CDC subcommittee implies the US gov’t has ‘surveillance systems for mental illness’

Jan51

Well-Known Member
(The final paragraph pretty sums up this long article. Sorry it lost the paragraph spacing.)

CDC subcommittee implies the US gov’t has ‘surveillance systems for mental illness’​


The CDC's National Biosurveillance Advisory Subcommittee advises the government on 'the development and implementation of a nationwide biosurveillance strategy for human health,' including the use of 'syndromic surveillance for mental health.'


Robert L. Kinney III

(LifeSiteNews) — Several previous articles discussed the U.S. federal government’s laws on surveillance, “biosurveillance,” and the “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System.” Some articles described the U.S. federal government’s Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Those previous articles suggested that such “innovative neurotechnologies” might be able to be advanced or developed enough to be used by law enforcement, the FBI, secret police, etc., for possibly the worst type of spying on Americans.
This article provides some necessary summaries of information from previous articles and new information which supports claims from previous articles; specifically, the U.S. government apparently has “surveillance systems for mental illness.” Such government surveillance systems for mental illness could imply the surveillance of every human action of every human being at every moment throughout their life (including in their homes) and surveillance of the thoughts, emotions, plans, etc., of human brains. The subject of the government’s possible use of secret brain or “neurological” surveillance and control requires thoroughness; thus, many words are used in the article.
Such surveillance or “biosurveillance” might include at least partial remote and secret “mind reading” and “mind control,” the most invasive and almost unbelievable surveillance and control possible. Such technologies would undoubtedly be torture, and if Americans knew about their current or potential use, such technologies would be illegal; one might suggest severe punishments for those government and non-government employees who use or are aware of the use of such equipment and technologies.
Those previous articles quoted U.S. federal government documents describing that partial mind reading and mind control can currently be done with neurotechnologies which may include the use of “sensors” and/or electromagnetic, x-ray, ultrasound, infrared, radio frequency, or other technologies. Most of those technologies have been studied by researchers for many years. And there are likely other technologies that the U.S. government and other governments have not publicly described which may achieve remote and secret “mind reading,” “mind control,” and torture.

There is likely ferocious government motivation for remote brain surveillance and brain control technologies​

It should be common sense that one of the most sought after achievements for researchers and draconian law enforcement or other government officials would be remote and secret mind reading and mind control. This is partially due to the tendency of politicians, law enforcement, secret police, the FBI, “intelligence community,” and others in America to control human beings without the targeted persons knowing who is doing the controlling.
The phenomenon of secret government control might also be observed in communist countries and governments who follow the teachings of the false prophet. Simply study history or use common sense: civilians often do not like to be forced to support evils which government officials support, forced into the worst kinds of slave labor, forcibly not allowed to or tortured or killed for the True Worship of God in the Most Holy Eucharist, or, as often occurs, tortured for criticizing or rebuking government officials, the false prophet, false religions, etc.
Such evil government officials, secret police and Gestapo-like employees, kings, tyrants, etc., often become extremely paranoid of civilians, co-workers who know about their crimes, or their inferiors potentially overtaking their power or getting revenge on them. Again, study history; the phrase “King So-and-so’s servants conspired against him, and he died” is common, although it usually includes more gruesome words. In today’s society, such actions might be more likely to be done by co-workers or inferiors who do not like their bosses or want to take their superiors’ jobs, power, and money.
Such overly suspicious government officials would undoubtedly seek technologies which could ultimately allow only one person or few people (themselves) to control everyone else, or almost everyone else, in their location or, ultimately, the world. Remote and secret brain technologies which operate integrated surveillance networks of systems would be such technologies sought after by such evil people. The people controlling the integrated networks of systems might be able to surveil and control most everyone else in the world if the technologies were advanced enough.
The point of the above introduction is that there is likely extreme and ferocious motivation for advancing and developing brain technologies to be able to remotely and secretly “mind read” and control the minds of others, in part because the brain controls behaviors. Such evil government, law enforcement, and/or secret police entities would undoubtedly spend almost unlimited amounts of money and work on such technologies.

Government and scientists say ‘mind reading’ and ‘mind control’ is possible​

It is difficult to determine what most people really think about the possibility of technologies being advanced enough to remotely and secretly “mind read” and control the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors of others. Government propaganda entities have likely achieved coercing their civilians to think it is crazy, even “mental illness,” for a person to wonder if remote and secret mind reading or mind and behavior control can be achieved with advanced innovative neurotechnologies and/or equipment and technologies from human health fields.
(Falsely labeling those who question whether remote mind reading and control is possible as mentally ill could also be an attempt to quiet such people; in addition to ferocious motivation to achieve evil surveillance and control, government officials would have ferocious opposition to those who might be able prove their evildoing. Many people use the false accusation of “you need help” or “you are mentally ill” to attempt to manipulate others into being quiet.)

Some have probably heard the phrase, “a man is only as good as his tools.” In healthcare or literature research on technologies which affect or observe the human brain and/or body, a “tool,” so to speak, is simply the information which is communicated or published in peer-reviewed medical journals as if it is truth and/or fact.
Another relevant phrase is “don’t harm the messengers.” Messengers simply deliver or communicate what others have said or written as if it is factual information. If the information (for example, the U.S. government’s BRAIN Initiative information or other medical information on “mind reading” and “mind controlling” technologies) is wrong, in most instances it is not the messenger who should be blamed. It is the scientists, researchers, government officials, etc. who should be punished or blamed for propagating false information (if it is known to be falsified but still propagated as true).
(The previous suggestion should not be controversial due to similar punishments for medical professionals who knowingly propagate false information on false treatments, diagnoses, etc. Claiming that all government public health officials are law enforcement or “national security” so that they can propagate false information and commit hoaxes should not be legal. This is another reason why Congress should repeal the “law enforcement exemption” which apparently allows federal, state, and local police, the FBI, secret police, etc., to propagate false information and commit hoaxes. Such entities and persons should not be allowed to propagate false information and/or commit hoaxes, ruses, ploys, etc.)
Basically, many people (likely including many who work in psychology or psychiatry) say that others are crazy and even “mentally ill” for using common sense to wonder if medical and other technologies could be developed to “mind read” and “mind control.”
But it is actually U.S. federal government documents and several scientists which say that not only is “mind reading” and “mind control” possible, but that it was achieved to a certain extent several years ago. Don’t harm the messenger. Better yet, don’t claim the messengers are mentally ill or conspiracy theorists for simply trying to explain in understandable language what government officials and several scientists use scientific and technical language to describe.
The implications of the use of such technologies should probably be approached in the same way that nuclear weapons’ technology is approached: very seriously. Remote and secret technologies that mind read, mind control, torture the brain and/or body, and have the potential to remotely and secretly cause injury and death are obviously very dangerous.
While the U.S. federal government and several scientists explain that mind reading and mind control was achieved several years ago, most of them do not explain how the technologies could be used, or are currently being used, by law enforcement, the FBI, and other secret police entities as both the most evil surveillance possible and one of the most evil types of torture (most other tortures are not done secretly like tortures which secretly affect the brain or body could be done). Such people also do not describe the possibilities of specifically remote brain surveillance, remote “mind reading,” or remote mind control.
(“Remote” is used in this and previous articles to mean from a different location, which could be many miles away by using satellites or other technologies, or closer by using secret technologies in one’s house, utilities, electronic devices, underground, a nearby house or building, etc.; “remote” “mind reading,” “brain stimulation,” “brain manipulation,” or “mind control” is different from a research subject being connected to or enclosed by an fMRI or EEG machine or other medical equipment while the subject knows that researchers are observing and controlling brain activity.)

Potential methods of government secretly implanting nanotechnology brain sensors into Americans​

