The buzz on insects: How these small creatures can benefit our nation’s economy

Insect farming and commercialization have emerged as a promising opportunity for economic growth in recent years. With the global population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050, there is a growing demand for sustainable protein sources. Insects, which are rich in protein, vitamins, and minerals, are becoming an increasingly popular option for both human consumption and animal feed. In this article, we will explore the potential of insect farming and commercialization to drive economic growth and sustainability.

Insect farming has a lower environmental impact than traditional livestock farming, making it an attractive option for sustainable food production. Insects require less land, water, and feed compared to traditional livestock, and they produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions. This makes insect farming a more sustainable alternative that can help reduce the strain on natural resources and mitigate the effects of climate change.

The economic benefits of insect farming are twofold. Firstly, insect farming has low start-up costs, making it accessible to small-scale farmers and entrepreneurs. Secondly, the demand for insect-derived products is on the rise, with the global edible insect market expected to reach $1.18 billion by 2023. This presents a significant opportunity for economic growth, particularly in regions where there is a need for alternative income sources and job creation.

Insects can be farmed for a variety of purposes, including human consumption, animal feed, and insect-derived products such as oils, protein powders, and fertilizers. Insects are a nutrient-dense food source, containing high levels of protein, vitamins, and minerals. They are also versatile in their culinary uses, with many cultures around the world incorporating insects into their diets. As a result, there is a growing market for insect-based food products, including protein bars, snacks, and even burgers.

Insect-derived products are also gaining popularity due to their nutritional value and sustainability benefits. Insect oils, for example, are a rich source of omega-3 fatty acids and can be used in a variety of applications, including food, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals. Insect protein powders are being used as a sustainable alternative to traditional protein sources, such as soy and whey. Insect-based fertilizers are also gaining popularity as a sustainable alternative to traditional chemical fertilizers.

The economic potential of insect farming and commercialization is not limited to food and agriculture. Insects are also being used for biotechnology applications, including the production of enzymes, antibiotics, and even biofuels. Insect-based biotechnology has the potential to create new industries and jobs, particularly in regions where there is a need for innovation and economic diversification.

Despite the potential of insect farming and commercialization, there are still challenges that need to be addressed. There is a need for regulations and standards to ensure the safety and quality of insect-derived products. Consumer acceptance is also an issue, particularly in regions where insects are not traditionally consumed. Education and awareness campaigns can help to promote the benefits of insect farming and reduce the stigma associated with insect consumption.

In conclusion, insect farming and commercialization present a promising opportunity for economic growth and sustainability. With the demand for sustainable protein sources on the rise, insect farming offers a low-cost, environmentally friendly alternative that can help meet the needs of a growing population. Insect-derived products also offer new opportunities for innovation and job creation. As the industry continues to grow and evolve, it is important to address the challenges and opportunities that come with this emerging sector.

Insect-derived products: Potential uses and markets

Insects have long been utilized as a food source in many parts of the world, but they have much more to offer than just a source of nutrition. In recent years, research has been focused on the potential of insects as a source of valuable compounds that can be used in a range of products. From cosmetics to bioplastics, the potential uses for insect-derived products are vast and varied.

One of the most promising areas of research is the use of insects as a source of protein for animal feed. With the growing demand for protein and the limited availability of traditional sources, such as soy and fishmeal, insect-based feed has the potential to become a major industry. Insects are a highly efficient source of protein, requiring far less feed and water than traditional livestock. Additionally, insect farming produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions and generates less waste than traditional livestock farming.

Beyond protein, insects are also a potential source of compounds that can be used in a range of products. For example, silk produced by silkworms has long been used in textiles, but other insects have been found to produce unique fibers with a range of applications. For example, the larvae of the South American palm weevil produce a silk-like fiber that is both strong and flexible, making it an ideal material for use in clothing, medical devices, and even construction materials.

Insects are also a source of chitin, a biopolymer that has a range of applications. Chitin is used in wound dressings, water treatment, and as a food preservative. Additionally, chitosan, a derivative of chitin, is being researched for its potential use as a biodegradable plastic. With the increasing demand for sustainable materials, chitosan-based bioplastics have the potential to become a major industry.

Other insect-derived compounds that are being researched for their potential uses include antimicrobial peptides, which have applications in medicine and food preservation, and enzymes, which can be used in a range of industrial processes.

Despite the potential of insect-derived products, there are still significant barriers to their widespread adoption. One of the biggest challenges is the regulatory framework surrounding the use of insects in products. In many countries, insects are not considered a traditional source of food or materials, which means that there are few regulations in place to govern their use. This lack of regulation can make it difficult for companies to invest in insect-based products, as they may not be able to secure the necessary approvals.

There are also cultural barriers to overcome. In many Western countries, insects are still seen as a novelty or even a taboo food source, which can make it difficult to market insect-based products to consumers. However, attitudes are slowly changing, and as consumers become more aware of the benefits of insect-based products, there is the potential for a shift in attitudes towards insects as a valuable source of protein and materials.

In conclusion, insect-derived products have the potential to revolutionize a range of industries, from agriculture to textiles to bioplastics. However, there are still significant barriers to their adoption, and more research is needed to fully understand their potential and to develop the necessary regulatory frameworks to support their use. With the growing demand for sustainable and environmentally-friendly products, it is likely that insect-derived products will play an increasingly important role in our economy in the years to come.

Pollination services: The economic impact of insects on agriculture

Pollination is the process by which pollen from the male part of a flower is transferred to the female part of the same or another flower, leading to fertilization and subsequent fruit or seed production. Insects, particularly bees, are the most important pollinators in agricultural ecosystems, and their contribution to crop yields is invaluable. In this article, we will explore the economic impact of insect pollination on agriculture and the broader economy.

Pollination by insects has a direct impact on the yields of many crops that are important for human consumption and animal feed. According to a report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), approximately 75% of global food crops rely at least in part on animal pollination, and the contribution of insect pollinators to global food production is estimated to be worth between $235 billion and $577 billion annually. In the United States alone, the value of insect-pollinated crops is estimated to be around $20 billion per year.

The economic impact of insect pollination can be seen in a variety of crops. For example, almonds, a major cash crop in California, are completely dependent on honey bee pollination, and without it, the almond industry would collapse. Similarly, apple, blueberry, cherry, and cranberry crops rely heavily on insect pollinators, and yields can be significantly reduced if pollinators are not present. Even crops that are not directly dependent on insect pollinators, such as soybeans and corn, can benefit from increased yields when pollinators are present, as pollination leads to more uniform and larger seeds.

The importance of insect pollination for agriculture is not limited to crop yields. The quality and market value of many crops also depend on pollination. For example, strawberries that are properly pollinated are typically larger, more uniformly shaped, and have a higher sugar content, leading to higher prices and profits for growers. The same is true for blueberries, where proper pollination leads to larger, firmer, and more flavorful fruit.

Insect pollination also has a broader economic impact beyond agriculture. Many of the crops that rely on insect pollination are exported to other countries, generating revenue and creating jobs in the agricultural sector and beyond. In addition, the pollination services provided by insects benefit wild plants, which provide ecosystem services such as water filtration, carbon sequestration, and habitat for wildlife. These ecosystem services have economic value, and their preservation and enhancement can lead to economic benefits for communities that rely on them.

Despite the importance of insect pollination for agriculture and the broader economy, insect populations and their pollination services are under threat from a variety of factors, including habitat loss, pesticide use, and climate change. The decline of pollinators can have serious economic consequences, as reduced yields and lower quality crops can lead to lower prices and profits for growers, as well as higher prices for consumers.

To address the threats facing insect pollinators and their pollination services, efforts are underway to promote pollinator-friendly practices in agriculture and urban landscapes, such as reducing pesticide use, providing habitat and food sources for pollinators, and using diverse crop rotations to support healthy soil and plant communities. In addition, research is being conducted to better understand the biology and ecology of pollinators, and to develop new tools and technologies to support their conservation and management.

In conclusion, the economic impact of insect pollination on agriculture and the broader economy is substantial and multifaceted. The contribution of insect pollinators to crop yields, quality, and market value, as well as their role in supporting wild plants and ecosystem services, underscores the importance of protecting and promoting healthy populations of pollinators.

Environmental benefits: Cost savings and economic incentives for sustainable pest management

Insects are a crucial part of our ecosystem and play a significant role in maintaining biodiversity. However, some insects can also be considered pests, causing damage to crops and affecting human health. While traditional pest management methods involve the use of pesticides, it can have negative impacts on the environment, leading to soil and water pollution, harm to non-target species, and the development of pesticide resistance. A more sustainable approach to pest management that is gaining traction is the use of integrated pest management (IPM) strategies that consider the entire ecosystem and use a range of non-chemical and low-toxicity methods to control pests. Not only does IPM offer a more environmentally-friendly approach to pest management, but it can also lead to cost savings and economic incentives.

One of the most significant environmental benefits of IPM is the reduction in chemical pesticide use. Pesticides can have long-lasting effects on the environment, including soil contamination, water pollution, and harm to non-target species. For example, neonicotinoids, a class of pesticides commonly used in agriculture, have been linked to bee colony collapse and the decline of other pollinators. By reducing the amount of pesticides used, IPM can help protect these vital pollinators and other beneficial insects in the ecosystem.

In addition to protecting the environment, IPM can also lead to cost savings for farmers. Traditional pest management methods, such as spraying pesticides, can be expensive, and the cost of pesticides can vary depending on the season and the region. IPM, on the other hand, focuses on preventing pest outbreaks before they occur, which can help reduce the need for costly pest control measures. For example, planting pest-resistant crops and using biological controls, such as predators or parasites, can help reduce the number of pests and the need for chemical pesticides. This not only saves money on pesticide costs but can also increase crop yields and quality, leading to higher profits for farmers.

