Blogs
Featured Image
 Pixels Hunter / Shutterstock

Help Jenny Porter recover from her vaccine injury: LifeFunder

(LifeSiteNews) – Previous articles discussed the U.S. federal government’s BRAIN Initiative program and documents on the government’s plan to measure “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 articles then compared such apparent legal language to the federal government’s definition of “biosurveillance” which is 

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)

Simply put, the wording in U.S. federal laws, regulations, and/or strategic plans may attempt to provide “implied or apparent authority” for federal government public health and law enforcement officials, including the FBI which the Obama-Biden administration ordered to link “public health and law enforcement,” for “biosurveillance” of Americans’ thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. 

Other articles discussed the possibility of advanced innovative medical or human health equipment and technologies (electroencephalography, MRI, x-ray, CT, ultrasound, etc.) that could be developed for remote and covert “manipulation” or “recording” of the human brain without requiring surgery. 

Such technologies could be used for surveillance to determine the thoughts and plans of human beings; such technologies could potentially also be used to cause thoughts and emotions in the brain as a type of “interrogation” or torture. It is not going to be discussed in this article, but similar technologies could also possibly remotely and covertly cause injury to locations of the human body other than the brain. (For some or many it might sound crazy, but, again, “the science” says such technologies may already be available, and U.S. federal laws and documents may suggest that they may already be covertly in use.)

There is more to be discussed on the potential significance of the U.S. federal government’s plan of “measuring real-time” human

US laws and ‘real-time’ sensors for biosurveillance

It was at least partially discussed in previous articles that if U.S. federal government officials wanted to attempt to provide themselves or others with the implied or apparent legal authority to use advanced innovative miniature medical technologies, chemicals (including the “elements,” “chemical elements,” or “physical elements”), and equipment for human brain surveillance or other purposes, there might be hints and suggestions within federal law and federal government strategies which describe U.S. government plans. 

One important point is that when U.S. federal laws, strategies, and other policies or plans are written, there are some guidelines that the authors may be advised to follow. This is probably obvious for many: one guideline is to “Be consistent” and “Don’t use different words to denote the same things.” 

Consistency in the words used in U.S. federal laws, then, may be a potential tip-off of federal government officials attempting to provide themselves or others with implied or apparent surveillance authority in federal law while at the same time attempting to keep future plans or current technologies or methods secret. 

The federal government adding the word “emerging” to laws governing the federal government’s (sometimes secretive) national exercise program soon before what is/was reportedly a pandemic of an “emerging infectious disease threat” is one potential example.

More potential examples of consistency in wording in federal law which may be tip-offs to potentially secretive human surveillance technologies, plans, or methods relevant to this discussion are the words “real-time,” “sensors,” “remote sensing,” network, systems, “network of systems,” and others not mentioned here.

Previous articles and the introduction to this article provide an example of consistency in the use of “real-time” in the U.S. federal government’s legal definition of “biosurveillance” as well as the government’s (apparent attempt at a) legal plan to measure human thoughts, emotions, cognition, etc., in “real-time.” 

Another potentially significant example is from one of the Obama-Biden administration’s last enacted laws entitled the “American Innovation and Competitiveness Act.” It was enacted on January 6, 2017; again, that was during the last days of the Obama-Biden administration, which may be significant for reasons not mentioned here.

One significant section in the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, in part due to its consistency in wording with the BRAIN Initiative Strategic Plan, the NIH Strategic Plan, and “the U.S. federal government’s definition of biosurveillance,” is the U.S. federal government’s legal definition of “cyber-physical systems”:

“cyber-physical systems” means physical or engineered systems whose networking and information technology functions and physical elements are deeply integrated and are actively connected to the physical world through sensors, actuators, or other means to enable safe and effective, real-time performance in safety-critical and other applications (15 U.S. Code § 5503 (1), emphasis added)

The U.S. federal law discusses “sensors” to be used for “safe and effective, real-time performance” for “safety-critical” “applications.” “Safety-critical” is not defined in that section of U.S. Code; a separate U.S. federal government regulation includes “public safety” in the definition, seeming to suggest that “safety-critical” may be a synonym for “national security,” “law enforcement,” “policing,” or something similar. (The definition may not be applicable but is provided merely as a basis to determine a potential government meaning of “safety-critical.”)  

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Stop Tedros' WHO Pandemic Treaty
  Show Petition Text
100898 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 125000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

The WHO Pandemic Treaty looks set to be one of the biggest power-grabs in living memory, with unelected globalists seeking the power to declare pandemics, and then control your country's response. 

But it's not too late to do something about it. 

SIGN and SHARE this special petition telling Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus that the WHO will never usurp your nation's sovereignty.

The past two years have been rife with infringements on personal liberties and civil rights by national governments, but now the World Health Organization is seeking to appropriate those same abusive powers to itself at a global level. 

194 member states representing 99% of the world's population are expected to sign pandemic treaties with the WHO that would allow Tedros, or any future Director General, to dictate exactly how your nation would respond to a new disease outbreak which they consider a pandemic.

This attack on national sovereignty will come as no surprise to those who for years have listened to elites like Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates discussing their vision for the centralization of power into globalist organizations like the World Economic Forum (WEF), the WHO and the rest of the United Nations. 

SIGN this petition against the WHO's Pandemic Treaty, before it's too late.

Ludicrously, 20 world leaders calling for the treaty, including Tedros, Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron, compared the post-Covid world to the post-WWII period, saying similar co-operation is now needed to "dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism, and to address the challenges that could only be achieved together in the spirit of solidarity and co-operation - namely peace, prosperity, health and security."

Australian PM Scott Morrison is the latest leader to express support for a “pandemic treaty”.

The stated intention of the WHO is to “kickstart a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

The wheels are already in motion, with the Biden administration officially proposing the initial steps towards handing global pandemic control to the WHO. 

Biden's representatives have submitted amendments to the WHO's International Health Regulations (IHR), which would give the Director General the right to declare health emergencies in any nation, even when disputed by the country in question.

These amendments, which would be legally binding under international law, will be voted on by the World Health Assembly (the governing body of the WHO) at a special convention running from May 22-28 and set the stage for a fully-fledged pandemic treaty to be passed. 

SIGN and SHARE the petition telling the WHO that you won't accept any pandemic treaty

The ball has been rolling since the last World Health Assembly meeting in December, where the United States launched negotiations "on a new international health instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response," a U.S. statement read. 

"This momentous step represents our collective responsibility to work together to advance health security and to make the global health system stronger and more responsive. 

"We look forward to broad and deep negotiations using a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach that will strengthen the international legal framework for public health/pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response and enable us to address issues of equity, accountability, and multisectoral collaboration evident in the COVID-19 pandemic. 

"We know it will take all of us working together across governments, private sector, philanthropy, academia, and civil society to make rapid progress towards a long-term solution for these complex problems," the U.S. statement added.

SIGN the petition today to show the WHO that you won't accept this attack on national sovereignty.

These are precarious times in which freedom and self-determination must be defended from those who would ride rough-shod over your civil rights. 

We do not want to go back to global lockdowns, vaccine mandates and propoganda.

Sign the petition - speak up now!

For More Information:

Biden hands over American sovereignty with proposed WHO treaty - LifeSiteNews

Pandemic Treaty is a backdoor to global governance - LifeSiteNews

Dr. Robert Malone on the WHO's power-grab - LifeSiteNews

**Photo: YouTube Screenshot**

  Hide Petition Text

Being “actively connected to the physical world” appears to imply the possibility of being “actively connected to” living beings, potentially including humans, and potentially including the human brain. Non-government research includes human brain-computer interfaces in the definition of “cyber-physical systems.” Some human brain-computer interfaces may not require surgical implantation in the brain, which means that it may be possible to get brain-computer interfaces in the body and eventually get them to the brain without a person knowing.

While it can undoubtedly be used in other ways, “safe and effective” is a legal phrase used to describe human or animal drugs or medical devices. But the definition specifically describes “networking and information technology functions” specifically for “safe and effective, real-time performance,” suggesting the possibility that cyber-physical systems may be used in humans for something other than treatment or prevention of diseases. “Biosurveillance” may be one potential use.

