This past Monday, An outfit calling itself "Colossal Biosciences" made a bold claim that they had "de-extincted" the Dire Wolf.

It's bullshit, of course. A scam. A hoax. Never happened.

I was all set to go off on one of my mega-rants about it, but a little while ago, I found a short video that encapsulated most or all of my objections, and decided to post that in lieu of my usual wall of text:



So these creatures are NOT Dire Wolves. They are merely GMO Gray Wolves, designer wolves, Run of the mill Gray Wolves, just with a flashier paint job.

Granted, their ears are different - bigger, pointier, than Gray Wolves. They are bigger than the aerage Gray Wolf, and are projected to reach about 150 pounds or so. They're white, an off-color for wolves... but neither the size nor the color are out of range for run of the mill Gray Wolves.

If these are "Die Wolves", then I beat the company at "de-extincting" them by about 16 or 17 years, and using far more low-tech means - I just bred them.

Below is an image of my big male timber wolf hybrid. It was taken 15 or 16 years ago... but notice how closely he resembles the two white "Dire Wolves" shown in the plethora of videos about them on YouTube. The bigger, pointier ears. The muzzle. The white color. The massive bushy tail. The "wolf ruffs" on his jowls. The heavier fur.

As a side note, it's unlikely that actual Dire Wolves were white, and they were definitely not wolves. White is a color usually reserved for arctic animals who exist in snow most of the year. Dire Wolves were not arctic creatures for most of their time on Earth.

His name was Logan, and he weighed in at 145 pounds, just 5 pounds short of the projection for these wolves. Yeah, he was a big-un, but his sire was a full blooded Timber Wolf who weighed 160 pounds. His ma was, as i recall, a white german shepherd, which was at the time a relatively newly recognized breed in America, originally imported from Germany.



Logan was not a "Dire Wolf", despite his superficial but remarkably similar resemblance to these impostors.  He was a wolf-german shepherd hybrid. Nor did I ever claim he was anything but that, and that's really what pisses me off about this announcement. It's a lie, being broadcast far and wide in a effort to dupe a gullible public. That irritates me.

I did wonder where Colossal Biosciences got it's funding from, especially in light of the claims in their videos that they were either currently or planning to provide services freely to a variety of recipients. You don't get to do that without some pretty deep coffers, and being honest, no sane person is going to pay them to do their voodoo.

EndTheMadnessNow provided the answer to that query in the shoutbox, and it clears a lot of things up for me:

Quote:Colossal is connected at the hip to the globalist orgs such as UN, WEF, Wellcome Trust, Climate Change, apparently military too and have quite an elite board of advisors & scientists. Colossal co-founder is Prof. George Church. A world-renowned Harvard/MIT geneticist, molecular engineer, chemist, Synthetic Biology scientist, and world leading transhumanist on a quest for immortality. He's attempting to create a new version of the human being. Billions upon billions have poured into his CRISPR research for past 10 years.

Attached Files

Thumbnail(s)
   

A blunt meat grinder perspective from a Russian. An interesting interview/discussion.



Andrei Martyanov is an expert on Russian military and naval issues. He was born in Baku, USSR in 1963. He graduated from the Kirov Naval Red Banner Academy and served as an officer on the ships and staff position of Soviet Coast Guard through 1990. In mid-1990s he moved to the United States where he worked as Laboratory Director in a commercial aerospace group. He blogs at Reminiscence of the Future and is author of Losing Military Supremacy, The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs and Disintegration: Indicators of the Coming American Collapse.

Divide and conquer, a technique used to weaken the enemy is often applied to left/right politics. I hear the claims that the deep-state players are using this to control the masses by keeping them at each other's throats and distracted from the people behind the curtain pulling the strings.

I believe whoever is using this technique has succeeded. There is no middle ground now, there is no opinion, no matter how logical, fact-based, or unbiased, that will not be placed on one side or the other. Families are being torn apart by this political polarity and it sure seems to be serving a purpose. My girlfriend experienced this personally at a recent funeral in her family.

