If you’ve seen the new Netflix docuseries about a religious group called the Raëlians founded by Maitreya Raël (formerly Claude Vorilhon) in the 1970s, you may be wondering if Brigitte Boisselier’s claims about having created the first human clone, whom she calls “Baby Eve,” are true. Warning: Spoilers follow for Raël: The Alien Prophet. In 2002, Boisselier announced publicly that she had successfully produced the first human clone through she and Vorilhon’s company Clonaid. Calling her “Baby Eve” to protect the child’s identity, Boisselier said that Eve was cloned using the DNA of her mother, and that she was born in Israel on Dec. 26, 2002, according to CNN. She said used the same process, called somatic cell nuclear transfer, that was successfully used to clone a sheep named Dolly in 1996. Is ‘First Human Clone’ Baby Eve Real?No formal evidence that Eve was truly a genetic replica of her mother — or that she ever even existed — has ever been shown, and the validity of Boisselier’s claims remains unproven, according to StatNews, a health news website produced by Boston Globe Media. In 2004, Clonaid said it had produced 14 total human clones, StatNews added — but these claims have also never been proven due to the company’s refusal to allow independent tests on the children, or even to provide proof of their identities. Indeed, the idea of Eve’s existence — or that any human cloning was ever achieved by Clonaid — has been called an elaborate hoax, according to the docuseries. Former Raëlian Says Baby Eve Doesn’t Exist“Having been on the inside, I can tell you assuredly, it’s all fake,” former Raëlian Damien Marsic, who left the religion in 2016, says in Raël: The Alien Prophet. Marsic says that he was the only scientist actually working in the Raëlians’ lab, and that they were nowhere near the scientific capability of bringing a human clone to term through surrogacy when Boisselier made the claim that Baby Eve had been born. “This is by far the craziest and most bizarre story I have ever heard in my life, because it wasn’t true,” Miami Herald journalist Jay Weaver says in the docuseries. “And fortunately, it didn’t hurt anybody. I guess the only real victims here and I say this with tongue in cheek, are the Raëlians. They come across as complete fools.” Boisselier still maintains that Baby Eve is real, but that she prefers to maintain her privacy rather than to come forward. She remains a devout member of the Raëlians religious sect and is interviewed extensively in Netflix’s Raël: The Alien Prophet. Raël started the Raëlians in the 1970s based on the story that he had met an alien who told him that extraterrestrials were the creators of humanity. Referring to the aliens as the “Elohim,” Vorilhon grew the religious group with the goal of building a multi-million dollar embassy from which to welcome the Elohim’s arrival on earth in the year 2035. In his own interview in the docuseries, Vorilhon — who remains the leader of the Raëlians to this day — denies having ever participated in cloning, saying that Clonaid was nothing more than a shell company. “I have neither the will nor the skill set. I’m not a scientist,” Vorilhon says in Raël: The Alien Prophet. “To tell you the truth, I probably would have never even mentioned cloning if the Pope himself had not mentioned it. He was against cloning, and I thought, ‘Let’s create a cloning venture.’ Everything the Pope says, I try and counter it. To me, he is the epitome of guilt and the worst for humankind. He continued: “So I created a shell company, Clonaid, a P.O. Box in the Bahamas, just so people could say ‘Raël is launching human cloning company.’ Then Brigitte Boisselier came along and told me, ‘I’d like to do it for real.’ I said ‘Go ahead.’ And suddenly, there was a massive outcry that led us to the American congress to testify with Brigitte. We thought it was hilarious.” All four episodes of Raël: The Alien Prophet are now streaming on Netflix. Main Image: (L-R) Claude “Raël” Vorilhon and Brigitte Boisselier pictured in Raël: The Alien Prophet courtesy of Netflix (moviemaker)
0 Comments
Chinese officials have cancelled two Argentina friendlies that were due to take place in the Asian country after Lionel Messi did not play for Inter Miami in a match in Hong Kong. The world champions were set to face Nigeria in Hangzhou and Ivory Coast in Beijing in March. Fans in China were angered when the Argentina captain did not play for his club against a Hong Kong XI on Sunday. Messi, 36, said he could not play because of a groin injury. However, his non-appearance drew widespread criticism in China when he then featured off the bench three days later against Vissel Kobe in Japan. "Beijing does not plan, for the moment, to organise the match in which Lionel Messi was to participate," the Beijing Football Association said on Saturday. When the Hangzhou match was cancelled on Friday their sports bureau said: "Given the reasons that everyone knows, according to the competent authorities, the conditions for the event to take place are not met." Fans in Hong Kong jeered Inter Miami co-owner David Beckham and chanted for their money back after Messi did not take to the pitch. They have since been promised a 50% refund by match organisers Tatler Asia. (BBC) The US and UK have carried out a number of strikes on Houthi bases in Yemen, after the group repeatedly attacked ships in the Red Sea. The Houthis are an Iranian-backed rebel group which considers Israel an enemy. Why are the Houthis attacking Red Sea ships? In response to the war in the Gaza Strip, the Houthis started firing drones and missiles towards Israel. Most have been intercepted. On 19 November, the Houthis hijacked a commercial ship in the Red Sea and have since attacked more than two dozen others with drones, missiles and speed boats. The Houthis say they are targeting ships which are Israeli-owned, flagged