A Review of As Gods: A Moral History of the Genetic Age

A Review of As Gods: A Moral History of the Genetic Age

Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity – 1/19/2023

There is a phrase one of my friends uses, “as useful as a poop-flavored lollipop.” Obviously poop-flavored candy on a stick is not useful whatsoever. As Gods, written by Matthew Cobb, is only slightly more useful than such a lollipop. The usefulness of Cobb’s book lies in the fact that it proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that bioethics is worse than a poop-flavored candy.

Cobb’s book goes over the developments which have occurred in genetic engineering and weaves in ethical concerns which have arisen as the science has advanced. Cobb loves to glorify the four times scientists in these fields have voluntarily placed research moratoriums upon themselves. He even makes mention of why bioethicists are useless – at no point in time has there ever been an effort on bioengineers part to consult with the greater public about their developments. The bioengineering community has been given the power to largely regulate themselves.

Cobb acknowledges that there are blind spots in self-regulation yet still fails to make concrete demands that the public must be included in the discussion, although he does come close. On page 365, he wrote, “Public involvement in decision-making, on the basis of open experimental data rather than secrecy and suspicion, needs to become widespread and routine.” But the next sentence reads, “International agreements, backed up by inspection and sanction powers, needs to become the rule – this remains a weakness of the Biological Weapons Convention, where compliance is assessed by the parties, not by any external organization.”

In reality he suggests that some members of the public should be consulted but only after the experiments have been conducted, the patents filed, and the ‘inventors’ are about to produce marketable products. That isn’t really input, it’s a marketing research exercise. Right after Cobb decides that the public be consulted even in this limited manner, he demands a globalized body be created to regulate bioengineering research and development. So, he is a globalist advocating for global government.

Cobb discusses multiple aspects of genetic engineering like recombinant DNA, gene drives, CRISPR, and gene therapy. All of this differ from one another slightly. The glossary included by Cobb defines “Recombinant. DNA from more than one source. Although technically all offspring of sexual reproduction are recombinant (including you), the term is generally used to apply to a novel form of DNA that has been deliberately created from different species,” (page 373). He could have written the word chimera, but he chose not to. Instead, Cobb chose to take that space to justify the horrific experiments he and his colleagues practice daily and take for granted.

“Gene drive. A genetic construct in a diploid organism [most animals] that copies itself onto the other chromosome in germline cells, thereby ensuring that all offspring carry the construct. This process repeats each generation, leading to an exponential growth in the frequency of the gene in the population,” (page 371). Again this is a chimeric entity. The definition masks what gene drives are used for – pest extermination. Despite finding that gene drives employed in the wild seen to lose their ability to destroy pest populations, the idea is still being promoted and implemented by people like Bill Gates. Gene drives are literally meant to exterminate entire species.

“CRISPR. A method for editing genes in organisms. The acronym comes from a kind of bacterial DNA sequences and was coined before their function was apparent: Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats. Used both as a noun and, increasingly, as a verb, and by extension as an adjective,” (page 370). This doesn’t really explain what CRISPR is or how it does what it does. CRISPR is a piece of genetic material which allows bioengineers to cut a strand of DNA which enablers them to insert alien DNA. How it does what it does is a lengthy topic. You can find out more here. This is a method used to turn any DNA-based life into a chimera.

“Gene therapy. The medical application of genetic engineering, specifically the alteration of a particular gene in a somatic cell, usually by introducing a different version of the gene or, more recently, by changing the gene’s sequence,” (page 371). This, also, creates chimeras. The term ‘somatic cells’ refers to cells which are not passed to offspring. It doesn’t mean that this technology isn’t dangerous, it is precisely the technology which was used, starting in December 2020, to murder 20 million human beings and counting.

