Cryo-electron microscope image of CRISPR in a full ‘R-loop’ conformation. DNA (orange and red) is unwound and compared to CRISPR RNA (blue), to determine if the target DNA should be cut by the Cas3 enzyme. Credit: Liao lab/Harvard Medical School







Read more here: Source


You may not have heard about CRISPR, but you need to educate yourself. This technology is a very evil instrument that is about to bring about some very horrific changes in your WORLD! 

Explainer: How CRISPR works

imageCRISPR Gene-Editing Might Cause

1,000s of Unintended Mutations 


Perhaps the largest medical breakthrough this side of the Human Genome Project has been the invention of CRISPR, a technique for rewriting entire sections of DNA. CRISPR lets scientists target specific sections of DNA and edit them however they want, essentially giving scientists a potentially unlimited ability to fix genetic illnessesBut there’s a catch: CRISPR might cause random side effects.
When scientists want to edit a gene with CRISPR, they use techniques to select a specific gene sequence to edit. But selecting a single region in an entire genome is not easy, and often CRISPR will target other regions in the genome as well. Researchers believed they could predict most of these “off-target effects,” but a new study in Nature Methods suggests they probably can’t.
Off-target effects have been known about for some time, and to combat them, researchers can use computer algorithms to predict where the mutations will occur. Scientists using CRISPR could test to make sure any off-target mutations aren’t harmful before using the technology on animals or humans. But the new research suggests that potentially hundreds or thousands of off-target mutations are unaccounted for by these algorithms, meaning that any use of CRISPR could be potentially dangerous.

The study authors used CRISPR on mice and then sequenced their genomes, looking for unexpected mutations not predicted by computer systems. They found more than a thousand, including over 100 large deletions and insertions. Although the risk from any one individual mutation is small, each one has the potential to cause serious side effects.
There are some caveats: The study in question is small, preliminary, and conducted in mice. There are many reasons why this particular study could have produced these results that don’t imply there’s something wrong with CRISPR itself. And if there is a problem with CRISPR, it should be relatively simple to solve.
But considering that human trials with CRISPR are already underway in China and only a year away in the United States, it’s worth taking the time to ensure we’re not accidentally introducing new genetic problems while trying to fix older ones. Source: Columbia University Medical Center

Even though this new tool has not been tested and proven, in fact, it has been proven to create thousands of unintended mutations, still, they have made this program available to young children in our schools, for experimentation??!!!  When I heard that they were bringing these kits into the classroom,  I was flabbergasted.  Was I the only one who could tell immediately that this was not a good idea??

How A Gene-Editing Tool Went From Labs To A Middle-School Classroom – excerpts.  Alan YU, May 27, 20178:01 AM ET

In 2015, the journal Science declared the gene editing tool CRISPR Cas9 the breakthrough of the year. It let scientists make changes in DNA of living cells easier and cheaper than before. Today, the CRISPR tool is no longer something that only researchers do in labs. You can take classes in gene editing at a community lab. You can buy a $150 kit to do it at home. Some middle schoolers are doing it in their science classes.

Genspace lab manager Will Shindel, who teaches the genome-editing class, says his students are usually professionals who want to learn a new career skill or curious everyday people. “They just know that it’s this word that everybody’s throwing around,” Shindel says. “It’s either going to lead to the singularity or the apocalypse.”

Shindel, a biologist by training, is one of many people now dreaming about and starting synthetic biology projects using the CRISPR tool. With some friends, he is working on genetically engineering a spicy tomato. Some people are trying to make bacteria produce insulin. At Acera, an elementary and middle school in Massachusetts, 13-year-old Abby Pierce recently completed a CRISPR experiment, genetically modifying bacteria so that it could grow in an antibiotic that would have killed it otherwise.

Science Experiment for Kids: Seeing Your DNA

(Image credit: Svilen Milev Stock Xchng)

By Mary Bagley, LiveScience Contributor | 

This webpage is a step by step experiment for kids using their own DNA.   It comes with a warning:  

  • What other sources of DNA could you use? (Please avoid taking samples from the family pet or from your little brother!)

