Transhumanism | Covid Injections + the Internet of Bio-Nano Things

Technocracy.news

David A. Hughes | Daniel Broudy | Lissa Johnson | PropagandaInFocus.com

Abstract: Since human beings generally represent the most unpredictable element of any complex organisation, management techniques must be continually refined in the interest of maintaining the system. As we have discussed in Part 3, the major centres of power and influence in societies deploy every means available to involve as many citizens as possible in the global program of eventual submission to technocratic rule. Among them are secrecy and stealth achieved by rhetorical, technological and political sleights of hand, seemingly largely under the thinly but effectively veiled helmsmanship of the military-intelligence complex. Part 4, thus, introduces a critical discussion of the various post-WWII deceptions and official programs of clandestine experimentation that have commenced across time and across populations. In particular, we examine patterns of deception that illustrate the lengths to which governments continue to go, applying knowledge of lessons learned about medical and psychological testing on human subjects. Within this context of historical breaches of law and international agreements prohibiting such experimentation, we frame our analysis of the intracorporeal networks and bio/nano nodes of communication that now appear to be in development, and possibly under construction in biological lifeforms. We provide evidence that these and other transhumanist plans of the military-intelligence complex are grounded in tangible R&D, which is part of a long-standing public-private, military-corporate arrangement. Under that arrangement, dual use medical and lifestyle electronics pave the way for military-grade technological invasions, under the rubric of convenience and health. We examine the Covid injections against that backdrop, through the prism of microscopists around the world, whose findings we place in the context of vast literatures involving transhumanist technologies. Finally, we close by returning to the WHO, whose Pandemic preparedness treaty and International Health Regulation amendments are pending in May 2024, offering a public-private “health” theatre, with potentially profound implications not only for global power dynamics, but for a Brave New era of bio-nano, state-mandated “medicine”, as foreseen by the military-intelligence complex.

Introduction

Since human beings are first and foremost social creatures, our natural and normal inclinations are to search for, identify, and connect with others of our kind. In the Bio/Nano Age, however, part of the problem of identifying our kind is identifying the various deceptions that work to obscure the many unnatural inclinations of those in power — of those who seek to create a world of social inversions, to establish a world of total abnormality “with entirely new conceptual categories for being and doing into which new and approved social creatures can comfortably fit. What can we do if these social connections are being made for us without our knowledge or consent? How can we discern and understand the new networks being formed inside us and around us which serve not humanity’s needs but, rather, the projects and plans of unelected transnational technocrats?

Legalising Human Experimentation and Medicalising Biowarfare

One way to understand how the ideology of transhumanism has slipped out of its dark “scientific” lab coat and contaminated social and biological forms of life is to trace the history of how policy is used both to reveal and veil intention. The response to “9/11,” for example, seemed largely determined by the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) of which Dwight D. Eisenhower had warned in 1961 — a huge but hidden entity of “unwarranted influence”[1] that maintains the status quo and the agents of state who protect it. What appears most evident in the wake of the Coronavirus event, however, is the emergence of another key interest closely guarded by the Complex — the manufactured concept of public health and “biomedicine” (fast becoming “nano-biomedicine”) as integral to the power and authority of those who maintain the status quo.

If the Cold War enabled the Complex to develop and test in various proxy wars a vast array of conventional armaments, the development of silent and unconventional weapons was hardly on anyone’s radar. To discern how the microscopic blips of clandestine weapons emerged on the R&D radar, we have to look to the 1990s. During this time, while the “peace dividend” promised by the fall of Soviet communism would be spent on dropping bombs in the Balkans throughout part of the 1990s, neoconservatives tended to the manufactured need to expand funding for the Complex. It is noteworthy however that during this time, the Clinton Administration, in its effort to “restore the confidence of the American people … that they could trust the US Government to tell the truth”[2], also came forward to apologise on behalf of previous governments for having conducted thousands of secret nuclear, biological, and chemical experiments over decades on unwitting citizens in the name of medical research and science.

President Clinton announced the results of a study that had examined declassified documents revealing how the

… government actually did carry out on [American] citizens experiments involving radiation, [and] that thousands of government-sponsored experiments did take place at hospitals, universities and military bases around [the] nation … to understand the effects of radiation exposure on the human body.[3]

Does this sort of subterfuge in government programs and policies sound familiar? Apart from the decades-long Tuskegee experiments, conducted by the CDC in the guise of medical research on Americans of African descent, Clinton noted that the radiation experiments carried out by the Department of Energy failed the nation’s test of character and the test of humanity as

… scientists injected plutonium into 18 patients without their knowledge …. [and] exposed indigent cancer patients to excessive doses of radiation, a treatment … carried out on precisely those citizens who count most on the government for its health — the destitute and the gravely ill.[4]

Nor were soldiers, sailors, or Marines, the very citizens government calls upon to defend the nation, spared from joining in secret experiments on themselves, having been denied the right of informed consent in the face of obvious breaches of the Nuremberg Code;[5] the Declaration of Helsinki;[6] the Geneva Conventions;[7] the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;[8] the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights;[9] and the Hippocratic Oath.[10, 11] Do these facts of history recall another more recent experiment into which citizen soldiers were coerced to take part[12] and whose accountability over effects in death and serious adverse events have, so far, remained tightly controlled?[13] The results of the Cold War era nuclear radiation tests on humans were classified and concealed, not for purposes of national security but for fear of embarrassment. Possible exposure to embarrassment (not to toxins, contagions, or poisons), however, appears to be a serious concern for governments keen to flout the ethical responsibilities put upon them by past treaties.

Following WWI, despite international accords (Geneva Protocols, 1925) signed by numerous nations to eradicate such morally appalling research,[14] clandestine development of chemical and biological weapons testing continued unabated. Researchers have hardly been surprised, therefore, by the evidence of plague-infected fleas used during the Korean War to spread deadly bacteria[15]. In the late 1970s, the US Army disclosed in declassified documents that from 1949 to 1969 it had conducted 239 secret open-air germ warfare experiments on population centres serving as “unknowing guinea pigs”.[16] The purported reason why such experiments were deemed justifiable was to “learn how to wage biological warfare and defend against it”.[17] The specious claim, thus, appears to serve as a template today for many forms of highly questionable dual-use R&D.

In claiming to enter, during the Clinton Administration, a new age of government transparency about the pervasiveness of past secret experiments, government elites have, nonetheless, continued exploiting legal loopholes and refining weapons systems for enacting new forms of regime-change warfare against what is evidently perceived to be opposing forces in civil society. In November 1996, the United States Congress achieved a brilliant sleight of hand by repealing the requirement of the DoD to report to the Congress its programs of chemical and biological testing and their effects on unwitting human subjects.[18]

In the following year, according to Katherine Watt, the Congress repealed and replaced a 1977 public law that had — bizarrely — granted DoD permission to experiment on soldiers without their consent with a new law[19] that transferred authority through the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act[20] to the FDA. As Watt observes, while these two legislative manoeuvres were but a public pretense to simulate Congressional interest in protecting “military servicemen and women from forced submission to biological and chemical weapons experiments”, what they really did was to transfer the weapons research and development to the Department of Health and Human Services.[21]

With the sad irony of “service” to “human health” apparently lost on lawmakers, the legal groundwork was cleared in the 1990s for the practice of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), which exposed all citizens to the government’s social, psychological, biological, and economic programs of coercion. These modifications to domestic US law were not in isolation since they were necessary for compliance with the United Nations’ Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction.[22]

While President Clinton signed into law the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile in 1998 “to remain available until expended for … vaccine stockpiling activities”[23] at the CDC, the dual-use legislation passed by Congress met another crucial goal as Watt points out: it placed the DoD’s illegal supply of biological and chemical weapons into a ‘legal’ category as a stockpile of pharmaceutical products and vaccines. What this means for us today, in Debbie Lerman’s estimation, is that the

“response to the Covid pandemic was led by groups and agencies that are in the business of responding to wars and terrorist threats, not public health crises or disease outbreaks.”[24]

Which is consistent with the US Army War College 2004 prediction that “instruments of power” will “come in smaller and smaller packages — but with no lessening of lethality”[25]. Hence, the weaponisation of labels and pharmaceuticals. This practice of (re)naming and (re)defining in the interest of preserving or expanding power has a rich history.

