You won't believe what scientists say is coming in two years

March 05, 2015

WRITER

Don't like your body? Good news! Doctors say that within the next two years you can transplant your head onto a new body. Pat and Stu had the story on radio today, and made sure that Jeffy knew exactly what would happen so he could start saving for the procedure ASAP!

Start listening at 1 hour 22min into today's show and scroll down for more

PAT: It just shows you that scientists are not infallible. They don't have all the answers, but they do have one coming very soon. And, Jeffy, this will be of particular interest to you. This is extremely exciting news for you. Within two years, you can finally get that head transplant that you so desperately need.

[laughter]

JEFFY: Wait.

PAT: Can you imagine if you had a different head?

STU: Oh, wow.

PAT: How great it would be for you?

STU: It wouldn't improve the rest of you, but just the head --

PAT: Just the head. Get rid of the head and put a reasonable head on top of the thing that's underneath it. And it's improved quite a bit.

STU: Did you say --

JEFFY: You're the only person that told me that.

PAT: Right. Within two years, my friend. Hang on with this head for two more years. Then you can finally get the head transplant you so desperately need.

STU: Did you just advise Jeffy to put on a reasonable head? Was that the actual advice?

PAT: Yes.

STU: I want to make sure I understand.

PAT: According to Surgeon Sergio Canavero, director of the Turin Advanced Neuromodulation Group in Italy first proposed a serious attempt at human head transplant in 2013. He said, I think we're now at a point when the technical aspects are feasible.

STU: Wow.

PAT: He's outlined his technique. First, both the transplant head and the donor body would need to be cooled in order to slow cell death. Then the neck of both would be cut. And the major blood vessels linked with tubes. Finally the spinal cord would be severed with as clean a cut as possible.

STU: You want to keep that cut pretty clean. As clean as possible, right.

PAT: Joining the spinal cords with tightly packed nerves inside is key. Now, the plan involves flushing the area with polyethylene glycol which I love. I love to be flushed. Whether I need it or not about every six months with polyethylene glycol.

STU: Sometimes you'll get back from a commercial break 30 seconds later. Pat, where were you? I was flushing with polyethylene glycol.

PAT: That will be followed with injections of the same. A chemical that encourages the fat in the cell membranes to mesh. There's so much fat in yours it's meshing --

JEFFY: I'm going through the process. I'm getting ready.

STU: So this is just prep. Okay. And we've been critical this whole time. It explains a lot.

PAT: The blood vessels, muscles, and skin would then be sutured, and the patient would be induced into a coma for several weeks. This is exciting news for you. I'd recommend the coma be longer just in case. You know, maybe months or years in your case. Keep you from moving around and keep you off the air longer.

JEFFY: So for my safety?

PAT: Yeah. Electrodes would meanwhile stimulate the spine with electricity in an attempt to strengthen the new nerve connections. In case of rejection, the patient would be given an antirejection, you know, immunosuppressant. So they can actually -- isn't that amazing? You can sever the spinal cord, put a new head on, reattach everything, and then you could walk and move and talk and all that. Wow.

STU: If you're getting a head transplant. Right?

Are you keeping your brain?

PAT: That's a good question.

STU: Or do you take your -- like I have a head that someone might want and Jeffy has a head that no one would want. They cut our spinal cords. Throw Jeffy's in the trash. Goes into the trash immediately.

JEFFY: I can help somebody.

STU: No. Probably not.

PAT: A dog. Maybe put your head on a dog.

STU: Or a dog could eat the fat off of the cheeks and such. Right?

[laughter]

PAT: I'd love to see your head on a dog.

[laughter]

STU: So they take my head off, and they -- so is it the functioning head is moving to a new body is really what it is. Right?

JEFFY: Right.

STU: You're not changing heads -- I know this is weird to talk about.

PAT: Would you be you at that point?

JEFFY: No. That's what I'm thinking. People used to think with the heart transplants and, oh, Uncle Billy has Little Johnny's heart now. Think of that.

STU: What kind of weird Lifetime movie is that? Uncle Billy has Little Johnny's heart.

JEFFY: But now Uncle Billy has little Johnny's head, oh, my gosh.

STU: I think the issue here, it's not a head transplant, as if you're receiving a new head. You're receiving a new body. It's really more of a body transplant. Right? Because you're taking the working ahead and putting it on another body. Not the other way around. My head is not working. Give me a new head on this body. Right? Because then you would have to transfer the brain too and then you're not you. You're taking my head in this theoretical example is the working head. You chop Jeffy's head off. Throw that in the trash. Or staple it on a dog or whatever. And you put my head on Jeffy's body, and then I am -- it's still me because my brain is still working in theory. I just have bad health measurables because I have Jeffy's body. Right?

That's the end of it.

JEFFY: Yeah, I guess. It's creepy.

PAT: Either way, it's creepy. I think you're right. It has to be that way, otherwise it's not you.

STU: Unless you -- like you installed a new head on you from someone else and then they also took your brain and transplanted it into that brain. Like, maybe if you had a skull fracture that was so bad, your head -- you're just going to seep out during lunch. Your brain would seep out under the plate. You don't want that to happen. Take the brain out. Put a new head on. Pop the brain back in like it's a new engine. Then put the top on. The hair hood kind of gets popped on the top there. And then everything is okay. But I think that's a little bit too complicated.

JEFFY: That's a lot of connections.

STU: Thank you, Jeffy. That's a lot of connections.

JEFFY: That's a lot of connections.

STU: It is. It would be amazing to see, if my brain got on to somebody else's body, my brain would be able to theoretically control the foot of that new body?

PAT: Yes, in theory.

STU: I mean, that is really freaking weird.

PAT: They don't say if they've already performed this on animals. I would think they would have to. If this is two years out from doing this on humans, you would have had to successfully done this on something. Right?

STU: You would think so.

PAT: Because it wouldn't make any sense to make this proclamation if you aren't certain you could make it happen. That's weird. I don't know how that works out soul-wise. Does your soul transfer with your -- with your head?

STU: I think it does.

PAT: Does it?

STU: That's a spiritual thing.

JEFFY: The heart thing is not really the heart.

PAT: You're kind of messing with things that shouldn't be messed with at that point.

STU: Oh, boy. You'll stay alive hopefully in theory. I think it's a spiritual thing. Right?

It has nothing to do with your actual body. It's a spiritual thing.

PAT: So your spirit transfers with your head? Your spirit --

STU: I think it's there --

PAT: Is it all through your body? Because I think it is.

STU: It's with your consciousness.

JEFFY: Perhaps when they're cutting your head off, your spirit says, you know, maybe I'll go with the head.

PAT: Here's what we do, we try it on you right now, and we'll see.

STU: Yeah, let's give it a whirl. Get the saw out.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

You won't believe what scientists say is coming in two years

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?