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

By Will Stewart In Moscow for MailOnline

www.dailymail.co.uk

Published: 11:14 EST, 22 April 2015 Updated: 16:06 EST, 22 April 2015

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

 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

 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

 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

www.wnd.com

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 | Infowars.com | 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:

040915wcivscreenshot

“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.”

040915policestory

040915policestory2

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

040915wcsc

“[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.

RELATED ARTICLE

Media Were Already Running With Police Fantasy When Video Exploded It

Transhumanism: Man’s new quest for immortality

New book: It may be possible, but is it the right thing to do?

Originally Published: 09/21/2014 at 9:09 PM
www.wnd.com

“You will eat food by the sweat of your brow until you’re buried in the ground, because you were taken from it. You’re made from dust and you’ll return to dust.” (Genesis 3:19, ISV)

Immortality is a condition that has been sought by man ever since the Fall.

Today’s technology, however, would seem to be on the verge of making the dream of immortality a reality. Lifespans have increased over the last century and now medicines hold the promise of making those lifespans even longer. Even now, research is being done to produce nanobots that will heal the body from the inside, correcting defects in the body as they occur, leading to longer, disease-free lives.

Even with these advances, conventional wisdom holds that the mortal body itself can only be kept alive a finite number of years, frustrating the dream of immortality. To try to overcome this obstacle, people are researching the idea of melding man and machine to keep one’s consciousness alive in perpetuity. This concept is called transhumanism.

Transhumanism has been defined as “a cultural and intellectual movement that believes we can, and should, improve the human condition through the use of advanced technologies.” The transhumanism school of thought is decried by most Christians as a dangerous, perverse, technology that would dehumanize mankind while trying to immortalize him.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/09/virtually-human-190.jpg

virtually-human-190A new book, “Virtually Human: The Promise – and the Peril – of Digital Immortality,” explores the concept oftranshumanism. The book, written by MartineRothblatt, delves into the implications of the advent ofcyberconsciousness and what it will mean for the future of humanity. The book explores the implications oftranshumanism on the law, relationships and religion.The material covered in the book originated from a series of meetings Rothblatt hosted between 2003 and 2011 with what was described as some of the top minds in the field. The meetings were also augmented with personal research Rothblatt had done as a human-rights lawyer, medical ethicist, and creator of IT and life-science companies. The notes from the meetings were compiled into a blog titled, “Mindfiles, Mindware and Mindclones.”

From the blog came the book.

The book does not look as much at the technological side of transhumanism, as it does at the implications of the ethical side.

For example, if a person’s mind is uploaded, where is the identity of that person? What are the legal rights of the uploaded consciousness? What happens when the organic person dies?

Rothblatt breaks down these implications as follows:

  • 1. Ethics will dictate that cyberconsciousness with human values and morality be accorded human rights and obligations – lack of a body is differently abled, not sub-human,
  • 2. Techno-immortality will result from the human rights of mindclones – concepts of identity will change,
  • 3. The next demographic transition is toward majority cyberconscious societies – 10 billion is not the ultimate human cyberconscious population, and
  • 4. Two of the most popular professions in the near future will be cyber-psychology and cyberconsciousness law as they will be on the frontlines of society’s effort to separate cyberconscious beings into human and non-human categories, with differential privileges to each.

The main thrust of the book explores the legal aspects of cyberconsciousness: and the legal rights of a mindclone. (A mindclone is a “functional replica [of] yourself that is comprised of all of the digital information you have uploaded into a ‘mindfile,’” for example, information you have uploaded into Facebook, Dropbox, videos, chats, and any other digital reflections you have uploaded into the Cloud or offline onto a hard drive.)

Based on Rothblatt’s research, software will be available within the next 10 to 20 years that will be able to draw out the “consciousness” that is contained within this information. That mindware will then be able to “think and behave” and interact with people very similarly to your natural mind. This mindware would get better as time goes on and more information is uploaded to the file until it is almost indistinguishable from the person.