Underlying R&D

As so it is that last century’s secretive human experimentation, legislative sleights of hand, and 9/11-forged biosurveillance powers paved the way for this century’s mass rollout of experimental BioNano vaccines, and an official focus on gene editing, wired humans, and “program[ming of] biology” like computers[26]. Faced with such a reality, it is tempting to hope that transhumanist futures and policy outcomes are self-aggrandising indulgences rather than viable battle plans. The critical question here is whether the requisite technology exists, and/or could realistically be deployed in the approximate time frames proposed, in order to realise military transhumanist designs on humans and societies. For example, are the dual use bio-nano tools available to create “smart” grids[27] that can turn human bodies and brains into nodes on a network?

In short, it seems that they are. Following Biden’s executive order in 2022, for instance, the Pentagon announced an investment of $1 billion in both public and private partners to fund relevant R&D.[28] Examples of such nano-bio-info-cogno [29] R&D ventures, moreover, abound. In fact, contrary to common misconception that nanotechnology is new, the nanoscience “revolution” dates to the late 1950s. As described in a 2010 Air Force Research Laboratory report on Nanoscience Technologies, in 1959 Richard Feynman, who later received the Nobel Prize in Physics, gave a talk titled, ‘There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom’.[30] The talk introduced the nascent field of nanoscience and nanotechnology, involving atom-by-atom manipulation of matter, which Feynman saw as driving future developments in computing, information technology, biology, and mechanical systems. The 2010 Air Force report notes that, at the time, fifty years after Feynman’s talk, nanotechnology underpinned many products and capabilities in the fields envisioned by Feynman and more, such as the healthcare, communications, electronics, and recreation industries.

Like nanotechnology, synthetic human systems are also not new. In 1996 the DoD wrote in an annual Defense Science and Technology report, “a few S&T results have catapulted directly to operational use, like … sterile all-type artificial blood substitute”.[31] (Which, as of 2021, had not yet made its way openly into the civilian sphere, according to the Stanford University Blood Center website.)[32] Similarly, by 2023, DARPA was only just publicly declaring that it would “begin work” on the issue.[33]

For a brief glimpse of the real and vast body of unclassified military-intelligence-backed R&D pertinent to transhumanism (setting aside the classified or ‘dark’ R&D, needless to say), we list here a small selection of titles.

• Bio-Inspired Nanoscale Hybrid Systems (2003): Final Technical Report sponsored by the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research, co-authored with Pfizer. The report describes the technical output of over 100 research projects at universities and research institutes around the world, on “the combination of natural nano-systems (biomolecules) and artificial nano sized species such as metal or semiconductor nanoparticles”.[34] Two examples of the 100+ technologies described include the use of metal nanocrystals as antennas for controlling the activity of DNA, under the influence of external magnetic fields; and the integration of functionalized nanoparticles and nanotubes with biomaterials, including DNA, for bioelectronic applications.
• Direct Nanoscale Conversion of Bio-Molecular Signals into Electronic Information (2008): Final Report of research and development under a five-year grant sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, from 2003-2008. The project’s aim was to create “bio-digital conversion interfaces” allowing “direct electronic access to biomolecular reactions… including real-time in vivo detection of human responses”.[35] It generated 122 journal publications, 93 conference papers, 151 invited talks, 13 patents, and 25 significant awards.
• Self-Assembly of Large Scale Shape Controlled DNA Nano-Structures (2014): Final Report of research and development under a grant sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, running from 2011-2014. The project focussed on creating various self assembled structures from synthetic DNA, including metallized DNA. It generated 14 refereed journal articles, 48 conference presentations, including on synthetic biology and biomanufacturing, and attracted 8 awards, including a Synthetic Biology Young Scientist Award, and a World Economic Forum Young Scientist Award.[36]
• CyborgCell: Intracellular Delivery of Molecular and Supramolecular Ionic Circuits for Cyborg Tissue (2018): Final Performance Report of a three year grant sponsored by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, from 2015-2018, focussed on “programming cells and systems”. The project generated 9 publications, including on bioelectronics, synthetic tissue and “electrically driven microengineered bio-inspired soft robots”.[37]
• Cyborgcell: Molecular-Nanoscale Circuits for Active Control of Cells (2018): Final Performance Report of a three year grant sponsored by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, from 2015-2018. The aim of the project was to “develop molecular-nanoscale circuits that control cells via external radiation”.[38]

A comprehensive list of related research projects would be virtually endless. The important implication is that the military-intelligence community is not merely engaging in empty futuristic speculation when it publishes its ‘futures’ documents, nor when it issues recommendations to governments and other decision-makers. Military-intelligence bodies have been busy for decades investing in and developing the requisite technologies. Given the publicly available material, if Harvard historian Peter Galison is right that classified, or ‘dark’, scientific research outnumbers the open literatures 5:1 – 10:1[39], and if NASA Langley’s Dennis Bushnell is right that much military-funded science and technology R&D remains in inventory for over 40 years[40], the vast body of unclassified military-intelligence transhumanist technology R&D can be expected to represent the tip of an immense and unknowable iceberg.

The Civilian Mask of Transhumanist Military Technologies

To realise its Science and Technology aims, the military intelligence community not only funds its own research projects but relies upon and collaborates with the civilian sector. For instance, under the heading ‘Dual Use’, in 1996 the DoD wrote of technologies such as biomimetics (the mimicking of biology) and microelectrical-mechanical systems (or MEMS, which are used in smart dust and other bio-nano technologies):

If DoD is to develop, field and sustain superior materiel, we must rely increasingly on the same industrial base that builds commercial products … The S&T program will contribute to building a common industrial base by utilizing commercial practices, processes, and products, and by developing, where possible, technology that can be the base for both military and commercial products and applications.[41]

Where merging bodies with technology and wireless networks is concerned, the medical/pharmaceutical establishment is a key military partner, as is the electrical engineering/Internet of Things(IoT)/Internet of Bodies (IoB) industry. The US Army’s Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM), a science and technology network focussed on soldier enhancements, wrote in 2019, “The pace of development in cyborg technologies is expected to accelerate over the next 10–15 years, driven by commercial medical applications [emphasis added]”.[42]

Similarly, in 2021 NATO said that “an anthropotechnical approach to develop a hybridized human-system” will occur “mostly through pairing information technology and health nanotechnologies [emphasis added] … which will enable humans to be “injected with amplifying substances or nanotechnologies”.[43]

Broadly, in terms of turning strategic visions into reality, the medical literatures test the requisite technologies in biological systems, both in vivo (inside living bodies) and in vitro (in the laboratory), while the electrical engineering literatures design architectures enabling many of the medical (and simultaneously military) devices to turn Humanity 1.0 into nodes on networks, referred to in electrical engineering literatures as ‘intra-corporeal networks’, ‘body-centric wireless networks’, ‘off body networks’, ‘body area networks’, and so-on.

Given the inherent risk-reward trade-off, cancer is a key medical research area in which dual use bio-nano devices are tried and tested. Similarly, for brain-based nanotechnologies, neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases are key R&D domains. Consider, for instance, the paper ‘In Vivo Wireless Brain Stimulation via Non-invasive and Targeted Delivery of Magnetoelectric Nanoparticles’, published in the journal ‘Neurotherapeutics’. The paper describes intravenous injection of magneto-electric nanoparticles which cross the blood brain barrier (BBB) and are magnetically guided to target brain regions for stimulation, with applications in Epilepsy, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. The paper notes that the technology, “could potentially open a door to a more robust and precise brain control that currently is not possible”.[44] Such technology could also simultaneously be of use in the enhanced virtual reality and/or bidirectional brain-machine interfaces or neurologically “wired humans” of the national security realm.