Furthermore, some IPM strategies can also lead to economic incentives for farmers. For instance, in some regions, farmers can receive subsidies for adopting IPM practices, such as crop rotation or the use of cover crops. In addition, consumers are increasingly interested in sustainably produced food and are willing to pay a premium for products that are grown using environmentally-friendly practices. By adopting IPM practices, farmers can market their products as eco-friendly, which can lead to higher demand and increased revenue.

Another way IPM can lead to cost savings is by reducing the need for repeated pesticide applications. Some pests can develop resistance to pesticides, requiring farmers to use higher doses or switch to more toxic chemicals. By using IPM strategies, farmers can reduce the risk of pesticide resistance, which can help extend the life of the pesticides they use. This not only reduces the need for repeated pesticide applications but can also help reduce the risk of pesticide exposure to farmworkers and nearby communities.

In conclusion, IPM offers a more sustainable approach to pest management that can benefit the environment, farmers, and consumers. By reducing the amount of pesticides used, IPM can help protect beneficial insects and prevent environmental pollution. At the same time, IPM can lead to cost savings for farmers by reducing the need for expensive pest control measures and increasing crop yields and quality. Finally, IPM can also lead to economic incentives for farmers by marketing their products as sustainably produced, which can lead to higher demand and increased revenue. As we face growing environmental challenges and a need to promote sustainable agriculture, IPM offers a promising solution for managing pests in a way that benefits both people and the planet.

Advertisement

Graphene-based “neuromodulation” technology is REAL: Press release from INBRAIN Neuroelectronics describes brain controlling biocircuits using AI-powered graphene

By Mike Adams (via Natural News)

With an increasing number of people becoming aware of graphene oxide being identified in covid vaccines, a company called INBRAIN Neuroelectronics demonstrates that graphene-based “neuromodulation” technology using AI-powered neuroelectronics is very real.

A March 30th, 2021 press release published by BusinessWire.com reveals the story:

INBRAIN Neuroelectronics Secures $17 Million in Series A Funding for First AI-Powered Graphene-Brain Interface

Funding enables company to advance first-in-human studies for its flagship product, a less-invasive neuromodulation device for treating neurological conditions using artificial intelligence and graphene electrodes

To be clear, we are not in any way claiming that INBRAIN is involved in covid vaccines. Rather, they state their technology is being used, “for treating epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease.” The point of covering INBRAIN is to reveal that brain-controlling “biocircuits” based on graphene are, in fact, a very real technology.

So-called “fact-checkers” — which are nothing more than disinformation propaganda pushers — routinely claim that graphene isn’t found in vaccines and that graphene biocircuits are a conspiracy theory. INBRAIN Neuroelectronics shows that the fact checkers are lying.

In fact, as INBRAIN says in their own press release, they are, “aiming to establish the safety of graphene as the new standard of care for neurotechnology devices.”

They also describe graphene biocircuits as a kind of platform that can be upgraded:

Less invasive and more intelligent neuroelectronic technologies like ours could provide safer therapies that are upgradable and adaptive in real time…

If that sounds familiar, it’s probably because Moderna, creator of the mRNA covid vaccine, has described its technology as an “operating system” that can be updated and reprogrammed at any time, also.

At the INBRAIN Neuroelectronics website, the company describes itself thusly:

We are scientists, doctors, techies and humanity lovers, with the mission of building neuroelectronic interfaces to cure brain disorders. We use GRAPHENE, the thinnest material known to man to build the new generation of neural interfaces for brain restoration to help patients around the world.

It also quites Prof. A. Fasano, saying, “Graphene is the next big thing in bioengineering materials, which are pillar components to the next gen of electrotherapies in the steadily growing field of neuromodulation.”

The company highlights its technology as being able to “read” a person’s brain, detect specific neurological patterns, and then control that person’s neurology to alter their brain function. In their own words:

Our graphene-brain interfaces have the capability of reading at a resolution never seen before, as well as detecting therapy-specific biomarkers and triggering highly focal adaptive neuromodulation for increased outcomes in personalised neurological therapies.

Graphene is further described as, “Thinnest known material to perfectly adapt stimulation to targeted brain anatomy.”

Anyone saying that graphene isn’t being used to control human neurology is either wildly ignorant of the state of modern neuroscience or is deliberately lying to you.

To clarify yet again, we are not stating that INBRAIN Neuroelectronics is engaged in any sort of nefarious agenda, nor that they are involved in covid vaccines. As with every technology, graphene-based biocircuits can be used for both good or evil, depending on the ethics and motivations of those who control the technology. There are no doubt very positive applications for this tech, but as with most technologies that were once touted as empowering humanity — television, vaccines, the internet, nuclear power, robotics, etc. — they all end up in the hands of lunatic, genocidal globalists who wield them as weapons against humanity.

In other words, there is no technology that madmen won’t exploit to enslave humanity and increase their own power and control. Graphene biocircuits give power-hungry lunatics direct access to your brain, and according to many analysts (see below), vaccines provide the excuse to inject human victims with graphene-based substances that self-assemble into biocircuits in the human brain.

CLAIM: Covid vaccines contain high levels of graphene oxide, which is self-assembled into biocircuits by harvesting elements (such as iron) from human blood

As reported by Orwell.city, a group called La Quinta Columna has analyzed covid vaccines and has found that 98% to 99% of the non-liquid mass in the vaccine appears to be graphene oxide. Ricardo Delgado, speaking for La Quinta Columna, says:

A phenomenon that for a long time was denied, but today has been already proved. There are millions of videos of people going around the world.  Videos about this phenomenon of, let’s call it ‘pseudo-magnetism acquired after inoculation’, but it can also be acquired through other ways.  So, once we conducted that basic epidemiological study, we started to wonder what materials or nanomaterials can cause magnetism in the body. And not only magnetism, but that could act as energy capacitors, because I have also measured in a multimeter an important charge… 

This is a phenomenon of electromagnetic induction in the metal that adheres near the inoculation area.  In addition, we have found that the magnetism then moves towards the head. And this is very important.  Surely for the purpose they may seek.  In addition, a potential difference is measured with a multimeter: the person becomes a superconductor.  That is, it emits and receives signals.  And when we found the materials that can cause this type of alterations in the body, we began to talk about graphene.  We suspected it was graphene oxide since it had all the characteristics that magnetized people expressed after inoculation. 

Graphene is toxic, it is a chemical, a toxic chemical agent.  Introduced in the organism in large quantities, it causes thrombi. It causes blood clots.  We have all the scientific articles to back it up. It causes post inflammatory syndrome, it causes alteration of the immune system.  And when the redox balance is broken, in the sense that there is less of the body’s own reserve glutathione  than an introduced toxicant such as graphene oxide, it generates a collapse of the immune system and a cytokine storm.  In other words, something very similar to the fashionable disease, isn’t it?

See the video here:

Brighteon.com/eaff4c87-eb1d-4abd-9f6e-6edeebe6fe59

Own Shares in the Future of AI Food Service With Miso Robotics

(via Zero Hedge)

The quick service restaurant (QSR) industry was born in disruption — out-competing old incumbents with innovations like drive-through windows, online ordering and at-home delivery. Now Miso Robotics is leading the next wave of transformation, with cloud-connected workstations where a proprietary AI-powered robot named Flippy grills burgers and works the fryer, every bit as seamlessly as a human cook.

A novel opportunity for outside investors, Miso continues garner support from forward-thinking individuals to buy into their next stage of growth. They’ve already raised over $40 million in capital over their series A, B and C funding rounds — and their $11 million partnership with global chain CaliBurger has been making national news in outlets like USA Today, TechCrunch and VentureBeat. This private-equity investment round may be the last chance you’ll get to own shares in this fast-growing company.

Here, we’ll take a closer look at Miso’s product portfolio, corporate partnerships, and growth to date, to see how their track record and product-market fit put them in an ideal position to capture a rapidly expanding niche within the food service industry.

An industry on the tipping point

The QSR industry is valued at $875 billion worldwide. In the US alone, this sector comprises more than 280,000 restaurant locations, whose annual operating costs run in excess of $70 billion. A high percentage of those costs cover staff paychecks — but the ROI for any given staff member can be hard to predict, due to the industry’s whopping 150% annual labor turnover rate. A sizable investment in training a new staff member may generate very little return if that person quits without warning after just a few weeks.

Further amplifying this challenge, the QSR industry’s revenue is highly dependent on two key factors: efficiency (you get hot, fresh food just minutes after placing your order) and consistency (a Big Mac is a Big Mac, whether you order it in Chicago or Tokyo). Both those factors, in turn, depend on adaptable process engineering: given the industry’s turnover rate, restaurant owners and operators face a constant struggle to maintain consistent food quality and operational efficiency with a high-churn staff of regulars, trainees, temps and seasonal workers.

What’s more, the industry’s labor gap is only increasing. Currently, 800,000 QSR job roles are unfilled — and researchers predict a sharp increase in that disparity over the coming decade. For example, a 2019 report by the National Restaurant Association forecasts that while 1.6 million new food-service jobs will be created over the next 10 years, the US labor pool for that same sector will shrink by 1.3 million over that same period. This will create a labor shortfall of 3.7 million workers, in an industry already plagued by high turnover and low employee ROI.

Restaurant owners and franchisees are well aware of these intensifying problems, and are actively on the lookout for technological solutions that can help re-stabilize their balance sheets. That’s exactly where Miso Robotics comes in.

Miso’s solution: cloud-connected food prep robots

While Flippy the robotic arm has attracted most of Miso’s press coverage today, this star attraction is just one element of the company’s AI-powered workstations, which incorporate grills, fryers, and food drop-off-points. All these components work together as an integrated whole — not only preparing food, but also self-cleaning, tracking incoming orders, and adapting in real time to the flow of ingredients and workers throughout the kitchen.

