Great article. But who is Starros Keniclius and when was he mentioned? 19:27, 4 Nov 2004 (CET)

  • Keniclius was a genetic scientist during the Eugenics Wars. He was mentioned in the Animated Series. [1], [2], [3]. -- Krevaner 22:45, 4 Nov 2004 (CET)

What he said. In addition, I'd like to note I'm changing 1992 back to 1993, since that's the date given in "Space Seed" -- In 1993, a group of these young supermen did seize power simultaneously in over 40 nations. The 1992 reference is something else -- Khan Noonien Singh. From 1992 through 1996, absolute ruler of more than a quarter of your world, from Asia through the Middle East. --Steve 04:33, 5 Nov 2004 (CET)

Guys, was the term "augment" used in the original series? I didn't see many episodes of it.- B-101 02:33, 11 Nov 2004 (CET)

No, it wasn't, but ENT's Soong arc has established that Augment is the term for the supermen from the Eugenics Wars. --Steve 02:53, 12 Nov 2004 (CET)

Did Soong take all the augment embryos that were still on C-12?- B-101 16:20, 16 Nov 2004 (CET)


Should info about Julian Bashir and his four genetically engineered patients be added here? Tyrant 15:23, 29 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant

I would say no if the term was used to specifically refer to genetically enhancments related to the Eugenics Wars. Otherwise, the term "Mutant" as used in "Statistical Probabilities" and "Chrysalis" would be a synonym for Augment. I'm inclined to support the latter route56 01:53, 1 Mar 2005 (GMT)

So, you're saying yes? Anyone opposed before we add them? Tyrant 11:46, 11 Apr 2005 (EDT)Tyrant

He said no - as do I. "Genetic supermen" and "Augments" were specifically used for those created (initially) during the 20th century, so the term is more-or-less period specific. And yes, Bashir and co. were called "Mutants" -- several times. --Gvsualan 14:12, 11 Apr 2005 (EDT)

He said no if period specific, which ENT debunks. (The term not being in TOS at all if i remember correctly) route56 goes on to say he is inclinded to support the latter, ie - mutant is a synonym for augment. Which is to say he said yes, just the long way around. Furthermore, I think "Doctor Bashir, I Presume" knits it together for us with the line "for every Doctor Julian Bashir, there is a Khan Noonien Singh waiting in the wings". Tyrant 15:10, 11 Apr 2005 (EDT)Tyrant

  • What Tyrant said. Clarifing my comment above, I do not belive the term can be made period specific, not after the Klingon mess. The term "Augmnet" was applied retroactively to Khan and, if not period-specific, would also apply to Bashir as well.
I'd also note that Bashir himself was contrasted to Khan in "Doctor Bashir, I Presume". route56 04:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You can note that he was contrasted but not that he was the same, which he is not. That said, I don't believe he was contrasted; if I remember correclty, the episode only notes that genetic engineering was outlawed more or less as a result of the Eugenics Wars. --From Andoria with Love 21:45, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I weigh in with Tyrant and Route56, they are definitely a type of augment. They were genetically augmented. Jaf 21:48, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf
  • While I do not completely agree that Bashir, Jack and the others should be labeled as augments (since they obviously were not engineered the same and there is no proof that the term was used to describe all genetically-engineered individuals), I suppose they should be placed here since they were genetically engineered like the augments of the Eugenics Wars. Truth-be-told, I don't really see anything wrong with referencing them here, despite the fact they were never referenced as augments. Also, if you add them, make sure to add the Klingon augments to the list of known augments, as well. (This may or may not include descendents of those Klingon augments, i.e. Kor, Kang and Koloth.) --From Andoria with Love 04:10, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

date mis-match Edit

The caption of Khan and the paragraph below it have two different dates. Which one is correct? — THOR 13:37, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)

The file name is Khansingh2266.jpg, though this site has TOS:"Space Seed" as taking place in 2267 route56 04:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Should the names of Klingon Augments be added to the list of Augments, or will we leave it limited to Human Augments? Tyrant 15:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)Tyrant