Or the paper ‘Medical Micro/Nanorobots in Precision Medicine’, which reviews a wide range of micro- and nanoscale robots and their uses in medical sensing, imaging, drug and DNA delivery, and surgical operations throughout the body’s tissues and inside cells.[45] Indeed, searching the term nanorobot on Google Scholar yields some 19,000 results. Once again, these technologies, some of which, dubbed microdrillers, can perform actions including travelling at high speeds inside the body and penetrating tissue or deforming cells[46], have dual military potential as weapons, surveillance tools, genetic engineering devices, components of cyborg systems, and/or wireless human networks.

As an example of overlaps between medical and military technologies, the following illustration reinterprets the cover image on the November 2020 issue of the journal Advanced Science, titled Medical Robotics: Medical Micro/Nanorobots in Precision Medicine. The cover offers an artist’s concept of a biohybrid / cyborg micro-organism receiving input from a tower to capture a coronavirus in the bloodstream. In keeping with Harari’s earlier “prophecy” that surveillance would go “under the skin” with Covid-19, did the public get its first look at how surveillance might be operationalised one month after the journal’s issue with the release of the injectable gene therapy in early December of 2020?

With respect to the commercial IoB / IoBNT sector, Kyrie and Broudy (2022) review in Cyborgs R Us: The Bionano Panopticon of Injected Bodies the mainstream electrical engineering literatures laying out architectures to create the ‘wired humans’ described in military-intelligence documents, for ostensibly ‘medical’ and ‘lifestyle’ purposes.[47] The IoB / IoBNT architectures use both micro- and nano-technology to create body-centric wireless networks, such as in the paper, ‘Enabling Deep-Tissue Networking for Miniature Medical Devices’[48]. The paper describes the in vivo testing of a networking system in which injected sensors with antennae transmit wirelessly from deep tissue locations up to 38 metres outside the body, or far enough to reach most people’s cell phones most of the time, which act as ‘gateways’ connecting intrabody networks to the internet in IoB schemes.[49]

In short, the same bio-nano technologies that underpin military-grade transhumanism are utilised in medical and electrical engineering, or ‘smart’ electronics, spheres. The DoD, moreover, makes no bones about leveraging such civilian R&D for its own ends.[50, 51] The implication is that an innocuous or even therapeutic device introduced into the human body in one context can double as military hardware in another.

Unfortunately for ordinary people, prominent approaches to regulating dual use technologies such as these rest on a flawed and problematic premise. That premise is that only citizens pose a dual use threat, while officialdom can be relied upon to rule with a benevolent hand. In his book Dual Use Science and Technology, Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Seumas Miller, a Professor of Philosophy and security services expert, writes that in order to mitigate dual use risks, “contrary to popular opinion, there ought to be a degree of collective scientific ignorance [italics original], at least among members of the general population.”[52] Could this be why 80-90 percent of science and technology research remains classified according to Peter Galison?[53] However, such a regulatory strategy introduces a dual use problem all its own: it frees those in power to amass an arsenal of weaponisable knowledge and technology outside the checks and balances of public scrutiny and oversight.

COVID Connections

Meanwhile in the realm of publicly available S&T, two years into a global injection campaign based on dual use bio-nano technologies (nanoparticles and gene-based platforms), Ian Akyildiz, pioneer of both the Internet of NanoThings (IoNT) and the Internet of BioNano Things (IoBNT) [54, 55, 56, 57], which form the basis for the Internet of Bodies (IoB), provided an Advanced Technology Symposium with a key update on the progress of the IoBNT. He explained that:

The Bio-nanoscale machines [behind the IoBNT] are for injecting into the body … And that is going really well with these Covid vaccines. It’s going that direction. These mRNAs are nothing [other] than small scale, nano-scale machines. They are programmed and they are injected.[58]

It was quite a remarkable statement coming from someone of Akyildiz’ standing. Alkiyidiz is a professor at four universities, an advisory board member at a fifth, with past professorships at several more. He has been the Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of Computer Networks Journal (Elsevier) (1999-2019), the founding Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of the Ad Hoc Networks Journal (Elsevier) (2003-2019), Physical Communication (PHYCOM) Journal (Elsevier) (2008-2017), and Nano Communication Networks (NANOCOMNET) Journal (Elsevier) (2010-2017), among numerous other credentials.

While Alkiyidis’ pronouncement that Covid ‘vaccines’ are IoBNT nano-machines might sound outlandish to those who believed they had been injected on purely immunological grounds, it is entirely consistent with the military-intelligence literatures described in Parts 1-3 on technologically interfaced humans and a BioNano, technocratic fork in the road by 2020. It is also consistent with the findings of undisclosed and unidentified structures and materials in Covid ‘vaccines’, swabs, and recipients’ blood, from independent investigators around the world. Those investigations have involved Optical Microscopy[59, 60]; Darkfield Microscopy [61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73]; Brightfield Microscopy[74, 75, 76, 77, 78]; Compound Optical Microscopy with a combination of Brightfield, Darkfield and Phase Contrast [79]; Stereomicroscopy[80]; Scanning Electron Microscopy with X-ray Diffraction Spectroscopy[81, 82]; Electron Microscopy with Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy[83, 84]; Micro-Raman Spectroscopy[85]; Raman Spectroscopy[86]; a combination of Optical Microscopy, Darkfield Microscopy, UV Absorbance and Fluorescence Spectroscopy, Scanning Electron Microscopy, Transmission Electron Microscopy, Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy, X-ray Diffraction, and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy [87]; and, Scanning Electron Microscopy, Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy, Mass Spectroscopy, Inductively Coupled Plasma Analysis, Bright Field Microscopy and Dark Field Microscopy,[88] all yielding compatible findings.

Not only have many of these investigators reported undeclared and often apparently bizarrely (bio)mechanical, self-assembling nano- and micro-contents in Covid-19 injections,[89-108] those using electron microscopes and spectroscopy have found carbon-based structures consistent with graphene and/or other carbonaceous micro- and nano-materials [109-116], including growing, non-biological structures,[117, 118] and silicon and metals,[119-125] many of which have been embedded in the carbon-based assemblies.[126-132] Those metals and other elements have included aggregates of iron-chromium-nickel nanoparticles (ie stainless steel), bismuth-titanium-vanadium-iron-copper silicon-aluminium[133], aluminium and thalium[134, 135], iron oxide[136], caesium, barium, iron, chromium, titanium, cerium, gadolinium, aluminium,[137] tin, magnesium, aluminium[138, 139] and more. PCR swabs from a range of manufacturers, moreover, have been found, using a Field Emission Gun Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope with Energy Dispersive System, to host several unidentified structures, along with dust (whether common dust or smart dust), containing silicon, carbon, aluminium, potassium, oxygen, magnesium, titanium, iron and sulphur.[140]

Regarding the reception of such findings, as one of us writes in the book, “Covid-19” Psychological Operations and the War for Technocracy:

Especially in the context of the IT/Bio/Nano era (see Chap. 8), this is a lot of empirical evidence to write off, yet commentators hesitate to entertain the possibility of undisclosed technologies in the “Covid-19 vaccines” for several reasons. For starters, it sounds preposterous — the stuff of sci-fi — and falls too far outside the spectrum of socially acceptable opinion. This, however, merely reflects the limitations of human psychology and groupthink; it is not evidence-based science. Military-grade propaganda means that the public’s perceptual parameters remain limited to the virus, the spike protein, mRNA/DNA, and dangers deriving from the disclosed “vaccine” ingredients. Most doctors, virologists, microbiologists, etc., know very little about bio-nanotechnology, so are unqualified to comment and understandably prefer to stick to their fields of expertise. Fear of reprisal (e.g. hit pieces by the media, attacks by colleagues, withdrawal of medical licenses, harassment, and threats to (life) disincentivise scientists/doctors from publicly challenging orthodoxy.[141]

