Surgeon boasts that he can do first human head transplant and admits his final goal is immortality

  • Surgeon Sergio Canavero sees ‘no problem’ with wealthy tycoons using the procedure to get a young body in their quest for eternal life
  • Hopes his first patient will be Russian with genetic muscle wasting disease
  • Valery Spiridonov, 30, has volunteered to be a guinea pig, despite the risks
  • Dr Canavero has been called ‘nuts’ by critics who think his plans a fantasy

An Italian doctor has vowed to confound his medical doubters by proving that he can conduct the world’s first head transplant – in less than an hour.

Surgeon Sergio Canavero, who has no problem with anyone branding him Dr Frankenstein, also has not got any qualms with wealthy tycoons using the procedure to get a young body in their quest for eternal life.

He confirmed that he hopes to operate on his first patient, a Russian with a rare genetic muscle wasting disease, and said he will carry out the procedure in China if he is banned from doing so in the EU or former Soviet Union.

Controversial Surgeon Sergio Canavero plans to perform the first ever human head transplant, claiming the country which hosts the operation will be a 'world leader' like the US when it put a man on the Moon

Valery Spiridonov wants to be the first person to undergo a head transplant despite the massive risks so he can have a shot at having a healthy body having suffered from Werdnig-Hoffman disease

Valery Spiridonov wants to be the first person to undergo a head transplant despite the massive risks so he can have a shot at having a healthy body having suffered from Werdnig-Hoffman disease

Dr Canavero says he is ready to be branded a Dr Frankenstein in his attempts to perform the first head transplant. Pictured here is Boris Karolv playing Dr Frankenstein's monster in the 1931 film

Dr Canavero says he is ready to be branded a Dr Frankenstein in his attempts to perform the first head transplant. Pictured here is Boris Karolv playing Dr Frankenstein’s monster in the 1931 film

Potentially he accepts he could be jailed for conducting such an operation in a country where it does not have approval.

‘It’s not a problem. If Europe and Russia say “no”, the surgery will be done in China,’ he said.

‘I’m ready for that. I’ve been studying Chinese for a few years.

‘You should understand that it’s not simply a medical procedure. This surgery has a political meaning.

‘The Soviet Union was the first one to send Yuri Gagarin to space, America was the first on the Moon. The country that hosts head transplant surgery for the first time will become a leader like this.’

But critics say Dr Canavero’s plans are a fantasy. Arthur Caplan, the director of medical ethics at New York University’s Langone Medical Centre, has described Dr Canavero as ‘nuts’.

And Dr Hunt Batjer, president elect of the American Association for Neurological Surgeons, has said: ‘I would not wish this on anyone. I would not allow anyone to do it to me as there are a lot of things worse than death.’

Nevertheless severely disabled Valery Spiridonov, 30, a sufferer of Werdnig-Hoffman disease, has volunteered to be a guinea pig, knowing the risks.

He told MailOnline in an exclusive interview earlier this month: ‘My decision is final and I do not plan to change my mind.’

‘Am I afraid? Yes, of course I am. But it is not just very scary, but also very interesting. ‘

This risks appear huge but Dr Canavero insists it would take him less than an hour to put Spiridonov’s head on the body of a donor body.

‘Valery’s head will be cooled to 10-15 degrees Celsius,’ the Italian medic said.

‘That is done in cases of surgery on deep areas of the brain.

‘We will have an hour to ‘switch’ the head to a different body. You need a few minutes to join blood vessels.

‘Valery’s head will be detached from his body and transferred to another one in a matter of seconds, and the brain’s blood flow will start in about 15 minutes.

Dr Canavero giving a presentation on his plans. He claims he has been 'studying Chinese for the past few years' in case he has to perform the operation in China should Europe and Russia say no

Dr Canavero giving a presentation on his plans. He claims he has been ‘studying Chinese for the past few years’ in case he has to perform the operation in China should Europe and Russia say no

‘I will be explaining all the technical peculiarities on June 12 in Annapolis at an international neurosurgeons’ conference.’

This Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Neurological and Orthopaedic Surgeons will hear that such surgery is not only possible but imminent, he said.

‘I’ll prove it is totally possible to all the sceptics there.’

He admitted that attaching the head was only the start.

‘The surgery will take a lot of time, the joining process may take up to 18-24 hours,’ he said. ‘Doctors will be taking turns not to get tired.’

He added: ‘Believe me, I receive a lot of queries from surgeons, volunteers from across the globe who’d like to participate in the surgery.

‘If I wanted, I’d be able to have an international team of 150 highly-skilled professionals.’

Asked by newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda on the cost of the first surgery, he replied: ‘Do you love football? I hate it. Nonetheless, you have slackers who meaninglessly stroll around the pitch and are paid $20-30 million a year.