None of these topics are all that concerning to Cobb. The only instance where Cobb came out strongly against an incident came in his coverage of He Jianku. Jianku, against all ethical considerations, created two, possibly three, children with mutated germline DNA. If the children survive and reproduce their children will have the same mutations (defining germline or heritable). While Jainku’s realization of the logical end of CRISPR editing was too far ahead of it’s time because the science is not yet equitably distributed nor deemed ‘safe’, Cobb penned on page 366, “If it were to be allowed, heritable gene editing would lead either to an increase in inequalities, or, more likely, to the creation of babies carrying genetic alterations with unknown effects, which could be catastrophic for them.”

The main issue with germline human editing is equality for Cobb. The health and viability of gene-edited (genetically raped) chimeric children seems to be an after thought. Everything else is a great idea according to Cobb. “With the exception of human heritable gene editing, which seems pointless and foolish, I am enthusiastic about a technology that, as Bacon foresaw, has immensely enlarged the bounds of human empire through the tremendous insights it has provided into how organisms function and through its myriad applications,” (page 366). Yet he still has concerns about these. Those concerns, of course, would be remedied by creating a global bioengineering police force. His fears are also summed up on page 366:

“On the other hand, we can see the real prospect of new, life-changing somatic therapies, which nonetheless need to overcome the massive health inequalities that exist around the world to truly fulfill their potential [gene therapies]. We have the power to eradicate disease vectors [gene drives] and, if things go horribly wrong, to destroy ecosystems or to inadvertently unleash terrible diseases that we will have foolishly created in order to better predict future pandemics [gain-of-function research].”

Unlike many who are scientists who decide to enter the bioethics debate, Cobb does not automatically dismiss the fears that so many of us have. He addresses them and validates the existence of them; however, he still ends up leaning towards continuing the research and development and marketing of all of these technologies save human germline gene editing. While discussing gain-of-function research Cobb makes his support for the science clear, albeit with reservations.

First, because certain entities have decided to forget the definition of gain-of-function research for political expediency and fear of legal ramifications, Cobb defines the term on page 371, “Gain-of-function. An experiment designed to increase the effect of a given gene, in particular those involved in pathogen virulence or transmissibility.” Using that accurate definition, Cobb discussed the issue of gain-of-function research in a chapter he titled Weapons. After stating the United States never violated any agreement banning biological weapons programs and indicting Russia for their bioweapons efforts, Cobb all but dismissed the threats terrorists and biohackers pose to humanity. Instead he points out, correctly, that the real threat is from state actors in biological weapons development. It never crosses Cobb’s mind; however, that a state actor could ever decide to harm human beings on purpose, thus, his reasoning is flawed as to how state actors pose such a threat. Cobb’s rationale appears on page 336:

“Rather than worrying about threats from terrorists or biohackers, the real biosecurity danger comes from states secretly seeking to create weapons, and from the possibility of an inadvertent leak from one of the many laboratories carrying out gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens. The fundamental justifications for such studies – that they will help us prepare for future pandemics – took a severe knock in 2020 when the world’s response to COVID-19 was woefully inadequate. Despite some kick-back from gain-of-function researchers highlighting the importance of their research for the development of treatments for COVID-19, the fundamental way we have responded to the pandemic was not guided by these studies. Furthermore, these same researchers have highlighted the danger from the sudden influx of laboratories into the field of coronavirus research, much as happened in the early years of the century. As viral gain-of-function pioneer Ralph Baric has warned, some of these new researchers may have ‘less respect for the inherent risk posed by this group of pathogens’.”

Cobb is being particularly myopic here. He doesn’t want to know the truth, and even if he does know the truth, he is certainly not going to inform his readers. His Satanically-inspired career would be in jeopardy if he did that. For one, the studies conducted on coronaviruses showed that any of six different anti-parasitic drugs, especially ivermectin, eradicated coronaviruses. The treatments used were medically induced murders featuring remdesivir and ventilators. Those ‘official’ treatments were justified only because the studies proving anti-parasitics extremely potent treatments were completely disregarded. They were disregarded in order to get approval for the mRNA gene-therapies. Now that we have the gene therapies in billions of people, and millions of people have been irreparably damaged or murdered, all of a sudden these studies have been made public and these anti-parasitics are available. Cobb surely knows all of this.