Nevertheless, contrary to cursory dismissals that the unidentified structures and undeclared materials found around the world in Covid ‘vaccines’ and recipients’ blood could only reflect salt and cholesterol, a vast array of candidate bio-nano technologies and materials exist in the open literatures.[142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150; 151, 152] Moreover, aside from compositional and morphological differences, investigators report that the structures observed in Covid ‘vaccines’ behave differently from simple salt or cholesterol crystals, for instance by forming a perimeter before filling in internal details[153], and in the complexity of those details.[154] Similarly, the structures have demonstrated responsiveness to electromagnetic frequencies, such as by assembling when a nearby router is turned on and disassembling when the router is turned off, or failing to assemble inside a faraday bag.[155, 156]

Consider, for instance, images and videos of structures found in the Pfizer-BioNTech product below. With only traditional microbiological knowledge as a reference point, and little or no awareness of the documents and literatures covered in this series of articles, hasty explanations[157] offered by commentators immersed in the status quo invariably point to familiar and innocuous constructs. However, with knowledge of the decades of transhumanist planning and R&D, alongside associated government policies, including the important role of injections for ‘upgrading’ human beings (see Parts 2 and 3), we suggest that injectable technologies such as self-assembling DNA electronics make just as much, if not more, sense.

Could the microscopic structures observed forming in Covid ‘vaccines’ above reflect technologies such as micron-scale macrostructures that self-assemble from DNA nanostructures?[158] Which are capable of fashioning DNA nanomachinery[159], potentially with “DNA self-assembled robotic arm[s]” among other complexities,[160] and/or creating micro-electronics and/or self-assembling DNA nanowires?[161] All of which can be “readily modified and functionalized with a variety of nanoscale entities that possess interesting biological, chemical, magnetic, electrical, or optical properties”,[162] including through “metallization” of the DNA?[163] Which, in turn, causes the DNA nano- and micro-technologies to “exhibit excellent spatiotemporal responses to a multitude of external stimuli,” such as electrical, magnetic or optical frequencies.[164]

For a 75-page 2023 review summarising such technologies, see the paper ‘Recent Advances in DNA Origami-Engineered Nanomaterials and Applications’, published in the journal Chemical Reviews, referenced here at footnote “[159]”. Or for a video illustrating DNA nanotechnologies self-assembling into pre-programmed, functionalised macro-structures, including smiley-faces, watch this video from Harvard University’s Wyss Institute.

Could the potential optical, electrical and magnetic peculiarities of ‘functionalised’ nano-scaled technologies such as these be why some structures in the Covid ‘vaccines’ have been found to respond to electromagnetic signals?[165, 166] Or why videos of magnets and metallic objects adhering to the injection site abounded following the Covid ‘vaccine’ rollout?[167] Could it explain why a wire-like structure in a Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine sample, which was initially assumed to be environmental debris, was observed to move over a period of two days, after which it appeared to attach itself to a rectangular chip-like structure?[168, 169] Resulting in shapes and configurations that were similar to those observed in Pfizer/BioNTech on the other side of the world.[170]

Could these images represent micron-scale macrostructures that self-assemble from DNA-based or other nanostructures?[171] Could the fibres represent self-assembling nanowires?[172] Or are they something else entirely?

Unfortunately for the enquiring mind, comprehensively investigating questions such as these requires access to prohibitively expensive equipment such as precision Atomic Force Microscopes and Scanning Tunnelling Microscopes, which, used in conjunction with Electron Microscopes, are capable of precisely characterising nanoparticles and nanomaterials, including those involving DNA. However, the cost of such investigations ensures that they are monopolised by institutions that have been comprehensively cleansed of independent and critical activities[173], particularly since the ‘mis’, ‘dis’ and ‘mal’ information purges of the Covid era. Accordingly, placing the onus on citizen investigators to resolve the reasonable questions raised by their findings ensures that unambiguous answers will never be found. While fingers have been pointed in knee-jerk fashion at the independent researchers who are asking questions and raising concerns, in reality the obvious onus lies with the institutions and authorities that are turning a blind eye to both the deaths and injuries from the new bio-nano “vaccines”, and the numerous published reports of their undeclared contents.

Human IoBNT Connectivity?

Since the early 1990s, the “Internet” has become elemental to the common currency. No one goes to Starbucks and wonders if the coffee will be sufficiently hot or the Wi-Fi sufficiently fast. Despite these now common tacit mental associations, few speakers, however, use terms such as the “Internet of Things (IoT)” and fewer still, “The Internet of NanoThings (IoNT)” or the “Internet of BioNanoThings (IoBNT)”[174, 175, 176]. Regarding these latter iterations of the Internet, now quietly emerging in society, will these, too, become as common as casual talk of Starbucks’ overpriced cheesecake? While the promise of the Internet had long contained the seeds of potential emancipation from the owners of the means of production, it has also, in some ways, served as a promise for the total transformation of humanity. In fact, the term itself — Internet — triggers mental images of vastly improved cultural and linguistic interconnectivity. Caught in a web of connections, we can’t help but communicate and receive signals of our presence, intention, and action. Thus, it is claimed that Humans 2.0 will be sufficiently upgraded in ways that integrate them into a seamless network of global communications connectivity.

The conceptual connection between the body as a self-justified site of invasion and state surveillance and its real-time 24/7 Internet connectivity, as we noted earlier, began appearing in public just two weeks after the story of a deadly viral pathogen emerged from Wuhan, China — the absurdities seeded in the public discourse by leading evangelists of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. While Yuval Noah Harari prepared the fertile minds of the masses to contemplate the absurd false claim that people were now accepting the concocted foregone conclusion that surveillance was going “under the skin”, anecdotal observations of bizarre reactions to the mRNA injections started circulating soon after the campaign of mass vaccination was launched. Video reports of recipients with magnetised surface skin area near sites of injection were shared around the world, and soon thereafter videos of human beings registering as electronic devices on Bluetooth networks emerged. Following these reports of anecdotal observations were small preliminary studies conducted by Sarlangue et al. who published in November 2021 their results that attempted to investigate any existing cause-and-effect relationships between the injectable gene therapies and signs of Bluetooth connectivity.[177]

To examine the issue, Sarlangue et al. employed a between-subjects design which returned the rather astonishing finding that 40% of “vaccinated” individuals and 50% of those who had received PCR swab tests (out of 17 vaccinated or swabbed subjects in all) appeared to emit alphanumeric signals in the frequency range corresponding to Bluetooth signals, compared to none in the unvaccinated, unswabbed group (consisting of 20 subjects). The alphanumeric signals did not accord with those of known manufacturers; they were “not constant in time and their appearance [was] brief”.[178]

After observing such differences between groups, the investigators examined the phenomenon across different electromagnetic conditions, by measuring signals from vaccinated and/or swabbed individuals inside a cave, which they treated as a faraday cage. The researchers found that when inside the cave only 2 of 14 vaccinated and/or swabbed subjects (14%) were associated with alphanumeric signals. Sarlangue et al. concluded that across both studies they had observed “a very clear prominence of signals emitted in an ambient [electromagnetically exposed] environment compared to signals emitted in an environment without electromagnetic activity”.[179] In other words, a proportion of Covid “vaccine” and PCR swab recipients appeared to show signs of Bluetooth technology inside their bodies, which interacted with electromagnetic radiation.