Such remote and/or secret surveillance might require the development of what U.S. Federal law and documents describe as “sensors” or “biosensors” utilizing “nanotechnology” which allows such sensors to be small enough to enter (and then attach to, or implant in) the human body through food, water, government-forced injections, or possibly “absorbed” through the skin of the scalp or other locations.
The previous references do not specifically discuss the secret use of nanotechnology or sensors in Americans. It cannot be excluded as a possibility, though, due to suggestions or requirements in several government laws, documents, and other communications which are going to be mentioned in a moment. Many of those laws and documents may at least imply the possibility of using nanotechnology, sensors, or other advanced technologies in or on human organisms.
Some might be familiar with medical technologies such as “electroencephalography” (EEG) and “electroconvulsive therapy” (ECT). The medical equipment used for those technologies includes “electrodes” or other electronic equipment connected to wires which are connected to a person’s scalp; the wires are connected to medical equipment that can measure brain activity and/or manipulate or control parts of the brain.
Some people might think it is not possible to remotely and secretly use technologies to “mind read” or “mind control” because, while such people know about such medical technologies as EEG, such people often assume that such technologies necessarily require electrodes, sensors, or other electronic equipment connected to wires and other machines in a medical office or hospital.
A significant point to emphasize here is that there are theoretical ways in which such sensors, “electrodes,” or other electronics could be made much smaller, wireless, and secretly implanted into the human scalp or other locations.
One possible theoretical example is the use of “nanoparticles,” such as “solid lipid nanoparticles” or other nanotechnologies (page 5) that are not publicly described, which could theoretically be absorbed through the scalp (skin) and could theoretically be used to encapsulate and secretly “implant” very small sensors – some sensors which may also be described as “computer chips” – into the scalp or other skin areas.
The solid-lipid nanoparticle basically could enclose a very small sensor; the U.S. federal government has published the suggestion of very small “graphene” brain sensors or other “nanotransducers.” The government does not describe this possibility, but it can be arrived at logically: solid-lipid nanoparticles containing graphene sensors or nanotransducers could theoretically be absorbed into the scalp. The solid-lipid nanoparticles which surround the sensors might eventually dissolve, which could then result in potentially many sensors implanted in the scalp or other body locations.
(Another possibility, which some have already suggested, is indeed government-forced injections containing such brain sensors; such graphene or other very small sensors could be enclosed in solid-lipid nanoparticles and included in the chemicals with the injections, or they could be small enough to be attached inside every syringe and then mix with the chemical when it is injected into humans, or the sensors could be enclosed in nanoparticles in the skin cleaning substance used prior to injection, which then results in absorption and implantation in potentially several different locations of the body and/or brain.
Again, the point is that there could be several different methods to secretly get such nanotechnology brain sensors or very small brain-computer interfaces into human beings. And, in defense of the messengers, if one thinks that “nobody would ever do that!” or that the aforementioned statements are crazy, one should be reminded of previous statements by a high-ranking Obama-Biden Administration scientist involved with biosurveillance research and government biosurveillance plans.)
Such sensors or “nanotransducers” secretly implanted into the scalp or other locations of the body could theoretically achieve or improve at least partial remote, wireless, and secret “mind reading” and “mind control” that is currently done with electroencephalography (EEG) machines (page 51, etc.) or other electromagnetic, optical, or acoustic stimulation technologies which control thoughts and/or emotions (page 64) and use wires connected to implanted sensors, probes, electrodes, “computer chips,” or “brain-computer interfaces.”
Secretly implanted brain sensors might also include brain calcium activity/movement detectors (page 35, etc.), infrared technologies, optical technologies, and other technologies not publicized. Genetically modifying the human brain with RNA or DNA technologies to make specific locations of the brain receptive to radio waves or magnetic fields which can be controlled remotely is also a possibility. The U.S. government describes those technologies as radio-genetics or magneto-genetics. It is also likely that there are biosurveillance technologies that are classified information and not publicized.
Of course, partial “mind reading” or partial “mind control” may not require technologies like secretly implanted sensors. And, again, if such sensors are secretly implanted into humans by government officials, the specific technologies probably would be classified information or classified “biosurveillance systems” which will be described towards the end of this article.
One might have to conclude that the government is most likely secretly using sensors, nanotransducers, other technologies, and/or remote brain and behavior surveillance and control based on somewhat non-specific information written in laws and other government documents which might be intended to provide legal protection for government officials who know that such technologies would likely be illegal types of torture.
The main point of this section is to emphasize that there might be several possible secret ways to implant sensors, nanotransducers, other technologies, or “brain computer interfaces” into humans to achieve at least partial “mind control” and “mind reading” for biosurveillance, neurological surveillance, behavior surveillance, behavior control, or torture. Many people might not know how advanced and developed technologies have been for many years now; “nanotechnology” or nanoparticles which can be unknowingly absorbed through the skin may be only one type of advanced drug-delivery, sensor-delivery, or sensor-implanting mechanism that some or many people might not know about.

Medical technologies ‘mind-read’ emotions​

A summary of previous articles is going to be provided here due to their relevance to new information provided in this article. Those previous articles described the Obama-Biden Administration’s plans for “biosurveillance” for the U.S. federal government and local governments.
One major document describing the plans is the National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap, which was published by the Obama-Biden Administration in 2013. The introductory letter was written by Dr. John P. Holdren, an influential scientist and high-ranking Obama Administration official who has apparently suggested secretly putting chemicals or other substances in drinking water and necessary foods to achieve a government’s goal of controlling human populations.
(While he and other authors made the suggestions, it is likely that other government officials have similar coercive and controlling beliefs. The U.S. government’s lockdowns, government-forced injections, and several other Draconian government actions and laws suggest that there are multiple government officials who might secretly put sensors in food or water which can be used to surveil, control, and torture.
And, though it is a bit off subject, one might also now reasonably be suspicious of both COVID injections and government forced “vaccines” that are not COVID injections; due to the U.S. government’s potential negligence, secrecy, and apparent dishonesty about COVID injections, one might reasonably question all government-supported vaccines/injections, biological products, drugs, devices, etc. It is another subject which requires elaboration but not in this article.)
Dr. Holdren’s introduction to the National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap is significant because it explains that the U.S. government biosurveillance plans include “security,” which again suggests that “biosurveillance” is much more than the government merely counting the number of people who go to the doctor with flu-like symptoms and then agree to have their symptoms counted by the government.
Dr. Holdren’s introductory letter also states that “Surveillance can be key to predicting and even preventing such incidents [which “threaten health”], and can help minimize the impacts of incidents that cannot be prevented.” The point here is that U.S. government continuously and nonchalantly uses the word “surveillance” in many laws and documents on “biosurveillance” and “health security;” this is significant due to the word surveillance often implying U.S. Federal or local government use of secret police or law enforcement actions and technologies for spying on Americans’ actions, and potentially every thought, plan, emotion, etc.
Dr. Holdren and the Obama-Biden Administration’s National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap also describes the plan 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” often implies the use of technologies on humans (although the government document does not mention that fact). The U.S. government’s plan then describes that the surveillance tools are used to “project impact” and “inform the earliest possible warning.” (Page 11) The U.S. federal government then specifies the types of surveillance tools that the U.S. government is going to use on Americans, with the plan 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 (page 12, emphasis added)
The statement is very significant. “Remote sensing” might imply secret surveillance done by the government. While the quotation does not mention this, the type of “sensing” described in the quotation is similar to what is also described in the BRAIN Initiative – spatial and temporal sensing with “molecular biological tools” and “biological, chemical, and hyperspectral” sensors. Some of those technologies are medical technologies which can be used to, at least partially, “mind read” and partially control, manipulate, “perturb,” or stimulate the thoughts and behaviors of human beings. “Molecular biological tools” for biosurveillance may imply the use of “molecular imaging” tools which, as U.S. federal law describes, may be adapted “from human health fields.”
The U.S. federal government’s biosurveillance plan then continues by describing the current use of “ground-based in situ sensors.” The document does not exclude sensors being used in humans; instead, it appears to at least imply the use of such sensors in humans by suggesting to “integrate…remote sensing…with surveillance…to predict…variables that influence disease emergence within ecosystems, including humans.”
This also appears to be implied in a U.S. federal law, (known as the “Oceans and Human Health Act”) which describes “in situ and remote sensors used to detect, quantify, and predict the presence and spread of contaminants in marine waters and organisms,” which, may include technologies and equipment adapted “from human health fields.” Humans are organisms. Thus, the wording “in situ sensors” might be used in the law to mean “in original locations” within humans.
In other words, “equipment and technologies from human health fields” could imply the use of in situ brain sensors which utilize any of the medical imaging technologies described in the BRAIN Initiative or other laws or documents.
It is again necessary to emphasize that Dr. Holdren was a significant contributor to the biosurveillance plans; and he and others apparently suggested governments secretly including substances in drinking water and food to control the behaviors of human beings. The “Oceans and Human Health Act,” of course, implies water and human health.
Now, previous articles also described the U.S. federal government’s National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System which is controlled by the U.S. CDC. Previous articles suggested that such a surveillance system might imply both the secret surveillance of human behaviors and the secret surveillance of human brains for “prediction” and “detection” “as early as possible” of “all-hazards” and “health threats.”
(The previously referenced laws distinguish between using “biosurveillance” for infectious diseases vs. using biosurveillance for “all-hazards.” Thus, the laws apparently imply surveilling human behaviors. And they also imply the possibility of surveillance for “mental health threats,” which might imply both surveillance of human behaviors and potentially surveillance of human brain activity; this is going to be explained in a moment.)
This article and other articles have provided examples of advanced innovative brain technologies which could be perfected enough to remotely and secretly, at least partially, “mind read” and “mind control.” Another example can be provided here, an example which the government-funded scientists openly describe as getting close to “mind reading.” (U.S. government documents typically do not openly describe brain research and technologies as “mind reading;” thus, it is significant when government-funded scientists are honest about the “mind-reading” capabilities of the technologies.)
A study performed at a University in the U.S. shows how equipment and technologies from human health fields can detect emotions in the human brain. The study was funded by the U.S. Federal government’s National Institutes of Health (NIH). The equipment and technologies from the human health fields were adapted to detect brain activity which indicates the emotions the monitored people were experiencing.
Some quotations from the article are necessary. The authors (scientists funded by the U.S. government) explain that previous studies
demonstrated that distributed patterns of cortical activity measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) contain information capable of differentiating among visual percepts, including object categories and basic visual features. Extending findings from these studies, subsequent work demonstrated that machine learning models trained on stimulus-evoked brain activity, termed “decoding” or “mind-reading”, can be used to predict the contents of working memory and mental imagery, even during sleep. Thus, pattern recognition approaches can identify defining features of mental processes, even when driven solely on the basis of endogenous brain activity. The approach was further shown to accurately discriminate among multiple cognitive processes (e.g., decision-making, working memory, response inhibition, among others) in independent subjects, establishing the efficacy of assessing diverse mental states with fMRI across individuals.
Additionally, the authors explain studies which
developed decoding algorithms to classify stimulus-evoked responses to emotionally evocative cinematic films and instrumental music. These neural models accurately classify patterns of neural activation associated with six different emotions (contentment, amusement, surprise, fear, anger, and sadness) and a neutral control state in independent subjects, generalizing across induction modality. Importantly, these neural biomarkers track the subjective experience of discrete emotions independent of differences in the more general dimensions of valence and arousal.
Again those quotations describe previous studies which used medical technologies for what even the scientists describe as “mind-reading.” The study uses technical language, some which cannot be explained here. To over-simplify, “pattern recognition approaches” and a “map” of “patterns of neural activity evoked by emotion elicitors” apparently means that there is “activity” within the human brain that is the same, or very similar, for most people when specific emotions are felt or elicited.
This should be emphasized: the scientists are apparently saying that different peoples’ brains have the same, or very similar, activity when experiencing the same emotions, and that activity can be observed by medical equipment and technology as patterns of activity. The brain activity exhibited during fear, anger, etc., is apparently the same or very similar when experienced in different people. “Pattern recognition approaches” apparently means using technologies to scan the brain and machine-learning “decoding algorithms” to then “mind read” those scans of the brain.
The brain activity might also be described as movement of substances (“mental processes”) within the brain. Many people are probably familiar with “motion sensors” or “motion detectors;” it is an over-simplification, but the equipment and technologies which observe brain activity and “pattern recognition approaches” might be said to be detecting the results of motion of substances in the brain. There are apparently unique movements of substances in the brain, or patterns, for each emotion.
(This is not mentioned in the study, but theoretically, if each word or sentence that a person thinks of has unique movements of substances in the brain associated with those thoughts or words, a “motion detector” which “sees into” the brain could “mind read.” This is especially true if the motion of substances in the brain is the same, or mostly the same, for most people during the thinking of the same words, thoughts, etc.)
This is the significant point: the brain activity or movement/motion of substances within the brain which are scanned with medical equipment and technologies and then observed as “patterns” are apparently different and unique for each emotion; fear, anger, etc., have different patterns of activity in a single human brain. However, the patterns of brain activity for each emotion is mostly the same among different people; the pattern of brain activity for anger is mostly the same among different people, the pattern of brain activity for fear is mostly the same among different people, the pattern of brain activity for contentment is mostly the same among different people, and so on with other emotions. See S1 Fig for examples.
(One might notice that such brain “patterns” in S1 Fig might be comparable to the scanning technology known as the “QR Code” or “bar code” technology, although the study authors do not use such a comparison. This might also be an interesting observation. Theoretically speaking, with a technology like sophisticated radars or something similar to metal detector technologies which could be able to scan and then “see into” the human brain, “mind reading” might simply be matching patterns with machine learned “maps.” This might be similar to the way QR Codes are read; mind reading might be much easier than what many expect if technologies which “see into” the brain could simply be used from remote distances. Also, theoretically speaking, it might be possible for governments to secretly include or install such observatory or monitoring technologies in devices, utilities, home equipment, or other locations which are usually only a few feet from many peoples’ brains.)
To summarize from the study above, the scientists say that equipment and technologies from human health fields which scan the human brain and simply recognizes patterns in the human brain can then be “decoded” to determine what the person is, or might be, thinking and/or what emotions the person might be feeling. The study authors describe this decoding as “mind reading.” Keep this information in mind for a moment; it is necessary to discuss a different document from the U.S. government now before getting back to the study above.