Ideas and Sample Projects by Grade Level

 Labs & Experiments


Browse DNA Models:

Virtual and hands-on experiments to teach genetic concepts

Why Bio is the New Digital – JOI ITO KEYNOTE

Deployed in Africa to sequence EBOLA??  Anyone find that suspicious, or is it just me?  

Apparently, they did not feel that making these kits available to schools would generate enough income.  After all, why limit your market that way?  Why not make DNA EXPERIMENTATION AVAILABLE TO ANYONE and EVERYONE?? What could be wrong with that?  

You can still Pre-Order Kits at

DIY CRISPR Kits, Learn Modern Science By Doing

DIY CRISPR Kits, Learn Modern Science By Doing
If you had access to modern synthetic biology tools, what would you create?
Josiah Zayner
4 Campaigns | 
San Francisco, United States
$71,496 USD by 290 backers
$33,253 USD by 129 backers on Dec 8, 2015

UPDATE:  Now they are making DNA mutation available for do-it-yourselfers to use at home.  So any idiot who can afford the price can pollute DNA to their heart’s delight.  Store your bacteria in your handy refrigerator.  

Do-it-yourself CRISPR genome editing kits bring genetic engineering to your kitchen bench excerpts. 

 , November 11th, 2015 

Dr. Josiah Zayner, a research fellow in NASA’s synthetic biology lab, believes that if CRISPR is the key scientific tool of the future, it’s the tool amateur scientists should be experimenting with at home, today.

He’s been running an online store for a while now called The ODIN, trying to facilitate and encourage do-it-yourself synthetic biology research at home, and he’s currently running an Indiegogo campaign to sell full genome engineering kits so that amateur scientists fans can try CRISPR gene editing for themselves.

Is DIY Kitchen CRISPR A Class Issue?

Kits that make gene editing available to the general public raise questions about safety and accessibility

Mail-Order CRISPR Kits Allow Absolutely Anyone to Hack DNA – excerpts.   
By Annie Sneed on November 2, 2017

If you think that any of this is a good idea, you have not thought it through.  When we allow this to begin we need to understand that the darkest possibilities will be the end result.  Have you really considered how deep and how dark this could get?


With the technology growing rapidly and CRISPR at-home genetic engineering kits being sold to schools and homes, interest in gene-editing technology is at an all-time high, and so is a concern. As our sci-fi fantasies inch closer and closer to fruition, gene-editing is changing the face of genetic engineering on humans, plants, and animals.


Some companies plan to use DNA editing to prevent spoilage of vegetables or decrease fat content in pigs. Others already have it in play. The bacteria Streptococcus Thermophilus, a probiotic in yogurt, spoils when it is exposed to bacteriophages, so DuPont used CRISPR gene editing to create bacteriophage-resistant yogurt that is now being sold across the world.

In China, pigs were bred using the CRISPR/Cas9 editing to introduce a missing gene that regulates body temperature. The pigs were also bred to have less body fat, to save farmers money and give the pig a better chance of survival in cold weather. The pigs’ embryos were cloned and bred, showing 24 percent less body fat. Chinese scientists heralded this success as an advancement in the future of animal welfare.


The GMO debate has been and continues to be a contentious topic for consumers and growers alike. With GMO labeling becoming more and more of a consumer demand, producers struggle to maintain sales when their products are not deemed organic and non-GMO. Unsurprisingly, the CRISPR gene editing technology has become a tool to sidestep the GMO label. But isn’t modified synonymous with edited?

GMOs prior to CRISPR introduce a foreign genetic material, changing the genetic composition, essentially creating a hybrid of the produce. With CRISPR gene editing, there is no foreign genetic material introduced, rather an organic process is manipulated to snip off undesirable parts of the gene. Some scientists have compared it to editing text in a word document.

But with technology this new and untested, it’s hard to tell what negative effects could manifest down the road and whether the concerns related to current GMO foods are as justified in this scenario.


