(LifeSiteNews) – A previous article discussed a document published by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) on the achievements in advanced brain technologies up until about 2013, as well as suggested plans for the U.S. federal government to create or develop advanced innovative technologies to be used on or in the human brain.
The document was entitled “Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Working Group Report to the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH.” The significance of the BRAIN Initiative Report and, more generally, the BRAIN Initiative itself, could not be completely explained in the article.
Among other important advancements in brain technologies, the Brain Initiative Report discusses brain sensor technologies and other technologies (ultrasound, MRI, light or “optical” technologies, wireless technologies, etc.) that may not require brain surgery. The sensors and other advanced innovative technologies “record” and “decode” thoughts, emotions, and memories. Such advanced innovative brain technologies may also “manipulate” or “stimulate” thoughts, emotions, memories, and potentially even movements of the human body.
Other words for “record” and “decode” human thoughts, emotions, and memories are “mind read,” while other words for “manipulate” or “stimulate” the human brain are “mind control.” A separate BRAIN Initiative communication calls brain stimulation and manipulation “controlling specified cell types and circuits” of the brain. Thus, at least partial “mind control” is literally what the U.S. federal government’s BRAIN Initiative is planning to achieve. It cannot be discussed in this article, but even partial remote and covert “controlling specified cell types and circuits” or partial mind control could be used as torture.
If one does not think such technologies are possible because of the brain’s supposed complexity and/or protection, simply study only some of the information, including that on the U.S. federal government’s “non-surgical brain-machine interfaces,” and arrive at one’s own conclusions; non-medically educated persons can likely achieve enough understanding of the serious implications of the material with sufficient reading.
The previous article provided several quotations which at least imply that U.S. government and non-government advanced innovative brain technologies are likely able to “mind read” and, at least partially, control the brain. (Again, that is what “the science” says. Those who disagree or doubt the science should study the science and determine its truth and the potential uses, especially remote and covert uses, of such advanced innovative technologies).
The only necessary requirement for those technologies to be specifically remote and covert is that they be made smaller through wireless nanotechnologies or non-invasive with technologies like ultrasound, infrared, optical technologies, electromagnetic technologies, or potentially previously not described technologies which may be classified or secret government “national security” information. (Page 34)
This article provides additional information on the significance of the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Working Group Report to the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH. The article is also going to discuss the Strategic Plan of the U.S. federal government’s NIH; the NIH Strategic Plan is apparently a type of legal document which U.S. federal law appears to require to be implemented.
The article discusses some information within that Strategic Plan, other Strategic Plans, and other U.S. federal laws and documents, which may suggest the possibility that U.S. government officials may have attempted to legalize the use of such advanced innovative brain technologies for surveillance purposes.
Because surveillance is often a covert action of law enforcement and/or the intelligence community, a more thorough discussion on previous corrupt use of specifically covert schemes of the FBI, intelligence community, and in some situations local police should be provided here but instead may be provided in another article.
For this article, one main point to keep in mind is that the U.S. Senate has described the FBI previously using its employees and/or power for “covert efforts to influence social policy and political action.” (Page 240)
Another point is that in the past the FBI and other secret police entities have used “tactics unworthy of a democracy, and occasionally reminiscent of the tactics of totalitarian regimes.” (Page 3) One might ask oneself this question: are the “vicious tactics” mentioned in the U.S. Senate report describing FBI, intelligence community, and covert police corruption more or less likely to occur now? (Page 5) Do the draconian actions of the U.S. federal government towards the reported COVID-19 pandemic suggest that the federal government and many local governments are more or less like totalitarian regimes now?
Totalitarian regimes, of course, use extensive surveillance and torture tactics, sometimes tactics which indirectly lead to or directly cause death, against their own citizens, often for merely criticizing or opposing government officials. “Surveillance,” or more specifically, possibly the most invasive type of surveillance, “biosurveillance,” is the main subject of this article.
The BRAIN Initiative Working Group Report
Again, a previous article may have quoted and then explained the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Working Group Report to the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH. There are more points that need to be made about the significance of the BRAIN Initiative Working Group Report. The BRAIN Initiative Working Group Report is significant because it appears to be a type of legal document in which government officials may be attempting to legally cover themselves for plans which may otherwise be illegal.
Multiple previous articles discussed a potential approach by U.S. federal government officials to apparently attempt to legalize their planned actions by first putting in U.S. federal law that “strategic plans” are legally required by whatever government entity is attempting to legalize a potentially prohibited action, and then, somewhat covertly and/or in broad and sometimes ambiguous language, describing future plans. Again, this method appears to be used as an attempt to provide legal coverage if the government employees’ dangerous covert plans, or in this situation, technologies, are ever publicly revealed or otherwise discovered.
For example, in 2016 Congress put into law that the National Institutes of Health is required by U.S. federal law to have a “strategic plan” “to advance biomedicine” (42 U.S. Code § 282 (m)(1)) and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of the National Institutes of Health “shall ensure that scientifically based strategic planning is implemented.” (42 U.S. Code § 282 (b)(5)) The 2016 law first requires the Strategic Plan and then requires the Strategic Plan to be implemented. Those public health officials and possibly non-government officials may be able to claim that their plans are a “legislative mandate” or “congressionally mandated,” as will be described in a moment.
The BRAIN Initiative, a specific program or strategic initiative of the National Institutes of Health is also apparently legally required to have a strategic plan. The Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Working Group Report to the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH was apparently made “the strategic plan for the NIH BRAIN Initiative.”
In other words, the BRAIN Initiative Working Group Report above is apparently a type of legal document which includes plans that are said to be required to be implemented. This is an important point to emphasize: the contents of both the National Institutes of Health Strategic Plan and the BRAIN Initiative Strategic Plan (the BRAIN Initiative Working Group Report) are apparently said to be required by law to be implemented.
A previous article already discussed some of the significant points made in the BRAIN Initiative Working Group Report. It did not mention the Strategic Plan for the National Institutes of Health. The most recent version was published in 2021, and it has some information potentially relevant to this discussion. However, this article is going to discuss the “NIH-Wide Strategic Plan” for fiscal years 2016-2020 because of its potential relationship to the attempt of the U.S. federal government to legalize “biosurveillance” in the “Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013” and the “Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019.”
It is again necessary to mention that the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan and the BRAIN Initiative Strategic Plan are apparently types of legal documents. This is discussed in the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan which says their plans are “legislative mandates”:
To accomplish [NIH’s strategic goal of advancing scientific knowledge and innovation], NIH consists of 27 Institutes and Centers (ICs), along with Program Offices, which collectively are referred to as ICOs. These ICOs have individual strategic plans and specific research agendas, which are aligned with the legislative mandates that are often related to specific diseases or body systems. (Page 4)
Thus, both the NIH and scientists apparently believe their planned actions, which may also be referred to as “strategic goals,” (see above, “strategic goal of advancing … innovation”) are required by U.S. federal law.
Did the federal government greenlight covert ‘biosurveillance’?
Now, one significant quote from the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan is the following:
Engineers, computer scientists, nanotechnologists, physicians, and neuroscientists will use these and other leading-edge technologies to work together to achieve BRAIN’s goal of measuring real-time cognition, emotion, perception, and behavior at the scale of complex neural networks in living organisms—all at the speed of thought. (Page 14)
The statement, again, a potential legal statement, says that the BRAIN Initiative’s goal is “measuring real-time cognition, emotion, perception, and behavior” including in humans. (Page 14) The statement implies that it is referring to human beings, because only human beings experience emotion.
It may be helpful to more fully describe the apparent legal statement as follows: the BRAIN Initiative’s goal is measuring real-time cognition, measuring real-time emotion, measuring real-time perception, and measuring real-time behavior… all at the speed of thought.
Now, what do phrases which describe measuring real-time cognition, measuring real-time emotion, measuring real-time perception, and (especially) measuring real-time behavior sound like? They sound similar to the commonly understood meaning of “surveillance,” especially surveillance understood to mean the “measuring” or “observing” of “real-time behavior.”
In fact, the U.S. federal government’s definition of “biosurveillance” in U.S. federal law has some potentially significant similarities to the above statement (again, apparently a legal statement) in the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan. In the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013, the federal government defined “biosurveillance” as
the process of gathering near real-time biological data that relates to human and zoonotic disease activity and threats to human or animal health, in order to achieve early warning and identification of such health threats, early detection and prompt ongoing tracking of health events, and overall situational awareness of disease activity. (127 STAT. 178-179, emphasis added)
The same law also describes “biosurveillance” of “all-hazards” in “real-time”:
the National Biodefense Science Board shall provide expert advice and guidance, including recommendations, regarding the measurable steps the Secretary should take to modernize and enhance biosurveillance activities pursuant to the efforts of the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure comprehensive, real-time, all-hazards biosurveillance capabilities. (127 STAT. 178, emphasis added)
“Gathering near real-time biological data … that relates to … threats to human … health” and “comprehensive, real-time, all-hazards biosurveillance” suggests complete surveillance of human beings, because “threats to human … health,” as it is written, implies every type of threat to human health. In other words, it appears as though one interpretation could be “near real-time data … that relates to” every threat to human health, not merely viruses or other infectious diseases.
The other statement confirms that it refers to “every” threat in that it says “real-time, all-hazards biosurveillance.” “All-hazards” threats apparently refer to basically every possible threat, including threats that are a result of human behaviors or actions. “All-hazards” biosurveillance, then, could be interpreted to mean surveillance of human actions, or human “behavior,” by “gathering” or “measuring” “real-time biological data.”
And this is an important point: in other words, the U.S. federal government appears to define “biosurveillance” to include surveillance of human behaviors or actions rather than merely “surveillance” of “emerging infectious diseases” or other non-human things. This point should be emphasized: the attempt to legalize “biosurveillance” of “all-hazards,” and therefore what one might call “all-human behaviors,” may be one of the most totalitarian, anti-freedom actions of the U.S. federal government in its history.
To summarize up to this point: in 2013, the U.S. federal government apparently attempted to legalize “biosurveillance” to include near real-time surveillance of human beings for “threats to human health.” (127 STAT. 178-179) Such wording appears to imply the surveillance of human actions and/or behaviors; it appears to imply at least partially the commonly understood meaning of “surveillance.”
In 2016, the U.S. federal government apparently made a legal requirement for the National Institutes of Health to have a Strategic Plan; the same law apparently required the actions described in the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan to be implemented. (130 STAT. 1054-1055, 42 U.S. Code § 282 (b)(5))
Also in 2016, in the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan, the U.S. federal government described its plan of “measuring real-time cognition, emotion, perception, and behavior at the scale of complex neural networks in living organisms—all at the speed of thought,” which implies its plans are for human beings, because only human beings experience “emotion.”
Now, there are different kinds of surveillance mechanisms for specifically surveillance of human beings. There are “electronic” surveillance devices, physical surveillance, covert surveillance, etc. Through the previously mentioned laws and Strategic Plans, it appears to be at least possible that the U.S. Federal government may have attempted to legalize and require one of the most intrusive, invasive, and “totalitarian-regime-like” methods possible: the surveillance of the human brain and/or the internal surveillance of the human body.
First, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013, by defining “biosurveillance” in law, may have attempted to legalize “gathering near real-time biological data … that relates to … threats to human … health.”
Next, the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan (and potentially other laws and/or documents that are not going to be discussed here) potentially legally defined a newer type of “gathering,” or “measuring,” “real-time…biological data” − the “measuring” of “real-time cognition, emotion, perception, and behavior at the scale of complex neural networks in living organisms—all at the speed of thought.”
Finally, separate laws required the U.S. federal government’s plan of “measuring of real-time cognition, emotion, etc.” to be implemented. Thus, it appears as though the U.S. federal government may have attempted to legalize and require real-time surveillance of the human brain and/or body.
And, while it cannot be elaborated here, one of the most significant indications that the U.S. federal government may have planned on using “advanced innovative” brain technologies for biosurveillance of human “cognition, emotion, perception, and behavior” is that the U.S. federal government has not yet prohibited such technologies to be used for surveilling human beings. The U.S. federal government has Science and Technology advisors to help in making laws and policies who would likely know that such advanced brain sensor and even non-invasive brain imaging technologies could eventually be used remotely and covertly on human beings. It does not appear as though such technologies are prohibited in U.S. federal law. This may suggest that such sensor technologies or other advanced innovative brain technologies may be in use or planned for use.
And there is more information which supports the claim that the U.S. federal government may have attempted to legalize and require biosurveillance of the “cognition, emotion, perception” of the human brain as it relates to “all-hazards” or “all-human behaviors,” but it cannot be mentioned here.