In 2003 U.S. government described sophisticated radars scanning environment as surveillance​

Previous articles described the Obama-Biden Administration’s National Strategy for Biosurveillance which is then expanded with the National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap described above; it is important to know that both documents are closely related. The National Strategy for Biosurveillance describes what is apparently taken as a legal requirement of the U.S. government to “scan the environment.” This requires emphasis: the government wrote that it is apparently legally required to “scan the environment” as a biosurveillance strategy. The document then specifies that
This core function emphasizes attention to factors affecting the health and security of our citizens and the rapid evaluation of information to speed incident detection. [ …] The practice of actively scanning and discerning the environment involves efforts to confirm conditions and identify rapidly the emergence of new patterns or trends, while assessing their significance. (Page 5, emphasis added)
Now refer to the study above about brain scans which can “mind read” emotions and compare it to the government’s use of the words “scan the environment” and continue “actively scanning” for “factors affecting the health and security” in the National Strategy for Biosurveillance.
The U.S. government’s plans to “scan the environment” might be meant literally using sophisticated radar, medical, or other scanning equipment and technologies. Again, brain patterns apparently may be comparable to “bar codes” or other similar patterns which can be scanned with technologies. The “bar codes” (what scientists above describe as “patterns of neural activity”) in the brain signify what a person might be feeling or thinking. (U.S. government BRAIN Initiative documents actually use the phrase “barcodes” to describe brain technologies (pages 25, 27, 31, and 68), although the previous analogy is different than what is mentioned in the references.)
Thus, advanced and innovative scanning equipment and technologies from human health fields, which may or may not be combined with “sensors” (which could include simply modulated calcium (page 27), fluorescent indicators (page 35), “fluorescently tagged nanobodies” (page 27), and other substances not publicly described) could be used to make it easier for the U.S. government’s “actively scanning and discerning the [human] environment” to determine “conditions” of every human brain (this may be what is meant in laws describing surveillance of “neurological conditions”). Such “scanners” may also be able to observe the actions of every human on earth at every moment of their life, by being able to “see into” buildings, homes, etc.
Now, some might object to the previous suggestions and say that the Obama-Biden Administration was not using the phrase “scan the environment” literally in the U.S. government’s plans for “biosurveillance.” However, there is significant information suggesting that such an objection might be incorrect.
First, in as early as 1975, the U.S. government described foreign use of “satellite assistance” for spies on the ground in America. (Page 138) This suggests environment scanning capabilities for surveillance as early as 1975.
A clearer reference of the U.S. government use of “scanning” to literally mean “surveillance” of or spying on human beings is from a 2003 U.S. House of Representatives Hearing which was later published as a document entitled, “Homeland Security: Improving Public Health Surveillance.” The U.S. Representative who was Chairman of the Committee made the following significant statement:
At this moment [May 5, 2003], sophisticated radars scan the skies and the seas to detect the approach of forces hostile to the peace and sovereignty of this Nation. A similarly unified, sensitive system of disease sensors is needed to detect the advance of biological threats to our health and prosperity.
Testimony today [May 5, 2003] will describe civilian and military programs under way in the United States and abroad to overcome the natural and man-made barriers to health monitoring. (Page 2, emphasis added)
It is a very significant statement. The Representative clearly uses the word “scan” to mean spying and surveillance; he describes “sophisticated radars” for such spying and surveillance, which, of course, can be operated remotely and secretly by the government. And, significantly, he then implies that “sensors” could be part of the “sophisticated radars” which “scan” for surveillance. He then suggests a similar, apparently “sophisticated radar,” scanning system “of disease sensors…to detect the advance of biological threats.”
He goes even further by saying that the U.S. government had “civilian” programs underway to advance human “health monitoring;” the word “monitoring” is likely meant to mean surveillance. It appears as though he was also implying the use of “sophisticated radars” to achieve such surveillance, and that as early as 2003 the government was working on such scanning systems with sensors to be used as surveillance.
(It is likely significant that the U.S. federal law mentioned above, the “Oceans and Human Health Act,” which legalized the use of “in situ and remote sensors” “in organisms” used for “detection” was introduced in the U.S. Senate in 2003, only a few weeks after the U.S. Representative suggested using surveillance radars with sensors for human health monitoring. The law was enacted in 2004, and, of course it was somewhat hidden in a Consolidated Appropriations Act.
The U.S. Representative’s suggestion, when combined with the 2004 U.S. federal law on remote and in situ sensors used for detection in organisms and which also legalized the “adaptation of equipment and technologies from human health fields,” could easily be interpreted to imply that the government is using sophisticated x-ray, fMRI, optical, infrared, radar, or other technology that “sees into” the human brain and body and is made easier with sensors.
This may also be supported by another requirement in the “Oceans and Human Health Act” which requires a U.S. government “ocean and coastal observing system…to monitor…health-related data on biological populations.” (118 STAT. 2932) The wording of the law appears to be similar to what the U.S. Representative implied or explicitly stated in the quotation above; the aforementioned law uses non-specific wording which could be interpreted to mean what the U.S. Representative suggested. There is much more to discuss on the “Oceans and Human Health Act” from 2003-2004 and the “Oceans and Human Health Reauthorization Act of 2011” but it cannot be mentioned in this article.)
Now refer back to the above-mentioned Obama Administration’s National Strategy for Biosurveillance plans to “scan the environment;” the wording should probably be taken as literally meaning the use of sophisticated radars and other technologies to scan human beings remotely and secretly. The statement above from the U.S. Representative apparently implies that “disease sensors” may be involved in such scanning. The National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap clearly states the government’s plans to use “sensors” and “non-invasive” surveillance tools to detect the earliest indications of a “significant incident.” (Page 11)
“Disease” includes “mental disease”; thus, when the statements and documents above are combined, one might conclude that the use of very small sensors (which, again, may include simply modified calcium, water, or other trace metals or trace elements) in or near the brain might be implied.
Again, to summarize, the previously quoted government-funded research study used “scanning” technology from human health fields to “mind read” emotions like fear, anger, etc.; and the Representative quoted above in 2003 clearly mentions the use of sophisticated radars which “scan the environment” and are used for disease surveillance. Surveillance for mental disease likely implies surveillance of, at minimum, human behaviors.
One might reasonably conclude that the U.S. government’s plans to “scan the environment” for surveillance/biosurveillance could indeed imply scanning into homes, buildings, etc. to surveil human behaviors; it could also imply “non-invasive” scanning of human brains, possibly using sensors (again, which may merely be modulated or un-modulated calcium, water, etc.) which get into human organisms’ brains through food, water, or other mechanisms which make the scanning easier.

U.S. government biosurveillance is ‘before diagnosis’​

The previous suggestions may also be supported by other sections of U.S. Federal law and documents on biosurveillance. U.S. Federal law says that government employees may use innovative technologies to detect and predict human behaviors (“all-hazards”) “as early as possible.” The government requires detection of the “earliest possible warning” of a “condition.” (page 11)
Government documents do not mention this, but the earliest possible warning is when the “condition” or “threat” is in the human brain as a thought, emotion, plan, etc. Thus, the U.S. Federal government’s National Neurological Condition Surveillance System could be implied to be such “innovative technology” which surveils or “scans” the human brain secretly and remotely by the U.S government (possibly with remote or in situ sensors).
There is more. The National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System is operated by the CDC and other Federal entities. Previous articles discussed the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System more thoroughly and suggested that it might be literally a surveillance system of the human brain. Some might have objected by saying something like “surveillance of neurological conditions simply means counting the number of people with neurological conditions after they visit the doctor and are diagnosed by the doctor and then agree to have their medical information included in the government’s counting system.” Previous articles described reasons why that objection is likely wrong.
Another significant piece of information refutes that objection. It is found in a government document on the CDC’s and other government entities’ plans for enhancing “biosurveillance.” The document describes “syndromic surveillance” and “prediagnostic health-related information” which the CDC, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and “other federal agencies” (possibly implying the FBI and others) surveil:
To further enhance and support biosurveillance activities, CDC, DHS and other federal agencies have developed or taken action to gather electronic data from syndromic surveillance systems. Syndromic surveillance uses health-related data collected before diagnosis to look for signals or clusters of similar illnesses that might indicate an outbreak. Examples of syndromic surveillance data are prediagnostic health-related information […] (Page 25)
The document continues by providing some examples which distract from the significant point made about the government’s surveillance of “prediagnostic health-related information” and thus are excluded from the quotation above. It is very significant that the U.S. government document describes the CDC, DHS, and other federal agencies surveilling human beings before a diagnosis is made by the doctor; this apparently implies that the “data” may be collected by the government without one even going to the doctor, clinic, etc. The statement provides more support for the claim that the government might be secretly using advanced innovative technologies to surveil and spy on the actions of human beings while they are in their homes and other locations.

CDC Committee implied government has ‘surveillance systems for mental illness’​

Again, the previous U.S. federal government document provides the extremely significant fact that the government, including both the CDC and the government’s “national security” entities, use “syndromic surveillance” of “health-related data collected before diagnosis.” The statement is over-emphasized in this article due to its implication that government biosurveillance is not merely counting people diagnosed with diseases.
A different U.S. federal government document provides more significant information on specifically “surveillance systems for mental illness” by the CDC and other government entities. First, some background information is needed; during the Obama-Biden Administration, the U.S. federal government “mandated”
a federal advisory committee that includes representatives from state and local government public health authorities and appropriate private sector health care entities, in order to ensure that the federal government is meeting the goal of enabling State and local government public health surveillance capabilities. (Page 1)
The U.S. CDC then established the National Biosurveillance Advisory Subcommittee (NBAS) to advise the government on “the development and implementation of a nationwide biosurveillance strategy for human health.” (Page 1) The National Biosurveillance Advisory Subcommittee later collaborated and then published the document “Improving the Nation’s Ability to Detect and Respond to 21st Century Urgent Health Threats: Second Report of the National Biosurveillance Advisory Subcommittee.”
Keep in mind that the report emphasizes the U.S. government’s “ability to detect…health threats.” Such surveillance might imply the “detection” of “mental illness” “before a diagnosis is made.” The document describes it in this way:
To adequately and rapidly characterize the full scope of the [terrorist or health] event, integration of surveillance of the mental health or behavioral health consequence is needed. […] Surveillance systems for mental illness and substance abuse must be strengthened with both intellectual and human capital investment. Syndromic surveillance for mental health indicators requires refinement, given the varied somatic manifestations of stress and the potential reluctance of historically marginalized populations to seek mental health or substance-abuse services. Local engagement is key: community agencies can alert public health officials to emerging issues (Pages A1-25 and A1-26, emphasis added)
The advisory committee then recommends the following for the CDC’s and U.S. government’s National Biosurveillance Strategy:
Ensure that social, behavioral and mental health epidemiologists be considered as full members of biosurveillance investigation and monitoring teams (Page A1-26)
Both statements are extremely significant. The first suggestion of the CDC advisory subcommittee clearly states that “surveillance systems for mental illness…must be strengthened.” It implies that there were already government “surveillance systems for mental illness” when the document was written in 2011. “Strengthened” likely means that such surveillance technologies need to be better at “early detection” of “[mental] health threats.” (Page 3)
The statement that “syndromic surveillance for mental health indicators needs refinement” is also extremely significant. Again, “syndromic surveillance” is “health-related data collected before diagnosis.” The statement might imply that the U.S. government is surveilling for “mental health indicators” without Americans being aware of such surveillance; such indicators might include human actions and potentially thoughts, emotions, plans, etc.
The phrase “mental health indicators” is similar to the phrase “neurological conditions” used to describe the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System, which may imply that the current “neurological condition” of Americans is being surveilled. “Neurological condition” surveillance implies that healthy people could be surveilled. The advisory committee’s recommendation to “refine” “syndromic surveillance” of “mental health indicators” might provide support for the suggestion that the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System might be surveilling human brains and human behaviors at every moment of one’s life.
And there is more support for the suggestion that the U.S. government secretly surveils human brains and/or behaviors for “mental health indicators” or “neurological condition surveillance”: the advisory committee continues in the same sentence by specifying that there are “varied somatic manifestations of stress” and there is “potential reluctance of historically marginalized populations to seek mental health … services.” (Of course, “services” could imply government-supported what might be described as prescription chemical restraints, but that cannot be elaborated here.)
The statement appears to imply that the government is secretly surveilling such people who are “reluctant” and do not go to the doctor, counselor, psychologist, etc. Such surveillance might imply specifically secret surveillance of human actions, human brain activity, or both, for the government to “detect” “mental illness.” (One should also be reminded that the Obama-Biden Administration required the FBI and potentially local police to link law enforcement with public health.)
Finally, it is necessary to emphasize that the CDC advisory committee was “mandated” to advise the government on “the development and implementation of a nationwide biosurveillance strategy for human health.” The CDC advisory committee advised the nationwide biosurveillance strategy for human health to include “surveillance systems of mental illness.” Soon after, the Obama-Biden Administration published the National Strategy for Biosurveillance which required the government security entities to “scan the environment.”
To summarize up to this point: the CDC operates the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System, and before that system was legalized, the CDC’s advisory committee recommended strengthening “surveillance systems for mental illness” to detect “mental health indicators” which may apparently be secretly done by the government on those “reluctant” to seek mental health services, or, those who do not go to psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, etc.
The statements could imply that the government secretly surveils Americans for “mental health indicators;” the documents do not mention this, but one might wonder if the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System might be a “surveillance system for mental illness.”

U.S. government says it has secret biosurveillance systems​

Finally, a potentially significant point is mentioned in the same U.S. government document on biosurveillance which describes the U.S. government using “syndromic surveillance” for collecting information on humans before diagnosis. The document succinctly mentions that the U.S. government operates “classified systems” for biosurveillance efforts. (Page 55)
Because of the possibility of classified and secret government biosurveillance systems, one has to use information provided in documents and laws to determine what types of surveillance the government might be implying that it might be secretly using against Americans. The existence of classified biosurveillance systems also provides more support to refute the supposition that biosurveillance is merely the government counting the number of people diagnosed with a disease; there is no need for government employees to make disease counting systems as classified information.
It also means that government employees might be hiding potentially the worst possible surveillance capabilities and methods from Americans. When government employees classify information, it can be reasonably suggested that they do so to hide information from Americans rather than the absurd suggestion that “if it is not classified and kept secret, then foreign countries might be able to get us!”
For example, it was described above that foreign countries have had satellite assistance since the 1970s. Such countries know what technologies are likely available and likely in use by America. Instead, it is the American citizen, lawful visitors, and future American citizens who are the likely reason for the U.S. government classifying “biosurveillance systems” and/or technologies. (Another off-subject comment worth mentioning: how can Americans make an informed decision when they vote if they do not know what kind of surveillance and spying systems their politicians are supporting?)
The information provided in this article and previous articles suggests that there is more than a possibility that the U.S. government is using advanced innovative technologies which “scan the environment,” scan human beings, and are able to determine the actions of every human being at every moment of their life. Such scanning equipment and technologies from human health fields may also be able to scan human brains to “mind read,” and such technologies may also be able to at least partially control thoughts and emotions in human brains.
And there is more on the subject to discuss but it cannot be mentioned here.


https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...-prediagnostic-mental-health-biosurveillance/
 

athenasius

Well-Known Member
(The final paragraph pretty sums up this long article. Sorry it lost the paragraph spacing.)