'Augment' vs. 'augment'Edit

I have a deep distrust of capitalized words. Can someone explain why it should be Augments, instead of augments? -- Harry Talk 15:52, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I guess because in this case it is a "proper noun/name" for the small group of people shown (the Augments), not a generic description for everyone that was augmented in some way by someone (an augment)? But then again, I'm still not too sure about this whole "proper noun" issue, perhaps we could revive the discussions here: Memory Alpha talk:Naming conventions? -- Cid Highwind 16:23, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

All TOS Klingons are Augments? Edit

This article states, "A cure was eventually created which halted the virus in the first stage, retaining the changes in appearance but with no enhanced strength, speed, or endurance. This left millions of Klingons without their ridges, an alteration that was even passed on to their children." This means that the ridgeless Klingons seen on TOS are not truly enhanced; they are just descended from the original Klingon Augments. However, all (as far as I can tell) of the named Klingons from TOS and TAS have been categorized into the Augments category. Is this really accurate? 15:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Since they were altered as a result of Augment DNA, I would have to say yes... --From Andoria with Love 17:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence Edit

This article says their intelligence was double that of normal humans, I can recall the lung efficiency and strength part, but where was the intelligence part stated? KahnNoonienSingh 03:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"We have five times your strength...double your intelligence..." from ENT: "The Augments". --Alan del Beccio 03:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A call for the removal of TNG/DS9 info Edit

Over a year and a half ago, as you can read in the "DS9" section above, a few people argued that information on Bashir and other genetically-engineered people should be added to the Augment page. Initially, I objected but ultimately agreed that they belonged since they were genetically-engineered, and the assumption was that all genetically-engineered people are considered augments. I no longer agree with this "assumption."