Rothblatt believes that as the mindclone progresses, it will want to do the same things that organics do; read books, watch videos, and experience things that humans do.

If a mindclone becomes that sophisticated, several legal questions arise: Is the human is responsible for its actions? Could a mindclone hire a lawyer to sue for a distinct identity from the original? Could it become a citizen? Could a mindclone vote and participate in the political process as humans do?

The second ethical issue is that sooner or later the person from whom the mindclone will derive will die. The mindclone may argue that the person did not die; that its consciousness still resides in the clone. Some would argue that the rights of the original person would devolve to the clone.

The third issue Rothblatt sees is one of reproduction. If mindclones do mature and become “sentient,” they will want to reproduce as other life forms do. These mindclones will want to replicate themselves. (The concept of self-replicating machines was made popular in the late 1940s in a series of lectures given by mathematician John von Neumann as a thought experiment.)

In short, what is the ethical and legal status of these new, unique cyberconscious beings?
Rothblatt says that this, too, is not a new condition. Rothblatt postulates “every kind of human that is deprived of human rights eventually agitates for what is rightfully theirs, natural rights. Slaves did. Women did. The paralyzed, paraplegic, and disabled did. Gay people did.” Mindclones would be a natural extension of this struggle.

Many of the rights given to these groups were given by judicial fiat. Rothblatt believes rights for mindclones would need to be codified in law, rather than in the judicial process because, “What a judge giveth, a judge can taketh away. That is a big danger with any rights associated with mindclones.”

The idea of giving non-humans “person status” isn’t a new idea either.

Within the law there are now two definitions of a person. There is the human-born person, and there is now also the legal definition of a corporation as a person. While a corporation cannot vote, it does have other rights accorded to human beings. A corporation can own property and it has First Amendment rights, among other things. It is a person by statue rather than biology with its rights expanded upon by the courts.

What prevents a cyberconsciousness from being declared a person just as a corporation has? Once a statue is in place, the definition and rights of “personhood” given to a mindclone could also be expanded on by the courts.

This concept is not as far off into the future as one would think. As Rothblatt writes: “Websites such as Lifenaut.com (as in astronaut, but exploring life instead of space) already offer tens of thousands of people uploaded images of their faces displaying a variety of emotions, and the software system behind the website morphs the images into mannerisms.” The software would present “the voice tones and visual representations of the facial mannerisms of humans, whether it’s a high-def human face on a computer screen or an actual 3D-printed replica of a human person like BINA48.”

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/09/bina48-350.jpg

bina48-350BINA48 is a “proof of concept” prototype that gives a glimpse into what amindclone would look and act like. While some writers have called this device “sentient”Rothblatt says that “Bina48 is close to a sentient being as the thirteen second flight of the Wright Brothers is to a jumbo jet.” After spending three hours with Bina48 in 2011, GQ writer JonRonson described his experience in interacting with themindclone as “not unlike interviewing an intellectually precocious but emotionally andexperientially limited three-year-old.”BINA48 represents the start of a technology that is part of a logical progression of man-machine interfaces that goes back to at least the industrial revolution.

Biblical scholar William Welty disagrees with the very premise of cyberconsciousness. He believes that Rothblatt is confusing hardware and software with an operating system.

A computer consists of hardware, software and the operating system that runs it. In a man, Paul called the components of man, the body, soul, and spirit or the tri-part nature of man. The body is a man’s hardware formed the “dust of the earth,” the soul is his software and the spirit, the breath of life, is his operating system.

Man can replicate the body and soul, but not the spirit, not the operating system. That is in the province of God alone. Ultimately, God is sovereign over Man; we are not sovereign over ourselves. Once a person takes the view that they can re-create themselves, they place themselves in an unrealistic spiritual position and usurp the prerogatives of God. Man’s knowledge, power and ability simply cannot compare to that of the Creator (Job 38:2–5).

Aldous Huxley noted “what science has actually done is to introduce us to improved means in order to obtain hitherto unimproved or rather deteriorated ends.”