I have an example of my own to illustrate my point. The incident with the black kid in Kentucky (correction, Texas) at the track meet who stabbed a white kid who told him to leave his seat. When that report hit the media, the facts were scant and people automatically made assumptions, you know the kind. Young black male stabs a white guy to death, so it is a problem black people have with violence. The other side of that is young southern white boys threatening an "uppity black" to leave his seat who then defends himself.

If you are a liberal who would wonder out loud if the black kid was a murdering criminal, your liberal friends would call you a red-neck Trump MAGA Nazi. Conversely, if you were a conservative white guy who wondered if this was some racist southern white boys threatening a black guy who had the right of self defense, then you are automatically a closet liberal or some kind of political double agent. In some circles, you'd be called a fag or a Jew as well.

Now, I'm hearing that this black kid had it out for the white kid he stabbed to death, if so, then it was premeditated murder. Then, as predicted, this kid is the new liberal martyr who needs a go fund me for his defense and is racking up the defense funds as we speak. Meanwhile, the media is trying to imply the white kids were racist militant MAGA types because of a picture of them out hunting in camo clothes.

Unless I am making my observations public in the appropriate echo chamber, I will be doomed to be labeled one way or the other. You cannot be moderate anymore, you can't look at both sides and voice your independent thoughts and ideas without being placed in one camp or the other. We have already been divided and conquered when moderate objectivity is no longer allowed.

If I were to point out the extreme propaganda and rhetoric of both sides, I'd still get pigeon holed into one side or the other. I find that I must self-censor in public now, I discovered this at a local restaurant recently, not that I disagreed with the talk I heard. I have to keep it to myself for the most part, and that is the goal here, to stifle our free speech and keep us divided and unorganized.

You can skip to the 16:30 time hack for those who already know the history of the training flight where 5 TBM Avengers were lost in the Bermuda Triangle.

I was saddened to hear the news this afternoon that one of my inspirations for picking up the sticks has died , Clem Burke was to me one of the greats along with the likes of John Bonham , Cozy Powell and Neil Peart , different musical styles but the beat was in his Soul and he knew how to express it.

I liked Blondie mostly for Debbie Harry like any impressionable boy of my age but when I saw Clem playing Heart of Glass the beat and his style blew me away and led my on the path to becoming a drummer , many drummers have held my esteem through the years but as far as I can remember Clem was the first to open my eyes to the drums and the latest of my heroes to pass.

Clem died aged 70 following a "private battle with cancer" according to the band , I give them , his family and friends my deepest heartfelt condolences for their loss.

Clem and the band with Heart of Glass filmed in 2022.


Rock in Perpetuity Clem and thank you.

Reform UK's Nigel Farage said earlier this year that if the Labour government didn't hold a National inquiry into the extent of Muslim rape gangs preying on underage girls in the UK Reform would crowd fund their own National inquiry into the problem but it seems those were just the words of another main steam party hungry for power as nothing happened when Labour decided against it , step forward former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe who a week ago today launched his own crowd funded inquiry which at the time of writing has raised £496,880 from donations from 15600 supporters eager to see this boil lanced.

Quote:£500,000 is our big target for the Rape Gang Inquiry, and we're just £14k away.

The average donation is £31.65. If you can give £5, £10, £20 - anything is appreciated.

To get to half a million in just over a week would be historic.
People want answers.
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/190840...gr%5Etweet

Quote:Structure of the Inquiry:

• A qualified panel will be appointed to oversee the inquiry.
  
• A legal advisory team will support the panel throughout the inquiry.
  

The inquiry will take place in three defined stages:
Stage 1 – Launch & Evidence Collection

• Official launch of the inquiry with a call for written evidence.
  
• A secure submission process will be set up with a clear deadline for all submissions.
  

Stage 2 – Public Hearings

• A multiple day live-streamed hearing period.
  
• Hearings will be closed to the public (for safety and control) but broadcast online to ensure transparency.
  
