.... and die you shall.

You may have seen Trump's dog and pony show with Larry Ellison and others about the so-called Stargate data center/AI thing.  There are some important points to note:

• This isn't Trump's actual work; Ellison, Ma and others have been at this for a while and in fact they well pre-date Trump's second successful run for President.  He's on a bandwagon and while he can take credit for trying to create a better investment environment for it he didn't dream it, he didn't cause it and he didn't create it.
  
  
• The confluence of "AI" and "medical records", particularly with the claim of attempting to make a "cancer vaccine", is arguably one of the most-dangerous things ever attempted and rather likely to kill you if you allow it anywhere near you.  Further, Ellison said straight up front that it will asset-strip you to your underwear thereby making that its prime intent and for that alone he should rot behind bars until bones.  Yes, I get it that if you have cancer already (for real, not some "AI detected" thing) there is no downside to trying literally anything because the alternative is death.  But that is not what is being propounded here; this is being pitched as a prospective testing regime and then based on that result which has no means of scientific proof that the findings will in fact bear out if not acted upon a path of action is proposed that if it goes wrong kills you.
  
  
• Not only that Larry Ellison has promised to use AI to surveil Americans and screw them if they don't do what he wants.  Think that's a joke?  Its not; x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1882042989184430332.  AI is not "intelligent" but it is an extremely powerful data sifting tool and Larry is all-in on using it to **** you blind so frankly, I see no problem whatsoever with any proponent of same being preemptively ****ed first along with every member of their family.  The only way to evade a data sifter of immense capacity is to act in advance without warning and in fact kill the people running it, thereby forcing it to be dismantled, before it can establish a pattern with which to disadvantage you.  Let me be clear: If you wait for proof or even evidence of it being used against you then you are already ****ed.

The basic problem with this sort of "cancer" game as being propounded, leaving aside the larger issue of the abuse in the third point this system will foist on Americans unless the penalty for doing so is death, whether through legal or summary means, is that all living animals have cancerous cells in them before they are born and all continue to from that point forward until death.  This is a fact and has been known for decades.  The body's immune system is in fact primarily responsible for hunting down and destroying those cells, preventing propagation and getting out of control.  That is its first and foremost job and in fact stands well ahead of dealing with various environmental insults (bacteria, viruses, etc.) because the exposure to those is speculative yet the former is certain.

Indeed it is mutation that, over long periods of time, leads to progress.  But for it we would not be here.  There would be no differentiation between peoples and races over the millennia, all of which conveyed advantages in some cases and disadvantages in others.  It is that adaptation that made black people able to survive in Sub-Saharan Africa before modern medicine and is why slavery was actually the selling of humans by the black tribal chiefs; a white European who attempted to go into that part of the world and capture black slaves would be dead within a month as they had zero immunity to the endemic pestilence and disease in that part of the world.

But that and our technological response to it is a two-edged sword, as I've written about before.  Take Type I diabetes; it usually strikes kids, well before they're sexually mature and since it destroys the beta cells in the pancreas without supplemental insulin if that destruction becomes complete you will die.  Before there was injectable insulin that condition killed you with extremely high reliability before you could reproduce, which in turn meant that the genetic assortment that led to susceptibility to it was disadvantaged.  While the condition still arose over time it tended toward stability at a very low level simply for that reason and it is likely that eventually a random mutation would have extinguished it as a condition.  As soon as we made survival with the condition possible we removed that natural declining trend and almost-certainly ruined any chance at natural extinction of the condition and as a result since the 1950s prevalence has increased at an approximately 3-4% rate per year, although recently it has slowed down somewhat for reasons that are not clear. While insulin was invented in the 1920s one-time use disposable syringes, and thus reasonable home administration of insulin along with relatively simple testing for sugar in the urine showed up in the 1960s.  In other words when we developed the technological capacity to manage Type I diabetes and thus most children with it survived to adulthood we vanquished its near-certain childhood lethality by human action.

This in turn, however, meant more people got hit by it on an increasing basis in society as a whole.

Insulin replacement, however, does not tamper with the immune system nor attempt to "reprogram" cellular metabolism; it is a pure replacement of a metabolic deficiency.  What is being proposed here is extraordinarily dangerous in that we do not understand the immune system to any material degree; if we did we'd know why the immune system fails to detect and destroy cancer in every case.

We don't.

The "Warp Speed" crap wrote this risk large; it screwed a huge number of people and will continue to for decades.  ICAN had to sue to get the adverse event records, now has, and several items wildly exceeded the CDC's warning thresholds very early and were deliberately ignored.  They lied to be blunt, both at the CDC and NIH level and at the corporate level.

Again I have no quarrel with someone who has active cancer trying anything they wish -- whether it be "conventional", "cutting edge", "repurposed" or otherwise; such a person literally has nothing to lose.  The "medical system" however has a lot of objection to anyone doing anything they do not approve -- and the reason is quite-clear; it threatens their cash flow.

But claiming that someone has an "incipient" cancer based on something other than frank disease is extraordinarily dangerous as such a claim hinges on the unproved assertion that the immune system's primary function will fail while the alleged "therapy" will not, and once that idea becomes part of the cash flow equation all sorts of stupid things and potentially disastrous outcomes become not only possible they become probable.

Until you can reliably determine that said failure will occur in every case if you claim it you are a charlatan, you are making a false argument and in the context of a "vaccine" you're trying to shield yourself from criminal and civil liability when you are proved wrong down the road and we must not allow that -- up to and including executing anyone who attempts tampering with the cellular machinery with mRNA or any other similar technology whether the means of enforcement of that penalty is through the Rule of Law or not, if the persons to which this is to be given are still in the window where it is functionally reasonable that they may reproduce.

If you want to know what can go wrong in that regard you need to go watch I Am Legend again.

Yes, that can happen and while it has long odds you better kill anyone and everyone who puts that risk into the human population before they can do so as soon as it becomes apparent they actually intend it and aren't just talking out their ass because if that bet goes wrong our species is irretrievably ****ed.