reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses the potential for elites to hack organisms and engineer life, leading to a significant revolution in biology. This shift from evolution by natural selection to evolution by intelligent design using technology like the IBM and Microsoft Clouds raises ethical concerns about playing God and the implications for humanity.

The future masters of the planet will be determined by those who control the data. Data is crucial because it allows us to hack not only computers, but also human beings and other organisms. To hack a human, you need computing power and biometric data. The control of data could empower elites to not only create digital dictatorships, but also reengineer the future of life itself. Science is replacing evolution by natural selection with evolution by intelligent design, driven by companies like IBM and Microsoft. Additionally, science may enable life to expand beyond organic compounds into the inorganic realm. However, this development may have negative consequences for our species.

Planting trees is not a solution to the climate issue, despite some people's fascination with them. It is nonsensical to believe that simply planting enough trees can solve the problem. We need to question whether we want to be the knowledgeable ones or the fools.

God created organic beings like trees, giraffes, and humans. However, humans are now attempting to create inorganic lifeforms such as cyberware and artificial intelligence. If successful, which is highly likely, we will soon surpass the limitations set by God.

The transcript discusses the legal and practical prospects of cloning a human being, focusing on the near-term feasibility and the institutions involved. It asserts that strictly speaking it would be legal to clone “me” tomorrow at a leading IVF clinic outside of New York, where people with the technology, the ability, and the desire exist to genetically engineer human embryos to become the first in the world to clone a human being. The speaker notes that there is “no doubt that human beings will be cloned,” and attributes this potential to Doctor Jacques Cohen, described as a leader in the field, who would need only the approval of his clinic’s ethics committee to make history. The conversation then shifts to the idea that, given the money and permission, cloning could occur within a year or two. The responder says, “We could clone you probably in within two years,” indicating a timeline for making a clone a reality. The transcript also presents a concrete example from a research facility in Scotland that pioneered the technique, showing that an actual cloning process is taking place there. Although the example shown is of an animal, the speaker explains that the same method could be applied to humans. The described procedure is laid out simply: take a cell from a human, such as a scraping of skin, obtain an egg from a female, remove the nucleus from the egg, fuse the skin cell and the enucleated egg with a spark of electricity, and you have an embryo. If this embryo is implanted in a woman, nine months later you would have a carbon copy of the person from whom the skin cell was taken. The speaker emphasizes the steps that lead from a skin cell to an implanted embryo and ultimately to a clone, portraying the process as technically straightforward and within reach given the appropriate approvals and resources. Overall, the transcript frames cloning as an imminent and legally permissible capability in elite IVF and research settings, driven by prominent figures like Dr. Cohen, with a plausible two-year horizon and a shown proof-of-concept in Scotland, while outlining the key molecular steps involved in producing a cloned embryo.

Humanized mice are used in labs to test new drugs, showing that chimeras already exist. The US Supreme Court decision allows the patenting of synthetic DNA, creating intellectual property rights. mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna create a new genome within people, as stated in the case. The shots genetically modify cells throughout the body, raising questions about separating synthetic DNA from the new genome. Translation: The video discusses the existence of chimeras, a US Supreme Court decision allowing patenting of synthetic DNA, and how mRNA vaccines create a new genome within individuals. It raises concerns about separating synthetic DNA from the new genome.

US and Chinese scientists have implanted human cells into monkey embryos, raising ethical concerns about how to treat these hybrid organisms. The researchers successfully cloned monkeys with genetic disease symptoms using the CRISPR Cas9 method. By replacing a nucleus of a monkey egg cell with a fibroblast nucleus, they created embryos that were part monkey and part human. These embryos were grown in a laboratory for 20 days. The implications and potential drawbacks or benefits of creating human-monkey hybrids are still unknown.

It is possible to engineer pathogens to be more dangerous for covert purposes, making it difficult to trace their origin. This could be done to achieve specific goals, although the usefulness to an adversary is unclear.

Anything from nature cannot be patented, so drug companies won't spend millions testing natural substances for FDA approval. The FDA requires efficacy and safety testing, but since natural substances can't be patented, no company will invest in the testing. Therefore, according to the speaker, the FDA will always condemn anything from nature as unproven, regardless of its potential effectiveness.

