The writer is in New Zealand
AN article in the Daily Telegraph last week illustrated a dilemma we all face. Scientists have admitted that the AstraZeneca vaccine increases the risk of the serious neurological condition Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) – just one of the many post-vaccination adverse effects. Scientists identified the jab’s genetically engineered Trojan horse adenovirus delivery system as possibly to blame.
GBS is a rare condition which causes muscle numbness and pain, and can hinder movement, walking, swallowing and, sometimes, even breathing.
But here’s the rub: the article concludes that despite these serious side effects, the benefits of Covid vaccines are huge and far outweigh the risks. In fact, aren’t they wonderful? An AstraZeneca spokesman, uncritically quoted, crowed that their vaccine had helped to prevent fifty million infections and five million hospitalisations. So what are a few GBS cases (and presumably deaths) compared with that? Their public relations team must have been working overtime to produce this brazen fabrication, which is inconsistent with official data.
A number of eminent geneticists have cogently and scientifically argued the reverse: that Covid vaccines are not only ineffective, they have put and continue to put millions of lives at risk. The Telegraph chose to ignore them.
As fast as we realise the extent of the health issues surrounding mRNA and DNA vaccination, the authorities are busy denying, disguising and deleting them. Our latest example: cardiac health assessments for NZ pilots are no longer necessary for the under-40s (the age most liable to mRNA vaccine-induced cardiac injury).
While many countries have removed social restrictions associated with the pandemic, the biotech industry and WHO, along with their government and media supporters, are doubling down on a new age of mandated biotech medicine.
The scientists involved in the GBS study, which was published in the journal Brain, flag a need for more genetic engineering of viruses to try to fix the adverse effect problems. Prompting us to ask if GBS stands for Good Business Sense and pharmaceutical profits?
The charge towards a risky and daunting medical future is visible everywhere. A hapless mother who tweeted a couple of days ago that she was carefully feeding her children fresh natural food was shouted down by the troll pack. Didn’t she realise that the presence of preservatives is essential to maintain health? Aren’t flavours engineered in a lab to mimic their natural counterparts so much better and safer?
The pandemic restrictions and mandates are still very much to the fore in New Zealand, but we are hoping for a change in policies. Will this be enough? No.
The question is: Are we going to exit the pandemic into a daring bioengineered era replete with severe cardiac risk, or will we learn from the adverse effect carnage of the pandemic and close off the risks posed by novel biotechnology applications?
The problem with traditional evolutionary explanations is that they give the impression that life is solely a series of accidental events that fortuitously had cosmic implications. A more modern perspective on evolution considers that life emerged as a result of the sum of the underlying laws of nature. This is often referred to as ‘the mangrove of life’ theory.
The mangrove evolutionary paradigm implies that life is not an accident. The laws of modern physics, chemistry, and biology governing the emergence of life and its evolution are continuously rooted in the underlying unified structure of natural law – the source of life. Although the Mangrove of Life is a neat reinterpretation of available biological evidence and theory, it fails to take account of the special role of conscious decision-making in evolutionary events (and in the laws of physics).
We are so used to the modern idea that every human trait has its ultimate origins in our genetic structure, that we have failed to consider evolution as the ascent of consciousness, rather than a random process of trial and error.
The expression of higher psychological human functions and sensibilities are correlated not just with specific parts and pathways of the physiology but with the coherent functioning of our whole genetic and physiological system which has evolved in tandem with our consciousness. The whole is more than the sum of the parts, and our physiology as a whole is related to our consciousness.
Thus evolution is not just a random adaptive response to our food, experience, and behaviour. Crucially it includes the evolution of human consciousness. Together these form the four dimensions of evolutionary adaptation.
We have suggested elsewhere and here that genetic alterations to immune system function put higher human abilities at risk. They have matured through millions of years of coevolutionary existence with the wider biosphere. Genetic medicine in its current iteration is therefore a potentially suicidal development for the human race.
As we exit the pandemic, it is apparent that the promoters of pharmaceutical biotech dreams and fantasies have a bulging public relations war chest. There is a lot of money, prestige, and political capital riding on an officially sanctioned A+ rating for the Covid pandemic response. Part and parcel of this is the adjustment of fact to fit the genetic vaccine safety narrative as we saw in the GBS article.
Historically, misinterpretation of Darwin’s theory of evolution helped to curate a myth of genetic superiority. The accompanying notion of ethnic cleansing eventually led to the Holocaust and multiple other genocides. In a parallel development, the conception of evolution driven by random events has led to the idea that genetic editing and manipulation can be attempted with impunity. This is a misinterpretation that will have catastrophic consequences if left unchallenged.
We must re-evaluate our concepts of medical risk and ethics. The distortion of medical risk and the rejection of traditional safe healthy remedies, diets, and lifestyles has not emerged suddenly, it has been brewing for years. The 2014 reversal in US longevity is just the beginning of its legacy; the bungled pandemic response has pushed this trend further into the red.
The important point to note is that a biotech medical future and a healthy future are incompatible with one another. Therefore it will not be enough merely to exit the pandemic restrictions leaving society lulled into complacency. We have to evolve out of the pandemic together with a sound basis in a renewed and updated knowledge paradigm and education system.