For example, from the moment a staff member drops a basket of uncooked fries at a Miso workstation, Flippy goes to work automatically, without having to be told what to do. Just like a human fry cook, the arm picks up the fry basket and dips it into the fryer — while the workstation simultaneously fine-tunes the oil’s temperature to ensure perfect crispness. At another grilling workstation, Flippy tracks the progress of burgers, flipping each patty at precisely the moment it’s cooked through, then removing it before it gets burnt.

As impressive as these abilities are, Flippy’s true value-add is its AI-driven responsiveness. The workstation is far more than just a piece of kitchen hardware — it’s an artificially intelligent food prep worker, constantly attentive to the flow of kitchen activity around it. It proactively tracks incoming orders, planning ahead and making space for its human coworkers to drop off the next  round of items. It even cleans up its own workstation during downtime, just as a human employee would be expected to. 

Beyond this, each Flippy workstation’s performance continues to improve over time. Its machine learning algorithms automatically network with Miso’s AI cloud — analyzing its behavior, pinpointing process bottlenecks, and preparing behavioral improvements for the next workday. That’s a level of dedication that very few human QSR workers can match.

Real-world data proves the bottom-line impact of Flippy’s capabilities. The AI kitchen assistant  has prepared more than 175,000 pounds of fried food and more than 12,000 burgers — all without burning a fry or undercooking a patty. As a result, a single Flippy workstation delivers (on average) a nine-percent year-over-year profit increase versus a human staff member in the same role.

This measurable ROI has rocketed Miso’s growth over the past five years — and now they’re offering private investors (like you) the opportunity to invest in their next stage of expansion.

Growth, partnerships, patents and plans

Starting from an initial round of seed funding in 2016, Miso has successfully met or exceeded all fundraising targets to date, raising over $40 million in capital through its series A, B and C funding rounds. In 2017, global quick-service chain CaliBurger purchased $11 million in Flippy workstations, two for each of its more than 50 QSR locations. Following another successful partnership with the Los Angeles Dodgers, Miso has just landed a partnership with one of the QSR industry’s original innovators — White Castle, who piloted Flippy and are working to deploy it to up to 10 additional locations as part of a beta rollout.

But Flippy represents just one component of Miso’s visionary product strategy. In addition to the company’s two existing patents, which cover their cloud-connected workstation technology, Miso has an additional 10 patents pending. These patents cover a range of proprietary machine learning and robotics control software — plus even more innovative hardware, such as overhead rail-mounted robots, which Miso uses to work multiple food-prep stations at once. With this new generation of hardware and software, Miso’s aim is nothing less than to disrupt the QSR sector from the ground up, by building the world’s first wirelessly integrated, artificially intelligent cloud-connected kitchens.

And for a limited time, Miso has opened up their stock to not only to large firms, but to private investors like you. This unorthodox online public offering (OPO) provides private individuals the unique opportunity to acquire equity in Miso well before they offer stock to the general public — giving you access to affordably priced shares in a company that’s solidly positioned to meet a growing need in a global multibillion-dollar industry, by leveraging proprietary patented tech that delivers proven, measurable ROI.

As the QSR industry keeps evolving to meet customer expectations, and its staffing pool continues to shrink, demand for Miso’s robotic solutions is poised to skyrocket. Now’s your chance to join 10,000 other early-stage investors at the ground floor of AI-powered food prep — so pick up some equity in Miso, and own a valuable piece of the food industry’s future.

Microchip Can Detect COVID Before You’re Sick

A sensor that’s implanted under your skin

By Dr. Joseph Mercola (via Mercola)

Pentagon scientists and Profusa have developed a tiny biosensor that can be embedded under your skin to detect disease

Its purpose is to track chemical reactions going on inside your body, which may reveal that you’re infected with a virus like COVID-19 or influenza and about to start having symptoms the next day

In addition to the under-skin sensor, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been working on a customized filter that can be put on a standard dialysis machine to remove COVID-19 from the blood

Profusa said it intended to seek FDA approval for their tissue-integrating biosensor in 2021, and a DARPA-backed study is also underway to measure early signs of influenza via the biosensor technology

The biosensors may detect disease outbreaks, biological attacks and pandemics up to three weeks earlier than current methods, but you may have to give up your privacy in exchange

*

In the “60 Minutes” clip here, Bill Whitaker speaks with Dr. Matt Hepburn, a retired Army infectious disease physician, about a tiny sensor that can be embedded under your skin. Its purpose is to track chemical reactions going on inside your body, which may reveal that you’re infected with a virus like COVID-19 or influenza and about to start having symptoms the next day.

Hepburn describes it as a “check engine light,”¹ which could have tremendous usefulness, for instance, on an aircraft carrier where thousands of sailors live in close quarters. If the sensor gives the signal that you’re “sick,” even though you have no symptoms, a blood draw could be self-administered, giving you a diagnosis in three to five minutes.

“As you truncate that time, as you diagnose and treat, what you do is you stop the infection in its tracks,” Hepburn said.² Admittedly, a sensor that’s implanted under your skin has an Orwellian ring to it, which is why Whitaker made the disclaimer, “It’s not some dreaded government microchip to track your every move, but a tissue-like gel engineered to continuously test your blood.”

But in light of the government’s recent intrusions on personal liberties and ability to force quarantines on anyone in the name of public safety, even in the absence of illness, isn’t that essentially the same thing?

Vaccine Coordinator for Operation Warp Speed

To put this into perspective, consider that Hepburn is the vaccine coordinator for Operation Warp Speed (OWS). OWS, a joint operation between U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Defense (DOD), continues to be shrouded in secrecy but, little by little, information is emerging that long-term monitoring of the U.S. public is part of the plan.

At face value, OWS is a public-private partnership that was tasked with producing therapeutics and a fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine.³ OWS invested an estimated $18 billion primarily in late-stage clinical development and early manufacturing of COVID-19 vaccines, and agreements to purchase at least 455 million doses were made.⁴

Rather than just ensuring a vaccine is produced and made available for those who want it, however, Moncef Slaoui, the chief scientific adviser for Operation Warp Speed — he’s been dubbed the coronavirus vaccine czar⁵ — said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in October 2020 that the rollout would include “incredibly precise … tracking systems.”^6,7

Their purpose? “To ensure that patients each get two doses of the same vaccine and to monitor them for adverse health effects.”⁸ In an interview with The New York Times, Slaoui described it as a “very active pharmaco vigilance surveillance system.”⁹

Similar language was reiterated in an October 2020 perspective article published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), written by Slaoui and Hepburn.¹⁰ Writing in NEJM, the duo wrote, “Because some technologies have limited previous data on safety in humans, the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance strategies.”¹¹

In addition to working with OWS, Hepburn is a former program manager for the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), where he oversaw the development of the implantable biosensor shown in the “60 Minutes” clip with its maker, Profusa.¹² The sensor allows a person’s physiology to be examined at a distance via smartphone connectivity. Profusa is also backed by Google, the largest data mining company in the world.

Is Military Leadership and Total Surveillance the Plan?

OWS, rather than being directed by public health officials, is heavily dominated by military, technology companies and U.S. intelligence agencies, likening it to a successor for Total Information Awareness (TIA), a program managed by DARPA that sprung up after the 9/11 attacks.

At the time, TIA was seeking to collect Americans’ medical records, fingerprints and other biometric data, along with DNA and records relating to personal finances, travel and media consumption.¹³

Hepburn has praised the DOD’s role in OWS, calling it “transformative.” “One of the most important lessons learned is the value of military leadership,” he said during a speech to the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States’ virtual annual meeting in December 2020.¹⁴

In addition to the vaccine contracts the DOD obtained “in record time that was mutually beneficial” for the vaccine manufacturers, Hepburn told members of the health care community “‘to convey a message that these vaccines are safe and efficacious, and that vaccination is important’ as a counterpoint to widespread misinformation in the general public about vaccines …”¹⁵

Rather than taking over a public health initiative, as it may first appear, Hepburn said the DOD’s role in the pandemic was a collaboration not only for Americans but for people globally, and it’s set to become the new standard: “[T]his is the new standard for rapid product development, and will apply not only to pandemics but also to develop product for combat health in half the time,” he said.¹⁶

Stopping Pandemics Before They Begin?

In addition to the under-skin sensor, DARPA has been working on other projects, including a customized filter that can be put on a standard dialysis machine to remove COVID-19 from the blood.

As blood passes through the machine, the virus is removed, returning only healthy blood back to the body. A critically ill spouse of a military member, known only as “Patient 16,” reportedly received the treatment for four days and made a full recovery.¹⁷

Other scientists have recovered human antibodies for the 1918 Spanish flu, which they got from people still alive today who had lived through that pandemic. When they infected animals with the 1918 flu virus — yes, they still have it — the antibodies were effective in stopping it.¹⁸

Hepburn and his team have also funded research on a simulated Zika virus outbreak, creating a cure in 78 days, while other Pentagon researchers are in the process of creating a vaccine that would work against all coronaviruses, even the common cold. It’s currently in clinical trials.¹⁹

Injectable Biosensor Seeking FDA Approval

Hydrogel is a DARPA invention that involves nanotechnology and nanobots. This “bioelectronic interface” is part of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines’ delivery system. The biochip being developed by Profusa is similar to the proposed COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in that it utilizes hydrogel.

The implant is the size of a grain of rice, and connects to an online database that will keep track of changes in your biochemistry and a wide range of biometrics, such as heart and respiratory rate and much more.

The technology consists of three components:²⁰ the implanted sensor, a reader placed on the surface of the skin and the software that allows the reader to send the collected data via Bluetooth to your phone or tablet, which in turn can be connected to other online sources such as your doctor’s website. As Defense One explained in March 2020:²¹

“The sensor has two parts. One is a 3mm string of hydrogel, a material whose network of polymer chains is used in some contact lenses and other implants. Inserted under the skin with a syringe, the string includes a specially engineered molecule that sends a fluorescent signal outside of the body when the body begins to fight an infection.