CDC subcommittee implies the US gov’t has ‘surveillance systems for mental illness’​


The CDC's National Biosurveillance Advisory Subcommittee advises the government on 'the development and implementation of a nationwide biosurveillance strategy for human health,' including the use of 'syndromic surveillance for mental health.'


Robert L. Kinney III

(LifeSiteNews) — Several previous articles discussed the U.S. federal government’s laws on surveillance, “biosurveillance,” and the “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System.” Some articles described the U.S. federal government’s Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Those previous articles suggested that such “innovative neurotechnologies” might be able to be advanced or developed enough to be used by law enforcement, the FBI, secret police, etc., for possibly the worst type of spying on Americans.
This article provides some necessary summaries of information from previous articles and new information which supports claims from previous articles; specifically, the U.S. government apparently has “surveillance systems for mental illness.” Such government surveillance systems for mental illness could imply the surveillance of every human action of every human being at every moment throughout their life (including in their homes) and surveillance of the thoughts, emotions, plans, etc., of human brains. The subject of the government’s possible use of secret brain or “neurological” surveillance and control requires thoroughness; thus, many words are used in the article.
Such surveillance or “biosurveillance” might include at least partial remote and secret “mind reading” and “mind control,” the most invasive and almost unbelievable surveillance and control possible. Such technologies would undoubtedly be torture, and if Americans knew about their current or potential use, such technologies would be illegal; one might suggest severe punishments for those government and non-government employees who use or are aware of the use of such equipment and technologies.
Those previous articles quoted U.S. federal government documents describing that partial mind reading and mind control can currently be done with neurotechnologies which may include the use of “sensors” and/or electromagnetic, x-ray, ultrasound, infrared, radio frequency, or other technologies. Most of those technologies have been studied by researchers for many years. And there are likely other technologies that the U.S. government and other governments have not publicly described which may achieve remote and secret “mind reading,” “mind control,” and torture.

There is likely ferocious government motivation for remote brain surveillance and brain control technologies​

It should be common sense that one of the most sought after achievements for researchers and draconian law enforcement or other government officials would be remote and secret mind reading and mind control. This is partially due to the tendency of politicians, law enforcement, secret police, the FBI, “intelligence community,” and others in America to control human beings without the targeted persons knowing who is doing the controlling.
The phenomenon of secret government control might also be observed in communist countries and governments who follow the teachings of the false prophet. Simply study history or use common sense: civilians often do not like to be forced to support evils which government officials support, forced into the worst kinds of slave labor, forcibly not allowed to or tortured or killed for the True Worship of God in the Most Holy Eucharist, or, as often occurs, tortured for criticizing or rebuking government officials, the false prophet, false religions, etc.
Such evil government officials, secret police and Gestapo-like employees, kings, tyrants, etc., often become extremely paranoid of civilians, co-workers who know about their crimes, or their inferiors potentially overtaking their power or getting revenge on them. Again, study history; the phrase “King So-and-so’s servants conspired against him, and he died” is common, although it usually includes more gruesome words. In today’s society, such actions might be more likely to be done by co-workers or inferiors who do not like their bosses or want to take their superiors’ jobs, power, and money.
Such overly suspicious government officials would undoubtedly seek technologies which could ultimately allow only one person or few people (themselves) to control everyone else, or almost everyone else, in their location or, ultimately, the world. Remote and secret brain technologies which operate integrated surveillance networks of systems would be such technologies sought after by such evil people. The people controlling the integrated networks of systems might be able to surveil and control most everyone else in the world if the technologies were advanced enough.
The point of the above introduction is that there is likely extreme and ferocious motivation for advancing and developing brain technologies to be able to remotely and secretly “mind read” and control the minds of others, in part because the brain controls behaviors. Such evil government, law enforcement, and/or secret police entities would undoubtedly spend almost unlimited amounts of money and work on such technologies.

Government and scientists say ‘mind reading’ and ‘mind control’ is possible​

It is difficult to determine what most people really think about the possibility of technologies being advanced enough to remotely and secretly “mind read” and control the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors of others. Government propaganda entities have likely achieved coercing their civilians to think it is crazy, even “mental illness,” for a person to wonder if remote and secret mind reading or mind and behavior control can be achieved with advanced innovative neurotechnologies and/or equipment and technologies from human health fields.
(Falsely labeling those who question whether remote mind reading and control is possible as mentally ill could also be an attempt to quiet such people; in addition to ferocious motivation to achieve evil surveillance and control, government officials would have ferocious opposition to those who might be able prove their evildoing. Many people use the false accusation of “you need help” or “you are mentally ill” to attempt to manipulate others into being quiet.)

Some have probably heard the phrase, “a man is only as good as his tools.” In healthcare or literature research on technologies which affect or observe the human brain and/or body, a “tool,” so to speak, is simply the information which is communicated or published in peer-reviewed medical journals as if it is truth and/or fact.
Another relevant phrase is “don’t harm the messengers.” Messengers simply deliver or communicate what others have said or written as if it is factual information. If the information (for example, the U.S. government’s BRAIN Initiative information or other medical information on “mind reading” and “mind controlling” technologies) is wrong, in most instances it is not the messenger who should be blamed. It is the scientists, researchers, government officials, etc. who should be punished or blamed for propagating false information (if it is known to be falsified but still propagated as true).
(The previous suggestion should not be controversial due to similar punishments for medical professionals who knowingly propagate false information on false treatments, diagnoses, etc. Claiming that all government public health officials are law enforcement or “national security” so that they can propagate false information and commit hoaxes should not be legal. This is another reason why Congress should repeal the “law enforcement exemption” which apparently allows federal, state, and local police, the FBI, secret police, etc., to propagate false information and commit hoaxes. Such entities and persons should not be allowed to propagate false information and/or commit hoaxes, ruses, ploys, etc.)
Basically, many people (likely including many who work in psychology or psychiatry) say that others are crazy and even “mentally ill” for using common sense to wonder if medical and other technologies could be developed to “mind read” and “mind control.”
But it is actually U.S. federal government documents and several scientists which say that not only is “mind reading” and “mind control” possible, but that it was achieved to a certain extent several years ago. Don’t harm the messenger. Better yet, don’t claim the messengers are mentally ill or conspiracy theorists for simply trying to explain in understandable language what government officials and several scientists use scientific and technical language to describe.
The implications of the use of such technologies should probably be approached in the same way that nuclear weapons’ technology is approached: very seriously. Remote and secret technologies that mind read, mind control, torture the brain and/or body, and have the potential to remotely and secretly cause injury and death are obviously very dangerous.
While the U.S. federal government and several scientists explain that mind reading and mind control was achieved several years ago, most of them do not explain how the technologies could be used, or are currently being used, by law enforcement, the FBI, and other secret police entities as both the most evil surveillance possible and one of the most evil types of torture (most other tortures are not done secretly like tortures which secretly affect the brain or body could be done). Such people also do not describe the possibilities of specifically remote brain surveillance, remote “mind reading,” or remote mind control.
(“Remote” is used in this and previous articles to mean from a different location, which could be many miles away by using satellites or other technologies, or closer by using secret technologies in one’s house, utilities, electronic devices, underground, a nearby house or building, etc.; “remote” “mind reading,” “brain stimulation,” “brain manipulation,” or “mind control” is different from a research subject being connected to or enclosed by an fMRI or EEG machine or other medical equipment while the subject knows that researchers are observing and controlling brain activity.)

Potential methods of government secretly implanting nanotechnology brain sensors into Americans​

Such remote and/or secret surveillance might require the development of what U.S. Federal law and documents describe as “sensors” or “biosensors” utilizing “nanotechnology” which allows such sensors to be small enough to enter (and then attach to, or implant in) the human body through food, water, government-forced injections, or possibly “absorbed” through the skin of the scalp or other locations.
The previous references do not specifically discuss the secret use of nanotechnology or sensors in Americans. It cannot be excluded as a possibility, though, due to suggestions or requirements in several government laws, documents, and other communications which are going to be mentioned in a moment. Many of those laws and documents may at least imply the possibility of using nanotechnology, sensors, or other advanced technologies in or on human organisms.
Some might be familiar with medical technologies such as “electroencephalography” (EEG) and “electroconvulsive therapy” (ECT). The medical equipment used for those technologies includes “electrodes” or other electronic equipment connected to wires which are connected to a person’s scalp; the wires are connected to medical equipment that can measure brain activity and/or manipulate or control parts of the brain.
Some people might think it is not possible to remotely and secretly use technologies to “mind read” or “mind control” because, while such people know about such medical technologies as EEG, such people often assume that such technologies necessarily require electrodes, sensors, or other electronic equipment connected to wires and other machines in a medical office or hospital.
A significant point to emphasize here is that there are theoretical ways in which such sensors, “electrodes,” or other electronics could be made much smaller, wireless, and secretly implanted into the human scalp or other locations.
One possible theoretical example is the use of “nanoparticles,” such as “solid lipid nanoparticles” or other nanotechnologies (page 5) that are not publicly described, which could theoretically be absorbed through the scalp (skin) and could theoretically be used to encapsulate and secretly “implant” very small sensors – some sensors which may also be described as “computer chips” – into the scalp or other skin areas.
The solid-lipid nanoparticle basically could enclose a very small sensor; the U.S. federal government has published the suggestion of very small “graphene” brain sensors or other “nanotransducers.” The government does not describe this possibility, but it can be arrived at logically: solid-lipid nanoparticles containing graphene sensors or nanotransducers could theoretically be absorbed into the scalp. The solid-lipid nanoparticles which surround the sensors might eventually dissolve, which could then result in potentially many sensors implanted in the scalp or other body locations.
(Another possibility, which some have already suggested, is indeed government-forced injections containing such brain sensors; such graphene or other very small sensors could be enclosed in solid-lipid nanoparticles and included in the chemicals with the injections, or they could be small enough to be attached inside every syringe and then mix with the chemical when it is injected into humans, or the sensors could be enclosed in nanoparticles in the skin cleaning substance used prior to injection, which then results in absorption and implantation in potentially several different locations of the body and/or brain.
Again, the point is that there could be several different methods to secretly get such nanotechnology brain sensors or very small brain-computer interfaces into human beings. And, in defense of the messengers, if one thinks that “nobody would ever do that!” or that the aforementioned statements are crazy, one should be reminded of previous statements by a high-ranking Obama-Biden Administration scientist involved with biosurveillance research and government biosurveillance plans.)
Such sensors or “nanotransducers” secretly implanted into the scalp or other locations of the body could theoretically achieve or improve at least partial remote, wireless, and secret “mind reading” and “mind control” that is currently done with electroencephalography (EEG) machines (page 51, etc.) or other electromagnetic, optical, or acoustic stimulation technologies which control thoughts and/or emotions (page 64) and use wires connected to implanted sensors, probes, electrodes, “computer chips,” or “brain-computer interfaces.”
Secretly implanted brain sensors might also include brain calcium activity/movement detectors (page 35, etc.), infrared technologies, optical technologies, and other technologies not publicized. Genetically modifying the human brain with RNA or DNA technologies to make specific locations of the brain receptive to radio waves or magnetic fields which can be controlled remotely is also a possibility. The U.S. government describes those technologies as radio-genetics or magneto-genetics. It is also likely that there are biosurveillance technologies that are classified information and not publicized.
Of course, partial “mind reading” or partial “mind control” may not require technologies like secretly implanted sensors. And, again, if such sensors are secretly implanted into humans by government officials, the specific technologies probably would be classified information or classified “biosurveillance systems” which will be described towards the end of this article.
One might have to conclude that the government is most likely secretly using sensors, nanotransducers, other technologies, and/or remote brain and behavior surveillance and control based on somewhat non-specific information written in laws and other government documents which might be intended to provide legal protection for government officials who know that such technologies would likely be illegal types of torture.
The main point of this section is to emphasize that there might be several possible secret ways to implant sensors, nanotransducers, other technologies, or “brain computer interfaces” into humans to achieve at least partial “mind control” and “mind reading” for biosurveillance, neurological surveillance, behavior surveillance, behavior control, or torture. Many people might not know how advanced and developed technologies have been for many years now; “nanotechnology” or nanoparticles which can be unknowingly absorbed through the skin may be only one type of advanced drug-delivery, sensor-delivery, or sensor-implanting mechanism that some or many people might not know about.

Medical technologies ‘mind-read’ emotions​

A summary of previous articles is going to be provided here due to their relevance to new information provided in this article. Those previous articles described the Obama-Biden Administration’s plans for “biosurveillance” for the U.S. federal government and local governments.
One major document describing the plans is the National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap, which was published by the Obama-Biden Administration in 2013. The introductory letter was written by Dr. John P. Holdren, an influential scientist and high-ranking Obama Administration official who has apparently suggested secretly putting chemicals or other substances in drinking water and necessary foods to achieve a government’s goal of controlling human populations.
(While he and other authors made the suggestions, it is likely that other government officials have similar coercive and controlling beliefs. The U.S. government’s lockdowns, government-forced injections, and several other Draconian government actions and laws suggest that there are multiple government officials who might secretly put sensors in food or water which can be used to surveil, control, and torture.
And, though it is a bit off subject, one might also now reasonably be suspicious of both COVID injections and government forced “vaccines” that are not COVID injections; due to the U.S. government’s potential negligence, secrecy, and apparent dishonesty about COVID injections, one might reasonably question all government-supported vaccines/injections, biological products, drugs, devices, etc. It is another subject which requires elaboration but not in this article.)
Dr. Holdren’s introduction to the National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap is significant because it explains that the U.S. government biosurveillance plans include “security,” which again suggests that “biosurveillance” is much more than the government merely counting the number of people who go to the doctor with flu-like symptoms and then agree to have their symptoms counted by the government.
Dr. Holdren’s introductory letter also states that “Surveillance can be key to predicting and even preventing such incidents [which “threaten health”], and can help minimize the impacts of incidents that cannot be prevented.” The point here is that U.S. government continuously and nonchalantly uses the word “surveillance” in many laws and documents on “biosurveillance” and “health security;” this is significant due to the word surveillance often implying U.S. Federal or local government use of secret police or law enforcement actions and technologies for spying on Americans’ actions, and potentially every thought, plan, emotion, etc.
Dr. Holdren and the Obama-Biden Administration’s National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap also describes the plan to

Non-invasive” often implies the use of technologies on humans (although the government document does not mention that fact). The U.S. government’s plan then describes that the surveillance tools are used to “project impact” and “inform the earliest possible warning.” (Page 11) The U.S. federal government then specifies the types of surveillance tools that the U.S. government is going to use on Americans, with the plan to

The statement is very significant. “Remote sensing” might imply secret surveillance done by the government. While the quotation does not mention this, the type of “sensing” described in the quotation is similar to what is also described in the BRAIN Initiative – spatial and temporal sensing with “molecular biological tools” and “biological, chemical, and hyperspectral” sensors. Some of those technologies are medical technologies which can be used to, at least partially, “mind read” and partially control, manipulate, “perturb,” or stimulate the thoughts and behaviors of human beings. “Molecular biological tools” for biosurveillance may imply the use of “molecular imaging” tools which, as U.S. federal law describes, may be adapted “from human health fields.”
The U.S. federal government’s biosurveillance plan then continues by describing the current use of “ground-based in situ sensors.” The document does not exclude sensors being used in humans; instead, it appears to at least imply the use of such sensors in humans by suggesting to “integrate…remote sensing…with surveillance…to predict…variables that influence disease emergence within ecosystems, including humans.”
This also appears to be implied in a U.S. federal law, (known as the “Oceans and Human Health Act”) which describes “in situ and remote sensors used to detect, quantify, and predict the presence and spread of contaminants in marine waters and organisms,” which, may include technologies and equipment adapted “from human health fields.” Humans are organisms. Thus, the wording “in situ sensors” might be used in the law to mean “in original locations” within humans.
In other words, “equipment and technologies from human health fields” could imply the use of in situ brain sensors which utilize any of the medical imaging technologies described in the BRAIN Initiative or other laws or documents.
It is again necessary to emphasize that Dr. Holdren was a significant contributor to the biosurveillance plans; and he and others apparently suggested governments secretly including substances in drinking water and food to control the behaviors of human beings. The “Oceans and Human Health Act,” of course, implies water and human health.
Now, previous articles also described the U.S. federal government’s National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System which is controlled by the U.S. CDC. Previous articles suggested that such a surveillance system might imply both the secret surveillance of human behaviors and the secret surveillance of human brains for “prediction” and “detection” “as early as possible” of “all-hazards” and “health threats.”
(The previously referenced laws distinguish between using “biosurveillance” for infectious diseases vs. using biosurveillance for “all-hazards.” Thus, the laws apparently imply surveilling human behaviors. And they also imply the possibility of surveillance for “mental health threats,” which might imply both surveillance of human behaviors and potentially surveillance of human brain activity; this is going to be explained in a moment.)
This article and other articles have provided examples of advanced innovative brain technologies which could be perfected enough to remotely and secretly, at least partially, “mind read” and “mind control.” Another example can be provided here, an example which the government-funded scientists openly describe as getting close to “mind reading.” (U.S. government documents typically do not openly describe brain research and technologies as “mind reading;” thus, it is significant when government-funded scientists are honest about the “mind-reading” capabilities of the technologies.)
A study performed at a University in the U.S. shows how equipment and technologies from human health fields can detect emotions in the human brain. The study was funded by the U.S. Federal government’s National Institutes of Health (NIH). The equipment and technologies from the human health fields were adapted to detect brain activity which indicates the emotions the monitored people were experiencing.
Some quotations from the article are necessary. The authors (scientists funded by the U.S. government) explain that previous studies

Additionally, the authors explain studies which

Again those quotations describe previous studies which used medical technologies for what even the scientists describe as “mind-reading.” The study uses technical language, some which cannot be explained here. To over-simplify, “pattern recognition approaches” and a “map” of “patterns of neural activity evoked by emotion elicitors” apparently means that there is “activity” within the human brain that is the same, or very similar, for most people when specific emotions are felt or elicited.
This should be emphasized: the scientists are apparently saying that different peoples’ brains have the same, or very similar, activity when experiencing the same emotions, and that activity can be observed by medical equipment and technology as patterns of activity. The brain activity exhibited during fear, anger, etc., is apparently the same or very similar when experienced in different people. “Pattern recognition approaches” apparently means using technologies to scan the brain and machine-learning “decoding algorithms” to then “mind read” those scans of the brain.
The brain activity might also be described as movement of substances (“mental processes”) within the brain. Many people are probably familiar with “motion sensors” or “motion detectors;” it is an over-simplification, but the equipment and technologies which observe brain activity and “pattern recognition approaches” might be said to be detecting the results of motion of substances in the brain. There are apparently unique movements of substances in the brain, or patterns, for each emotion.
(This is not mentioned in the study, but theoretically, if each word or sentence that a person thinks of has unique movements of substances in the brain associated with those thoughts or words, a “motion detector” which “sees into” the brain could “mind read.” This is especially true if the motion of substances in the brain is the same, or mostly the same, for most people during the thinking of the same words, thoughts, etc.)
This is the significant point: the brain activity or movement/motion of substances within the brain which are scanned with medical equipment and technologies and then observed as “patterns” are apparently different and unique for each emotion; fear, anger, etc., have different patterns of activity in a single human brain. However, the patterns of brain activity for each emotion is mostly the same among different people; the pattern of brain activity for anger is mostly the same among different people, the pattern of brain activity for fear is mostly the same among different people, the pattern of brain activity for contentment is mostly the same among different people, and so on with other emotions. See S1 Fig for examples.
(One might notice that such brain “patterns” in S1 Fig might be comparable to the scanning technology known as the “QR Code” or “bar code” technology, although the study authors do not use such a comparison. This might also be an interesting observation. Theoretically speaking, with a technology like sophisticated radars or something similar to metal detector technologies which could be able to scan and then “see into” the human brain, “mind reading” might simply be matching patterns with machine learned “maps.” This might be similar to the way QR Codes are read; mind reading might be much easier than what many expect if technologies which “see into” the brain could simply be used from remote distances. Also, theoretically speaking, it might be possible for governments to secretly include or install such observatory or monitoring technologies in devices, utilities, home equipment, or other locations which are usually only a few feet from many peoples’ brains.)
To summarize from the study above, the scientists say that equipment and technologies from human health fields which scan the human brain and simply recognizes patterns in the human brain can then be “decoded” to determine what the person is, or might be, thinking and/or what emotions the person might be feeling. The study authors describe this decoding as “mind reading.” Keep this information in mind for a moment; it is necessary to discuss a different document from the U.S. government now before getting back to the study above.

In 2003 U.S. government described sophisticated radars scanning environment as surveillance​

Previous articles described the Obama-Biden Administration’s National Strategy for Biosurveillance which is then expanded with the National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap described above; it is important to know that both documents are closely related. The National Strategy for Biosurveillance describes what is apparently taken as a legal requirement of the U.S. government to “scan the environment.” This requires emphasis: the government wrote that it is apparently legally required to “scan the environment” as a biosurveillance strategy. The document then specifies that

Now refer to the study above about brain scans which can “mind read” emotions and compare it to the government’s use of the words “scan the environment” and continue “actively scanning” for “factors affecting the health and security” in the National Strategy for Biosurveillance.
The U.S. government’s plans to “scan the environment” might be meant literally using sophisticated radar, medical, or other scanning equipment and technologies. Again, brain patterns apparently may be comparable to “bar codes” or other similar patterns which can be scanned with technologies. The “bar codes” (what scientists above describe as “patterns of neural activity”) in the brain signify what a person might be feeling or thinking. (U.S. government BRAIN Initiative documents actually use the phrase “barcodes” to describe brain technologies (pages 25, 27, 31, and 68), although the previous analogy is different than what is mentioned in the references.)
Thus, advanced and innovative scanning equipment and technologies from human health fields, which may or may not be combined with “sensors” (which could include simply modulated calcium (page 27), fluorescent indicators (page 35), “fluorescently tagged nanobodies” (page 27), and other substances not publicly described) could be used to make it easier for the U.S. government’s “actively scanning and discerning the [human] environment” to determine “conditions” of every human brain (this may be what is meant in laws describing surveillance of “neurological conditions”). Such “scanners” may also be able to observe the actions of every human on earth at every moment of their life, by being able to “see into” buildings, homes, etc.
Now, some might object to the previous suggestions and say that the Obama-Biden Administration was not using the phrase “scan the environment” literally in the U.S. government’s plans for “biosurveillance.” However, there is significant information suggesting that such an objection might be incorrect.
First, in as early as 1975, the U.S. government described foreign use of “satellite assistance” for spies on the ground in America. (Page 138) This suggests environment scanning capabilities for surveillance as early as 1975.
A clearer reference of the U.S. government use of “scanning” to literally mean “surveillance” of or spying on human beings is from a 2003 U.S. House of Representatives Hearing which was later published as a document entitled, “Homeland Security: Improving Public Health Surveillance.” The U.S. Representative who was Chairman of the Committee made the following significant statement:

It is a very significant statement. The Representative clearly uses the word “scan” to mean spying and surveillance; he describes “sophisticated radars” for such spying and surveillance, which, of course, can be operated remotely and secretly by the government. And, significantly, he then implies that “sensors” could be part of the “sophisticated radars” which “scan” for surveillance. He then suggests a similar, apparently “sophisticated radar,” scanning system “of disease sensors…to detect the advance of biological threats.”
He goes even further by saying that the U.S. government had “civilian” programs underway to advance human “health monitoring;” the word “monitoring” is likely meant to mean surveillance. It appears as though he was also implying the use of “sophisticated radars” to achieve such surveillance, and that as early as 2003 the government was working on such scanning systems with sensors to be used as surveillance.
(It is likely significant that the U.S. federal law mentioned above, the “Oceans and Human Health Act,” which legalized the use of “in situ and remote sensors” “in organisms” used for “detection” was introduced in the U.S. Senate in 2003, only a few weeks after the U.S. Representative suggested using surveillance radars with sensors for human health monitoring. The law was enacted in 2004, and, of course it was somewhat hidden in a Consolidated Appropriations Act.
The U.S. Representative’s suggestion, when combined with the 2004 U.S. federal law on remote and in situ sensors used for detection in organisms and which also legalized the “adaptation of equipment and technologies from human health fields,” could easily be interpreted to imply that the government is using sophisticated x-ray, fMRI, optical, infrared, radar, or other technology that “sees into” the human brain and body and is made easier with sensors.
This may also be supported by another requirement in the “Oceans and Human Health Act” which requires a U.S. government “ocean and coastal observing system…to monitor…health-related data on biological populations.” (118 STAT. 2932) The wording of the law appears to be similar to what the U.S. Representative implied or explicitly stated in the quotation above; the aforementioned law uses non-specific wording which could be interpreted to mean what the U.S. Representative suggested. There is much more to discuss on the “Oceans and Human Health Act” from 2003-2004 and the “Oceans and Human Health Reauthorization Act of 2011” but it cannot be mentioned in this article.)
Now refer back to the above-mentioned Obama Administration’s National Strategy for Biosurveillance plans to “scan the environment;” the wording should probably be taken as literally meaning the use of sophisticated radars and other technologies to scan human beings remotely and secretly. The statement above from the U.S. Representative apparently implies that “disease sensors” may be involved in such scanning. The National Biosurveillance Science and Technology Roadmap clearly states the government’s plans to use “sensors” and “non-invasive” surveillance tools to detect the earliest indications of a “significant incident.” (Page 11)
“Disease” includes “mental disease”; thus, when the statements and documents above are combined, one might conclude that the use of very small sensors (which, again, may include simply modified calcium, water, or other trace metals or trace elements) in or near the brain might be implied.
Again, to summarize, the previously quoted government-funded research study used “scanning” technology from human health fields to “mind read” emotions like fear, anger, etc.; and the Representative quoted above in 2003 clearly mentions the use of sophisticated radars which “scan the environment” and are used for disease surveillance. Surveillance for mental disease likely implies surveillance of, at minimum, human behaviors.
One might reasonably conclude that the U.S. government’s plans to “scan the environment” for surveillance/biosurveillance could indeed imply scanning into homes, buildings, etc. to surveil human behaviors; it could also imply “non-invasive” scanning of human brains, possibly using sensors (again, which may merely be modulated or un-modulated calcium, water, etc.) which get into human organisms’ brains through food, water, or other mechanisms which make the scanning easier.

