Directing Evolution

The Unscrupulous Require Regulation

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. ~ Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1859

In considering just one amazing aspect of the human form, Darwin humbly questioned his own theory about how we evolved. The above quote from his foundational treatise has been used by theologians to cast aspersions on his detailed analysis of the development of life on Earth. Yet the view that a powerful force guides our destiny and Darwin’s discussion of how the diversity of life has manifested, are not mutually exclusive. He clearly stated that natural selection was not the only influence on human evolution.

When viewed as a creative process, natural selection remains a feasible explanation for influencing biological development. From whatever perspective one views the progression of life on Earth, the human mind has a powerful influence on the future — with unknown repercussions.

Astonishingly, it is now well-established that observation and intention alter the fabric of reality. And although we might not recognize how this fits with a creative plan, intentionality is integral to our existence. Darwin’s views certainly allow room for these influences explained by quantum physics; including the concept of entanglement.

This understanding applied to human development is in an embryonic phase, thus immense caution needs to be applied to any endeavor that might support a deviation from natural processes.

It is never too early to consider the regulation of the powerful techniques that will shape the future of humanity; ethical considerations must be front and center.

Enthusiastic advocates for genetic manipulation, insist these experimental procedures are sophisticated and necessary steps to enhance natural selection. The choosing or developing of improved mutations in the name of benefitting mankind has been labeled directed evolution.

Even the use of this term is based on an assumption that evolution is undirected and that we are beholden to random universal influences that require control. This is the rationale and the central justification for enhancing viruses; it assumes nature, in its fickleness, can be antagonistic toward humanity.

The risks of this misconception have had recent confirmation. The debate and ensuing waves of opinion following an unrefuted report of how Pfizer Pharmaceuticals develops its products is a most fascinating example of the disorder surrounding directed evolution.

Revelations And Protestations

The public relations conference rooms echoed the vital question as Pfizer’s well-paid guardians went into full swing: How will we spin this?

In a post-news-hour press release on a Friday evening, Pfizer responded to unspecified allegations by declaring “Pfizer has not conducted gain of function or directed evolution research.” However, within a few paragraphs they also say, “In a limited number of cases, when a full virus does not contain any gain of function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells.”

With no opportunity to ask for more details, we can only assume that all aspects of engineering a potentially lethal pathogen were solely in the hands of a corporate entity with mixed motivation.

Even with the most forgiving understanding of the pressures of developing a vaccine during an infectious outbreak, the lack of supervision and scrutiny of a company whose primary loyalty is to its stockholders, rather than improving the condition of humanity, is of the greatest concern.

In a momentary lapse of general lethargy in facing key issues about the survival of the human species, even the mainstream press awakened to dismiss the topic. Most news sources rapidly issued declarations leaping to Pfizer’s defense with inimitable word salads mixing facts and fiction. Incredibly, even a Weather Channel article chimed in with assurances that Pfizer wasn’t doing anything abnormal in its attempt to save the world during a pandemic.

There were some sober reviews of the facts.

Dr. Robert Malone’s excellent analysis of the Pfizer disclosures presents irrefutable evidence for those with any doubts that a corporate entity has been overhauling viruses. And this, without any guidance or oversight — moral or physical — beyond their own self-interested regulation. Details of these experiments had been reported in 2021. Pfizer had freely admitted to creating new viruses in their Pearl River laboratories in what they claimed then was an attempt to stay ahead of variants.

The Evidence Is In Plain Sight

Due to its conflicting priorities, Pfizer has a habit of doing the opposite of what it claims; somewhat revealed by “the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products.”

In another example of their depravity, after twenty years of marketing and profiteering, and because of the general political and financial pressure on Big Pharma, Pfizer finally admitted that opiates are addictive and inappropriate for chronic pain.

The amorality of the Pharmaceutical Industry does not provide optimism for their ability to self-regulate. Any company with mock integrity that repeatedly defiles any sense of ethics is certainly unfit to make decisions about the boundaries of experimentation.

They have been allowed to make choices that might already be altering the fate of the human race.

In this bizarre atmosphere where the unscrupulous are allowed free reign, a genetically engineered world has already taken hold with assurances that the benefits of manipulating nature outweigh any risk. But the odds of disaster are overwhelming when the likes of Pfizer are allowed to meddle with elemental pathogenic structures without the strictest oversight.

Along with their sordid history and recent disclosures, alarms should be going off raising questions about the engendering of variants and the purported urgent need for boosters. Apparently, as the COVID virus first mutated and Pfizer was telling the world to just trust us, they were indeed adding functions to the virus.

Perhaps Pearl River should have more scrutiny than Wuhan.

Yet in the wake of the Pfizer debacle, out of all the regulatory agencies and legislators in Washington, we only know of one Senator who wrote to Pfizer directly, enquiring about what might be going on in its laboratories.

Directing Survival

If ever a serious investigation examines the out-of-control experimentation with viruses, the most dramatic revelation — already alarmingly apparent — will be that there is no dignified leadership in this area. As with most investigations involving Big Pharma, the depravity will exceed all expectations.

Whether one accepts natural selection or a supernatural plan to explain the evolution of life, the altering of the structure of viruses brings us face-to-face with the greatest challenge of our time.

There has been a professed argument that the human species has developed enough intelligence to know how to successfully engineer the basic elements of life. However, to date, most of the proposed and implemented changes are not about the survival of humanity in balance with the planet; mostly because those making decisions are not the noblest of our species.

Altruistic and meaningful government oversight is certainly nowhere to be found in guiding this process. Apparently, world-shattering decisions are under the control of the worst possible forces. It does seem that things have already gone very wrong.

This laissez-faire atmosphere, allowing companies to enhance viral transmission without strict oversight and bioethical limitations, is as safe as operating commercial aviation without air traffic control. Excusing these procedures as necessary to fight a pandemic or develop effective vaccines is unacceptable; the experiments have more chance of creating a disaster than stopping one. Whether called gain-of-function, viral engineering, or directed evolution, it is madness to not stop this immediately.

A humble assessment would be helpful. Many core questions remain unanswered about our existence, yet we behave as though there are no mysteries. Corporate science bashes forward as if there are only technical problems to overcome. This arrogant and unintelligent approach to evolving human life is full of great risks.

Darwin, whose experience and perception remain relevant, encapsulates our current predicament with one of his most profound thoughts:

Intelligence is based on how efficient a species became at doing the things they need to survive.