The other part is an electronic component attached to the skin. It sends light through the skin, detects the fluorescent signal and generates another signal that the wearer can send to a doctor, website, etc. It’s like a blood lab on the skin that can pick up the body’s response to illness before the presence of other symptoms, like coughing.”

Profusa said it intended to seek FDA approval for their tissue-integrating biosensor in 2021,²² and a DARPA-backed study is also underway to measure early signs of influenza via the biosensor technology. The injectable sensors will be used to measure physiological statuses to reveal not only indicators of human response to infection but also “exposure to disease in healthy volunteers.”²³

A wireless patch that measures tissue oxygen levels would also be used, sending information to a mobile device for real-time data. According to Profusa, the biosensors may detect disease outbreaks, biological attacks and pandemics up to three weeks earlier than current methods.²⁴ It would seem, however, that in order for such sensors to work on a widespread scale, extensive adoption would be required.

24-Hour Monitoring in Exchange for ‘Safety’

There are glaring privacy and ethical concerns when it comes to rolling out an implantable sensor that will track your every sniffle, even before you reach for a tissue. The information will then be sent digitally to your cellphone, and who will have access? Perhaps an even worse prospect is, what information could potentially be sent the other way — from the sensor into your body? For instance, technology critic Adam Keiper pointed out in The New Atlantis:²⁵

“Aside from nanotech’s potential as a weapon of mass destruction, it could also make possible totally novel forms of violence and oppression. Nanotechnology could theoretically be used to make mind-control systems, invisible and mobile eavesdropping devices, or unimaginably horrific tools of torture.”

In order to stop a disease outbreak three weeks early, offering a fearful public an illusion of safety, you’d only have to give up your privacy, and submit to being monitored and hooked up to “the cloud,” perhaps permanently.

If you remember TIA after the 9/11 attacks, you may also remember that it was quickly defunded by Congress after significant public backlash, including concerns that TIA would undermine personal privacy.

In the case of OWS and the emerging biosensors, there’s little negative press, and media outlets are overwhelmingly supportive of the operation as a way to resolve the COVID-19 crisis and future pandemics. One of my favorite independent journalists, Whitney Webb, put it this way:

“It’s certainly alarming, and it seems to point to the fulfillment of an agenda that was attempted to be pushed through or foisted on the American public after 9/11, called Total Information Awareness, which was managed, originally, by DARPA.

It was about using medical data and non-medical data — essentially all data about you — to prevent terror attacks before they could happen, and also to prevent bioterror attacks and even prevent naturally occurring disease outbreaks.

A lot of the same initiatives proposed under that original program after 9/11 have essentially been resurrected, with updated technology, under the guise of combating COVID-19.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

^{1, 2, 18, 19} CBS News April 11, 2021

^{3, 6, 8, 13} Humans Are Free October 30, 2020

⁴ The Lancet Global Health March 26, 2021

⁵ CNBC September 23, 2020

⁷ Wall Street Journal October 9, 2020

⁹ The New York Times October 5, 2020

^10, 11 N Engl J Med 2020; 383:1701-1703 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2027405

¹² Bio Optics World May 25, 2016

^14, 15, 16 Health.mil December 11, 2020

¹⁷ New York Post April 12, 2021

²⁰ MD+DI March 26, 2020

^21, 22 Defense One March 3, 2020

^23, 24 Profusa March 3, 2020

²⁵ The New Atlantis, The Nanotechnology Revolution

Lab–grown Embryos and Human–monkey Hybrids: Medical Marvels or Ethical Missteps?

By Prof. Sahotra Sarkar (via Global Research)

In Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel “Brave New World,” people aren’t born from a mother’s womb. Instead, embryos are grown in artificial wombs until they are brought into the world, a process called ectogenesis. In the novel, technicians in charge of the hatcheries manipulate the nutrients they give the fetuses to make the newborns fit the desires of society. Two recent scientific developments suggest that Huxley’s imagined world of functionally manufactured people is no longer far-fetched.

On March 17, 2021, an Israeli team announced that it had grown mouse embryos for 11 days – about half of the gestation period – in artificial wombs that were essentially bottles. Until this experiment, no one had grown a mammal embryo outside a womb this far into pregnancy. Then, on April 15, 2021, a U.S. and Chinese team announced that it had successfully grown, for the first time, embryos that included both human and monkey cells in plates to a stage where organs began to form.

As both a philosopher and a biologist I cannot help but ask how far researchers should take this work. While creating chimeras – the name for creatures that are a mix of organisms – might seem like the more ethically fraught of these two advances, ethicists think the medical benefits far outweigh the ethical risks. However, ectogenesis could have far-reaching impacts on individuals and society, and the prospect of babies grown in a lab has not been put under nearly the same scrutiny as chimeras.

Mouse embryos were grown in an artificial womb for 11 days, and organs had begun to develop.

Growing in an artificial womb

When in vitro fertilization first emerged in the late 1970s, the press called IVF embryos “test-tube babies,” though they are nothing of the sort. These embryos are implanted into the uterus within a day or two after doctors fertilize an egg in a petri dish.

Before the Israeli experiment, researchers had not been able to grow mouse embryos outside the womb for more than four days – providing the embryos with enough oxygen had been too hard. The team spent seven years creating a system of slowly spinning glass bottles and controlled atmospheric pressure that simulates the placenta and provides oxygen.

This development is a major step toward ectogenesis, and scientists expect that it will be possible to extend mouse development further, possibly to full term outside the womb. This will likely require new techniques, but at this point it is a problem of scale – being able to accommodate a larger fetus. This appears to be a simpler challenge to overcome than figuring out something totally new like supporting organ formation.

The Israeli team plans to deploy its techniques on human embryos. Since mice and humans have similar developmental processes, it is likely that the team will succeed in growing human embryos in artificial wombs.

To do so, though, members of the team need permission from their ethics board.

CRISPR – a technology that can cut and paste genes – already allows scientists to manipulate an embryo’s genes after fertilization. Once fetuses can be grown outside the womb, as in Huxley’s world, researchers will also be able to modify their growing environments to further influence what physical and behavioral qualities these parentless babies exhibit. Science still has a way to go before fetus development and births outside of a uterus become a reality, but researchers are getting closer. The question now is how far humanity should go down this path.

Human-monkey hybrids

Human–monkey hybrids might seem to be a much scarier prospect than babies born from artificial wombs. But in fact, the recent research is more a step toward an important medical development than an ethical minefield.

If scientists can grow human cells in monkeys or other animals, it should be possible to grow human organs too. This would solve the problem of organ shortages around the world for people needing transplants.

But keeping human cells alive in the embryos of other animals for any length of time has proved to be extremely difficult. In the human-monkey chimera experiment, a team of researchers implanted 25 human stem cells into embryos of crab-eating macaques – a type of monkey. The researchers then grew these embryos for 20 days in petri dishes.

After 15 days, the human stem cells had disappeared from most of the embryos. But at the end of the 20-day experiment, three embryos still contained human cells that had grown as part of the region of the embryo where they were embedded. For scientists, the challenge now is to figure out how to maintain human cells in chimeric embryos for longer.

Regulating these technologies

Some ethicists have begun to worry that researchers are rushing into a future of chimeras without adequate preparation. Their main concern is the ethical status of chimeras that contain human and nonhuman cells – especially if the human cells integrate into sensitive regions such as a monkey’s brain. What rights would such creatures have?

However, there seems to be an emerging consensus that the potential medical benefits justify a step-by-step extension of this research. Many ethicists are urging public discussion of appropriate regulation to determine how close to viability these embryos should be grown. One proposed solution is to limit growth of these embryos to the first trimester of pregnancy. Given that researchers don’t plan to grow these embryos beyond the stage when they can harvest rudimentary organs, I don’t believe chimeras are ethically problematic compared with the true test–tube babies of Huxley’s world.

Few ethicists have broached the problems posed by the ability to use ectogenesis to engineer human beings to fit societal desires. Researchers have yet to conduct experiments on human ectogenesis, and for now, scientists lack the techniques to bring the embryos to full term. However, without regulation, I believe researchers are likely to try these techniques on human embryos – just as the now-infamous He Jiankui used CRISPR to edit human babies without properly assessing safety and desirability. Technologically, it is a matter of time before mammal embryos can be brought to term outside the body.

While people may be uncomfortable with ectogenesis today, this discomfort could pass into familiarity as happened with IVF. But scientists and regulators would do well to reflect on the wisdom of permitting a process that could allow someone to engineer human beings without parents. As critics have warnedin the context of CRISPR-based genetic enhancement, pressure to change future generations to meet societal desires will be unavoidable and dangerous, regardless of whether that pressure comes from an authoritative state or cultural expectations. In Huxley’s imagination, hatcheries run by the state grew a large numbers of identical individuals as needed. That would be a very different world from today.

Shape Shifting Liquid Metal Could Revolutionize Robotics

This technique can be applied to many operations in the future, including soft robotics and even flexible computer displays.

By Danielle De La Bastide (via Interesting Engineering)

Shape-shifting metal likely brings to mind images from Terminator 2 or even Avatar: The Last Airbender. But this futuristic-sounding premise is a lot more fact than fiction.

From self-healing robots to reconfigurable electronic circuits, the applications of liquid metal are only limited by the imaginations of the scientists working with them. Let’s take a look at some of the latest revolutions, discoveries, and innovations in this material. 

2D morphing metal

In 2017, scientists at the University of Sussex and Swansea University invented a way to morph liquid metal into 2D shapes using an electrical charge. Though still in the early stages of development, this team’s research could open up new possibilities in soft robotics, smart electronics, computer graphics, and flexible displays. 

Because the electric fields used to shape the liquid are programmed by a computer, the position and shape of the liquid can be programmed and controlled dynamically.

“Liquid metals are an extremely promising class of materials for deformable applications; their unique properties include voltage-controlled surface tension, high liquid-state conductivity, and liquid-solid phase transition at room temperature,” said Professor Sriram Subramanian, head of the INTERACT Lab at the University of Sussex, in a press release. 