He also knows who Ralph Baric is. He knows that Ralph Baric literally created COVID-19. So why would Baric say what Cobb quoted? Baric doesn’t want other researchers to start actually studying the pathogen because all of the indicators will point directly back to him and the NIH. And why does Cobb want to even mention Baric? Cobb would like to keep his funding, I’m sure, so he wrote Baric into his book in a positive light as a concerned humanitarian scientist. Ralph Baric, Cobb well knows, deserves a Nuremberg Trial and a noose, not nice words in a book. But Cobb’s career concerns, like every other bioethicist I have ever encountered, is only concerned about their Mengelean experiments being permitted to continue by making sure the legality and funding stays in place.

Cobb goes on to make a wildly false claim based on his own biases. He continues on page 336, “In 2004, George Poste, a bioterrorism expert at Arizona State University, referenced what happened to physics after the creation of the atomic bomb and predicted: ‘Biology is poised to lose its innocence.’ Thankfully, that has not yet happened and we can still stop it.” The only way to make this claim at all is to discount anyone in the public knowing anything about history. What was the Tuskegee experiment if not a biological experiment? What was Anthony Fauci (who Cobb also presents as a concerned scientist) doing when he was murdering orphaned children by the dozens working on an AIDS vaccine? Were these not the end of biological innocence? If there was any doubt about the answer to that question, no innocence remains after the intentional release of a lab created COVID-19; talk about or prescribing effective, safe, and inexpensive treatment options became criminal offenses; and we were goaded into committing mass suicide with gene therapies called vaccines only to provide indemnity to the manufacturers. To prevent those ‘silly facts’ from getting in the way of his career, Cobb has decided to parrot the COVID-19 narrative that COVID-19 was not created in a lab (page 2 and 333), the vaccines are great tools but inequality is a huge problem in getting the shots in arms (page 346), and that because these freaks, Cobb included, have worked tirelessly to genetically derange everything on earth there should be no hesitancy to these mutilating shots (pages 348-349).

The title of the book is As Gods. As such, there is a chapter titled Gods?. This is where Cobb loses any respect I had for him because he did do a fair bit of research for the earlier events which he included in the book. Because Cobb decided against writing one word about any religion, he also could not attack any religious belief directly. He did not hesitate to attack it indirectly though. The closest he came to a theology in this book came on pages 349-350 in his discussion about what is natural. Before I quote these pages I want to express my definition of natural – created by God. I don’t need psychopathic scientists screwing up what God did with me, with my planet, not with the life on this planet. Further, this quote is precisely why bioethicists are worse than a poop flavoring; they are literal pieces of crap – more on that after the quote.

“For many people ‘natural’ is good; not natural is weird and anxiety-inducing. No GMOs are ‘natural’, but then again very little in our modern world is. None of the ‘normal’ crops we consume are ‘natural’, any more than the animals we eat. They have all been shaped by thousands of years of artificial selection by humans who did not really know what they were doing. Theri genes have been altered by us.” …

Here Cobb uses the classic justification for creating crimes against humanity. How many times have a rabbit and jellfish mated and produced offspring? For that matter, jellyfish and flies, such as the flies Cobb has spent his life researching? How many humans and pigs have successfully mated? There are thousands of examples I could use here. The answer is, never. The straw man bioethisists use here is absolutely dishonest and, in the age of ‘misinformation’, claims such as this should make the speakers criminally and civilly liable for the millions this falsehood has helped to murder through applications of genetics.

