Tag Archives: Saatchi Bill

Synthetic (GM) Insects as weapons

If a small nation state engineers an insect common to a target (enemy) state and releases it within the boundaries of its target country, is that an act of war?

If a DIY synthetic biologists, tinkers with midges, mosquitoes or any biting insect which then inflicts harm on fellow citizens, is he directly culpable?

If a corporation engineers an insect and releases it within a town, is it liable for any resultant harm or injury?

If a nation state in partnership with a corporation releases a “synthetic” mosquito into your neighbourhood that causes harm, are they both liable?

Oxitec/Intrexon are at the forefront of what is a very cheap means of biowarfare or eugenics. The technology is within the reach of time rich and well funded individuals.

Nation states, corporations, individuals creating synthetic insects to design and the consequent mistakes or deliberate actions that will ensure is a reality.

How will the statists or corporate pirates hide their mistakes? If the mistake occurs in the target country, its a release 1.0 build, let us try release 1.1. It will be better.

It is now openly stated and documented by the existence of the field of synthetic virologists and biologists that bacteria, viruses and insects can be made to order.

Acknowledging this fact, what is a community not inclined to use this technology offensively to do? Reactive biological surveillance and analysis?

How do you deal with funded foundations linked to vaccines, gene editing Editas, Glyphosate Monsanto and now GM mosquitoes Oxitec?

A supranational body like WHO is beholden to its sponsers, so in the case of a “pandemic”, what objectives will WHO and linked supra-national bodies achieve? Objectives compliant with their sponsors, no?

What will be the solution? More DNA engineering with viruses and insects. Vaccines and GM research will be the corporate cry.

A country finds itself in the midst of a strange, new, “emerging” disease. It does not have the capability to sequence the offending virus, bacteria or insect, so accepts whatever assistance supra-national and external governments provide. That naivete and lack of independent analysis means even an overt attack will not be seen as an act of war or subjugation, merely a pandemic requiring external assistance.

Synthetic insects, synthetic viruses are a fact. Like any weapon it can be used offensively or defensively but here is the huge problem with the synthetic life technocrats – can you really use synthetic insects in a defensive way? Once released you relinquish control. You have no way to predict the outcome. Even offensively, it is a short term tactic with unknown long term effects for the initiator or its target.

The technology is now routine, its offensive impact has yet to sink in…its defensive usefulness is questionable.

ADVISE TO STATISTS: Start spending some of your public health budget on DNA monitoring/sequencing of your local ecology, pronto! You can then prove an “emerging” pandemic as a foreign introduction.

Advertisements

Over 100 of the UK’s leading Cancer specialists oppose the ‘Saatchi Bill’

http://www.stopthesaatchibill.co.uk/over-100-of-the-uks-leading-cancer-specialists-oppose-the-saatchi-bill/
According to the Stop the Saatchi Bill Alliance:

  • The bill is about removing patient rights, not giving new ones.
  • It is about absolving doctors from responsibility for their actions.
  • A doctor can act without the support of their colleagues, and be protected by the bill.
  • It applies to treatment for any condition, major or minor.
  • It applies even if there is an existing effective treatment.
  • The major medical, patient and medical protection organisations oppose it.
  • It will not give us a cure for cancer.
  • It will inhibit research, not promote it.

Stop the Saatchi Bill

http://www.stopthesaatchibill.co.uk
What is the Saatchi Bill?
Its proper title is the Medical Innovation Bill and was written by Lord Saatchi and his team. It seeks to promote medical innovation by dispensing with current clinical negligence law in relation to decisions to provide treatment. The Bill is well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed.

Current clinical negligence law provides redress to patients who have suffered harm as a result of treatment which would not be supported by any responsible body of medical opinion. This Bill seeks to remove that right of redress where a doctor has taken a decision to treat in what the Bill defines as a “responsible” manner, even when no other doctor would support the treatment actually given. We do not believe that depriving patients of the right of redress is the best way to promote medical innovation.
http://www.stopthesaatchibill.co.uk/what-is-wrong-with-the-bill/