Featured Image

(LifeSiteNews) — This article provides information to support suggestions that the U.S. federal government is legalizing “biosurveillance,” which could include using advanced innovative technologies for surveillance and manipulation of human brains.

While this article will treat the topic in less depth than other articles, it should still sufficiently explain the most significant points. A separate article provides a new in-depth discussion on U.S. federal government officials’ potential attempts at legalizing (after President Donald Trump was elected but prior to his taking office) a “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System.”

First, some might say something like, “only crazy, mad scientists would support a surveillance system which can record, manipulate, and control the brains of every person in America or the world.”

READ: What does federal law and ‘the science’ say about brain manipulation?

It is necessary to remind readers that during the Obama-Biden administration and during other administrations, one scientist involved in U.S. government “biosurveillance” technologies was Dr. John P. Holdren. Previous articles described his views on apparently secretly decreasing or otherwise controlling human populations.

He also apparently suggested a “planetary regime” to control, also secretly, the use of energy. And he apparently suggested surrendering U.S. freedom to a one-world government. Such an action as surrendering sovereignty could also be performed secretly, and probably implies secrecy due to potential uprisings or other preventative actions if such surrender of sovereignty was publicized.

Now, it is, unfortunately, often necessary to publicly criticize current and former government officials. Is it likely that a powerful scientist who apparently supported secretly surrendering U.S. freedoms, secretly controlling the population with sterilants in drinking water, and a one-world government, might also support developing advanced innovative technologies which surveil and control the human brain?

Although this article discusses specifically Dr. Holdren due to his several years of powerful influence in the U.S. federal government, there are likely many “mad scientists” or simply psychopathic, sociopathic, or paranoid law enforcement, secret police, “national security,” or “intelligence community” officials currently and previously in the U.S. federal government or especially communist and Islamic foreign governments, who would fully support controlling and surveilling the brains of every human being in the world.

It is easy to predict that those scientists and other government officials who do not follow the Ten Commandments as accurately taught in authentic Catholicism, and those without an authentic Fear of the Lord, are going to do harmful things to potentially billions of people; the phenomenon of mad scientists or psychopathic or sociopathic secret police, “national security, or “law enforcement” and other government officials who often think it is their duty to secretly control others or even use torture on those that they do not like.

READ: Obama-Biden administration legalized ‘neurological surveillance’ after Trump’s election

It also should be emphasized, as a separate article emphasizes more thoroughly, that some, and possibly many, government scientists’ most highly treasured and sought-after achievements would be the remote (secret) surveillance, control, and potentially even torture of every human brain, or at least every human brain that is specifically targeted. But such scientists and other government officials are unlikely to publicly say, “We are going to surveil and control your brains with secret advanced innovative biosurveillance and neurological surveillance technologies.”

In other words, if government scientists wanted to attempt to legally protect themselves in their government publications but also attempt to keep the plans somewhat secret, the words that are quoted and discussed below would probably be what one would expect such scientists to use.

2013 US government ‘National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap’

It should be mentioned that Holdren participated in developing “biosurveillance” laws and policies for former President Obama. In 2013, he wrote the introductory letter for the “National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap,” which identified and prioritized “research and development (R&D) needs with the goal of giving decision makers at all levels of government more accurate and timely information when biological incidents threaten health.”

In the introductory letter for the Roadmap, Holdren wrote that “Surveillance can be key to predicting… malevolent activities.” This is a significant point: “malevolent activities” are human actions. Thus, Holdren implied using surveillance (the subject of the document is specifically “biosurveillance”) for predicting human behaviors, rather than merely for predicting infectious disease “incidents.”

Also, the document then describes using “risk anticipation,” which includes “prediction of an impending… intentional incident.” (Page 3) Again, “intentional incidents” are human actions. Thus, Holdren and the U.S. government apparently intended to describe the use of advanced innovative biosurveillance technologies for the “prediction” of human actions and “detection” of potential human actions “at the earliest indication,” rather than merely predicting infectious disease incidents.

READ: US gov’t used fake propaganda to deceive millions in the past. Why wouldn’t it do so now?

This cannot be overemphasized: the document is describing advanced innovative “biosurveillance” technologies for surveillance of human behaviors, and, as is going to be explained below, potentially the surveillance (and “mitigation,” page 2, or manipulation) of the human brain.

Another important point is that the U.S. government document defines biosurveillance to include “all-hazards threats” (page 2) and not simply infectious diseases. “All-hazards threats” includes human actions, and the “earliest indication” of human actions is when they are in the human brain as thoughts or, in some ways, emotions.

