Genetic Armageddon: Humanity's Greatest Threat

What do you think about Alex Jones's video here? I know that in mainstream genetics degrees they teach undergraduates that none of this stuff is currently possible. Alex does, however, cite numerous sources in this video.

This is so gross!

reply to post by athenegoddess


Yes I know! If it is really true then this is depravity of the most evil kind.

Cool video...breasts on a cow, growing human fetuses inside cows to be used for future organ transplants, creating human-animal hybrids....geez, what's next? Aliens are discovered??? I think that is your answer there

Nice video, watched it all, thanks for the post! S&F

Yeah, I've been wondering if discovering a method for immortality would be the agenda behind the Illuminati if they really do exist. It makes sense considering all of the religious and occult symbolism they seem to associate themselves with.

Then where would it go once immortality can be achieved (if even possible)? A new type of torture could be unleashed for their amusement. They could literally construct hell on earth.

Though I doubt immortality will ever be possible. Every living thing in existence is in the process of dying from the second its born. I have a hard time believing there's any way to stop such a universal "law".

Guy’s, Guy’s, Guy’s, listen to this man he sounds like he know what he is talking about.

Say good by too GMF. If you do not but it they will have to stop.

I recall reading something about some Alien species collecting other genetic sources for crossbreeding, because they themselves have screwed up their genetic line though artificial modifications and they are on a slow physical, and perhaps mental, decline.

I think it's rather telling that while mammals like dogs, birds, etc have a few genetic problems, it is only a few or none at all, despite the commonality of them interbreeding with family members, while humans have about 3000 assorted genetic/health problems.

How is it that we came to have so many genetic flaws? Were we engineered by an Alien race?

Food for thought.

I don't really see this as a threat. Quite bluntly - it's the future. It's cheaper to start up a genetic engineering lab than it is to set up a machine or die-casting factory, and computing capabilities are improving every year to allow for better simulation that makes for less trial-and-error in the R&D.

Like it or not - genetic engineering will be a part of our future. That includes all of the impressive improvements to come, and all of the cases of irresponsibility along with it.

reply to post by Aim64C


This is definately a threat. Humans should not be viewed as 'production machines'. We are far more than that.

reply to post by chemistry


What is being talked about, reminds me of the dulce episode of ufo hunters where they showed the mutilated cow with the human part cow fetus in it. maybe that was an expiriment.

reply to post by chemistry

This is definately a threat. Humans should not be viewed as 'production machines'. We are far more than that.

There is nothing but a bunch of alarmist claims with little real basis in reality. Cloning and printing technologies combined with stem cell developments pretty much make the "clones for organs" issue moot. It's a very archaic view of things that is completely out-dated by modern methods.

But, for the sake of entertainment, and because I'm not likely to convince you this isn't somehow a threat... what do you plan to -do- about this threat?

I'll put it to you a little more bluntly - I'm not opposed to walking the legal boundaries for the right price, and would some day like to make a business out of it and making threats simply disappear or otherwise nullified. If you want to actually try and suppress a threat like this type of genetic engineering - you're going to have to tap a lot of industry intelligence resources and be willing to take away some family's father/mother in one way or another (people with a lot of skeletons buried can often be politicized out of effect - the cleaner or stronger-willed may have to be intimidated or simply eliminated).

Are you willing to seek out such services in the effort to protect against this threat?

I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. Normally I'm right behind AJ but I think there are many good and proper reasons for genetic modifying and I believe that stem cell research might possibly lead to the development of a cure for Cancer - if there isn't one already we don't know about because it wouldn't suit TPTB's agenda - However this video does need to be seen and the information and sources all need to be shared and discussed, so that we stand a better chance of making the right choice.

It's not a nice topic of conversation and I've seen people leave the room when the subject of animal testing is raised, and I think it really deserves a bit more attention than it's had, so S&F and hope everyone else does.

It's absolutely true! I've been watching GMO since becoming aware of their existence in the late 80's. They used to have "flavor saver tomatoes" at Meier's. These were 51% fish DNA & 49% tomato. I remember when a scientist discovered that GMO crops' DNA jumps from plant to Monarch butterfly and from plant to plant. That was in the early 90's.

This is the darkest agenda on the planet. Our DNA tunes in our consciousness (Daniel Winter). Changing our DNA will change who we are. They've known this all along. I knew....so, it can't be that secret. Unfortunately, those who have been eating garbage have a very hard time thinking, reasoning and making good choices.

Stop eating the garbage!

reply to post by Ramcheck

many good and proper reasons for genetic modifying

I can't. I grow my own food. Heirloom seeds and plants are superior to anything I've ever grown that's hybrid or GMO. Can you be more specific about the 'value' of genetically modifying Mother Nature?

reply to post by RainbeauBleu

I've been watching GMO since becoming aware of their existence in the late 80's. They used to have "flavor saver tomatoes" at Meier's. These were 51% fish DNA & 49% tomato. I remember when a scientist discovered that GMO crops' DNA jumps from plant to Monarch butterfly and from plant to plant. That was in the early 90's.

