The amazing corruption of the USG, particularly by the pharmaceutical industry, is fairly obvious to anyone that seeks information on the issue. I tend to the theory that US power is basically a result of it's amenity to corruption, leading to it's utility to whatever cabal is seeking to project power and thrusting the US into that role in power projection.
Recently work was published on using CRISPR to modify t-cells to mop up cancer after it has been genotyped using PCR. Claims were that the technique basically cured all cancer. If this is actually factual, then curing cancer has become DIY, since CRISPR is tabletop tech today. Big Pharma will not profit from this, so research funding for the tech is predictable. Zero.
Regarding Dawson, clearly he intended to incite controversy. Eugenics is nothing more than selective breeding, which is applicable to all sexually reproducing species. There's a pool of NPC's that are available for triggering at a moments notice on a variety of topics, and the use of the word 'eugenics' by Dawson appears to be a deliberate ploy to trigger that cohort due to it's association with Nazism. If he wanted to discuss techniques of animal husbandry, which is all eugenics is, without inciting controversy, he could have simply avoided the word.
Thanks!
Thanks for the reply!
On your point about cancer and CRISPR, I meant to add a link back to Curating the Internet: Science and technology digest for January 30, 2020 when I got done summarizing, but it was a long article, and it slipped my mind at the end. That post included something similar to what you're talking about, a Immune discovery 'may treat all cancer'.
It doesn't really contradict the author's advocacy for medical conservatism, though. Something like that would almost certainly have clear benefits and strong evidence. And I thought that the perspective on screening is important.
On corruption, as-is typical of mainstream scientists, the article actually focused far more on corruption between doctors and big-pharma, but I agree with your perspective that at the core the USG programs are what make that corruption possible.
On eugenics, you're probably right that Dawkins was intentionally stirring the pot. I can't think of many other reasons to make that statement with such controversial phrasing... or even, really, to make it at all.
In fact the article linked is exactly what I was referring to.
The new genes delivered via viral vectors would be inserted using CRISPR. There are other mechanisms for inserting genes, but CRISPR is pretty dominant in the field today.