Nov. 13, 2022

A Tale Of Two Technologies

When I was in college, we programmed the wall-sized computer in our lab using punch cards prepared with binary instructions, calculated on slide rulers. That computer was an electronic version of the old, Reproducing Piano which reads a perforated paper or metal scroll that directs its keystrokes. Instead of creating music, our instructions were to generate the image of a sine wave using a 9-pin, dot-matrix printer.

Later that year I purchased a bulky, hand-held calculator which was several orders of technological magnitude beyond the lab computer, and it made me aware of the pace at which electronics technology was advancing. Three years after that I owned a TANDY 1000 desk-top computer with an outstanding processing ability for its time, plus my own 9-pin, dot-matrix printer. I had arrived.

In 1972, eight years before I stood, feeding punch cards in the lab, the first transfer RNA gene was synthesized, quickly followed by the synthesis of peptide and protein coding genes. While I was plugging in my TANDY for the first time, Kary Mullis was being handed the Nobel Prize for discovering the polymerase chain reaction, plus an event of equal importance was taking place; the process of phosphoramidite DNA synthesis was invented that year.

Six years later, in 1989 the first automated oligonucleotide synthesizer machines became commercially available. This advancement was part of a wave of genetic progress as improved assembly methods allowed synthesis of increasingly longer genes, and in 2003 while I was wielding the latest in VHS camcorders, the complete viral genome 'phiX174 bacteriophage' was synthesized.

I am comparing the time lines of two different fields of study and development here, that of electronics and of biology. Or are they so different? Once humans were able to create (synthesize) custom proteins and genes, the two fields lost many of their differences.

Most people think that advances in electronics and nanotechnology serve to promote advances in biotechnology and not the other way around, but this is no longer the case. Our knowledge of computers and our knowledge of RNA and DNA have been combined in laboratories around the world for many years but it has remained out of public view.

Indeed, while the public were following advances in hand-held communication and entertainment devices, the assembly of an entire viral genome became no different than the assembly of a circuit board; both being constructed from individual components, completely programmable and capable of mass production.

Twenty two years ago in 2010, David Yu Zhang, graduate student at Caltech defended his thesis on the use of synthetic nucleic acids (DNA) in the construction of logic circuitry and the storage of data inside of a living being. His thesis paper is a fascinating look into an almost unknown field of development but its real-world application would affect us all. In the paper's introduction, David describes his field and how others view it when he writes that;

Geneticists and microbiologists primarily use synthetic DNA as a method of granting a cell the blueprints for constructing a protein that the cell would otherwise not have, using the cellular machinery for transcription and translation to process the introduced DNA. We biomolecular engineers instead use DNA as a basic programmable building block, with which we can build all sorts of useful and complex devices at the nanoscale, independent of the cell’s mechanisms.

Nucleic acid nanotechnology can be divided into three subfields; Structural DNA nanotechnology, Dynamic DNA nanotechnology, and Interface DNA nanotechnology. David Yu Zhang describes them as;

Structural DNA nanotechnology is the self-assembly of nucleic acid structures with well-defined shapes, sizes, and/or patterns. Dynamic DNA nanotechnology deals with non-equilibrium systems in which DNA molecules undergo a series of conformational changes to physically or chemically modify its environment. Interface DNA nanotechnology uses nucleic acids as a tool for controlling other nanoscale materials, such as carbon nanotubes and gold nanoparticles.

DNA and other nucleic acids aren’t the best materials with which we can make nanoscale tools, and at some point in the indefinite future, it is likely that DNA will be replaced by synthetic programmable molecules with superior properties."

Twenty two years ago, when David wrote his thesis, his primary difficulty with the technology was the relative instability of natural molecular constructs and he expressed the hope that more reliable synthetic versions would soon become available.

He didn't have to wait long. In 2006, a year before the first Apple I-phone was released in North America, researchers at the Philips Research Laboratories in Eindhoven, the Netherlands developed semiconductor molecules that automatically arrange themselves in a layer just a few nanometers thick.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology review of this advancement observes that,

These “self-assembling” molecules could make it much easier to fabricate organic transistors, the essential building blocks of plastic electronics. In experiments, the researchers used the technique to make hundreds of transistors and arranged them into complex circuits.

