An Essential Question We All Must Ask Ourselves: How Far Will We Go to Save Our Own Life?

How much is our life worth? Or our child? Where is the limit?

As some of my dear readers may be aware of, I have been covering an interesting figure of the 1990’s in a few of my posts by the name of Vyacheslav Krasheninnikov.

His history is fraught with mystery and intrigue, since it is claimed that he came to this world in order to warn this current generation that we will be the one to see the rise of the antichrist.

Now, I will just add this caveat: I cannot be entirely sure that this is a true account. Of course, I don’t think any of us can. There have been a lot of speculation and guesses as to who, what, where, when and how THE antichrist will make his appearance. And there are many who don’t follow the biblical testaments or believe in any religious/philosophical heralding of an impeding apocalypse, so don’t wonder about this at all and/or think it is only a conspiracy-theory-doomsday-delusion.

However, I am a believer in Jesus Christ and do believe that there are biblical warnings that point to what we should be on the lookout for. And because of this reason, I have been researching several different subjects, and Vyacheslav Krasheninnikov is one that just happened to catch my eye. And whether his is a true account or not, the topics that have been allegedly covered by this young individual – retold through his mother – resonates with me and I find a lot of truth within the subjects that he has mentioned.

For instance, the topic that I’m covering today is something that I have wondered about and struggled with in my pursuit of the truth and the reality of life and death; even before I came across this young prophet and his point of view. Which is incredibly deep coming from such a young child (he passed away at the age of 10). While this article is not about him personally, it is about a topic that he has broached, and because I have contemplated on this matter as well, wanted to delve deeper into the truth of this subject.

The Quest for Immortality (or even an extended life)

In my musings, I have wondered whether the notion of transfusions/transplants goes against what God intended. I know this might be an incredibly sensitive topic, but if we are pursuing the truth, then we must address difficult questions with a genuine and sincere approach, instead of aversion and antagonism. It is not my intention to offend anyone or pass judgement. Only to discuss this matter from a perspective that may not have been considered before.

With that being said, are we fully aware of the implications that may arise when pursuing this route when trying to save ourselves or a loved one?

Where are the organ donations coming from?…

The horrors of black market organ harvesting cannot be ignored, nor can the unscrupulous actions of the medical industry when faced with the possibility of a patient who is willing to pay ungodly amounts of money in order to save their own life, or one of their loved ones.

While some could never believe that such atrocities exist, the sad reality is that the love of money (and of one’s life) can push someone to make unethical decisions. Even if an organ transplant patient or blood transfusion recipient has no idea of the sinister back alley handed dealings, this secret, behind the scenes business may still be taking place.

“How was forced organ harvesting uncovered? The story starts with a whistleblower, a woman with a pseudonym Annie, who made a public statement in March 2006 that her ex-husband had been harvesting corneas of Falun Gong practitioners from 2003 to 2005 in Sujiatun hospital in Shenyang City in Liaoning Province in China. Other doctors in the hospital had been harvesting other organs. The Falun Gong were killed through organ extraction. Their bodies, after organ extraction, were cremated.”

How Was Forced Organ Harvesting Uncovered

As if this wasn’t horrific enough, the implications that the “cabal” may be behind some of the organ harvesting/trafficking may be in play as well.

In a harrowing interview, Stew Peters gives a child-trafficking victim a platform to speak on the tragic and devastating encounters she’s had within the corrupt “elite’s” cult and what she’s learned. It is a very heartbreaking and disturbing account – certainly not for the faint of heart. (I can’t watch this video without crying.)

A short testimony about the organ/body-harvesting trade:

Ally Carter @23:38: “- this is not about a sexual experience, this is not about just cash; this is about something else and it’s deeper than that. Because this is decades of tactics, this is decades of issues, these are decades of problems. Satanic ritual abuse exists, um, human sex-trafficking exists, organ-harvesting exists all over the place. The black market exists.

Um, humans, babies, children, 4 year olds/6 year olds, having their bodies sliced open and used as human suitcases over the border. I have been trafficked over the border.

Those babies are moved as if they’re still alive. They put clothes on them, they sit them up, and they use them until their bodies cannot be used anymore.

This is not just about sex. Because after your body is used for sex, your organs are used for organ harvesting and selling on the black market, which goes to your hospitals; you wonder why a heart costs so much. You wonder why a liver or kidney costs so much.”

Source: VICTIM: “BIDEN & OBAMA RAPED ME”: POWERFUL ELITES, CELEBS, DEMONIC SEX ABUSE RING

And while she claims to have evidence of the abuse that she’s had to endure – by the hands of some of the most prominent figures in our world today, no less – she doesn’t specify if she has the proof for the organ-harvesting claims.

However, this most certainly should not detract from the reality that this is a very real criminal enterprise.

In 2012, Patrick McMahon, Air Force combat veteran and nurse practitioner, made waves when he accused The New York Organ Donor Network for pressuring the doctors to prematurely declare patients “brain dead” in order to meet a quote, “and even hired “coaches” to train staffers how to be more persuasive” in convincing next-of-kin to sign their deceased love one over as an organ donor.

In one chilling allegation, Patrick McMahon submitted the following as an example of their gross misconduct:

“In September 2011, a 19-year-old man injured in a car wreck was admitted to Nassau University Medical Center. He was still trying to breathe and showed signs of brain activity, the suit charged.

But doctors declared him brain dead under pressure from donor-network officials, including Director Michael Goldstein, who allegedly said during a conference call: “This kid is dead, you got that?” the suit charged.” Organs taken from patients that doctors were pressured to declare brain dead: suit

An update to this lawsuit in 2017 had The New York Donor Network deny Mr. Patrick McMahon’s allegations, but also refused to release the documents of the patients in question, even after the judge court ordered them to do so; the New York Donor Network even going so far as to appeal this request through the Manhattan Supreme Court.

In another shocking Stew Peters exposé, a nurse claims to have found the connection between the deadly push of Remdesivir and the seemingly strategic planning of their patient’s deaths:

“I am an RN working in case management at _______ Hospital in California, and I know why the hospitals are killing their own patients.” Upon receiving this nurse’s horrific findings, The Stew Peters Show was able to get this whistleblower nurse to come on the show and answer the tough questions about the connection she found between the use of deadly Remdesivir, Vancomycin, and organ donors.

In the email, the whistleblower stated: “There is a link between the hospital deaths and organ harvesting in the state of California…Every patient’s license is in their medical records, and they can tell if they are organ donors or not.”Whistleblower: Hospitals Killing For Organs, “This is Absolutely Evil And A Crime Against Humanity!”

Are organs being harvested from LIVE people?

To add on to the controversial aspect of this medical intervention, is the huge debate surrounding the vitality of the organs and how long someone must stay alive – either naturally or through mechanical means – in order to keep their organs viable for distribution.

The medical condition of the person at the time of death can determine what organs and tissues can be donated and what cannot be. Organs need to be removed as soon as the person is declared brain-dead. Without the necessary oxygen supply, the organs stop functioning right.

The approximate amount of time between recovering the tissues/organs and transplanting them is:

    • Lung – 4 to 6 hours
    • Heart – 4 hours
    • Liver – 24 hours
    • Pancreas – 24 hours
    • Kidney – 72 hours
    • Cornea – 14 days
    • Bones – 5 years
    • Skin – 5 year
    • Heart Valves – 10 years

This is why creating a tissue bank (heart valves, skin, bones etc.) is possible but creating an organ bank is not. In case of organ transplantation, the process has to be very quick in order to save a life.

Keeping a brain-dead person on ventilator support helps as the organs continue receiving oxygen, providing a window of time for doctors to conduct organ transplantation.

Source: Time in which organs need to be donated after death

According to the above website, the heart and lungs are only viable within a 4 hour time frame. I assume this to mean that by the time the donor is “deceased”, the organs must immediately be transplanted to the intended recipient within the designated time. Otherwise it is too late and the organs (and therefore the payment) is no longer an option.

So by these conditions, the body must technically still be alive during the extraction of the organs, and the definition on what “brain dead” and “not legally alive” means is hotly contested in areas of not only ethical considerations, but scientific data as well.

For instance, there are reports of near-death experiencers being declared “brain dead“, “clinically dead”, “dead dead” (being in the morgue for 3 days…), yet still coming back from that brink with a story to tell. If their body was announced as technically dead, for all intents and purposes, then how is it at all possible for their “consciousness” to return to their body and having the lucidity return to them?

(DISCLAIMER: Please take these claims with a grain of salt. Always use discernment as most of these are anecdotal accounts and cannot be proven or provided with evidence.)

And how does this bode for the several thousands and thousands of people who have been declared “brain dead”, all in order for doctors/nurses/black market organ workers… to rush in to cut open their bodies (while still technically alive) and start harvesting for organs and tissue? And with that in mind, what would happen if a person who is declared “brain dead” suddenly regains their consciousness WHILE HAVING THEIR ORGANS REMOVED?

In some nerve-wrecking and heartbreaking reports, the following accounts demonstrates that this may, in fact, be possible:

– “April 2012 – Doctors declared british teen Stephen Thorpe “brain dead,” telling the father that the boy would never recover from a serious car accident. Despite pressure from the doctors, the father would not consent to allow the boy’s organs to be donated. With the help of other doctors, five weeks later Thorpe left the hospital, having almost completely recovered.”

– “July 2013 – A New York woman who was pronounced ‘brain dead’ by doctors unexpectedly awoke just as her organs were about to be removed for transplant.”

– “2014 U.S. man wakes up in morgue in body bag: An American man wasn’t pronounced “brain” dead, but dead dead. Hospital workers in Lexington, Mississippi zippered him into a sack and shipped to the morgue where he freaked out the workers preparing to embalm him by kicking his way out of his body bag. When Walter Williams actually did die, his nephew told a TV reporter, “I think he’s gone this time.” Shesh. If a nurse, a doctor, a coroner, and other hospital staff could get “dead” so very wrong…”

– 2014 – “Swedish man hears doctors urging the harvesting of his organs: Doctors in Sweden discussed organ donation within earshot of Jimi Fritze as he lay in hospital after a stroke. To the doctor’s shocking surprise, Fritze could hear every word they said. However, he couldn’t object because he couldn’t move. He had suffered a stroke, and after the doctors looked at a scan of his brain, they gave his family bad news, and claimed that “there was no hope,” Fritze said.”

– March 2018 – Thirteen-year-old Trenton McKinley of Alabama recovered and is doing well after doctors pronounced him “brain dead” and “his organs were matched to five children who needed them”, never mind the fact that he needed them himself.

There is also the aborted fetuses trade, which includes corrupt organizations such as the NIH and Planned Parenthood; both of which have been exposed for what I, and many others, consider crimes against humanity:

“David Daleiden, founder and president of The Center for Medical Progress, states, “The NIH grant application for just one of Pitt’s numerous experiments with aborted infants reads like an episode of American Horror Story. Infants in the womb, some old enough to be viable, are being aborted alive and killed for organ harvesting, in order to bring in millions of dollars in taxpayer funding for Pitt and the Planned Parenthood abortion business it supports.”Aborted Infants’ Continued Blood Flow Advertised in Racist University of Pittsburgh Grant Application to NIH

With these serious ethical concerns and implications, we have to really reflect on whether it is worth it to potentially be taking another person’s life to save our own, even if we are not fully cognizant of this fact. While I’m sure many of us are assured that the organ donor does not feel or suffer any of the procedures, unless we are actually under the knife, there is no way to know for sure. And the guilt that one may feel knowing that the person could have died while still having a chance to recover would undoubtedly weigh on some consciences.

Blood donors (again, from who…?)

Now, while not only considering organ donations to save or extend our life, we have to also address the practice of blood transfusions as well.

Again, the possibility of underhanded dealings in the black market and criminal enterprises needs to be mentioned.

As many may be familiar with, Silicon Valley is largely composed of a technocratic, transhumanist industry who is helping to usher us all in the “great reset”, biotech age; whether we like it or not.

