21 replies to this topic

[jkdeth]

Not comfortable with this thought.

https://www.scientif...nomic-vaccines/

[PJammer24]

avian influenza, Ebola, hepatitis C, HIV, and breast, lung, prostate, pancreatic and other cancers

 

Are these not things we would like to find answers for?

 

Is this actually Genetic modification or producing pre-existing genes to promote a specific response? I am not a "GMO guy" so I do not fully understand but this seems more like "cell modification" by adding genes that already exist to the cells in greater quantities?

 

Maybe someone can better explain this to me.

 

**I can't help but edit grammatical errors when I find them when I return to the thread/post after initially posting...

Edited by PJammer24, 11 July 2019 - 03:38 PM.

[onediadem]

Things are getting crazy. Ever watch Gattaca? Crazy shit, and was totally science fiction..then.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

[zenzen]

We are a 10 years out from that movie now in the area of selective reproduction going mainstream. With things like 23 and me and state governments storing human genomics it’s just a matter of time before we see things emerge that sounded crazy just a few years ago. Custom people being made and people being framed for murders based on the oils from their skin lifted from a door knob. Or custom weaponized viruses based on ethnicity used in warfare or domestic terrorism. Shits about to get real crazy.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by zenzen, 11 July 2019 - 03:51 PM.

[jkdeth]

Yes, I can't help but think the possible unknown side effects. And the potential for abuse. Abuse by government agendas I mean.

[Alder Logs]

Things are getting crazy. Ever watch Gattaca? Crazy shit, and was totally science fiction..then.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

 

I just got that one on a used DVD last Friday.  Was going to watch The Deer Hunter tonight, but will watch Gattaca instead. 

Edited by Alder Logs, 11 July 2019 - 04:36 PM.

[zenzen]

It’s going to be out of the hands of governments. People have this tech in their private hands now. Look at the custom HIV babies in China. That was a researcher acting as a citizen with his own equipment outside of government supervision. It’s so cheap now to perform a CRISPR-Cas9 genomic edit costs an average of 500k. In a year it’s expected to cost 10k. It’s not governments that you will need to worry about. It’s anyone with an IQ over 90 and some disposable income and a grudge.


Look at the kill bot tech people can make now. You can arm a drone with a pistol and sentry AI for under 500 bucks. Have it target different populations and just turn it loose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Severian]

Gov't offered to drop my posession charge if I would let them swab my dna

 

 

I was the only one out of 16 that said no.

 

 

 

Yeah right am I giving up that info willingly.

[onediadem]

Everyone around me has jumped on the dna train. Ancestry my ass. Perhaps I am just too paranoid for my own good. No way is my dna stored on file somewhere with my consent.

[TVCasualty]

Everyone around me has jumped on the dna train. Ancestry my ass. Perhaps I am just too paranoid for my own good. No way is my dna stored on file somewhere with my consent.

 

 

One of my uncles (by marriage) refuses to get any DNA testing done, but in his case I suspect it's because he was a corrupt cop (which is a fact) and has some serious skeletons in his closet (I'm speculating) that should probably be outed for the sake of justice. But I'm happy to report he's always been a miserable POS who has been married and divorced 7 times since my aunt kicked his abusive ass to the curb many years ago.

 

But I digress.

 

One thing I've been curious about with this DNA stuff is if it would be helpful toward protecting one's own privacy if a group of people who are not related (as far as anyone in it knows, anyway) could swap their samples randomly with others in the group before sending them in. Sex would have to be kept consistent, so males would only swap with males and females with females but that's the only restriction I think is necessary.

 

So long as everyone keeps track of who's test belonged to whom then everyone would hypothetically get the benefits of such testing (which are significantly less useful than the hype would suggest), but the results would not be linked to you directly. If everyone did that then such results would be useless for off-label (i.e. law enforcement) purposes.

Edited by TVCasualty, 08 September 2019 - 04:06 PM.

[mushit]

Yes, I can't help but think the possible unknown side effects. And the potential for abuse. Abuse by government agendas I mean.

 

 

Everyone around me has jumped on the dna train. Ancestry my ass. Perhaps I am just too paranoid for my own good. No way is my dna stored on file somewhere with my consent.

I do not trust anyone in government.

