Saturday, January 28, 2017

Former KGB general who helped MI6 spy compile the Donald Trump dirty dossier is found dead in the back of his car amid claims of a Kremlin cover up


Posted by George Freund on January 27, 2017   ~ hehe folks the elites(mafia war) is gonna start spill~in out on the ...street ??? how long do ya think Putin is gonna put UP with "our" elites wack~in "their" elites


Oleg Erovinkin was found dead on Boxing Day in the back of his black Lexus

The morgue in Russia has not reached a conclusion about the cause of death

Local media is claiming foul play was at the centre of him being killed in Moscow

It has been claimed Erovinkin is a key source mentioned in the explosive dossier

By GARETH DAVIES FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 11:26 GMT, 28 January 2017 | UPDATED: 14:16 GMT, 28 January 2017

The Kremlin may have covered up the murder of a former KGB chief accused of helping ex-MI6 spy Christopher Steele to pull together the notorious dossier on Donald Trump.


Oleg Erovinkin served as a general in the KGB and was found dead on Boxing Day in the back of his car in Moscow.

It has been claimed he died of a heart attack, but an expert on Russian security threats believes he was murdered for his role in the explosive dossier.


Globalist Soros Exposed Funding Over 50 Organizations in Women's March on DC~hehe that's fucking FUNNY ...don't ya just Love It ...when u piss in an libs ...corn flakes heheehhhhehehhehehhee   fucking A these (libs) sour puss kooky mother fuckers LOL ...Image result for funny pic of baby holding their breath

Posted by George Freund on January 26, 2017 


An investigation by a New York Times affiliate has revealed that billionaire globalist financier George Soros is deeply connected to the national women’s march.

Posted on January 22, 2017

Jay Syrmopoulos, The Free Thought Project

Waking Times

An investigation by a New York Times affiliate has revealed that billionaire globalist financier George Soros, who recently called Donald Trump a “would-be dictator” during an interview at Davos, and whose Open Society Foundation works to finance and forward progressive causes across the world, and is intimately connected to numerous color revolutions, the Arab Spring, and various other political uprisings across the globe, has been revealed to be connected to more than 50 of the groups that organized the nationwide “Women’s Marches” that saw millions of Americans take to the streets across the country.

The march’s official website says, “We stand together, recognizing that defending the most marginalized among us is defending all of us.” Many people turned out to be a manifestation of that ideal, but it’s important to understand the reality of what is happening on a strategic political level as an inorganic politically contrived and funded event. This, in no way, takes away from the validity of standing up for women’s issues but is important to note that women are being used as pawns in a larger ideological political game that has international overtones of power politics.

These marches were largely billed as “spontaneous” and “grassroots” actions, by publications like The Guardian and Vox. However, the reality exposed by an investigation by self-described liberal feminist Asra Q. Nomani, writing for New York Times affiliate Women in the World, revealed that after studying the “funding, politics and talking points of the some 403 groups that are ‘partners’ of the march,” contrary to the non-partisan rhetoric used in these marches, they were not really “women’s march” but were rather “for women who are anti-Trump.”

Nomani reveals that the “Women’s Marches” were actually organized as political tools to be used to strategically forward a progressive political agenda against President Donald Trump — exposing the protests to largely be an organized, top-down driven political operation — and not an organic movement of concerned Americans taking to the streets as reported by the mainstream media.

According to Nomani’s Women in the World/New York Times report:

Following the money, I poured through documents of billionaire George Soros and his Open Society philanthropy, because I wondered: What is the link between one of Hillary Clinton’s largest donors and the “Women’s March”?

I found out: plenty.

By my draft research, which I’m opening up for crowd-sourcing on GoogleDocs, Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s “partners,” including “key partners” Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies. The other Soros ties with “Women’s March” organizations include the partisan MoveOn.org (which was fiercely pro-Clinton), the National Action Network (which has a former executive director lauded by Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett as “a leader of tomorrow” as a march co-chair and another official as “the head of logistics”;). Other Soros grantees who are “partners” in the march are the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. March organizers and the organizations identified here haven’t yet returned queries for comment…

Much like post-election protests, which included a sign, “Kill Trump,” were not “spontaneous,” as reported by some media outlets, the “Women’s March” is an extension of strategic identity politics that has so fractured America today, from campuses to communities. On the left or the right, it’s wrong. But, with the inauguration, we know the politics. With the march, “women” have been appropriated for a clearly anti-Trump day. When I shared my thoughts with her, my yoga studio owner said it was “sad” the march’s organizers masked their politics. “I want love for everyone,” she said.