• Panel-led questioning of witnesses; in cases of non-attendance, questions will still be put on record.
  
• Witness protection and safeguarding will be prioritised.
  

Stage 3 – Report & Publication

• A closed period for the panel to compile findings and draft the report.
  
• Pre-set publication date for the final report.
  
• Follow-up Q&A session led by Rupert and the panel to publicly respond to the findings.
  

Core Inquiry Questions
To maintain focus and deliver actionable conclusions, the inquiry will centre around three key questions:

• What happened?
  
• How did it happen?
  
• Why was it allowed to happen?
  

Funding

• Costs will be kept minimal and transparent, covering:
  • Panel and legal advisor fees
    
  • Venue hire and security
    
  • Travel expenses for witnesses
    
  
  
• Any surplus funds will be donated to charities supporting victims of grooming and exploitation.
  
• Every line of spending will be published 
  

Witnesses/participants
Victims and Survivors

• Individuals affected by grooming gangs who are willing to share their experiences.
  
• Survivors will be given the option to testify anonymously or via written/video statement to ensure their safety and comfort.
  

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/the-rape-gang-inquiry-1

Not sure Iran will sever ties with their proxies in Yemen unless the USA is really good at destroying the leadership and infrastructure.. 

Infrastructure in Yemen is more of a joke than an actual fact IMO.
I used to scuba dive in the Red Sea off the coast around Jeddah Sa. Beautiful clear clean water once upon a time... Now, probably not so much...

Quote:Iran has officially pulled its military forces out of Yemen, abandoning its long-supported proxy group, the Houthis, as the U.S. bombing campaign intensifies. The Telegraph reported on April 3 that Iranian troops, including elite Revolutionary Guard units, have been ordered to withdraw amidst relentless U.S. airstrikes that began on March 15. At least 67 Houthis have been killed, including key figures like Hezam al-Asad. With the withdrawal, Iran signals weakness across the entire Middle East. Its previous support for groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Assad regime has dwindled, and now the Houthis are left to collapse alone. The U.S. has deployed bombers, fighter wings, and multiple aircraft carriers to the region, with the USS Carl Vinson set to double American airpower in the Red Sea. As Iran scrambles and its proxy network crumbles, the future of the region hangs in the bala

Following the disaster that was Snow White 2025 Disney have gone back to the drawing board and brought in Samuel Leroy Jackson to put a bullet in this bed time story.




Happy Friday.

I wish I could have observed this in real life.  The Bathurst of steam engine races.  4 engines with passengers.

2023.  Hope you enjoy it.  Would appreciate if someone could post the vid instead of this link.



https://youtu.be/sdsFmkrVDpg


Kind regards,

Bally)

Imagine human bodies grown without brains, without consciousness.

These are "bodyoids."

And today in MIT Technology Review, researchers from Stanford University are ready to talk about them.

What is a bodyoid?

It is a "proposal" for human bodies, made from stem cells, and grown in artificial wombs, "that lack sentience or the ability to feel pain."

Bodies to take organs from, or do research on.

Do human bodyoids exist? Not yet. But we may one day have the technology to make them. Pluripotent stem cells can mimic early embryo development. Artificial wombs are advancing. Gene editing can block brain growth. Science is coalescing around a technology set to make brainless bodies.

The bodyoids argument is put forward in MIT Technology Review by Stanford stem-cell specialist Hiromitsu Nakauchi, his trainee Carsten Charlesworth, and noted legal scholar and bioethicist Hank Greely.

I always thought this was a subject of science fiction. Yet here are real scientists proposing it.

On the ethics of bodyoids, the authors write:

"Thus far, we have held to a standard that requires us to treat all humans born alive as people, entitled to life and respect. Would bodyoids—created without pregnancy, parental hopes, or indeed parents—blur that line?"


Here's another ethical wrinkle.

A bodyoid, if made from stem cells, is a clone. A clone of the cell donor.

A youthful, brainless, copy of someone.