Carnegie Mellon Metal Alloy

That same year, research engineers at Carnegie Mellon University created a metal alloy that exists in a liquid state at room temperature and can capacitate liquid metal transistors, flexible circuitry, and perhaps even self-repairing circuits in the far-flung future.

Created at the Soft Machines Lab at Carnegie Mellon by researchers Carmel Majidi, Michael Dickey, and James Wissman, this alloy is the result of a combination of indium and gallium. It would only take two drops of this liquid metal to form or break a circuit thereby opening or closing an entry, similar to a traditional transistor. Better yet, it only requires a voltage of 1 – 10 volts.

Floating bots

In early 2020, a team of researchers at Tsinghua University in China created a liquid metal material so light that it can float on water. The researchers believe it could be used to construct lightweight exoskeletons and shape-shifting robots, as per New Scientist’s report.

Like the researchers at Carnegie Mellon, those at Tsinghua University used a mixture of gallium and indium for their material. To make it float, the team stirred air-filled glass beads of glass into the liquid. 

Despite its extremely low density, the liquid metal material “still maintains excellent conformability, electric conductivity, and stiffness variety under temperature regulation” according to the paper published in the journal Advanced Functional Materials.

It will likely take some time before we see shape-shifting floating robots or self-repairing circuits in our daily lives. But in a few decades, these innovations could revolutionize how we think about metal.

Gene Editing and “Genetically Modified Humans”: China’s “Golem Babies”. There Is Another Agenda

“Just a few engineered organisms could irrevocably alter an ecosystem.”

By F. William Engdahl (via Global Research)

The shocking news that a team of scientists working in China have managed to gene-edit the DNA of recently-born human twins to allegedly make them genetically immune to a HIV infection is more than bizarre and irresponsible. It suggests that certain researchers are making dangerous experiments to create ultimately the eugenics master dream—custom-designed humans. I call them Golem babies because when technology begins cutting and splicing the human DNA without certitude that the result will be stable or healthy to the human species it is not healthy.

In medieval and ancient Jewish folklore a Golem is a being that is magically created entirely from inanimate matter such as mud. Golems have no soul. Similarly, the China experiment that claims the “first successful genetically modified humans,” when we go behind the surface stories, is alarming in the extreme. 

HIV Immune?

First of all the public story retailed by Chinese media and by the researcher, Chinese Professor He Jiankui, a Stanford University post-doctoral research graduate, doesn’t ring honest. He, who is professor at Southern University of Science and Technology, claimed at a Human Genome Editing conference in Hong Kong on November 28, and on YouTube, that he had successfully modified two embryos produced from the sperm of an HIV-positive donor and implanted them in a healthy mother, who gave birth to twin girls earlier this month. He used the most common “gene-editing” tool, CRISPR-cas9, to deactivate a gene called CCR5 that acts as a ‘doorway’ to allow the HIV virus to enter a cell. He basically claimed to have created the world’s first gene-edited humans, and announced that a second woman was pregnant with another of his gene-edited embryos.

Other scientists have severely criticized He for engaging in the human gene altering experiments. What He claims he did, to alter the DNA of human embryos, known as germ line gene editing, means the changes in those genes could be passed on and inherited by the next generations. Moreover, as several scientists involved in developing CRISPR have warned, He is in fact changing the human gene pool.

“We may not be able to see the impact of this until several generations later,” said Dennis Lo Yuk-ming, chairman of Chinese University’s Department of Chemical Pathology.

The scientist who first suggested developing gene drives in gene editing, Harvard biologist Kevin Esvelt, has publicly warned that development of gene editing, in conjunction with gene drive technologies, have alarming potential to go awry. He notes how often CRISPR messes up and the likelihood of mutations arising, making even benign gene drives aggressive. He stresses,

“Just a few engineered organisms could irrevocably alter an ecosystem.”

Esvelt’s computer gene drive simulations calculated that a resulting edited gene, “can spread to 99 percent of a population in as few as 10 generations, and persist for more than 200 generations.” Esvelt was discussing gene editing of mosquitoes. Now we are moving on to gene editing of human embryos.

Adding to the drama, at the Hong Kong gene editing conference where He proudly announced his results for the first time, Professor He refused to answer questions as to who paid for his work, or why he kept his work secret until after it was done. Chinese officials claim they had no knowledge of He’s project. There has been no independent confirmation of He’s claim, nor has he yet published in any scientific peer-reviewed journal on it. 

Adding to the questions around the case, Dr Michael Deem, a bio-engineering professor at the esteemed Texas Rice University, has been revealed to have worked on the gene-editing project using humans together with He. He Jiankui got his PhD at Rice in 2010 and that year began co-authoring scientific papers with Deem. Deem also reportedly has a financial interest in two gene-editing companies that the enterprising He has set up in China. Dr. Deem, who also receives research money from the US government National Institutes of Health, did not inform Rice University of his involvement in what under current US law is illegal.

Eugenics and Unanswered Questions

He has in the meantime been ordered to stop his human experiments with gene-editing, pending a government investigation. He declared that Chinese law, which is apparently vague on the issue, does not prohibit gene-editing with human subjects.

What is clear is that, as in many areas, China sees itself in a technology race with the West. As part of the 10 development priorities of its ambitious Made in China 2025 strategy, the government lists “Biotechnology” as a priority area. 

Unfortunately, the government does not exclude proven harmful biotech areas such as Genetically Manipulated Organisms or GMOs. In 2017 the state-owned ChemChina took over the Swiss-based Syngenta, the world’s largest agri-chemical producer, and third largest in GMO seed patents. In the area of toxic plant herbicide, glyphosate, designated by an WHO agency a “probable carcinogen,” Chinese companies make up far the world’s largest producers. In 2017, the global glyphosate production capacity was 1,065,000 tons. Of that was 380,000 tons by Monsanto and 685,000 tons of Chinese enterprises.

Now it appears that China is moving to become world leader in gene-editing. In January the US National Science Foundation released its annual report, Science and Engineering Indicators: 2018 report. It noted that while the USA till led in science and technology development, that “the US global share of S&T activities is declining as other nations — especially China — continue to rise.” Gene editing and Artificial Intelligence were two areas of rapid Chinese development they cited.

What is not yet clear is whether certain US Government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health which funds Deem at Rice is quietly funding the He human gene-editing projects, taking advantage of the lax regulatory regime there. Or whether the spooky Pentagon research arm, DARPA, is involved. 

As I noted in a previous article, DARPA’s “Insect Allies” program “aims to disperse infectious genetically modified viruses that have been engineered to edit crop chromosomes directly in fields.” This is known as “horizontal inheritance” as opposed to the dominant vertical method of GMO alteration that make laboratory-generated modifications into target species’ chromosomes to create GMO plant varieties. The genetic alterations to the crops would be carried out by “insect-based dispersion” in free nature.

A group of European scientists strongly criticized the DARPA gene-editing Insect Allies project. They noted that no compelling reasons have been presented by DARPA for the use of insects as an uncontrolled means of dispersing synthetic viruses into the environment. Furthermore, they argue that the Insect Allies Program could be more easily used for biological warfare than for routine agricultural use. 

“It is very much easier to kill or sterilize a plant using gene editing than it is to make it herbicide or insect-resistant,” according to Guy Reeves.

At this point it seems that the Chinese government is taking steps to rein in the rogue professor He and his research. What is not clear however, is whether this is cosmetic in an attempt to diffuse enormous criticism of the He human gene-editing. Earlier this year the Wall Street Journal reported that according to review of Chinese scientific journal articles, since 2015 at least 86 people have been subject of gene-editing experiments. They reported that in 2015 it began when 36 patients with kidney, lung, liver and throat cancers had cells removed that allowed were then gene-edited ad replanted in the human bodies to supposedly combat their cancer. The newspaper noted that none of the clinical trials have been formally published.

The entire field of gene-editing as with the Genome Project and GMO patented seeds, is a decades-long dream of some very influential actors such as the Rockefeller family and Bill Gates in what is called eugenics. The effort is based on fatally-flawed scientific reductionism that claims that the complexity of life can be reduced to a single gene that in turn can be modified at will. 

In a recent post on the flaws of gene-editing, namely the assertion that thousands of diseases are caused by malfunction of one gene, a hypothesis yet to be proven, researcher Jon Rappoport, who sees gene-editing as “part and parcel of the trans-human agenda,” quotes Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene.

Scientists, including some of the original inventors of gene-editing technologies, who call for a world moratorium on gene drives and gene-editing until the science can be conclusively proven safe, perhaps gain the ear of the world after the shocking Chinese human gene-editing reports. Something that Bill Gates and DARPA back can’t be “all good.” In the classic Golem fable, much like Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, the rabbi had to resort to trickery to deactivate it, whereupon it crumbled upon its creator and crushed him. Gene-editing of humans has eerie echoes of that Golem myth.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Brave New Dystopian World Order Unfolding. Silencing Dissent

By Stephen Lendman (via Global Research)

---

---

Brave new world dystopia is unfolding in plain sight, freedoms as once known fast eroding.

Are they heading for elimination altogether in the West and elsewhere?

Is totalitarian rule enforced by police state harshness becoming the new abnormal?

Is the US land of opportunity/land of the free and home of the brave a distant memory?

Eroding for years, life as once known in the US and West are on a fast track for elimination if not challenged to halt what’s underway.

Seasonal flu/influenza that occurs annually with no mass hysteria fear-mongering, house arrest by lockdowns and quarantines, face masks that harm health instead of protecting it, social distancing and all the rest have done infinitely more harm to most people than any number of illnesses combined.

Renamed (made-in-the-USA) covid, it’s a vehicle for transforming free societies into totalitarian ones — complementing what’s gone on up to now following the US state-sponsored 9/11 mother of all false flags.

What’s happening and hardening is what no one yearning to breathe free should accept.

But it’s going on and advancing, supported by Big Media.