The way Soros operates is as an “ideological philanthropist,” whose Open Society Foundation provides funding for organizations whose interests align with his own, and which blurs the line between political advocacy and social justice – thus being able to leverage selected/funded social justice organizations to affect political discourse.

This method is confirmed in a memo released by WikiLeaks, which was sent to Soros by Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The Clinton campaign reveals the political motives behind using grassroots organizations to “control political discourse.” Podesta wrote to Soros that he wanted to “better utilize these networks to drive the content of politics through a strong echo chamber.”

“Control the political discourse. So much effort over the past few years has been focused on better coordinating, strengthening, and developing progressive institutions and leaders. Now that this enhanced infrastructure is in place—grassroots organizing; multi-issue advocacy groups; think tanks; youth outreach; faith communities; micro-targeting outfits; the netroots and blogosphere—we need to better utilize these networks to drive the content of politics through a strong “echo chamber” and message delivery system.”

Anyone familiar with the history of the Soros Open Society Foundations in Eastern Europe and around the world since the late 1980’s, will know that his supposedly philanthropic “democracy-building” projects in Poland, Russia, or Ukraine in the 1990’s allowed Soros the businessman to literally plunder the former communist countries’ wealth, according to the New Eastern Outlook.

A report in New Eastern Outlook reveald exactly how Soros-affiliated organizations across the world operate:

The totality of what is revealed in the three hacked documents show that Soros is effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kiev. Soros Foundation’s Ukraine branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine’s independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government into power.

Soros’ foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in the US State Department. In 2004 just weeks after Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation had succeeded in getting Viktor Yushchenko as President of Ukraine, Michael McFaul wrote an OpEd for the Washington Post. McFaul, a specialist in organizing color revolutions, who later became US Ambassador to Russia, revealed:

Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine? Yes. The American agents of influence would prefer different language to describe their activities — democratic assistance, democracy promotion, civil society support, etc. — but their work, however labeled, seeks to influence political change in Ukraine.

Additionally, during the 2016 presidential cycle, Soros committed $25 million dollars to the 2016 campaign of Hillary Clinton. Per the standard Clinton operating procedure, this was indicative of the symbiotic relationship of favors between the billionaire and his array of political puppets across the globe.

Soros has often been accused of using his wealth to attempt to socially engineer the national domestic politics of entire states. He was accused of being connected to organizations that organized and funded the nationwide protests after the election of Donald Trump — a claim that Soros denies.

“There have been many false reports about George Soros and the Open Society Foundations funding protests in the wake of the U.S. presidential elections. There is no truth to these reports,” said a spokewoman from Soros’s Open Society Foundations in a statement, adding, “We support a wide range of organizations — including those that support women and minorities who have historically been denied equal rights. Many of whom are concerned about what policy changes may lie ahead. We are proud of their work. We of course support the right of all Americans to peaceably assemble and petition their government—a vital, and constitutionally safeguarded, pillar of a functioning democracy.”

Make no mistake that the events you’re seeing transpire nationwide are largely being coordinated, in part, by a billionaire political elite class that is looking to strategically forward a political agenda. Soros has used the same formula to foment domestic unrest to affect political goals in numerous nations –and it certainly looks as if he now has the United States in his sights. It’s clear that Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is being employed by the left in an effort to destabilize and undermine political discourse in the U.S.

Women’s rights are unquestionably a human rights issues, not a political issue, which makes it disappointing that we, as free individuals, don’t organically create manifestations like these large-scale marches, without oligarchs and their vested political interests essentially making it happen as a means of forwarding their particular ideologically driven political agenda.

AT THE EYE OF A LOOMING STORM? THOSE BANKSTER DEATHS AND MORE MISSING ...

