Vaccine Makers Describe Their Work As ‘Hacking The Software Of Life’ . . . Is That Important?

Follow Doug on Parler @TheGilesWay.

While most of us are busy running the software latest updates on our laptops and phones, big pharma is developing ‘software patches’ for the body itself. But what are the risks?

If you think of genetics as the ‘software of life’, and DNA is the operating system, what happens when you swap out a few lines of code?

It’s a topic sparked by a TedTalk given in 2017 by Dr. Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer at Moderna Inc..

Back then, nobody expected a virus would sweep the world creating the kind of panic that could make anyone want a universal vaccine, let alone demand one. But 2020 was a year of massive change, in all sorts of unexpected ways.

Who could have foreseen that hacking (and hijacking) our own biological processes at the molecular level would have been one of them?

The mRNA vaccines are ‘rewriting the genetic code’ and they are calling it ‘information technology’.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU-cqTNQhMM&t=6s

Back in 2017, he said this tech had profound implications with everything from the flu to cancer. That was BEFORE we had heard of a ‘novel coronavirus’.

It sounds great, and it may even turn out that these therapies ARE great. But history has shown us enough examples of unexpected and dangerous side effects of new drugs and new treatments that it should be pretty obvious why governments prefer to proceed slowly and cautiously with green-lighting such treatments.

The keenly-felt awareness of the uncertain long-term risks is the reason experimental treatments are unavailable to the public at large. On the other end of the spectrum, a ‘right to try’ principle allows people for whom the upside of even a slim chance of success far outweighed any negative repercussions of unknown side effects access these same experimental treatments.

Usually, the desperation driving ‘right to try’ cases is the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of us need to balance immediate upside with longer-term consequences.

Once we’ve taken a look at those longer-term consequences, only then can a patient truly give what doctors call ‘informed consent’. Does the risk/reward ratio make sense for the wider population? Does it make sense for you as an individual?

The China virus hasn’t just taken victims around the world. It has also created many new billionaires. What is a tragedy for many, has become an opportunity for others. And with billions around the world clamoring for the vaccine, and fear being whipped up by others who could exploit it for other reasons, the pressure to deliver without delay was enormous.

It is worth noting that, however safe we might insist the vaccines are [they may even, in fact, turn out to be every bit as safe as advertised], the FDA approval we are working under is EMERGENCY approval, and not the standard approval. the reason should be obvious — there is still a lot we don’t yet know.

A risk-reward decision was made. The world was in a panic. They demanded a solution, and it was granted to the public . . . it brought the logic behind right-to-try to a global scale.

What negative consequences might we expect from this treatment?

It’s anybody’s guess at this point. But here is one possible scenario as presented by veteran investigative reporter Leo Hohmann:

Both the Moderna and Pfizer injections are experimental mRNA vaccines. The FDA has only granted these injections Emergency Use Authorization [EUA] and they will remain in trials through 2023, yet the government, media and corporations are all promoting them as though they are guaranteed safe.

This systemic deception will, in my opinion, end up being judged in the rear-view mirror of history as one of the most reckless acts of medical treachery ever committed against the human race.

If this so-called vaccine does cause more people to get cancer, think of the possibilities from a purely business point of view.

Based on the predictions of Dr. Zaks, who oversaw the creation of the vaccine now being given to millions of people worldwide, the same Big Pharma companies that could potentially give people cancer with one vaccine could step forward later with another vaccine offering the cure for cancer. If you are the CEO of a mega pharmaceutical who answers to profit-driven Wall Street shareholders, that’s a brilliant strategy!

But is it ethical from a medical point of view? That’s a question nobody is asking. –HarbingersDaily

Check out ClashRadio for more wit and wisdom from ClashDaily’s Big Dawg. While you’re at it, here’s his latest book:

If Masculinity Is ‘Toxic’, Call Jesus Radioactive

Much of the Left loathes masculinity and they love to paint Jesus as a non-offensive bearded woman who endorses their agenda. This book blows that nonsense all to hell. From the stonking laptop of bestselling author, Doug Giles, comes a new book that focuses on Jesus’ overt masculine traits like no other books have heretofore. It’s informative, bold, hilarious, and scary. Giles has concluded, after many years of scouring the scripture that, If Masculinity Is ‘Toxic’, Call Jesus Radioactive.