The book also states, “The Enlightenment occasioned a redefinition of ‘soul’ from the most enduring part of a person to the most enduring part of the consciousness of a person.” One question it does not answer is if a consciousness can be cloned, can the soul be cloned as well?

To say that a cyberconscious has a soul also begs the questions, “Can a mindclone be saved?” “If it can be saved, then what is heaven and hell, if they exist at all?”

The basic idea of improving the human condition is perfectly compatible with the Bible. In fact, it’s one of the purposes of a Christian lifestyle (“… I have come that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” (John 10:10, ISV)). Transhumanism contradicts the Bible when it assumes that humanity is completely sovereign and capable of self-directed change without the need for God.

There are some admirable motivations behind transhumanism. For some, the intent is to reduce suffering or improve quality of life. One of the chapters of the book, “G-d and Mindclones” addresses this issue. Rothblatt says “transhumanism is bad no more than a sword is bad or fire is bad … I believe that they are tools. Transhumanism is a whole other set of tools. … In the book, I implore people to get ready for mindclones by being better people right now.”

Rothblatt has now gone on to ventures other than cyberconsciousness, the primary interest now being a project to develop a source of unlimited supply of transplantable lungs.

One of United Therapeutics’ goals is to bring to market a drug to combat the effects of pulmonary hypertension (PH) which manifests itself as an abnormally high blood pressure in the arteries of the lungs. It makes the right side of the heart work harder than normal. Rothblatt’s daughter Jenesis was born with this condition and United Therapeutics was formed to bring an already developed “orphan drug” to market to make it available to the sufferers of the disease.

United Therapeutics was successful in bringing the drug to market, but the only real cure for PH is a lung transplant. No one who has received a lung transplant has ever suffered from a reoccurrence of the disease. However, a severe lack of lung donors is preventing a cure for PH (only about 2,000 per year are available) and those who do get one have to contend with the chronic rejection of the lung.

Given the number of people who need lung transplants, those suffering from PH, emphysema, cystic fibrosis, pulmonary fibrosis, to name a few, UT is working to provide an unlimited supply of transplantable lungs. One of the ways they are working to develop these lungs is to modify the pig genome so that the aspects of the pig lung that give rise to rejection in humans would be eliminated.

It is Rothblatt’s hope that the work being done with pig lungs could be extended to their hearts, kidneys and livers.

Some of these issues were dealt with recently in the movie “Transcendence.” A plethora of other books have begun exploring transhumanism as actual lab work continues without much concern to the rightness or wrongness.

Transsexual CEO Pushes Transhumanism – Envisions world of cyber clones

Rick Jervis, USA TODAY 6:26 p.m. EDT March 15, 2015

AUSTIN – In a not-too-far-future, robotic mind-clones will accompany us to the ballot box or grocery store, sit in on business meetings we can’t make, argue with us occasionally and keep our essence alive long after we’re gone.

That’s the vision pharma tycoon and futurist Martine Rothblatt shared Sunday with several thousand attendees during one of the more popular events of Day 3 of SXSW Interactive.

“There will be continued advances in software that we see throughout our entire life,” Rothblatt told a packed audience in the cavernous Exhibit Hall 5 during her keynote speech. “Eventually, these advances in software will rise to the level of consciousness.”

Rothblatt is the founder of Sirius Satellite Radio, current chief executive of United Therapeutics and was recently named by Forbes as the highest-paid female CEO in America. She is a transgender activist and a trans-humanist philosopher who believes technology will one day grant humans eternal life.

At the keynote, Rothblatt described how the inevitable emergence of cyber consciousness – when machines act with a sophistication and thought level equal to that of humans – will not be overnight but a more subtle evolution.

“Every company will try to out-Siri Siri until we have consciousness,” she said, referring to the Apple/iOS application that works as a personal assistant and navigator. “It will be like water that rises and rises and rises and, before we know it, we’re in an ocean of cyber consciousness.”

