A Dire Genetics Scam

Jan 28, 2026

The Annual Subscription is being kept at the incredibly low price of just $30. I sell no supplements, no crappy merchandise, no bullshit gadgets, I have no sponsors, no advertising and everything is possible to read for free. However to help in running the experiments and to cover the huge costs that are mounting from travel and expenses to operate the project, please consider donating to the largest Crowdsourced and Opensourced experiments falsifying Virology. Thank you.

In the realms of the Genetics Hoax, the bread and butter, day to day propaganda gaslighting is done through the lens of CRISPR and GMO, where they can take these claimed building blocks of life (that they can’t see) and whizz them around in a petri dish, squirt them on some bacteria and create whatever they want (as long as it already existed in Nature). This bracketed caveat really is the crux to their hoax in the fact that they certainly cannot just create whatever their heart desires even though they claim to be able to build whatever they like to the single “nucleotide” of accuracy in a lab.

They cannot manipulate Genetics to make a Dog with Wings or a Monitor Lizard with Udders, they certainly can’t create Jurassic Park, they readily admit this, not just because of their “ethics” scapegoat, they can’t do it even with claimed perfectly preserved DNA from things like “Wolly Mammoths” or “Sabre Toothed Tigers”. In fact when I looked for personal reasons of interest, they cannot even create frost resistant Citrus Trees that will grow even a few degrees of Latitude out of their natural environment. One would have thought given the Mainstream dietary fuss they make about “ViTamIn C” being some kind of Cure-all from Colds to Cellular damage to Tax Returns ( probably) they would have employed their most heavily bespectacled Geeks to go and make a Genetically modified Lemon Tree that an impoverished Glaswegian could grow on his Council Flat balcony to prevent his imminent Scurvy.

But no, they can’t do that at all. However there are a few claims seeded in opportune places, largely on the TV or Social Media (colour me shocked), where they take things that literally not a single person has ever wanted or needed and have decided to gift humanity with them. This is such a case as with a company by the Name of Colossal Biosciences whom last year convinced themselves that people of Earth needed to make a now claimed extinct wolf called the Dire Wolf reappear. This just so happened to coincide with the Wolf that was made famous on the $10bn grossing worldwide phenomenon of Game Of Thrones.

But they weren’t just cashing in on the hype and gathering 350k followers on Twitter and numerous appearances on The Joe Rogan show to spout utter tripe about Genetic Engineering. No, they are your lovable Lab “rewilding” and bringing back from extinction your most cute and cuddly Wolf pups ( Plushie toy available from the gift shop, probably).

In April of 2025 it was announced, straight into mainstream news, that they had managed to take a Gray Wolf and some “AncIenT DnA” and edit them together so that they knew that the offspring of the wolf was in fact a previously extinct Dire Wolf. How would we know right? Well they are going to Genetically Sequence it and say Yip! That there is a Dire Wolf alright, and you just trust them explicitly.

When they claim they found the Ancient DNA this was only verified of course by Genetic Sequencing what they believed to be wolf bones. Then the magic happens when they just take two gametes of normal Gray Wolves do the old switcheroo with a magic juice nucleus and perform IVF, by jump starting with an electrical charge (Literally that is how IVF must be performed, called Electroporation).

This whole thing comes with a massive caveat from Beth Shapiro, the Colossal (Hoax) Biosciences Chief Scientific Officer, in the form of the sentence “ We aren’t trying to bring something back that is 100% genetically identical to another species”. This declaration in itself should raise some eyebrows, like Why The Fuck Not? You went straight onto CNN and Rogan for bringing back our lovable Howler from the dead… yet it isn’t actually much more than just a rough mockup.

When you combine this with the absolute fucking clanger in the sentence before that “Dire Wolves and Gray Wolves shared 99.5% of their DNA” we should be able to do some pretty quick friggin maths here. They ain’t making it 100% Dire Wolf, they are using Gray Wolves which are 99.5% the same so what they are doing is admitting they are doing quite fuck all.

