed by organisations representing millions of people,” the Charter’s “ethical vision proposes that environmental protection, human rights, equitable human development, and peace are interdependent and indivisible.” It is supposed to be ratified as a binding contract under supranational law by the international community.
Its guidelines are outlined in 16 articles, the seventh of which reads: “Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction [highlighted by editorial] that safeguard Earth’s regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.”
Gorbatchev himself does not mince matters: “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90 percent and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”
HMMM, BUT THE ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE IS BEING DONE BY FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES, GLOBAL CORPORATE FACTORIES AND CAMPUSES---NOT OUR 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
His vision of a sustainable world population of a good half a billion people matches the first of the Georgia Guidestones’ commandments exactly—strikingly so. Also following these lines is the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, an expert panel that advised US President Bill Clinton between 1993 and 1999. In answer to the earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, it concluded in 1996 that the world population should not exceed 500 million.
The multi-billionaire and former media czar Ted Turner—more on him later—expressed even more severe views that same year. In an interview given in 1996 to the magazine of the American conservation organisation The Audubon Society, Turner explained: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95 percent decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
THAT COMING FROM THE FOUNDER OF #1 TOP GUN FAKE NEWS NETWORK---CNN.
Dave Foreman from the Sierra Club (another US conservation organization) and co-founder of Earth First! once confessed: “I see no solution to our ruination of Earth except for a drastic reduction of the human population”. Another time he said: “We humans have become a disease—the human pox!” The militant whale protector Paul Watson (Sea Shepherd Conservation Society) is also one of those who demand a world population of under a billion people, because “We are killing planet Earth”.
Yet it’s not only the radical environmentalists who fear that the planet will soon be bursting at the seams, but also the intellectual elite. The Club of Rome, for example, has been warning against overpopulation for decades. The First Global Revolution, published in 1991 by this influential think-tank, contains the statement: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.1
Too many people: the global elite fear planetary collapse.
“But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention (…) The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Jacques Cousteau, the internationally respected oceanographer, explained to the UNESCO Courier in an interview in November 1991: “The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics—it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. The damage is directly linked to consumption. Our society is turning toward more and needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer.” He then added: “This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
WELL, WE DID SEE GLOBAL BANKING 1% MARKETING AND ADVERTISEMENT SOAR THESE FEW DECADES OF CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---ALL THAT GLOBAL BANKING 1% FAD CELEBRATING CONSUMPTION---MAYBE GETTING RID OF GLOBAL BANKING 1% AND GLOBAL CORPORATIONS WILL SLOW CONSUMPTION.
Paul Ehrlich, a professor at the renowned Stanford University, wrote in his book The Population Bomb: “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. (…) We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
These men are neither fantasists nor ignorant; they are pragmatists like former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, still a leading member of the Bilderberg Group and one of the eminences grise in American politics, who simply said: “The world population must be reduced by 50 percent.”
WE ARE PRETTY SURE KISSINGER'S CONTROL FOOD AND ENERGY WAS ABOUT POWER AND WEALTH---NOT SURVIVAL OF HUMANITY.
Convenient, then, that the UN Biodiversity Assessment on Sustainable Human Population should state, “All ecosystem management activities should consider human beings as biological resources”. In other words: human right to life is no longer inviolable, because one should cultivate mankind just like any other commodity. The document goes on to say that, “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American standard of living would be one billion people. This must be implemented within 30 to 50 years.”
When this was presented to the US Senate on 9 September 1994, it caused such a furore that it had to be withdrawn. Yet the ideas contained within it managed to escape the shredder.
The Ultra-Rich “Good Club”
An article appearing on 24 May 2009 in the British Sunday Times is also interesting in this respect. It reported that some of the richest people in America had secretly gathered together to discuss the issue of global overpopulation and what they could do about it. “The philanthropists who attended the summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder,” the newspaper informed its readers. “Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr., the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty [current total assets unknown], Warren Buffett [37 billion dollars] and George Soros [13 billion dollars], the financiers, Michael Bloomberg the mayor of New York [16 billion dollars], and the media moguls Ted Turner [2.3 billion dollars] and Oprah Winfrey [2.3 billion dollars].”
THESE BEOWULFS ARE NOT THE ULTRA-RICH FOR GOODNESS SAKE.
