Featured Image
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)GrAl/Shutterstock

(LifeSiteNews) – The information presented in this article is what “the science” reportedly says about advanced innovative medical and wireless technologies that do not require technologies to be surgically implanted into the brain and could be used remotely and covertly to surveil the human brain and also cause harm through torture. Some readers may not want to read the information in the article. Similar to the question of whether COVID-19 was falsified, the subject of advanced innovative technologies surveilling or controlling the brain is supposed to be too crazy to discuss; and, similar to COVID-19 possibly being falsified, there is actually a large amount of information which suggests that remote and covert brain surveillance and at least partial brain control, or stimulation of neurons and therefore stimulation of some thoughts and emotions, is possible. The reader could be reminded several times throughout this article that most of the information presented is reportedly “the science.” If one disagrees with or does not like the information provided in this article, one is advised to direct one’s suspicions or criticisms towards the scientists rather than those that simply quote what the science says and describe potentially harmful implications of such science.

* * *

There are a few U.S. federal government brain research programs which should be given more attention due to their potential to develop brain technologies which could be used remotely and covertly to cause significant harm, especially if used by U.S. federal and local government law enforcement or intelligence entities.

One program is a science and technology program of the U.S. federal government’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) which began during the Obama-Biden administration known as the “Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative.” The Obama-Biden White House announcement for the program explains:

The Initiative promises to accelerate the invention of new technologies that will help researchers produce real-time pictures of complex neural circuits and visualize the rapid-fire interactions of cells that occur at the speed of thought. Such cutting-edge capabilities, applied to both simple and complex systems, will open new doors to understanding how brain function is linked to human behavior and learning, and the mechanisms of brain disease.

The NIH then created a “working group” of brain researchers and other scientists to advise the U.S. federal government. The working group then produced the document entitled “Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Working Group Report to the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH” which was then published by the U.S. federal government; the report summarizes non-classified information on brain research up until about the year 2013. The report is worth reading in full as it describes advanced innovative technologies that can be used to “record,” “decode,” and “manipulate” the human brain. 

A separate article may explain the BRAIN Initiative Report more thoroughly, but for this article only two quotations are going to be provided. First, the BRAIN Initiative Report describes that

it is within reach to characterize all cell types in the nervous system, and to develop tools to record, mark, and manipulate these precisely defined neurons in vivo. We envision an integrated, systematic census of neuronal and glial cell types, and new genetic and non-genetic tools to deliver genes, proteins, and chemicals to cells of interest. Priority should be given to methods that can be applied to many animal species and even to humans. (Page 23, emphasis added)

Also, the BRAIN Initiative Report explains that scientists

should seize the challenge of recording dynamic neuronal activity from complete neural networks, over long periods, in all areas of the brain. There are promising opportunities both for improving existing technologies and for developing entirely new technologies for neuronal recording, including methods based on electrodes, optics, molecular genetics, and nanoscience, and encompassing different facets of brain activity, in animals and in some cases in humans. (Page 33)

In one way or another many have probably heard of medical technologies which can “see inside” the human body and/or brain. Medical imaging technologies like X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, computed tomography (CT scan), and other techniques can “see” inside the human body and/or brain, whereas the brain technology known as electroencephalography can record what is called the electrical activity of the brain.

Many probably also know that most of those technologies have been available for many years to be perfected by scientists. The BRAIN Initiative Report mentioned previously discusses some of those technologies to be perfected to literally “mind read” and “mind control” (the U.S. federal government calls for research on humans for “controlling specified cell types and circuits”; that is, literally, “mind control”).

The scientific terminology includes the words “record,” “decode,” “manipulate,” and “stimulate” instead of “mind read,” “brain read,” “brain control,” or “mind control.” The scientific and non-scientific words may have some slight differences in meaning, but for the most part they appear to be used similarly.