In an endeavor that I have mentioned a few times before, because I am haunted by the stark coldness and unfeeling ramifications that it would most likely entail, is a statement from the Newsweek article titled, “Can Blood from Young People Slow Aging? Silicon Valley Has Bet Billions It Will“:

“One chilling missive came from a man who offered to provide all the blood Wyss-Coray might need for such an experiment—he claimed he could obtain it from human children of any age.”

In my opinion, this admission should be investigated to the fullest degree. I fail to see how this is even possible, unless one has a huge bank of blood already from “human children of any age”… or whether they can procure this amount through whatever means they have available to them – which again, raises severe alarm bells.

Either way, it is a grisly and sinister agenda. And the purpose for what this “young blood” will be used for, to keep the older generations alive and feeling young, is something right out of a dystopian playbook.

As Nir Barzilai puts it, “You have no idea how many people are interested to investing money in longevity,” said Nir Barzilai, the founding director of the Institute for Aging Research at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, and the founder of a company aimed at mitochondrial health. “There are billions of dollars.”

What’s in it for me?

Now that I’m finished talking about the ethical considerations (for now), it’s time to tackle why the recipient may not be getting off scott-free either. (Besides the medical bill, of course.)

Since the recipient will be under the knife and therefore have no idea what, exactly, is being transplanted/transfused into their body, and since many of us know how complicit some health/medical institutions really are, we have to wonder – not only how healthy the organ/blood being donated is, but also if the recipient is not subjected to an experiment as well.

Some, like David Bennett, consented to giving a very risky trial run to have a pig heart implanted in him. Not just any pig heart. A genetically modified one.

“In a medical first, doctors transplanted a pig heart into a patient in a last-ditch effort to save his life and a Maryland hospital said Monday that he’s doing well three days after the highly experimental surgery.

While it’s too soon to know if the operation really will work, it marks a step in the decades-long quest to one day use animal organs for life-saving transplants. Doctors at the University of Maryland Medical Center say the transplant showed that a heart from a genetically modified animal can function in the human body without immediate rejection.

The patient, David Bennett, 57, knew there was no guarantee the experiment would work but he was dying, ineligible for a human heart transplant and had no other option, his son told The Associated Press.”

Doctors transplant a genetically modified pig heart into a human for the 1st time

Again, the desperation to cling so tightly to one’s own life may compel them to make decisions they may later on regret. Turning yourself into a genetically modified organism might trend highly on that list. David Bennett had this to say on his decision:

“It was either die or do this transplant. I want to live. I know it’s a shot in the dark, but it’s my last choice,” Bennett said a day before the surgery, according to a statement provided by the University of Maryland School of Medicine.”

Doctors transplant a genetically modified pig heart into a human for the 1st time

This procedure has effectively, in a sense, created a human-animal hybrid. A genetically modified human hybrid.

That was David’s choice.

But what if you had no choice?

Far be it for me to assume that organ/blood recipients have not been getting all their donated organs/blood transfusions in a kosher manner… Already, there are attempts at not only implanting genetically modified animal parts in human being, but there are also endeavors to implant synthetic organisms/organs into us as well.

While history dictates that the government and mad scientists have taken certain liberties with their citizen’s bodies and lives, we have to wonder if there are even more clandestine operations hidden in the background that we are not aware of.

Now, even if these speculations are not true, what IS true is that there is a highly dangerous, suspicious “vaccine” containing mRNA and which have admissions that it does, indeed, modify our cells.

“Ultimately, the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cellular gene therapy. I always like to say, if we had surveyed 2 years ago, in the public, would you be willing to take a gene or cell therapy, and inject it into your body, we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate.

I think this pandemic has also opened many people’s eyes to innovation in the way that was maybe not possible before.”

CEO of Big Pharma Bayer “mRNA vaccines are an example of cellular gene therapy”

So with that in mind, how would vaccinated individual’s organs and blood be, not only in the short term, but in the long term as well? There has already been a sudden increase in blood clots, heart attacks, strokes, myocardial  infarctions, neurological symptoms, miscarriages/stillbirths, cancers, etc., etc., etc. reported by Thomas Renz/DoD due to the vaccine intake.

Now imagine getting an organ/blood transfusion from a vaccinated individual with these conditions? And do we have a say in whose organs/blood we get in order to save ours or a loved one’s life? And even if they assure us that it is completely healthy and safe, are we really going to take the word of the same organizations who have assured us that brain dead individuals have no chance of recovery, only to have that same person wake up in the morgue?

This is all without even considering that the vaccines may, in fact, be injecting us with nanochip technology, hydrogels, graphene oxide, etc. in attempts at connecting us to a control-power grid. And as mentioned earlier, synthetic organ creations seem to be the next step in evolution for these “biomedical” technocrats, working on 3d printing organs like the heart, out of, again, their wonder material: hydrogel.

So now we have to consider whether we are okay with being a potentially genetically modified, human-animal hybrid, with synthetic (and possibly deadly) materials inside of us. In order to sustain/extend our life. Rather than “Godspeed” to the Lord.

This is, of course, not to say you would not want to find relief for yourself or a loved one who is suffering, but the serious subject matter of changing our natural, human born genetics with that of unnatural/man-made substances and mutation with animal DNA should be highly examined.

For those with (and without…) Biblical inclinations, there are specific verses that addresses this:

“But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.”1 Corinthians 15:38-39

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”Romans 1:22

“So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.”Genesis 6:12

What’s in the blood?

So, now we get to, what was the initial reason why I decided to approach this topic to begin with?

Again, because of the testimony of Vyacheslav Krasheninnikov. In his life, he refused to get a blood transfusion because, as he claimed it, the sins of the blood could be transferred to the recipient.

It may seem like an outlandish claim.

However, there are some scientific literature to back this up, as eerie as it sounds.

blood carries a person’s DNA, the signature that is supposed to be unique to their body.”

Scientific American explains that when donor blood is mixed into the body with a transfusion, that person’s DNA will be present in your body for some days”

“That publication notes studies have shown that highly sensitive equipment can pick up donor DNA from blood transfusions up to a week after the procedure, but with particularly large transfusions, donor white blood cells were present for up to a year and a half afterward.”

Source: How Does A Blood Transfusion Change Your Body And DNA?

And in this 2017 study, the conclusion these scientists/doctors came to is that they are considering having physicians receive informed consent from the recipient before agreeing to the transfusion because of this possible personality change:

“In conclusion, our results showed that the majority of the subjects could conceive that RBC transfusion might transmit some of the donor’s traits. Furthermore, three subjects out of seven indicated that they had perceived changes in behaviors or values after their own RBC transfusion. Better understanding the frequency and importance of these perceived changes is important as physicians might have to include such information while getting informed consent for transfusion.”

Source: Perceived changes in behavior and values after a red blood cell transfusion

Organ transplants are no different, and have been documented for decades, according to the following pubmed article:

“Personality changes following heart transplantation, which have been reported for decades, include accounts of recipients acquiring the personality characteristics of their donor.”

“Four categories of personality changes are discussed in this article: (1) changes in preferences, (2) alterations in emotions/temperament, (3) modifications of identity, and (4) memories from the donor’s life. The acquisition of donor personality characteristics by recipients following heart transplantation is hypothesized to occur via the transfer of cellular memory, and four types of cellular memory are presented: (1) epigenetic memory, (2) DNA memory, (3) RNA memory, and (4) protein memory.”

Implications for the future of heart transplantation are explored including the importance of reexamining our current definition of death, studying how the transfer of memories might affect the integration of a donated heart, determining whether memories can be transferred via the transplantation of other organs, and investigating which types of information can be transferred via heart transplantation. Further research is recommended.”

Source: Personality changes following heart transplantation: The role of cellular memory

In another startling account, a recipient of a liver transplant was documented as having not only a complete change in blood type, but she acquired the immune system of her donor as well…

In a recent case of possible cell memory, Australian girl Demi-Lee Brennan’s blood group was changed after receiving a liver transplant from her donor, reports the AFP. Nine months after the initial transplant, doctors discovered that Brennan had changed blood types and she acquired the immune system of the donor due to the stem cells of her new liver transferring over to her bone marrow. “In effect she had had a bone marrow transplant. The majority of her immune system had also switched over to that of the donor,” Michael Stormon, a hepatologist who treated Brennan at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead, reported to the AFP.

Source: Can An Organ Transplant Change A Recipient’s Personality? Cell Memory Theory Affirms ‘Yes’

It amazes me that this foresight came from a 10 year-old child, who chose to end his life, rather than receive a potential change in personality and genetic make up.

And we have to wonder, what is the risk when it comes to this incredibly sensitive topic? What if our little one was sick, dying of leukemia? I can’t imagine how heartbreaking that would be, yet people go through these types of sorrow everyday. And on one hand I understand their heartfelt desperation at keeping their loved one alive, but again, at what cost?

Again, this is not to presume, or cast judgement, only to bring this topic to light in a different perspective. Perhaps we’re clinging on to life so hard, that we forget and/or ignore that this is only a temporary life/death. Even doctors/scientists/skeptics are having to come around to the mystery of the consciousness, and that there is more to this life than meets the eye.

“If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake and for the sake of the Good News, you will save it.” – Mark 8:35

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Combining Health/Medical/Biodata Together with Artificial Intelligence – For OUR Benefit? Or For a Different Reason Altogether?

A.I. technology has made significant advances. But what if it never stops advancing?

As I was researching an individual (who shall not be named to protect their anonymity) – I came across a rather… intriguing company that they had an interest in.

For a little background, this individual has been speculated as getting their really young son vaccinated, even before it was authorized in their area. For additional reference, it would seem that being involved in the NHS is also an important part of their repertoire – so perhaps they are of the UK region.

Again, these are more of a supposition based on their information, so please take it with a grain of salt.

Sadly, this individual lost their son not too long ago.

Now, just out of curiosity sakes (not to condemn, provoke, judge, or anything of the sort) I took an initiative to research their twitter page for additional information. What were their other interests/involvements? What makes this person a pro-vaccine advocate? Etc. This is where the information about the NHS comes from.

And in addition, there was another company listed that really took me aback. And that will be the focus of what this post is about.

The DEMON Network

“We are the international network for the application of data science and AI to dementia research. The Deep Dementia Phenotyping (DEMON) Network brings together academics, clinicians and other partners from across the world. By connecting these people, we can identify innovative approaches to interdisciplinary collaborative dementia research across multiple institutions.

Our vision is to revolutionise dementia research and healthcare by bringing innovators together and harnessing the power of data science and AI.”

Source: [ https://demondementia.com/about/ ]

Further research into this group and the above individual’s interests revealed human genomes/genetics and deep brain integration with AI as additional fields of pursuit.

Very interesting.

And once again, just as the SATiN technology – I have to point out the incredibly unnecessary and non-sense acronym that they have decided to choose for their company.

“Deep Dementia Phenotyping (DEMON)”?

It is quite obvious the allusion that they were going for.

Now, for the sake of playing Devil’s advocate (no pun intended), perhaps they only mean it as a reference that ‘dementia’ is such an awful disease and so they are calling dementia itself a “demon”, in the most figurative of sense. Or, one can construe it in the sense that some people have described the symptoms of dementia as that of someone being demonically possessed – the change in personality, the trembling/shaking, sudden aggression, etc. So perhaps their motive was to highlight this detail – as controversial as that would be.

However, under the assumption that anyone who has faith/belief in God/Jesus Christ, or even who believes in preserving humanity in our natural state, and who would not want to tamper with His creations in such a way as to genetically modify and/or merge us (or any other living being) with man-made technology, the rationale that the groups of people initiating this sort of invasive work would deliberately choose the acronym it did for more of a shock value than anything else, and to perhaps mock those who are against this sort of contentious work, would make more sense.

There is, of course, the darker side of the argument, and that’s that the founder(s) of something like DEMON Network, fully believe that they are serving a “demonic” agenda.