I’ve seen this movie, about four different versions of it.

Here's the full article:

Quote:Why do we hear about medical breakthroughs in mice, but rarely see them translate into cures for human disease? Why do so few drugs that enter clinical trials receive regulatory approval? And why is the waiting list for organ transplantation so long? These challenges stem in large part from a common root cause: a severe shortage of ethically sourced human bodies.

It may be disturbing to characterize human bodies in such commodifying terms, but the unavoidable reality is that human biological materials are an essential commodity in medicine, and persistent shortages of these materials create a major bottleneck to progress.

This imbalance between supply and demand is the underlying cause of the organ shortage crisis, with more than 100,000 patients currently waiting for a solid organ transplant in the US alone. It also forces us to rely heavily on animals in medical research, a practice that can’t replicate major aspects of human physiology and makes it necessary to inflict harm on sentient creatures. In addition, the safety and efficacy of any experimental drug must still be confirmed in clinical trials on living human bodies. These costly trials risk harm to patients, can take a decade or longer to complete, and make it through to approval less than 15% of the time.

There might be a way to get out of this moral and scientific deadlock. Recent advances in biotechnology now provide a pathway to producing living human bodies without the neural components that allow us to think, be aware, or feel pain. Many will find this possibility disturbing, but if researchers and policymakers can find a way to pull these technologies together, we may one day be able to create “spare” bodies, both human and nonhuman.

These could revolutionize medical research and drug development, greatly reducing the need for animal testing, rescuing many people from organ transplant lists, and allowing us to produce more effective drugs and treatments. All without crossing most people’s ethical lines.

Bringing technologies together

Although it may seem like science fiction, recent technological progress has pushed this concept into the realm of plausibility. Pluripotent stem cells, one of the earliest cell types to form during development, can give rise to every type of cell in the adult body. Recently, researchers have used these stem cells to create structures that seem to mimic the early development of actual human embryos. At the same time, artificial uterus technology is rapidly advancing, and other pathways may be opening to allow for the development of fetuses outside of the body.

Such technologies, together with established genetic techniques to inhibit brain development, make it possible to envision the creation of “bodyoids”—a potentially unlimited source of human bodies, developed entirely outside of a human body from stem cells, that lack sentience or the ability to feel pain.

There are still many technical roadblocks to achieving this vision, but we have reason to expect that bodyoids could radically transform biomedical research by addressing critical limitations in the current models of research, drug development, and medicine. Among many other benefits, they would offer an almost unlimited source of organs, tissues, and cells for use in transplantation.

It could even be possible to generate organs directly from a patient’s own cells, essentially cloning someone’s biological material to ensure that transplanted tissues are a perfect immunological match and thus eliminating the need for lifelong immunosuppression. Bodyoids developed from a patient’s cells could also allow for personalized screening of drugs, allowing physicians to directly assess the effect of different interventions in a biological model that accurately reflects a patient’s own personal genetics and physiology. We can even envision using animal bodyoids in agriculture, as a substitute for the use of sentient animal species.

Of course, exciting possibilities are not certainties. We do not know whether the embryo models recently created from stem cells could give rise to living people or, thus far, even to living mice. We do not know when, or whether, an effective technique will be found for successfully gestating human bodies entirely outside a person. We cannot be sure whether such bodyoids can survive without ever having developed brains or the parts of brains associated with consciousness, or whether they would still serve as accurate models for living people without those brain functions.

Even if it all works, it may not be practical or economical to “grow” bodyoids, possibly for many years, until they can be mature enough to be useful for our ends. Each of these questions will require substantial research and time. But we believe this idea is now plausible enough to justify discussing both the technical feasibility and the ethical implications.

Ethical considerations and societal implications

Bodyoids could address many ethical problems in modern medicine, offering ways to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. For example, they could offer an ethical alternative to the way we currently use nonhuman animals for research and food, providing meat or other products with no animal suffering or awareness.