USA TODAY

SXSW 2015

Artificial intelligence and robotics have been key – and controversial – themes at this year’s SXSW. A slew of panel discussions and keynote speeches on the topic have drawn thousands of attendees, while films screening at the film festival portion of SXSW, such as Ex Machina and Creative Control, have addressed it in their plot lines.

The themes have also prompted protests outside the conference warning of an over-reliance on artificial intelligence to the detriment of humans. In one, a group of protestors held signs reading “Stop the Robots” while chanting “A-I Say Goodbye!”

Rothblatt said robots and humans don’t have to choose sides – such as in the plotlines seen in popular Hollywood movies – but will live in a peaceful co-existence that will make them virtually indistinguishable from one another.

“It’s not us versus cyberspace,” she said. “We’re merging together.”

She added: “We don’t want to create a new slave-versus-free motif. I’m all for merging everyone together. On the level of consciousness, we’re all one.”

Rothblatt has applied many of her theories to practical experiments, including creating a lifelike robotic replica of her longtime wife, Bina Aspen. The robot, named Bina48, could answer questions and replies using the real Bina’s characteristics and mannerisms.

Robots in the future will have constitutional rights and even “cyber psychiatrists” who will ease the cyber’s anxiety of not being completely human, she said.

Through United Therapeutics, a company she founded nearly two decades ago to save the life of her daughter, who suffered from a rare pulmonary disease, Rothblatt has overseen advances in organ regeneration and the system used to ferry organs from donor to patient.

As those and other breakthroughs advance, coupled with gains in software and robotics, cyber-technology will continue to push the envelope of human existence, she said. That world, not too far off, will off the chance to keep living well past traditional limits.

“We are the species that keeps pushing further and further and further,” Rothblatt said. “There is no line in the sand at which point human consciousness has to end.”

 

Suspect in Chapel Hill killings described as troublemaker, obsessed with parking

By Sarah Kaplan February 12

www.washingtonpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/c/embed/4ac67b82-b24e-11e4-bf39-5560f3918d4b“>VIDEO LINK

Craig Stephen Hicks was feared by his neighbors. He obsessed over parking spaces and always appeared angry. He used to watch a movie about a man who goes on a shooting rampage over and over again. His ex-wife said he found the film hilarious.

And just after 5 p.m. Tuesday, Hicks went to his neighbors’ apartment and shot the three people inside, authorities say.

What police have not established is why he allegedly did it. A preliminary investigation revealed that Hicks had previously clashed with his victims — husband and wife Deah Barakat and Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha and Abu-Salha’s sister Razan — over parking spots in front of the apartment complex where they lived.

But the victims’ family and many onlookers around the world believe Hicks had another motivation: his victims’ religion. All three were Muslims of Arab descent, and the two women both wore religious head scarves.

[Chapel Hill murders: Why hate crimes are so hard to prove]

In his social media profiles and in the accounts of those who knew him, Hicks resists easy categorization. He describes himself on what appears to be his Facebook profile as a “gun-toting liberal” and an “anti-theist,” and vehemently condemned all forms of religion. But at a news conference Wednesday his wife, Karen, described him as someone who “champions the rights of others” and would not have killed three people because of their faith.

Hicks was known for his temper and confrontational behavior. His ex-wife, Cynthia Hurley, who divorced Hicks about 17 years ago, said his favorite film was “Falling Down,” in which a disgruntled and unemployed defense industry worker played by Michael Douglas goes on a shooting rampage.

“That always freaked me out,” Hurley told the Associated Press. “He watched it incessantly. He thought it was hilarious. He had no compassion at all.”

Meanwhile, Karen Hicks’s attorney, Robert Maitland, has suggested that mental illness may have led to the shooting.

“Obviously it’s not within the range of normal behavior for someone to shoot three people over parking issues,” Maitland said at Karen Hicks’s news conference. He declined to provide further details.

At Durham Technical Community College, where Hicks was studying to be a paralegal, he was seen as an “exemplary student,” school spokesman Carver Weaver told the Charlotte Observer. Hicks was described as opinionated but high-achieving and was said to help other students with their work.

