FIRST SYNTHETIC (MICE) EMBRYOS CREATED
This was another story that many of you spotted, so thanks to all of you who passed it along; we'll go with this version of the story submitted by M.W. (again, with our thanks). The story is evident from the headline to this blog: scientists have succeeded in creating the first synthetic embryos (of mice, incidentally). One is tempted to call them "mad scientists", but I'll get back to that in a moment. Here's the story:
Now if you read closely, no doubt you spotted the same things that caught my eyes:
Researchers have created the world’s first “synthetic embryos” in a groundbreaking feat that bypassed the need for sperm, eggs and fertilisation.
Scientists at the Weizmann Institute in Israel found that stem cells from mice could be made to self-assemble into early embryo-like structures with an intestinal tract, the beginnings of a brain, and a beating heart.
Known as synthetic embryos because they are created without fertilised eggs, the living structures are expected, in the near term, to drive deeper understanding of how organs and tissues form during the development of natural embryos.
But researchers believe the work could also reduce animal experimentation and ultimately pave the way for new sources of cells and tissues for human transplantation. For example, skin cells from a leukaemia patient could potentially be transformed into bone marrow stem cells to treat their condition.
While most of the stem cells failed to form embryo-like structures, about 0.5% combined into little balls that grew distinct tissues and organs. When compared with natural mouse embryos, the synthetic embryos were 95% the same in terms of their internal structure and the genetic profiles of the cells. As far as the scientists could tell, the organs that formed were functional.
Hanna said synthetic embryos were not “real” embryos and did not have the potential to develop into live animals, or at least they hadn’t when they had been transplanted into the wombs of female mice. He has founded a company called Renewal Bio that aims to grow human synthetic embryos to provide tissues and cells for medical conditions.
There you have it: (1) the "embryos" aren't real embryos because (2) they didn't come about the "natural" way, and (3) only a few of them - about a half of a percent - actually looked like they were becoming embryos, but - whew! thank goodness! - they only looked like they were but couldn't actually have become embryos, and - oh! by the way, we're also going to be doing the same thing and "grow human synthetic embryos to provide tissues and cells for medical conditions." Notice the "disguised viability argument" which is couched in a uniquely circular fashion: those 0.5 % that look like they're developing into proper embryos aren't proper embryos because they cannot survive outside the womb because we're not providing them with an artificial womb (except that we are, in order to study 'tissues and cells for medical conditions' but we're not allowing them to develop into real embryos which it only looks like they're doing, but we can still use the developed tissue for other stuff...."
I'm reminded of would-be baby-murderer, some former Democratic Governor, who was seriously flirting with making new born babies "comfortable" while having a chat with the mother to decide whether or not she wanted to keep her baby.
I'm not buying for a moment - not for one moment - that these scientismists won't want to do this with human embryos, and they they won't grow them to full term, and murder them, because they'll be arguing all sorts of sophistical points that they are not really human.
So the question is, why? What is or are those "medical conditions" that they are so intent on treating?
I have one guess, and it's a whopper doozie of a high octane speculation: the condition is aging and death. "They" already know that stem cells, and even "young blood", if injected into older populations, reinvigorates them. For many years there has been a "meme" among alternative researchers that "adrenochrome" also restores youthful vitality. Some geneticists have seriously proposed that there is no reason humans cannot be, and should not be, virtually immortal. Some people - and I would be one of them - suggest that there is something "off" about the longevity of some of today's most notorious and frankly evil characters; they fund and promote all manner of chaos and evil, call themselves "gods", and their skin is literally sagging and hanging in folds on their faces... you all know who I'm talking about. Other billionaires have openly admitted taking blood transfusions from very young people.
There is nothing that says that "science" may not ultimately prove successful in granting a kind of virtual immortality to humanity. Our oldest records, from the Bible to the Sumerian and Egyptian Kings' Lists, indicate that lifespans used to be much much longer. If the Old Testament Methuselah seems old, clocking out at a mere 967 years of age, it's worth pointing out that some of those kings' lists mention figures hundreds of thousands of years old. As I've pointed out elsewhere (in my first book in "alternative research" in fact, in The Giza Death Star), this longevity in part also accounts for something else those ancient records also maintain: that there was once a much higher civilization than our own, at least in terms of it scientific and technological achievements. If whole populations live much longer, that state of affairs is easy to imagine: whole generations of humans have to recycle all knowledge once every 20 years now, and at best, we as individuals really only ever master one discipline now. Imagine living long enough to master several.
There was a cost, however, and one sees the dim outlines of that cost beginning to manifest themselves with the modern scientismist, technocrat, and globaloneyist; it's a cost that comes in the form of two spiritual conditions, both of which we're beginning to see manifesting themselves again. The first condition is the ability to do whatever we imagine to do, with no restraints (particularly moral ones). If that sounds a bit "Tower of Babelish", that's precisely because it is. The second condition is like unto the first, and is both its parent, sibling, and child: crushing boredom. The ancients had other words for the condition, like dispassion, apathy, anomie, and so on, but in our virtue-starved Gnostic age, we've forgotten that there are horrible spiritual states where one has become so bored with life that one raises and sponsors all sorts of chaos simply because one is bored, and simply because one can do so - and living hundreds, or hundreds of thousands, of years without an accompanying spiritual change might do it in spades. And yes, we all know who I'm talking about.
There will come a time, probably not too far off, when the choice will be stark: the virtual (but very real) immortality proffered by scientism, without the corresponding spiritual development, and a long life which can be an utter hell, or the conquest of death itself, in all its physical and spiritual ramifications, and rumor has it that was done only once, and not by a scientismist or a technocrat.
See you on the flip side...
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.