‘I need $15 million. It’s the price for happiness and health for a lot of people. But sponsors prefer spending money on healthy boneheads who can’t kick a ball.’

Asked if such surgery could be used for ‘elderly billionaires to get a young body’, he claimed he had interest from tycoons seeking to extend their lives.

‘You bet – there are a few funds working on prolonging life expectancy, and they are well-funded.

‘These people came to me and said, “here is the money, but we want our participation to stay secret”.

‘However, I want everything to be transparent. Doing the surgery in a secret place on a secret island is not my cup of tea, to be honest.’

He was ready to be branded Dr Frankenstein.

In 1970 Dr Robert White transplanted the head of one monkey onto the body of another, as shown in this diagram. If Mr Spiridonov's head were to be successfully transplanted his jugular vein and spinal cords would have to be similarly fused with those of his new donor body

Dr Canavero has said his new body swap technique could help paralysed people such as Christopher Reeve

Dr Canavero has said his new body swap technique could help paralysed people such as Christopher Reeve

‘I am prepared for any nicknames, because it sounds cool and will help to sell more newspapers.

‘But I am very conservative when it comes to funding.

‘When Bill Gates or Dmitry Itskov (a Russian millionaire supporting the research in artificial intelligence) fund my project, I’ll come to the cameras with the receipt and say, “this person supported my initiative”.’

He went on: ‘I know what I’m for and am prepared for it. I already have an entire army of enemies.

‘But even if I fail with the project, it’ll be a lot easier for those who carry on after me.’

He admitted that ‘the final goal is immortality’ and brushed aside objections from churches.

‘I’m not a Catholic and not even a Christian. But I respect other points of view. And I will listen to what the Orthodox church has to say. But this church has one point of view, and the Catholic – another.’

He claims a senior Catholic figure has said he sees no objections to the surgery, he said, adding: ‘In Asia and China, the religious authorities also haven’t shown any discontent about that. I don’t think the religious aspect will play a huge role.

Dr Canavero, who currently undertakes experimental surgery near Turin, said that he had had ‘many’ offers to be his guinea pig in such surgery.

‘My secretary receives queries from all over the world,’ he said.

‘I won’t disclose the names of other candidates because they have not allowed me to do so.

‘I chose Valery for two reasons. First, he’s brave enough and ready to go till the end.

‘Second, his bravery is based on knowledge, he studied everything the scientists have discovered in the area.

‘This way, I decided, he will be the first one to make history.

‘Other lucky people will get a chance to change their lives after him.’

In his remarkable interview with MailOnline, the would-be patient explained that he had agreed to the surgery because ‘I don’t really have many choices.

Dmitry Itskov, a Russian millionaire who supports research in artificial intelligence. Dr Canavero says he'd love to 'come to the cameras' with a receipt to show he had enlisted Mr Itskov's support

‘If I don’t try this chance my fate will be very sad. With every year my state is getting worse.’

He confirmed: ‘I read many scientific articles on this topic.

‘The idea to transplant not only organs but the head has been studied for a long time even by Russian specialists.

‘But an actual transplantation of the human head was never conducted.

‘I contacted Professor Canavero two years ago after reading about his works. I offered myself to him to make this operation possible.

‘We have never met, and we just communicate via emails.

‘And for the last two years we’ve been talking this idea through and planning the operation.

‘He’s a very experienced neurosurgeon and conducted many serious operations. Of course he has never done anything like this and we have to think carefully all the possible risks.

‘But in the end it is like with astronauts. Before the first man we sent into space, 300 different scenarios of something going wrong were thought through but when he actually did it, it was the 301st scenario that happened.’

He denied his pledge to be a guinea pig is a stunt, and insisted he goes into it with his eyes open.

Severely physically handicapped, he made clear: ‘I do understand the risks of such surgery. Yhey are multiple. We can’t even imagine what exactly can go wrong.

‘I’m afraid that I wouldn’t live long enough to see it happen to someone else.

‘If I want this kind of surgery to happen, I shouldn’t put the responsibility onto someone else but should try it on myself.

‘My family fully supports me. They also understand all the risks, and even if they think that it’s too dangerous, they still support me in my decision.’

Princeton Prof: Kill severely disabled infants under Obamacare

cute-baby-surprisedIn a radio interview Sunday, Princeton University ethics professor Peter Singer argued it is “reasonable” for government or private insurance companies to deny treatment to severely disabled babies.Singer contended the health-care system under Obamacare should be more overt about rationing and that the country should acknowledge the necessity of “intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.”

Throughout the interview, Singer repeatedly referred to a disabled infant as “it.”

Singer was speaking on the “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM.

The Princeton professor is known for his controversial views on abortion and infanticide. He essentially argues the right to life is related to a being’s capacity for intelligence and to hold life preferences, which in turn is directly related to a capacity to feel and comprehend pain and pleasure.