Photo Credit

There are obviously ethical concerns when it comes to genetically editing humans, despite the potential for curing some of the diseases that plague us. One of the bigger concerns is that it will inevitably lead to designer babies, whose genes have been edited to give them superior intelligence and other favorable traits. This type of engineering would likely be expensive, only allowing affluent families access to the technology and further exacerbating social inequality.

Others are averse to CRISPR gene editing because it’s permanent, meaning those snipped segments of DNA can’t be reversed and would be passed down to future generations. With technology this new that’s manipulating nature, there is always room for mistakes and mutations that would need to be contained or corrected; not to mention, permanently messing with your genetic makeup is pretty frightening.

One of the errors that can occur with DNA editing is called mosaicism, in which only one or a few cells obtain the intended changes, rather than all of them. This is likely to lead to mutations and other unintended consequences.

t remains to be seen where CRISPR gene editing will lead over the coming years. Scientists in England and China have been experimenting on human embryos and the first test of this nature was undertaken in the US just a few months ago, despite warnings from government agencies and the scientific community. Some government officials have even gone so far as to refer to the technology as a weapon of mass destruction. Could we be on the brink of a major breakthrough with genetically engineered humans, or simply meddling in nature where we shouldn’t be?

New Study Reveals CRISPR/Cas Mechanism of Action  –excerpt  – July 6, 2017

For the first time, researchers have been able to detect and characterize the mechanism of action by which the CRISPR complex binds and cleaves DNA using electron microscopy. Scientists at Harvard and Cornell have recently created near-atomic level resolution images of the CRISPR/Cas3 complex, a common CRISPR/Cas subtype, which provides structural data that can improve gene editing accuracy and efficiency.


.….The hazards of germline transmission of DNA modification are no longer speculative; the literature on transgenic animals contains numerous examples. For example, germline introduction of an improperly regulated normal gene into mice resulted in progeny with no obvious effects on development but enhanced tumor incidence during adult life. Such effects may not be recognized for a generation or more.

…..It is important to recognize that many of these hazards are not eliminated if there is no germline transmission. The biology of the developing individual will still be profoundly altered by the manipulation of his/her genes at an early stage. Laboratory experience shows that miscalculations in where genes are incorporated into the chromosomes can lead to extensive perturbation of development. The disruption of a normal gene by insertion of foreign DNA in a mouse caused lack of eye development, lack of development of the semicircular canals of the inner ear, and anomalies of the olfactory epithelium, the tissue that mediates the sense of smell.

…..Attempts at developmental gene modification will certainly be subject to experimental error, but this is not the only source of potentially unfavorable consequences. Certain genes undergo a process of “imprinting” during development, in which the version of the gene inherited from the father or the mother is blocked from contributing to the individual’s biological constitution. This phenomenon is part of a wider group of processes known as “allelic interaction” or “paramutation,” in which the expression of one version, or “allele,” of a gene is influenced by another allele. These phenomena are poorly understood, but it is clear that they are essential to healthy development. Simply inserting a desired gene into the embryo in place of an undesired one does not ensure that allelic interaction will proceed appropriately, and experience with farm animal embryo manipulation suggests that it is readily disrupted and results in malformations.

…..The developmental process is inherently complex, and there is no coherent, scientifically accepted understanding of its overall coordination. And even if this understanding were available, it is clear that the ramifications of developmental manipulation would be inherently unpredictable. For these reasons attempts to genetically alter developed tissues (somatic modification) and attempts to genetically alter embryos (developmental modification) have profoundly different scientific and ethical implications. The tissues of a developed organism are in some sense modular—if blood, or skin, or a heart, or a liver is diseased or damaged it can be replaced by a substitute without changing the “nature” of the individual. Similarly with gene alteration in a developed individual: in reasonable candidate cases the gene is playing a defined and well-understood role in a particular tissue or organ, and the goal of the modification is to replace or correct the poorly functioning gene in one or a very limited set of tissues. Any protocol that sought, in contrast, to introduce into a patient a gene known to have “pleiotropic” (i.e., affecting several systems) physiological effects (a neurotransmitter molecule that mediates communication between nerve cells, for example) would have a difficult time getting approved. It would be like introducing a drug with drastic side effects, but which could not be withdrawn if the patient reacts badly.