I would just like to point out, as Alan did in the discussion above, that the term "Augment" was only used to refer to those superhumans created from DNA genetically-engineered during the 20th century and linked with the Eugenics Wars. The DNA that was used was specifically referred to as "augment DNA". What evidence do we have that the term referred to every single person who was genetically enhanced? The answer: none. Augment DNA was not used on every genetically-enhanced person, only augments. And there are only three groups of people who should qualify as "augments": the 20th century "supermen" (Khan Noonien Singh, Joachim, etc.), the 22nd century Augments (Malik, Persis, etc.), and the Klingon augments (Laneth, Antaak, etc.). Information about all other cases of genetic engineering should be removed. --From Andoria with Love 06:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody have anything to add regarding this? Replies? Comments? Complaints? Threats? Anything? --From Andoria with Love 17:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree (with Shran, not necessarily with the "Captian"). :) -- Cid Highwind 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
STRONGLY DISAGREE with removing the information. The genetic "augmentations" that were used on Bashir and the "Jack Pack" (as they were sometimes referred to), were banned by Earth (and later, the Federation) for the specific reason that they were used to create the "supermen", ie the Augments. The DS9 eps in question make that explicitly clear. It is entirely appropriate to refer to Bashir, et al, as "Augments", as they fit the gerneral definition of the term.
Edit to add sig...many apologiesCapt Christopher Donovan 03:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The term "augments" was not associated with Bashir and co, who's existence was based on work to correct defects. Khan and co. were created for an entirely different reason. Therefore, "genetic supermen" and "Augments" were specifically used for those created (initially) during the 20th century, so the term is more-or-less period specific. "Mutants" was the term applied to Bashir and co. -- several times.
SO in keeping with the "Bashir is an Augment" argument in mind, are we to say that Chakotay was an "augment" too, because he had a genetic marker for a cognitive disorder suppressed before he was born? --Alan 22:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I support the immediate removal of the information. The Augments of the 20th-22nd centuries had a specific set of alterations made to their intelligence, strength, many other factors -- in a set pattern. Bashir, Jack and others had no improved strength, dexterity, stamina, etc to speak of -- they all had been subjected to a specific procedure to improve their cognitive abilities.
Simply put, they were "adjusted" -- not completely made into "supermen" like the Khans. Different procedure, not covered under the same name "augment". Remove the info. -- Captain MKB 23:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Go back and rewatch the episode (or read the script). It makes it clear that Julian suffered no serious congenital defects...he was just mentally and physically underdeveloped compared to his peers. Bashir himself describes it thus:
"I was six. Small for my age. A bit awkward physically. And... not very bright. In the first grade, while the other children were learning how to read and write and use a computer...I was still trying to tell a dog from a cat and a tree from a house."
This is how he describes what was done to him:
"The technical term is "accelerated critical neural pathway formation." Over the course of the next two months, my genetic structure was manipulated to accelerate the growth of neuronal networks in my cerebral cortex. A new Julian Bashir was born."
"My... mental abilities were the top priority of course--my IQ jumped five points a day for over two weeks. That was followed by improvements in my hand-eye coordination, reflexes, vision, stamina, height, weight [emphasis added]--in the end everything but my name was altered in some way."
That is not just fixing some defect, as in Chakote's case, and Bashir himself even acknowledges that his mods are NOT legal (ie, medically justified):
"DNA resequencing for any reason other than repairing serious birth defects is illegal. Any genetically enhanced Human being is barred from serving in Starfleet or practicing medicine."
Later on, Adm Bennett makes it clear HE considers Julian to be in the same class of people as Khan:
"Two hundred years ago, we tried to "improve" the species through DNA resequencing and what did we get for our trouble? The Eugenics Wars. For every Julian Bashir that can be created, there's a Khan Singh waiting in the wings--a "superhuman" whose ambition and thirst for power have been enhanced along with his intellect. The law against genetic engineering provides a firewall against such men and it's my job to keep that firewall intact."
After that episode, it was something of a running gag about how Julian's abilities were beyond those of most people, such as the fact that his "foul line" at the dart board was several meters farther from the target than O'Brian's, and Garak made sarcastic note of his ability to do complex math in his head on at least one occasion.