No one likes to contemplate on this subject. No one wants to believe that someone running a large organization in manipulating, modifying, genetically changing, hacking the software of life, collecting medical/biological/DNA information – could possibly be involved in such a thing as “demonic worship”, or idolizing machines – like artificial intelligence, for example – or would attempt to personify a computer learning algorithm/intelligence as a “beast system”.

Yet, when digging into transhumanism, technological advancements, the agendas of certain “philanthropic” billionaires and globalists, government agencies… one thing seems to tie them all together. And that is, indeed, a reset of humanity in some way, that involves merging us with machine.

This is NO SECRET, and has been admitted by everyone from Klaus Schwab, to Bill Gates, to Elon Musk, to Henry Kissinger (who was a professor of Klaus Schwab) to institutions such as DARPA.

Getting back to the DEMON Network, who has partnered with the UK Dementia Research Institute, I have selected a few short excerpts from an interview between David Llewellyn (founder of DEMON Network) and Bart De Strooper of the UK DRI that can be found at the following link: [ https://demondementia.com/podcast-using-ai-data-to-fight-dementia/ ] “Podcast: Using AI & data to fight dementia”

David Llewellyn: “We deliberately, I mean, it’s designed to encourage collaboration and new ideas, dangerous ideas, so we want people to join who don’t know anything about dementia. Maybe they know all about transfer learning, or other forms of machine learning, or artificial intelligence.”

Interviewer Megan O’Hare: “When we got given the topic for this podcast, thought to myself, I should probably actually, work out what artificial intelligence is. Obviously we use the word a lot, and you think of that Will Smith film, and – but, and so I had to look around and there’s the cheering test. Which is basically the test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to or indistinguishable from that of a human.

But I wanted, because you’re both coming at it from different places, how you view A.I.? Um, to how you think it will impact dementia research? Maybe, David, we start with you?”

David Llewellyn: “Well, it’s a difficult thing to pin down. Because it obviously means different things to different people. But I think in its, in its broader sense, artificial intelligence is the idea that we’ll create machines that think for themselves, and they’re able to exhibit intelligent characteristics without, without us pulling levers; manually inputting and prodding and poking them into what they should be doing.

And the most ambitious form of artificial intelligence is a sort of creation of a new digital, sentient being, which will take over the world and enslave us.

And that’s the – that’s the thing that, that some people worry about. You know, the point at which machines don’t just match our performance, but start to exceed our performance. So that – that’s the, that is a fascinating and yet, and as yet unachieved ambition. That not everyone thinks we should be aiming for either.

I don’t think many people are arguing we’ve created a super-intelligent yet. But it’s possible. It’s possible.

Bart De Strooper: “These are the advances of molecule biology, and how it’s done at the moment is it’s very simplistic. We use a – we use a… […] I apologize to my colleagues – but we take a cell, we put a DNA in it, we express the protein, and then we see things happening, of course, and everything that’s biology. Of course! Biology’s much more complicated.

You need to – to, and that’s – so the next step in molecule biology was, if I’m boring you please interrupt me, but next step was the mouse stuff. When we changed the gene, and then we saw the whole thing change in the mouse.”

Bart De Strooper: “There will be a moment, and that’s also the vision of the DRI, there is a moment that most of the research will be in silico.

Bart De Strooper: “I think that in the 10 years, I foresee for me now, still going on, that’s – a lot of the classical biology will be replaced by, by this combination of silico prediction, and then tested. In 20 years, it’s probably going to be the classical biologists will be a rare species.

David Llewellyn: “Well if you listen to some people, artificial intelligence will make us all redundant.”

Image credited to: UK Dementia Research Institute

And as Dr. James Giordano so succinctly put it, when given funding from multiple different organizations, the possibility of “dual-use” medical/scientific interventions becomes an obvious motive.

Take a study/research that involves David Llewellyn and others on behalf of the European Task Force for Brain Health Services:

[ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8507172/ ] “Modifiable risk factors for dementia and dementia risk profiling. A user manual for Brain Health Services”

Some noteworthy possible Conflicts of Interest that could have influenced some of the research/funding/studies, etc. of such endeavors involves the following companies:

Source: [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8507172/ ] “Modifiable risk factors for dementia and dementia risk profiling. A user manual for Brain Health Services”

AstraZeneca
BioCross
Biogen
Elan Pharmaceuticals
Genentech
Janssen
Lilly
Lundbeck
Novartis
Pfizer

Those are some extremely familiar names. Now why is this so important?

Well, aside from the very unusual name (DEMON Network) and their possible involvement/affiliations with the above listed organizations – imagine a company being able to provide a cure for such a debilitating illness – like dementia/Alzheimer’s for instance. In fact, imagine a complete cure for anything you can think of.

Cancer. The common cold. Heart attacks. Depression. Schizophrenia. ADHD. AIDS. So on and so forth.

Now ask yourself, what happens to these companies when the cure is established and no one is sick from anything anymore? Well, quite obviously, people won’t need on-going medicine/drugs/therapists/vaccines… etc., etc. Thus, putting the medical field largely out of a very lucrative business. As long as they can keep flourishing with an abundance of “sick” people, an actual CURE would destroy their whole entire foundation.

So from a strictly financial/business point of view, the medical field would be shooting themselves in the foot if they were to ever find such a beneficial treatment. The smart, yet extremely underhanded thing to do, would be to keep the falsehood going that they are treating you, while keeping you sick all the while to peddle drugs and even more treatments to “cure” additional ailments.

Now, am I necessarily saying that this is exactly what’s going on here? Well… there are many signs that certainly do point in that direction. But I am also of the belief that there are people in those institutions that don’t believe this, and who are, in fact, very honest and genuine people trying to help others with their illnesses. But it doesn’t mean that it’s not going on.

Perhaps even some in that field are becoming disillusioned with their very own profession/career and the suspicious activities that their organizations have engaged in. But one can’t help but wonder if this is the true motive of the medical institutions.

And again, it certainly does not help when they pair up with foundations named DEMON Network who are interested in implementing A.I. algorithms and tracking/monitoring human being’s physiology; under the false guise, in my opinion, of helping people.

Elon Musk makes an eerie reference

As mentioned earlier, Elon Musk, who is eager to start implementing his Neuralink implants into human beings next year (2022), has said this rather… interesting “hyperbole” about A.I.’s back in 2014:

Elon Musk: “And with artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon. You know? You know all those stories where, there’s the guy with the pentagram and the holy water, and he’s like, yeah, he’s sure he can control the demon. [exaggerated winking]

It didn’t work out.

Sure this very well could have been strictly a metaphor, but in context of the individuals/organizations who truly are interested in A.I. technology, and the transhumanism efforts, and who also seem to have an uncanny alliance/affiliation with the Lucis Trust (formerly the Lucifer Trust), the supposition that it is all just a coincidence gets less and less certain.

Metabolic Machines and Demons of Life

In addition to all of that, are even more allusions to the “demonic” qualities that artificial intelligence/computing systems seem to possess. (again, no pun intended)

Thomas Feuerstein is an artist who focuses a lot on biotechnology and fuses biological organisms (algae, human cells) into his artwork. Again, with an interest in artificial intelligence as well, his take on what artificial intelligence is, coupled with his artwork, presents an even deeper meaning into a “demon network” that I don’t think many of us are aware of.

Take the following excerpts from Feuerstein’s presentation for consideration:

All quotes by Thomas Feuerstein:

“Data metabolic systems, I mean works that eat and […] digest data autonomously, and convert them into new data, always based on a software that I call “demon”.

In ancient Greece, the daemon was a translator between ideas and meta, gods and humans. And furthermore, a daemon or demon was a distributor of fate, of resources, goods and information.”

“To this day, the word “demon” hides in many common words, theories and concepts. For example, democracy comes from demos, which means people or nations. And “daemos” derives from daemon. In this sense, a daemon is a governor, a decision maker, and an allocator.”

“Demons today are not only fictional or mythical creatures in literature, religions, superstition, or pop culture. We find them also in science, technology, art, economics, and politics.

And as I said before, without demons there can be no governance, and no cybernetics.

Our daily lives are full of demons, and with the emergence of new technologies and A.I., cultural demons are becoming more and more relevant in a networked society. We find them in electronic devices, in the form of algorithmic trading, in biotechnology, surveillance technology – “

“The ancient concepts of demons we have to sink in new contexts. More and more demons become machines; biochemical and digital machines.”

“Another very strong demon, the Holy Spirit, enters not as a higher source any longer. It enhances the brain, digital and molecular. In future times maybe we are all enlightened people, speaking in tongues and glossolalia becomes a molecular and digital application in our brain.

For example, the company Neuralink, wants to implant brain computer interfaces – so called BCI, to connect the brain with the internet.

Ironically I can say in the future we may not only have artificial intelligence, we may have artificial identity.”

“Deep meaning reminds me of DeepDream from Google [editor’s note: who, unironically, removed the motto “Don’t be evil” from their code of conduct policy…], and shows that the genius is not a person with special abilities, but someone who is controlled by a higher intelligence and ruled like a puppet.”

” – Fernando Corbato and the science team at the MIT, wrote the computer program “daemon”. It was a simple backup program, and daemon was a backronym for a disk and execution monitor. And this is important, because it was the beginning of machines started to talk to themselves. It influenced all later programs from chat BOTS to search BOTS to viruses and artificial intelligence agents. And in this sense, the most mightful and greedy demon who haunts the internet today is the Google bot.”

“More and more demons take possession of our environment and connect us imperceptibly with networked processes. These demons lurk in smartphones and smart homes.”

“Another cosmist, Nikolai Federov, describes the machinist of the future as a place not for death, but for technical reanimated humans. This was science fiction at the time, but today where Google, Facebook […] are constantly collecting data, a digital reapers is approaching technical feasability.

Ironically I would say, we will end not in graves, we will end as demons in cyberspace.”

And like Thomas Feuerstein mentioned, the demon/daemon terminology to describe computer programs/artificial intelligence is an expression  – at least from a computer programmer/hacker’s point of view.

In The Original Hacker’s Dictionary, it describes daemon and demon as the following:

DAEMON (day’mun, dee’mun) [archaic form of “demon”, which has slightly different connotations (q.v.)] n. A program which is not invoked explicitly, but which lays dormant waiting for some condition(s) to occur. The idea is that the perpetrator of the condition need not be aware that a daemon is lurking (though often a program will commit an action only because it knows that it will implicitly invoke a daemon). For example, writing a file on the lpt spooler’s directory will invoke the spooling daemon, which prints the file. The advantage is that programs which want (in this example) files printed need not compete for access to the lpt. They simply enter their implicit requests and let the daemon decide what to do with them. Daemons are usually spawned automatically by the system, and may either live forever or be regenerated at intervals. Usage: DAEMON and DEMON (q.v.) are often used interchangeably, but seem to have distinct connotations. DAEMON was introduced to computing by CTSS people (who pronounced it dee’mon) and used it to refer to what is now called a DRAGON or PHANTOM (q.v.). The meaning and pronunciation have drifted, and we think this glossary reflects current usage.

DEMON (dee’mun) n. A portion of a program which is not invoked explicitly, but which lays dormant waiting for some condition(s) to occur. See DAEMON. The distinction is that demons are usually processes within a program, while daemons are usually programs running on an operating system. Demons are particularly common in AI programs. For example, a knowledge manipulation program might implement inference rules as demons. Whenever a new piece of knowledge was added, various demons would activate (which demons depends on the particular piece of data) and would create additional pieces of knowledge by applying their respective inference rules to the original piece. These new pieces could in turn activate more demons as the inferences filtered down through chains of logic. Meanwhile the main program could continue with whatever its primary task was.”

So now one has to wonder, are the agendas of the “DEMON Network” really to help those with dementia? Or, as Professor David Llewellyn implied himself, are they more interested in:

“Dr Megan O’Hare interviews Professor Bart De Strooper and Professor David Llewellyn, discussing the new UK Dementia Research Institute and DEMON Network partnership to unlock the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI).”?