Together with Bill Gates, these people have donated over 45 billion dollars to charity since 1996. The informal meeting took place on 5 May 2009 in New York and was evidently so secret that some billionaires told their personal employees that they were taking part in “security briefings”. According to Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, there had never been such a top-class and simultaneously mysterious meeting. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk about good causes, but this is different—maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal.”
Apparently they mainly discussed projects in the Third World. “Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority,” commented the Sunday Times article. It goes on to quote another participant, according to whom the group believed that the problem of population growth had to be tackled as a “potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat”. “This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” explained the guest, who wished to remain anonymous. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.”
Why so independent, covert, faceless?
As the anonymous guest revealed, “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government.”
Current World Population7,676,386,998
We want to end with a public policy discussed often-----we all know these GLOBAL WEALTH POPULATION stats are FAKE DATA------what we know is indeed there are likely some tens of thousands of what we call GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS......these are the ancient banking families from 1000BC SILK/SPICE trading.
This stat makes our 99% WE THE PEOPLE think this is .00001% of global population when in fact it is not.
'Probably about 15,000 people globally inherit so much wealth they could never possibly spend it, and the wealth just grows inexorably. It's the 0.00001% that are the aristocracy of capitalism, and it's hard to put a price on what this economic category owns',
Then we have the stories about the 300 FAMILIES-----the 200 FAMILIES----the 100 FAMILIES ----often tied to global banking 1% FREEMASONRY/GREEK structures. Remember, before global banking 1% unleashed freemasonry/Greek open to our 99% of citizens these family numbers were very small. This is what we call those MEDIEVAL 'NOBLE' hanger-ons ---global 2% who will be going under the bus.
Below we see a FAKE DATA report telling us we only need $770,000 to be in the global 1%! OH, REALLY?????
BOY IS THAT FAKE NEWS. This is no doubt the 5% freemason/Greek players black, white, and brown. One must have TRILLIONS -----to HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS to fall inside this global 1% and global 2% window.
Ranking by Wealth
To reach the top 1% worldwide in terms of wealth – not just income but all you own – you’d have to possess $770,000 in net worth, which includes everything from the equity in your home to the value of your investments. That’s equal to roughly:
- 671,451 euros
- 56.3 million Indian rupees
- 5.3 million Chinese yuan
Here we have those OLD WORLD KNIGHTS OF MALTA----TRIBE OF JUDAH-----we again don't believe these stats----but those numbers are are said to be in the millions of people.
'- The order settled definitively in Rome in 1834 and since then it has concentrated on its original mission, mostly through its humanitarian aid arm, Maltaser International.
- Today the institution is a worldwide charity that counts 13,000 members, 80,000 volunteers and some 25,000 paid employees, most of them medical staff'.
Then we have those global banking 1% TRIBE OF JUDAH----10 LOST TRIBES OF ISRAEL-----we KNOW 10 TRIBES are going under the bus------that one of two TRIBE OF JUDAH better watch its back ----only ONE TRIBE is MOVING FORWARD to ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE blending all global banking 1% families.
1. The Israelites had a single kingdom during the reigns of Solomon and David, but the region was divided into Judah and Israel after the death of Solomon.
2. The southern region came to be called Judah which consisted of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah. The northern region was called Israel which comprised the remaining ten tribes.
3. Israel was a larger region than Judah. It was also more prosperous than the southern region of Judah.
4. Jerusalem, which was once the capital of Judah, is now the capital of Israel.
5. Samaria was the capital of the earlier kingdom of Israel.
6. In the original Greek text of the New Testament, one cannot see any differences in the names ‘Judah, Jude’ and ‘Judas.’
7. According to the Bible, Israel was the name conferred on the patriarch Jacob after he wrestled with an angel of God'.
We will end this week's discussion by simply reminding our US and global 99% WE THE PEOPLE----first, we don't believe these GLOBAL POPULATION figures because they come from LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING sources. Calculations getting figures like this------- .00001% need a REAL total -----we understand those dastardly global banking 5% freemason/Greek players DON'T CARE----loving to say THERE IS NO STOPPING THIS-----we still have a global 99% vs global 1%----LET'S JUST DO IT------LET'S STOP MOVING FORWARD.
The number of people actually PUSHING and intending to benefit from public policies like TRANSHUMANISM----MALTHEUS DEPOPULATION are EXTREMELY SMALL.