There is plenty of evidence to show that Juian, et al ARE Augments (though not called that simply because the term hadn't been INVENTED yet).Capt Christopher Donovan 03:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's try this another way: when were any genetically-engineered people other than those associated with 20th century genetics and the Eugenics Wars referred to as "Augments"? If they answer is "none", which it is... guess what? The term "augment" was only applied to those individuals specifically created from the DNA of those from the 20th century. For all we know, the term "Augment" refers to that specific group of people. Of course similarities are going to be drawn between Khan and Bashir or the Eugenics Wars supermen and other genetically-engineered people... they're all genetically engineered, after all. But "Augments" obviously refers to a specific group of genetically-engineered people – those whose DNA resequencing originated from the Eugenics Wars. Basically, what this comes down to is stating fact (Khan and his followers and Malik and his followers were Augments) versus stating speculation based on interpretation (everyone who was genetically-engineered is an Augment, even though that name may not apply to them). I think it's pretty clear which way to go wih this. ;) --From Andoria with Love 04:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • By the way, it should be noted that those who have been designated "Augments" were engineered prior to birth... Bashir and the savants were engineered after birth, based on dialogue. so... yeah. Another difference ;) --From Andoria with Love 04:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That arguement makes no sense, since the term "Augment" was not coined until many YEARS AFTER (real world) the DS9 material in question. That would be like saying that the Enterprise-nil is not a Constitution class starship becaue at the time TOS was filmed the term was not used, despite multiple references in latter productions so identifying it. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the term "ret-con" (short for retroactive continuity).
The cited dialoge and examples above are clear and unabmiguous, that Bashir, et al ARE genetically enhanced, and are considered by the Federation to be the same as Khan, et al. If the term "Augment" is retroactively applied to Khan (as it clearly is in the ENT eps), then it can also be retroactively applied to Bashir and the Pack.Capt Christopher Donovan 04:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am quite aware of the term "ret-con". Fortunately, there's no evidence of that here, except in the case of referring to Khan and other "supermen" as Augments. Yes, the term can be retroactively applied to Bashir... but it wasn't. It was only applied to those genetic superbeings engineered during the 20th century. Enterprise was specifically referred to as a Constitution class in later productions; Bashir and his kin, on the other hand, were never referred to as Augments, nor do we have evidence that they fit the qualifier of what Starfleet/Federation/etc. considers an "Augment". As far as we know, the only people who are Augments are those who were genetically engineered during on 20th century Earth. Anyone else being an Augment is pure speculation. --From Andoria with Love 04:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Shran, no offense, but did you even bother to read the dialoge I quoted? the quote from Adm Bennett ALONE clearly puts Bashir in the same class as Khan. It is not speculation, it is CITED, CANON, evidence.
By the standard you propose, there would have to be a future Trek production that explicitly includes dialoge or text that says "Julian Bashir is/was an Augment" before you would allow the term to be applied.Capt Christopher Donovan 05:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Just as you don't seem to have read Shran's various replies. Fact is: "Augment" may be a term referring to all genetically enhanced people everywhere, at every time. It may also be a term used for a specific subset of those people only - those created in the 20th century, under specific circumstances, for a specific purpose. If the latter is the case (which I find likely), and "Augment" is an identifier for a very specific group of people, finding another person with similar (not the same) traits doesn't automatically make that person an "Augment" as well. That would be like calling the VW in front of my house a "Chrysler", just because both have four wheels and an engine in the front. -- Cid Highwind 08:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I am running on the assumption that augment is simply referring to people (of any time) that are genetically augmented. The word 'augment' is not a fictional word. If we are going to assume that the words used in Star Trek that are non-fiction have secret fictional meanings, we are going to have to dismantle other words besides this one. This is not a process I recommend. Jaf 12:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Jaf
An assumption which may or may not be correct. "Transporter" is not a fictional word, either, but that doesn't mean that it refers to everything that is able to transport (using the conventional meaning of the word) something from A to B. Same here - just because an identifier stems from a non-fictional word, it doesn't necessarily mean that is used in the most generic context possible (for that matter, also see the "Augment vs. augment" discussion above). -- Cid Highwind 14:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No, but within the Trek context, "transporter" WOULD be properly applied to any device that moves objects from point A to point B by disassembling them, transmitting them, and reassembling them. That is, that it performs the functions of a transporter in the manner a transporter performs them.
Likewise, any person within the Trek context who meets the techical qualifications of being an Augment (ie, being artificially genetically enhanced) is properly called an Augment.
I fail to see why people can't grasp simple, clear logic and instead are spending copius amounts of time trying to hyper-parse words.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