or operated, or which are heading to Israeli ports. However, many of the vessels which have been attacked have no connection with Israel. Also among those attacked wasa British-linked tanker, which the Houthis said was in response to "American-British aggression". US-led naval forces have thwarted many of the attacks. Major shipping companies have stopped using the Red Sea - through which almost 15% of global seaborne trade usually passes - and are using a much longer route around southern Africa instead. Why are the UK and US bombing Yemen? The US and UK started carrying out air strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen on 11 January. There have been several more strikes since then. President Joe Biden said they were in "direct response" to the attacks on Red Sea ships, which "jeopardised trade, and threatened freedom of navigation". UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the action was "necessary and proportionate" to protect global shipping. Who are the Houthis? The Houthis are an armed political and religious group which champions Yemen's Shia Muslim minority, the Zaidis. They declare themselves to be part of the Iranian-led "axis of resistance" against Israel, the US and the wider West - along with armed groups such as Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah movement. Formally known as the Ansar Allah (Partisans of God), the group emerged in the 1990s and takes its name from the movement's late founder, Hussein al-Houthi. The current leader is his brother, Abdul Malik al-Houthi. In the early 2000s, the Houthis fought a series of rebellions against Yemen's long-time authoritarian president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, in an attempt to win greater autonomy for the group's homeland in the north of Yemen. During the 2011 Arab Spring, a popular uprising forced President Saleh to hand over power to his deputy, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi. President Hadi's government was overwhelmed with problems. The Houthis seized control of the northern province of Saada before taking the Yemini capital, Sanaa, after forming an unlikely alliance with Saleh and security forces still loyal to him. In 2015, the rebels seized large parts of western Yemen and forced Mr Hadi to flee abroad. Neighbouring Saudi Arabia feared the Houthis would take over Yemen and make it a satellite of its rival, Iran. It formed a coalition of Arab countries that intervened in the war. But years of air strikes and ground fighting have not dislodged the Houthis from most of the territory they seized. Saudi Arabia is now trying to make a peace deal with the Houthis, and a UN-brokered truce has been in effect since April 2022. The war has killed more than 160,000 people, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED). More than four million people have been displaced. Who backs the Houthis and how do they get their weapons? The US says Iran enabled the Houthis to target ships, and President Biden has sent a "private message" to Tehran urging it to stop. Iran has denied involvement. Saudi Arabia and the US say Iran has smuggled weapons - including drones, and cruise and ballistic missiles - to the Houthis during Yemen's civil war in violation of a UN arms embargo. It says such missiles and drones have been used in attacks on Saudi Arabia, as well as its ally, the United Arab Emirates. Iran denies supplying weapons to the Houthis and says it only supports them politically. "The Houthis could not operate at this level without Iranian arms, training and intelligence," says Dr Elisabeth Kendall, a Middle East specialist at Cambridge University. However, she adds: "It is unclear that Iran has direct command and control over the Houthis." According to the Italian Institute of International Political Studies, Iran has helped the Houthis build factories to make drones in Yemen. The Houthis have also received military advice and support from the Lebanese Islamist group Hezbollah, the US-based Combating Terrorism Center at West Point Military Academy says. How much of Yemen do the Houthis control?The Houthis control Sanaa and the north-west of Yemen, including the Red Sea coastline. Most of Yemen's population lives in these areas, and the Houthis run a de facto government which collects taxes and prints money. The internationally-recognised government of Yemen is based in the southern port of Aden. It is overseen by the eight-member Presidential Leadership Council, to which President Hadi handed power in 2022. (BBC) (photos) Houthi fighters hijacked a British-owned and Japanese-operated ship in the Red Sea on 19 November Wreckage of a drone launched from Yemen at the UAE capital, Abu Dhabi, in 2022 The Houthis are part of an "axis of resistance" against Israel A wave of inflation Greece, Europe and much of the world, in the wake of the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has made one iconic food item, the beloved pizza, a pricier fare. According to Eurostat figures for 2023, a European citizen now pays more to buy a pizza than even a year and two years ago. Specifically, the average price of a specific size of pizza jumped by 5.9% in Europe in December 2023, compared with the corresponding month of 2022. The rate of increase in Greece for the same period was 3.9%, on an annual basis. The increase between December 2022 and December 2021 was even more pronounced, 15.2%. The biggest hike, yoy, was recorded in non-Eurozone member Hungary (13.4%), followed by Luxembourg (11.3%) and Latvia (10.6%). Conversely, pizza prices actually fell in the Netherlands by 0.9%. Source: tovima.com In Greece, there are two distinct realms: one comprises the major urban centers, such as greater Athens area and Thessaloniki, where half of the country’s population resides and the bulk of its GDP is produced, while the other encompasses the entirety of the nation’s