Who's to say that if you have been in surgery, at the dentist or had anything done on your body that you were rendered unconscious, that they took your DNA without consent.  Totally illegal, but possible.  It just takes a small swab.

Not saying that it has happened, but...........

[onediadem]

Oh gawd, I cannot tell you how many times I have wondered that Mushit.

[Juthro]

 

Yes, I can't help but think the possible unknown side effects. And the potential for abuse. Abuse by government agendas I mean.

 

 

Everyone around me has jumped on the dna train. Ancestry my ass. Perhaps I am just too paranoid for my own good. No way is my dna stored on file somewhere with my consent.

I do not trust anyone in government.

Who's to say that if you have been in surgery, at the dentist or had anything done on your body that you were rendered unconscious, that they took your DNA without consent.  Totally illegal, but possible.  It just takes a small swab.

Not saying that it has happened, but...........

 

 

Just like they say they throw away your fingerprints after a background check when you buy a handgun.   You can trust them to do that cuz they said they would, right?

[flashingrooster]

 

 

Yes, I can't help but think the possible unknown side effects. And the potential for abuse. Abuse by government agendas I mean.

 

 

Everyone around me has jumped on the dna train. Ancestry my ass. Perhaps I am just too paranoid for my own good. No way is my dna stored on file somewhere with my consent.

I do not trust anyone in government.

Who's to say that if you have been in surgery, at the dentist or had anything done on your body that you were rendered unconscious, that they took your DNA without consent.  Totally illegal, but possible.  It just takes a small swab.

Not saying that it has happened, but...........

 

 

Just like they say they throw away your fingerprints after a background check when you buy a handgun.   You can trust them to do that cuz they said they would, right?

 

 

We had a situation with our gun registry laws, they were suspected of being kept after the records were supposedly destroyed. A flood had caused a mandatory evacuation in a medium sized town. The local police somehow knew where a bunch of peoples guns were stored. Broke into their houses and seized them on the grounds of protecting the fire arms from theft. Everyone wondered how the police knew where the guns were. Especially after a new government was elected and the laws were changed. The registration information was to be destroyed. You find law enforcement often finds themselves above the laws. Unless something is mandated in law they can just look at it as a recommendation and ignore it

Edited by flashingrooster, 11 September 2019 - 12:44 PM.

[TVCasualty]

Wow, that's interesting (and more than a little disconcerting).

 

Guess I'm glad that they don't know where mine are as there are no records of me owning any.

 

Uh, because I don't, of course. 

 

[flashingrooster]

You know talking about it made me realize I never followed up where that gong show ended up. Everyone was grabbing their pitchforks when it first happened. 

 

 The police ended up paying out 2.2 million in property damages, returned all the guns. The internal investigation found they were lawful in their right to seize some of the fire arms. . Weapons in plain site were fair game, as they could claim improper storage.  But they exceeded their mandate by grabbing hidden or properly locked up ones. A class action lawsuit was filed but never gained enough interest to go anywhere. 

[TVCasualty]

The internal investigation found they were lawful in their right to seize some of the fire arms. . Weapons in plain site were fair game, as they could claim improper storage.  But they exceeded their mandate by grabbing hidden or properly locked up ones. A class action lawsuit was filed but never gained enough interest to go anywhere.

I think a good case could be made in at least some of those instances that those seizures were unlawful as well. They certainly are in my opinion, at least.

 

If I own a firearm and it is inside my home and there are no minors living in that home, then how is it not "secure" simply by virtue of it being in my private residence? And especially if my house's doors are closed and the doors and windows locked?

 

What's the difference between a rifle inside a locked house and a rifle inside a locked closet in a locked house, assuming that no one but the lawful resident has legal access to the dwelling? The closet is just one more lock, and if someone was willing to break through the lock keeping them out of the residence then they probably won't be dissuaded by any additional locks they encounter inside so it seems like nothing more than an unnecessary legislative burden on lawful owners (since those with criminal intent will not give a shit either way, as usual).