It includes a diabolical scheme to silence dissent by eliminating truth-telling divergence from the falsified official narrative.

America’s Bill of Rights are fast disappearing.

October 2001 Patriot Act legislation trampled on them by greatly eroding the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, 8th and 14th Bill of Rights amendments to the US Constitution.

Calling for Patriot Act 2.0, Biden/Harris want the draconian 2001 law hardened for greater police state control to further weaken/then eliminate a free and open society.

Their stimulus plan calls for nationwide mass-vaxxing with high-risk, experimental, DNA-altering, hazardous to health mRNA vaccines that provide no protection and likely harm to countless numbers of people if taken as directed.

What’s planned includes issuance of digital vaccine passports — an unacceptable Big Brother intrusion into and for control over our lives.Beyond Orwell and Huxley: Brave New World Unfolding? Compulsory Vaccination, Digital Passports?

Will they be required ahead for air travel and free movement, along with access to employment, education, and other public places?

Will daily lives and routines no longer be possible without proof of covid immunity — not gotten from vaxxing?

Will what was inconceivable not long ago become reality ahead by what Biden/Harris and likeminded US hardliners have in mind?

Is the scheme a diabolical depopulation plot to eliminate maximum numbers of what Henry Kissinger once called “useless eaters” — in the US and worldwide?

A so-called US Vaccination Credential Initiative (VCI) was established.

Its sponsors include Microsoft, Oracle, the Mayo Clinic, the Commons Project, Change Healthcare, the Rockefeller Foundation, other corporate interests, likely mass-vaxxing advocate Bill Gates and US dark forces.

VCI calls itself “a coalition of public and private partners committed to empowering individuals with digital access to their vaccination records (sic).”

It’s part of a diabolical, deep state, Great Reset plot for draconian control over our lives — for ill, not good, to further erode and eliminate fundamental freedoms.

It’s unrelated to “protect(ing) and improv(ing) (our) health…safety, and privacy.”

Its aims are polar opposite the above mass deception.

It calls for digital access to health, vaxxing, and related information — for greater government intrusion into and control over our lives.

“Participating technology and other collaborating partners agree to support Vaccination Data Sources in issuing SMART Health Cards” — to aid diabolical aims sought by US dark forces at home and worldwide.

In response to what’s planned, UK-based Big Brother Watch (BBW) director Silkie Carlo said the following:

“Vaccine passports would create the backbone of an oppressive digital ID system and could easily lead to a health apartheid that’s incompatible with a free and democratic country,” adding:

“Digital IDs would lead to sensitive records spanning medical, work, travel, and biometric data about each and every one of us being held at the fingertips of authorities and state bureaucrats.”

“This dangerous plan would normalize identity checks, increase state control over law-abiding citizens, and create a honeypot for cybercriminals.”

BBW’s website warned about “(a) wave of emergency powers and extreme measures in response to (seasonal flu renamed covid that) brought about the greatest loss of liberty in (UK) history,” the US and other Western societies.

Vaccine passports are part of a diabolical plot to transform free societies into dystopian ones on the phony pretext of protecting our health and well-being that’s greatly harmed by what’s going on and planned.

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

The complete list of alternatives to all Google products

Parallel universe for the super security conscious

By Sven Taylor (Via Techspot)

---

---

With growing concerns over online privacy and securing personal data, more people than ever are considering alternatives to Google products. After all, Google’s business model essentially revolves around data collection and advertisements, both of which infringe on your privacy. More data means better (targeted) ads and more revenue. The company pulled in over $116 billion in ad revenue last year alone – and that number continues to grow.

But the word is getting out. A growing number of people are seeking alternatives to Google products that respect their privacy and data. This guide aims to be the most exhaustive resource available for documenting alternatives to Google product. So let’s get started (in no particular order or preference)…

Google search alternatives

When it comes to privacy, using Google search is not a good idea. When you use their search engine, Google is recording your IP address, search terms, user agent, and often a unique identifier, which is stored in cookies.

Here are ten alternatives to Google search:

• StartPage – StartPage gives you Google search results, but without the tracking (based in the Netherlands).
• Searx – A privacy-friendly and versatile metasearch engine that’s also open source.
• MetaGer – An open source metasearch engine with good features, based in Germany.
• Qwant – A private search engine based in France.
• DuckDuckGo – A private search engine based in the US.
• Mojeek – The only true search engine (rather than metasearch engine) that has its own crawler and index (based in the UK).
• YaCy – A decentralized, open source, peer-to-peer search engine.
• Givero – Based in Denmark, Givero offers more privacy than Google and combines search with charitable donations.
• Ecosia – Ecosia is based in Germany and donates a part of revenues to planting trees.

Note: With the exception of Mojeek, all of the private search engines above are technically metasearch engines, since they source their results from other search engines, such as Bing and Google.

Gmail alternatives

Gmail may be convenient and popular, but there are three major problems:

• Your inbox is used as a data collection tool. (Did you know Google is tracking your purchasing history from the receipts in your inbox?)
• Rather than seeing just emails, your email inbox is also used for ads and marketing.
• The contents of your inbox are being shared with Google and other random third parties.

When you remain logged in to your Gmail account, Google can easily track your activities online as you browse different websites, which may be hosting Google Analytics or Google ads (Adsense).

Here are ten alternatives to Gmail that do well in terms of privacy:

• Tutanota – based in Germany; very secure and private; free accounts up to 1 GB
• Mailfence – based in Belgium; lots of features; free accounts up to 500 MB
• Posteo – based in Germany; €1/mo with 14 day refund window
• StartMail – based in Netherlands; $5.00/mo with 7 day free trial
• Runbox – based in Norway; lots of storage and features; $1.66/mo with 30 day free trial
• Mailbox.org – based in Germany; €1/mo with 30 day free trial
• CounterMail – based in Sweden; $4.00/mo with 7 day free trial
• Kolab Now – based in Switzerland; €4.41/mo with 30 day money-back guarantee
• ProtonMail – based in Switzerland; free accounts up to 500 MB
• Thexyz – based in Canada; $1.95/mo with 30 day refund window

More information on these providers is available in the secure and private email servicesguide.

Chrome alternatives

Google Chrome is a popular browser, but it’s also a data collection tool – and many people are taking notice. Just a few days ago, the Washington Post asserted that “Google’s web browser has become spy software,” with 11,000 tracker cookies observed in a single week. Here are seven alternatives for more privacy:

• Firefox browser – Firefox is a very customizable, open-source browser that is popular in privacy circles. There are also many different Firefox modifications and tweaks that will give you more privacy and security. (Also check out Firefox Focus, a privacy-focused version for mobile users.)
• Iridium – Based on open source Chromium, Iridium offers numerous privacy and security enhancements over Chrome, source code here.
• GNU IceCat – A fork of Firefox from the Free Software Foundation.
• Tor browser – A hardened and secured version of Firefox that runs on the Tor network by default. (It also does a good job against browser fingerprinting.)
• Ungoogled Chromium – Just as the name says, this is an open source version of Chromium that has been “ungoogled” and modified for more privacy.
• Brave – Brave is another Chromium-based browser that is rather popular. It blocks trackers and ads by default (except for “approved” ads that are part of the “Brave Ads” network).
• Waterfox – This is a fork of Firefox that is configured for more privacy by default, with Mozilla telemetry stripped out of the code.

Of course, there are other alternatives to Chrome, such as Safari (from Apple), Microsoft Internet Explorer/Edge, Opera, and Vivaldi – but these also come with some privacy drawbacks.

Google Drive alternatives

If you’re looking for a secure cloud storage option, you can check out these Google Drive alternatives:

• Tresorit – A user-friendly cloud storage option based in Switzerland.
• ownCloud – An open source and self-hosted cloud platform developed in Germany.
• Nextcloud – Nextcloud is also an open source, self-hosted file sharing and collaboration platform, based in Germany.
• Sync – Based in Canada, Sync offers a secure, encrypted cloud storage solution for businesses and individuals.
• Syncthing – Here we have a decentralized, open source, peer-to-peer cloud storage platform.

Of course, Dropbox is another popular Google drive alternative, but it’s not the best in terms of privacy.

Google Calendar alternative

Here are some Google Calendar alternatives:

• Lightning Calendar is an open source calendar option developed by Mozilla, and it’s compatible with Thunderbird and Seamonkey.
• Etar, an open source, basic calendar option.
• Fruux, an open source calendar with good features and support for many operating systems.

For those wanting a combined solution for both email and calendar functionality, these providers offer that:

• Mailfence
• Kolab Now
• Posteo.de
• Mailbox.org

Google Docs / Sheets / Slides alternative

There are many solid Google Docs alternatives available. The largest offline document editing suite is, of course, Microsoft Office. As most people know, however, Microsoft is not the best company for privacy. Nonetheless, there are a few other good Google Docs alternatives:

• CryptPad – CryptPad is a privacy-focused alternative with strong encryption, and it’s free.
• Etherpad – A self-hosted collaborative online editor that’s also open source.
• Zoho Docs – This is another good Google Docs alternative with a clean interface and good functionality, although it may not be the best for privacy.
• OnlyOffice – OnlyOffice feels a bit more restricted than some of the other options in terms of features.
• Cryptee – This is a privacy-focused platform for photo and document storage and editing. It’s open source and based in Estonia.
• LibreOffice (offline) – You can use LibreOffice which is free and open source.
• Apache OpenOffice (offline) – Another good open source office suite.

Google Photos alternative

Here are a few good Google Photos alternatives:

• Piwigo – Piwigo is a great option that you can self-host. It is also free and open source.
• Lychee – Lychee is another self-hosted, open source photo management platform.

Shoebox was another alternative, but it closed operations in June 2019.

YouTube alternatives

Unfortunately, YouTube alternatives can really be hit or miss, with most struggling to gain popularity.