TNG/DS9 info removed Edit

Although a consensus has not been reached in the discussion above, I have taken the liberty of removing the following information from the article as it is currently against our policy on not including speculation. I will also remove mentions of the term "Augment" from articles of those 24th century people that currently have the term applied. Please discuss the matter further below before re-adding the information. Thank you. --From Andoria with Love 06:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Genetic engineering is illegal in the Federation (except for correcting serious defects at birth), however there have been several incidents and cases in the 24th century.
In 2365, the Darwin Genetic research station conducted genetic modification on several Human children. The 'children' appeared to be physically mature while still only 12 years old and possessed Telepathy, Telekinesis and an agressive immune responce to illness. The latter modification proved to be dangerous, when the crew of the Starship USS Lantree introduced Thelusian Flu to the 'children' for the first time, their immune system produced an anti body that altered the DNA of a standard Human and caused he or she to rapidly age. (TNG: "Unnatural Selection")
In 2348, Julian Bashir went under Genetic resequencing at the request of his parents on Adigeon Prime when he was just 6 years old. As a result his IQ, height, weight, reflexes, vision and eye-hand coordination where improved dramatically. (DS9: "Doctor Bashir, I Presume")
As well as Bashir, several others where also subject to Genetic resequencing when they where children. Although the enhancements worked, it produced behavioural problems, forcing their parents to come foward and confess to the authorities so their children could recieve care.(DS9: "Statistical Probabilities")
I have to STRONGLY disagree...there is canon citation available for each and every statement made above, and was provided IN the material removed. It is NOT speculation in any way shape or form!Capt Christopher Donovan 09:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It is, still, speculative, that genetical enhancement in any shape or form throughout 4-5 centuries absolutely leads to the "augment" designation. Why are you so attached to a name that has only been used for a specific subgroup of all "enhanced" individuals? Why aren't we adding all the rest to a more general article about genetic engineering? -- Cid Highwind 09:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Captain sir -- even with all your canon citations, you still haven't addressed my basic point. All of the DNA referred to as "augment" came from Khan's late-20th century or Soong's cloning of that. The latter day genetic enhancements did not give people the same modifications that were made to Khan's augments or Soong's augments -- thus making those people not Augments.
At no point did Bashir start crushing phasers with his bare hands or lifting Russians up over his head -- because they didn't make him into a Superman -- thus they didn't use the "augment DNA". they simply ran him through accelerated neural pathway whatever.
Unless you can canonically cite Bashir having super-strength, I think we should follow Cid and Shran's lead and get to work defining genetic engineering as it applies to non-Augment individuals. -- Captain MKB 12:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should also look at the various Klingons that were infected with the Klingon augment virus and their descendants (Kor, Kang, Koloth, etcetera). These individuals are categorized as augments; I'm not sure that's entirely correct. Sure, they were altered using augment DNA, but in the end, they didn't maintain any of the physical characteristics which make them augments (like super strength). Should we not remove these Klingons from the augment category? --From Andoria with Love 13:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Bashir wasn't as strong as Khan because he started off with a physically weaker template. The canon dialogue cited says that essentially his body was rebuilt from the ground up with nearly ALL his attributes enhanced from their previous levels. His hand/eye coordination was certainly far better than an average humans, thus O'Brien having to put such a heavy handicap on him at the dart board to remain competitive.
No matter how much "hand waving" anyone cares to engage in, I have PROVEN with citations that Bashir et al were enhanced by the same techniques that created the original Augments. They therefore fit the definition of Augment, and should be listed as Augments.
The only reason we are having this arguement is the quirk of MA policy that refuses to acknowledge ret-cons or follow the "best evidence" rule. It is clumsy, and causes anachronisms, paradoxes, and contradictions (laser/phaser, lithium/dilithium, what were the names of the original 13 Starship class starships, etc) where we could have nice, smooth, solidly reasoned and cite supported articles instead.Capt Christopher Donovan 11:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"I have PROVEN with citations that Bashir et al were enhanced by the same techniques that created the original Augments." But have you proven that they were, indeed, Augments? The name was applied to a specific type of genetically-engineered people – Bashir and his pals weren't among them.
The only reason were are having this argument is because you are, to quote Cid, "so attached to a name that has only been used for a specific subgroup of all "enhanced" individuals". To say that they were Augments without knowing, for a fact, that they were Augments is speculation. We don't mind acknowledging ret-cons, but we need hard evidence that there is, indeed, a ret-con and that Bashir is, without a doubt, an Augment. Aside from the fact that those like Bashir and those like Khan were both genetically engineered and a a quote or two which compares Bashir's circumstance to that of Khan's, there is no hard evidence.
I can tell you that some of us are having a very hard time trying understanding why you are having a hard time understanding that labeling Bashir, etc. as Augments is speculation based on one person's interpretations. Why are you so determined that they be Augments? It's not canon. Yes, they are all genetically engineered – but only one subgroup of genetically-engineered people were called Augments, and those were the ones whose DNA was engineered in the 20th century and related to the Eugenics Wars. Bashir and the others don't even have many of the characteristics of the Augments. You insist that there is canon evidence stating that Bashir is an Augment, but all you've done is supplied quotes which suggest Bashir is somewhat related to an Augment... that doesn't necessarily make him an Augment. But there's no hard proof – it's all speculation based on personal observation. I'm not sure why you can't understand that.
Anyway, I think I've said all I can on this matter... :/ --From Andoria with Love 11:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, we've argued this matter till we're blue in the face (sorry, couldn't resist :) ). I guess I just have a problem with what I see as a gross violation of reason and logic when you cannot make the simple assertion that "if A=B and C=B, then C=A". To demand that I have a quote that expicitly says "Bashir is an Augment" I feel is an unreasonable standard of evidence given the DS9 was off the air YEARS before the term came about. I've said before and I'll say again that we should be able to use our heads about these sorts of things.
Still it's plain that the weight of public opinion on this matter is not in my corner, so I'll let the matter drop.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that, for everyone else involved, it's not a matter of "A=B, C=B, thus C=A", but a matter of A and C being independent subsets of B with no way of knowing whether those are exactly the same or not... but right, let's better drop it at this point. -- Cid Highwind 12:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Pages & InformationEdit