regions. The disparity between these two worlds is substantial. According to the latest data from ELSTAT, in 2021 the broader region of Athens accounted for 47.9% of the domestic Gross Value Added, with Central Macedonia following at 13.7%. The Ionian Islands accounted for 1.6%, and the islands of the Northern Aegean for 1.3%. Regarding GDP per capita, the capital is again at the top with 23,335 euros, with the North Aegean being at the bottom position with 10,658 euros. Stelios Gialis, Associate Professor of Economic and Labor Geography at the University of the Aegean, explains that in Greece, the economy’s free market nature exacerbates the gap between the central areas and the periphery. This disparity is amplified due to the lack of robust regional development initiatives. Consequently, agricultural and informal sector activities, prevalent in rural areas, yield lower incomes compared to the urban centers where large wage labor markets and self-employed professionals are concentrated. This observation is confirmed by Athanasios Malliaras, president of the Chamber of Commerce of Serres, who emphasizes the challenges faced by the prefecture, consistently ranking low in GDP per capita. He notes the decline of the primary sector as a significant issue and highlights the impact of cross-border smuggling due to the proximity to Bulgaria. Additionally, he mentions the allure of favorable taxation in the neighboring country, prompting business migration, especially during the economic crisis. Malliaras calls for the establishment of a Special Economic Zone in Serres to address these issues. On the contrary, the picture emerging from the region of the South Aegean, is encouraging. According to professor Stelios Gialis, the dynamism of this region is attributed to its tourism sector, which did not suffer the same blow as other industries during the period of the great recession. Tourism supported construction and employment, despite the fact that “many of the jobs it provides are not well paid.” Source: tovima.com
Tucker interviews Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Russia. February 6th, 2024.
The US Supreme Court will wade into uncharted legal waters on Thursday as it considers if Donald Trump should be barred from running for president. The justices will weigh if Colorado can strike Mr Trump off its ballot after finding he engaged in insurrection over the US Capitol riot. Their decision will also determine if similar bids to keep Mr Trump off the ballot in other states are valid. He is the definitive frontrunner to be the Republican party's candidate. Unless the justices rule against Mr Trump, he looks likely to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden in November. It is the most consequential such case to reach the court since it halted the Florida vote recount in 2000, handing the White House to Republican George W Bush over Democrat Al Gore. The challenge has been expedited by the US Supreme Court, and there is pressure for a decision before 5 March, when voters in 15 states - including Colorado - cast their ballots in Republican primaries. Mr Trump's name so far remains on the Colorado ballot, pending the court's ruling. Maine also has excluded Mr Trump from its ballot, a decision on hold, too, while the justices consider the matter. The legal challenge hinges on a Civil War-era constitutional amendment that bans anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding federal office. This prohibition has never been used to disqualify a candidate for president. In December's ruling, the Colorado Supreme Court wrote that it was aware of the magnitude of its decision. "We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach," the justices wrote. In turn, Mr Trump's lawyers argued that the Colorado ruling had "unconstitutionally disenfranchised millions of voters in Colorado" and could be used to further disenfranchise millions more across the country. His argument has been supported by the chief legal officers of 27 states, who filed a brief saying the Colorado ruling would sow "widespread chaos". "Most obviously, it casts confusion into an election cycle that is just weeks away," the attorneys general wrote. "Beyond that, it upsets the respective roles of the Congress, the States, and the courts." Courts in Minnesota and Michigan have dismissed parallel efforts to remove Mr Trump from their ballots, while other cases, including in Oregon, are pending. The US Supreme Court's decision in this case is expected to turn on how a majority of the justices interpret the provision of the 14th Amendment, which includes the insurrection clause. Lawyers for the former president have provided several reasons to the court for why he should not be removed from the ballot. In one, they argue that the 14th Amendment does not apply to presidential candidates. In another, they contend that Mr Trump's conduct at the time of the US Capitol riot on 6 January 2021 did not amount to insurrection. The case lands with a thud before a Supreme Court that is already facing near all-time lows in terms of public approval. No matter the ruling by the nine justices - three of whom were nominated by Mr Trump - it is likely to prove hugely divisive. The top court has a history of finding ways to extricate itself from politically charged legal issues by sticking to the narrowest of legal grounds, which could turn out to be the case here. Mr Trump, who is in the midst of his third presidential campaign, is not expected to attend Thursday's hearing. He is facing a number of legal challenges. Last month, he was ordered to pay $83.3m ($65m) for defaming columnist E Jean Carroll, who he was found to have sexually assaulted in a separate case. The Supreme Court itself - which holds a 6-3 conservative majority - may soon be asked to weigh in on another case involving Mr Trump. Earlier this week, a federal appeals