Past, Present, and Future(move and expand the bar at the bottom of the chart to navigate through time)
back to top ↑
DatetimeWorld PopulationJul 1, 200190,000,000
At the dawn of agriculture, about 8000 B.C., the population of the world was approximately 5 million. Over the 8,000-year period up to 1 A.D. it grew to 200 million (some estimate 300 million or even 600, suggesting how imprecise population estimates of early historical periods can be), with a growth rate of under 0.05% per year.
A tremendous change occurred with the industrial revolution: whereas it had taken all of human history until around 1800 for world population to reach one billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in 30 years (1960), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), and the fifth billion in only 13 years (1987).
- During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion.
- In 1970, there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now.
- Because of declining growth rates, it will now take over 200 years to double again.
Check out this simple wizard or this more elaborated one to find out.
Population in the world is currently (2018-2019) growing at a rate of around 1.07% per year (down from 1.09% in 2018, 1.12% in 2017 and 1.14% in 2016). The current average population increase is estimated at 82 million people per year.
Annual growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at around 2%. The rate of increase has nearly halved since then, and will continue to decline in the coming years. It is estimated to reach 1% by 2023, less than 0.5% by 2052, and 0.25% in 2076 (a yearly addition of 27 million people to a population of 10.7 billion). In 2100, it should be only 0.09%, or an addition of only 10 million people to a total population of 11.2 billion.
World population will therefore continue to grow in the 21st century, but at a much slower rate compared to the recent past. World population has doubled (100% increase) in 40 years from 1959 (3 billion) to 1999 (6 billion). It is now estimated that it will take another nearly 40 years to increase by another 50% to become 9 billion by 2037.
WE WOULD SUGGEST THIS-----IF, GLOBAL POPULATION WAS 6 BILLION IN 1999----AND AFTER WHAT WAS TREMENDOUS CONTINUOUS WARS, US FAILED STATES SOARING UNEMPLOYMENT ET AL THESE FEW DECADES HOW DID THE WORLD POPULATION MAKE IT TO 8 BILLION? CHINESE ONE CHILD----RAMPANT STARVATION-----WESTERN POPULATION GROWTH NEGATIVE FOR DECADES.
The latest world population projections indicate that world population will reach 10 billion persons in the year 2055 and 11 billion in the year 2088.
World Population Milestones
back to top ↑10 Billion (2055)The United Nations projects world population to reach 10 billion in the year 2056.
8 Billion (2023)World population is expected to reach 8 billion people in 2023 according to the United Nations (in 2026 according to the U.S. Census Bureau).
7.7 Billion (2019)The current world population is 7.7 billion as of January 2019  according to the most recent United Nations estimates elaborated by Worldometers. The term "World Population" refers to the human population (the total number of humans currently living) of the world.
7 Billion (2011)According to the United Nations, world population reached 7 Billion on October 31, 2011.
The US Census Bureau made a lower estimate, for which the 7 billion mark was only reached on March 12, 2012.6 Billion (1999) According to the United Nations, the 6 billion figure was reached on October 12, 1999 (celebrated as the Day of 6 Billion). According to the U.S. Census Bureau instead, the six billion milestone was reached on July 22, 1999, at about 3:49 AM GMT. Yet, according to the U.S. Census, the date and time of when 6 billion was reached will probably change because the already uncertain estimates are constantly being updated.Previous Milestones
- 5 Billion: 1987
- 4 Billion: 1974
- 3 Billion: 1960
- 2 Billion: 1930
- 1 Billion: 1804
How many people have ever lived on earth?
It was written during the 1970s that 75% of the people who had ever been born were alive at that moment. This was grossly false.Assuming that we start counting from about 50,000 B.C., the time when modern Homo sapiens appeared on the earth (and not from 700,000 B.C. when the ancestors of Homo sapiens appeared, or several million years ago when hominids were present), taking into account that all population data are a rough estimate, and assuming a constant growth rate applied to each period up to modern times, it has been estimated that a total of approximately 106 billion people have been born since the dawn of the human species, making the population currently alive roughly 6% of all people who have ever lived on planet Earth.
Others have estimated the number of human beings who have ever lived to be anywhere from 45 billion to 125 billion, with most estimates falling into the range of 90 to 110 billion humans.
