Genetic Engineering with CRISPR Gets the Go Ahead, but Ethical Concerns Over Gene Editing Stand Firm (VIDEOS)

April 17, 2018
Reprinted from: The Christian Journal

What is CRISPR?

Every cell in our body contains a copy of our genome, DNA. Our genes shape who we are as individuals and as a species. To understand how genes work, researchers need ways to control them. A new tool has been developed to edit the DNA of any species, including humans. Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats or CRISPR has been promised by scientists to be the answer to curing genetic diseases.

The CRISPR method is based on a natural system used by bacteria to protect themselves from infection by viruses. Scientists can manipulate the RNA to create a CAS-9 that will cut part of the DNA away. They can then replace it with the desired sequence of DNA.

Genetic editing can be done in fertilized eggs, as well as create transgenic animals.

The CRISPR process comes with great risks. While eager scientists are chomping at the bit to get to human trials, in most countries, there are ethical standards that must be met. China is leading the charge with CRISPR genetic engineering as it has already begun human trials. One of the major dilemmas is that scientists are unsure what other mutations could occur by altering part of the code, and even if it’s for good intentions such as curing a disease, it could cause far more harm than good.

Technology such as CRISPR starts with good intentions but can go terribly wrong when put in the wrong hands. In a world that is rapidly turning to science for all the answers, we as a society need to keep a watchful and ethical gaze on just how far scientists are pushing the envelope, especially in circumstances such as genetic engineering, a field that could affect every living and breathing being on earth.


Science wants to hijack our immune systems, by manipulating the CRISPR and CAS system and injecting CHIMERA RNA. There are two segments involved in their new system; CAS9 and trcrRNA-crRNA chimera. The system will cut the genome of the cell at the desired location, allowing existing genes to be removed and/or new ones added.

Why is CRISPR being done?

They say that CRISPR is being used for “basic research, drug development, agriculture, and eventually for treating humans for genetic disease,” but could there already be an ulterior motive?

Depopulationist Bill Gates today strongly endorses new gene editing techniques such as CRISPR, saying they could help humanity overcome some of its “biggest and most persistent challenges” in global health and agriculture over the next decade.

“Eliminating the most persistent diseases and causes of poverty will require scientific discovery and technological innovations,” he wrote. “CRISPR makes the discovery and development of innovations much faster and more precise.”

In a statement released [April 10], alarmingly Gates advocated for the use of gene editing techniques to address pressing problems in agriculture, where the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) has been backing research into the use of gene editing for a decade, as well as medicine.

Bill Gates’ interest in CRISPR is concerning because, during a TEDx speech, he exposed the true intentions simmering under the surface of his fraudulent philanthropy.

Citing climate change as the reason, Bill Gates presented an equation that he said would be the answer to zero CO2, the amount of CO2 = people x services per person x energy per service x CO2 per unit energy. “So let’s look at each one of these and see how we can get this down to zero, probably one of these numbers is gonna have to get pretty near to zero,” he says with the “p” for person highlighted on the screen behind him.

He continues with his sinister plan, “first we’ve got population, the world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

Bill Gates, the second richest man in the world who advocated for depopulation in the name of climate change is endorsing CRISPR gene editing to address problems in agriculture and medicine. From this alone, we should know that his ethical standards aren’t up to par. If that isn’t enough, the Bill Gates Foundation has also been banned in India because of a conflict of interest with big pharma organizations and the vaccinations that were being given to children.


Billionaires aren’t the only concern with CRISPR. The following is the transcript and excerpt from a report published on the Mother Jones website by Nina Liss-Schultz, who was interviewing a “skeptic” on the matter, Marcy Darnovsky, who’s is an executive director of the Berkeley-based Center for Genetics and Society; her research focuses on biotechnology and reproduction. During the interview, she outlines valid arguments against CRISPR.

1. Gene editing with CRISPR is still not very safe. “It’s almost universally accepted that right now it would be crazy to proceed with the technology. Some of the problems that have come up, including in the Chinese experiment, is with what’s called off-target mutation. There’s this thing described as a molecular scissors that’s supposed to have a homing device that’ll take you to the exact spot on the DNA strand that you want to cut, but sometimes it’s not that precise—it’ll go somewhere else and sometimes the change that it makes isn’t what you intended. Other times the change is made accurately in some of the embryonic cells but not in all of them, which leads to a condition called mosaicism that can lead to problems later in development. Another problem is that the scissors component of the system can hang around in the cell and later on, when you think you’re done, it starts snipping away. The term ‘gene editing’ helps people understand how the technology works, but it also suggests a level of precision and safety that at least for now isn’t there.”

2. Genome modification isn’t the only available method of stopping the transmission of inherited diseases. “Some of the more cautious and shrewd people are saying, ‘We’ll only use this to prevent the transmission of diseases.’ That does sound like a worthy goal, but here’s the thing: You don’t need to be editing genes to accomplish this because we already have embryo screening techniques that at this point are pretty standard add-ons in in vitro fertilization clinics. They accomplish the very same thing with far less physical danger for the resulting child and without anything like the level of societal risk posed by germline modification.”