I'm sure the good scientist would be absolutely delighted to tell us of the mating rituals between butterflies and corn. Is the kernel the pupae stage?

And 51% fish DNA with 49% tomato? Really? You expect a thinking, sentient being with a basic grasp of logic and vocabulary to buy that?

This is the darkest agenda on the planet. Our DNA tunes in our consciousness (Daniel Winter). Changing our DNA will change who we are. They've known this all along. I knew....so, it can't be that secret. Unfortunately, those who have been eating garbage have a very hard time thinking, reasoning and making good choices.

Uh-huh.... So... how does eating something change your DNA? Unless it's an entire onslaught of retroviruses targeted at your cell lineage, it doesn't.

Now - there are plenty of diabolical plans out there in the world - things designed to make our lives a living hell (like pop-up advertisements). There's also that big conspiracy - the one to make people believe government involvement is the only way to accomplish anything.

I assure you - I eat a wide range of food - quite a bit of it likely genetically modified - and I have forgotten, at 23, more than you will ever know. My memory retention is way above average with a procedural system of retrieval (I don't 'remember' so much as I reconstruct the information from basic concepts).

reply to post by Aim64C

And 51% fish DNA with 49% tomato? Really? You expect a thinking, sentient being with a basic grasp of logic and vocabulary to buy that?

The first genetically modified food to become commercially available was a tomato. The Flavr Savr tomato, created by the biotechnology company Calgene, was approved by the FDA in 1994. It was designed to ripen on the vine and stay firmer and offer a longer shelf life than regular tomatoes. Economic difficulties forced Calgene to withdraw the Flavr Savr from grocery shelves in 1997, but, ever since, environmental activists concerned by the onset of genetically engineered crops have targeted modified tomatoes

source link

I read all of the articles about the subject at the time they were published. Articles that were never posted to the web or have since then been scrubbed. I'm not addressing the rest of your comment because your response indicates that the ball is in your court to do your own homework. You didn't even google the fish genetics, did you? It's so easy to find. Instead, you hurl insults. You don't warrant a response.

Although that article states that fish genetic tomatoes were not sold......they were!
I saw them for sale....walked by them...labeled and everything.

reply to post by RainbeauBleu

I'm not addressing the rest of your comment because your response indicates that the ball is in your court to do your own homework. You didn't even google the fish genetics, did you? It's so easy to find. Instead, you hurl insults. You don't warrant a response.

www.pbs.org... (this is your article)

Certain rumors and horror stories mention square tomatoes or tomatoes that glow in the dark, but, in particular, skeptics have focused on research conducted by DNA Plant Technology, a company that developed an experimental, genetically engineered tomato in 1991. The tomato included a modified gene from a breed of arctic flounder that, it was hoped, would allow the tomatoes to be more resistant to frost and cold storage. Activists decried these so-called "fish tomatoes," protesting their entry into our food supply. But the experiment ultimately did not prove successful, and the pursuit of a cold-resistant tomato was abandoned. No one has ever purchased a tomato or tomato-based product with fish genes.

You stated that there was more "fish" than "tomato." Which is what I laughed at - because it's a ridiculous notion.

The tomatoes contained -a- modified gene from a breed of flounder. Hardly "more fish than tomato."


e.

Although that article states that fish genetic tomatoes were not sold......they were!
I saw them for sale....walked by them...labeled and everything.

What were they labeled as? I'm curious, because I've never seen a tomato (or bin of them) labeled in such a descriptive manner. Most of the time it's "Tuscan Hybrid DeFrance!" (or something equally as relevant) - like it's supposed to mean something to me. Big tomatoes are for sandwiches and small tomatoes are for salads, soups, or sauces, depending upon their texture. As a general rule of thumb.

They were labeled as "Flavor Savr Tomatoes". Although the on-line documentation claims one thing, those alive at that time (me and several friends) can remember the whole scandal quite clearly. I don't care to 'prove' anything to anyone. I shared. I'm done. If you have a problem with it, that's your problem. I have nothing more to say to you.

The tomatoes contained -a- modified gene from a breed of flounder. Hardly "more fish than tomato." Dunce.

Name calling? Are you kidding me? I though the Mods here didn't allow name calling.

reply to post by RainbeauBleu

They were labeled as "Flavor Savr Tomatoes". Although the on-line documentation claims one thing, those alive at that time (me and several friends) can remember the whole scandal quite clearly. I don't care to 'prove' anything to anyone. I shared. I'm done. If you have a problem with it, that's your problem. I have nothing more to say to you.

You clearly didn't read your own source. "Flavor Savr Tomatoes" were among the first of genetically engineered tomatoes. The "fish tomato" you are talking about was a completely separate project aimed at creating a cold-tolerant tomato plant that could grow in the more extreme latitudes.

I wasn't calling you a name, I was awarding you a title descriptive of your merits. There is a difference, however, it is unfortunate that you do not seem to appreciate the title. I shall refrain from using that title if you find it that offensive.