The Roadmap explains this slightly more clearly with the words, “The ability to forecast impacts of the emergence of… an intentionally released agent begins with having some fundamental understanding of environmental and behavioral factors that have predictive influence on an agent’s behavior.” (Page 11)

Now, what type of technologies could be used for “predicting” “intentional” incidents and other human behaviors? Holdren, the Obama-Biden administration, and the Roadmap explain the goal of using “non-invasive data-gathering tools,” apparently with the potential to be used for such “predicting.” Specifically, the document states the goal of developing advanced innovative biosurveillance technologies that:

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)

The previous statement cannot be over emphasized. First, it is again necessary to mention that a “significant incident” as described in the previous quotation includes human actions, or an “intentional incident.” (Page 3) The statement is at least partially referring to human actions, and, the “earliest indications of a significant” human action, although it is not mentioned in the U.S. government document, is when the action is in the human brain as a thought or in some ways an emotion.

READ: FBI has used ‘destructive,’ secretive tactics to harm US citizens

And this is also a very big deal: “non-invasive” very commonly, possibly most commonly, implies technologies to be used on human beings. Even more specifically, “non-invasive” is commonly used to describe “tools” used on the human brain. Invasive “tools” or technologies are those that usually require surgery; thus, “non-invasive” implies not-requiring-surgery on the human brain or body, which suggests that the use of “non-invasive data-gathering tools” is implying tools to be used, without requiring surgery, on the human brain or body.

And this also cannot be over emphasized: “non-invasive data-gathering tools” and “other types of surveillance data” from the statement above implies that the “non-invasive data-gathering tools” are types of “surveillance” (otherwise the word “other” would not be used in “other types of surveillance data”).

It also cannot be over emphasized that “non-invasive data-gathering tools” apparently implies technologies that gather data from occurrences or processes within the human brain or body.

To summarize, the document appears to be describing technologies or “tools” which detect “the earliest indications of a significant incident” which are “non-invasive” and used to surveil the processes that occur within the human body and/or brain.

Previous statements in the document suggest that human behaviors (not simply “earliest indications” of infectious diseases), are included in “earliest indications of a significant incident.” “Antecedent conditions” may also imply the surveillance, or “biosurveillance,” of current human behaviors or current plans for future behaviors.

What types of human processes predict behavior, occur within humans, and could be surveilled with “non-invasive data-gathering tools?” The human brain is one possible target of such “non-invasive data-gathering tools” which “detect antecedent conditions and the earliest indications of a significant incident.”

READ: US gov’t can now legally use x-rays and other technology to spy on citizens’ homes, cars

But there is more. The document continues by specifying which types of advanced innovative “non-invasive data-gathering tools” are planned to be used to “improve the ability to detect antecedent conditions and the earliest indications of a significant incident.” It specifies the use of “remote sensing capabilities” by mentioning the goal of developing biosurveillance tools or technologies that:

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. (Page 12)

The document again mentions similar biosurveillance plans to

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)

Those are also very significant, and together may imply the surveillance of the human brain.

2013 Holdren and Obama-Biden BRAIN Initiative for ‘real-time’ brain surveillance and control

Integrating “emerging remote sensing capabilities/analysis” with conventional molecular biological tools to characterize and ultimately predict spatially and temporally important [human] environmental variables that influence disease emergence within… humans” might imply the potential use of neurotechnologies (brain technologies) described in the Obama-Biden administration “Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies” (BRAIN) Initiative.

In fact, the BRAIN Initiative uses very similar language to describe its goals and planned technologies as those technologies described in the “National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap.”

READ: The FBI has disturbingly broad authority to commit crimes and violence

The U.S. government’s Roadmap describes “remote sensing capabilities/analysis” including “hyperspectral” sensing technologies to be used to characterize and predict “spatial and temporal” variables in humans. While the human brain is not mentioned, it appears to be implied.

And here is an example of the BRAIN Initiative describing potentially “hyperspectral” sensing technologies for “spatial and temporal” variables within human brains:

Ideally, the coding and dynamic properties of [brain] neurons in a circuit could be characterized with large-scale 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 spectrally-separated optical sensors and effectors; by improved high-density electrodes with both recording and stimulation capability; or by electrode arrays for use with simultaneous optogenetic stimulation. (Pages 77-78)

Thus, the BRAIN Initiative suggests “optical sensors” and “spatial and temporal pattern of stimulation,” much like the U.S. federal government’s Roadmap document suggests “remote sensing capabilities/analysis (such as biological, chemical, and hyperspectral)” for characterizing and predicting “spatial and temporal variables” of “diseases” within humans. Neurological (or brain) diseases are diseases “within humans.” The Roadmap does not specifically mention surveillance and stimulation of the human brain, though.

READ: FBI could be targeting Americans with covert action, but we have no way of knowing

However, again, the human brain might be implied in the Roadmap, due to the document’s emphasis on predicting “malevolent” behaviors, “prediction of an impending… intentional incident” (page 3), and plans to use “non-invasive data-gathering tools” and “other types of surveillance data.” Again, it cannot be over-emphasized that “non-invasive” biosurveillance could imply using technology to observe, monitor, record, surveil, etc., what is occurring within the human body and/or brain.