…..During development, the situation is even more complicated. During this period, tissues and organs are taking form and the activity of genes is anything but modular. In the course of development almost any gene can have pleiotropic effects, and not just on physiology, but on the architecture of organs, and the wiring of the nervous system, including the brain. One can argue for the use of radical, untested methods to save existing lives, and such arguments, with appropriate informed consent, may indeed justify somatic gene alteration even when scientific experience is still primitive. In such cases, even the failures can legitimately add to the store of useful knowledge. In contrast, there are no good rationales for using untested “heroic” procedures to alter the course of embryonic development except among those who consider that the risks of producing individuals with experimentally produced morphological or neurological aberrations, or increased risks of cancer, are preferable to the options of abortion, or of bearing the unmodified child.

…..In protocols that attempt somatic “gene therapy” for life-threatening illnesses, saving the life of the individual patient is a value that must be balanced against developmental risks, including those to the germline of that individual, and indeed, such considerations also pertain to chemotherapy in cancer patients, by which mutations may be introduced into the germline. With respect to deliberate developmental modifications, the story is quite different. Not only is the “patient” (embryo or fetus) and its progeny at risk from the procedure, but so is the pregnant woman. If the genes are introduced in utero, such genes can also infect the woman’s tissues, including her own germline, and entail other risks to herself, such as cancer. Clearly, she is not in a position to give informed consent on behalf of herself or the developing embryo for a procedure that has not yet been tested in humans. In addition, the procedure promises no direct benefits to her health (the usual justification for experimentation on humans). However, she will inevitably be under pressure to assume such risks for the sake of her baby.

…..Even if the procedure is to be done in vitro rather than in utero, the basis for informed consent remains problematic. There is no existing person whose life is in jeopardy, but rather an embryo in a petri dish that the egg or sperm donor (or whoever else may gain the right to its disposition) would like to modify genetically. No truly informed consent on the part of the potential parents is possible because no reliable information about the consequences would be available.

…..Furthermore, no amount of data from laboratory animals will make the first human trials anything but experimental. Under such circumstances, where the life of an existing person is not at issue, and the procedure is inherently experimental—threatening to profoundly alter the biology of the developing individual—contraindication on the basis of safety or unpredictability of outcome (which may be counterbalanced when a life is at stake) becomes an ethical contraindication as well.


Easy DNA Editing Will Remake the World. Buckle Up!

Gulf Coast State College looks to incorporate CRISPR into labs excerpts – 

CRISPR itself is causing a revolution in molecular biology,” said Ben Stephenson, a former Arnold High graduate who, after graduating from GCSC and the University of Florida, returned to help teach his former professors this new method. “There are medicines and all types of technologies with different applications that are coming about just because the system is so amenable to innovation.”

In fact, the possibilities are so mind-boggling that even scientists like Stephenson haven’t considered them all. Almost any time Stephenson talks to someone about CRISPR, they inevitably come up with an idea or application he hasn’t thought of.

“It’s a technology that gets people excited,” he said. “It will get kids excited.”

This is one of the hottest, fastest-growing fields of technology,” Fioramonti said.

But as with many scientific fields that have exploded suddenly, regulations haven’t quite kept up. Gene editing comes with serious ethical implications, and while their samples were in the centrifuge, several of the participants in Tuesday’s workshop chatted about experiments on embryos in Sweden and China using CRISPR to edit human genes. The experiments didn’t go well, and CRISPR isn’t quite understood well enough to use on humans yet, but the ethical implications are there.

Beyond the human question, there also is the question of whether such a precise gene-editing tool should be so widely available. According to the 2015 NY Magazine article “The Crispr Quandary,” the method’s co-inventor, Jennifer Doudna, has questioned whether the technology should be available to students, as a minor mistake could have major implications, or a mutation might be accidentally introduced into the wild and affect a whole ecosystem.

Playing God: “We are in the midst of a genetic revolution” 

This is a very interesting article and there is currently a video attached.  It is a CBS video, so I was not able to copy it here.  You should go and watch it, provided it is still available. 