READ: World Economic Forum head’s prediction of microchips ‘in our brains’ is coming true, thanks to Big Tech

DARPA’s mind-reading project

Most have probably thought that the human brain is too complicated and/or protected for an advanced brain technology to be able to record and decode (read) human thoughts, emotions, and memories without having brain surgery and implanting some sort of technology. Similarly, most have probably thought that brain stimulation or manipulation (again, “mind control”) without brain surgery is impossible due to the complexity of the brain and its surrounding protections.

However, the BRAIN Initiative Report described above mentions several (optical, acoustic, magnetic, electrical/electronic, and other electrochemical) technologies which could already have been developed for such brain recording or manipulation without surgery (sometimes generally referred to as “non-invasive” technologies). Again, that BRAIN Initiative Report is non-classified or not secret government information, and it describes technologies up to about the year 2013.

One of the participants in the BRAIN Initiative is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). DARPA is the U.S. government entity and part of the Department of Defense and apparently played a significant part in inventing the internet, years before it was used by the public. A few years ago, DARPA published plans to develop such brain technologies which record and manipulate the human brain and do not require surgery. The program is called the “Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology” or “N3” program, described in this manner:

The envisioned N3 technology breaks through the limitations of existing technology by delivering an integrated device that does not require surgical implantation, but has the precision to read from and write to 16 independent channels within a 16mm3 volume of neural tissue within 50ms. Each channel is capable of specifically interacting with sub-millimeter regions of the brain with a spatial and temporal specificity that rivals existing invasive approaches. Individual devices can be combined to provide the ability to interface to multiple points in the brain at once.

To enable future non-invasive brain-machine interfaces, N3 researchers are working to develop solutions that address challenges such as the physics of scattering and weakening of signals as they pass through skin, skull, and brain tissue, as well as designing algorithms for decoding and encoding neural signals that are represented by other modalities such as light, acoustic, or electro-magnetic energy. (Emphasis added)

“Writing to” is another phrase which apparently generally means “control” or manipulate parts of the human brain. Several potential technologies were described in a DARPA communication in 2019. One team of researchers aimed to develop

a completely noninvasive device that uses an acousto-optical approach to record from the brain and interfering electrical fields to write to specific neurons. The team will use ultrasound waves to guide light into and out of the brain to detect neural activity. The team’s write approach exploits the non-linear response of neurons to electric fields to enable localized stimulation of specific cell types.

Another team, from Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, aimed to develop

a completely noninvasive, coherent optical system for recording from the brain. The system will directly measure optical path-length changes in neural tissue that correlate with neural activity.

And another team aimed to develop 

a minutely invasive interface system that pairs an external transceiver with electromagnetic nanotransducers that are nonsurgically delivered to neurons of interest. The nanotransducers would convert electrical signals from the neurons into magnetic signals that can be recorded and processed by the external transceiver, and vice versa, to enable bidirectional communication.

The goal of the program was “wearable” neural interface systems for various uses.

A separate effort of the BRAIN Initiative at the NIH described a technology that recorded “signals from patients’ brains while they were asked to speak or mime sentences.” The brain signals themselves, or one might also say the thoughts that produced the brain signals, were then translated into speech by a computer. Such technology is the recording of a person’s thoughts and then converting the thoughts into words with a computer. This should be emphasized: the thinking of speaking words was converted to sounds. Such technology is literally mind reading; it seems to be common sense that human beings think at least some thoughts as words in the mind. The converting of those thoughts into words through the use of technology would be mind reading.

The NIH’s publication describing the experiment does not describe what type of technology was used to “record” the words thought in the brain whether it was electroencephalography, MRI, or other technologies. However, the recognition of words in human brains mind reading through recorded brain signals with electroencephalography sensors and MRI was apparently documented as early as 1997; the recognition of sentences was reportedly documented in 1998. 

