Human cloning has happened, but they won't tell us.

1. What the laboratories actually reported: embryos and stem cells, not babies

Multiple teams have reported creating human embryos using the same nuclear‑transfer techniques used in animal cloning, with the most cited early reports describing embryos that developed only to a few cells or to blastocyst stage and, in some cases, yielding embryonic stem cell lines for research; these are laboratory embryos used for stem‑cell derivation rather than attempts to produce live births (Stemagen announcement; Hwang team; Mitalipov work) ^{[5] [2] [3]}.

2. Where the record is clear: reproducible progress in SCNT, especially for stem cells

The technical arc in the literature shows stepwise progress: SCNT produced small human embryos in early reports, later work produced blastocysts and at least one line of stem cells from a cloned blastocyst, and methods that worked in primates informed human protocols—Mitalipov’s group and others refined culture conditions and activation steps that made patient‑matched stem cells possible in controlled lab settings ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

3. What broke trust: fraud and contested claims

High‑profile episodes of fabrication have clouded the field; the South Korean scientist Hwang Woo‑suk once claimed patient‑specific stem cell lines from cloned human blastocysts but Science later retracted that work for fabrication, a decisive event that demonstrates why extraordinary claims—especially of live births—require extraordinary evidence ^{[5] [6]}.

4. Why “they won’t tell us” is unlikely: regulation, oversight and scientific incentives

There are strong disincentives and legal constraints against reproductive human cloning in many jurisdictions: federal restrictions, proposed criminal penalties, and international efforts to ban reproductive cloning make secret large‑scale efforts implausible, while the scientific community’s incentives favor publication and verification for prestige and funding—conditions that argue against a sustained, hidden program producing live cloned humans ^{[1] [4] [7]}.

5. The sensible middle ground: laboratory cloning for research vs. reproductive cloning

The facts distinguish therapeutic cloning (creating embryos as a source of patient‑matched stem cells) from reproductive cloning (bringing a cloned embryo to term); the literature and reputable agencies document laboratory‑scale therapeutic‑type SCNT successes and ongoing primate cloning work that narrows technical gaps, but repeatedly warn that reproductive cloning in humans faces formidable biological failures and ethical prohibitions—so progress in the lab does not equal evidence of secret births ^{[4] [8] [9]}.

6. Motives, agendas and why conspiracy narratives persist

Public anxiety and conspiratorial claims are amplified by sensationalist reporting, political and religious campaigns calling for outright bans, and the very real commercial and scientific stakes around stem‑cell therapies and fertility technologies; these actors have both motives to overstate risks and to underplay failures, which fuels distrust when early, ambiguous reports are amplified without context (USCCB commentary; media and policy reactions) ^{[6] [10]}.

7. Bottom line conclusion

The best reading of the peer‑reviewed and investigative record is that human embryos have been cloned in laboratories for research and that embryonic stem cells have, in some cases, been derived from such embryos, but there is no credible, verifiable evidence that a human has been cloned to birth—claims that “they’ve cloned humans and hidden it” are not supported by the documented science, which instead shows partial technical success, notable fraud, heavy regulation and ongoing ethical debate ^{[1] [2] [5] [4] [7]}.