Upgrade makes genome editor CRISPR more muscular, precise  – excerpts – By Jon Cohen

You wouldn’t know it from the excitement generated by the revolutionary genome editing method known as CRISPR, but as practiced now, it is far from perfect. Its standard components can find and cut DNA in only a limited fraction of the genome, and its molecular scissors are wobbly, leading to “off-target” mutations. Many groups are trying to do better, and now, a team led by chemist David Liu at Harvard University has engineered a version of CRISPR that potentially is both more dexterous and more precise.

“This is very impressive and important work,” says CRISPR pioneer Erik Sontheimer of the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester.

CRISPR comes in many flavors, but they all depend on a guide molecule composed of RNA to carry a DNA-cutting enzyme—the most commonly used one is known by the shorthand Cas9—to a specific stretch of the genome. This complex, however, homes in on DNA landing pads that have specific molecular features. The enzyme in the standard CRISPR toolkit, called spCas9 for its natural source, the bacterium Streptococcus pyogenes, can only land on genome segments that have at one end a specific three-base trio: N, where N is any of DNA’s four bases, followed by two guanines (Gs). Only about one-sixteenth of the 3.2-billion-base human genome has the right sequence. “That’s been a real limitation,” Liu says.

Stanley Qi, a CRISPR researcher at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, says this win-win situation is “amazing,” and should excite many labs. “The real test here is if people rush to use this xCas9 while forgetting about the original version,” Qi says. “At least in my lab, we are very eager to try this out for our applications.”

Liu cautions that the standard Cas9 has proved itself over the years; his lab has only tested the new xCas9 on a few dozen sites in the genome so far, compared with the thousands the original has been shown to hit. “I’m not 100% sure xCas9 is going to be flat out better than spCas9,” Liu says. “I want everyone to test it because I want to know the answer.”

Gene-Editing Cures to Bioweapon Nightmare Crispr has driven biotech investment, but also the possibility of dangerous applications. – excerpts.  By 

More worrying is what Crispr and related new biotechnologies might do for the engineering of new bioweapons. A report by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that finding effective countermeasures won’t be easy, and details a list of hair-raising possibilities for how the new technology could turn our biological machinery against us.

With both precision and ease of use, of course, comes proliferation. The first thing Crispr will make possible for a would-be bioterrorist is re-creating known pathogens, either viruses or bacteria, samples of which are tightly controlled. It’s increasingly possible to engineer the construction of some organisms from scratch, using only their genomic data. Crispr will allow faster engineering by people with fewer skills. The report suggests that it’s now possible to build the genome of essentially any existing virus using data on DNA sequences available in public libraries. Actually making the organism involves a second step known as “booting,” but this has also been achieved for many viruses.

Hence, it’s probably only a matter of time before small groups using off-the-shelf laboratory equipment will be able to recreate a range of dangerous pathogens just from DNA sequences. Steps to counter their use will be more or less identical for natural pathogens, including intelligence, ready availability of vaccines and antivirals, and well-organized public health measures. But this is the easy-to-imagine threat, and it may ultimately be less significant than a spectrum of advanced bioweapons of a totally new kind.

Any living cell is a miniature factory for producing diverse biochemicals with specific roles, and a bioweapons designer might aim to introduce biochemicals that effectively re-program the cellular factory – to make human cells produce toxins, for example, or to block cells’ abilities to carry out routine tasks. Since the Human Microbiome Project, we’ve understood that human health depends on a thriving ecosystem of up to 1,000 species of gut bacteria, and researchers have already demonstrated the ability to manipulate some human gut microbes.

Since the microbiome appears to play a key role in human immunity, disrupting its function could undermine a population’s capacity to defend against disease. A step further, researchers speculate, and it may also be possible to modify the human immune system, or even the genome itself.

Bioweapons actually have a long history of use, from hurling plague-infested corpses over defensive walls in the middle ages through Japan using plague, anthrax, and other diseases in World War II. What’s comes next looks certain to take everything to a new and less predictable level.