• Peertube
• DTube
• invidio.us
• Vimeo
• Bit.tube
• Dailymotion
• Hooktube

Tip: Invidio.us is a great Youtube proxy that allows you to watch any Youtube video without logging in, even if the video is somehow restricted. To do this, simply replace [www.youtube.com] with [invidio.us] in the URL you want to view.

Google Translate alternative

Here are a few Google translate alternatives I have come across:

• DeepL – DeepL is a solid Google Translate alternative that seems to give great results. Like Google Translate, DeepL allows you to post up to 5,000 characters at a time (but the pro version is unlimited). The user interface is good and there is also a built-in dictionary feature.
• Linguee – Linguee does not allow you to post large blocks of text like DeepL. However, Linguee will give you very accurate translations for single words or phrases, along with context examples.
• dict.cc – This Google Translate alternative seems to do a decent job on single-world lookups, but it also feels a bit outdated.
• Swisscows Translate – A good translation service supporting many languages.

If you want to translate blocks of text, check out DeepL. If you want in-depth translations for single words or phrases, then Linguee is a good choice.

Google Analytics alternative

For website admins, there are many reasons to use an alternative to Google Analytics. Aside from privacy concerns, there are also faster and more user-friendly alternatives that also respect your visitors’ privacy.

• Clicky is a great alternative to Google Analytics that truncates and anonymizes visitor IP addresses by default. It is lightweight, user-friendly, and fully compliant with GDPR regulations, while also being certified by Privacy Shield.
• Matomo (formerly Piwik) is an open-source analytics platform that respects the privacy of visitors by anonymizing and truncating visitor IP addresses (if enabled by the website admin). It is also certified to respect user privacy.
• Fathom Analytics is an open source alternative to Google Analytics that’s available on Github here. It’s minimal, fast, and lightweight.
• AT Internet is a France-based analytics provider that is fully GDPR compliant, with all data stored on French servers, and a good track record going back to 1996.

Many websites host Google Analytics because they run Google Adsense campaigns. Without Google Analytics, tracking performance of these campaigns would be difficult. Nonetheless, there are still better options for privacy.

Google Maps alternative

A map alternative for PCs is OpenStreetMap.

A few Google Maps alternatives for mobile devices include:

• OsmAnd is a free and open-source mobile maps app for both Android and iOS (based on OpenStreetMap data).
• Maps (F Droid) uses OpenStreetMap data (offline).
• Here WeGo provides good mapping solutions for both PCs and mobile devices with their app.
• Maps.Me is another option that is free on both Android and iOS, but there is a fair amount of data collection with this alternative, as explained in their privacy policy.
• MapHub is also based on OpenStreeMap data and it does not collect locations or user IP addresses.

Note: Waze is not an “alternative” as it is owned by Google.

Google Play Store alternative

Currently the best Google Play Store alternative is to use F-Droid and then go through the Yalp store. As explained on the official site, F-Droid is an installable catalog of FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) applications for the Android platform. After you have installed F-Droid, you can then download the Yalp store APK, which allows you to download apps from the Google Play Store directly as APK files.

See the F-Droid website or the official GitHub page for more info. Other alternatives to the Google Play Store include:

• TechSpot – We have an Android section in Downloads full of safe and verified downloads.
• Aptoide – An independent marketplace for Android apps.
• APKMirror – This is a large library of APK files uploaded by different users (be careful).
• Aurora Store – A fork of the Yalp Store.

Google Chrome OS alternative

Want to ditch the Chromebook and Chrome OS? Here are a few alternatives:

• Linux – Of course, Linux is arguably the best alternative, being a free, open-source operating system with lots of different flavors. With some adjustments, Linux Ubuntucan be run on Chromebooks.
• Tails – Tails is a free, privacy-focused operating system based on Linux that routes all traffic through the Tor network.
• QubesOS – Recommended by Snowden, free, and also open source.

Of course, the other two big operating system alternatives are Windows and Apple’s operating system for MacBooks – Mac OS. Windows, particularly Windows 10, is a very bad option for privacy. While slightly better, Apple also collects user data and has partnered with the NSA for surveillance.

Android alternatives

The biggest alternative to Android is iOS from Apple. But we’ll skip over that for reasons already mentioned. Here are a few Android OS alternatives:

• LineageOS – A free and open-source operating system for phones and tablets based on Android.
• Ubuntu Touch – A mobile version of the Ubuntu operating system.
• Plasma Mobile – An open source, Linux-based operating system with active development.
• Sailfish OS – Another open source, Linux-based mobile OS.
• Replicant – A fully free Android distribution with an emphasis on freedom, privacy, and security.
• /e/ – This is another open source project with a focus on privacy and security.

Purism is also working on a privacy-focused mobile phone called the Librem 5. It is in production, but not yet available (estimated Q3 2019).

Google Hangouts alternatives

Here are some alternatives to Google Hangouts:

• Wire – A great all-around secure messenger, video, and chat app, but somewhat limited on the number of people who can chat together in a group conversation via voice or video.
• Signal – A good secure messenger platform from Open Whisper Systems.
• Telegram – A longtime secure messenger app, formerly based in Russia, now in Dubai.
• Riot – A privacy-focused encrypted chat service that is also open source.

Google Domains alternative

Google Domains is a domain registration service. Here are a few alternatives:

• Namecheap – I like Namecheap because all domain purchases now come with free WhoisGuard protection for life, which protects your contact information from third parties. Namecheap also accepts Bitcoin and offers domain registration, hosting, email, SSL certs, and a variety of other products.
• Njalla – Njalla is a privacy-focused domain registration service based in Nevis. They offer hosting options, too, and also accept cryptocurrency payments.
• OrangeWebsite – OrangeWebsite offers anonymous domain registration services and also accepts cryptocurrency payments, based in Iceland.

Other Google alternatives

Here more alternatives for various Google products:

Google Forms alternative – JotForm is a free online form builder.

Google Keep alternative – Below are a few different Google Keep alternatives:

• Standard Notes is a great alternative for a note-taking service. It is secure, encrypted, and free with apps for Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, and Android (web-based also available).
• Joplin is another great option that is open source and works on Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, and Android.
• Zoho Notebook from Zoho, with apps for desktop and mobile devices.
• QOwnNotes is an open source file editor with Nextcloud integration.

Google Fonts alternative – Many websites load Google fonts through Google APIs, but that’s not necessary. One alternative to this is to use Font Squirrel, which has a large selection of both Google and non-Google fonts which are free to download and use.

Google Voice alternative – JMP.chat (both free and paid)

G Suite alternative – Zoho is probably the best option

Google Firebase alternative – Kuzzle (free and open source)

Google Blogger alternatives – WordPress, Medium, and Ghost are all good options.

Do you have any other tips or suggestions for Google alternatives? Feel free to drop a comment below. This guide will be regularly updated to reflect the latest information and user feedback.

Back to basics

By Marie Love

---

---

The largest percentage of humans believe they are their human body form. Many humans believe that once the human body form stops being animated (dies) you no longer exist.

What animates the human body form? What stops animating the human body form? What started animating the human body form and where did it come from. Where does it go when it stops animating the human body form? What is it?

It is not an it and it is not a what. It is a “who”. It is identity that is conscious (self aware) and is the “only thing that exists”.

Words humans have created to apply to the only thing that exists include: energy, consciousness, space, outer space, inner space, the universe, the multiverse, God, creator, the unified field, the singularity, mind and I prefer to use the word Source.

Remove the picture of creation and all that remains is the only thing that exists. What remains to “see”. An eternal sea of blackness. Space!

That blackness humans call space is the eternal conscious mind of God Source. So, do you believe you cannot see God Source? Close your human eyes and look at the blackness you see. That is God Source. It is your conscious mind, the only mind that exists.

You do not have to search for God Source. You simply need to remember the truth of God Source.

Realize that all of manifest creation, all expressions of energy, absolutely everything is created from, by and within the blackness you see when you close your eyes.

That is who creates the human body form and who animates the human body form. That is your true identity, the blackness of Source mind you see when you close your human body eyes.

Now imagine yourself sitting within the blackness you call space. Remove all images of manifest creation and simply look at and feel the blackness you are held within.

That is your true identity. Look! No beginning and no ending. Eternal!

Now feel! Feel the blackness of your mind. What does it feel like? Does it feel like stillness? Listen! What does it sound like? Does it sound like quite?

There is no animation, no movement, no sound. Simply the still quietness of mind.

Pay attention to yourself as you look at and feel your mind. Are you thinking? How are you thinking? What are your thoughts?

The “you” that is thinking is the blackness of your mind. What, you think your human brain is thinking? It is not!

Physics discovered centuries ago, with the discovery of the atom, that matter, which includes your human body, is 99.9999% empty space. Imagine that! Can you even begin to imagine that?

Your human body is a thought form, or an electrical digital signal, that creates a picture. A picture cannot do anything. It cannot think and it cannot move. A picture is not solid. It is an electrical stream of energy.

For a moment, think about the pictures you see on your TV. How do those pictures get on your TV? Where do they come from and how do they get into your TV?

They are electrical signals broadcast through space that you call air. Look at the air around you. Do you see the pictures that end up in your TV in the air? No, you do not because they are not pictures. They are electrical streams of energy encrypted with “thoughts”.

That is what manifest creation is, electrically charged thoughts. Your mind, space, is filled with your thoughts.

You are an expression of the only thing that exists, the only creator that exists, the eternal conscious mind of God Source.

You can choose to deny, ignore or search for your mind but as you can see, your mind is formless. So, you cannot find your mind by looking for a form. You cannot remember your mind, yourself, until you realize the truth.

You are not your human body form. You are eternal mind. Your human body form is simply a temporary thought form you have put part of your energy of mind into to turn on the thought. When you remove your energy from the thought of the human body form it stops being animated because it is energy of mind animating it.

Your manifest reality, your “picture” of creation is a digital stream of your thoughts. You are the only one creating and experiencing it.

How are you doing that? How are you experiencing the picture of your reality field that you currently believe is solid?