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by Tayeb MEZAHDIA from Pixabay

Dr. James Giordano – From DARPA Mind Weapon Tools, to Nanotechnology | Hacking Our Mind is the Ultimate Agenda

“The Brain is the Battlefield of the Future” [Full Transcript]

Many may have seen Dr. James Giordano’s “The Brain is the Battlefield of the Future” 2018 presentation already, but as of yet, I have not seen a transcript of this particular lecture. It is incredibly pertinent, and is perhaps the key reason why there is a nationwide effort to vaccinate absolutely every person on the planet.

There will be, of course, those who would consider any talk of “brain/mind control/nanotechnology” as a ridiculous conspiracy theory that has no basis in reality.

Yet Dr. James Giordano has based his entire career on this endeavor, and is a very real agenda of some of the most prominent government and research organizations worldwide.

While Dr. Giordano’s lecture encompasses a wide range of extremely important and mind-boggling (no pun intended) information, I have highlighted a few aspects from his presentation that espouses incredibly topical information in order for the public to realize what the main goals are of these institutions.

As someone with 40 years of experience in neuroscience and prestigious credentials/history of working with DARPA/Pentagon, brain science/interfacing technologies, “neuroethics”, etc., Dr. Giordano lays out their agenda in this one hour presentation; no efforts to sugar-coat, hide or discreetly allude their motives.

For those who don’t believe that brain manipulation/mind control is a real endeavor, this single presentation lays that speculation/disbelief to rest. It is not a “conspiracy theory”. It is a cold, hard fact.

The full transcript of his presentation is transcribed below. Some embellishment has been added for emphasis.

Index for certain topics:

Weaponized neuro-cognitive science / Weapons of Mass Destruction and Disruption (and Influence)

Agenda to affect free will

“- if in fact I understand how it is that your brain does what your brain does, I may be able to access your brain and affect your brain, indirectly and directly.”

Assess, Access, Affect the Brain

Brain science for warfare intelligence already in operational play

Interventional technologies, including: Directed Energy Devices, Novel Pharmaceuticals, Nanoneurotechnologicals

How to influence the attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, emotions, activities, and vulnerabilities of individuals

Genetics, biomarkers and information database for tracking/surveillance

Psychological operations (psyops) to influence behavior and emotions of individuals, groups, and populations

Dr. Giordano mentions Havana (Havana Syndrome) as a possible Directed Energy Weapon Neural attack

DARPA program to implant brain machine networks

DARPA’s program, Neural Narratives, to influence individuals/groups through psyops and propaganda

Manipulating bio-data as a potential weapon

Efforts to use drugs and nano/neurotechnology to “enhance” military warfighters/personnel

Dual-use: “Medical purposes that are then depurposed in medicine and used for other agenda”

Initiatives against potential dissidents/opposition

Gene-editing a virus to make it more deadly and/or to cause worldwide panic to disrupt a nation(s)/population

Controllable nanomaterials that can be aerosolized to infiltrate the biological system up to the neural membrane

Drugs, bugs(viruses) and toxins can be developed “under the radar” if classified as Weapons of Mass Disruption

Ethical posturing…

“- advancements in medicine very often arise as a consequence of the possible utility of various forms of science and tech to be weaponized and the damage that they incur”

Brave New World

MKUltra (mind control) to alter the cognition, emotions and behavior of individuals (using psychedelic drugs)

Using transcranial devices (magnetic/electric stimulation) / and engaging brain substrates, nodes, networks through the use of pharmaceuticals

Introduction Speaker: “Good afternoon and thank you for coming. Today’s MWI speaker event with Dr. James Giordano.

Dr. Giordano is a professor in the Department of Neurology and Biochemistry, Chief in Neuroethics Studies Program of the Pelligrino Center for Clinical Bioethics, and Co-director of the O’Neill-Pellegrino Program in Brain Science and Global Health Law and Policy at Georgetown University Medical Center.

As well, Dr. Giordano currently serves an appointed member of the United States Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Advisory Council on Human Research Protections.

He is a researcher and task leader of the European Union Human Brain Project and has served as an appointed member of the Neuroethics Legal and Social Issues Advisory Panel of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Senior Advisory Fellow of the Strategic Multi-layer Assessment Branch of the joint staff of the Pentagon. It’s quite a bit.

In his spare time, he has authored over 260 publications in neuroscience and neuroethics, seven books and 13 government white papers on neurotechnology ethics and biosecurity. And is an editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine.

Dr. Giordano, thank you for joining us today.”

James Giordano @1:26: “No, no. Don’t applaud now. Wait until the end. Because the performance pressure is much too severe if you do that. And my thought is you’re probably not going to applaud at the end, but what I’m gonna hear is the slamming shut of your sphincters with fear. That’s good. That’s been successful.

It’s a pleasure to be here. It’s a real honor to be here. Is cadet Yoshi in the audience? Hello. No PDA’s but I do want you to come up and say hello. Your mother says hello. I’m just – everybody has a mother and I know hers.

So, what we’re here to talk about today is the fact that the brain is and will be the 21st century battle scape in many ways. End of story. We could stop it there and I can let you go back to your respective units and think about that for a while.

[@2:04]: But I’m here to tell you absolutely as much as there’s a big old Tyrolean nose on this face that you will encounter some form of neuro-cognitive science that has been weaponized not only in your military career, but in your personal and professional lives. Irrespective of whether those two things coincide or not.

So the idea of the brain as the battlescape is very important, and more importantly is this other acronym that’s up there which is WMD Squared. Please get used to this because this is going to be part of the idea of a regular warfare and ongoing military innovation in your careers.

Weapons of Mass Destruction and Disruption. Disruption and influence will be the key to creating pier capabilities and asymmetrical engagements. Let me say it again, it will be the key to creating pier capability in asymmetrical relations and engagements.

If we talk about what brain science is, let me just give you a little bit of brief background on this field that is now called neuroscience. As a titular field, as a named field, neuroscience has only been in existence for 40 years. I know that because I’ve been a neuroscientist for about 38 of those 40 years.

When I first applied to get into a program in neuroscience, there were only 4 neuroscience programs in the continental United States. Four.

Right now, at this particular point, there are well over 200 dedicated university and collegiate programs. Several programs at the junior college levels, several programs at the high school level and many many dozens of independent think tanks and philanthropic organizations solely devoted to brain sciences. That’s just here in the United States.

Furthermore, what becomes critically important for you to understand is that brain science is not just a United States enterprise or effort, nor is it singularly an effort of the United State’s allies worldwide.

Increasingly it is becoming an international/multinational global and independently exercised event and endeavor. Which increases the capability of the brain sciences developed, not only new theories but have more sophisticated tools.

I like this slide a lot, because what it presents, few ladies and gentlemen, is a century – a century long history of brain science even before it was called neuroscience.

Image credited to Dr. James Giordano/MWI

James Giordano @4:06: “Look. Let’s face it, for as long as human beings were looking in some reflective pool and recognized that that thing looking back at them was themselves, there was some interest in what makes me, me.

What makes me think, what makes me feel, what makes me behave the way I do and you behave and think the way you do. What is my sense of self? Do I have free will, and what is the nature of that and how can we affect that? In a variety of ways that go from the non-kinetic all the way to the kinetic?

If we take centenary jumps into the era of the Enlightenment, we can see the great thinkers that came before and during the Enlightenment, inclusive but not limited to people like Rene Descartes, pondered the idea of what that means. “Cogito, ergo sum”: I think, therefore I am.

The inverse of the statement that in many cases was implicit but now becomes ever more explicit, is, what makes me think? And if I can understand what makes me think, and makes you think, and makes you feel, then that understanding may in fact flavor, if not directly influence the way you and I interact.

But more than that, if in fact I understand how it is that your brain does what your brain does, I may be able to access your brain and affect your brain, indirectly and directly.

And what this allows us to do is to create tremendous potential and possibility and probability, potential, possibility, and probability of what the brain sciences can do and will do.”

Image credited to Dr. James Giordano/MWI
SLIDE TEXT:

Neuro Science and Technology
(NeuroS/T)…
Puts the brain at our fingertips

Potential…

    • To harness and engage neuroS/T in convergent, multi-disciplinary approaches to study, define, predict and influence human ecologies
    • Affect human activities on individual, group and populational levels
    • To affect human relations on local, regional and global scales
    • Influence postures and conduct of national security and defense agenda(s)

James Giordano @5:29: “Remember these three letters: A, A, and A. Keep them as your viable mantra for the duration of this course today and throughout your professional careers and each and all the opportunities that you have to interface and try to understand the power that the brain and cognitive sciences can yield.

A: the ability to assess the brain and its functions.

A: the ability to access the brain on a variety of levels, from the subcellular all the way to the social.

And

A: the ability to affect that brains and the individuals in which those brains are embodied and the ecologies in which those individuals enact, engage, encounter – from the level of the individual, to the group, to the community, to the populational.

Look at the power that understanding tools and techniques the brain sciences afford. It’s there before you on the screen.

Obviously, if in fact this gives me some insight to the way people interact, inclusive of the way they may interact in bellicose, aggressive, violent and volatile ways, and it also confers upon me certain powers to be able to influence that, alter that, change that, mitigate thatthen clearly I’m able to use the brain sciences as we have tried repeatedly in the past to influence the postures and capabilities; not only of our own individuals, who are engaged in warfare intelligence and national security operations, but those who seek to threaten us. In other words, we can utilize these things in national security, intelligence and defense.

Please look at the timeline. A mere 10 years ago, 2008, the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council convened a group to create a report dedicated to if and why and how brain sciences might be viable, valid and of value in national security, intelligence and defense operations. And in 2008, they did a 5-year retrospective and came to the conclusion that although these things may be valid, their relative viability value at that particular time rendered them not ready for primetime play.

Our group, working with others internationally inclusive of the Nuffield Council in the UK, proceeded forward from 2008 and did a slightly deeper dive; looking at international capabilities, limitations, and de-limitations in the brain sciences and came to a very very different set of conclusions.

Not only were the brain sciences increasingly being considered, interested and used for possibilities of national security, intelligence and defense, but they would continue to be so as more and more countries internationally developed the capabilities and the specialized agendas to be able to look into the brain and affect the brain.

So much so, that by 2014, the exact same committee reconvened and recognized at that time that the brain science is indeed were ready and in operational primetime for warfare intelligence and national security agenda. In other words, it is valid, valuable, and already in operational play.

The brain is the current and future battle space. Or at least one that can be leveraged in those ways to be able to create tremendous effect with fairly little investment of engagement.

In other words, what it allows us to do, is assess the brain, access the brain, and affect the brain. I’ll unapologetically repeat myself throughout this lecture to drive home this point with regard to these capabilities, because each and all have gravitas importance and operational leverage ability.

That said, what are these techniques and technologies that have rendered this capability, and if you will, geopolitical, military, and social power? Well, I have them here before you.”

Image credited to Dr. James Giordano/MWI
SLIDE TEXT:

NeuroS/T in NSID
Access-Assess-Affect

    • Assessment Technologies
           – Neuroimaging
           – Neurophysiological recording
           – Neurogenomics and genetics
           – Neuroproteomics
           – Neuro-cyber informatics
    • Interventional Technologies
           – Cyber-linked neurocog manipulation
           – Directed energy devices
           – Novel pharmaceuticals
           – Transcranial neuromodulation
           – Implantable BMIs
           – Neuromicrobiologicals
           – Organic Neurotoxins
           – Nanoneurotechnologicals

James Giordano @9:07: “Generalization, we can parse them down into two discrete domains.

First, the assessment neurotechnologies that do exactly as the name would imply. They are, based upon various tools that we can use to assess those structures and functions of the brain that may be involved in those process of cognition and motion behaviors.

Humans are tool users. Rarely, however, do we turn over a rock, look around the corner, appear under the bed, just to know what’s under there. We use, at very very least, the knowledge we have gained from turning the rock over and looking under the bed, around the corner, and very often those things that we find under the rock, under the bed, around the corner, become tools for us to use in a variety of other engagements. Brain science, like any other science and technology, is no different.

Earlier in the day at lunch, major and I had a conversation about the viability of different types of research. Science for science’s sake. Science just to know, because that’s where your interests lie.