(Without actually doing the research, it is somewhat difficult to determine whether the references are true, partially incorrect or falsified, or completely falsified. The two previous references may be less trustworthy than those published by BRAIN Initiative scientists; even U.S. federal government scientific references may not be completely trustworthy, though. One point implied throughout this article is that the basic medical and wireless technologies described have been available for so many years that the perfection of or the advancement to remote, covert, non-invasive, and wireless brain recording and manipulation appears to be possible.)

Of course, it is necessary to mention again that the DARPA and BRAIN Initiative programs are non-classified and non-secret information. Also, it should be mentioned that, generally speaking, wireless and “non-invasive” technology often becomes usable from distances further and further away. Thus, a “wearable” neural interface could potentially be developed to be used without wearing on the head and used remotely and covertly on other persons without their knowledge. To put it simply, such brain technologies seemingly could be developed to be used for remote and covert surveillance or as a remote and covert weapon. 


Think about the possibilities. What might be one of the most sought-after, and intrusive, surveillance technologies in “national security” or for military purposes? How about knowing the thoughts, emotions, and/or future plans of a potential target? Law enforcement, the “intelligence community,” and national security personnel say that the purpose of surveillance is to know the current actions and future plans of persons and prevent persons from committing an act by discovering the potentially planned act “at the earliest possible moment.” (Page 7) The earliest possible moment is when the act is thought about or presented as an option in the brain.

And could such technology be used as a weapon? How about remote and covert brain manipulation (or “stimulation,” “control,” etc.) which could put thoughts and/or emotions into a target’s mind? Torture, at various levels of intensity, could potentially be achieved with such technologies. Simply forcing the thinking of a few words, thoughts, or emotions repetitively (or remotely and covertly “controlling specified cell types and circuits” repetitively or in other abnormal ways) could be torturous. Complete brain manipulation or mind control would be unnecessary to cause significant harm. 

Put it another way: technologies which are used to treat brain disorders might be able to be developed to cause brain disorders. Non-invasive, miniature or “nanotechnologies,” and/or wireless brain technologies could potentially be used as such remote and covert weapons, without the targeted person even knowing they are being “attacked.”

READ: Federal law authorized ‘covert agents’ within the US weeks before COVID-19

Another possible use of such technology might be to “interrogate” human brains without the targeted person realizing what is going on. For example, it is known that the U.S. federal government intelligence community and law enforcement entities like the FBI monitor their own employees for “insider threats;” insider threats are those with knowledge of the methods, technologies, and other information of the FBI and other national security entities who may use their access in a way the government opposes. 

Again, if such technology in the above BRAIN Initiative Report is truthfully described and is eventually or already developed for remote and covert use, then such brain recording and manipulating technology could be continually used to interrogate employees’ brains. Continually “interrogate” employees’ brains to determine which employee, former employee, or others might become a whistleblower.

There is also the possibility that such technologies could stimulate some human bodily movements. Such technologies could potentially stimulate non-human animal actions also. Again, the technologies may potentially work without requiring surgery for implantation into the brain.

While at one time they seemed to most to be impossible, such technologies may be possible and may be some of the most sought-after technologies for military and potentially “law enforcement” purposes in America. And, if not sought-after in America, surely such controlling technologies would be sought-after in countries with unusually suspicious and controlling government leaders which torture their own citizens.

Several additional points could be made, but only a few more can be mentioned here. One is that such remote and covert brain, or more generally “biological,” technologies which could monitor human brain or biological data in real-time for potential health security threats or “all-hazards monitoring” (pages 3, 9, etc.) undoubtedly should have already been prohibited for use by U.S. federal and local government law enforcement, intelligence, and/or national security entities. It does not appear as though such technologies which provide real-time biological data monitoring have been prohibited. 

Also, the BRAIN Initiative and DARPA’s program discussed above is non-classified information. Such technologies may already be developed and potentially in use for law enforcement, intelligence, military, or national security which provide real-time monitoring of “biological data,” but the information may be kept secret or classified. 

Would the U.S. federal government, or even local governments, use such potentially intrusive and torturous brain technologies?


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.