Posted BY: Bill | NwoReport

Dr. Matthew Liao, Director of the College of Global Public Health Center for Bioethics at New York University, has come under scrutiny for his controversial statements made during a 2016 World Science Festival event. In a recently uncovered video, Liao suggested artificially inducing a red meat allergy in the entire human population as a strategy to combat climate change. He proposed using a molecule analogous to the one found in Lone Star Ticks, known for triggering meat allergies upon biting humans. Liao argued that reducing meat consumption could have a positive impact on the environment, but people’s unwillingness to give up meat necessitates alternative methods.

Liao’s advocacy of inducing autoimmune diseases in humans without their consent at a population level has sparked outrage and condemnation. He also proposed editing humans to become small enough to be eaten by cats, all in the name of addressing climate change. Critics have drawn parallels between these radical bioengineering ideas and the horrors of the past, emphasizing the need for ethical boundaries and accountability.

Trending: Michigan Attorney General Alerts FBI to 2020 Election Fraud Investigation

Calls for a Nuremberg-style tribunal to hold individuals like Liao accountable for their proposals have emerged. Some argue that Liao and others advocating similar bioengineering projects should be reclassified as enemy combatants rather than civilians and subjected to military tribunal trials. However, achieving this seems politically challenging, given the alleged influence of organizations like the World Economic Forum on the political landscape.

The controversy surrounding Liao’s ideas highlights the ethical and moral dilemmas associated with advanced bioengineering and its potential consequences. The incident underscores the need for responsible and transparent discussions about the boundaries of scientific research and the potential impacts on society and human rights.