In one of the surprisingly few responses to the Sarlangue et. al studies, counter-evidence is adduced by software engineer David Fergusson (via private correspondence, discussed here with his permission). Digging into the raw data in the two capture files provided by Sarlangue et al., Fergusson finds that:

1. Some of the Bluetooth LE advertising addresses referred to in the results/write-up are not present in the capture;
2. The timestamps of the Bluetooth LE advertising addresses appearing in the study do not correspond with the time stamps of their appearance in the capture file;
3. The same Bluetooth LE advertising address associated with an individual keeps appearing in the capture file long after the subject should have disappeared out of range; and
4. The same Bluetooth LE advertising address in the study is associated with two different individuals.

Given that Bluetooth LE has a range of up to 200m (much further than the original Bluetooth classic protocol), Fergusson concludes, it is hard to find a clean environment where other transmissions are not present, and thus likely that Sarlangue et al. were detecting background signals in the environment.

However, the between-subjects design employed by Sarlangue et al. found that alphanumeric signals were not randomly distributed across groups, as would be expected had they reflected background noise. Rather, the signals differed according to vaccine/swab status, indicating an effect over and above that of the surrounding environment. Moreover, the location of the experiment appears to be uninhabited for a 200m radius.[180] The investigators also reported that the alphanumeric signals they recorded (whose Organisationally Unique Identifiers or OUI can be searched in public databases) did not correspond to those of any known manufacturers, running counter to the notion that the signals emanated from commercially available devices. Alternatively, Fergusson suggests that the signals could have reflected Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) advertising packets customised to omit manufacturer-specific information.

To examine further, Fergusson himself scanned two “vaccinated” individuals at a remote location in the Yorkshire dales using a Samsung tablet and a 2.45 GHz spectrum analyser and detected no signal or transmission. While this finding is consistent with his own interpretation, it also accords with the results of Sarlangue et al.’s second study, and the possibility that any intrabody technology may interact with external electomagnetic radiation.

To tease such interpretations apart and address their shortcomings, the initial findings by Sarlangue et al. (a single, small independent research team) and those of Fergusson (a sample size of two with no comparison group) require confirmation by larger, more technologically sophisticated (i.e. well-funded) studies. Such studies could more systematically and precisely measure, disentangle, and examine the specific types of signals being recorded, as well as any interactions between signals emitted by study subjects and those of electromagnetic activity in the surrounding environment. Confirming the validity of such conclusions would also require analyses of statistical significance — a concern, it should be noted, that pharmaceutical companies, governments, and health authorities dispensed with entirely when claiming 95% efficacy for the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’.[181]

Meanwhile we remain largely in a state of uncertainty regarding the reality of human Bluetooth emissions. Nevertheless, given prima facie evidence of the phenomenon in the context of an emergent IT/Bio/Nano era, there is every reason, scientifically and politically, to continue investigations.[182] Should the Sarlangue et al. findings ultimately be corroborated, then the implications would prove profound. Those who thought they were getting “vaccinated” would, in fact, have rolled up their sleeves to receive injectable firmware for networked communications within the Internet of Bodies.

Against the backdrop of historical pharmaceutical industry fraud;[183] the testimony of Covid “vaccine” manufacturing whistleblowers;[184] the existence of vaccine industry immunity from liability for harm;[185] dedicated global Vaccine™ brand management operations;[186, 187, 188] conflicts of interest throughout COVID policy;[189, 190, 191] the capture of media and regulatory bodies[192] and the unequivocal Fourth Industrial / transhumanist agendas of the world’s most powerful military-industrial, political and financial actors[193] (See also Parts 1-3), it appears increasingly likely that the injections deployed since 2020 were dual use technologies heavily pushed upon populations as ‘vaccines’.

Meanwhile, the underlying gaps in knowledge papered over by the scientific establishment in defense of the transnational Giants have included: What has gone “under the skin” (Harari) in the name of Covid-19? What was — and is — in the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’, and how does that differ by batch or manufacturer?[194, 195] And what are the implications for human health, human societies, and humanity itself?

Outside that Giant-aligned establishment, the findings of unidentified structures appearing in the blood of Covid injected individuals [196-205], and preliminary evidence of Bluetooth connectivity in the vaccinated and the PCR-swabbed,[206] has led to a proposed set of possibilities anchored in relevant scientific and electrical engineering literatures. In a comprehensively referenced video presentation titled “The MAC Phenomenon,” investigator Mik Anderson proposes that the alphanumeric sequences reported to emanate from vaccine and swab recipients signify what are known as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) Media Access Control — or MAC — addresses.[207]

A MAC address is a string of characters that identifies devices on networks, and can be detected, among other methods, via Bluetooth on a mobile phone. Mobile phones, in turn, serve as “gateways” in IoBNT / IoB schemes, to connect on-body (‘intra-body’ or ‘in-vivo’) networks with off-body and inter-body networks, which together form the internet of bodies in electrical engineering literatures, or the wired humans of the military-intelligence domain[208].

But do injectable nanotechnologies capable of emitting signals, whether MAC addresses or BLE advertising packets, actually exist? In the electrical engineering IoBNT / IoBNT literatures, nano-routers are a leading exemplar. Nanorouters aggregate information from intra-body nano-nodes (e.g. sensors) throughout the body, sending that information to “gateways” outside the body, such as mobile phones[209]. In terms of relevant R&D, a pioneer of medical nanorobots with expertise in synthetic biology and human-machine interfaces, Professor Ido Bachelet, received a 2013-2017 European Commission grant through his company Augmanity Nano to work on “DNA nano-routers”.[210] In general terms, routers connect networks (for instance on-body and off-body networks) to one another, and possess their own unique MAC addresses. During the DNA nano-router grant period, Bachelet collaborated with Pfizer[211] on a project involving DNA robots capable of harbouring miniature antennae, sending information to other DNA robots, and responding to external signals.

In 2013, Bachelet gave a talk to TedMed Israel explaining that a single hypodermic syringe contains a thousand billion such robots, which his team had equipped with antennae made from metal nanoparticles. He told the audience that the antennae enabled the nanobots to carry their own IP address, and to respond to external electromagnetic fields, facilitating access and control by the likes of an X-box joystick, or a smartphone. The talk included a microscopic image of the nanobots, which Bachelet described as computers the size of molecules, and which, like many images of structures in Covid vaccines, appeared as rectangles.

Bachelet closed by sharing his hopes that, “anywhere between a year and five years from now [2013] we’ll be able to use this in humans and finally witness the emergence of a nanobot society”.[212] Then in 2021 another of Bachelet’s companies received an “extremely rare” amount of seed funding for a mystery project involving RNA.[213]

Could such DNA nano-routers, or wirelessly controlled nanobots, be the kind of programmable, injectable bio-nanotechnology that was “going really well with these Covid vaccines” according to IoBNT pioneer Ian Akyildiz?[214] Could that, or other gene-based nanotechnologies, such as DNA electronics, plasmid DNA computing, DNA-based substrates for the IoBNT, or DNA lipid nanotablets be why (in addition to genetic modification)[215] undeclared, likely synthetic[216], genetic products[217] and DNA[218-229] have been found in the Covid-19 injectable technologies (aka vaccines)?

While most coverage of findings regarding undeclared DNA in the Covid injections has revolved around traditional biological explanations and harms (cancer and genetic modification), an awareness of DNA’s centrality to Bio-Nano and bio-electronic technologies, including those involved in IoB and IoBNT schemes, opens the DNA findings up beyond transgenesis to a wider arena of transhumanist technology and understanding.