Edit Your Way to Better DNA with These CRISPR/Cas Tools 

Criminals could manipulate their own DNA to avoid detection on police databases with £150 online gene repair kits

What If Someone Uses This DIY CRISPR Kit To Make Mutant Bacteria? (

Josiah Zayner, a research fellow at NASA Ames Research Center, is running an Indiegogo campaign to make DIY gene editing kits that use the CRISPR technique to modify DNA. The campaign has already exceeded its goal, and he points out an article at Motherboard noting the controversy surrounding cheap, DIY genetic modification. Quoting: The kits won’t going to allow people to genetically modify humans, but Zayner is still getting some heat for the project. One medical doctor emailed him with “grave concerns” about putting the technology in the hands of lay people. “Reprogramming bacteria or fungi could have serious ramifications, such as inadvertent or intended multi-drug resistance, faster multiplication, toxin production, and persisting potency when aerosolized,” the doctor wrote. … There is no legal framework surrounding this at-home work unless it results in a product to be distributed, said Todd Kuiken, a senior program associate with the Synthetic Biology Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “Who actually uses kits like these and what they are using them for will determine if any of these products they make would be regulated or not,” he said.

Biologist’s gene-editing kit lets do-it-yourselfers play God at the kitchen table

January 18, 2016 by Lisa M. Krieger, San Jose Mercury News

Read more at:

Editing HIV out of our genome with CRISPR

UMMS scientists seek ways to use powerful gene editing tool to excise latent HIV virus

By Jim Fessenden and Bryan Goodchild

UMass Medical School Communications

Scientists unveil CRISPR-based diagnostic platform

Broad Institute, April 13, 2017

New system adapts tool known for gene editing; to be used in rapid, inexpensive disease diagnosis.

Malice – I am God

I played God with The Odin’s DIY CRISPR Kit  And lo, it was glorious.
Twenty-three years after its cinematic debut, I finally understand where Alec Baldwin was coming from in the 1993 psychological thriller MaliceThe power to bring life where once there was none is a potent drug. I was recently afforded the opportunity to create a new kind of bacterial life thanks to the DIY Bacterial CRISPR Kit from Bio-Hacking collective The Odin. I honestly haven’t had this much fun doing science since AP Chem.

The Odin offers a number of experimental kits, including advanced sets that leverage CRISPR gene editing breed bioluminescent bacteria or search for new antibiotic compounds. The set I tried, however, was far more rudimentary: I was to modify the genes of a harmless E. coli strain so that it can survive in a hostile environment that it would otherwise perish in.

DIY Biohackers Are Editing Genes in Garages and Kitchens

A ‘Grueling and Grotesque’ Biohacking Experiment


FDA Purchasing Aborted Baby ‘Tissue’ to Create Mice With Human Immune System in Order to Test Drug Safety

DNA Manipulation, just as in the days of Noah



How the Mark of the Beast Will Rewrite the Human Genome …

Using recombinant DNAa fully mature man could inject himself with the selected gene or genes of another species. The process which is really just a matter of copying and pasting is explained by T. Wakayama et al., in the July 1998 issue of Nature:. In the late 70s, Dr. Stan Cohen (Stanford) studying antibiotic resistance plasmids in E. coli, and Dr. Herb Boyer (UCSF) studying restriction …


First published at 20:29 UTC on August 31st, 2020.
channel image



This is going to shock you you should hear this and then I want to know if you want another vaccine against this corana virus.>>>>>>Apologies for the poor sound quality.
To Watch The Video on BitCHUTE: CLICK HERE


‘As in the days of Noah, the genetic corruption of flesh’: Should we edit our DNA? An imagined future of gene editing – video

There are decisions being made right now that could have an effect on global populations for generations to come. As part of this project, we commissioned an artist to investigate some of the themes raised in the podcasts. This work of fiction imagines a future where gene editing has become mainstream and discusses the moral, ethical and political divides that this might create.


Please visit my article: Do You Believe in Magick? – Part 16 – Science is Witchcraft   and

Do You Believe in Magick?  Part 24 – You Shall Become Gods

Click below to view the other parts of this series: