Featured Image

(LifeSiteNews) – This article discusses the human brain. Some might not want to read about the subjects mentioned. It should not be considered medical advice. 

* * *

Many are probably aware of a method used by powerful people to keep others silent. Simply labeling others as crazy or “mentally ill” for suggesting things that the person does not want discussed or even thought to be a possibility often succeeds in getting some to keep silent. It is apparently a method often used by governments, especially when one questions potentially secret/covert government actions. Do the people in government perform covert/secret actions on their citizens? They most likely do. And are there bad, cowardly people in government who might use such covert actions to harm others? If government employees within law enforcement or the intelligence community could allow themselves to commit crimes and secretly harm people they do not like without getting into trouble, would they use their government power to do harm?

It is at least implied in U.S. federal law that law enforcement entities like the FBI and government “intelligence” or national security entities may commit “hoaxes” or propagate false information. The people in local, state, and federal governments, especially law enforcement and intelligence entities, apparently do not want their secret or covert hoaxes or propagations of false information to become public. Additionally, some law enforcement entities like the FBI may apparently commit “otherwise illegal activity.” Revealing covert local and federal government hoaxes might reveal federal or local government crimes. Thus, when one suggests that public occurrences (seemingly perfectly timed, often favoring liberal political ideologies, unquestioned by government-influenced news media, and with several other oddities) might be hoaxes propagated by law enforcement, the FBI, or the intelligence community, one might be labeled as crazy in attempt to silence the criticism.

This silencing criticism method may be a method used by U.S. government and public health officials to attempt to quiet those who wondered if COVID-19 is a hoax or otherwise falsified pandemic. After looking into the matter, though, one discovers that there is a significant amount of information from the U.S. federal government, especially in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019, which suggests that COVID-19 may be a falsified pandemic. There is still more information on the subject of COVID-19 possibly being falsified to discuss but is not going to be included in this article.

There is another topic that one is not supposed to question either. That topic is the ability of advanced medical technology to record, stimulate, manipulate or “control,” and decode or “read” what goes on in the human brain. One is supposed to be paranoid or overly suspicious to even question the possibility. Even if one has advanced education in a medical or health related field, one is still apparently not supposed to reasonably wonder if medical technologies which have been in use for many years could be perfected to be used as remote and covert brain surveillance (call it “biosurveillance”) and potentially even remote and covert technologies to stimulate and manipulate forced thoughts or emotions into the mind of another.

Previous articles mentioned such possibilities without elaborating. This article is going to elaborate, or “follow the science” specifically what the U.S. federal government’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) has published as “the science” up to about the year 2013. This means “the science” is likely even more advanced now. (The NIH document does not discuss classified or secret information on brain technologies potentially used by national security entities; it will be discussed towards the end of this article that national security entities may have already advanced the technologies described in the document to be wireless or non-invasive, remote, and covert.)

Basically, there are non-classified documents published by the U.S. federal government discussing remote advanced innovative technologies which, in the words of the federal government document, may “record,” “decode,” and “manipulate” human thoughts and emotions; such advanced technologies may also manipulate and forcefully cause some bodily movements as well. 

In other words, the “science,” according to the U.S. federal government, says or implies that brain “recording,” “reading” other’s thoughts and emotions, forcefully causing others to think specific things with technology, forcefully causing emotions with technology, and forcefully causing some bodily movements has been possible for years. 

The Obama-Biden administration’s BRAIN Initiative

The U.S. federal government document mentioning brain recording and manipulation technology is a result of a science and technology program of the federal government’s National Institutes of Health known as the “Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative.” The BRAIN Initiative began during the Obama-Biden Administration. The Obama-Biden Whitehouse 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. (Emphasis added)

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 published by the federal government. (Henceforth it will be referred to as the BRAIN Initiative Report or the report.) The BRAIN Initiative Report is the main subject of this article.

It is difficult to overstate the significance of the information in the BRAIN Initiative Report. Some might have thought that discovering information in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 and other laws and documents that may suggest that the U.S. federal government might have falsified the COVID-19 pandemic might be some of the most significant information discovered in many years. The information in the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Working Group Report to the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH and what is implied within the report may be just as significant.

There is a large amount of information in the document which cannot be discussed here. It may be worthwhile to study the document and what is implied by the document; one may be able to understand the significance of the information even if one is not a healthcare professional. 

First, the report mentions that putting a thought in a person’s brain was apparently discovered as a possibility as early as the 1950s:

In the 1950s, Penfield’s electrical stimulation experiments suggested that a memory or thought could be elicited by activating neurons in the underlying network. In intervening years, electrical, chemical, and genetic methods for stimulating or inhibiting neurons have provided numerous insights. (Page 34)

It is helpful to know what scientists knew and when they knew it. (Obviously it would also be helpful to know what scientists knew about remote and covert brain surveillance and potentially brain torture technologies to be used for “national security,” law enforcement, or intelligence and when they knew about it, but that information is likely kept secret.) Apparently non-secretive scientists knew in the 1950s that “a memory or thought could be elicited by activating neurons in the underlying network” with “electrical stimulation.”

Since then, scientists have also significantly improved the movement of electricity, or energy, “through the air” or remotely. Many scientists had considered understanding, recording and decoding, and manipulating (or “stimulating”) the brain to be the highest possible achievement in science. Some of that has been achieved, and now the highest achievement is apparently considered to be wireless, miniature, and/or non-surgically implanted brain reading and brain control technologies. (Pages 12 and 32-33)

That may sound crazy. Indeed, though, if the BRAIN Initiative Report is true, other words used to describe the information on brain recording and manipulating technologies in the report are “mind reading” and “mind control” technologies. Of course, those words are understood to be prohibited from public discussion; and, actually, their prohibition may make one even more curious to know how many years advanced, and potentially remote, brain recording and manipulating technologies have been in use. (The technologies may not achieve complete “control” over fully developed human brains; even partial control of thoughts or “feelings,” though, would be enough to cause significant harm.)

