Commentary
As a former English teacher, I think that definitions are important. For the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to say that infinite
made-up gender identities are based on science raises my suspicion about the kind of science they practice.
Besides changing the definition of “gender” to seemingly unlimited possibilities, the CDC also
altered the definition of the word “vaccine.” Rather than saying vaccines “prevent ... disease” (pre-2015) or “produce immunity” (2015–21), in September 2021, the CDC changed it to say that vaccines merely “produce protection from a specific disease.” In my opinion, this is a significant change from what we’ve expected in the past from a “vaccine.”
Coincidentally, in April 2021, Merriam-Webster also
changed the definition of “vaccine.” The old definition is “weakened or killed bacteria or viruses introduced into the body to prevent a disease.” The new definition is “a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response,” including “genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein).”
The bottom line is that this new “vaccine” isn’t like the kind we’ve always known in the past. And it’s understandable why many people don’t feel comfortable with a new type of vaccine that hasn’t undergone longitudinal studies.
Question: Is there a correlation between the CDC saying gender identity is now based on a child’s imagination rather than on biological reality and the changed definition of the word vaccine? Based on the work of Oxford University nanotechnology pioneer and professor
Sonia Contera, there does appear to be a correlation. In her book, “
Nano Comes to Life,“ she states that ”the future of biology can be changed through nanoparticles.”
Nanotechnology
On pages 28 through 30 of her book, Contera wrote: “Life is assembled from nanoscale building blocks (proteins) following the instructions of DNA. The ability to alter nature through technology produces a delusional sense of superiority.”
On pages 126 and 127, she states, “Viruses are able to insert their DNA into the host’s cell nucleus and edit its genome, and so hacking the machinery of viruses has been pursued as a possible strategy to achieve beneficial gene editing.”
Contera wrote on page 128 that “nanoparticles can also be delivered through the nose.”
“Technology causes changes to our identity, our health, our biology ... and our perceptions of reality,” she wrote on page 177.
Contera is a professor of biological physics at Oxford and is also associate head of the Physics Department for equality, diversity, and inclusion. She advocates for nanotechnology and says ever-evolving identities will produce a more diverse future called the Fourth Industrial Revolution, where physics—or artificial intelligence—and biology mesh together to create a new human species, also known as transhumanism.
However, is there proof of nanotechnology being used in new mRNA “vaccines”?
Yes, there’s proof. In the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine
Journal Listings, a research paper titled “Role of nanotechnology behind the success of mRNA vaccines for COVID-19,” published in June 2021, states that “it is the first time in history that two mRNA-based vaccines developed using lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) have been given emergency use authorization (EUA) by the US FDA for clinical therapeutics against the COVID-19.”
Could there be a correlation between mRNA technology and the introduction of ever-evolving gender identities, promoted through the California Department of Education? Since gender is at least partially controlled by DNA genes and nanotechnology can edit genes, then it’s logical to contemplate a correlation.
Does this mean that mRNA products or nanotechnology available today could cause new genetic or evolving gender identities? I don’t know. What I do know is that the
Public Health Alliance, an organization funded through the CDC to help our county become more “equitable,” states that the definition of gender nonbinary can include “an intentional creation of one’s own gender identity.” And if that’s not bizarre enough, we also have books in our elementary schools teaching kindergartners that their gender and pronouns can change like the weather based on their feelings, such as “Who Are You?” and “It Feels Good to Be Yourself.”
The development of these new identities, language, and definitions alongside new technologies that could cause “changes to our identity, our health, our biology ... and our perception of reality,” as Contera wrote, makes one wonder if these identities will be solely psychological or also physical through mRNA gene editing and nanotechnology.
Transhumanism
As a former school board member, I attended the December 2019 California School Board Association (CSBA) Conference in San Diego, only three months before the COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020, and CSBA’s keynote speaker was
Michio Kaku.
Kaku is a theoretical physicist, futurologist, and professor at New York City College. He spoke to 5,000 California school board members about his 2018 published book, “
The Future of Humanity.“ One of the chapters of his book is ”Transhumanism and Technology.“ In this chapter, he states: ”One day we may have to ... change our genetic makeup ... to survive hostile exoplanetary environments. Instead of ’transhumanism' being considered science fiction, it may become an essential part of our existence. As robots become increasingly powerful and even surpass us in intelligence, we may have to merge with them, or face being replaced by our creation.” (This passage was from pages 206 to 207 of the book).
My question is, of all the speakers CSBA could have invited to the 2019 conference, why did they invite a speaker to prepare California school board members for the future of transhumanism?
Besides gender being based on perception rather than on biological reality, race is also often said to be based on perception rather than on biological reality, according to the
CSBA’s explanation of critical race theory. So if race is only a social construct, then why the huge emphasis on different racial groups? Does anyone find this strange? Additionally, in December 2021, the Supreme Court of Mexico
ruled that age is now based on perception rather than on biological reality. Are these drastic changes coincidental, or are they connected?
I have more questions than answers. I’m not a scientist or doctor—I’m an educator and minister. As the founder of the
Interfaith Statewide Coalition, where leaders of many faiths and races are coming together to
oppose extremist gender teachings in public education, I can understand how religion could be seen as an obstacle to artificially contrived human evolution, cleverly packaged as progress for diversity and inclusion.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