Look at the blackness of your mind again. Do you see anything in that blackness that would allow you to experience a reality field composed of your thoughts? You do not! You only see blackness.

You cannot see that your mind is filled with your thoughts. You cannot see your thoughts as a form. You can only think and create thoughts. What must you do to be able to see and experience your thoughts? You must create a thought that will operate to turn your thoughts into a reality and then you must put part of yourself into the thought to turn the thought on. What do you create?

You create cells!

You create a thought that humans call a cell and you code the cell with your desired operation instructions. When you put part of yourself into the cell you turn it on.

The operation instructions you created for the cell, just via thinking, turn on when you put part of yourself into the cell.

The cell begins to replicate and divide, creating copies of the cell. The instructions in the first cell, the “code”, determines how many cells are created and how the replicated cells function. This is determined by the code in the very first cell which determines what codes will be turned on or off as cells are copied.

This creates what humans call “organs”. Remember, you have created a thought and put part of yourself into the thought to turn it on. As cells are copied and created, you can put more of yourself into the cells.

The purpose of all cells you create is to generate sparks which create an electrical stream of electrically charged energy. Humans call this electrical stream of energy the neurological system.

Now you have created something to allow you to experience your thoughts. You create an uncountable number of cells, all with a unique code, that allows you to experience all probabilities of your thoughts “at the same time”.

Now think! Close your human eyes and look at the blackness of your mind.

Who creates your human body form? Who animates your human body form? Who stops animating your human body form. Where does who come from and where does who go!

Who are you?

Not bot, not beast: Scientists create first ever living, programmable organism

by Simon Coghlan and Kobi Leins, The Conversation (via PHYS.ORG)

---

Nanobots are tiny robots that carry out specific tasks. In medicine, they can be used for targeted drug delivery.

---

A remarkable combination of artificial intelligence (AI) and biology has produced the world’s first “living robots”

This week, a research team of roboticists and scientists published their recipe for making a new lifeform called xenobots from stem cells. The term “xeno” comes from the frog cells (Xenopus laevis) used to make them.

One of the researchers described the creation as “neither a traditional robot nor a known species of animal”, but a “new class of artifact: a living, programmable organism”. 

Xenobots are less than 1mm long and made of 500-1000 living cells. They have various simple shapes, including some with squat “legs”. They can propel themselves in linear or circular directions, join together to act collectively, and move small objects. Using their own cellular energy, they can live up to 10 days.

While these “reconfigurable biomachines” could vastly improve human, animal, and environmental health, they raise legal and ethical concerns.

Strange new ‘creature’

To make xenobots, the research team used a supercomputer to test thousands of random designs of simple living things that could perform certain tasks.

The computer was programmed with an AI “evolutionary algorithm” to predict which organisms would likely display useful tasks, such as moving towards a target. 

After the selection of the most promising designs, the scientists attempted to replicate the virtual models with frog skin or heart cells, which were manually joined using microsurgery tools. The heart cells in these bespoke assemblies contract and relax, giving the organisms motion.

The creation of xenobots is groundbreaking.

Despite being described as “programmable living robots”, they are actually completely organic and made of living tissue. The term “robot” has been used because xenobots can be configured into different forms and shapes, and “programmed” to target certain objects—which they then unwittingly seek.

They can also repair themselves after being damaged.

Possible applications

Xenobots may have great value.

Some speculate they could be used to clean our polluted oceans by collecting microplastics.

Similarly, they may be used to enter confined or dangerous areas to scavenge toxins or radioactive materials.

Xenobots designed with carefully shaped “pouches” might be able to carry drugs into human bodies.

Future versions may be built from a patient’s own cells to repair tissue or target cancers. Being biodegradable, xenobots would have an edge on technologies made of plastic or metal.

Further development of biological “robots” could accelerate our understanding of living and robotic systems. Life is incredibly complex, so manipulating living things could reveal some of life’s mysteries—and improve our use of AI.

This time-lapse video shows cells being manipulated and assembled to create xenobots. Credit: Douglas Blackiston, Tufts University

Legal and ethical questions

Conversely, xenobots raise legal and ethical concerns. In the same way they could help target cancers, they could also be used to hijack life functions for malevolent purposes.

Some argue artificially making living things is unnatural, hubristic, or involves “playing God”.

A more compelling concern is that of unintended or malicious use, as we have seen with technologies in fields including nuclear physics, chemistry, biology and AI. 

For instance, xenobots might be used for hostile biological purposes prohibited under international law. 

More advanced future xenobots, especially ones that live longer and reproduce, could potentially “malfunction” and go rogue, and out-compete other species.

For complex tasks, xenobots may need sensory and nervous systems, possibly resulting in their sentience. A sentient programmed organism would raise additional ethical questions. Last year, the revival of a disembodied pig brain elicited concerns about different species’ suffering.

Managing risks

The xenobot’s creators have rightly acknowledged the need for discussion around the ethics of their creation.

The 2018 scandal over using CRISPR (which allows the introduction of genes into an organism) may provide an instructive lesson here. While the experiment’s goal was to reduce the susceptibility of twin baby girls to HIV-AIDS, associated risks caused ethical dismay. The scientist in question is in prison.

When CRISPR became widely available, some experts called for a  moratorium on heritable genome editing. Others argued the benefits outweighed the risks. 

While each new technology should be considered impartially and based on its merits, giving life to xenobots raises certain significant questions: 

1. Should xenobots have biological kill-switches in case they go rogue?
2. Who should decide who can access and control them?
3. What if “homemade” xenobots become possible? Should there be a moratorium until regulatory frameworks are established? How much regulation is required?

Lessons learned in the past from advances in other areas of science could help manage future risks, while reaping the possible benefits.

Long road here, long road ahead

The creation of xenobots had various biological and robotic precedents. Genetic engineering has created genetically modified mice that become fluorescent in UV light. 

Designer microbes can produce drugs and food ingredients that may eventually replace animal agriculture. 

In 2012, scientists created an artificial jellyfish called a “medusoid” from rat cells.

Robotics is also flourishing. 

Nanobots can monitor people’s blood sugar levels and may eventually be able to clear clogged arteries. 

Robots can incorporate living matter, which we witnessed when engineers and biologists created a sting-ray robot powered by light-activated cells.

In the coming years, we are sure to see more creations like xenobots that evoke both wonder and due concern. And when we do, it is important we remain both open-minded and critical.

2,000 Atoms Exist in Two Places at Once in Unprecedented Quantum Experiment

The new experiment demonstrated a bizarre quantum effect from the double-slit experiment at an unprecedented scale.

By Rafi Letzter

---

---

Giant molecules can be in two places at once, thanks to quantum physics.

That’s something that scientists have long known is theoretically true based on a few facts: Every particle or group of particles in the universe is also a wave — even large particles, even bacteria, even human beings, even planets and stars. And waves occupy multiple places in space at once. So any chunk of matter can also occupy two places at once. Physicists call this phenomenon “quantum superposition,” and for decades, they have demonstrated it using small particles.

But in recent years, physicists have scaled up their experiments, demonstrating quantum superposition using larger and larger particles. Now, in a paper published Sept. 23 in the journal Nature Physics, an international team of researchers has caused molecule made up of up to 2,000 atoms to occupy two places at the same time.

To pull it off, the researchers built a complicated, modernized version of a series of famous old experiments that first demonstrated quantum superposition.

Researchers had long known that light, fired through a sheet with two slits in it, would create an interference pattern, or a series of light and dark fringes, on the wall behind the sheet. But light was understood as a massless wave, not something made of particles, so this wasn’t surprising. However, in a series of famous experiments in the 1920s, physicists showed that electrons fired through thin films or crystals would behave in a similar way, forming patterns like light does on the wall behind the diffracting material.

If electrons were simply particles, and so could occupy only one point in space at a time, they would form two strips, roughly the shape of the slits, on the wall behind the film or crystal. But instead, the electrons hit that wall in complex patterns suggesting the electrons had interfered with themselves . That is a telltale sign of a wave; in some spots, the peaks of the waves coincide, creating brighter regions, while in other spots, the peaks coincide with troughs, so the two cancel each other out and create a dark region. Because physicists already knew that electrons had mass and were definitely particles, the experiment showed that matter acts both as individual particles and as waves.

But it’s one thing to create an interference pattern with electrons. Doing it with giant molecules is a lot trickier. Bigger molecules have less-easily detected waves, because more massive objects have shorter wavelengths that can lead to barely-perceptible interference patterns. And these 2,000-atom particles have wavelengths smaller than the diameter of a single hydrogen atom, so their interference pattern is much less dramatic.

To pull off the double-slit experiment for big things, the researchers built a machine that could fire a beam of molecules (hulking things called “oligo-tetraphenylporphyrins enriched with fluoroalkylsulfanyl chains,” some more than 25,000 times the mass of a simple hydrogen atom) through a series of grates and sheets bearing multiple slits. The beam was about 6.5 feet (2 meters) long. That’s big enough that the researchers had to account for factors like gravity and the rotation of the Earth in designing the beam emitter, the scientists wrote in the paper. They also kept the molecules fairly warm for a quantum physics experiment, so they had to account for heat jostling the particles.

But still, when the researchers switched the machine on, the detectors at the far end of the beam revealed an interference pattern. The molecules were occupying multiple points in space at once.

It’s an exciting result, the researchers wrote, proving quantum interference at larger scales than had ever before been detected.

“The next generation of matter-wave experiments will push the mass by an order of magnitude,” the authors  wrote.

So, even bigger demonstrations of quantum interference are coming, though it probably won’t be possible to fire yourself through an interferometer anytime soon. (First of all, the vacuum in the machine would probably kill you.) Us giant beings are just going to have to sit in one place and watch the particles have all the fun.

• 18 Times Quantum Particles Blew Our Minds
• What’s That? Your Physics Questions Answered
• Twisted Physics: 7 Mind-Blowing Findings

Originally published on Live Science.