When educating about the Genetics Hoax I describe the way that they pull these things off as cheap magic tricks. Basic distraction and manipulation techniques that leaves the onlooker amazed, however once inside the “Magic Circle” and the way these tricks are carried out, you see that the Ace was just tucked up their sleeve the whole time and the furious hand waving was to keep your attention focused on the Entertainment.

This trick is no different, a real dumb one, that should leave you with a bitter taste in your mouth for feeling so easily cheated. The big distraction is being cradled in the arms of George R R Martin. Fans of the show Game Of Thrones (which I have to admit to never watching) will also be able to tell you that the Dire Wolves are white and fit in with a snowy tundra in which a lot of the series is set. However when it comes to their “genetic” jiggery pokkery they are going to emphasize repeatedly the fact that they are using “Gray Wolves” for IVF.

At first glance one may be convinced that a “Gray Wolf” was indeed grey in colour. In fact you would be mostly correct in your assumption given that the Gray Wolf subspecies is predominantly grey. However, as shown in the image below, there is just one that is not grey in coloring, the Arctic Wolf. A wolf that is slightly different, largely because its natural habitat is funnily enough Arctic tundra. It is one of the largest in its subspecies and is noted for its longer coat given its habitat.

We have seen the quick maths from CSO Beth Shapiro where she admits that they are only even claiming to tamper with about one nostrils worth of the wolf’s non existent “genetics”. So what are they actually claiming is the difference between a Dire Wolf and a Gray Wolf?

🐺 Arctic wolf (Canis lupus arctos)

Very large and heavy-built
Adult males often weigh 100–125 lb (45–57 kg)
Thick fur makes them look even bigger
Shorter ears, legs, and muzzle → helps conserve heat

Comparing and contrasting the two, the weight difference is negligible, with some selective breeding of heavier Arctic Wolves they would cross into the threshold of claimed Dire Wolf weight classes. Their ears were claimed small like the Arctic Wolf, by some inventing thinking from Paleontologists. The only difference that would certainly be noticeable based on photographic evidence alone is the claimed head to body size ratio. One would assume that this claimed weight difference would be almost entirely accounted for in the enlarged head, so should be extremely noticable in A/B comparisons.

“Dire” Wolves

Arctic Wolves

Dire Wolf

Evaluation

If we approach the images first and foremost, it is pretty obvious that Colossal Shithouse didn’t even bother with their due diligence and just lead with the raw marketing propaganda of what a Television Series thought these mythical beasts should look like. Nothing about the Paleontologist’s cartoons of what a Dire Wolf should look like are similar in any way to the ones shown in the Series, they are not white for a start, they are larger, shorter haired, longer eared, larger with a more square head.

Now comparing the claimed “gene messed” ones with standard Arctic Wolves. Taking examples that are current in age which is around 1 yr old, they share identical features, longer pure white coat, aqualine snout, black gum-line, medium to short length ears, slight mane and completely in proportion head to body ratio. This last and most noticeable feature was one of the only claimed differences in anatomy between the Gray Wolf and Dire, yet it is absolutely clear that these Wolves do not have an enlarged head to body ratio.

It is not just Conspiracy Theorist Jamie that has noticed the glaring problems with the anatomical failures to resurrect an old Wolf. The New Scientist has done an Op Ed clearly spelling out their position

Here we see the return of the lovable Beth Shapiro, once again kicking the can down the road with their claims at the time, stating that in April 2025 they’d “find out in a year’s time” if the genetics tampering had actually done anything. I mean, talk about obfuscation. Unfortunately for them I am not just a passive reader that would gobble up the bullshit at face value and just expect the outcomes to be good. I obviously called bullshit then and waited for when the pups had reached adolescence to compare and contrast. Would you know it! They haven’t done a fucking thing!

The last point I would like to touch on is the likelihood there is even some thing called a “Dire Wolf”, some completely different larger prehistoric wolf at all. Given my skepticism in the realms of all of these sciences I would be naive to think that Paleontologists were any different. Having sat modules in it at University, I can tell you it was all extremely tedious and subjective with claimed taxonomy. The sorting of different Trilobites into how long their claimed tentacle bits were, had me bored to tears to the point of instead skinning up a joint in the lecture theater as a pre-prep for bailing at half time. Is that really proof against it, no, but you would have to be a tedious wanker to do it professionally, is all I am saying.