Klein’s interview with Singer started out on the topic of the professor’s new book about charity, “The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically.”

The conversation turned to the issue of terminating disabled infants when Klein asked whether the Singer believes health-care rationing under Obamacare will become more prevalent.

Peter Singer

Singer told Klein rationing is already happening, explaining doctors and hospitals routinely make decisions based on costs.

“It’s different in the U.S. system, in a way, because it doesn’t do this overtly; maybe it doesn’t do it as much. And the result is it spends about twice as much on health care as some other countries for very little extra benefit in terms of the outcome.”

Klein quoted from a section of Singer’s 1993 treatise “Practical Ethics,” titled “Taking Life: Humans.”

In the section, Singer argued for the morality of “non-voluntary euthanasia” for human beings not capable of understanding the choice between life and death, including “severely disabled infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved.”

For Singer, the wrongness of killing a human being is not based on the fact that the individual is alive and human. Instead, Singer argued it is “characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference.”

Asked whether he envisions denying treatment to disabled infants to become more common in the U.S. under the new health-care law, Singer replied: “It does happen. Not necessarily because of costs.”

He continued:

If an infant is born with a massive hemorrhage in the brain that means it will be so severely disabled that if the infant lives it will never even be able to recognize its mother, it won’t be able to interact with any other human being, it will just lie there in the bed and you could feed it but that’s all that will happen, doctors will turn off the respirator that is keeping that infant alive.

I don’t know whether they are influenced by reducing costs. Probably they are just influenced by the fact that this will be a terrible burden for the parents to look after, and there will be no quality of life for the child.

So we are already taking steps that quite knowingly and intentionally are ending the lives of severely disabled infants.

And I think we ought to be more open in recognizing that this happens.

Klein followed up by asking whether the killing of severely disabled infants should be institutionalized to reduce health-care costs.

Asked Klein: “I know that it happens and it happens certainly if the family gives consent. But do you think in the future in order to ensure a more fair rationing of health-care and health-care costs, that it should actually be instituted more? The killing of severely disabled babies?”

Singer responded such a plan would be “quite reasonable” if it saved money that can be used for better purposes. He contended that most people would say they don’t want their premiums to be higher “so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”

Singer’s full response:

I think if you had a health-care system in which governments were trying to say, “Look, there are some things that don’t provide enough benefits given the costs of those treatments. And if we didn’t do them we would be able to do a lot more good for other people who have better prospects,” then yes.

I think it would be reasonable for governments to say, “This treatment is not going to be provided on the national health service if it’s a country with a national health service. Or in the United States on Medicare or Medicade.”

And I think it will be reasonable for insurance companies also to say, “You know, we won’t insure you for this or we won’t insure you for this unless you are prepared to pay an extra premium, or perhaps they have a fund with lower premiums for people who don’t want to insure against that.”

Because I think most people, when they think about that, would say that’s quite reasonable. You know, I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.

SC Police Execution – Why the Official Story Always Needs to Be Questioned

by Kit Daniels | | April 9, 2015

Media never questioned police version of shooting – until video
Walter Scott Shooting: Why You Must Always Question the Official Story

The mainstream media never questioned the false police version of the Walter Scott shooting until a video emerged showing North Charleston, S.C. police officer Michael T. Slager shooting Scott in the back five times.

The video, recorded by 23-year-old Feidin Santana, shows Slager firing the first of eight shots only after Scott had ran at least 10 feet away from the officer, but we never would have known that based on the news coverage of the shooting without the video.

Take a look at this article from the Charleston, S.C. ABC affiliate WCIV:


“Police and witnesses say Scott tried to run from Slager before turning to fight for the officer’s Taser,” WCIV’s Greg Woods reported. “It was during that scuffle that the officer fired his service weapon, fatally wounding Scott.”

That’s not what the video shows.

“Woods did not, in any of his reports, actually quote any witnesses saying they saw a ‘fight,’” media analyst Adam Johnson asked in his scathing report. “What appears to have happened is that Woods was told by police there were witnesses and he reported it, uncritically.”

The police also said “the dead man fought with an officer over his Taser before deadly force was employed,” a statement which was also refuted by the video.

“Police allege that during the struggle the man gained control of the Taser and attempted to use it against the officer,” The Post and Courier reported before the video was released. “The officer then resorted to his service weapon and shot him, police alleged.”



Lastly, take a look at this article from WCSC, which, like the others, was also published before the video.


“[NCPD spokesman Spencer] Pryor said Scott was fatally shot following a struggle for the officer’s Taser weapon,” the article reported.

This is exactly why you must question the official story of everything, from police shootings to the Boston Bombing and 9/11.


Media Were Already Running With Police Fantasy When Video Exploded It