And the Roadmap then continues by specifying the government’s use of “remote sensing” technologies to be used as such “non-invasive data-gathering tools” (page 11) for the “prediction of an impending… intentional incident.” (Page 3) Those tools might be brain surveillance tools, and the “other types of surveillance data” (page 11) might be “machine learning” technologies which combine surveillance of the human brain with surveillance of human behaviors. This is described in the BRAIN Initiative document as follows:

In summary, the clever use of virtual reality, machine learning, and miniaturized recording devices has the potential to dramatically increase our understanding of how neuronal activity underlies cognition and behavior. This path can be enabled by developing technologies to quantify and interpret animal behavior, at high temporal and spatial resolution, reliably, objectively, over long periods of time, under a broad set of conditions, and in combination with concurrent measurement and manipulation of neuronal activity. (Page 35)

The previous quotation from the BRAIN Initiative document again uses very similar language as the “National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap.” What is another phrase for “miniaturized recording device?” It is also known as a surveillance device, which could include “remote sensing capabilities/analysis.” The BRAIN Initiative’s discussion of the use of “miniaturized [brain] recording devices” with “machine learning” is similar to the U.S. federal government’s biosurveillance plans of “Connect[ing] non-invasive data-gathering tools to other types of surveillance data.” (Page 11).

READ: Do recent laws allow the government to use biosurveillance to target Americans?

And what does the U.S. federal government plan on using such biosurveillance and surveillance for? “To detect antecedent conditions and the earliest indications of a significant incident” (page 11), and that includes the “prediction of an impending… intentional incident” (page 3). Isn’t such “prediction” using non-invasive technology potentially similar to what a non-expert might simply refer to as “mind-reading?”

And what type of technology has the potential to read minds? A “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System,” which could be used to “characterize and ultimately predict spatially and temporally important… variables that influence [neurological and brain] disease emergence within… humans.” It was legalized in 2016 by the Obama-Biden Administration (and Holdren, Obama’s Science and Technology Policy Advisor) after President Trump was elected.

And it should also be emphasized that it was in April of 2013 that the Obama-Biden Administration announced the “BRAIN Initiative,” with a U.S. government goal of “measuring real-time cognition, emotion, perception, and behavior at the scale of complex neural networks in living organisms – all at the speed of thought.” (page 14; the words “measuring real-time… emotion… and behavior at the scale of complex neural networks” are simply scientific terms for “mind reading.” Such words can also be used to describe “biosurveillance” or more specifically “neurological surveillance.” It is another example of the U.S. federal government, specifically the National Institutes of Health, clearly stating plans for using advanced technologies for “mind reading.”)

Then, a few months after announcing the BRAIN Initiative, in June 2013 Holdren and the U.S. federal government published its Roadmap. Holdren and the government’s Office of Science and Technology Policy “coordinated the development” of the BRAIN Initiative. (Page 2) The scientists published this main “BRAIN Initiative” document in June of 2014. Then, in 2016, after (necessary to emphasize after) Trump was elected, the Obama-Biden (and Holdren, et. al.) administration legalized the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System. (130 STAT. 1076) A separate article describes the “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System” more thoroughly.

READ: Do the government’s innovative brain technologies pose biosurveillance risks?

It is necessary to begin to conclude this article here; however, one should be reminded that it was Holdren who apparently suggested using secrecy against American citizens for some of the most evil government actions, including population control and surrendering American sovereignty. Thus, some may be interested in another major quote from the Obama-Biden (Holdren, et. al.) U.S. federal government’s BRAIN Initiative:

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)

The possibility of using RNA or genetically engineered sensors to “gain access to the human brain” is suggested. Even “permanent genetic change” to the human brain is suggested. The emphasis should be on “sensors and effectors,” in the brain, which could make it easier to surveil and/or control the brain from a remote location. Such “sensors and effectors” could make brain manipulation (“mind control,” brain stimulation, thought stimulation, emotion stimulation, “putting words in a person’s mouth,” etc.) possible from a remote location.

The U.S. government has also described “magneto-genetic” alteration of the brain, or using genetics to make the neurons in the brain sensitive to magnetic fields; magnetic fields can be controlled remotely, which, again, suggests the possibility of the human brain being remotely controlled. Because the brain controls the body, the body could also be remotely controlled (at least partially. Mind-altering drugs, chemicals, prescription drugs, etc. which alter brain chemistry may be required to be combined with other stimulating technologies for more complete remote control of the brain).

Such advanced innovative technologies might be described as having the potential to cause specific parts of the brain to act like an antenna which can be remotely controlled, with the potential ability to remotely and secretly make a person feel emotions, remotely and secretly cause a person to say specific words, and remotely and secretly torture a targeted person.

Of course, some might be saying, “You are crazy, nobody would ever do that!” Or maybe they would?