Wolly Mice

If you thought that Colossal NothingBurgers were going to rest on their laurels and not capitalize on their Joe Rogan Experiences with the one Psy-op, you’d be mistaken. They have run with a Christmas Special for their Social Media splurging out cute, Christmas themed pictures of mice that they claim…. wait for it… that they did their “genetic” mess with a Wolly Mammoth. Did they make it grow a trunk and tusks I hear you ask? Well of course not, remember they can’t make anything that doesn’t already exist in nature. No they claimed they made the first ever Wolly Coated mice.

Apart from the fact that it looks like they took a door mouse and back combed it, you can see from this picture from the puff piece on the BBC that these mice do indeed look different. One has slightly longer hair and it sticks up, although presumably is just coiffured for the cameras.

Q: Are there naturally long haired mice and can they be made by selective breeding?
Yes to both parts — long-haired mice exist naturally, and you can get them through selective breeding 🐭✨
🐭 Naturally long-haired mice
Some mice carry natural mutations that make their fur grow longer than normal
These mutations pop up spontaneously in wild or lab populations
Famous examples:
Angora / long-haired fancy mice (common in pet breeding)
“fuzzy” or “wavy” coat mutations in lab mice
Genetically, these often involve genes that control:
Hair growth cycle length
Keratin structure
Follicle signaling
So yes — no lab editing required.
🧬 Selective breeding
Absolutely possible, and it’s been done for decades.
How it works:
A mouse with slightly longer fur appears (natural mutation)
Breeders mate mice showing that trait
Over many generations, the trait becomes stable and exaggerated
Result: consistently long-haired lines
This is the same process used to create:
long-haired cats and dogs
different coat types in rabbits
fancy mouse varieties
🔬 No CRISPR needed
Selective breeding alone is enough
CRISPR could theoretically create new coat traits, but it’s unnecessary for this
Most long-haired mice you see today come from old-fashioned breeding
🧠 Fun detail
Some long-haired mouse traits are:
Recessive → need two copies of the gene
Temperature-sensitive → fur length changes with environment
Bottom line
✔️ Long-haired mice occur naturally
✔️ They can be fixed and enhanced by selective breeding
✔️ Humans have already done this for a long time
If you’re curious, I can go deeper into:
the specific genes involved
how long it takes to establish a line
or how selective breeding compares to CRISPR for traits like this

Here is a fuzzy rat, credit to Craig Robbins from AFRMA (the American Fancy Rat and Mouse Association)

Here is a naturally curly haired mouse, presumably from the 80s.

Last but not least is the Natural breed the Little Satin Mouse, very well known for its long, straight ginger hair. Yes, the “Wolly Mouse” is just a Little Satin Mouse IMO. It doesn’t actually tell you which breed they IVF’d when it came to their mouse psy-op, one can only imagine it’d be too obvious.

Or maybe there is a cross with an Angora, pictured blow as the coat is that much more “Wolly”, either way the resultant product of Colossal WasteofTime is totally achievable by natural means.

The Origins of CRISPR

This very new “technology” was “invented” (completely fabricated) just this Century. Ironically it came from a really big problem with the Germ Theory. You see, with the brainlets that propose the world is filled with air goblins, that are numbered in their trillions per cubic mete, waiting around every nook and cranny to fly into every orifice you have and slowly murder you, have built a picture of inevitable death and destruction. Their huge caveat to this scaremongery and the reason why there is life on Earth, is that we have another completely invented savior, our ImMuNe SyStEm (never before actually pictured, only proposed from claimed White Blood cells splodging about In Vitro).

The ImMuNe SyStEm is the scapegoat for all failures in the gargantuan body of mounting failures of the Germ Theory when tested. It seems however that over the last Century or two the Warp Speed at which their positive claims for just how bad the Germs were rifled out happened to massively over egg the pudding. They started claiming there were not only “Viruses” for humans but indeed there were little “Viruses” for Bacteria. Called Bacteriophages, they once again seeded this complete storytelling narrative between good and evil: There are good bacteria and bad bacteria but only bad viruses and sometimes those bad viruses kill the good bacteria so that the bad bacteria can take over. Sigh.