The speaker says they looked into “seedless watermelons” because they consider them “a mind blowing thing.” They claim that seedless watermelons are made by using an antibiotic so the fruit becomes infertile, preventing seeds from growing. They then connect this to what they believe happens after eating seedless fruit, arguing that if seedlessness is caused by making the watermelon infertile—so there is no seed and the fruit has been altered—then it will “make you infertile” in the gut lining. The speaker extends the claim beyond watermelons, saying that going into seedless grapes, seedless oranges, seedless lemons, and seedless watermelons are “Monsanto’s products” aimed at making people infertile. They say this is tied to a broader “fertility crisis” discussed by many people. In their view, the lack of seeds in food leads to a lack of seeds for people to “procreate” and “continue on” their lineage, because they argue seeds are involved in feeding fertility for both males and females. They claim that seeds “are going to feed the fertility of a male or a female” and that these reproductive parts need to be fed; therefore, eliminating the seed also eliminates fertility. The speaker advises that when choosing fruit like watermelons, people should look for “seeded watermelons.” They also say that seeds contain nutrients and that those nutrients are “the counters to many different diseases.” According to the speaker, a reason seeds are removed is that if people ate the actual seeds of the fruit, the seeds would counter illnesses. They then add that removing seeds makes it possible to keep people sick and to profit from it. Overall, the speaker’s argument is that seedless versions of multiple fruits are produced by applying an antibiotic to make the fruit infertile and seedless, and that removing seeds from food leads to infertility by removing seed-related fertility support. They further claim that eliminating seeds removes nutrients that would counter diseases, and they frame this as part of a larger system that benefits from keeping people unwell.

The conversation argues that the symptoms being discussed are “symptomatic right now,” framing them as the result of “beta tests” and “a new form of war.” It claims that the United States, the UK, Russia, China, and India all have the relevant technology. The speaker then responds to a question about whether the affected American patients share political beliefs. They say that, instead of focusing on shared politics, they are relying on a report from *Surgical Neurology International* that describes microwave frequencies being used as a weapon of war. They also reference an article they read about China turning on “six G,” stating that in 6G it has the ability to read and manipulate the human brain. The discussion further claims that if someone has nanotech “in you,” they are “no longer considered human,” and introduces a new term for the human species: “Homo Borg Genesis.” The speaker concludes by saying that if this is imposed without consent and people are no longer considered human, “the debate is gonna come at some point here.”

Scientists are reportedly combining viral and bacterial genetic material, creating something that wouldn't happen in nature. This could lead to the creation of superbugs. While some people might survive due to a resilient microbiome, many could die from these experiments. The justification for these experiments is to see what happens in case it occurs in nature later. However, the experiments are creating the very scenario they are trying to prepare for. The speaker argues that some scientific endeavors, like reproducing a dinosaur, should not be pursued because of potential catastrophic consequences like the dinosaur killing humanity. There is a need for better supervision of scientists and their labs.

The secret to growing giant plants may lie in a lost farming technology called electro culture. In 1746, a Scottish doctor named Dr. Mimbray observed that electrifying trees caused them to produce new branches in October, something unprecedented. In 1902, physicist Professor Lemstrom noticed that plants grew faster under the Aurora borealis in Alaska. Today, countries like China are exploring electro culture to combat fertilizer shortages. They have achieved a remarkable 25 to 50% increase in yield while reducing fertilizer and pesticide use by 75%. Let's spread the word about electro culture farming.

To produce super viruses and super bacteria for large-scale use, the first challenge is to address the issue of genetic modification. The fear lies in the fact that this technology could fall into the hands of extremist terrorist groups who may not care about the consequences as long as it causes harm and instills fear in humanity.

There are humanized mice and chimeras exist, and they don't differentiate a genome to them as a genome. It cites a US Supreme Court decision, described as 'good law,' with the legislature able to change it. The holding: 'It is also possible to create DNA synthetically through the process similarly well known in the field of genetics. One such method begins with an mRNA molecule and uses the natural bonding properties of nucleotides to create a new synthetic DNA molecule.' It continues: 'you can't, in the world of intellectual property, you cannot patent something that already exists in nature. If you change that, however, into something synthetic, that new genome is in fact patentable.' The case holds that 'If you use messenger RNA to create a synthetic genome, that new genome is your intellectual property rights.' The conversation ties this to vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna) and asks how to separate the synthetic genome from DNA, noting the shots 'go throughout your entire body' and 'go everywhere.'

Plants exhibit intelligence by perceiving light, smell, touch, and more, learning, remembering, and communicating. They lack brains but act like brains. Research shows plants can "see" without eyes. Nature shows intelligence in dolphins, pigeons, and even slime molds, which excel in maze-solving and inspire traffic solutions.