Or could the alphanumeric signals reported by Sarlangue et al. simply reflect Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) Beacon output? Ie ‘smart’ tracking devices? BLE is the bluetooth of choice for the construction of the global IoT[230] as it is energy efficient, saving power by remaining asleep when not connected, and communicating for only seconds at a time when active.[231] Which would be consistent with reports by Sarlangue et al. that the signals they observed were not constant in time and their appearance was brief.[232] BLE Beacons, said to be “arguably the most important application of the [BLE] technology” send out an ID number at set intervals, usually seconds apart, allowing devices that recognise the device to connect.[233, 234] Like DNA nano-routers, BLE beacons possess MAC addresses.[235] (Interestingly, BLE devices are organised into what is termed a “master-slave” relationship, whereby master devices control connectivity while slave devices passively transmit their ID until required by the master.)[236] Of relevance to transhumanism, both BLE technology and beacons form part of IoB / IoBNT / Wireless Body Area Network (WBAN) routing protocols.[237, 238]

Should such propositions seem preposterous, it is worth noting that the seminal 2015 paper introducing the IoBNT, whose aim is “networking within the biochemical domain, while enabling an interface to the electrical domain of the Internet”, proposes deploying synthetic cells inside the human body, including those with an electromagnetic nano-transmitter where the nucleus, and DNA, should be.[239] The lead author was the same Professor Akyildiz who said that the progress of the nanomachines behind the IoBNT was “going really well with these Covid vaccines”.

The 2015 paper introduces for the first time the IoBNT, explaining that its aim is to integrate living things, or “biological environment[s]” with the electrical domain of the IoT and IoNT. This integration is to be achieved using synthetic biology as the “substrate” inside living things, including not only artificial cells but engineered DNA, DNA plasmids, and proteins, recasting cells as “biological embedded computing devices”. Through the re-engineering of biological cells and sub-cellular components, the IoBNT seeks to create “bio-cyber interfaces” which “translate information from the biochemical domain of Bio-Nano Thing networks [inside the body] to the Internet cyber-domain” and vice versa. One tool for achieving this is the electromagnetic nano-transmitter depicted in Figure 5b, which, encapsulated within an artificial cell, “would wirelessly communicate with electrical devices outside the biological environment”.[240]

Nine years later, in April of 2024, citizen microscopists using a high resolution optical microscope observed what they describe as a catastrophic alteration in red blood cells, which they had first detected several months prior, and had observed increasing in prevalence since.[241, 242, 243]. Consistent with the 2015 IoBNT paper, the microscopists interpret their findings as reflecting, “alteration of human biology, [including] use or production of Electro-chemical structures such as Proteinosomes (Electro-chemical logic gates/circuitry), and much more.”[244]

The investigators cite examples of papers drawn from a large body of literature, which detail not only artificial and biohybrid blood systems, but candidate technologies consistent with the nano-architectures[245], and synthetic biology of the IoBNT[246]. These include artificial organelles enabling chemical computation,[247] and protocells,[248] which, with the “integration of DNA nanotechnology … might facilitate the development of lifelike objects with simple forms of embodied chemical computation.”[249] In other work published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,[250] CRISPR Cas9 is used to create dual-core computers inside human cells.[251] On the apparent wholesale re-engineering of red blood cells suggested by the microscopists’ imagery, Akyildiz et al. wrote in 2015 that artificial cells can, “contain genetic information [and] the related molecular machineries for their transcription, translation, and replication.”[252]

The microscopists observed the altered blood cells in covid “vaccinated” and un”vaccinated” alike, surmising their emergence to arise from environmental adulterations, for instance to water, air, and food. Once again, the 2015 IoBNT paper announced that the related IoNT formed “the basis of numerous future applications, such as in the military, healthcare, and security fields, where the nanothings, thanks to their limited size, can be easily concealed, implanted, and scattered in the environment, where they can cooperatively perform sensing, actuation, processing, and networking.”[253]

With this context in mind, could the images appearing under investigators’ microscopes reflect some version of the artificial cells that form the IoBNT network architecture, as depicted in Slide 33 of a 2017 Akyildiz presentation?

Or might they reflect the intracellular antennae developed by MIT, which respond to alternating magnetic fields and can “operate wirelessly inside living cells”?[254] The technology, dubbed “Cell Rover”, is a product of MIT’s Nano Cybernetic Biotrek lab, whose aim is to invent “disruptive technologies for nanoelectric devices and creat[e] new paradigms for life machine symbiosis”. Or could they represent intracellular chip technology, such as semiconductor biointerfaces or magnetically responsive bar codes that can “tag and manipulate living cells”?[255]

Whatever the case may be, while one study of Bluetooth connectivity alone does not constitute a body of evidence (pun not intended), and requires clarification and confirmation, it represents preliminary data that are certainly worthy of further investigation, with the aim of exploring the validity of the findings. In the context of the literatures we have reviewed throughout this series of articles, building such a program of research, which examines the possibility of IoBNT connectivity in human beings, seems prudent if not essential.

Conclusion

In literature, communication, international relations, and other related disciplines across the humanities and social sciences, serious studies — uncorrupted by the influence of state ideology — have seen precipitous declines over the past couple of decades, especially in the wake of 9/11. As states fund opportunities for promising young scholars to acquire knowledge and skills in protecting the socioeconomic order and the mythologies required for its uninterrupted operation, it is reasonable that the intellectual schools that might examine the ethical implications of the transhumanist project would be relegated to the periphery. After all, if we are, according to the transhumanist ethos, little more than members of a vast and well-dispersed herd, why should the critical examination of literature — a high human art — be an object of serious study?

Is it because we have all been schooled since the outbreak of the viral narrative of a genocidal virus that we are no more than potential vectors of disease transfer? The least common denominator of our existence and purpose as human beings boiled down to the level of the microbe whose true intentions are discernable only under the microscope. There is no need, therefore, as suggested by the dominant storytellers, to dwell upon the key texts of our own humanity, especially those outlining the story of our own coming captivity — corralled, captured, nano-tagged, and registered in some technocratic database for inventory, retrieval, sale, and/or (ab)use.

Besides recasting humans as dangerous and expendable vectors of disease, perhaps the most stunning achievement of military transhumanism is its ability to hide in plain sight. Decades of declassified material, publicly available and marked for ‘unlimited distribution’, a small sample of which we have reviewed here, has scarcely entered the periphery of public perception. As we already outlined in our article ‘Hiding in Plain Sight: Technocratic Tyranny Behind a Medical Mask’,[256] opinion-shapers, as skilled magicians, have succeeded in tightly controlling attention, perpetually decoying and dazzling such that decades of transhumanist interventions have remained largely unnoticeable and, thus, invisible to the wider public. Consider, for instance, a slide from GCHQ’s Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) training materials titled ‘The Art of Deception’, presented at US National Security Agency (NSA) conferences, which illustrates that deceiving the world begins with capturing its attention.

Since 2020, between bats and pangolins and Wuhan and gain of function and the FDA and CDC and mRNA and electoral theatre, the perpetual ”decoying” and “dazzling”, as advised in The Art of Deception, has ensured that even dissident attention is successfully diverted from the decades of military-intelligence transhumanism surrounding the Covid Bio-Nano “vaccines.”

And, as JTRIG’s ‘cyber magicians’ know, that which escapes attention does not exist, perceptually speaking. Accordingly, like magicians, propagandists can make phenomena appear and disappear at will. With a relentless fixation on the declared components of mRNA ‘vaccines’ and legacy biosciences, for instance, military-grade transhumanism and its technologies are made to vanish. “Hide the real” and “show the false” advises JTRIG.[257]

As the date for possible adoption of the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) draws near (27th May 2024), the media-consuming public will likely be consumed by the news cycle of the day. Will populations register warnings that the proposed treaty and amendments threaten to “give WHO unprecedented power to override national sovereignty”, reportedly involving medical interventions, surveillance, and vaccinations?[258-264] Or that actors involved in the new WHO powers are, at present, “actively seeking to ‘normalize’ the implementation of a global digital health certificate”?[265]

Will the overlap between these warnings and Proteus’ vision of a post-2020 world capture citizens’ attention? That is, a world in which “Individuals carry a ‘MedID’ used to enter anywhere” and “the World Health Organization (WHO) is the most important international organization,” which “coordinates military security efforts” with the UN.[266] Will Proteus’ background in forecasting of world events be understood and recalled, with its simultaneous interest in the coming of the “Tweaked”, “Freaked”, and “Geeked” social classes? Will that be deemed sufficiently worthy of attention for informed observers to avert what appears to be the next fork in the transhumanist road for humanity: the WHO arrogating to itself sovereign powers of states and their citizens?