 

 

One thing that's become a huge problem in the Midwest in rural areas (and probably elsewhere) is that gangs of burglars bust into houses in the middle of nowhere while the usually-elderly residents are at church. They scan all the walls and floors and such with metal detectors, tearing into any walls where they get 'hits.' A lot of old people still hide stuff in walls -especially firearms- and fail to consider metal detectors so if you hide your shit in the wall, make sure you stash lots of metal (of a similar type to your hidden items) all over the rest of the house so their metal detector won't help them (this is only a deterrent to those who have a time limit on searching your place, so is only a countermeasure for burglars).

 

But anyway, the point is that even people who seal their guns up inside the walls of their houses get theirs stolen, so no form of storage is foolproof or fully "secure."

Edited by TVCasualty, 13 September 2019 - 04:08 PM.

[flashingrooster]

 

The internal investigation found they were lawful in their right to seize some of the fire arms. . Weapons in plain site were fair game, as they could claim improper storage.  But they exceeded their mandate by grabbing hidden or properly locked up ones. A class action lawsuit was filed but never gained enough interest to go anywhere.

I think a good case could be made in at least some of those instances that those seizures were unlawful as well. They certainly are in my opinion, at least.

 

If I own a firearm and it is inside my home and there are no minors living in that home, then how is it not "secure" simply by virtue of it being in my private residence? And especially if my house is close and the doors and windows locked?

 

What's the difference between a rifle inside a locked house and a rifle inside a locked closet in a locked house, assuming that no one but the lawful resident has legal access to the dwelling? The closet is just one more lock, and if someone was willing to break through the lock keeping them out of the residence then they probably won't be dissuaded by any additional locks they encounter inside so it seems like nothing more than an unnecessary legislative burden on lawful owners (since those with criminal intent will not give a shit either way, as usual).

 

 

One thing that's become a huge problem in the Midwest in rural areas (and probably elsewhere) is that gangs of burglars bust into houses in the middle of nowhere while the usually-elderly residents are at church. They scan all the walls and floors and such with metal detectors, tearing into any walls where they get 'hits.' A lot of old people still hide stuff in walls -especially firearms- and fail to consider metal detectors so if you hide your shit in the wall, make sure you stash lots of metal (of a similar type to your hidden items) all over the rest of the house so their metal detector won't help them (this is only a deterrent to those who have a time limit on searching your place, so is only a countermeasure for burglars).

 

But anyway, the point is that even people who seal their guns up inside the walls of their houses get theirs stolen, so no form of storage is foolproof or fully "secure."

 

 

I would agree with you on that one. The whole premise of the search was conducted on disaster response. Searching for trapped or elderly people in the flooded homes. They did overreach by taking it as opportunity to basically search and seize peoples houses. They mentioned contraband as well, guessing they mean drugs.  As far as the house being a lock, the cops also destroyed that when they broke into the homes no longer making them secure. They did not disclose detail of the weapon classes seized as they do require different storage requirements. This may have been one of their excuses for excessive seizures. Still horse shit though

 

 I would say the lawsuit could have gone somewhere. Not sure why it did not get much steam, maybe too much time passed.People were likely just sick of the whole affair and wanted to get back to their lives

Edited by flashingrooster, 13 September 2019 - 04:22 PM.

[TVCasualty]

Were they using the standard FEMA markings for buildings?

 

Like this:

 

 

 

Everyone (in the U.S.) should familiarize themselves with FEMA's marking system as you can use it as a source of info during a disaster just like responders do and you can also use it as a way to possibly help keep "rescuers" out of your house in such a situation.

 

If you can figure out the right info to put in the X on the left quadrant (where the search team's tag/ID# is put) then you can paint it on your own house with the needed symbols for "search completed," "no hazards" (don't want secondary searching by utility crews and such), and "no bodies found" (assuming there weren't any).

 

That might not convince them to move on without searching your place, but you never know and the time and expense to try it is minimal. I've found that oftentimes the simplest hacks to a system can be surprisingly effective, probably because most security efforts are focused on complex stuff, like computer networks, rather than analog stuff like the procedures and codes of spray-painted search-and-rescue information.

 

 

Here's a link to FEMA's Field Operations Guide detailing all the markings used on buildings during disaster searches (among other handy info; it's 124 pages): https://www.fema.gov...0080205_rog.pdf

Edited by TVCasualty, 13 September 2019 - 04:11 PM.

[flashingrooster]

Interesting