by Jon Rappoport
MANY women are posting reports of disrupted and unusual menstrual cycles, heavy bleeding, and miscarriages.
What’s more, some of these women haven’t received the COVID vaccine, but they’ve been in close contact with others who have been vaccinated—leading to the question:
Can the COVID vaccine (which is actually an experimental genetic treatment) “shed” something harmful that can be passed from person to person?
Perhaps that sounds impossible, but in the world of genetics, much can go wrong.
In fact, for the past 25 years, we’ve had an illustration of shedding right in front of our eyes: GMO crops.
If you recall, Monsanto assured one and all that these crops—genetically engineered to survive the sprayed herbicide Roundup—would flourish, while weeds would succumb to the chemical.
So what actually happened? The weeds were resistant and became super-giants. And the Monsanto genes drifted from farm to farm, contaminating crops that were never meant to be engineered.
The Monsanto genes were “shed” and they spread.
This spread was not only the result of obvious cross-pollination. Bacteria in the soil, and in human digestive systems, also picked up and incorporated the Monsanto genes.
Why couldn’t “shed and spread” occur with a genetic COVID vaccine?
The COVID injection contains a piece of RNA. The RNA nanoparticles enter human cells, forcing those cells to manufacture a protein similar to a protein in the purported SARS-CoV-2 virus. The immune system mounts a neutralizing attack against that protein, thus “rehearsing” to defeat the virus if it comes along later.
That’s the hypothesis.
In practice, who knows how many different dangerous and harmful processes can be detonated in the human body—plus the drifting of those genetic effects from person to person, whether vaccinated or not.
Yes, I know the experts will point out the difference between inserting genes into crops and inserting them into humans. They’ll say the GMO crops are supposed to hold on to those new genes long-term, but the COVID injection only has short-lived genetic effects.
Supposedly, this is true. Supposedly.
The universe of genetic experimentation, however, is rife with problems, mistakes, unintended consequences, as well as efforts to make weapons that attack life at basic levels.
Consider, for example, gene drive technology, which asks the question: what species should we make extinct today?
Why are Bill Gates and the US military involved in forwarding that technology?
A gene-drive scientist says, “I have a plan. By manipulating genes, we can make invasive rodents extinct, on an island where humans are living.”
In the next fraction of a second, a flurry of questions pops up.
The overarching question is: Does this mean genetic manipulation can make ANY species extinct?
Here is a passage from Gene Drive Files [1], a vital site with an enormous amount of referenced information on the subject:
“Gene drives are a gene-editing application that allows genetic engineers to drive a single artificial trait through an entire population by ensuring that all of an organism’s offspring carry that trait. For example, recent experiments are fitting mice with ‘daughterless’ gene drives that will cascade through mouse populations so that only male pups are born, ensuring that the population becomes extinct after a few generations.”
“Proponents have framed gene drives as a breakthrough tool for eradicating pests or invasive species. However, the Gene Drive Files reveal that these ‘conservation’ efforts are primarily supported by military funds.”
Gene drive technology could be deployed to wipe out troublesome plant-parasites, weeds, crops, animal pests, animals, and…humans. Mull that over with your morning coffee.
Several years ago, certain UN member nations were considering a recommendation to call a moratorium on the use of gene drives. However, Bill Gates showed up to try to squash the moratorium.
The Gene Drive Files reports: “Documents received under Freedom of Information requests reveal that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation paid a private agriculture and biotechnology PR firm $1.6 million for activities on Gene Drives. This included running a covert ‘advocacy coalition’ which appears to have intended to skew the only UN expert process addressing gene drives…”
“Following global calls in December 2016 from Southern countries and over 170 organizations for a UN moratorium on gene drives, emails to gene drive advocates received under a Freedom of Information request by Prickly Research reveal that a private public affairs firm ‘Emerging Ag’ received funds from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to co-ordinate the ‘fight back against gene drive moratorium proponents’.”
There’s more from the Gene Drive Files. It involves the military:
“A trove of emails (The Gene Drive Files) from leading U.S. gene drive researchers reveals that the U.S. Military is taking the lead in driving forward gene drive development.”
“Emails obtained through a freedom of Information request by U.S.–based Prickly Research reveal that the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has given approximately $100 million for gene drive research, $35 million more than previously reported, making them likely the largest single funder of gene drive research on the planet. The emails also reveal that DARPA either funds or co-ordinates with almost all major players working on gene drive development as well as the key holders of patents on CRISPR gene editing technology.”