Anyway, scientists have had a significant amount of time, money, and motivation to potentially learn how to remotely record and cause or stimulate specific memories, thoughts, emotions, and some bodily movements. That is significant.

The BRAIN Initiative Report discusses different types of technologies which are used for “recording” and “decoding” the human brain (that is, “mind reading”). It also discusses different technologies used for manipulating or stimulating (that is, forced “mind control”). Again, one might read the BRAIN Initiative Report to determine for oneself its significance. 

When writing articles such as these, one can merely mention the reference document and then discuss its contents, one can provide a few quotes with discussions in multiple articles, or one can provide several quotes so that the reader can better understand how much information is available. It is not everyday that one reads an article which “follows the science” on brain recording and stimulation (“mind reading” and “mind control). Thus, it was determined that providing several quotes which explain the large amount of “the science” purported to be available is most beneficial in this situation and those quotes are going to be provided henceforth; emphasis is added for significant information which may be more thoroughly discussed in future articles. Commentary will be provided after the quotations. The following are some important quotations from the BRAIN Initiative Report:

The human brain is simply astonishing—no less astonishing to those of us who have spent our careers studying its mysteries than to those new to thinking about the brain. President Obama, by creating the BRAIN Initiative, has provided an unprecedented opportunity to solve those mysteries. The challenge is to map the circuits of the brain, measure the fluctuating patterns of electrical and chemical activity flowing within those circuits, and understand how their interplay creates our unique cognitive and behavioral capabilities. (Page 9)

The overarching vision of the BRAIN Initiative is best captured by Goal #7—combining these approaches into a single, integrated science of cells, circuits, brain, and behavior. For example, immense value is added if recordings are conducted from identified cell types whose anatomical connections are established in the same study. Such an experiment is currently an exceptional tour de force; with new technology, it could become routine. In another example, neuronal populations recorded during complex behavior might be immediately retested with circuit manipulation techniques to determine their causal role in generating the behavior. Theory and modeling should be woven into successive stages of ongoing experiments, enabling bridges to be built from single cells to connectivity, population dynamics, and behavior. (Page 7)

Demonstrating causality: Link brain activity to behavior with precise interventional tools that change neural circuit dynamics. By directly activating and inhibiting populations of neurons, neuroscience is progressing from observation to causation, and much more is possible. To enable the immense potential of circuit manipulation, a new generation of tools for optogenetics, chemogenetics, and biochemical and electromagnetic modulation should be developed for use in animals and eventually in human patients. (Page 6)

We have considered how mature technologies can be applied to neuroscience in novel ways, how new technologies of obvious relevance can be rapidly developed and integrated into regular neuroscience practice, and what longer term investments should be made in ‘blue sky’ technologies with higher risk but potentially high payoff. As the BRAIN Initiative advances, these technologies should increasingly be used to shed light on the healthy brain and on tragic human brain disorders. (Page 12)

Developing these novel technologies will require intense, iterative collaboration between neuroscientists and colleagues in the biological, physical, engineering, mathematical, and statistical and behavioral sciences. Essential partners should come from the private sector as well: corporate expertise in microelectronics, optics, wireless communication, and organization and mining of ‘big data’ sets can radically accelerate the BRAIN Initiative. (Page 12)

A key to understanding how the brain works is to determine how the neural dynamics across these vast networks process information relevant to behavior. For example, what is the form of neural dynamics in a circuit that makes a decision? What are the dynamically changing patterns of activity for speaking a sentence or imagining a future action? To probe the mechanics of the brain more deeply, we must learn how the biophysical properties of neurons and the architecture of circuits shape dynamic patterns of neural activity and how these patterns interact with incoming sensory information, memory, and outgoing motor commands. In the same way that the basic electrophysiological properties of single neurons are common across brain areas and species, it is likely that many fundamental forms of neural dynamics will generalize as well. (Page 13)

Innovative electrical and optical recording tools are allowing us to measure the intricate patterns of electrical activity that exist within those circuits across a broad array of behaviors ranging from decisionmaking to memory to sleep. Only a short time ago, we were restricted to studying the brain’s electrical activity one nerve cell at a time; now we can record from hundreds of nerve cells simultaneously, allowing us to analyze the cooperative activity of nerve cells as they operate in intact circuits; we look toward a future in which we can measure even richer patterns of brain activity, involving millions of nerve cells at any instant. Furthermore, newly invented genetic and chemically based techniques are giving us the power to modify activity in those circuits with great precision, creating extraordinary opportunities for deciphering the informationcarrying codes in patterned electrical activity, and in the longer term, creating a foundation for novel therapeutic treatments for disease. (Page 14)

Previously, we could study the brain at very high resolution by examining individual genes, molecules, synapses, and neurons, or we could study large brain areas at low resolution with wholebrain imaging. Continued progress at both of these levels is essential, but our unique new opportunity is to study the critical intermediate level as well—the thousands and millions of neurons that make up a functional circuit. (Page 14)

Objectively measureable behavior is an indispensable anchor for the field of neuroscience—it defines the set of phenomena that we ultimately seek to explain. We benefit in this respect from the rich traditions of experimental psychology, psychophysics and neuroethology, but new innovation is needed in the analysis of behavior. Dobzhansky once said that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” and it is no exaggeration to say that nothing in neuroscience makes sense except in the light of behavior. Thus a primary theme of the BRAIN Initiative should be to illuminate how the tens of billions of neurons in the central nervous system interact to produce behavior. (Page 15)

Measuring internal cognitive processes in animals is challenging, but rigorous methods have been developed to assess perception, memory, attention, decisionmaking, reward prediction, and many other examples. (Page 15)

Within neuroscience, new technologies have spurred the field forward at different points in time. Major conceptual advances can be attributed to 50 years of singleneuron electrophysiology in vivo; 30 years of molecular, cellular, and developmental neurobiology; 20 years of human functional brain imaging; 20 years of human genetics of brain disorders; and 10 years of stemcell research for regeneration. To reach its potential, each field required special support at its inception. Similarly, unique opportunities at the level of circuits should now be seized by the BRAIN Initiative. (Page 16)

By tapping into existing brain circuits with new stimulators and sensors, it may be possible to re-establish damaged brain pathways, or allow control of prosthetic limbs with high-level brain signals. (Page 18)

The past decade has seen the development of remarkable genetic tools including calcium indicators (e.g. GCaMP), optogenetic tools (e.g. Channelrhodopsin), synaptic monitors (e.g. SynaptopHluorin), chemogenetic tools (e.g. RASSLs/DREADDs), and a variety of tags that permit proteins to be visualized in vivo. By their nature, using these tools requires the ability to deliver a gene to a neuron or neurons of interest (‘genetic access’). (Page 22)

In addition, non-genetic methods could be used to deliver active agents to neurons of particular types, and would expand the range of possible experiments. Viruses or liposomes that contain pharmacological agents, proteins, or nanoparticles might be coated with antibodies that direct them to certain cell types. Providing reliable access to specific cell types in particular neural circuits or brain areas will accelerate all areas of modern neuroscience. (Page 22)

The next frontier would be gaining access to the human brain, which is more likely to involve transient delivery of RNA or a chemical than permanent genetic change, although viral vectors for human gene therapy are currently under exploration in the brain. Several pharmaceutical companies are developing tagged antibodies that cross the blood-brain barrier (e.g. via transferrin receptors), and these might be chemically or genetically engineered to include effectors or sensors of neuronal activity. (Page 23)

In summary, 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 nongenetic 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)

For example, a circuit for conditioned fear behavior might include subsets of neurons in the primary sensory cortex and thalamus (threat sensation), the hippocampus (memory formation), the amygdala (fear learning), the autonomic nervous system (physiological output), and the prefrontal cortex (topdown control of behavioral response to the threat), among many others. (Page 26)

Currently, there are two important classes of methods for recording neuronal activity. Classically, electrophysiology with electrodes has been the workhorse of neuroscience. Microelectrode and macroelectrode recordings will continue to be important due to their high temporal resolution, their applicability to structures throughout the brain, and their appropriateness for human studies. More recently, optical methods for recording activity have been greatly improved, providing substantial opportunity for further advances. Both are important areas for development. (Pages 28-29)

Although the acceleration in optical sensor development is relatively recent, it has already had a great impact on the field. Presently, most in vivo optical recordings are studies of neuronal or glial calcium dynamics. Neuronal calcium tracks action potentials as well as presynaptic and postsynaptic calcium signals at synapses, providing important information about both input and output signals. However, its ability to report subthreshold or inhibitory signals is variable, and while existing indicators have achieved single-spike sensitivity in low firing rate regimes, they cannot yet follow spikes in fast-spiking neurons. The future of this field is not just improving calcium sensors, but generating a broad suite of optical sensors. (Page 30)

To reach their potential, optical methods should be viewed holistically. Wavelength ranges used for next-generation multi-color optical imaging and optogenetic control should ideally be tuned for mutual compatibility. Likewise, the capabilities and limitations of optical hardware should be taken into consideration when developing new sensor molecules, and vice versa, since the collective optical system is what ultimately should be optimized. For example, in the domain of optical sensors, much work is done at the surface of brain structures because

imaging deep tissues remains a problem. Red or near infrared optical indicators would improve imaging depths in scattering tissues, but complementary strategies to solve this problem may be developed at the hardware-sensor interface, for example via nonlinear optical excitation using long wavelength illumination. (Page 32)

Optical engineering and photonics are rapidly progressing fields; ongoing advances in optical hardware and computational optics are likely to be highly pertinent to the BRAIN Initiative. Recent progress in miniaturized optics and CMOS image sensor chips for mobile phones has already yielded new capabilities for fluorescence imaging of neural activity in freely behaving animals. However, most emerging optical components will not have been tailored for neuroscience applications; systems engineering of new instrumentation using these components should pay careful heed to the unique needs of neuroscience experimentation. (Page 32)

Great benefit could come from shortterm and sustained efforts to develop new instrumentation to improve the speed, tissue volume, tissue depth, and number of brain regions that can be monitored in live animals. These advances might come in many forms, such as: new hardware for highspeed imaging; parallelized detection systems; progress in miniature optics; novel light sources; microscopes with capabilities for largescale recordings; wireless or automated imaging instrumentation; nextgeneration optical needles for imaging deep tissues; flexible optoelectronics; holographic or lightfield techniques for precise optical interrogations in all three spatial dimensions; CMOS image sensors of larger size, finer pixels or builtin capabilities for image processing and automated detection of neural activity; or optical systems with scalable architectures and automated analytics for imaging in multiple animals or brain areas concurrently. Many of these instruments might exhibit both optical recording and manipulation capabilities. (Page 32)

At a deeper level, the concepts of optical imaging should be considered across other modalities such as magnetic fields or ultrasound. The value of existing technologies for human neuroscience, such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG), is immense; developing higherresolution methods for human use is an aspiration heard across the field. A noninvasive or minimally invasive imaging modality with cellular resolution that could interrogate large portions of the mammalian brain would represent a major advance for both animal and human studies. Any such technology that was safely applicable in humans would revolutionize our understanding of human brain function. (Pages 32-33)

As devices move from the micro to nanoscale, properties emerge that may provide new opportunities to interrogate neurons. Silicon based nanodevices are one such example. Microwires, three microns in diameter, that project out from the surface of a conventional electrode can achieve intracellular access to cells plated over these wires; nanoposts, less than one micron in diameter, can create gigaohm seals with intracellular access for sustained periods of time. These devices have real promise; a high priority is to move their development from cell cultures to integrated neural systems, in slices or in vivo. (Page 33)

In summary, we 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)

There are broader possibilities for manipulating neuronal activity in vivo. Chemogenetic tools (such as RASSLs, DREADDs, and chemicalgenetic switches for kinases and channels) are already a useful complement to optogenetics for longterm manipulation, and this is another area that will benefit from continued improvement. Entirely new tools could be developed based on magnetic stimulation, gases, infrared excitation, ultrasound, or organic or physical chemistry to allow access to neurons deep within the brain. Techniques of this sort could also allow independent access to multiple circuits, or independent tools for monitoring and manipulating neurons. Noninvasive and nongenetic approaches will be particularly important for human neuroscience. (Page 34)

The last twenty years have seen explosive growth in the development and use of noninvasive brain mapping methods, predominantly MRI, complemented by MEG and electroencephalography (EEG), to investigate the human brain under normal and pathological conditions, and across the human lifespan. In the future, we anticipate significant progress in using these methods to measure the wiring diagram and functional activity of the human brain at multiple scales—neuronal ensembles, circuits, and larger scale networks (‘circuits of circuits’). In turn, these capabilities will allow us to visualize and understand circuitlevel disruptions related to human brain diseases. Brain imaging techniques are also valuable for evaluating the effects of pharmacological treatments and noninvasive brain stimulation methods, or for validating other functional measurement methods like nearinfrared spectroscopy. (Page 41).

EEG and MEG provide a unique capability for noninvasive analysis of human brain activity with high temporal resolution. Numerous studies have demonstrated the merits of EEG/MEG for detecting neural correlates of a broad range of human cognitive processes as well as brain disorders such as epilepsy. The simplicity and mobility of EEG monitoring systems has facilitated the study of human brain signals in naturalistic settings. (Page 44)

The population of humans receiving recording or stimulating devices is large and growing. Most notably, DBS [deep brain stimulation] electrodes implanted in a specific basal ganglia circuit have helped to relieve more than a hundred thousand people of the rigidity, tremor, and slow movements of Parkinson’s disease. DBS is also widely and successfully employed in motor disorders such as dystonia and tremor, and there is reason to think that its potential use is much broader: promising results have appeared for DBS use in intractable depression, and it is being explored as a treatment for obsessivecompulsive disorder and even memory decline, which could have major public health implications. Another frontier is ‘closedloop’ implanted systems in which data analysis is performed in realtime by a computer and used to generate future patterns of brain stimulation. For example, a sensor might detect an epileptic seizure in the early stages of its development and reduce or block it by stimulating the brain into quiescence. (Pages 45-46)

Potentially transformative technologies should also be entertained. For example, the use of optogenetics tools in humans is conceivable in the mid to longterm. Initial safety studies of adenovirusassociated virus vectors in human brains are encouraging, suggesting that viral delivery of therapeutic genes can be explored in the near future, with careful and comprehensive testing of viral delivery systems to evaluate long term safety and efficacy. (Page 48)

As previously mentioned, noninvasive tools for fineresolution stimulation of the human brain would be transformative, potentially reducing or eliminating the need for invasive electrode implants. Present noninvasive stimulation techniques are being explored for therapeutic effects, including TMS [transcranial magnetic stimulation], and directcurrent and slow alternatingcurrent stimulation. These techniques are able to activate ~cm scale areas of brain for potential neurological and psychiatric applications. Prefrontal lobe TMS is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat depression. However, the scale, duration, mechanism of action, and the potency of their effects need to be better elucidated. A longterm goal of the BRAIN Initiative should be to find ways to obtain high spatial and temporal resolution signal recording and stimulation from outside the head, perhaps through the use of minimally explored energy delivery techniques such as focused ultrasound or magnetic stimulation. (Page 48)

The funds devoted to the BRAIN Initiative are a very small fraction of the NIH’s total investment in neuroscience and neurological disorders. (Page 52)

The first five years of the BRAIN Initiative (FY1620) are envisioned primarily to support technology development and validation, with the creation of new methods followed by their maturation and integration in the service of important scientific questions. Technology development will continue throughout the BRAIN Initiative, perhaps peaking around year 5 (FY20). Exploration of scientific questions can and will occur while new technologies are being validated, but the most serious scientific advances will take place after technologies have proven effective, when they can be pursued in a vigorous fashion. Thus beginning more slowly, but peaking in years 610 (FY2125), collaborative groups funded by the BRAIN Initiative will increasingly use these technologies to answer fundamental questions about the brain. (Page 59)

In 2013, the European Union announced the Human Brain Project, a €1 billion project with an emphasis on information computing technology infrastructure for neuroscience ( The working group has been in contact with participants in the Human Brain Project, and meetings between representatives of the United States BRAIN Initiative and the Human Brain Project to discuss shared interests such as data platforms are planned. We expect useful interactions between the BRAIN Initiative and the Human Brain Project to develop as opportunities arise. (Page 60)

Largescale monitoring of neural activity is at the heart of the BRAIN Initiative, providing the means to map and characterize the changes in electrical and chemical signaling underlying mental processes. It will also serve as a foundation in translational applications involving brain monitoring and stimulation, including the restoration of lost or aberrant neural function. As such, it is a core technology for the BRAIN Initiative and considerable effort should be made to develop both new and improved largescale recording methods. Technology development should proceed with specific biological applications in mind that would, if successful, provide new information on the neural circuit basis of brain function, or provide new capabilities in therapeutics. Thus, the emphasis is on technology applicable to the study of the awake brain during quantifiable behavior, providing a basis for the interpretation of neural signals. (Page 74)

New and improved electrodes for largescale recording. Objectives include increased number and density of recorded neurons, access to more brain areas, increased reliability, and minimal invasiveness and tissue reaction. Longerterm objectives include practical devices incorporating nanowires or other nanofabricated structures for in vivo highdensity extracellular or intracellular recording. 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 celltype specific targeting, for membrane voltage, neurotransmitter and neuromodulator concentrations, synaptic activity, and biochemical processes. (Page 74)

A diverse set of new and improved methods for monitoring neural activity in the functioning brain will be the first deliverable anticipated from this project during the first 5 years. As the project develops and matures, we anticipate that these methods will be increasingly used to produce a second deliverable and a primary goal of the BRAIN Initiative: the construction of a dynamic picture of brain function that integrates neuronal and circuit activity over multiple temporal and spatial scales. (Page 75)

New recording technologies should provide the ability to map at unprecedented resolution and scale the electrical and chemical activity of populations of neurons in the awake brain during cognition, emotion, and behavior. This new data will provide the basis for a conceptual understanding of neural coding: how information relevant to the brain state, sensory stimuli, or other variables are encoded in this activity. Following the changes in neural activity over time—the neural dynamics—will provide key information for establishing the computational function of a neural circuit, and hypotheses about how the brain works will be subject to direct experimental observation. For example, are decisions represented by diverging sequences of neural activity that become progressively less similar over time (i.e. a bifurcation in neural dynamics)? Is the shortterm memory trace of a face represented by a pattern of activity on a lowdimensional attractor manifold within the connected brain areas that process face information (the continuous attractor hypothesis)? (Page 76)

For extracellular recording with the present generation of microelectrodes (tetrodes/siliconprobes), or for current calcium imaging methods at high speed, the number of neurons recorded simultaneously typically ranges from tens to hundreds. There is a tradeoff in optical imaging between the number of neurons recorded and temporal resolution: at low temporal resolution, up to 100,000 neurons have been recorded in the transparent larval zebrafish.  Increasing the number of neurons recorded at a particular temporal resolution can be used as a metric for progress. (Pages 76-77)

Experimental manipulation of neural activity is an important tool for testing causality in the characterization of neural circuits, and is increasingly used in therapeutics (see Section III.4).  Ideally, the coding and dynamic properties of neurons in a circuit could be characterized with largescale neural recording, and then a particular spatial and temporal pattern of stimulation, tailored to those neurons and the question or therapy at hand, could be applied to the system. These goals can be met by the development of compatible optical imaging and stimulation instrumentation and spectrallyseparated optical sensors and effectors; by improved highdensity electrodes with both recording and stimulation capability; or by electrode arrays for use with simultaneous optogenetic stimulation. (Pages 77-78)

Similarly, new optical probes such as genetically encoded or nanoparticle based optical voltage sensors offer prospects for dendritic recordings and may bring in vivo optical imaging of membrane voltage into a practical reality. (Page 79)

A major bottleneck of largescale neural recording technologies is not the sensors per se, but how to get the recorded information from sensor to an external device for analysis or archiving. For example, advances in silicon multisite electrodes for largescale neural recording will require advances in onchip multiplexing, filtering, digitization, and communication. Similarly, nanoparticlebased optical detectors of voltage will require methods to read out all probes independently and simultaneously. (Page 79)

Largescale recording methods often provide constraints on the type of behavior that can be studied due to requirements such as head restraint and tethers. Two approaches to reducing these constraints show promise. First, new behavioral paradigms such as virtual reality systems and voluntary head fixation systems provide a greater range of behaviors, such as navigation and decision making in partlyrestrained animals. Second, wirelessly powered and telemetered miniaturized electrode arrays and optical imaging instrumentation can be used for head mounted systems on freely behaving animals, including humans. (Pages 79-80)

[Short-term goal, years 1-5, beginning in Fiscal Year 2016] Flexible (electrocorticography/ECoG) surface EEG grids (wirelessly powered and reporting); mm and submm scale electrode spacing, designed primarily for primates, including human applications. (Page 81)

[Long-term goal, years 6-10, Fiscal Years 2021-2025] Practical access to any area in a nonhuman or human brain with minimum invasiveness. The implantable “brain button” for human use: a selfcontained device that can be surgically implanted with no transcranial connections and that allows for recording and stimulation from large numbers of neurons. (Page 81)

Practical devices for in vivo use incorporating nanowires or other nanofabricated structures; highdensity intracellular recording in vivo. (Page 81)

[Short-term goal, years 1-5, beginning in Fiscal Year 2016] fMRI deployed in combination with EEG and MEG in more “natural environments”, with improved analysis methods (Section III.5), allowing examination of a greater range of human behavior. (Page 83)

We envision two broad phases for the development and application of new neural perturbation technologies: Phase 1 (years 15) should emphasize rapid improvement of recently invented perturbation techniques (e.g. optogenetics, chemogenetics), and invention of novel approaches, especially those that may be applied non (or minimally) invasively to human and animal nervous systems. Refinement of existing electrical stimulation methods should be supported because of their unique advantages in human neuroscience and therapeutics. As always, technology development will proceed most effectively when linked iteratively to concrete applications in neuroscience research. (Page 87)

[Short-term goal, years 1-5, beginning in Fiscal Year 2016] Develop realtime signal processing algorithms for each of the major types of neuroscience data listed in section 5e. (Page 97)

[Long-term goal, years 6-10, Fiscal Years 2021-2025] Make computation of high dimensional inverse solutions from MRI, EEG and MEG recordings feasible in realtime. (Page 99)

At the same time, the ability to record electrical activity at the cellular scale in humans is expanding, providing a unique opportunity to make essential crossscale links between neuronal activity and more global signals from noninvasive imaging methods like fMRI. Both cellularlevel and global signals can then be linked to human behavior, thought and emotion. (Page 102)

Until now, most devices used in humans have been designed for a single goal—for example, either stimulation or recording. The most dramatic improvement that could be made for implanted devices would be to combine multiple measurement and manipulation capabilities in a single device. With technological miniaturization and cost reduction, it should be possible to build sophisticated new devices, collect data about their operation, and provide investigational access to the brain without compromising the safety or efficacy. Very new devices combine DBS with sensors that allow EEG scale measurements of changes in brain activity that result from macroscale stimulation. In combination with careful clinical assessment, such hybrid devices have great potential to help us understand exactly how stimulating currents interact with human brain tissue, why outcomes vary from patient to patient, and how we can achieve more consistent therapeutic results. New BRAINsupported technologies created for research in animals (Sections III.3, III.4) will inspire nextgeneration devices for human brain monitoring and therapies using optical, acoustic and magnetic modalities. (Page 105)

[Long-term goal, years 6-10, Fiscal Years 2021-2025] Application of highresolution recording and stimulation for human research and for a broad range of clinical applications; support ongoing pipeline of new technology innovation involving electrical, optical, acoustic and magnetic modalities. (Page 107)

[One objective of the BRAIN Initiative is:] Application of fully integrated systems to discover brain processes underlying cognition, emotion, perception, decisionmaking, and memory; answers to fundamental questions about how the brain works, and starting points for new therapeutic capabilities. By analyzing neural coding and dynamics in relevant brain regions and cell populations, in the context of connectivity diagrams, behavioral analysis, and sophisticated theoretical and quantitative tools, we will acquire mechanistic and conceptual insight into the relationships between neural systems and mental functions in health and disease. (Page 108)

Successful integration of neuroscience technologies in the BRAIN Initiative should emphasize a systems engineering approach, in which one optimizes the collective performance of the final system, rather than optimizing individual components. For example, a systems engineering approach to developing fluorescent indicators of neural activity should focus not only on the properties of the indicator molecule but also on parameters such as wavelength compatibility with other optical sensors, optogenetic probes, detectors or illumination sources, or robustness to fixation processes used in post mortem analyses. This would be important when combining targeted recording with posthoc connectomic analysis. Similarly, designers of new lasers, lenses or detectors for deep tissue imaging should consider the capabilities of important molecular sensors and probes. (Pages 108-109)

The first year of the BRAIN Initiative, FY14, was seeded by a new $40 million commitment from the NIH; in the second year, FY15, NIH will contribute $100 million to new and continuing grants. The working group believes that the program presented in the preceding sections could ramp up to $400 million per year over the next five years (FY1620), and continue at roughly $500 million per year for the last five years (FY2125). In total this might represent around 5% of the budget for brainrelated research at NIH. (Page 122)

(That concludes the quotations from the BRAIN Initiative Report; there is more significant information in the document that is not provided in this article.)

Huge funding for brain tech worldwide

One might be able to understand the basic and extremely significant point: if the information in the BRAIN Initiative Report is true, then it is evident that some levels of “mind reading” and at least partial “mind control” with advanced innovative technologies have been possible for years, and possibly many years. Simply advancing the already-in-use technologies to be “wirelessly powered” and using nanoparticles (Pages 22, 33, 74, 79, 81, etc.), ultrasound technology, new sensors, or other technologies, chemicals, or substances may provide the ability for such potentially torture technologies to be put into use remotely and secretly/covertly. (The BRAIN Initiative Report does not mention such possibilities, even in the discussion on ethics; the possibility of remote use of advanced innovative brain technologies for torture, though, while possibly sounding “overly suspicious,” might also be common sense, and will be elaborated in a moment.)

Notice also the last provided quotation: $500 million per year for fiscal years 2021-2025 “might represent around 5% of the budget for brain-related research at [the U.S. federal government’s National Institutes of Health]. It appears as though NIH spends a large amount of money on brain research, for potentially many years. Thus, there may be other U.S. federal government programs which already discovered remote, covert, and not requiring surgical implantation brain recording and stimulating (“mind reading” and “mind control”) technologies at the National Institutes of Health which are not discussed in the report above or other BRAIN Initiative documents. 

Also significant is that in 2013, “the European Union announced the Human Brain Project, a €1 billion project with an emphasis on information computing technology infrastructure for neuroscience.” One billion dollars is a lot of money for “information computing technology infrastructure for neuroscience.” 

And then there are many other countries whose governments do not even permit the freedom of thought, let alone freedom of speech. Would such governments want to develop technology that not only controls thoughts but also surveils brains for people who may want to overthrow them or their government? Corrupt persons would be highly motivated to achieve such technologies to keep themselves in power and do away with potential enemies. For corrupt persons with cowardly tendencies, such technologies would be the most sought after weapons.

The point is that both the U.S. and many other countries could have provided enough money to develop remote and covert brain recording, controlling, and torture technologies. 

(“Torture” is used in many countries; remote brain torture technologies may include forcibly causing, or forcibly intensifying after using a stimulus from commonly experienced human interactions, emotions like fear, anxiety, nervousness, or anger. Such technologies could possibly make a person falsely believe that thoughts, feelings, and/or emotions are their own doing whereas they may be forcibly caused by technologies. Causing loss of sleep directly or indirectly by using remote technology to agitate other household members or using remote technology on easily excitable and loud animals may be possible. Also possible might be increasing appetite, heightening the “fight or flight response” for entrapment purposes, sensitizing targeted persons to common noises or other commonly sensed stimuli, and potentially stimulation to cause some bodily movements. Other torturous use of such remote brain technologies may also be possible. Again, it might sound crazy, but if the above U.S. federal government published “science” is true, then such technologies are possibilities, with a potentially necessary development being wireless, non-invasive or “partially invasive,” and miniature technology or chemicals potentially covertly included in injected, absorbed, consumed, or inhaled substances.)