Oh look, I’ve been in academic for well over 4 decades, and I can tell you that that kind of research is wonderful. But when that research is generated for a purpose and when it’s funded and when that purpose deals with those things that are near and dear to the health, survivability, flourishing and protection of kith and kin, then that research is operational research that has an end goal of use.

This is what this is about. It’s not just a question of trying to figure out what makes the brain tick and the way it’s built. It’s can we get in there to affect the ticking and tocking, and by affecting the way that brain is built and the way it functions, influence in ways that are kinetic and non-kinetic.

[@10:40]: The attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, emotions, activities, and relative vulnerabilities and predispositions of those individuals for whom both we are responsible, in terms of our own forces, perhaps to make them better, more insulated against injury, operationally protected and enhanced and those who may threaten us.

To do that, we need to intervene. So the other dimension of these neurotechnologies are interventional neurotechnologies.

Now, I’m not going to bring you down the rabbit hole into what each and all of these things do, because you don’t want to be a neuroscientist and I’m certainly not going to make you a neuroscientist in an hour. But I think it becomes important to dial into a little bit more clarity and with further granularity what we’re really talking about when we talk about these relative assessments and interventional technologies.

In the former case, probably the one that gives the most rise to both provocation and contention are various forms of neuro-imaging, the ability to image the living brain – to be able to see what brain areas are differentially active as we engage in different thoughts, feelings, emotions, and tasks. And to then correlate the interaction of those nodes and networks with discrete patterns that occur not only in individuals, but in groups of individuals.

In other words, if I can see how this gentleman brain worked, whether he’s awake or falling asleep, [addressing an audience member] thought I catch ya, the idea there is that I can then understand – [addressing audience member again] I’m only kidding, I can only – I can understand better… [addressing audience] relax – can only understand better not only what makes him happy, agitated, engaged, or tired, but I can then in some way alter my discourse to be able to make him feel happier, more engaged, and less tired.

In so doing, I can take the information I have about the way a brain works, and I can put it to good use, practical use. Think about this. If I know what makes you tick as an individual, and I’m then able to generate patterns of how you as an individual relate to, are similar to, or different from other individuals, I may be able to then generate information that allows me to interact with you on ways that are more meaningful to our level of interaction. In other words, the more I know about what makes you tick, the more my interactions can be geared with you to make you tick the way I want you to. The way I want you to.

Obviously it takes some energy to put people into a big magnet and scan their brain. There’s a whole bunch of things that are limitations of brain imaging. We recognize that. That’s part of the mission. We seek to delimit those particular constraints and through the use of co-register different forms of neuroimaging; make it better.

Some of these forms of neuroimaging are fieldable. Operationalizable in field missions. Some of them are not. We’re seeking to make these things more operationalizable; not only for military medicine to assess individuals who may have incurred brain injury and/or the effects of brain injury, inclusive of things like PTSD and other forms of neuropsychiatric disorders, but also to understand better how it is that our individuals are able to think through certain situations, how their brains work, and be able to classify those individuals and perhaps specify the way we train them, then we sustain that training, then we maximize their performance.

We can use other methods as well.

[@13:39]: Genetics. Biomarkers. And information. And that information is critical. One of the things you must learn, is as military personnel, your demographic, biological, social and psychological information exists in your jacket and is in fact retrievable in real time. That information becomes ever more important as we try to understand the you-ness of you.

And the nature to classify that information, hold that information secure, doesn’t only exist on the medical side with regard to your HIPAA records, but increasingly is becoming a concern for national security – when these large-scale big databases of brain structure and function physiology, biopsychosocial demographics, become ever more available and ever more relevant to what’s making you tick, what’s making you tock, what’s making you strong, and what’s making you vulnerable.

And the fact that other nations inclusive of China, and Russia, are engaging in large-scale neuro big data initiatives to be able to create large-scale databases that can join not only imaging and physiological, but as well as other forms of phenotypic and genetic data, of the entirety of populations, renders great power because there’s great capability in that information to know where key points of strength and vulnerability may lie and also to intercede to inject information in to in some way be able to affect what appears to be your medical record/your personal record. The evidence that is you.

[@14:56]: And we can take that step to go one step further: the more I know about you and the more I know about the way your brain works, as individuals, groups, communities, even populations, the more I can utilize non-kinetic means, such as informational means of narratives, iconographies, semiotics, to influence your emotions and your behaviors.

We can do this subliminally through computer images, we can do this more liminally through the types of engagements, interactions that we engage the psychological operations and informational operations. We can train better our Human Terrain Teams to be able to interact with individuals and variety of cultures, groups, settings, and ecologies – to improve their performance, so as to be less distancing and more ameliorating.

We can go further than that as well. We can also utilize these interventional technologies in those ways that may be able to directly affect the brain. Probably the one that you’ve heard about most recently, most contemporously [sic] in the literature, is the possibility to use some form of directed energy to affect physiology, peripherally and also to affect the physiology and health of the brain.

Case in point, here, U.S. Embassy personnel here in Havana, and possibly in China. And of course, there’s not a lot that I can tell you about that, although I am one of the researchers on that particular project, but this seems to be wholly indicative and supportive of the fact that this was at least some form of directed energy; whether it was wholly intentional or not still remains to be definitively decided.

However, the pattern of insult and injury to those individuals, and the pattern of injury of who was affected, strongly suggests that this was an intentional and directed engagement, and that this represents a beta test. The possible probe of the directed energy neural weapon. And there are a number of countries that had developed initiatives and agenda towards developing just these types of things; the United States included.

But you’ll also have a whole host of other things that can go bump and bang in your brain. The more we understand the specifity of the brain, on a very granular level, the more we’re able to derive and develop specific types of drugs that not only can enhance and optimize the performance of our people, but can also be used to mitigate, militate and in some cases, manifest profound morbid changes, in their [own] people. In other words, against the ‘hostile other’. [what is considered a ‘hostile other’ according to the government…?]

Drugs can be exceedingly specific, and as I’ll show you in a moment, can be very very much used to individualize weaponology in terms of what we call precision pathology, or precision effect.

[@17:15]: We can go further. Clearly one of the things we can also do is transcranial neuromodulation. The idea of going through the skull to modulate the node network activity of the brain, to optimize the performance of key individuals in certain tasks and performances that are relative to the missional space, and we can also do that against hostile or perhaps belligerent others.

We can go further to implant certain brain machine interfaces; these are many of the DARPA programs that you may hear of now. Probably the one that is most, most notorious, in a very good sense, is something called the N3 program, which is the non-invasive neurosurgical/neuromodulation program being run by their program manager Dr. Al Emondi. The idea here is to put minimal-sized electrodes in a network within a brain through only minimal intervention to be able to read and write into the brain function in real-time. Remotely. The United States is not alone in such efforts.

And then of course you also have the things a little bit more traditional. If we talk about things that can be operable in the biochemical space, we ordinarily talk about drugs, bugs, toxins, and ever more we’re considering devices.

At the last Biological Toxins and Weapons Convention, the RevCon, it was then raised by the Australia group that we need to be a little bit more salient in our attention to those possible neurotechnological devices that may be able to be weaponized. Our group has also argued that the current considerations and extant categories of the Biological Toxins and Weapons Conventions are not detailed enough, to be able to appreciate or keep pace with the advances in this form of science that can be weaponized that poses a risk and threat on the battle space.

So how then, can we use these elements as weapons? Means of contending against others? Formal definition of a weapon, right under the Oxford Old English Dictionary: ‘means of contending against others’. And we can do that in a number of ways. We can militate their behaviors and their thoughts in some ways as to make them more amenable to what we do. The idea of positive weaponology. Or we can in fact mitigate, and in some cases, completely nullify their capability, will, or engagement to fight.

Image credited to Dr. James Giordano/MWI

James Giordano @19:20: If we combine those two definitions into one, what you find is those agents that will either change individual’s thoughts, vulnerabilities, volatility to violence and aggression, or incur morbidity, dysfunction, and/or mortality, in such a way as to then mitigate the engagement altogether.

You still with me?

That said, we can break down any form of weaponology into two discrete categories: soft weapons, and hard weapons.

In the former categorization, soft weapons include, but are not limited to, such things like economic leveraging to create economics, market values, market presence, presence of international bargaining tables to develop international power and leverage, as a soft weapon.

Clearly the more we’re able to make an impact in a field, in a dimension, by virtue of research, medicine, technology, infiltration to a variety of areas of the public space, the more we’re able to yield economic strong-arming, economic leveraging.

I think an important consideration that I’ll reiterate later in this particular lecture, is that there are countries outside the United States and/or the West, that are increasing their capabilities by intent in the brain sciences so as to be able to gain this type of economic leveraging and international global markets; in medicine, science technology, and the military. Most notably among them is China. We’ll talk more about that momentarily.

We can also utilize weapons in a more of a soft approach, as I mentioned earlier. The more I know about what makes you tick, the more I might be able to do things like weaponize the approach that I then take towards you in my interactions and engagements with you.

[@20:50]: Here we can utilize the brain sciences for psychological operations. Most notably, one of the DARPA programs run by the case managing – by the program manager Bill Casebeer. Dr. Bill Casebeer, who subsequently went on to be a program manager at Lockheed Martin and run their brain machine interfacing programs. Bill Casebeer’s program was called Narrative Networks, and one component of the Narrative Network’s project was something called Neural Narratives.

If we understand how it is that brains and individuals, groups and populations respond to certain forms of imaging, memes, iconographies, engagements, the more we may be able to tailor those things through our psychological operations, propaganda, MISO [Military Information Support Operations], to be able to engage these individuals more positive ways or in ways that are influential, to be able to direct their behaviors, their predispositions, and perhaps their engagements with us on a variety of levels from the individual, all the way up to the political.

But then, of course, we move into the more harder forms of weapons; things such as, bullets and bombs. And here, once again, let me reiterate, we’re talking about on the neuro side, are drugs, bugs, toxins and devices.

But of course if we spill over the idea of soft weaponology, into a hard weaponization, we also see the use of bio data as a viable weapon. Manipulating bio data, so that I can then put into your particular medical records, subtle information that may change the disposition of whether you’re sick or not, change how you’re treated. Influence the postures that go to you in terms of insurance, care, viability for military service. By altering that information, by changing those data, by purloining those data, I essentially changed the “you” of you. And I can do that in very subtle and insidious ways.

Furthermore, I can do that on a variety of different levels that can affect key individuals, so that in fact your medical record changes, so thereby render you incapable, or at least, invalid to be able to serve in a way of serving. Or I can do that on a much larger scale. Groups, populations. And if I change those data, I change the way you’re being regarded and treated.

And I can do that in one of two ways. I can do it in such a way that you’re gonna be regarded in a negative sense, or I can do it in such a way that I’m going to treat you incorrectly. If I say, for example, do you have a particular allergy, or you have particular sensitivities, or you have a particular disorder, you will be treated for that. And that could then harm your health and your stability. In both, a short wars approach, as well as a long wars approach.

But if we take a look at this in a little more detail, you can see that once again it falls back to the idea of what can we do to ours and what can be done to others?

[23:20]: Clearly, one dimension, one domain, of operational viability and value, is to enhance the capabilities of the combat and intelligence operator, across a range of scale abilities, in both general purpose and more select forces. And this is the idea of neuro-enablement. Neuro-enablement.

You will hear this referred to in a variety of different ways. Performance optimization. Enhancement. Enablement. Maximization. These terms means something.

A number of years ago our group was tasked with the Air Force to develop a lexicon, a nomenclature, that would be able to define these in more precise ways. I will not bore you with that now. But the idea of enablement gives forth a particular meaning that’s relevant. You’re enabling individuals to do some aspects of a performance of a task, that is germane and justified to their operational mission, and, that is in fact, done with regard to protection of their charges.

So in other words, we’re saying, ‘we’re going to make you good to go and we’ve decided that this is good’.