… “On the other hand, many diseases are natural, but in these cases being ‘natural’ does not seem quite so advantageous. Antibiotics are not natural, yet they have saved millions of lives and we are rightly concerned that they may stop working. Perhaps we accept that most medical treatments are by definition not natural, so using genetic technology in medicine does not alter our attitudes much.” …

There are holistic ways to maintain and treat disease. Under the allopathic schemes of medical practices today, all created by Rockefeller in the early 1900’s, health is secondary to how much one can afford to pay. This is not advocacy for universal healthcare – hardly – it is the fact that oftentimes there are other ways to effectively treat conditions without drugs, yet those treatments are rarely, if ever, advised by allopathic professionals with prescribing powers. The holistic ways generally do not have side effects, almost all pharmaceuticals have side effects. When the side effects bring you back to the doctor, more pharmaceuticals are prescribed. And on, and on, and on. Moderna is a great case study in this effect. They came out with a murderous gene therapy shot notorious for causing blood clots and now Moderna was an mRNA application to treat blood clots…. That’s not only psychotic but morbidly unethical.

… Philosophers, historians, sociologists and others have explored the complex ball of ideas and emotions that are wrapped up in the natural-unnatural conceptual dimension, revealing the contradictions and ambiguities of something that seems so simple. Above all, the meanings and implications of ‘natural’, and its application to particular things, change over time and space.” …

… “The meanings of ‘natural’ are complex and our current focus on this concept surely relates primarily to the industrialisation and homogenisation of life over the last century or two” …

… “Overcoming all these misconceptions and enabling people to make truly informed choices about the place of the products of genetic engineering in their lives will be a significant challenge in the coming decades. No matter how frustrating it might be to advocates of genetic engineering, it seems unlikely that explaining the many different and often contradictory meanings of natural will persuade people – the roots of these arguments lie beyond the reach of mere argument.”

Basically, by destroying the definition of ‘natural’ to fit their taste, bioethicists and the scientists who like to act as bioethicists to justify their own piss-poor excuse of a career and, oftentimes, their demonic life’s work, they can do as they please. But Cobb is right, the meaning of natural was defined by God and what God created and their natural reproduction. As suggested earlier, a mako shark and a blue jay can hump all day with no offspring arising from the very unnatural attraction. Cobb and his colleagues; however, can unnaturally create a mako jay and all kinds of un-Godly chimeric freaks. Cobb can demand I see natural in his demonic view and I will reject his theology because that is really what Cobb is engaged in – the idea that God created everything wrong and that it can be fixed through demonic arts practiced by men and called science.

Cobb also, in titling his book, made another mistake. The idea that genetics have morals is laudable but there is absolutely no evidence for it. Morals do not change over time and space. Cobb is attempting to hijack the term moral and its definition with another, far less meaningful, term; ethics. Dictionary’s play into the fallacy. Ethics are created by mankind and can be changed by mankind. Morals are set in stone and transgressing them means sin and potential eternal separation from God. Because bioethicists in general, Cobb included by my assessment, have no respect for God and dismiss faith-based claims as irrational and non-scientific, they have no morals. But they do have ethics which they supposedly operate by. The prevailing ethics seem to be make sure the funding stays turned on, don’t offend the funding sources, and whatever can be done should be done, to hell with the consequences. Some of these same ‘bioethicists’ are also people who look forward to the day they are reincarnated as a virus so deadly it kills 99% of the people who come in contact with it. The field is called bioethics for a reason – they serve to justify anything they want to do. If they had boundaries they would be able to use the term biomoralist, but they don’t so attempting to use the term morals in relation to any discussion about the justification of the last 50 plus years of the genetic destruction of every living thing on the planet is purely deceit.

If there were biomoralists, of course, the laws of God would have been followed and this demonic, DNA destroying, chimera-producing poop-lollipop wouldn’t exist at all because all of this is abomination and all of it is an affront to God. It is satanists who engage in these sciences. And it is Satan, the Adversary, who seeks to destroy all of what God has made. Genetic alterations are a perfect way to do this. If As Gods is useful for anything, it serves to show just how little a role the Creator of the Universe plays in any of these men’s and women’s decisions about causing humanity’s genetic destruction. God plays no role – that’s up to the bioethicists who have decided they are the god. I suggest they all read the Bible, accept Jesus, and repent – seriously repent – for the crimes against God they have committed and pray he shows them mercy.

Bless God and God bless.