Dangerous uses for invasive neural technologies

One might also remember that law enforcement, the “intelligence community,” and national security personnel say that the purpose of surveillance is to know the 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 of discovery would be when the person is thinking about committing, or merely thinking about, the act. Thinking occurs in the brain. Those powerful government people who support surveillance, especially those government people with evil, cowardly, and vengeful tendencies, then, might support using advanced innovative technologies to surveil the thoughts in the brain. 

Again, this might sound crazy, but “follow the science”; if the U.S. federal government’s BRAIN Initiative Report mentioned above with scientists describing such technologies that exist and/or are planned for development is true, then one cannot be said to be overly suspicious for suggesting the possibility. And when one actually studies the subject more thoroughly, one might get the impression that the federal government and potentially foreign governments already developed such technologies for remote surveillance and other covert reasons. 

The non-government scientists’ BRAIN Initiative Report above apparently describes non-secretive brain research information. Non-government scientists may not know that the U.S. federal government already advanced the technology with wireless, non-invasive or partially invasive, and remote capabilities for national security, intelligence community, and/or law enforcement uses. Such advancement would likely be kept secret as classified information.

It should be mentioned that, in addition to supporting brain surveillance of thoughts and future plans, government law enforcement or intelligence community persons might also support the forced manipulation of thoughts and emotions of others. If the information in the above BRAIN Initiative Report is true, then such technologies might be able to forcefully put thoughts of committing an act in a another’s mind, and such algorithm technologies could then surveil and “read” or record and decode how the mind responds to the thoughts. Technologies could be developed, or could already be developed and in use, to forcibly “interrogate” (sounds crazy but that is the word used in the BRAIN Initiative Report published by the U.S. government on Pages 32-33) the brain remotely and covertly 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. If the FBI commits crimes, which it says that it may do (“otherwise illegal activity,” bribes, false information, etc.), surely they don’t want employees or others with knowledge to publicize those crimes.

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 on the hoaxes and/or crimes committed by the FBI or local or federal law enforcement or intelligence entities. If there is a so-called “secret police” in America or in local law enforcement communities, and if such brain surveillance technologies exist, one can reasonably suggest that the secret police employees themselves are some of the most closely surveilled people due to their potential knowledge of secret police methods and technologies. Many other examples of remote and covert “brain interrogation” could be possible.

It cannot be said enough that “following the U.S. federal government’s science” says or implies that these technologies exist and/or could be developed for wireless and potentially covert and remote use.

Brain biosurveillance not illegal in US law?

There are at least two questions that one could look into: one is whether there is advanced innovative medical technology which can record, manipulate or “control,” and/or decode or “read” the human brain. Another question is whether there is information which suggests the U.S. government is currently using such advanced innovative technology on Americans without their knowledge. 

The above quotations from the document published by the U.S. federal government mostly discuss the first question: that advanced innovative medical technology apparently can record, manipulate or “control,” and/or decode or “read” the thoughts, emotions, or memories of a human being. Such advanced innovative technologies exist and may not even require surgery or the implanting of “human-brain interfaces” or other devices. Forcefully causing at least some thoughts or emotions in another’s mind and/or knowing at least some thoughts or emotions in another’s mind indeed appears to be possible with the current medical and wireless technology. Such brain recording and forced brain activity could potentially be achieved secretly/covertly.

(The brain is “electrochemical”; certain chemicals can, obviously, alter a person’s thoughts and emotions. Additionally, there are likely various levels of abilities to control the brain to cause human behaviors; not yet fully developed brains and/or degenerating brains may be easier to stimulate bodily actions or behaviors with brain stimulating/controlling technologies. Certain chemicals may also make brain stimulation/manipulation/“control” easier. This is one among multiple topics that cannot be elaborated in this article.)

The second question whether there is any information which suggests U.S. federal or local government law enforcement, “intelligence community,” and/or national security entities are using or plan on using advanced innovative brain surveillance and manipulation technologies is significant enough of a question to provide some discussion in this article. 

Possibly the most obvious answer is that there are apparently major U.S. federal government documents which clearly state that human brain “recording” and “manipulation” have been possible for years, possibly many years; yet the federal government has apparently not made remote and/or covert brain surveillance and manipulation illegal for U.S. federal, state, or local law enforcement, intelligence, “public health security,” or “national security” entities. 

That seems to be suggestive: the U.S. government implied as far back as during the Obama-Biden administration that such brain recording and controlling technology exists, but the government apparently did not make it illegal to do such actions which might be labeled as “biosurveillance.” (As other articles have discussed, the FBI and other law enforcement entities are apparently exempt from many U.S. federal laws; thus, making remote and covert brain surveillance and forceful brain manipulation technology illegal would not necessarily prevent U.S. federal, state, or local government law enforcement or intelligence entities from using such advanced technologies in America.)

And, while it cannot be thoroughly discussed in this article, there may be significant information in U.S. federal laws and other documents which might lead one to ask: instead of making brain surveillance, manipulation or “control” (or “mitigation” of future planned acts) illegal, did the U.S. federal government attempt to make such covert and remote surveillance legal for entities like the FBI and other law enforcement or intelligence entities under the legal “national security” term of “biosurveillance?” There may be more to the Obama-Biden administration’s Executive Order requiring the FBI to link public health with law enforcement. “Biosurveillance” with brain recording and manipulating technologies could be described as “linking public health with law enforcement.” Indeed, there may be significant information which supports this claim but it cannot be mentioned here.

Another point is that the BRAIN Initiative Report is research that is unclassified information and describes non-secretive research. This is important because the BRAIN Initiative Report discusses extremely significant achievements in recording and manipulating the human brain without having the almost unlimited money that the U.S. federal government national security entities have. National security, intelligence community and “law enforcement” entities, and entities like the FBI, DHS, and the Department of Defense may have almost unlimited money for research programs on advanced innovative brain technologies and then probably keep that information classified or secret from not only the average American but also potentially scientists at research institutions, medical device companies, and pharmaceutical companies.