But when we come to human bodyoids, the issues become harder. Many will find the concept grotesque or appalling. And for good reason. We have an innate respect for human life in all its forms. We do not allow broad research on people who no longer have consciousness or, in some cases, never had it.

At the same time, we know much can be gained from studying the human body. We learn much from the bodies of the dead, which these days are used for teaching and research only with consent. In laboratories, we study cells and tissues that were taken, with consent, from the bodies of the dead and the living.

Recently we have even begun using for experiments the “animated cadavers” of people who have been declared legally dead, who have lost all brain function but whose other organs continue to function with mechanical assistance. Genetically modified pig kidneys have been connected to, or transplanted into, these legally dead but physiologically active cadavers to help researchers determine whether they would work in living people.

In all these cases, nothing was, legally, a living human being at the time it was used for research. Human bodyoids would also fall into that category. But there are still a number of issues worth considering. The first is consent: The cells used to make bodyoids would have to come from someone, and we’d have to make sure that this someone consented to this particular, likely controversial, use. But perhaps the deepest issue is that bodyoids might diminish the human status of real people who lack consciousness or sentience.

Thus far, we have held to a standard that requires us to treat all humans born alive as people, entitled to life and respect. Would bodyoids—created without pregnancy, parental hopes, or indeed parents—blur that line? Or would we consider a bodyoid a human being, entitled to the same respect? If so, why—just because it looks like us? A sufficiently detailed mannequin can meet that test. Because it looks like us and is alive? Because it is alive and has our DNA? These are questions that will require careful thought.

A call to action

Until recently, the idea of making something like a bodyoid would have been relegated to the realms of science fiction and philosophical speculation. But now it is at least plausible—and possibly revolutionary. It is time for it to be explored.

The potential benefits—for both human patients and sentient animal species—are great. Governments, companies, and private foundations should start thinking about bodyoids as a possible path for investment. There is no need to start with humans—we can begin exploring the feasibility of this approach with rodents or other research animals.

As we proceed, the ethical and social issues are at least as important as the scientific ones. Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done. Even if it looks possible, determining whether we should make bodyoids, nonhuman or human, will require considerable thought, discussion, and debate. Some of that will be by scientists, ethicists, and others with special interest or knowledge. But ultimately, the decisions will be made by societies and governments.

The time to start those discussions is now, when a scientific pathway seems clear enough for us to avoid pure speculation but before the world is presented with a troubling surprise. The announcement of the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep back in the 1990s launched a hysterical reaction, complete with speculation about armies of cloned warrior slaves. Good decisions require more preparation.

The path toward realizing the potential of bodyoids will not be without challenges; indeed, it may never be possible to get there, or even if it is possible, the path may never be taken. Caution is warranted, but so is bold vision; the opportunity is too important to ignore.

Carsten T. Charlesworth is a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine (ISCBRM) at Stanford University.

Henry T. Greely is the Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law and director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University.

Hiromitsu Nakauchi is a professor of genetics and an ISCBRM faculty member at Stanford University and a distinguished university professor at the Institute of Science Tokyo.

Ethically sourced “spare” human bodies could revolutionize medicine

Quote:This startup wants to copy you into an embryo for organ harvesting

With plans to create realistic synthetic embryos, grown in jars, Renewal Bio is on a journey to the horizon of science and ethics.

In a search for novel forms of longevity medicine, a biotech company based in Israel says it intends to create embryo-stage versions of people in order to harvest tissues for use in transplant treatments.

The company, Renewal Bio, is pursuing recent advances in stem-cell technology and artificial wombs demonstrated by Jacob Hanna, a biologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot. Earlier this week, Hanna showed that starting with mouse stem cells, his lab could form highly realistic-looking mouse embryos and keep them growing in a mechanical womb for several days until they developed beating hearts, flowing blood, and cranial folds.

“It’s absolutely not necessary, so why would you do it?” says Nicolas Rivron, a stem-cell scientist at the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology in Vienna. He argues that scientists should only create “the minimal embryonic structure necessary” to yield cells of interest.