The reason this can become problematic, of course, is that, what definition of ‘good’ are we using? When we define, whoever the proverbial “we” may be, to be good, might be quite different than what “they”, whoever the proverbial “they” is. And as a consequence, we have to keep a much broader window of opportunity and possibility open to be aware for the potential benefits, burns and risks that this type of engagement may pose.

What types of things can we do to make our people better, if you will? Well certainly we can use a variety of advanced psychopharmacologics and neuropharmacologics. In other words, drugs.

And, I refer you to a wonderful book written by a colleague of mine, Professor Jonathan Moreno, called Mind Wars. First edition came out in 2006, second edition came out in 2012, and Professor Moreno does a very good job in defining/explaining the history and historicity of the way the brain and cognitive sciences had been used in national security intelligence and defense operations. Both by the United States, and more globally.

And what we see is that this is certainly not a new event. We can look back into antiquity and see that there have been attempts to try to maximize the performance, capability, sustainability, and protection of those individuals who are operational war fighters. Literally from ancient Roman Greece all the way to the 20th and now 21st century.

It’s the tools and techniques, based upon the understanding and depth that we have, that increases the granularity and specificity of effect, and increases the sophistication and gravitas of outcome.

The more we know about the brain, the more we can develop ever more selective agents to affect the structures and functions of the brain and cognition, emotion and actions, and the more we can do so in a way that’s more like sharpshooting, rather than buckshotting.

But irrespectively, drugs can be somewhat dirty. What I mean by that is they can have a host of adverse effects, some of them side effects, some of them direct effects, and very often we’ll find, is unless we’re able to deliver the drugs directly to a particular site in the brain or elsewhere in the nervous system, they can have heterogeneity of effects throughout the body, and that can lead us to some undesirable outcomes.

But we don’t need to be limited to drugs. No no no. We can also use a variety of computational brain machine interfaces that are both closed and open loop, and these include things like transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation, stimulating the vagus nerve transdermally; or if you wanted to get somewhat more invasive but certainly more specific, brain machine interfaces by virtue of deep brain and superficial brain implants.

And I shall tell you, that one of the leading projects in developing state of the art brain implants, is a DARPA funded project aimed at the medical side for the treatment of neurological and neuropsychiatric spectrum disorders, and this program is called SUBNETS. Systems based neurotechnologies for emerging therapies.

[27:02]: But what you also need to appreciate is that that DARPA program, like any program that is oriented towards engaging brain function to then alter those functions in certain ways, directional ways, can be harnessed for what’s called dual-use. Medical purposes that are then depurposed in medicine and used for other agenda; inclusive of warfighter enablement and enhancement.

Furthermore, we understand that there are a number of nations outside the United States, some of whom are allied, others that are at least competitive, if not combative, that are engaged in these types of programs looking at the capability for transcranial and deep intracranial modulation of brain function, to improve the functional performance of military and intelligence operators across a range of viable missional tasks.

We are not alone in these pursuits. And I think that’s something that needs to be appreciated.

But it’s not just a question of what we can do to our own. Because very often, in raising these questions, we tend to, what I call ‘err’ on the side of moral probity, and we recognize that there are particular limitations, limits, boundaries, thresholds, that cannot and perhaps should not be crossed, in terms of what we can do.

And if we intend to cross them, we only cross them with consent and that consent is highly contingent upon the necessity of a continuity of research and clinical care. Understanding what happens to the individual once they’ve been enabled and enhanced, and what may happen when they’re no longer enabled and enhanced. In other words, more colloquially, when Superman goes back to being Clark Kent, what happens to Clark, becomes the burden obligation of our responsibility.

However, those ethics are not homogeneous on the world stage. And the idea of pushing the envelope of what can be done to the combat warfighter and intelligence operator, and perhaps more broadly, to those individuals who may oppose particular regimes, and/or maybe military fighters against your own regime, is very often bounded by, and in some cases, deconstricted, by philosophies, cultures and ethics of those individuals who may be competitive, if not combative to us. So in other words, this can also be weaponized against others.

And this is where we get into the idea of novel neural weapons. Once again, this is not necessarily new, but the momentum of this dimension of the field has accelerated as a consequence of increased understanding of the brain, increased capability to develop tools and techniques to access and affect the brain.

So what are we seeing here? Well, take a look.”

Image credited to Dr. James Giordano/MWI
SLIDE TEXT:

Combat Operations

Novel Neuroweapons (Drugs & Bugs…)

In-close pharmaceuticals and organic neurotoxins

      • Ultra-low dose/high specify agents for use in targeting diplomatic/local culture “hearts and minds” scenarios*

High morbidity neuro-microbiologic agents

      • Neuro-microbials with high neuro-psychiatric symptom clusters for public panic/public health dis-integrative effects
      • Gene-edited microbiologcals [sic] with novel morbidity/mortality profiles

Nano-neuroparticulate agents

– High CNS aggregation lead/carbon-silicate nanofibers (network disrupters)*
– Neurovascular hemorrhagic agents (for in-close and population use as “stroke epidemic” induction agents*

James Giordano @29:20: “We see in-close neuropharmaceuticals and organic toxins. What’s new about this is the in-close nature of this. Increasingly we’re not seeing these things as weapons of mass destruction against growth aspects of the population. Although, certainly many neuroweapons, such as sarin gas and VX and other forms of neurotoxic agents can be leveraged against large groups of people, but that’s messy.

More specifically, perhaps, might be targeting individuals on a level that allows either direct attribution, or covert engagement with non-attribution. Let me give an example of what I mean.

So this gentleman is the leader of some group. A political group, a social group, a combative group, and under the available white flag, he and I announced to have some kind of caucus. A meeting. And during that meeting what I do is I lace the rim of his drink, or his pen, or his seat, or something in his medium environment, with very very low dose drug or toxins that are going to affect his stability.

They may affect the way his brain works, and as a consequence of that, they can affect the functions of his brain. His thought patterns, his relative emotionality, and the behaviors that go along with that.

One of two things might happen. He might be completely incapacitated as a consequence of this, or he may change his level of capacity and engagement, so that he went into the meeting thinking, “I hate this guy. This guy’s my enemy.” He walks out of the meeting going, “I love this guy. This guy’s great.” Now what could happen?

If, in fact, this is a gentleman who has charismatic, financial, elected, or dictatorial power, it may be that his followers will then follow him blindly. He came into the meeting as a leader of those followers, who were bellicose, were volatile, were violent and aggressive; he comes out of the meeting, he tells them to change their behaviors, and they do.

Or, I could sever the trust. By now he leaves this meeting, he’s espousing a very different philosophical stance and orientation, and his followers no longer adhere to his precepts, his tenets, or his lead. And I fractured the relative arrangement of trust, engagement, capability, that he fostered; leaving that population disrupted and vulnerable to intervention. To a coup d’etat. To a junta. To some type of insertive reassumption of leadership. You see how this can work.

Furthermore, I can use this very tactically. Some of these agents allow me to assemble the agent on site and not have to stockpile it. Which allows me to take the components of this agent into and out of a country, relatively covertly, target a specific individual, change or eliminate that individual with very little attribution and trace, and be able to leave prior to any attribution. Think, Novichok.

Or, I could assemble very small quantities of this that would then allow a specific intervention, characteristically in a place that would not allow such an intervention; think of the use of a derivative of VX, in an airport.

But I could do more than that. I could also incur much broader type of ripple effects. And one of the ways I could also do that, is with what’s called high morbidity neuromicrobiologic agents. It’s a real fancy way of saying neuro-bugs. But high morbidity neuro-bugs. I may not want to kill a lot of people. In fact, arguably, I may assume what is sometimes referred to as the Sailor Malan mantra.

For those of you who may be fans, or students of military history, you may remember that Sailor Malan, Wing Commander Sailor Malan, was a South African who flew at the Royal Air Force during the Second World War. And he became well-known during the Battle of Britain, for shooting up German airplanes, but letting them limp home. Particularly bomber aircraft. And they would ask Sailor Malan, “Wing Commander, why didn’t you shoot that plane down?” And his adage was simple.

Better to have that plane returned home, with wounded crew who are spitting up their lungs, one dead crewman that they had to attend to, and therefore divert their missional capability while in flight, than shoot them down. Because the psychological effect will be rippling and devastating. This is sometimes referred to as the Malan effect.

[@33:30]: What can I do? I can use a particular bug that I may be able to now modify through the use of gene-editing technique that is ubiquitously available and fairly easy to use, to take a bug that was previously relatively benign and non-pathogenic, and make that bug virulent. Pathogenic. Dangerous.

And then what could I do? I could introduce that bug in key sites. Des Moines. Seattle. Tampa. Newark. Houston. I get a few people sick. I do it on an airplane. Do it at an airport. Do it at a sporting event. Do it on Black Friday.

And then what I would do is I would take credit for that, but I want to make sure that at least part of the symptomatic constellation was not only neurological, was profoundly psychological. Agitation. Debilitation. Sweating. Stomach problems. Sleeplessness. Cardiac problems. Things that are very what we call top-down neurological in their effect. Brain to body and body to brain, in the bottom-up cascade.

Then what I would do is I would get on the internet, and I would put out over the internet, “I did it. Oh yes. On that dangerous G group that you should all be afraid of. And in fact, this is far more ubiquitous than I let on. These are only the first cases. I’ve let these buggies go all over the country, and your early warning signs are agitation, anxiety, worry, sleeplessness, stomach problems, heart problems…”

What have I done? I’ve rippled the sheets of the worried well. At first blush I get every hypochondriac running to their physician, but in second and third blush, I get those individuals who begin to become worried that they may have been exposed to this. That the children may have been exposed to this. That their loved ones, their kin, their kids may have been exposed to this.

Of course, the physicians, the CDC, the Public Health Service comes back on and says, oh no, that’s not what’s going on. But I get back on the internet and I say, “Oh don’t you listen to that. That’s fake. That’s false. Your government knows what’s going on; they can’t do anything about it and they can’t treat you. They’re going to end up quarantining you.”

How many people would I need to affect? We modeled it. Somewhere between 12 and 240. What would be the effect? Hang on folks. Within 41 to 45 days, we would crash the United States Public Health System. Crash it. In so doing, I render the United States infrastructure vulnerable. Either there or elsewhere.

See the ripple effect? See the disruptive effect? I can disrupt an individual from the level of their cell, to their system, and disrupt individuals on a variety of levels, from individuals all the way up to the social fabric. And that social fabric may go even further. It may be geopolitical.

I need you to think, just for a moment, if you could, why would it be of any value at all, to affect, disrupt and disable individuals who are a U.S. Embassy personnel, in Havana? When did it happen? What was happening? What would be the benefit in fracturing a growing economic, political, and social trust in that part of the world? Who would benefit? What would be the long-term effects, for example, of at least indicating that U.S. Embassy personnel and foreign service personnel are vulnerable to these types of threats?

Could you impact – pair the threat with some type of condition stimulus, so now what you’re able to do is to evoke a response in the worried well? I only offer possible suggestions for your speculation and your… consideration, if you will.

[@37:13]: We can even go further. One of the newest developments, is that nanoparticulate matter, can be stabilized for distribution. If you’re not aware of what nanoparticulate matter is, it’s that matter which exists on a scale of 1 times 10 to the minus ninth. Very very small. Smaller than a cell.

And we can manufacture materials that have discreet properties that can be controlled by virtue of bioengineering in their physical chemistry. To auto-aggregate, to be able to aggregate in particular areas based upon their biological and your chemical sensitivity.

But now we go one step further. Most recently, just a few weeks ago, it was announced you could then aerosolize nanomaterials.

And go one step further. I can create small robotic units. Controllable robotic units at the nano-scale, and that these, too, can be aerosolized, to create a nano-swarm of biopenetrable materials that you cannot see, that can penetrate all but the most robust, biochemical filters, that are able to integrate themselves through a variety of membranes, mucus membranes, and wherever – a mouth, nose, ears, eyes… Can be then uptaken into the vascular system to create clumping, can affect the vascular system of the brain, or can directly diffuse into the brain space, and these can be weaponized. And they can be done in such a level, that their presence is almost impossible to detect, and as such, the attribution becomes exceedingly difficult to demonstrate.