3. Once the door to editing our genome gets opened, there’s no going back. “Say there was a policy effort to use this gene editing technique to prevent Huntington’s disease. Well, it’s impossible to really draw a policy line. It’s like how the FDA doesn’t regulate off-label uses of drugs and devices: Once the FDA approves the drug for one thing, a doctor can use it and prescribe it for anything. No one is telling fertility clinics what they can and cannot do. And maybe that’s a good thing, but it also means we could not control fertility clinics that were trying to use CRISPR to push the envelope. So this mission creep would be very difficult—if not impossible—to control.

And there are Futurists, including a few scientists, who say we’re going to produce superior children and improve humanity. A prominent scientist has already spelled out a list with ten conditions, things like stronger bones, slow- and fast-twitch muscles, so that the resulting child could be good at an endurance or sprinting sport, and sleep—there’s a gene that’s correlated with people needing less sleep. I think it’s very possible that once you unleash this technology onto the market and set it in motion, commercial and competitive dynamics would set in, and you’d see people that wanted to give their future children the best start in life. You can really see the ad copy writing itself.”

4. So-called “designer babies” would be available only to the rich. “IVF is already expensive. It’s not only rich people who use it—people take out second and third mortgages on their homes—but it is expensive. Gene editing would be more so. And so you’d have children born to the more wealthy class that either were genetically superior or even thought to be genetically superior. This would exacerbate trends toward great inequality and could introduce new forms of inequality.”

5. Harvesting eggs from women carries its own risks. “The Chinese experiment in April was using nonviable embryos that were created but not used in fertility treatments. In the process of fertility treatments, some of the embryos don’t turn out right, so they can’t be developed into a human child even if they were implanted.

But in the UK, they want to use viable human embryos because they want to investigate what goes wrong in early embryonic development. The retrieval of eggs from women is invasive, it carries risks that are understudied, and the women that are recruited to provide eggs often aren’t made fully aware of what the risks are.”

6. Skepticism of embryonic modification is different from anti-abortion groups’ belief that personhood begins at fertilization. “There are some anti-choice groups that have come to the same conclusions [the Center for Genetics and Society] has. I can’t say exactly what their logic is, but it has to do with attempts to elevate the status of the embryo. They’re concerned with the destruction of embryos. Back when there were headlines about human cloning, some bishops thought that once you produced cloned human embryos, it might be better to implant them into a woman’s uterus than be destroyed.”

7. But even the skeptics are excited by the science. “It’s not exactly the technology itself that I’m worried about—it’s with the application of creating genetically modified human beings. The gene-editing technology itself is first of all scientifically exciting, and second of all, it could be used to help people who are sick. That could be great.”

The strange sci-fi reality that Darnovsky mentions futurists desiring has been written about and discussed by the author of New York Times bestseller “Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow,” Yuval Noah Harari gave a talk at the Carnegie Council for ethics and international affairs. His viewpoints include a future in which the masses are useless, depopulation is completely necessary and the humans that are left are ‘gods,’ see more in the video below.


In early 2018, we discussed how people are turning to scientific technologies like CRISPR as a faith. Scientists used the same cloning technique that created Dolly the sheep to clone two genetically identical monkeys in Shanghai.


China has led the charge with genetic engineering and began with clinical trials as early as 2015. According to Wall Street Journal, so far in China, at least 86 people have had their genes edited, and there is evidence of at least 11 Chinese clinical trials using CRISPR.

Most recently in London, scientists say that CRISPR could cure a destructive blood disorder known as beta thalassemia, which reduces the production of hemoglobin. Beta thalassemia marks the first disease scientists in Europe will attempt to rectify using CRISPR as regulators have given the go ahead.

Scientists say that they hope to use this on humans in the future, but for now, they’re using human stem cells that are harvested and grown in a lab.

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, Group Leader at London’s Francis Crick Institute, told the Sunday Telegraph: ‘We will look back and think that this is the real beginning of gene therapy.’

In the United States, The University of Pennsylvania has begun enlisting for a trial which plans to use CRISPR to treat patients with cancer.

The Penn scientists won’t be injecting CRISPR directly into patients’ bloodstreams; Instead, they’ll use a method called ex vivo gene therapy, extracting blood and editing it with CRISPR before re-inserting it into subjects. This may bypass specific immune reactions that reject the former method.

Previously, scientists admitted to creating synthetic human entities to test gene editing on.


What is the spiritual motive?

The processes in question can bring back the Biblical Nephilim all while stripping mankind of the thing that matters most, the Hand of God. God’s hand is in creation, and each life form that is created is given the breath of life, but what happens when mankind takes over that process? What happens when God is removed?

The Bible speaks of the times at hand, and the Bible foretells of the things that will walk the Earth in those days according to Matthew 24:37.

Hybrid DNA, designer babies, and modified plant life, man manipulating our very nature is sure to cause even more confusion and strife in our already chaotic world.

Works Cited

Charlotte Dean. “Humans will be genetically modified for the first time in Europe as scientists get the go-ahead to use DNA-splicing therapy to treat blood disorder.” Daily Mail. . (2018): . .

Nina Liss-Schultz. “We Are This Close to “Designer Babies”.” Mother Jones. . (2016): . .