If yet another signifier were needed to underscore the growing significance of the WHO and its machinations, in 2022, as the early physical and psychological ravages of the coercive military-backed ‘vaccination’ campaign were unfolding, the US Army Fourth Psyop Group released a recruitment video. The enlistment call appeared both to gloat over the extent of psychological manipulation, underway at the time, and to seek to entice new recruits with the allure of secrecy, deception, and international intrigue. Titled ‘Ghosts in the Machine: Psywar’ the production was set to the soundtrack of ‘Last Goodbye’.

In this show of hand, the Fourth Psyop Group declares that, “warfare is evolving, and all the world’s a stage … There is another very important phase of warfare. It has as its target not the body, but the mind”. Capitalised text accompanying the voice-over reads, “YOU’LL FIND US IN THE SHADOWS … ANYTHING WE TOUCH IS A WEAPON. WE COME IN MANY FORMS. WE ARE EVERYWHERE”.

The three minute film is prefaced by the following question, set against an image of an actor on a stage: “WHO’S PULLING THE STRINGS?” From right to left the letters disappear, as though to reveal a one-word answer: WHO

The rhetorical question subliminally beckons us, as audience members, to ponder the extent to which the WHO (king on the chessboard) in this question is the answer to our concerns. If, indeed, “All the world’s a stage,” and “all the men and women merely players;” it is fairly easy to see how stagecraft and statecraft might have merged in the interest of pulling off the greatest power play in history.

Coda

References for Part 4

[1] Yale Law School. 2008. Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961. Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Law Library. [Website]

[2] C-Span. 1995. Clinton Human Radiation Experiment Apology. [Website]

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid.

5] Shuster, E. 1997. Fifty years later: The significance of the Nuremburg Code. The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 337, No. 20., pp. 1436-1440. [Journal]

[6] World Medical Association. 2022. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. World Medical Association. [Website]

[7] International Committee of the Red Cross. no date. International Humanitarian Law Rule 92. Mutilation and Medical, Scientific or Biological Experiments. International Committee of the Red Cross Resource Centre. [Website]

[8] Glendon, M.A. 2004. The rule of law in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, Vol. 2, No. 1., p.4. [Journal]

[9] United Nations. 2005. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. United Nations Educational and Cultural Organization. Internet Archive. [Website]

[10] National Library of Medicine. no date. Ancient Greek Medicine. National Institutes of Health. [Website]

[11] Shapell, B., & Willen, S. 2016. The Nuremberg Trial Executions. Shapell Manuscript Foundation. [Website]

[12] Rahman, K. 2021. Full List of Vaccines Mandated by the U.S. Military. Newsweek. [Website]

[13] Long, P. COVID vaccines causing miscarriages, cancer and neurological disorders among military, DOD data show. The Defender: Children’s Health Defense News & Views. [Website]

[14] United Nations. no date. 1925 Geneva Protocol. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. [Website]

[15] World Peace Council. 1952. Report of the International Scientific Commission for the Investigation of the Facts Concerning Bacterial Warfare in Korea and China. W. E. B. Du Bois Papers (MS 312). Special Collections and University Archives, University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries. [Website]

[16] Wilson, G.C. 1977. Army Conducted 239 Secret, Open-Air Germ Warfare Tests. The Washington Post. [Website]

[17] ibid.

[18] United States Congress. 1996. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. Sec. 1061. Public Law 104–106, 104th Congress. [Website]

[19] United States Congress. 1997. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. Public Law 105–85, 105th Congress. [Website]

[20] United States Congress. 1997. Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. 21 USC 360bbb. Public Law 105–115, 105th Congress. [Website]

[21] Watt, K. 2023. Reposts – DOD chemical and biological warfare program: herd-culling plus stockpile disposal in one tidy package. Published Sept. 28, 2022. Bailiwick News, Substack. [Website]

[22] United Nations. 1993. Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction. United Nations. [Website]

[23]Watt, K. 2023. op. cit. [Website]

[24] Lerman, D. 2022. Government’s National Security Arm Took Charge During the Covid Response. Brownstone Institute. [Website]

[25] United States Army War College. 2004. op. cit., p.11. [Website]

[26] Biden, J.R. 2022. Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy. The White House. [Website]

[27] Akyildiz, I.F. 2017. Internet of Nanothings & Bio-Nanothings. Presentation to the Visions for Future Communications Summit, October 23 2017, University Institute of Lisbon, Portugal. Organized by Networld2020 with the support of the 5G Infrastructure Association, the European Commission, IEEE and the National Science Foundation. [Website]

[28] Edwards, J. 2022. DOD to invest $1.2B in biomanufacturing; Heidi Shyu quoted. GovCon Wire. [Website]

[29] Roco, M.C. and Bainbridge, W., Eds. 2002. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. [Website]

[30] Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). 2010. AFRL Nanoscience Technologies: Applications, Transitions and Innovations. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, p.3. [Website]

[31] Director, Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense. 1996. Defense Science and Technology Strategy. Department of Defense, p.20. [Website]

[32] Thomas, K. 2021. Artificial Blood: The Future of Patient Care? Stanford Blood Center. [Website]

[33] Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). 2023. DARPA Team Begins Work on Field Deployable Whole Blood Equivalent. DARPA. [Website]

[34] Schmid, G., Simon, U., Strranick, S.J., and Arrivo, S.M. 2003. Symposium C: Bio-Inspired Nanoscale Hybrid Systems. Final technical report of a project sponsored by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, p.7. [Website]

[35] Yin, P. 2014. Self-Assembly of Large Scale Shape Controlled DNA Nano- Structures. Final report of a project sponsored by the Office of Naval Research. [Website]

[36] Xu, J., and Beresford, R. 2008. Direct Nanoscale Conversion of Bio-Molecular Signals into Electronic Information. Final report of a project sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, pp. 2 and 3. [Website]

[37] Luscombe, C. 2019. CyborgCell: Intracellular Delivery of Molecular and Supramolecular Ionic Circuits for CyborgTissue. Final performance report of a project sponsored by the Air Force Office of Scientific Resarch, pp. 2 and 34. [Website]

[38] Lieber, C. 2018. Cyborgcell: Molecular-Nanoscale Circuits for Active Control of Cells. Final report of a project sponsored by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, p. 2. [Website]

[39] Galison, P. 2004. Removing knowledge. Critical Inquiry, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 229-243. [Journal]

[40] Bushnell, D. 2001. Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025]. Presentation to The 4th Annual Testing and Training for Readiness Symposium & Exhibition: Emerging Challenges, Opportunities and Requirements, National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), 13-16 August 2001. NASA Langley Research Center, p.5. [Website]

[41] Director, Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense. 1996. op. cit., p. 12. [Website]

[42] Emanuel, P., Walper, S., DiEuliis, D., Klein, N., Petro, J.B., and Giordano, J. 2019. Cyborg Soldier 2050: Human/Machine Fusion and the Implication for the Future of the DoD. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM) Chemical Biological Center, sponsored by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, p.10. [Website]

[43] Claverie, B., and Du Cluzel, F. 2021. “Cognitive Warfare”: The Advent of the Concept of “Cognitics” in the Field of Warfare. In B. Claverie, B. Prébot, N. Buchler, and F. du Cluzel, Eds. Cognitive Warfare: The Future of Cognitive Dominance. NATO Collaboration Support Office, p. 2-6. [Website]