They say that the ultimate goal for self-assembled, molecular circuits “is to be able to throw molecules in a beaker and let them organize into desired structures,” 

Ten years later, in 2016 a team at Rice University published their findings on an electromagnetic means of conducting and accelerating molecular 'self-assembly' at a distance. They reported that,

When hit by a field emitted by a Telsa coil, carbon nanotubes automatically arranged themselves into wires and also harvested enough energy to power LEDs.

This process which they have named Teslaphoresis has the ability, “to assemble and place in parallel individual semiconductors on a surface, en masse without any chemical template or lithography (which) could lead to its application for the scalable fabrication of high-density parallel nanotubes in computer processors or possibly bottom-up assembly of conductive nanotube fibers ...,"

"We're talking about building circuits without actually touching them," Carter Kittrell, a research scientist at Rice commented in a video released by the university. “What this boils down to is essentially creating self-assembly for electronics and possibility of creating circuits, chips, and processors that can build themselves, not unlike a biological organism.

A Tesla coil 'field' generates the electro-magnetic radiation used in 4th, 5th and soon 6th generation microwave communication. That carbon nanotubes are considered viable in vivo is also troubling given that just a year earlier, in 2015 scientists in Europe showed that carbon nanoparticles in the blood stream causes the blood platelets to activate, leading to blood clotting.

Health impact not withstanding, since the Rice announcement the technology has grown and is now in use around the world. In January of 2021 two Chinese biomedical researchers published a document entitled; “Self-assembled magnetic nanomaterials: Versatile theranostics nanoplatforms for cancer” where in they state that,

"Self-assembled magnetic nanomaterials (MNMs) are a class of promising biomaterials possessing excellent physiochemical and biological characteristics, making them highly attractive in biomedical applications.

A myriad of magnetic nanosystems can be created by using self-assembly as a synthetic tool. Favorable nano-bio interfacial properties are shown in these promising self-assembled magnetic nanosystems, while still retaining their physical/chemical functionalities."

Additional Reference - 2020 Frontiers In Science – Nanoscale Self-assembly

Having said all that, just last week, the 5th of November, 2022 the Australian Spectator, a reputable, mainstream news magazine in Australia published an article about scientists and researchers around the world finding evidence of the self-assembling nanotechnology you have just read mRNA vaccines.

Their reporting describes how when examining droplets from the Pfizer mRNA vaccine under a dark-field microscope, Dr. David Nixon, a Brisbane GP, observed what appear to be mechanical arms assembling and disassembling glowing rectangular structures resembling circuitry and microchips.

The Spectator article goes on to say that inside a droplet of vaccine are strange mechanical structures, “They seem motionless at first but when Nixon used time-lapse photography to condense 48 hours of footage into two minutes, it showed what appear to be mechanical arms assembling and disassembling glowing rectangular structures that look like circuitry and micro chips.

These are not ‘manufactured products’ in the CDC’s words because they construct and deconstruct themselves but the formation of the crystals seems to be stimulated by electromagnetic radiation and stops when the slide with the vaccine is shielded by a Faraday bag. Nixon’s findings are similar to those of teams in New Zealand, Germany, Spain and South Korea.

Also of note are the August of 2021 reports that the government of Japan halted the distribution of MODERNA mRNA vaccines because they found certain lots contained micro-particles of a foreign material the Japanese press say is “a metal that reacts to a magnet and is believed to have entered the vials during the production process...

This months Australian Spectator report on vaccine contamination is certainly not the first look into the subject by a mainstream publication. In 2016, when Rice University was publishing its findings on an electromagnetic means of conducting and accelerating molecular 'self-assembly' at a distance, the International Journal of Vaccines & Vaccination (IJVV) publish a paper on micro contaminants in vaccine lots from two countries in Europe because of an outcry over vaccine injuries. In their introduction they state that,

Side effects have always been reported but in the latest years it seems that they have increased in number and seriousness, particularly in children as the American Academy of pediatrics reports.

For instance, the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTaP) vaccine was linked to cases of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS); measles-mumps-rubella vaccine with autism; multiple immunizations with immune disorders; hepatitis B vaccines with multiple sclerosis, etc.

Having read all of the above, does the information linked and described in the Spectator, Japanese Times or IJVV articles sound like magical thinking to you?

Arthur C. Clarke was correct when he said that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

I hope that this post has dispelled some of that magic.

Thank You,