court in Washington DC rejected his claims of presidential immunity, ruling he could be prosecuted on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. Mr Trump has until Monday to ask the Supreme Court to pause this ruling. By Holly Honderich BBC News, Washington bbc.om Nearly a week after a drone strike in Jordan killed three US soldiers, retaliatory strikes against Iran-backed militias have begun. The strikes had been expected for several days, and in the interim, the Biden administration began to face questions and criticism from Republicans about the timing and forcefulness of the US response. But foreign policy experts believed the approach allowed Iran to withdraw personnel, potentially avoiding a wider conflict between the US and Iran. "This would allow them to degrade the capacity of these Iranian-backed militias to attack US forces, but not escalate," Mick Mulroy, a former deputy assistant secretary of defence for the Middle East, told the BBC. "Although it is likely not going to be a deterrent to future attacks." The ultimate benefit, he said, would be "to avoid a direct war" between the US and Iran. The US struck the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force and affiliated militias in Iraq and Syria, at seven sites in total. Bombers hit 85 individual targets, according to US defence officials. "Let all those who might seek to do us harm know this: If you harm an American, we will respond," President Joe Biden said. US officials have blamed an Iranian-backed militia group, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, for the Jordan attack. The organisation - an umbrella group of multiple militias - is believed to have been armed, funded and trained by Iran. Iran has denied any involvement in the drone strike, which also injured 41 US troops. Defence and security officials said that weather had made it difficult to retaliate sooner, with Friday presenting the best conditions for launching strikes. Though the White House and Pentagon also repeatedly said they were avoiding "telegraphing" operations in the days leading up to the strikes, experts believe they did just that - with the ultimate intention of avoiding a wider war with Iran. Arabian Gulf States Institute of Washington fellow Hussein Ibish, said the delay appeared to be the US signalling "what they're not going to do, which is strike inside Iran". Mr Mulroy told the BBC it is possible that the US allowed Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel "to leave the facilities that are going to be struck". Experts noted the US must walk a fine line between deterring a country like Iran without igniting a greater conflict. "Telegraphing" the strikes could allow the US to adopt a "Goldilocks" approach to the operation that is "not too hard and not too soft", said Bradley Bowman, senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Washington DC-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies. From the Biden administration's perspective, that approach "would inflict pain on our adversaries so they stop attacking our forces, but not so much that they feel a need for a massive escalation, thereby avoiding a regional war" National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said on Friday that Washington won't "telegraph future operations" but confirmed "there will be additional response action taken in coming days". However, Republicans in Congress have been quick to condemn Mr Biden's approach for being too lenient on Iran. Speaker Mike Johnson, the most powerful Republican in Congress, said after the attacks that "public handwringing and excessive signalling undercuts our ability to put a decisive end to the barrage of attacks endured over the past few months". In a post on X, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas called Mr Biden's response "anaemic" and claimed "it has only emboldened the ayatollahs further." "Only further, more devastating attacks against Iranian forces will scare the ayatollahs," he wrote. Senator Markwayne Mullin invoked the more aggressive actions of past Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, as a contrast to Mr Biden's plan of attack. "Deterrence isn't delayed half-measures," he wrote on X. "Deterrence is taking the head off the snake." But Mr Ibish noted that the Biden administration may be trying to avoid domestic political pitfalls that would come with the US getting dragged into a more serious conflict. "If they did strike in Iran, the Republican standard bearers like Donald Trump would denounce Biden for being a warmonger," he said. "It's a political trap. Everybody gets that, so they're not going to fall into that trap." By Bernd Debusmann Jr & Kayla Epstein BBC News, Washington and New York Source:bbc.com On the heels of the Special European Council meeting in Brussels yesterday which was marred by protests of the agricultural sector, Prime Minister Mitsotakis will address Greek parliament today to discuss the issues and concerns of farmers in Greece. The PM noted yesterday, while still in Brussels, that he would attend parliament to answer questions posed by the New Left party leader Alexis Charitsis. While the government is expected to announce some measures that aim to reduce production costs, such as the cost of diesel and electricity, the PM is not expected to announce any large measures, according to reports at ToVima. The PM said yesterday when speaking to press that there should be a European solution stemming from the revision of the common agricultural policy. “I believe, I think, that the time has come, without calling into question the core of the green transition, the possibility to discuss some adjustments to the policy that will consider the new realities that we can’t ignore. And I want to stress that many of the concerns of farmer are understandable to me and, to a degree, justified.” Source: tovima.com |