But among his neighbors at the Finley Forest condominium complex, the leafy Chapel Hill enclave where Barakat and Yusor Abu-Salha also lived, Hicks was infamous for being loud and aggressive.

“He kind of made everyone feel uncomfortable and unsafe,” resident Samantha Maness told the Raleigh News and Observer. “He was very angry anytime I saw him.”

[Muslims doubt that religion wasn’t a factor in the killings]

Maness describes Hicks as particularly fixated on parking and noise. He was known for having unfamiliar cars towed and had confronted Maness for being too loud. Last year, she said, residents convened a meeting to discuss Hicks’s behavior, but nothing came of it.

Barakat, who lived near Hicks, was reportedly a frequent target of this anger. Barakat had lived there with his friend Imad Ahmad until December, when he married Abu-Salha. Ahmad told the Associated Press that Hicks would come to their door about once a month to complain that the two men were parking in a visitor’s spot as well as their own.

“He would come over to the door. Knock on the door and then have a gun on his hip saying, ‘You guys need to not park here,’ ” said Ahmad, a graduate student in chemistry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “He did it again after [Barakat and Abu-Salha] got married.”

Mohammad Abu-Salha, Yusor’s father, said his daughter told him about multiple confrontations with Hicks during the seven or so weeks she lived in the apartment. (Chapel Hill Police said they knew nothing of these incidents until after the killings.)

“This man came knocking at the door and fighting about everything with a gun on his belt, more than twice,” he told CNN. “She told us, ‘Daddy, I think he hates us for who we are and how we look.’ ”

But Maness said that Hicks had “equal opportunity anger” toward Finley Forest residents.

“I have seen and heard him be very unfriendly toward a lot of people in this community,” she said.

Hicks comes across as confrontational on social media as he was toward his neighbors, particularly when it comes to religion. In the “About” section of his Facebook profile he wrote: “If your religion kept its big mouth shut, so would I. But given that it doesn’t, and given the enormous harm that your religion has done in this world, I’d say that I have not only a right, but a duty, to insult it, as does every rational, thinking person on this planet.” He also describes himself as a Second Amendment rights advocate and was licensed to carry a concealed firearm. He posted an image of his loaded revolver three weeks before the shooting.

Such posts drew attention as speculation grew that the killings had been motivated by religious hatred. But Karen Hicks rejected that idea during her news conference.

“That is one thing that I do know about him. He often champions on his Facebook page for the rights of many individuals. For same-sex marriages, abortion, race,” she said. “He just believed — and I know, that’s just one of the things I know about him — that everyone is equal. It doesn’t matter what you look like or who you are or what you believe.”

“It is a simple matter, it has nothing to do with the religious faith of the victims,” Maitland, Hicks’s attorney, added. “It has nothing to with anything but the mundane issue of this man being frustrated day in and day out with not being able to park where he wanted to park and, unfortunately, these victims were there at the wrong time at the wrong place.”

Chapel Hill Police said that they will continue to investigate the possibility that the shooting was hate-motivated. Hicks was transferred from Durham County Jail to Central Prison in Raleigh on Wednesday because of safety concerns, authorities said, though they did not indicate whether there had been threats against him. He is being held without bail until his probable cause hearing, which is set for March 4.

Liberal Media in Denial: Suspected Chapel Hill Shooter’s Leftist Ideology not Important

“Right-wingers” absurdly blamed despite suspected killer’s leftist beliefs
Liberal Media: Suspected Chapel Hill Shooter's Leftist Ideology not Important

by Mikael Thalen | Infowars.com | February 15, 2015

Left-wing media outlets wasted no time in blaming Tuesday’s tragic Chapel Hill shooting on their political adversaries after the ideological leanings of suspected shooter Craig Stephen Hicks became apparent.

Hicks, who is charged with the brutal murders of three Muslims in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, was found to be a hardened atheist, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) supporter and Rachel Maddow fan after investigators and reporters began searching for a motive this week.