World Population clock: sources and methodology
The world population counter displayed on Worldometers takes into consideration data from two major sources: the United Nations and the U.S. Census Bureau.
- The United Nations Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs every two years calculates, updates, and publishes estimates of total population in its World Population Prospects series. These population estimates and projections provide the standard and consistent set of population figures that are used throughout the United Nations system.
The World Population Prospect: the 2017 Revision provides the most recent data available (released on June 21, 2017). Estimates and projected world population and country specific populations are given from 1950 through 2100 and are released every two years. The latest revision has slightly increased the near term increases and adjusted some past data. The previous revision, in 2015, had already revised upwards the world population projections. Worldometers, as it is common practice, utilizes the medium fertility estimates.
Data underlying the population estimates are national and sub national census data and data on births, deaths, and migrants available from national sources and publications, as well as from questionnaires. For all countries, census and registration data are evaluated and, if necessary, adjusted for incompleteness by the Population Division as part of its preparations of the official United Nations population estimates and projections.
- The International Programs Center at the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division also develops estimates and projections based on analysis of available data (based on census, survey, and administrative information) on population, fertility, mortality, and migration for each country or area of the world. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, world population reached 7 billion on March 12, 2012.
For most countries adjustment of the data is necessary to correct for errors, omissions, and inconsistencies in the data. Finally, since most recent data for a single country is often at least two years old, the current world population figure is necessarily a projection of past data based on assumed trends. As new data become available, assumptions and data are reevaluated and past conclusions and current figures may be modified.
For information about how these estimates and projections are made by the U.S. Census Bureau, see the Population Estimates and Projections Methodology.
Why Worldometers clocks are the most accurate
The above world population clock is based on the latest estimates released on June 21, 2017 by the United Nations and will show the same number wherever you are in the world and whatever time you set on your PC. Worldometers is the only website to show live counters that are based on U.N. data and that do not follow the user's PC clock.
Visitors around the world visiting a PC clock based counter, see different numbers depending on where they are located, and in the past have seen other world population clocks - such as the one hosted on a United Nations website and on National Geographic - reaching 7 billion whenever their locally set PC clocks reached 4:21:10 AM on October 31, 2011.
Obviously, the UN data is based on estimates and can't be 100% accurate, so in all honesty nobody can possibly say with any degree of certainty on which day world population reached 7 billion (or any other exact number), let alone at what time. But once an estimate is made (based on the best data and analysis available), the world population clock should be showing the same number at any given time anywhere around the world.
This is the point of all these discussions on DAN BROWN novel INFERNO----with all that public policy we discussed this week. Those very small group of people we call THE REAL GLOBAL 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----those having trillions of dollars -------not those common BEOWULF types------the goals of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% with its depopulation is tied completely to the vision of returning to a ADAM AND EVE----GARDEN OF EDEN Earth creation to rebuild these MAN MADE GMO HUMANS -----getting rid of all of GOD'S NATURAL CREATION.
So, the numbers of people escaping MOVING FORWARD depopulation is NOT RELEVANT -----whether DAN BROWN'S VIRUS VECTOR formula of STERILIZATION of one third of population each generation is REAL----
THE GOALS OF TRANSHUMANISTS IS TO GET RID OF ALL 99% WE THE NATURAL HUMANS. THEY ARE OF COURSE WORKING WITH 1000BC CORRUPTED DNA----SHIP OF FOOLS SOCIOPATHS.
It's very important when creating a NEW CREATION MYTH-----to be authentic-----no NATURAL HUMAN players wanted.
Sep 24, 2018, 11:48am
The Ethics Of Transhumanism And The Cult Of Futurist Biotech
Julian Vigo Contributor
Social Media I cover the anthropological intersections of tech, politics & culture
Transhumanism (also abbreviated as H+) is a philosophical movement which advocates for technology not only enhancing human life, but to take over human life by merging human and machine. The idea is that in one future day, humans will be vastly more intelligent, healthy, and physically powerful. In fact, much of this movement is based upon the notion that death is not an option with a focus to improve the somatic body and make humans immortal.