How much of this material would I need? Take a look. This is the front of my pen. This amount of nanomaterial, if be able to maintain and sustain with regard to its deliverability and aerosolization, could, in fact, affect all of you. Or, based upon where I come from, New York City, all you’se.

Look at this. Look at this. I’m carrying that material. Would you see it? Would I have to lug a giant weapon into the room? No I wouldn’t. And what if, in fact, I utilized some form of an unmanned aerial device, or unmanned ground devices delivery vehicle? Something like a drone? Or a bug? Could I do something with that?

But let’s keep going. Could I also utilize a whole host of devices to be able to affect individuals close in, for example, during interrogations, during social engagements, during Human Terrain Team engagements… Or more remotely? In a room? In a theater? In an airplane? In a bus? In a store, in a mall? The answer is increasingly, yes.

So this then represents for us both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is that increasingly what we find is that neuroscience and technology is relatively easy to obtain.

Many of the things that I’ve just spoken to you about are viable and obtainable directly to the consumer, or directly to the scientist. We also know that many of the products that are available direct-to-consumer can be easily modified to create things that have a much higher weaponization potential.

But more than that, we also recognize that there are dedicated efforts on the part of nations, states, and even groups of non-state actors and increasingly virtual nations that are using virtual currencies to fund research efforts in these areas.

I’d like to think that I’m a smart guy talking to a bunch of very intelligent individuals, but let’s face it. We’re not the only smart people in the world. And if we’re thinking this way, there are plenty of other people who are thinking this way too. Some of them are our allies, some of them may be our competitors, and some of them are combatants and hostiles. And this is, in fact, the reality.

Furthermore, we recognize that the goal, particularly among the actions of the United States and her allies, is to fight for right and honor, but to keep our own honor clean. To take the moral high ground, if you will. And indeed, that has been the case in the majority of the United States engagements throughout our history.

However, one of the things that may creep up here is that there’s something of an abrogation, a prohibition, a proscription, against engaging this type of research in its possible translation in the civilian sector.

You heard earlier in the very nice introduction that Captain Bender afforded me, that I’ve had the opportunity to work with the European Union Human Brain Project, specifically as a task-leader for dual-use brain science. And one of the considerations that grew out of that, was that absolutely none of those projects in the Human Brain Project, again a multinational effort, can and should be uptaken into warfare intelligence and national security agenda. That’s viable enough.

The idea there is that these things should be used for only peaceful means. However, this also creates a challenge. And the challenge is simple. If, in fact, I choose not to train in particular ways, I choose not to train three days a week, if in fact those individuals who may choose to then conflict with me, will then train in the ways that I do not and train on the days of the week that I will not, they may opportunize a select advantage.

What do we do about that? Again, I think it becomes at least a problematic issue for discourse because we recognize it in many cases the civilian sector, not only is not amenable to engaging in this type of research, certainly, many are, but in some cases should not engage in this type of research for those very proscriptions that I alluded to momentarily.

However, the question then becomes, how do we appreciate the international challenge, risk and threat that the advancements of the brain sciences and cognitive sciences offer for global weaponization with the brain as the next battle scape?

Clearly it defines some type of a solution space and there have been those that have posited, myself included, that there should be more directed, more details, and more dedicated government efforts in this particular domain, so able to advance the brain sciences and ways with sustainable funding to understand what the potential risks and threats are, and to develop a stance of preparedness.

This becomes increasingly important. We take a look at those countries that have notable and identified programs of high level of investment of GDP and/or other levels of economic investment to advance the brain sciences in those ways that are either directly usable or have some, what I would call, explicit dual use capability.

An important consideration that I want you all to bear, is that current estimates based upon trend analysis, is that by 2025, greater than 50% of research development, test, evaluation, and possible use of brain sciences in general, will occur outside the West. Outside the West.

Furthermore, we understand that there has been a directed effort in China to be able to engage the current and 5 year plans, to be able to advance brain science in those ways, to be able to have a higher level of gravitas with regard to the research, its capability in its translation, in medicine, and other agenda; inclusive possible dual use in direct use within warfare intelligence and national security.

This creates opportunities for research tourism, medical tourism, and market capture. And again, that market capture can be leveraged as economic warfare in terms of being able to destabilize the global market and the global economics, that is relevant upon this form of bioscience and technology.

But we also recognize that these things are being used for military applications. Certainly there are directed opportunities and directed agendas for doing that within China. We also recognize that there have been activities and directed initiatives in the former Soviet Union that have now been translated and perpetuated into the current Russian infrastructure of biomedical science or military purposes.

And a number of other countries have directed efforts in this space, inclusive of Iran, North Korea, India, Bolivia, certainly among the U.S. and its allies. You recognize that. The United States, the U.K., Canada, Israel, and there are governmental efforts within Europe. We recognize also their efforts in Japan.

But there’s another looming threat. The threat is the non-state actor. The threat is the virtual nation, to establish serenity within a serenity, so as to be able to say that we are immune or inured to your rules and regulations. Essentially, possibly destructive diaspora. And increasingly what we’re seeing is the use of Bitcoin currencies and the like, allow the finances of these types of things to be sustained in ways that were heretofore economically unimaginable, if not incapable.

So as a consequence, what we’re recognizing is that the threat parameters, the risk parameters, as well as the challenge and opportunity parameters, are growing.

We’re equally concerned about the do-it-yourself community. Not because this community of biohackers represents an inherently malicious or nefarious group, but because of their relative vulnerability to infiltration. And we recognize that to such an extent that at present, the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this country has dedicated ongoing efforts to try to maintain continued communication, interaction and engagement with this community, so as to be able to better surveil their relative vulnerability to purloinment, infiltration, manipulation, and misuse.

[@46:09]: Clearly, if we’re looking at these things as possible destructive weapons, the more characteristic or classic criteria of drugs, bugs, and toxins meet at least some of the extant categorizations of the biological toxins, weapons and chemical conventions.

However, as disruptive agents, as those agents that may be assembled, developed anew, that do not meet these criteria, you can then get skirting of these extant treaties, in these X and signatory documents, and as a consequence, can develop these means, these methods, tools and technologies, essentially, below the radar.

Moreover, as disruptive elements, they need not be mass-produced or stockpiled, but rather, their ingenuity is that they’re able to to assembled in situ, in relatively low quantities, and used with specific effects against individuals and small groups, to be able to incur disruptive effects; not only within that organism, or that group of organisms, but beyond the organismic level to the system’s level, to the social level, to the geopolitical level. There’s great power that can be leveraged there.

Clearly, what we can do, is provocative. Therefore what we should do remains at issue. Ladies and gentlemen, I do not have answers for you, but I will post several questions and possibilities.

One of the things we have to understand is that this represents, if you will, a bioscientific speedway. Consider the true speeday. Lots of entries. I’ve already shown you the entries. Very fast pace. The speed of translation from concept to construct in the brain science is about 60 calendar months, and increasingly that’s being compressed.

So the developments in the brain sciences that reach a tech readiness level can be achieved within 48 calendar months. It’s very fast. Certainly we know not only are there many entries, it’s very fast, but the prizes are tremendous. Economic prizes, prizes of notoriety in the biomedical front, prizes of power, capability and weaponization on the wins front; weaponization, intelligence, national security front.

We also recognized that there were risks and possible harms. Not only to those who are on the track, but to those who surround it.

So the idea is if in fact we’re going to move into this space, how can we move into the space with some prudence, how do we move into the space pragmatically, and how do we move into the space in such a way that is prepared?

Our group was tasked with developing these protocols and paradigms and referred to them as the Operational Neurotechnology Risk Assessment of Mitigation Paradigm. The ON-RAMP to the neural biotechnological speedway, if you will.

I won’t bore you by reading this slide, but I do want you to pay particular attention to the lower box.

Lower box portion of the slide:
Image credited to Dr. James Giordano/MWI

“Speaking of a future at most only decades away, an experimenter in intelligence control asserted, ‘I foresee a time when we shall have the means and therefore, inevitably, the temptation to manipulate the behavior and intellectual funtioning of all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain.’ “

Zbigniew Brezinski, Between Two Ages, America’s Role in the Technotronic Era 1970

James Giordano @48:47: “That’s, Zig Brezinski. In 1970, he was prescient at forethought, foresight, and said in 1970, in the coming decades we will see an increasing viability and value in being able to affect the neurocognitive space. There was something of the sort of crystal ball in that statement. We are there. And increasingly will be ever deeper in there, based upon not only our own initiatives, but those initiatives of groups around the country.

This is a space that we need to at least be prepared for. A simple precautionary principle will no longer obtain. Why?

Number one, it shouldn’t. Number two, it’s anachronistic.

Just because we recognize that in some cases the risks may be high and there may be certain benefits, a simple precautionary principle says if the risks or threats outweigh the benefits, don’t go. However, we need to also be equally preparative and take a more advanced precautionary principle that says, you must examine the potential, the probability, and the possibilities of what those risks and threats are, relative to the benefits of a stance of preparedness, and preparedness very often includes engaging the research to understand how these things work and how they can be used.

How do we do it? Well, these are some of the contingencies that I offer, simply as proposition for you. I ask you to consider them.

[@50:05]: Number one, what is the technical rightness of any and all form of neuroscience and technology in these types of agenda? What are key situational variables that may be germane to its use or non-use? Is there a valuation or some revision of the various ethical concepts that may be able to guide these uses in practice, and might we need to develop in some cases, new frameworks, new foundations of ethics that are more applicable, given the fact that the science and technology may be running at a speed to which our ethics and policies may not yet be at pace?

I’m not going to bore you with these contingencies, but what I want you to do is pretty much go down to the very very last one. The idea here is, can we utilize neuroscience and technology? And if the answer is yes we can, should we?

And if the answer there is, we already are, and there are some domains and dimensions by which use should be advocated – for example, non-lethality, least harm, doing less harm than other forms of interventions and engagements that are currently in use, being able to mitigate individual’s capacity or willingness to engage in volatility. In other words, improving the capacibility – the capacity for individuals to gain capability to get along… well perhaps there’s some value there.

If these things is going to be used in a more hard weaponized approach, are they being used in those ways that are less harmful than other extant weapons? And/or, what are the postures that we should adopt if in fact another nation utilizes this form of weaponology? What represents what I would consider to be comparative or appropriate proportionality?

And ultimately, if in fact we’re going to move into this space, and I think we are moving into this space realistically, not only now but ever more in the future, we have the obligation responsibility to assess whether or not the contingencies for consent to treat our own people are in place.

In other words, if there are things we’re going to do to optimize the performance and capabilities of our own personnel, and there are things that are being done on the world stage inclusive, perhaps, by us and our allies, that could mitigate effect or manifest change in other personnel, are we prepared to accept those responsibilities? The responsibilities for ongoing research, responsibilities for ongoing clinical care? Not only of ours, but internationally?

Because of the role that the United States and our allies plays, and because of the need to take an upstanding moral front with regard to the fact that as we develop weapons and as weapons are developed, by us, our allies, and by others, the preparedness stance says we must also be equally assumed, equally in position to be able to not only counter those weapons, but mitigate and treat the effects that those weapons incur.

[@52:42]: And in fact, historically, very often what we’ve seen is that that has been the interesting march of science technology and medicine, where advancements in medicine very often arise as a consequence of the possible utility of various forms of science and tech to be weaponized and the damage that they incur.

But the question still comes up, ladies and gentlemen, what ethics shall we use to guide research, test development, and perhaps utilization of neuroscience and neurotechnology in these agenda and initiatives?

Clearly here in the United States, as with any open society, our military has relative transparency to the polis for our intents, our goals and our operations. Absolutely certain things are held confidential and classified. You don’t show the other team your playbook on Friday and expect to win the game on Sunday. Yes of course. And information we may understand about what they’re doing, by virtue of our deep and our intermediate surveillance, may also be need – kept close to the chefs, if you will.