Problem is with this, is that Bacteria quite obviously can’t have an immune system, they are single celled organism, it is literally impossible by their own story telling for a Bacteria to “counter” a “Virus” and not die. This lead to the biggest “Oh Fuck” moment as their stories they were telling were revealed to be sticking horseshit. So what better way to wipe egg of their face th'an, not only invent a way that Bacteria do actually have a “GeNeTic ImMuNe SysTeM” but whilst they were in their most creative and hubristic of elements they decided that they way that Bacteria do this can be used by Humans to Control the entirety of the Genomes of the world’s populace by a thing called CRISPR.

Now, call me a Conspiracy Theorist and everything, as I usually don’t like this type of superficial evidence, but it really is pushed so far in your face it hurts. The year of arguably the greatest hoax ever pulled on humanity, 2020, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry was won by Two Females (creators by Birthing), one named Emmanuelle ( the literal name for Jesus or “God is with us” and ALSO a genetic chromosomal disease) Charpentier ( Carpenter in French- Builder, Creator, Jesus’ Job) and the second lady Jennifer DouDNA that literally FUCKING HAS DNA IN HER NAME.

If that doesn’t scream this is about a stinky psy-op as it comes I don’t know what does. But nevertheless, let’s just tie up the loose ends, the following is the Chat GPT answer to Questions on CRISPR’s history and how it works, give it a read and then we’ll evaluate underneath:

🧬 1. CRISPR’s roots — discovery of the sequences
🔹 1987: Yoshizumi Ishino first noticed the unusual DNA repeats in bacteria while studying E. coli — but the function was unknown at the time.
🔹 1990s–2000s: Francisco Mojica at the University of Alicante recognized that these repeating sequences appeared widely in microbes, and he later proposed their role as part of a bacterial defense system. This group also coined the name CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats).
So CRISPR sequences were observed first, but not yet known to edit genes.
🧪 2. CRISPR’s immune function — showing the mechanism
In the 2000s, studies (e.g., Barrangou & Horvath) showed experimentally that CRISPR systems help bacteria defend against viruses: bacteria incorporate pieces of viral DNA into their own genome, and then use that information to recognize and cut the virus’s DNA on re-infection.
✂️ 3. Gene-editing breakthrough — Doudna & Charpentier (2012)
The major breakthrough that turned CRISPR into a gene-editing tool came in 2012:
Key inventors:
✅ Emmanuelle Charpentier (then at Umeå University)
✅ Jennifer Doudna (UC Berkeley)
They showed that the bacterial CRISPR-Cas9 system could be programmed to cut DNA at a chosen sequence using guide RNA — in a controlled biochemical experiment outside of cells.
Exact method (in vitro proof):
Isolated the bacterial enzyme Cas9, which naturally cuts DNA.
Identified that Cas9 used two RNA molecules (crRNA + tracrRNA) in bacteria.
They joined crRNA and tracrRNA into a single “guide RNA” (sgRNA), which could be synthetically programmed to match any target DNA sequence.
Mixed the Cas9 protein and guide RNA with sample DNA in a test tube.
Result: the Cas9 complex cut the DNA specifically at the sequence dictated by the guide RNA — showing that CRISPR-Cas9 could be programmed to target and cleave chosen DNA sequences.
This was the first clear demonstration that the system could be used as a programmable gene-editing tool — a huge leap from simply knowing bacteria have repeats.

Q: How is Cas 9 programmed in CRISPR and how was this discovered.
Short answer:
How Cas9 is programmed:
Cas9 is guided by a guide RNA (gRNA). Scientists design the gRNA to match a specific DNA sequence, and Cas9 uses it like a GPS to find and cut that exact spot in the genome.
How this was discovered:
Researchers studying CRISPR as a bacterial immune system realized that bacteria use RNA copied from past viral DNA to guide Cas proteins to cut invading viruses. In 2012, scientists (notably Doudna and Charpentier) showed this system could be reprogrammed with custom RNA to cut any chosen DNA sequence.
That’s it—RNA tells Cas9 where to cu

Q: How does RNA direct Cas9 to exact spots and how it does this in a solution in liquid state
Great question — this is the core magic of CRISPR. I’ll walk it step-by-step and keep it conceptual, not lab-instructiony.
1️⃣ How RNA “knows” where to go: base pairing
The key idea is complementary base pairing.
RNA and DNA follow strict rules:
A ↔ T (or U in RNA)
C ↔ G
If two sequences are complementary, they naturally stick together via hydrogen bonds
Guide RNA (gRNA)
About 20 nucleotides long in its targeting region
Designed to be complementary to one specific DNA sequence
That 20-base sequence is statistically very likely to be unique in a genome
So the RNA doesn’t “search intelligently” — it just binds wherever the sequence matches.
2️⃣ Cas9 + RNA = a programmable machine
Cas9 by itself is just a protein that can cut DNA — but it’s inactive until RNA binds to it.
When guide RNA binds Cas9:
Cas9 changes shape
This exposes:
an RNA-binding channel
a DNA-binding groove
the catalytic cutting sites
Think of it like:
Cas9 = locked scissors
RNA = the key that unlocks and aims them
3️⃣ How targeting works in liquid solution
This is important: nothing is fixed in place.
In solution:
Cas9–RNA complexes
DNA molecules
water molecules
are all moving constantly via Brownian motion
So targeting works by random collisions, not directed travel.
Step-by-step in solution:
Cas9–RNA complexes bump into DNA randomly
Cas9 briefly grabs the DNA and checks:
“Is there a PAM sequence here?”

EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

If you read my other work Dissolving DNA Illusions in it, it lays out exactly how absurd the genetics claim is relating to basic common sense and even Science’s own laws of Physics. All of the machinations of “genetics” occur in liquid state, so it is impossible to have a physical string of nucleotides to start with, the downstream claims from here are just piling on the absurdities.

Directly relating to the CRISPR psy-op, they first “isolated” an “enzyme”, to do this they assumed it was there (literally), “copied is genome”, squirted it on some more bacteria and “genetically sequenced it” and found what they assumed was in there. It is a whole magic roundabout of circular reasoning to even get the claimed “enzyme” which is not a physical thing that you can see but a presupposed “Bio”chemical circular reasoned into existence by inferences.

This “enzyme” claims to “cut”, yes literally cut a piece of “DNA”. This totally mental anthropomorphism of an invisible chemical in a liquids ability to “cut” an invisible strand of chemical also in a liquid is already a complete farce, but it gets better: the entire claim of CRISPR is that a special type of “RNA” called “gRNA” or “guide RNA” they claim is like a “map” and “Cas9” can “read” this “map” to “find” and “cut” the “DNA” in a specific part. The amount of quotation marks signifies every level of complete ridiculousness in this process where claimed liquids can literally use other liquids as a type of “GPS” (Their words not mine). Sorry but to believe that is possible, you have to be monumentally retarded and gullible.

So this is a Petri dish magic trick to get the results you want out of an in silico sequencer, nothing more, nothing less, you will find the inputs and primers of the sequencing are bespoke for the job:

Q: Are the ways that sequencing is carried out for CRISPR different interms of primer sets and library prep etc.
Yes — sequencing for CRISPR experiments is different in practice, but mostly in how primers are designed and how libraries are framed, not because sequencing itself is new or special.

Hence here is the trick on full display, it has nothing to do with any end product just a manufacturing of Oligonucleotides (Synthesized chemical soup) that gives you want you want to look for.

The easiest way to tell they are talking fucking bollocks is in the End END result, where they claim they can edit genes of living things. Can they make a Leopard with the trunk of an elephant or a Dog with gills? NO they can’t. So they try and con you with things that already exist in Nature like Arctic Wolves or Fancy Rats and tell you that they have fucked with their genetics to look like that. Ultimately it is just a money laundering exercise: Here is a mouse, it costs $5. Now here is exactly the same mouse but its Hybrid Genetic traits crossed with Trex genes , make its teeth slightly more sharp (probably), $5000.

It is complete crap and the living embodiment of what Science is, a propaganda tool, a marketing exercise a Ponzi scheme for the state, no more no less.