Certainly, there are those in the movement who espouse the most extreme virtues of transhumanism such as replacing perfectly healthy body parts with artificial limbs. But medical ethicists raise this and other issues as the reason why transhumanism is so dangerous to humans when what is considered acceptable life-enhancement has virtually no checks and balances over who gets a say when we “go too far.” For instance, Kevin Warwick of Coventry University, a cybernetics expert, asked the Guardian, “What is wrong with replacing imperfect bits of your body with artificial parts that will allow you to perform better – or which might allow you to live longer?” while another doctor stated that he would have “no part” in such surgeries. There is, after all, a difference between placing a pacemaker or performing laser eye surgery on the body to prolong human life and lend a greater degree of quality to human life, and that of treating the human body as a tabula rasa upon which to rewrite what is, effectively, the natural course of human life.
A largely intellectual movement whose aim is to transform humanity through the development of a panoply of technologies which ostensibly enhance human intellect, physiology, and the very legal status of what being human means, transhumanism is a social project whose inspiration can be dated back to 19th century continental European philosophy and later through the writings of J. B. S. Haldane, a British scientist and Marxist, who in 1923 delivered a speech at the Heretics Society, an intellectual club at Cambridge University, entitled “Daedalus or, Science and the Future” which foretold the future of the end of of coal for power generation in Britain while proposing a network of windmills which would “be used for the electrolytic decomposition of water into oxygen and hydrogen” (they would generate hydrogen). According to many transhumanists, this is one of the founding projects of the movement. To read this one might think this was a precursor to the contemporary ecological movement.
The philosophical tenets, academic theories, and institutional practices of transhumanism are well-known. Max More, a British philosopher and leader of the extropian movement claims that transhumanism is the “continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values.” This very definition, however, is a paradox since the ethos of this movement is to promote life through that which is not life, even by removing pieces of life, to create something billed as meta-life. Indeed, it is clear that transhumanism banks on its own contradiction: that life is deficient as is, yet can be bettered by prolonging life even to the detriment of life.
Stefan Lorenz Sorgner is a German philosopher and bioethicist who has written widely on the ethical implications of transhumanism to include writings on cryonics and longevity of human life, all of which which go against most ecological principles given the amount of resources needed to keep a body in “suspended animation” post-death. At the heart of Sorgner’s writings, like those of Kyle Munkittrick, invoke an almost naïve rejection of death, noting that death is neither “natural” nor a part of human evolution. In fact, much of the writings on transhumanism take a radical approach to technology: anyone who dare question that cutting off healthy limbs to make make way for a super-Olympian sportsperson would be called a Luddite, anti-technology. But that is a false dichotomy since most critics of transhumanism are not against all technology, but question the ethics of any technology that interferes with the human rights of humans.
Take for instance the recent push by many on the ostensible Left who favor surrogacy as a step on the transhumanist ladder, with many publications on this subject, none so far which address the human rights of women who are not only part of this equation, but whose bodies are being used in the this faux-futurist vision of life without the mention of female bodies. Verso’s publication of a troubling piece by Sophie Lewis earlier this year, aptly titled “Gestators of All Genders Unite” speaks to the lack of ethics in a field that seems to be grasping at straws in removing the very mention of the bodies which reproduce and give birth to human life: females. In eliminating the specificity of the female body, Lewis attempts to stitch together a utopian future where “genders” are having children, even though the reality of reproduction across the Mammalia class demonstrates that sex, not gender, determines where life is gestated and birthed. What Lewis attempts in fictionalizing a world of dreamy hopefulness actually resembles more an episode of The Handmaid’s Tale where this writer has lost sense of any irony. Of course pregnancy is not about gender. It is uniquely about sex and the class of “gestators” are females under erasure by this dystopian movement anxious to pursue a vision of a world without women.
While many transhumanist ideals remain purely theoretical in scope, what is clear is that females are the class of humans who are being theorised out of social and political discourse. Indeed, much of the social philosophy surrounding transhumanist projects sets out to eliminate gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assisted reproductive technologies, ultimately inspired by Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex and much of Donna Haraway’s writing on cyborgs. From parthenogenesis to the creation of artificial wombs, this movement seeks to remove the specificity of not gender, but sex, through the elision of medical terminology and procedures which portend to advance a technological human-cyborg built on the ideals of a post-sex model.
The problem, however, is that women are quite aware that sex-based inequality has zilch to do with anything other than their somatic sex. And nothing transhumanist theories can propose will wash away the reality of the sexed human body upon which social stereotypes are plied.