According to multiple online news sites such as Salon and Raw Story, who carried an Alternet article entitled “Angry, armed and white: The typical profile of America’s most violent extremists,” Hicks’ ideology is a completely irrelevant point.

“On Thursday, GOPUSA.com sought to replay that script and portrayed Hicks as a liberal, by reporting his Facebook likes included Rachel Maddow, gay marriage groups, Neil deGrasse Tyson and others,” the article states. “That relabeling is absurd on many levels, because Hicks appears to fit the psychological profile of violent extremists—regardless of their ideological stripes—and that includes many white Americans.”

Alternet instead argued that the suspected shooter’s white skin and history of gun ownership were the only data points worth examining.

“Hicks had a state-issued concealed handgun permit and was a ‘champion of Second Amendment rights,’” says the article.

Using statements from the SPLC, while conveniently ignoring the suspected shooter’s support for the group, the article continued by desperately and falsely connecting Hicks’ to the “radical right.”

“‘… perpetrators spend many years on the radical right, absorbing extremist ideology, before finally acting out violently,’” an SPLC quote from the article states. “That summation strongly resembles Craig Stephen Hicks.”

According to the author, the obvious remedy to the horrific incident would be stricter gun control and a greater focus on “right-wingers” by law enforcement.

“Just as the Violence Policy Center hopes the Chapel Hill killings will push politicians to reconsider concealed handgun permit laws, SPLC hope the threat of lone-wolf violent extremists—especially white right-wingers—will prompt police and mainstream media to stop demonizing Muslims,” the article says.

The SPLC also made no mention of the fact that Hicks’ followed their organization on Facebook when commenting on the shooting Friday.

“Hicks’ Facebook page was filled with statements against religion of all types, although Islam was not particularly singled out,” the SPLC wrote. “Hicks also was a gun enthusiast, as evidenced by his many postings on gun websites and also an Amazon ‘wish list’ that included such items as rifle scopes.”

Despite their constant and obsessive attempts to link nearly all violent extremism to “patriot groups,” actual extremists have admitted to using SPLC information when searching for victims.

In 2012, a Washington, D.C.-based Christian organization came under fire after the gunman learned of the group on the SPLC’s website.

Speaking with the FBI in custody, the shooter stated that he targeted the organization after seeing it listed as an “anti-gay” hate group by the SPLC.

The fact that left-wing organizations constantly attempt to link any and all violence to the political right, but claim such links are unimportant when the violence comes from a fellow leftist, shows that such groups are not truly interested in stopping hate. Instead they are only interested in demonizing all opposition by ignoring logic and capitalizing on violence.

American Medical Association opposes mandatory vaccines

First posted Tuesday, February 10, 2015
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
(NaturalNews) According to the “Informed Consent” section of the AMA Code of Medical Ethics posted at the American Medical Association website, the AMA is fundamentally and unambiguously opposed to mandatory vaccine programs in America. Read the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics statement here.A mandatory vaccination policy — forced vaccination of unwilling recipients — is, by definition, a medical intervention carried out without the consent of the patient or the patient’s parents. This directly violates the very clear language in the Informed Consent section of the AMA Code of Medical Ethics which states:The patient should make his or her own determination about treatment… Informed consent is a basic policy in both ethics and law that physicians must honor, unless the patient is unconscious or otherwise incapable of consenting and harm from failure to treat is imminent.

“Physicians must honor” informed consent

The AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics statement is very clear: “physicians must honor” the policy of informed consent. In fact, the AMA describes this as “a basic policy in both ethics and law” and only makes exception if the patient “is unconscious” or if harm from failure to treat “is imminent.”

Mandatory vaccine interventions are conducted in total violation of this code of ethics. Most unvaccinated children are in a state of perfect health, with no symptoms and no active disease. There is no “imminent” risk of harm from “failure to treat.”

Because the mainstream media is desperately trying to confuse the public about the very definition of “medical consent,” here is the Dictionary.com definition of “consent”:

verb – to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often followed by to or an infinitive)
He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.