U.S. government biosurveillance is ‘before diagnosis’​

The previous suggestions may also be supported by other sections of U.S. Federal law and documents on biosurveillance. U.S. Federal law says that government employees may use innovative technologies to detect and predict human behaviors (“all-hazards”) “as early as possible.” The government requires detection of the “earliest possible warning” of a “condition.” (page 11)
Government documents do not mention this, but the earliest possible warning is when the “condition” or “threat” is in the human brain as a thought, emotion, plan, etc. Thus, the U.S. Federal government’s National Neurological Condition Surveillance System could be implied to be such “innovative technology” which surveils or “scans” the human brain secretly and remotely by the U.S government (possibly with remote or in situ sensors).
There is more. The National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System is operated by the CDC and other Federal entities. Previous articles discussed the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System more thoroughly and suggested that it might be literally a surveillance system of the human brain. Some might have objected by saying something like “surveillance of neurological conditions simply means counting the number of people with neurological conditions after they visit the doctor and are diagnosed by the doctor and then agree to have their medical information included in the government’s counting system.” Previous articles described reasons why that objection is likely wrong.
Another significant piece of information refutes that objection. It is found in a government document on the CDC’s and other government entities’ plans for enhancing “biosurveillance.” The document describes “syndromic surveillance” and “prediagnostic health-related information” which the CDC, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and “other federal agencies” (possibly implying the FBI and others) surveil:

The document continues by providing some examples which distract from the significant point made about the government’s surveillance of “prediagnostic health-related information” and thus are excluded from the quotation above. It is very significant that the U.S. government document describes the CDC, DHS, and other federal agencies surveilling human beings before a diagnosis is made by the doctor; this apparently implies that the “data” may be collected by the government without one even going to the doctor, clinic, etc. The statement provides more support for the claim that the government might be secretly using advanced innovative technologies to surveil and spy on the actions of human beings while they are in their homes and other locations.

CDC Committee implied government has ‘surveillance systems for mental illness’​

Again, the previous U.S. federal government document provides the extremely significant fact that the government, including both the CDC and the government’s “national security” entities, use “syndromic surveillance” of “health-related data collected before diagnosis.” The statement is over-emphasized in this article due to its implication that government biosurveillance is not merely counting people diagnosed with diseases.
A different U.S. federal government document provides more significant information on specifically “surveillance systems for mental illness” by the CDC and other government entities. First, some background information is needed; during the Obama-Biden Administration, the U.S. federal government “mandated”

The U.S. CDC then established the National Biosurveillance Advisory Subcommittee (NBAS) to advise the government on “the development and implementation of a nationwide biosurveillance strategy for human health.” (Page 1) The National Biosurveillance Advisory Subcommittee later collaborated and then published the document “Improving the Nation’s Ability to Detect and Respond to 21st Century Urgent Health Threats: Second Report of the National Biosurveillance Advisory Subcommittee.”
Keep in mind that the report emphasizes the U.S. government’s “ability to detect…health threats.” Such surveillance might imply the “detection” of “mental illness” “before a diagnosis is made.” The document describes it in this way:

The advisory committee then recommends the following for the CDC’s and U.S. government’s National Biosurveillance Strategy:

Both statements are extremely significant. The first suggestion of the CDC advisory subcommittee clearly states that “surveillance systems for mental illness…must be strengthened.” It implies that there were already government “surveillance systems for mental illness” when the document was written in 2011. “Strengthened” likely means that such surveillance technologies need to be better at “early detection” of “[mental] health threats.” (Page 3)
The statement that “syndromic surveillance for mental health indicators needs refinement” is also extremely significant. Again, “syndromic surveillance” is “health-related data collected before diagnosis.” The statement might imply that the U.S. government is surveilling for “mental health indicators” without Americans being aware of such surveillance; such indicators might include human actions and potentially thoughts, emotions, plans, etc.
The phrase “mental health indicators” is similar to the phrase “neurological conditions” used to describe the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System, which may imply that the current “neurological condition” of Americans is being surveilled. “Neurological condition” surveillance implies that healthy people could be surveilled. The advisory committee’s recommendation to “refine” “syndromic surveillance” of “mental health indicators” might provide support for the suggestion that the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System might be surveilling human brains and human behaviors at every moment of one’s life.
And there is more support for the suggestion that the U.S. government secretly surveils human brains and/or behaviors for “mental health indicators” or “neurological condition surveillance”: the advisory committee continues in the same sentence by specifying that there are “varied somatic manifestations of stress” and there is “potential reluctance of historically marginalized populations to seek mental health … services.” (Of course, “services” could imply government-supported what might be described as prescription chemical restraints, but that cannot be elaborated here.)
The statement appears to imply that the government is secretly surveilling such people who are “reluctant” and do not go to the doctor, counselor, psychologist, etc. Such surveillance might imply specifically secret surveillance of human actions, human brain activity, or both, for the government to “detect” “mental illness.” (One should also be reminded that the Obama-Biden Administration required the FBI and potentially local police to link law enforcement with public health.)
Finally, it is necessary to emphasize that the CDC advisory committee was “mandated” to advise the government on “the development and implementation of a nationwide biosurveillance strategy for human health.” The CDC advisory committee advised the nationwide biosurveillance strategy for human health to include “surveillance systems of mental illness.” Soon after, the Obama-Biden Administration published the National Strategy for Biosurveillance which required the government security entities to “scan the environment.”
To summarize up to this point: the CDC operates the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System, and before that system was legalized, the CDC’s advisory committee recommended strengthening “surveillance systems for mental illness” to detect “mental health indicators” which may apparently be secretly done by the government on those “reluctant” to seek mental health services, or, those who do not go to psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, etc.
The statements could imply that the government secretly surveils Americans for “mental health indicators;” the documents do not mention this, but one might wonder if the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System might be a “surveillance system for mental illness.”

U.S. government says it has secret biosurveillance systems​

Finally, a potentially significant point is mentioned in the same U.S. government document on biosurveillance which describes the U.S. government using “syndromic surveillance” for collecting information on humans before diagnosis. The document succinctly mentions that the U.S. government operates “classified systems” for biosurveillance efforts. (Page 55)
Because of the possibility of classified and secret government biosurveillance systems, one has to use information provided in documents and laws to determine what types of surveillance the government might be implying that it might be secretly using against Americans. The existence of classified biosurveillance systems also provides more support to refute the supposition that biosurveillance is merely the government counting the number of people diagnosed with a disease; there is no need for government employees to make disease counting systems as classified information.
It also means that government employees might be hiding potentially the worst possible surveillance capabilities and methods from Americans. When government employees classify information, it can be reasonably suggested that they do so to hide information from Americans rather than the absurd suggestion that “if it is not classified and kept secret, then foreign countries might be able to get us!”
For example, it was described above that foreign countries have had satellite assistance since the 1970s. Such countries know what technologies are likely available and likely in use by America. Instead, it is the American citizen, lawful visitors, and future American citizens who are the likely reason for the U.S. government classifying “biosurveillance systems” and/or technologies. (Another off-subject comment worth mentioning: how can Americans make an informed decision when they vote if they do not know what kind of surveillance and spying systems their politicians are supporting?)
The information provided in this article and previous articles suggests that there is more than a possibility that the U.S. government is using advanced innovative technologies which “scan the environment,” scan human beings, and are able to determine the actions of every human being at every moment of their life. Such scanning equipment and technologies from human health fields may also be able to scan human brains to “mind read,” and such technologies may also be able to at least partially control thoughts and emotions in human brains.
And there is more on the subject to discuss but it cannot be mentioned here.


https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...-prediagnostic-mental-health-biosurveillance/
If they are observing for mental illness, they're doing about as good a job as they did with Major Nidal Hasan, Fort Hood, 2009 when they were observing him for Islamic terrorism. For MONTHS prior to his mass murder attack.

Their observations seem pretty useless, but as this implies, if they are growing in their ability to observe and figure out what people are thinking, then it's that much easier for the AC when his time comes to rule the world for his brief moment before he gets tossed into the Lake of Fire.
 

Ghoti Ichthus

Pray so they do not serve alone. Ephesians 6:10-20
If your medical records are computerized, they're part of the giant mass of data for AI to feast on. Even a mistake or error could end up being used against someone. And who's to say that AI won't be allowed to "correct," "clarify," "edit," or "classify IAW medical coding" what's in one's records?
 

athenasius

Well-Known Member
I don't think they are defining mental illness as we would. I think they are using it mean anyone who doesn't hold to the approved line, someone whose mind needs "fixed," or manipulated, or... I think this is a way to deal with dissidents.
Thanks Jan, that makes more sense. I was puzzling over that trying to figure out what exactly they were meaning.

Yeah, fixing "wrongthink" would be more on their agenda.
 

Ghoti Ichthus

Pray so they do not serve alone. Ephesians 6:10-20
LOL yup!


Next Gen had a LOT of great episodes that I doubt they could get away with today. That was one, I agree with Maple.

Most of Star Trek they couldn't get away with today (although several exceptions that match today's social zeitgeist on DS9 :frown
 

paul289

Well-Known Member
Doubtful that this technology is anything that man devised. More than likely, it was delivered by demons and only implemented by men.
 
Back
Top