It has been a while since we've talked about those mysterious bankster deaths, many of them having all the hallmarks of "bankercides (i.e., murder by suicide), and it's been even longer since we've talked about all that "missing money" sloshing around in the system somewhere, an amount of money in the trillions. Well, Mr. W.D. sent the following article, and it has my high octane speculation running in high gear and overtime, but we'll get back to that, because I want to paint in very broad strokes today. The article that he shared concerns a looming storm centered around Europe's largest bank, Deutsche Bank, and some shenanigans that reach out to engulf Italy and, I suspect, pretty much everyone else. But as I said, we'll get back to that. Here's the lengthy article by Vernon Silver and Elissa Martinuzzi that appeared on Bloomberg Business Week:
Of course, a mere $462,ooo,ooo looks like chump change to a bank as large and powerful as Deutsche Bank, but there are even vaster sums involved in this disappearing act. The story begins, according to the article, at a meeting held at Deutsche Bank's London branch headed by Italian banker Michele Faissola:
On Dec. 1, 2008, most of the world’s banks were still panicking through the financial crisis. Lehman Brothers had collapsed. Merrill Lynch had been sold. Citigroup and others had required multibillion-dollar bailouts to survive. But not every institution appeared to be in free fall. That afternoon, at the London outpost of Deutsche Bank, the stolid-seeming, €2 trillion German powerhouse, a group of financiers met to consider a proposal from a team led by a trim, 40-year-old banker named Michele Faissola.
The scion of an Italian banking family, Faissola was the head of Deutsche’s global rates unit, a division that created and sold financial instruments tied to interest rates. He’d been studying the problems of one of Deutsche’s clients, Italy’s Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, which, as the crisis raged, was down €367 million ($462 million at the time) on a single investment. Losing that much money was bad; having to include it in the bank’s yearend report to the public, as required by Italian law, was arguably much worse. Monte dei Paschi was the world’s oldest bank. It had been operating since 1472, not long after the invention of the printing press, when the Black Death was still a living memory. If investors were to find out the extent of its losses in the 2008 credit crisis, the consequences would be unpredictable and grave: a run on the bank, a government takeover, or worse. At the Deutsche meeting, Faissola’s team said it had come up with a miraculous solution: a new trade that would make Paschi’s loss disappear. (Emphasis added)
The crucial point to focus on here is not only Faissola's connection to the Banca Monte dei Paschi di Sienna, the world's oldest bank, in continual operation since the Renaissance, but also his position as head of Deutsche Bank's global rates unit, which, the article also notes, "created and sold financial instruments tied to interest rates," for later on in the article, we learn that Deutsche Bank is under investigation for its role in helping to rig the LIBOR (London Inter-Bank Offered Rate), which Wikipedia notes is " the primary benchmark, along with the Euribor, for short-term interest rates around the world." (See Wikipedia: Wikipedia LIBOR):
This month the bank agreed to pay $7.2 billion to resolve a U.S. probe into its subprime mortgage business, admitting it misled investors. Deutsche has paid more than $9 billion in further fines and settlements related to claims of tax evasion; violating sanctions against Iran, Libya, Syria, Myanmar, and Sudan; rigging the $300 trillion Libor market; and other alleged breaches of the law.
(Emphasis added)
Having a division that creates and sells financial instruments "tied to interest rates" such as the widely used LIBOR is a handy thing to have around, particularly if one is also engaged in rigging that very London Inter-Bank Offered Rate!