Now, as discussed above, one of the most powerful “national security” technologies would be a technology that could “read the mind” and discover the future plans of potential “national security threats.” It cannot be mentioned enough that an additionally powerful advanced innovative technology would be one that could be used to remotely “mitigate” planned future actions (see: Page 13), or manipulate, and therefore potentially torture, the human brain. National security entities could claim to use such technologies for “security” reasons and claim to use such technology to “mitigate potential threats”; for example, remotely and covertly torture through causing distress, anxiety, sleeplessness, fear, etc., in a person that the government views as a “potential threat.” Of course, such technologies could also be used to covertly harm innocent persons. It is a question worth asking again: would vengeful and cowardly government employees use such remote torture technologies on people they simply do not like if the government employee could be sure to not get in trouble?

In other words, it is highly likely that U.S. federal law enforcement, intelligence, defense, and/or other national security entities were already researching, and may have already developed, such technologies that remotely record and manipulate the human brain. (Then, as mentioned previously, there are also the scientists in many other countries, especially the ones that torture their own citizens, which would have also been attempting to achieve such technologies that remotely record and manipulate the human brain. Such countries’ scientists could have discovered the technology which was then sold to or copied by American government scientists.)

Government deception in the BRAIN Initiative Report?

It is an unfortunate reality that the possibility of some or all of the information in the BRAIN Initiative Report being a type of government deception should probably be mentioned. Government deception is indeed possible, since merely suggesting that there is advanced medical technology which can achieve remote brain recording/surveillance and/or remote brain manipulation could be used for various purposes. The mere mention of the possibility of such technologies could make a large number of people, including those that the U.S. federal government determines to be “potential threats,” question their every thought or action, thus possibly causing confusion or other problems. The subjects mentioned in the BRAIN Initiative Report could also be partially deceptive; some of the information could be true and accurate while some could be meant to deceive. 

Most of the BRAIN Initiative Report discusses technologies which can record the brain (“mind read”) and stimulate or manipulate the brain (“mind control”); the BRAIN Initiative Report then describes plans to advance such innovative technologies to be more remote, wireless, and not requiring “invasiveness” or surgical implantation in humans. In general, there is reason to believe that remote brain recording and remote brain manipulation is possible based merely on common observations or experiences. 

First, many people have observed for themselves that medical technologies like x-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, computed tomography (CT scan), and other techniques can “see” inside the human brain and/or body, whereas the brain technology known as electroencephalography can record the electrical signals of the brain. MRI, for example, 

is a medical imaging technique that uses a magnetic field and computer-generated radio waves to create detailed images of the organs and tissues in your body.

Most MRI machines are large, tube-shaped magnets. When you lie inside an MRI machine, the magnetic field temporarily realigns water molecules in your body. Radio waves cause these aligned atoms to produce faint signals, which are used to create cross-sectional MRI images…

Thus, one might be able to reasonably suggest that such technology, or other medical technologies like electroencephalography, could have been advanced in an innovative way to achieve brain recording “remotely,” which means from a far distance away from the person whose brain may be recorded or surveilled. 

Brain “manipulation” or, using words that are more easily understood, “mind control,” of course, is different from brain recording; this would include using technology to remotely and physically force a person to think specific thoughts and/or words, experience emotions such as anger, potentially even attempt to falsify memories, and potentially cause body movements like muscle twitches or other movements. There is an observation which some have made in science class in which one can visibly observe the electrical stimulation of a nerve impulse on nerves in non-human animals; sometimes such an experiment is performed on frog legs. Since the brain contains nerve cells, one might conclude that the nerve cells in the brain can also be stimulated. Since the brain is where thoughts, emotions, memories, etc., occur, one might conclude that thoughts, emotions, or memories might be forcefully experienced with advanced innovative stimulating technology.

One might also simply observe the advancements in wireless, miniature, and remote technologies which move energy from one location to a specific target or “antenna” far away and reasonably wonder whether the specific location of neurons in the brain could be imaged in real-time with medical technology and then targeted for stimulation or manipulation with energy moving technology and/or other technologies from far away distances. 

If, for example, thinking a word or thought in the brain makes an objectively measurable “electrical” activity or movement of observable chemicals in the same spatial location in the brain every time it is thought, one might also wonder if spatial and temporal technologies could be used to “mind read,” so to speak. If speaking a word makes a unique observable sound, then thinking a word or sentences might cause objectively observable unique activity in the brain. External bodily surveillance, advanced computer algorithms, and “supercomputers” might be able assist in the “mind reading” (and potentially the “mind control”). 

In other words, there is at least some observatory and other experience which one can use to conclude that what was described above in a U.S. federal government document on brain “recording” and “manipulation” is at least possible rather than deception. There is indeed still the possibility of deception, though.

(Before concluding, it should probably be mentioned that some of the brain stimulating/“controlling” and brain recording/“reading” technology might be used for genuine medical treatments of genuine medical disorders; however, the technology could also be used like sorcery which attempts to “have a supernatural power over others,” especially when used by national security, law enforcement, or the intelligence community. )

More US government laws and policies

Overall, if the federal government document Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Working Group Report to the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH is truthful and accurate, then one can conclude, at minimum, that some level of mind reading and mind control has already been achieved. The document says or implies that remote and wireless mind reading, thought controlling, and potentially bodily movement controlling technologies without requiring surgical implantation were planned to have been developed by now. Even partial remote ability to control others thoughts, feelings, and some bodily movements could cause significant harm. And there is more information which supports some of the possibilities suggested in this article, but it cannot be mentioned here.