Patients deserve an “informed choice”
The AMA’s Code of Ethics statement furthermore says that patients possess a “right of self-decision” and that this right can only be effectively exercised “if the patient possesses enough information to enable an informed choice.”

Nearly all vaccinations are carried out in direct violation of this medical code of ethics because patients are almost never handed vaccine insert sheets, and the very real risks of vaccination are almost never explained to anyone. In fact, virtually the entire medical establishment operates in a state of total denial that any vaccine risks exist at all. This, too, is a striking violation of the AMA’s code of ethics.

It is also an outright abandonment of all logic and medical reality, as every medical intervention comes with some level of risk, even if that risk is small. It is not zero, as is routinely and repeatedly claimed by vaccine fanatics.

Doctors should “respectfully” explain treatment options to patients
The AMA’s Code of Ethics further states “Physicians should sensitively and respectfully disclose all relevant medical information to patients.”

Instead, what we actually see in America today is:

• Belligerent doctors verbally berating patients for asking intelligent, informed questions about vaccine ingredients and vaccine side effects.

• Arrogant doctors threatening to cut off all medical treatment from patients unless they agree to a coerced medical intervention (vaccinations).

• Doctors and hospitals calling law enforcement authorities on families, then staging the state seizure of children while threatening parents with arrest and imprisonment (medical kidnapping).

These actions are so far removed from the AMA’s Code of Ethics that they call into question the very real question of whether the entire medical system has utterly abandoned any shred of medical ethics at all.

A campaign of intellectual bigotry carried out in the name of science
Today, medical obedience to mandatory vaccines is being aggressively demanded by rage-filled doctors, health authorities and media outlets. A vicious campaign of intellectual bigotry has been unleashed against all vaccine skeptics, with malicious tactics such as equating skeptical thinkers who seek to avoid mercury with people who still think the Earth is flat.

There is no question that such malicious tactics against concerned moms are being conducted in total violation of the AMA’s own Code of Ethics, which also states that “The physician’s obligation is to present the medical facts accurately to the patient or to the individual responsible for the patient’s care and to make recommendations for management in accordance with good medical practice.”

This code of medical ethics means doctors may educate patients and even respectfully urge them to follow a particular course of action, but they may not coerce, threaten, intimidate or otherwise verbally berate patients who disagree with their suggested course of action.

Here’s the full statement from the AMA’s Code of Ethics page, section 8.08 – Informed Consent:

The patient’s right of self-decision can be effectively exercised only if the patient possesses enough information to enable an informed choice. The patient should make his or her own determination about treatment. The physician’s obligation is to present the medical facts accurately to the patient or to the individual responsible for the patient’s care and to make recommendations for management in accordance with good medical practice. The physician has an ethical obligation to help the patient make choices from among the therapeutic alternatives consistent with good medical practice. Informed consent is a basic policy in both ethics and law that physicians must honor, unless the patient is unconscious or otherwise incapable of consenting and harm from failure to treat is imminent. In special circumstances, it may be appropriate to postpone disclosure of information, (see Opinion E-8.122, “Withholding Information from Patients”).

Physicians should sensitively and respectfully disclose all relevant medical information to patients. The quantity and specificity of this information should be tailored to meet the preferences and needs of individual patients. Physicians need not communicate all information at one time, but should assess the amount of information that patients are capable of receiving at a given time and present the remainder when appropriate. (I, II, V, VIII)

Because we believe the AMA will, after seeing this investigative story, attempt to alter or revoke this medical ethics document, we are also posting a screen shot of the AMA’s page sourced on February 9, 2015:

Entire mainstream media now urging total abandonment of the AMA’s own Code of Ethics
What else is fascinating about this finding is the realization that the entire mainstream media is almost fanatically screaming for the wholesale abandonment of the very principles of medical ethics endorsed by the AMA in its own words.Almost everywhere in the media, the public is now being berated and screamed at in the name of “SCIENCE!” while vaccine skeptics are being derided as “kooks” and “nut jobs” because they have questions about vaccines that the vaccine industry refuses to answer. Those reasonable, rational questions include inquiries concerning the toxic effects of vaccine ingredients, the history of faked vaccine research, the CDC scientist’s confession of a vaccine cover-up at the CDC, the admission that many current vaccines are backed by no clinical trials, and even questions about why the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has already paid out billions of dollars in proven vaccine damages at the same time the medical system claims vaccines have never harmed anyone and don’t cause dangerous side effects.