In any case, Faissola had approached Deutsche Bank with what can only be regarded as a "scheme" to help the troubled Banca Monte dei Paschi di Sienna, and this is where it gets interesting. As the article notes, Faissola proposed a "sure-thing, moneymaking bet with Deutsche Bank and use those winnings to extinguish its 2008 trading losses" by engineering a two-step trade, with one transaction bet which would make immediate gains, and the second transaction staged over time "that was sure to lose", and of course, Deutsche Bank would profit from fees in both trades. But as the article also observes, as Faissola was pitching his plan - the details of which we'll get to in a moment, doubts were being raised within the bank about the plan's structure:
Outside the room, one of Faissola’s longtime colleagues was raising questions about the deal. William Broeksmit, a managing director who specialized in risk optimization, was concerned about the winner-loser construction. A Chicago-born son of a United Church of Christ minister, Broeksmit had decades earlier been a pioneer in interest rate swaps, the financial instruments that had rewritten the possibilities—and profitability—of investment banking. But Broeksmit, 53, was also against reckless derivative deals, which is how he viewed Faissola’s proposal, according to a person familiar with his thinking. Eleven minutes after the meeting began, Broeksmit e-mailed one of its attendees with a warning about the Paschi trade and its “reputational risks.”
If the name William Broeksmit sounds familiar, it should for he's one of those "suicided" bankers, as the article also notes, for when the whole plan exploded into public view in Italy in 2013, it was accompanied by two more of those suspicious "banker deaths", one of whom was William Broeksmit, and the other was David Rossi, of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Sienna:
Among the casualties was David Rossi, Paschi’s communications chief. At about 9 p.m. on March 6, a bank employee noticed that Rossi was missing from his fourth-floor office. A window had been left open. Authorities found Rossi’s body in a courtyard below. Rossi, 51, wasn’t himself the subject of any inquiries, but his home had been searched two weeks earlier by police. His death was at first ruled a suicide, but the inquest has been reopened based on evidence his wife presented, including security video that shows Rossi fell out backward.
Several months after Rossi’s death, in January 2014, Broeksmit was supposed to meet his wife of almost 30 years at a cafe near their home in the South Kensington neighborhood of London. He didn’t show. When she returned home, she found his body hanging from the leash attached to a door. In a dog bed, he’d left suicide notes, including one addressed to Jain, his longtime colleague. The New York Post reported last year that the note to Jain contained an apology. A summary of Deutsche Bank’s own review of the suicide, seen by Bloomberg Businessweek, doesn’t mention the note and says the review found no direct link between Broeksmit’s death and his work at Deutsche.
Why Broeksmit? Well, perhaps because he had been given broad authority within the big German bank on its "management approval committee, where Broeksmit had influence. Top management," the article notes, "had just handed Broeksmit broad authority to police risk across the firm...". And there's more, for as news began to come out publicly about the details of the scheme, the German banking regulatory authority, BaFin began an audit in January 2014, and as Bloomberg Business Week states, even though the report "has never been make public," Bloomberg managed to obtain a copy, just how, we're not told, but we may be sure it involved big players, perhaps in the intelligence community. The audit began on Jan 27, 2014, the day after Mr. Broeksmit "was found at his London home, hanging from a dog leash."