But the transparency of military intent operations goals and interventions here in the United States, has been paramount to the nature and fabric of our infrastructure, our politics, and our government. And the same is true for our allies.

So at least part of this needs to be at least relevant to, afforded by, and guided through civilian ethics. Why? Because in many cases, it is the civilian institutions that to date have been involved at least some of the research and development that can be uptaken into dual or direct use agendas. And as such, these things are subject to, and I think validly subject to, civilian ethics of science and technology, or biomedical ethics.

But if we move increasingly away from that, if we say that indeed the proscriptions and prohibitions, such as those that are being proposed and leveraged by the European Union Human Brain Project, and throughout the world by things like dual use research of concern treaties, such as that which was developed at [S SolarMar], are taken to heart and civilian agencies, institutions and organizations are essentially sort of debanded, disbanded, debarred, from their engagements in these types of activities.

Who then will uptake the torch? Increasingly there’s been some interest, consideration, a real discussion as to reinvestment in government agencies and government-sponsored agencies that are specifically and explicitly dedicated to these pursuits. So to avoid any confusion what the intent is, and to also avoid any confusion as to who’s doing what. We don’t want to get another scenario, such as we do with Robert Oppenheimer looking at the first test of the atomic bomb and going, ‘what have I done? I am deaf.’ Dr. Oppenheimer, what did you think you were doing?

We don’t want to have those confusions. We want to make sure that in fact those who engage the brain sciences for biomedical purposes of wellness, lifestyle, enhancing the human condition, are not necessarily confused with those who may then uptake these things into wins agenda.

But if that’s the case, and these things are moving more into governmental institutions, organizations and initiatives, are civilian ethics even viable any longer? And if we engage military ethics, what military ethical principles will be engaged? The use, development, research, surveillance, of these particular things for just war?

And if in fact these things are not used in a strictly warfare fashion where war is declared, by the use of these agents, yet they still tend to be bellicose or disruptive, can we then say that we can justify their use? In other words, not just a just war, but they’re just use within this frame of conduct, whatever “this” may be? And/or can we revive another older and less known tradition, which is called ‘jus contra bellum’? Which is justification for the use to prevent warfare.

Here, the use of the neurocognitive sciences and intelligence, Human Terrain Teams, psychological operations, such as Narrative Networks, may be viable to de-escalate the volatility and vulnerability towards violence and combativeness.

But again we need to consider to what level we will engage us and whether or not the current ethics that we have in place are viable and valuable to do this, and how these things can then be rendered on the international scale. Because if in fact this is going to demand the multinational global discourse, that it will, then clearly the global relevance of any ethical approach needs to be considered. And ethics, very often, is said to have a big mouth but no teeth, but policies and international law has choppers, that can in fact be retributive and can bite.

What do these developments then incur for ongoing iterations of biological toxins and weapons convention, as well as other treaties, policies, and international laws that may help to guide, direct, if not regulate and govern the use of these particular implements?

[@57:15]: So the situation we’re faced with, ladies and gentlemen, is as follows: as we begin to untangle the Giordian knot of the brain, to the development of neuroscience and technologies, we’ve come to the precarious position of opening the proverbial can of worms of if, how, in what ways, to what extent, and when, these techniques and technologies will be used in weaponized intelligence and national security agenda?

I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that can has already been opened. It’ll be our job, and increasingly your job, to be able to navigate this new terrain, this brave new world, and what it incurs.

This is Atlas. [shows slide depicting Atlas and the phrase: “With increasing knowledge comes great power… …With great power comes great responsibility”]

The idea of Atlas was that Atlas balanced the integrity and well-being of the world upon his shoulders. I disagree. Atlas of the 21st century, as you see here, balances the world upon her head.

What we know about the brain, we’re able to do with the brain, of all those organisms that are embodied and have one that exists in their various environments, cultures and ecologies. Because the brain sciences in its technologies confer tremendous capability of knowledge intervention.

With tremendous capability comes tremendous power. And with tremendous power comes great responsibility. Look. That phrase is good enough for Spider-man, it certainly was good enough for [undetermined] Nietzsche, certainly good enough for me, and I hand that off to you.

Because ladies and gentlemen, as I started this, neuroscience puts the brain at our fingertips. Whether that’s to help, to heal, or to harm, is simply the effect of the human condition and how we put this to play.

You will, in your professional careers and your personal lives, see the brain sciences evermore infiltrated and integrated, not only into the battlespace, but to the bedside, to the boardroom and beyond. They will be a part of your realistic lives in the way we engage each other’s, regard each other, treat each other, interact… and perhaps, enter into combat.

Understanding the brain sciences and their power will become one of your obligate responsibilities; not only as military offers – officers, but as civilians of the 21st century global space.

I’d like to end a lecture like this usually by giving you a personal story. My dad, former Navy man, was an engineer. And one of the things that dad liked to do was build stuff, like to tinker. I still like to tinker. I like to work with tools.

My dad was a really bright guy. One of the things he did when I was a kid, he’d come home every month and bring me a new tool. Teach me how to use it. So they’re fairly shorter, I was a young kid, I became pretty adroit. Or at least, I thought I was adroit with using tools. And with all of the impulsiveness and zeal, of youth getting a new tool with only partial knowledge, I remember one day dad came home and he said to me, “Jim, here’s a brand new tool.” I took it from him and said, “Thanks dad!” then I went to go running off. My dad put his hand on my shoulder. He said, “Jim, slow down. Measure twice. Cut once. Sometimes you can’t go back.”

Ladies and gentlemen, these are the brain sciences. They can and they will increasingly be used in national security, intelligence and defense agenda, globally. We need to measure twice, and cut once. And make sure that the cut we make is one that is for good, one that is for right, and is one that does not cut our own throats, or the throats of others. In those ways they’re irreparable. I leave you with my father’s wisdom.

These are some of our white papers that we’ve submitted to the strategic multi-layer assessment group of the Joint Staff of the Pentagon. I can make these slides available to you. These are now all open domain and available to your perusal.

If you’re interested in some of our ongoing work by my research group, I provide you with some of our own work, and this is the part of the lecture – I’m gonna look right at the camera – there’s the unabashed self-promotional plug. If you’re really interested in this, I’ve only had the wonder and opportunity to engage with you for about the past hour or so, if you’re interested in going further down the rabbit hole and reading about this in greater detail, granularity, and specificity, I recommend this to you. [“NEUROTECHNOLOGY IN NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE”]

Not because I’m gonna go out and buy the new Maserati when you all buy the book, but because I’m very proud of it. And I’m proud of it not because I wrote it, because I only really contributed a couple of chapters. I’m proud of it because bringing this together was a multi-year effort that grew out of a set of at first somewhat sensitive, but unclassified and some classified conferences that we had that was then subsequently declassified.

And then also brought together international leaders in the field of military science, bioengineering, neuroscience, philosophy, ethics and law, to provide their perspective, their lens, their vision and voice, as to what’s going on in this domain at this point. With some speculation, vision and proposition as to what may need to go on in the future so as able to opportunize the capabilities of the brain sciences and meet and be prepared for the challenged that it offers in this space.

At this point I’d like to thank you all for your attention, I hope I haven’t bored you. If you wish to get in touch with me, feel free. Just put in your subject line “USMA” so I don’t think you’re trying to sell me viagra, not that I wouldn’t buy it. But this way I know where it’s coming from. If you want to ask questions you have some time to do that now, if you don’t get to your questions, feel free to email me; I will email you back. It may not be that day or even that week, because I may be busy or traveling, but I will in fact email you back because that’s my obligate responsibility to you. Thank you ladies and gentlemen for your time. I appreciate it.”

Speaker @1:02:36: “If you guys have any questions, we have about 5-10 minutes.”

James Giordano: “Yes sir?”

James Giordano: “Oh yeah, well, it’s the different number of different books. The new book there is the idea that is psychedelic drugs had some bad research and of course some of that bad research was not only procedurally bad, it was based upon the font of knowledge we had at the time.

Having engaged in psychedelic research, that’s – not, pert- well, maybe some, well having engaged in psychedelic research, one of my first projects actually was looking at methylenedioxymethamphetamine, “ecstasy”, under United States Navy grant for the possibility of weaponizing ecstasy as a volatile agent. As viable agent particularly against submariners.

So the understanding that the psychedelics could in fact be used in a variety of different ways inclusive of weaponization, is not new. We look back to the older projects, such as MKUltra, “mind control ultra”, which utilized Lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD] and psilocybin to be able to alter the cognitions, emotions and behaviors of individuals to see if that could be leveraged. Not only against our own people, but against others, some of the whole brainwashing, mind washing, mind changing effect.

However, one of the things we’ve come to recognize is that the mechanisms of these psychedelic agents is far more specific than we thought. And in fact, can be incurred at far lower doses than were heretofore attempted at either experimentally or in social practice.

So there’s a regenerated interest, revivified interest, in reexamining the mechanisms and effect of these psychedelic compounds, inclusive lysergic acid diethylamide, psilocybin, dimethyltryptamine, as well as some that are sort of like borderline on what might be considered a psychedelic, such as the affiliative drugs like MDMA, at micro doses. Or sort of intermediate micro doses. Not only to treat individuals who’ve had particular neuropsychiatric spectrum disorders, and there’s a growing body of research that would suggest that even one-time administration of a therapeutic dose of LSD or psilocybin, and/or MDMA, may have very profound therapeutic effects against certain forms of PTSD, intractable depression, and beyond the military framework, even certain forms of psychosis.

We also recognize that these things may be useful in treating forms of TBI, treating other forms of psychiatric and neuropsychiatric disorders, and may also be viable as performance enhancers, particularly if given in a very specific regiment at a very controlled asymmetry.

So to think like so many other things, the more we’re learning about the brain, suggests to us not only what we know, but what we didn’t know. Some of the errors in our previous ways of experimentation empiricism, and that allows us to revisit these things under a newer and I think more granular perspective, that I think may benefit – demonstrate certain benefits, as well as giving rise to concern about certain burdens and risks.

So I think that it certainly warrants continued research, and I think that we need to be cautious in how we interpret that research in its translational effect, but I think there’s great benefit to be gained there. Did I answer your question?

Other questions. Yes sir.”

Audience member @1:05:28: “So I had a similar question. So in regards to the neuro enable- enablement of the warfighter intel operator, do you think one day the military will change its stance towards legalizing the use of pharmaceuticals and nootropics, such as modafinil or, or adderall, to – “

James Giordano: “Yes. Yes. In fact, I can tell you some ongoing research that’s being done now by the Air Force Research Laboratory. It’s looking not only at the comparative use of what’s called nootropic agents, as you said modafinil and some of the newer ones. They’ve been around for awhile but they’re sort of new with regard to the light of their potential utility.

Some of those drugs, like as piracetam, pramiracetam, oxiracetam… these have been around for a long time, but now we’re understanding their mechanisms a little bit better and we’re recognizing how we may be able to use them in concert with other agents, inclusive something like caffeine, and/or how we can also utilize these agents at lower doses that are much more safer dose, that can also then be co-potentiated to the use of various devices.

Here, we’re talking about the transcranial devices, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, and transporting electrical stimulation, and if you’re interested in some of this work, I refer you to a colleague of mine who’s at Air Force; he’s a Wright-Patt. And his name is Andy McKinley. Just look up some of Dr. McKinley’s work in this area, it’s stellar. It’s – it’s leading edge. And the Air Force Office of Scientific Research is funding a number of different projects that are looking at exactly this – this mechanism.

Can we engage certain brain substrates, nodes and networks, through the use of new pharmaceuticals or older pharmaceuticals that are re-dosed, or pharmaceutically delivered in different ways, to most maximize key aspects of the processes of those neural functions that are operative in key tasks for the intelligence operator or warfighter? And, in so doing, can we then take a slightly different stance on our postures towards the viability and value of these drugs under controlled circumstances for the warfighter intelligence operator, and I think that’s the general idea. Okay.

Did I answer your question? Cool. Other questions. Going once. Going twice. Thank you all.”

*Featured image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay