THE LATEST FROM FRANKENSCIENCE: HEADLESS HUMAN “EMBRYOS”
...yes, you read that headline correctly. According to this story spotted and shared by M.W., an Isreali firm is proposing to grow human embryos - without heads - in artificial wombs, all for the purposes of harvesting their organs, for God-knows-what:
Citing yet another article from M.I.T., (see This startup wants to copy you into an embryo for organ harvesting), both make clear that this Israeli start up wants to copy you so that your organs can be sold, presumably back to us... or whomever. The kicker is, the claim is actually made that growing embryos without heads or brains somehow solves all the ethical difficulties; from the first article:
The idea of this startup is to
- take stem cells from any given individual, such as you or me
- modify the genetic code of those stem cells to prevent the formation of a human head (or brain) when developing as an embryo
- seed these genetically modified cells into a jar serving as an artificial womb and grow an artificial human embryo, but without a head
- According to the startup, this somehow “avoids ethical dilemmas”
Although Hanna doesn’t think an artificial embryo made from stem cells and kept in a lab will ever count as a human being (NO SHIT — I.C.), he has a contingency plan to make sure there is no confusion. It’s possible, for instance, to genetically engineer the starting cells so the resulting model embryo never develops a head. Restricting its potential could help avoid ethical dilemmas. “We think this is important and have invested a lot in this,” says Hanna.
This plan does have some interesting possibilities, and the article mentions old people who would benefit from youthful immune cells.
The article does not say this out loud, but perhaps a large target market would be all old people who destroyed their immune cells through “Covid vaccine” injections and want to reverse the effect the vaccine had on their immune systems.
Anyway, the plan, to be explained in simple language, would be something like this: if I get older, and need a replacement organ that is not affected by aging, I could pay this startup to grow an artificial infant, without a head, but otherwise, a copy of me when I was an infant. Then they could harvest organs from that headless infant to transplant into my aging body, avoiding immune rejection seen with regular transplants.
Now, those are just the author's qualms about this, and for the record, I agree with him. I would even go so far as to question the "optics" of an Israeli firm being behind this, as it looks too "talmudic" in its willingness to treat the goyim (and their embryos) as cattle. It's more along the lines of "Mein Fuehrer, we'd best keep this project a secret..." Getting wind of this - not to coin a very grizzly pun - would guarantee some revulsion and revolt from some Germans and Jews. I'm in their camp; put me down in the revulsed and revolted column.
As one might imagine, however, I have larger and other concerns. The first is: I do NOT trust scientists. Sorry folks, but when you all with but few exceptions seemed to line up behind the planscamdemic and the injections, you became scientismists, not scientists. You're not worthy of our trust, because we still don't know what's in your injections ever since you painted your doorposts and cloaked yourselves and your pharma companies with a special passover immunity and assured everyone that they were both safe and effective. Now the insurance companies are noticing the actuarial spikes of dead people, and even the Center for Disease Communication and the World Health Obliteration are noticing an extreme spike in adverse reactions, reactions which are a grizzly Frankencatalogue of horrors. But you knew that "something" might happen, and were willing to experiment on humanity itself, and release "whatever" just to satisfy your power lust and "curiosity".
But I digress... Back to the scientismists: I also do not trust you not to be growing those missing heads and brains somewhere. After all, if you can grow organs for transplant "when the old ones wear out," why not a brain for the person suffering an inoperable and terminal brain tumor? In fact, why not several brains all from the same person, so that you can conduct all sorts of other experiments? And how many "embryos with brains" did you have to cover-up, conceal, and quickly burn before you "got it right?" Woops, there's that grizzly holocaust image again.
That's concern number one.
Concern number two is the implicit materialism assumed to be true, and underlying the whole project: bluntly put, it is the whole idea of locating consciousness - our very personhood - "inside the skull," i.e., inside the brain. No brain, no person, no consciousness. Crazy as it sounds, I'm not buying that notion either, even though I realize that about 99% of the human population subscribes to it. I'm from a much older school that adheres to the notion that "personhood" is somehow seated or related to the whole body, and that there's no single physical locus of that personhood. If scientism wants to grow embryos and harvest organs in Israel, then we need them to explain to us what consciousness is, and where it is. While you're at it, you might want to explain to us how and why people who have been clinically brain dead on the operating table for several minutes come back and tell their astonished surgery teams that they saw and heard everything being done and said. You might also want to explain to us how that man in France, literally born without 90% of a brain, manages to function and, well, to be a person with clear intelligence, consciousness, and emotions? (See https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3679117/scientists-research-man-missing-90-of-his-brain-who-leads-a-normal-life-1.3679125) Those are just two of the significant exceptions to the brain = person rule, and the latter one also poses the thorny arithmetical problem of what percentage of a brain constitutes an adequate seat of consciousness? The point I'm driving to is: what if consciousness is a non-local and distributed phenomenon? If so, then the "ethical dilemma" is not solved by this approach, rather, it is aggravated, and in spades.
But really, we need go no further in comprehending the horror being proposed, than to indulge in a bit of theater:
"Tell us, Dr. Frankenscience, what did you do in med school?"
"Why, thank you Jane, for having me on your show. I grew human infants in artificial wombs without heads or brains so we could harvest their organs to help the living who needed transplants."
"I see... well, uhm, what did you do with the other organs that were not needed?"
"Oh Jane, we don't waste anything. We harvest those too, and sell them to laboratories that need to conduct experiments."
"I see. Well, tell us Dr. Frankenscience, how long did it take to develop this technique?"
"Oh, there were a few stops and starts and dead ends... er... (cough)... not to coin a pun (nervous laughter), but in the end we were successful...(more nervous laughter)..."
"Can you tell us how many of those dead ends there were?"
"(very nervous laughter)...oh...ah.... well....uhm.... It couldn't have been more than ten or twelve as I recall..."
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.