Again, “safe” appears to refer to use in humans and “real-time performance” is consistent with the definition of “biosurveillance.” “Cyber-physical systems” are implied to be considered “advanced innovative technologies,” as the title of the law, “American Innovation and Competitiveness Act,” suggests. 

It is worth mentioning again: the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act authorizes the use of innovative “cyber-physical systems” for “safe and effective real-time performance” in “safety-critical and other applications” and appears to imply the use in humans. 

Now, a separate law, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019, is a U.S. federal law which required “advanced innovative technologies” to be used for an international biosurveillance network or “network of systems” (133 STAT. 922) which, again, is consistent with the legal language used to describe “cyber-physical systems.” 

The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act authorized cyber-physical systems for “real-time performance,” appearing to imply their use in humans by using the word “safe” in the definition, and then the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 mandates the CDC and others to establish a “biosurveillance network of systems” for “gathering near real-time biological data” using “innovative technologies.”

The consistency in legal wording suggests at least the possibility that “cyber-physical systems” with sensors actively connected within the human body providing real-time data to be included as a type of “biosurveillance” system. The use of the word “effective” in “cyber-physical systems” could have multiple possible implications, and one of those may be the “effective” recording or manipulation of the human brain.

And as other articles mentioned, through the National Institutes of Health and the “BRAIN Initiative,” the U.S. federal government discussed 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.” (Page 14) 

The BRAIN Initiative Strategic Plan includes several discussions on the use of “sensors” within the human brain. Also, it may be significant that the BRAIN Initiative Strategic Plan discusses measuring brain activity to determine what future actions a human brain is imagining committing. (Page 13) Such information would be some of the most sought after information for government “surveillance” purposes, potentially in the United States and definitely by non-American governments. 

It may also be significant that the BRAIN Initiative Strategic Plan discusses plans for technologies “that could interrogate large portions of the human brain.” (Page 75) The discussion on interrogating large portions of the brain could be interpreted in more than one way; however, a remote and covert technology that could interrogate (and also torture) the human brain would also likely be a highly sought after technology for surveillance or “biosurveillance” for police and/or entities like the FBI. 

And, again, it cannot be elaborated, but such technologies could also possibly remotely and covertly cause injury to the brain and locations of the human body other than the brain. This is one among many reasons why the methods, techniques, technologies, hoaxes, schemes, ruses, ploys, and even the covert employees and others who have done covert actions for the FBI, local police, and other “national security,” law enforcement, and intelligence community entities should be required to be public knowledge. The potential FBI or even local police use of remote and covert technologies to surveil or injure others would be sought after for many people.

There is more. The section of the U.federal law “American Innovation and Competitiveness Act” legally defining “cyber-physical systems” also authorizes the same research program to “provide for…development on human-computer interactions” and also apparently “human-computer big data.” 

“Human-computer interactions” likely includes “(human) brain-computer interfaces.” A previous article mentioned that DARPA had planned on developing such brain-computer interfaces that do not require surgical implantation but instead could be delivered to specific locations in the brain with “minimal invasiveness.” It is not clear what technologies would be used and whether the technologies would be injected, absorbed through skin, or taken by mouth; technologies only requiring absorption through skin or oral consumption could be easier to use covertly, although government mandated injections could also be a way to get technologies to specific targets for biosurveillance, if that was the plan.

In other words, the above U.S. federal law on cyber-physical systems and human-computer interactions could be interpreted as an attempt to imply authority to use (and/or “develop” technologies already in use) “safe and effective” brain or other sensors for the potentially secretive “national security” (“safety-critical and other”) application of “gathering near real-time biological data” (“biosurveillance” network of systems). 

This may be how U.S. government officials attempt to give or get implied or apparent legal authority: one section of federal law legalizes the specific technologies and/or implies the potential authority to use technologies and methods, and another section of the law describing their potential applications merely mentions “innovative technologies” as a way to keep such technologies somewhat covert. An example is U.S. Federal government biosurveillance law, requiring the CDC and others to

modernize and enhance biosurveillance activities, including strategies to include innovative technologies and analytical approaches (including prediction and forecasting for pandemics and all-hazards) from public and private entities (42 U.S. Code § 247d–4, emphasis added)

This appears to be another significant point: the U.S. federal government using “innovative technologies” for “prediction…for…all-hazards” apparently implies predicting all hazardous human behaviors or hazardous future actions. Such predictions could be achieved with the innovative technologies of “cyber-physical systems” or other potential technologies used to surveil a brain planning future actions described in the BRAIN Initiative Strategic Plan. (Page 13)

Government surveillance systems for mental illness

Another point which requires significant more discussion than what is provided here is that the U.S. federal government includes “diseases of the nervous system which affect mental health” in the legal definition of “psychiatric disorders,” and the federal government defines “biosurveillance” as the “process of gathering near real-time biological data that relates to humandisease activity and threats to humanhealth.” Such definitions could imply “biosurveillance” of every American brain for “diseases of the nervous system which affect mental health.”  

During the Obama-Biden administration, an Advisory Committee to the U.S. CDC suggested that “surveillance systems for mental illness…must be strengthened.” (Page A1-26) Not only does the statement imply that “mental illness surveillance systems” might have already existed in 2011 when the document was published, but “cyber-physical systems” might provide such “strengthened” “surveillance systems” for “mental illness.” 

Again, this may sound crazy or impossible, but simply study the science and U.S. federal government laws and documents. The science appears to be possible, and federal entities like the FBI and potentially even local police may be interested in such technologies. Or simply ponder the question: how many people would want to get paid by the government to remotely and covertly “read” or manipulate the thoughts or emotions of people that they do not like?

Federal law describes use of in situ and remote sensors

There is more. If the U.S. federal government planned on using medical or human health equipment and technologies for surveillance purposes instead of to diagnose and treat disease, then one might search federal laws, rules, and regulations for information which suggests that the federal government planned on using medical equipment or technologies for non-medical purposes. 

There is significant information in U.S. federal law which suggests that the U.S. government planned on using “sensor” technologies and “human health equipment and technologies” for non-human health purposes. The law is actually from 2004 which suggests the possibility that the technologies have been available for many years but are being more and more perfected. 

The U.S. federal law is on the “Interagency oceans and human health research program.” (33 U.S. Code § 3101) A thorough discussion may explain several significant points about this law, but it cannot be provided here. The main point is that the law authorizes the “development…of new technologies and approaches for detecting and reducing hazards to human health from ocean sources.” (33 U.S. Code § 3101(c)(3)) “Ocean sources” could apparently include water and other substances consumed by humans. The law continues by describing the potential development of

in situ and remote sensors used to detect, quantify, and predict the presence and spread of contaminants in marine waters and organisms and to identify new genetic resources for biomedical purposes (33 U.S. Code § 3101(c)(3)(c))

and may include the “adaptation of equipment and technologies from human health fields.” (33 U.S. Code § 3101(c)(3)(e)) 

In situ and remote sensors” potentially adapted from “human health fields” for “detecting and reducing hazards to human health” suggests the remote sensors and “in situ sensors” could utilize the medical imaging technologies discussed in the BRAIN Initiative. “In situ” is Latin and it is not clear how the above U.S. federal law is using the phrase. A medical (the law refers to “human health”) definition of in situ could mean in a specific location, like the brain, “in…organisms.” That law was apparently enacted in 2004. 

Again, a more thorough discussion should be provided but cannot be provided here. The main point is that in 2004, the U.S. federal government authorized the use of “adaptation of equipment and technologies from human health fields” potentially including “sensors” “in…organisms.” It may suggest the potential non-medical use of medical imagining or brain technologies.

Obama-Biden biosurveillance document describes use of in situ and remote sensors

There is still more. In 2013, the Obama-Biden administration published the National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap, apparently at least partially authored by Dr. John Holdren who had in the past made some apparently significant suggestions, potentially including the covert use of substances in drinking water. 