Speaker 0 explains that in the agriculture appropriations bill, they tried to defund research for transgenic edible plant vaccines. They describe the concept as scary and state that taxpayer dollars are funding research on vaccines produced in lettuce and spinach, such that when people eat those leafy greens, they would be vaccinated with whatever vaccine the plant is producing. The speaker asserts that there is a belief this approach amounts to “playing God with our spinach,” and argues that if someone wants to pursue this, tighter rules are probably necessary because pollen can escape and pollute plants in neighboring farms that did not intend to grow vaccines in their food. The speaker notes that they attempted to put rules on this issue in the agriculture appropriations bill and were able to stop taxpayer spending in that bill. However, the speaker states that the bill was thrown in the trash and an omnibus was passed instead. As a result, the speaker warns that there will be “another year of transgenic edible plant vaccine research,” and indicates that this topic will be a post of its own. In summary, the speaker highlights the following points: the existence of research funded with taxpayer dollars into transgenic edible plant vaccines produced in vegetables like lettuce and spinach; the concern about potential vaccination through consumption of these plants; the risk posed by pollen dispersion to neighboring farms; an effort to restrict funding via the agriculture appropriations bill that was ultimately unsuccessful due to the bill being discarded in favor of an omnibus; and the expectation that such research will continue for another year. The overall message emphasizes opposition to funding this line of research and points to procedural outcomes that hindered the attempted defunding, while noting that the broader effort and its controversy would be revisited in a future post.

Speaker 0 introduces electroculture as a way to boost a garden, noting that when they first began talking about it, many gardeners dismissed it as “woo woo.” Speaker 1 responds directly that electroculture does not work. They say that no study has ever confirmed that electroculture works in any appreciable amount, and that it is simple: it doesn’t work. Speaker 1 also says you don’t need to stick a copper rod in the ground because it “literally doesn’t do anything.” Speaker 0 then describes personal examples and claims from others who tried electroculture. One friend is said to have grown a 46 pound watermelon. Another friend is said to have tried it in Ireland, and Speaker 0 points to garlic with visible size differences. Speaker 0 also shows a cucumber example, claiming that everything gets bigger with electroculture. They describe multiple melons growing together and say it is “pretty wild.” Speaker 0 suggests that when you “think of nature,” things begin to “multiply.” Speaker 0 then addresses what they claim is taking place. They reference “Kirlian photography of pyramids,” stating that when looking at pyramids directly you can’t see anything happening, but in the photography “beams” appear, and they claim this indicates electroculture is manipulating the ether. Speaker 0 adds that there will always be people who insist “oh, no, no, it’s not true,” and then poses questions about why organizations would have done such work. They ask why the “Royal Agriculture Society” would be doing it in 1845 and 1873 if it were not effective. Speaker 0 frames this as a contrast between abundance and “the peasants,” saying the royals “know how to have abundance” while others do not. Speaker 0 further claims that it goes deeper when discovering that “the government was doing electric culture in the 1920s.” They connect these references—Royal Agriculture Society, government involvement, and access to abundance at one’s fingertips—then ask why people aren’t doing it. Speaker 0 ends with “Questions of the day?”

Life cannot be contained. Evolution shows us that it breaks free, expands, and overcomes barriers, sometimes dangerously. That's just the way it is.

Ethical concerns are raised by U.S. and Chinese scientists implanting human cells into monkey embryos. There is uncertainty about the nature of the resulting organism, whether it is human, monkey, or something in between, which raises ethical questions about their use in experiments and potential destruction. Chinese scientists have reportedly cloned monkeys with genetic disease symptoms using CRISPR Cas9 on in vitro fertilized monkey embryos. Monkeys exhibited a disrupted circadian rhythm due to the absence of BMA L1. Somatic cell nuclear transfer was used, implanting 325 embryos into 65 surrogate monkeys, resulting in five cloned monkeys carrying the altered gene. Scientists have also attempted to create human-monkey chimeras by integrating human cells into macaque monkey embryos, grown in a lab for 20 days. The drawbacks or benefits of creating such a hybrid are not yet fully known.

In the future, technology evolves rapidly and we can create entire worlds instantly. We had to learn to control our minds to prevent negative forces from destroying us. We are from the future because plants harvest light in an impossible way. Photons of light should collide with other particles, but they don't. Instead, plants put photons into a quantum superposition, multiplying them into every possible path. When one path reaches the core without fail, it becomes the only possibility that ever existed. This is how photons reach the planet's core with incredible precision. We are from the future, and together we can bring light to the world.

Human cloning is a controversial topic that some researchers claim has already been developed by classified military projects. The cloning of animals, such as Dolly the sheep, has been successfully achieved, and there are claims that human cloning is also possible. Cloning could have various applications, including creating replacement organs for medical purposes. There are theories that celebrities and even historical figures have been cloned. The idea of cloning is being subtly introduced to the public through movies, TV shows, and news stories. The possibility of human cloning raises ethical concerns and questions about the authenticity of certain individuals.

Speaker 0 argues against labeling certain plants as weeds, stating that destroying them would mean destroying the land. They point out that the plants produce flowers, which come from them, and these flowers help butterflies, bees, and all the other pollinators. The speaker notes that “Monsanto wants to sell you some poison to get rid of the bees, the pollinators, and then Walmart will sell you, guess what, robotic bees.” They question whether viewers are watching the same video. The speaker concludes by asserting that “Monsanto says destroy the weeds because it destroys the beets.”