I wasn't really sure where to put this, or even really explain what is I am trying to say, but as I was reading on here, there seemed to be a differentiated term between "Augment" (The Human version) and what the Klingons were, "Klingon Augment" So, the question is, should there be a set up where the page Augment, either talks about the Humans, or the general characteristic of an Augment, then pages on Klingon Augment/Human Augment (or probably something more like Augment (Human) as Human Augment was never really said). I simply ask because of spoken dialogue had specifically said Klingon Augment several times, and several sidebars (such as Persis specify a "Human Augment" or a "Klingon Augment". Perhaps this doesn't actually make sense, but I figured with MA wanting to cover the known subjects of the Star Trek franchise, it's worth a shot to at least mention this. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terran Officer (talk • contribs).

Depends- Are there any differences between Human and Klingon Augments other than species? If not, then I don't think we should separate them out.--31dot 00:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologize for not signing my previous post, for some reason I've been doing that a lot lately, even though I visit and post on various wiki's often. Second, to respond to 31dot, I suppose there isn't really anything different between the two beyond the species, but it is just that, a difference in species, even if there's a common link between the two. One could also use the purpose behind the creation and the result as such of the creation as reasons to, but I suppose you may be right, and that it's probably more of a hassle then it's really worth. The only reason I had ever really mentioned it (much like the different versions of the EMH) was that separate terms had been specifically mentioned. --Terran Officer 03:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

cohort Edit

I could say "Khan and his cohort of Augments were presumably the last from the Eugenics Wars.", specifying [cohort of plural], but that seems clunky grammatically to me: "The last" [what] referring to "of Augments". Just cohort by itself could mean a single person or a group and is therefore unclear. Setacourse 22:12, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Well, "presumably the last from the Eugenics Wars" is speculation and doesn't belong. I don't see why you couldn't write it as "Khan and his fellow Augments" or something similar. — Morder (talk) 22:15, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
I see, it's not a bg note and it's speculation from the movie - disregard my first statement. — Morder (talk) 22:17, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Changed to "Khan and his fellow Augments". Setacourse 22:44, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Informations from STID Edit

Why are you guys inserting informations about Augments using STID info? Who's to say that Harrison's (Khan) special characteristics aren't due to further tampering by Section 31?

Technically he's part of the Prime Timeline, but then again so is the Kelvin.. so I suppose you should add that captains had BLUE uniforms (like Robau) before the gold one, and that Survey Ships had a crew of 800...

In my opinion anything from the new movies should belong to the ALTERNATE info sections and articles.

--MarcoArecibo (talk) 07:31, May 14, 2013 (UTC)MarcoArecibo

We actually do state those facts about uniforms in Starfleet uniform (2230s), and probably the crew size of the Kelvin as well. Regarding Harrison, it was specifically stated that he was recruited for his "talents", so it doesn't make sense to assume that those talents were created by S31 in the first place. --Cid Highwind (talk) 08:21, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.