(LifeSiteNews) — The main subject of this article is refuting the suggestion that the U.S. federal government’s legalization of both “biosurveillance” and “surveillance of neurological conditions” is merely counting the number of people with diseases (sometimes similarly described as “prevalence,” “incidence,” or “frequency” of diseases).
Before getting to the main subject, though, it is necessary to make some points on the use of “hoaxes and false information” and extensive propaganda by secret U.S. federal government entities like the intelligence community and the FBI as well as potentially even local police and local secret police. (U.S. law provides a “law enforcement exemption,” which apparently allows entities like the FBI, the intelligence community, and local police to commit hoaxes or propagate false information.)
First, many know that it is probably a good idea to observe much of what is published in the “news” as if it could be a law enforcement, intelligence community, or “national security” hoax or use of misleading or false information.
Also, some might have a misunderstanding of what a “hoax” is; hoaxes are not necessarily completely fictional stories published in the news. Hoaxes can include some truth and some misleading or false information.
An example of such a potentially partially true and mostly falsified hoax might include renaming the common cold that has been going around for hundreds of years, falsely claiming that it is a new virus, falsely claiming that it is very deadly, continuously publishing false death counts in the news, and then suddenly providing a life-saving, government-forced injection which is also falsely said to be safe and effective.
Most people would not get injected for a common cold, so such a hoax might be partially intended to coerce (potentially a type of terrorism, due to the use of causing false fear of death) citizens into getting injected every few months. Other reasons might include attempting to ruin economies and/or coerce churchgoers into not going to church.
In such a potential hoax, the partial truth would be that there is a real virus, but almost everything else about it is falsified.
Another point about the government’s use of hoaxes and conveying false or misleading information is that there could be more than one reason for using the hoax; some of those reasons may not be completely obvious, but many of those reasons might ultimately be the intention to get “public opinion” in favor of whatever is wanted by law enforcement, the intelligence community, secret police, or the federal or local governments.
For example, some might publicly criticize a federal or local government for its potential use of a communist torture method sometimes described with the German word “Zersetzung.” Such citizens might then suggest that the use of torture in America should be illegal and determine it is likely necessary for Congress to require the publicizing of all current and former secret police and intelligence community employees as well as all policing and intelligence community methods and technologies used by both local and federal governments. Many, possibly most, people probably do not think it is controversial for Congress to require publicizing methods, employees, and technologies of federal and local law enforcement, intelligence community, etc.
Government entities might use a hoax for propaganda in attempt to change public opinion if such opinions gained in popularity. Such a hoax might include a falsified crime published in national news which results in the falsified deaths of several people. The government entities involved might then claim that law enforcement’s secret policing methods like “Zersetzung” or secret surveillance technologies are necessary to “prevent crimes” or determine “potential threats.”
Another reason may not be as obvious but is based on the known phenomenon that humans often subconsciously arrive at conclusions through comparing one event to another or one person to another person; philosophers sometimes describe this as learning through simile. Government propaganda employees might know this phenomenon and exploit it.
For example, the government’s secret police or surveillance employees might intentionally make a hoax appear as an obvious hoax all while pretending it is real. The purpose of such a hoax might be to make other real things which are almost unbelievable like real, very advanced surveillance technologies which seem almost impossible to appear as if they too are hoaxes. The purpose of a potentially obvious hoax like publishing a falsified surveillance technology might be to attempt to get the public to think that other real advanced surveillance technologies are also hoaxes.
Other reasons for such hoaxes might also be possible like making it appear as though government national security and secret police entities are not collaborating with America’s enemies, when they really might be collaborating with America’s enemies.
(While it is off subject, Congress should likely be making hoaxes and conveying false or misleading information illegal for law enforcement, the intelligence community, and other government or non-government entities. And Congress should be making it illegal for the FBI, other law enforcement, other government entities, and local police to commit “otherwise illegal activity,” secretly own and operate businesses, cause financial loss, and commit violence.
One might re-read the previous sentence; you know your government is corrupt and the Department of Justice is falsely labeled when citizens are asking Congress to make it illegal for the Department of Justice/FBI and local police to commit otherwise illegal activity, secretly own or operate businesses, cause financial loss, and commit violence. And such “otherwise illegal activity” has apparently been authorized since the 1990s and was ongoing for many years prior, without much, if any, opposition.)
Obama-Biden administration’s legalization of ‘real-time’ and ‘ongoing’ biosurveillance
A previous article described U.S. federal government documents clearly stating that mind reading and mind control are possible. The documents use the words “human brain recording,” “brain monitoring,” “record neural activity,” “neural recording,” or similar phrases to describe what a person using words that most understand would say is “mind reading.” (Also pages 74-80, etc.)
“Monitoring” is also another word sometimes used for “surveillance” and “biosurveillance” (“human health … monitoring systems”). Thus, it can be accurately stated that multiple U.S. federal government documents state that both “mind reading” and “brain surveillance” can be achieved with science.
It was explained in separate articles that the U.S. federal government’s “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System” could easily be interpreted to be such “neural recording” or mind reading.
Now, some may object and say something like, “not only are you crazy, but you are ignorant! The word ‘surveillance’ simply means counting the number of people with diseases, not surveilling human brains or knowing your thoughts or emotions! Law enforcement, the FBI, and other government surveillance entities have better things to do! Didn’t you hear about the surveillance balloon? Nobody would ever…!” etc.
Thus, some may object to the suggestion that a “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System” might be a government way to legalize the “neural recording” or “neurological surveillance” of the thoughts, plans, and emotions of everyone in America or throughout the world. (It also might be just another way for government employees to get paid a lot of money to count; but, as is going to be explained, there is no reason to legalize such counting and call it a “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System.”
One problem with those objections is that the U.S. federal government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was apparently already determining the prevalence of diseases in the United States prior to the legalization of the “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System.”
If “surveillance” was merely counting the number of people with diseases and/or “neurological conditions,” then there was no need to legalize a “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System.” Previous laws also required minimizing duplicating “biosurveillance” “programs.” (127 STAT. 178) The law requiring minimizing duplicating “biosurveillance” was passed in 2013.
In other words, if “surveillance” was merely keeping a count of the diagnoses that physicians or others put in every patient’s electronic medical records (also known as “International Classification of Diseases, (ICD) codes”), then there was no need for a “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System.”
The law legalizing the “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System” was passed in 2016 by the Obama-Biden administration (after President Trump was elected, which may be significant).
And prior to the passing of that 2016 law, the CDC already had “programs” that used “[International Classification of Diseases] codes to conduct surveillance.” It is unnecessary to legalize a “surveillance system” for every disease or “condition” if “surveillance” (and “biosurveillance”) merely means “counting the incidence or prevalence of diagnoses.”
The legalizing of a specific “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System” might suggest at least the possibility that U.S. federal government officials intended to use such a system with advanced innovative technologies to surveil targeted peoples’ brains and felt the need to attempt to protect themselves with laws.
There is more. The same section of the 2013 biosurveillance law which requires minimizing duplication of “surveillance programs” makes another significant statement. It provides the requirement to “achieve real-time and appropriate data that relate to disease activity” for humans. (127 STAT. 178, emphasis added) This is a significant point: the requirement to “achieve real-time data” for human diseases suggests ongoing and continuous surveillance by the federal government.
If a patient presents to a physician and the physician diagnoses a person with a disease, and then the patient leaves the physician’s office or hospital, if the “biosurveillance” (or “neurological surveillance”) does not continue after the patient leaves the hospital or doctor’s office, then it is not “real-time” data.
The U.S. federal government’s definition of “biosurveillance” in federal law supports the previous suggestions:
the term “biosurveillance” means 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.
Thus, the U.S. federal government’s definition of “biosurveillance” clearly states that the government’s surveillance is both in “real-time” and “ongoing.”
There is more, though. Not only is biosurveillance required to be “real-time” and “ongoing” surveillance, but it is also required to be “prompt ongoing” surveillance of “health events.” “Health events” could likely be anything in any way related to human beings, including “mental health.”
And it has to be “prompt” ongoing surveillance, with “early detection” of, say, “mental health events.” The U.S. federal government’s intent of both “biosurveillance” and “neurological surveillance” is therefore clearly much more than merely counting the prevalence of a disease or “neurological condition.”
There is yet more. The U.S. government’s requirement to achieve “real-time” biosurveillance (and “neurological surveillance”) also apparently implies determining human disease activity before a diagnosis is made by a physician; this suggestion is supported by U.S. federal laws which require “biosurveillance” to include the “early detection” of “health events.” The biosurveillance law does not say “early diagnosis;” it says, “early detection.” “Detection” is much broader than diagnosis, and when combined with the other words in biosurveillance laws, apparently implies that the government is continuously and secretively looking for “health events.”
To summarize: in 2013 the U.S. federal government legalized “biosurveillance” which was required to “achieve real-time data.” Also in 2013, the Obama-Biden administration legalized and required “early detection” and “ongoing” surveillance of “health events.” (127 STAT. 179) Those words imply early detection and ongoing surveillance of “mental health” events. Then, in 2016 the Obama-Biden administration legalized specifically a “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System.”
(Government officials legalized this surveillance system after their political party lost major elections to an incoming president who was known to nationally publicize what was on his mind without much reservation. This might suggest at least the possibility that some government officials might have been attempting to protect themselves by (attempting to) legalize inhumane and torturous surveillance that would otherwise be illegal.)
Now, what is another way to describe “real-time” and “ongoing” surveillance of “mental health” or mental “health events?” It might also be described as real-time and ongoing “neurological conditions surveillance.”
Or, using simpler words that most understand, it might be real-time, ongoing, continuous mind reading.