All of this activity carried out in witch hunt fashion by the mainstream media and vaccine fanatics posing as “scientists” is conducted in gross violation of the AMA’s own Code of Ethics, which calls for doctors to respectfully inform patients of their choices, then allow the patient to make their own informed choice.

Six questions for the AMA
Here are six important questions for the AMA:

#1) Will you now denounce the vaccine fanatics who are calling for vaccines to be forced onto people without their consent?

#2) If not, will you revoke the AMA’s Code of Ethics and abandon what have already called a fundamental “patient right” to be informed and make their own decision about medical interventions?

#3) Will you publicly condemn doctors who are using tactics of coercion, verbal abuse, intimidation and threats against patients who have reasonable questions about vaccine safety? If not, will you publicly endorse their tactics and encourage them to be used even more frequently?

#4) If, as you state on the AMA website, “Informed consent is a basic policy in both ethics and law that physicians must honor,” then will you insist that your own AMA members follow this policy? Or is it acceptable that they almost universally violate this policy as part of a “vaccine lynch mob” mentality that has now swept across the minds of the medical profession?

#5) If the AMA does not immediately denounce the widespread vaccine violations of its own Code of Ethics, then what medical ethics does the AMA actually stand for, if any? Are there any limits to the coercion tactics doctors may use against patients to force them into medical treatments demanded by doctors?

#6) If the AMA abandons its own code of medical ethics, then how can patients trust doctors who are AMA members to act with any sense of ethics at all?

Sources for this story include:
[1] http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion808.page

About the author:Mike Adams (aka the “Health Ranger”) is the founding editor of NaturalNews.com, the internet’s No. 1 natural health news website, now reaching 7 million unique readers a month.

In late 2013, Adams launched the Natural News Forensic Food Lab, where he conducts atomic spectroscopy research into food contaminants using high-end ICP-MS instrumentation. With this research, Adams has made numerous food safety breakthroughs such as revealing rice protein products imported from Asia to be contaminated with toxic heavy metals like lead, cadmium and tungsten. Adams was the first food science researcher to document high levels of tungsten in superfoods. He also discovered over 11 ppm lead in imported mangosteen powder, and led an industry-wide voluntary agreement to limit heavy metals in rice protein products to low levels by July 1, 2015.

In addition to his lab work, Adams is also the (non-paid) executive director of the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center (CWC), an organization that redirects 100% of its donations receipts to grant programs that teach children and women how to grow their own food or vastly improve their nutrition…

With a background in science and software technology, Adams is the original founder of the email newsletter technology company known as Arial Software. Using his technical experience combined with his love for natural health, Adams developed and deployed the content management system currently driving NaturalNews.com. He also engineered the high-level statistical algorithms that power SCIENCE.naturalnews.com, a massive research resource now featuring over 10 million scientific studies.

Adams is well known for his incredibly popular consumer activism video blowing the lid on fake blueberries used throughout the food supply. He has also exposed “strange fibers” found in Chicken McNuggets, fake academic credentials of so-called health “gurus,” dangerous “detox” products imported as battery acid and sold for oral consumption, fake acai berry scams, the California raw milk raids, the vaccine research fraud revealed by industry whistleblowers and many other topics.

Adams has also helped defend the rights of home gardeners and protect the medical freedom rights of parents. Adams is widely recognized to have made a remarkable global impact on issues like GMOs, vaccines, nutrition therapies, human consciousness.

In addition to his activism, Adams is an accomplished musician who has released ten popular songs covering a variety of activism topics.