The National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap is on, as the title says, “biosurveillance.” It specifically mentions the use of “sensors” for biosurveillance and may imply their use in humans. The National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap also requires a more thorough discussion that cannot be provided here. 

A few main points are that the document mentions U.S. federal government plans to

connect non-invasive data-gathering tools to other types of surveillance data to improve the ability to detect antecedent conditions and the earliest indications of a significant incident (Page 11)

“Non-invasive” can surely be used to refer to many different types of “tools”; however, “noninvasive” is often used to describe “medical equipment and technologies.” In other words, it may imply the use of medical imaging technologies “to detect…the earliest indications of a significant incident.” And when is the “earliest indication of a significant incident”? The document does not specify, but for some “significant incidents” the earliest indication is in the human brain when it is planning future actions.

The National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap then specifies the use of “in situ” and “remote” sensors for such detecting of “the earliest indications of a significant incident” in its discussion on U.S. Federal government plans to

Integrate emerging remote sensing capabilities/analysis (such as biological, chemical, and hyperspectral) with fixed, distributed autonomous or semi-autonomous surveillance platforms and conventional molecular biological tools to characterize and ultimately predict spatially and temporally important environmental variables that influence disease emergence within ecosystems, including humans;

Examine current coverage and capabilities of ground-based, in situ sensors for detecting threats, and enhance efficiency or expand, as appropriate and feasible (Page 12, emphasis added)

 The first paragraph may imply the use of “remote sensing capabilities/analysis” “with…surveillance platforms” “within…humans” to “predict spatially and temporally important variables that influence disease emergence.” Again, the U.S. federal government includes “mental health disorders” as “diseases. 

The National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap’s use of “in situ sensors for detecting threats” provides more support for the previous discussion on the use of medical technologies for biosurveillance in humans.

Hyperspectral” is overly simplified to be defined as technologies which use light and may include “optical” medical technologies. Both the Obama-Biden administration’s National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap and the BRAIN Initiative Strategic Plan mention chemical sensors. The Brain Initiative Strategic Plan describes the U.S. federal government planning to develop

New and improved optical sensors of neural activity, both electrical and chemical. Objectives include better fluorescent indicators, spectroscopic molecular signatures, or nanoparticle probes, preferably with cell-type specific targeting, for membrane voltage, neurotransmitter and neuromodulator concentrations, synaptic activity, and biochemical processes. (Page 74, emphasis added)

And, again, the National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap planned the integration of “emerging remote sensing…(such as…chemical, hyperspectral)” for biosurveillance purposes. (Page 12)

The BRAIN Initiative Strategic Plan, which was published a few months after the National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap, discusses the use of non-invasive functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technologies with “spatiotemporal resolution” “that could interrogate large portions of the human brain” and addresses the question “How…internal cognitive models of the world [are] encoded, updated and accessed to make predictions and guide future actions.” (Page 75) Compare that wording to the National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap above, which suggests using sensors to “ultimately predict spatially and temporally important environmental variables that influence disease emergence within ecosystems, including humans.” 

Again, several sections of the BRAIN Initiative Strategic Plan discuss the use of sensors, and it is significant that some sensors can be “chemical” sensors. (Page 74) It is worth wondering if chemicals and/or “physical elements” that are required for human life and/or health and can have magnetic or other properties could be “manipulated” (page 6) by remote technologies and stimulate brain activity (thinking specific thoughts, emotions, etc.) and could be labeled as “sensors.” And it is again worth mentioning that such medical technologies and/or equipment discussed in the U.S. Federal government’s Strategic Plan such as ultrasound, MRI, electroencephalography, and others have been in available for perfecting for many years.

While it may at first seem impossible or crazy, after closely studying several U.S. federal laws and documents one may conclude that the federal government using innovative brain technologies for “biosurveillance” purposes may be a possibility. And there is more information which supports that suggestion but it cannot be mentioned here.

Help Jenny Porter recover from her vaccine injury: LifeFunder

Comments

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.

0 Comments

    Loading...