As the article also notes, when Deutsche Bank moved aggressively to enter the world of investment banking, it hired Edson Mitchell from Merrill Lynch. Mitchell brought in Broeksmit, and Anshu Jain, "a prodigy at selling such risky, fee-laden products to hedge funds." Mitchell died in a plane accident three days before Christmas in 2000.
I don't know about you, but three banker deaths, all tied to the same bank, seems a little more than just "coincidence."
But whether coincidental or not, the details of the scheme proposed by Faissola is where we see a number of "red flags" that may tie to my own speculations about the existence of a worldwide "hidden system of finance" designed to fund covert operations and black projects scientific and technological development. The bank's deal with Faissola and Banca Monte dei Paschi di Sienna is a microcosm of its wider modus operandi: "The bank’s deal with Paschi is a microcosm of how Deutsche’s embrace of derivatives, questionable accounting, and slow-walking of regulators have eroded the market’s trust to the point that no one really knows how close the company is to the edge."
Note the two important elements here: (1) derivatives, which, as we know by now, include bundles of credit default swaps, high risk mortgages, and so on, all tied to "triggers" such as interest rates (and, of course, housing prices), and (2) "questionable accounting" practices. These two elements, along with the banker deaths, will become important factors in our high octane speculations. With respect to the first element, derivatives, the article mentions something else that it is worth noting:
Deutsche’s most profitable derivatives trader earned a bonus of almost £90 million (then $130 million) in 2008 alone. Deutsche bankers also increased their bonuses in the runup to the crisis by creating and selling to clients mortgage securities that were marketed as high-quality investments but were in fact loaded with home loans destined to go bust. For clients, Deutsche became a go-to bank when they wanted risk and complexity.
Tie this point together with the previously made point that the bank would sell to hedge funds, and one gets the picture: derivatives had entered the balance sheets as assets in those funds, and this ties the whole mess to, you guessed it, pension funds, traditionally heavy investors in hedge funds.
So what was the actual "two stage deal" with Faissola?
Here's it's best to cite the article somewhat extensively, for as always, the devil of financial fraud is in the details:
In May 2002, when it was 530 years old, Monte dei Paschi asked Deutsche Bank to sell it something complicated. Paschi had recently listed its shares on the Italian stock exchange and was under pressure to grow. It owned a piece of another bank known today as Intesa Sanpaolo and wanted to convert some of that stake into cash for acquisitions, while still benefiting from any rise in Intesa’s shares—a kind of have-cake-and-eat-it-too arrangement. It was exactly the kind of bespoke financial product the new, risk-friendly Deutsche was growing fat on. The two banks created a venture called Santorini Investments—essentially, a derivative bet in the form of a company. The bet would pay off if Intesa shares rose and would lose value if they fell. Later restructuring made Paschi the sole shareholder.
The switch meant that in 2008, when bank stocks tanked in the worldwide financial crisis, Paschi took all of the losses, which swelled from €180 million in early October to more than €300 million in the following weeks. The bank’s own shares were on their way to losing half their value since the start of the year. If Paschi included the Santorini loss in its Dec. 31 reports, the consequences would be dire: Italy’s central bank could take over its administration or force a bailout that would wrest control from its owners, a politically connected Siena foundation. As the losses grew, Deutsche executives knew time was running out for Paschi to find a solution. Having done the first deal, they went to Paschi management with a proposal for a second that would both help the Tuscan bank and be a new source of fees for Faissola’s group. On Nov. 3 they sent Paschi draft contracts for the sure-to-win/sure-to-lose trade that straddled the new year. Each prong of the bet simply wagered on an index that was the exact inverse of the other. Essentially, the trade had little economic purpose—only an accounting one.
That’s typically a red flag to auditors and regulators, and it took almost a month for Deutsche to alter the deal so it contained a small amount of actual risk. The bankers did this by mixing in two interest rate triggers—that is, prices to be fed into a formula that would determine how much money the participants in the trade had to pay or receive from each other. But that created a slight possibility that Paschi could win both sides of the bet. To mitigate this potential Deutsche loss—as much as €500 million—Deutsche added a third trigger. Underlying the now complex flowcharts of rates, payments, and triggering events was the asset on which the transactions were to be based: about €2 billion in Italian government bonds.
Further illustrating the incestuousness of the deal, Paschi would need to buy the bonds and hand them over to Deutsche as collateral. Deutsche, for the sake of its own accounting, would need to sell the bonds to come up with cash that it then would give right back to Paschi to pay off the Santorini loss. And Paschi would buy the bonds in the first place from a third bank that had bought them from Deutsche.
And one more thing:
Deutsche also benefited from the way it accounted internally for its side of the deal. That complex shuttling of Italian bonds? The bank decided that all of the back-and-forth maneuvers canceled themselves out and did not need to appear on its balance sheet. Deutsche began to apply the practice to transactions around the world, totaling more than $10 billion that never showed up on its books and making the bank look smaller and less risky than it really was.
Thus, enter the second element: "questionable accounting."
But where's the high octane speculation in all this? Unfortunately, that will have to wait until tomorrow. However, one clue is afforded in the fact that the "banker deaths" are not confined to Deutsche Bank or to Banca Monte dei Pashi di Sienna. In fact, as we've followed the story on this website, those deaths also engulf J.P. Morgan, insurance companies, and other prime western banks, from London, to New England, to Hong Kong.

First Human-Pig Hybrid Has Been Created

humm me's thinks this shit went ON .....before HUH ? Image result for ancient pics of half man half animals or hows bout ...Image result for ancient pics of half man half animals

First Human-Pig Hybrid Has Been Created

You can call it a chimera. You can call it a human-pig hybrid. You can call it a pigman. The journal Cell is calling it “Interspecies Chimerism with Mammalian Pluripotent Stem Cells.” Whatever you call it, researchers at the Salk Institute in California announced this week that they have created an embryo which contains both human and pig cells. Whatever you decide to call it, call them with your ethical complaints.

This is the first time that human cells are seen growing inside a large animal.
Professor Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte from the Salk Institute described the significance of this achievement. The researchers used human induced pluripotent stem cells, which are adult cells that have been reprogrammed backwards to act like embryonic stem cells.


Human cells being injected into pig embryo
These human cells were inserted into pig embryos, which were then placed in sows. The sows carried the embryos for four weeks, at which time they were removed o prevent possible development of brain cells.

We have those concerns too. That’s why in this study we chose to stop the pregnancy at three to four weeks.
To the relief of Jun Wu, a member of the team and author of the study published in Cell, the tiny amount of human cells developed into muscle and organ cells. That fits in with the ultimate goal of this program – to grow human organs is pigs and cows for eventual transplanting in humans. While the first human-pig chimera is revolutionary, there’s a long way to go to reaching the goal. Only a few human cells developed in just a fraction of the embryos – 186 out of the 2,075 implanted.


Green dots are human cells growing in pig embryo
While we’re waiting for hearts-from-hogs (sounds like a brand name in the making), Belmonte says these early human-pig hybrids can be used for drug testing, studying human diseases and learning about early human embryo development. At the same time, the researchers will be attempting to guide the development of the human cells – which in the experiment were left to develop on their own – into specific human organs.
This will also give everyone time to discuss the ethics of these experiments in terms of where they are today, where they plan to go and where they could go if left unchecked or end up in unscrupulous labs.
Considering we can’t even agree on what to call it, this is destined to be a long discussion.

Scientists Create Synthetic Organism with 6-Letter DNA Code


 

~hehe "it's" all fun & games ... till "yer" MONSTER starts chas~in yer ass ALL over the North Pole ?    HUH         ...folks just because WE can do some~thin    ...doesn't MEAN ...we should   ,,,  what's say u herr doctor Image result for pic of frankenstein

Surely everyone has at least heard of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, right? It seems like the science fiction trope of synthetic lifeforms rebelling against their human creators should be pretty well established in our cultural consciousness by now. Some scientists just want to see the world burn, I suppose. That could be the only reason a team of scientists at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) took it upon themselves to hijack the very building blocks of organic life and create a semi-synthetic organism unlike any living on Earth. I mean, why else would you create a completely unknown tree of life that could potentially unknown consequences for the fate of life on our planet?
Professor Floyd Romesberg (right) and Yorke Zhang led the project. When the world is overrun by six-base genetic superbugs, blame these two nerds.
Professor Floyd Romesberg (right) and Yorke Zhang led the project. When the world is overrun by genetically-engineered six-base superbugs, blame these two nerds.
Because science, that’s why. All living things on Earth carry DNA, the genetic code that is responsible for the growth and function of all life. Every organism’s’ DNA is composed of the same four nucleotides: cytosine, guanine, thymine, and adenine. That’s it – those four nitrogen-based molecules are responsible for all life on Earth. The TSRI scientists decided to see just what kind of abomination they could create if they used CRISPR/Cas9 techniques to add two new nucleotides (X and Y) to the mix, creating a version of E. coli bacteria with an unnatural six-base DNA chain.
E. coli is a common subject of genetic study due to its simple genetic makeup and fast rate of growth.
E. coli is a common subject of genetic study due to its simple genetic makeup and fast rate of growth.
The result? A semisynthetic organism (SSO) that blends synthetic and organic components and functions much like any other lifeform, but more so:
With the virtually unrestricted ability to maintain increased information, the optimized SSO now provides a suitable platform for efforts to retrieve the increased information and create organisms with wholly unnatural attributes and traits not found elsewhere in nature.
The researchers claim this creepy abomination is capable of “virtually unrestricted storage of increased information,” meaning it could technically be engineered to look or behave in any way its creators desire. According to TSRI researcher Yorke Zhang, this semi-synthetic microbe is just the beginning:
This study lays the foundation for what we want to do going forward.
Which is what exactly? Unleash monstrous plagues of superior organisms who look down (or up) upon us lowly four-based-DNA lifeforms with disdain and loathing? You know what, it’s gonna be one of those days – if you need me, I’ll be in my doomsday bunker learning how to fletch arrows.
Some things just aren’t meant to be tampered with.
Some things just aren’t meant to be tampered with.