[44] Nguyen, T., Gao, J., Wang, P., Nagesetti, A., Andrews, P., Masood, S., Vriesman, Z., Liang, P., Khizroev, S., and Jin, X. 2021*.* In vivo wireless brain stimulation via non-invasive and targeted delivery of magnetoelectric nanoparticles.  Neurotherapeutics, Vol. 18, pp. 2091–2106, p. 2100. [Journal]

[45] Soto, F., Wang, J., Ahmed, R., and Demirci, U. 2020. Medical micro/nanorobots in precision medicine. Advanced Science, Vol. 7, No. 21. [Journal]

[46] Zha, F., Wang, T., Luo, M., & Guan, J. 2018. Tubular Micro/nanomotors: Propulsion mechanisms, fabrication techniques and applications. Micromachines, Vol. 9, No. 2., p.78. [Journal]

[47] Kyrie, V., and Broudy, D. 2022. Cyborgs R Us: The Bio-Nano Panopticon of Injected Bodies? International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research, Vol. 2, No. 2. pp.355-383. [Journal]

[48] Ma, Y., Luo, Z., Steiger, C., Traverso, G., and Adib, F. 2018. Enabling deep-tissue networking for miniature medical devices. SIGCOMM ’18: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the ACM [Association for Computing Machinery] Special Interest Group on Data Communication. August 2018, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 417–431. [Website]

[49] Kyrie, V., and Broudy, D. 2022. op. cit. [Website]

[50] Director, Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense. 1996. op. cit. [Website]

[51] Emanuel, P., et al. 2019. op. cit. [Website]

[52] Miller, S. 2018. Dual Use Science and Technology, Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction. p.2. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

[53] Galison, P. 2004. op. cit. [Journal]

[54] Akyildiz, I. F., and Jornet, J. M. 2010. The internet of nano-things. IEEE Wireless Communications, Vol. 17, No.6, pp. 58-63. [Journal]

[55] Akyildiz, I., Pierobon, M., Balasubramaniam, S., & Koucheryavy, Y. 2015. The internet of bio-nano things. IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 32–40. [Journal]

[56] Akyildiz, I.F. 2017. op. cit. [Website]

[57] Akyildiz, I. F., Ghovanloo, M., Guler, U., Ozkaya-Ahmadov, T., Sarioglu, A. F., and Unluturk, B. D. 2020. Panacea: An internet of bio-nanothings application for early detection and mitigation of infectious diseases. IEEE Access, Vol. 8, pp. 140512–140523. [Journal]

[58] Akyildiz, I. F. 2023. TeraHertz Band Communication: An Old Problem Revisited & Research Directions for the Next Decade. ARRC Seminar Series, Technology Innovation Institute, Advanced Technology Research Council (ATRC), YouTube. [Website]

[59] Monteverde, M., Femia, A., and Lafferreire, L. 2022. Microscope Vials. [Website]

[60] Delgado, M.R. 2022. Identification of Possible Micro-technology and Artificial Patterns in Pfizer Vaccine Using Optical Microscopy. [Website]

[61] Cipelli, R.B., Giovannini, F., Pisano, G. 2022. Darkfield microscopic analysis on the blood of 1,006 symptomatic persons after anti-Covid mRNA injections from Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. Vol. 2., No. 2, pp. 385-444. [Journal]

[62] Nixon, D. 2023a. Pfizer. DrDavidNixon.com. [Website]

[63] Yanowitz, S. and Taylor, M. 2022. LIVE: Uncensored: Graphene Ribbons Connecting Nanotech Inside Injections – Shimon Yanowitz & Matt Taylor. Interview with Maria Zeee, Stew Peters Network. [Website]

[64] Anonymous. 2022a. Annexure U: Vaccine investigations in Australia. Open Letter to ATAGI, TGA and Federal Health Department. Covid Medical Network.

[65] Zeee, M. 2022. Maria Zeee Uncensored: Whistleblower Scientists Confirm Nanotech & The Great Reset. Zee Media. [Website]

[66] Zeee, M. 2022. Maria Zeee Uncensored – Australian Senator Exposes Nanotech in Vaccines and Declares this is Genocide. Zee Media. [Website]

[67] Editor. 2022. Nanotech in the Shots? Masks are Dangerous. [Website]

[68] 74] Shelton, M., and Gray, S. (2022). Nanotech found in Pfizer jab by New Zealand Lab: Sue Grey Co-leader of Outdoors and Freedom Party and Dr Matt Shelton report findings to Parliament’s Health Select Committee. [Website]

[69] Mihalcea, A. EDTA Detoxification for Metals, Graphene and Hydrogel. Humanity United Now, Substack. [Website]

[70] Yanowitz, S. 2023. LIVE Uncensored: Shimon Yanowitz: Globalist Synthetic Biology to Eradicate Humans Explored. Interview with Maria Zeee, Stew Peters Network. [Website]

[71] Campra, P. 2021a. Microstructures in Covid Vaccines: Inorganic crystals or Wireless Nanosensors Network? [Website]

[72] Ghitalla, B. 2021. New Microscope Analysis of Vaccines & Effect on Blood. TimTruth.com. [Website]

[73] Karl C. 2023. Vaccine crystals formed on swabs, same lipids and/or cells, and dotted fibers. NEW VIDEOS. Man Against the Microbes. Substack. [Website]

[74] Yanowitz, S. 2022. Evidence of self-assembling structures in C19 injection vials. Team Enigma.

[75] Taylor, M. 2023a. Exclusive Horrific Images: Circuits In Covid Jab – Internet Router Causes Circuits To Self Assemble. Interview with Stew Peters, Stew Peters Network. Rumble. [Website]

[76] Campra, P. 2021b. Microscopic Objects Frequently Observed in mRNA Covid-19 Vaccines. ResearchGate. [Website]

[77] Campra, P. 2021a. op. cit. [Website]

[78]Yanowitz, S. and Taylor, M. 2022. LIVE: Uncensored: Graphene Ribbons Connecting Nanotech Inside Injections – Shimon Yanowitz & Matt Taylor. Interview with Maria Zeee, Stew Peters Network. [Website]

[79] Wakeling, R. 2022. NZ Scientist Examines Pfizer Jab Under The Microscope. Interview with Dr Mark Bailey, Dr Sam Bailey, Odyssey. [Website]

[80] Lee, Y.M., Park, S. and Jeon, K. 2022. Foreign materials in blood samples of recipients of COVID-19 vaccines. International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 249-265 [Journal]

[81] Nagase, D. 2022. Dr. Nagase Releases Bombshell New Findings From Vaccine -Microscope & Compositional Analysis. ****BitChute. [Website]

[82] Exposé. 2022. Scientists discover ‘Carbon Nanotech’ & ‘Radioactive Thulium’ in Pfizer & Moderna COVID Vaccines. The Exposé. [Website]

[83] Hagima, G. 2023. Electron Microscopy of Comirnaty, Moderna C19 Shots, Dental Anestetics & Pneumovax. Interview with Dr Anna Mihalcea, MD, PhD., Humanity United Now, Rumble. [Website]

[84] Mihalcea, A. 2023. BREAKING NEWS: New Analysis Of C19 Bioweapons: No MRNA, But Toxic Metals and Silicone. Dental Anesthetics & Pneumovax Also Contain Silicone & Metals Used For Nanotech-Interview With Dr. Geanina Hagima. Humanity United Now, Substack. [Website]

[85] Campra, P. 2021a. Detection of Graphene in Covid19 Vaccines by Micro-raman Spectroscopy. Technical report. [Website]

[86] UNIT. 2021. Qualitative Evaluation of Inclusions in Moderna, AstraZeneca and Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccines. Project CUNIT-2-112Y6580, report commissioned by EbMCsquared CiC and submitted to UK police. Global Humanitarian Crisis Prevention and Response Unit. [Website]

[87] Club of Scientists. 2021. What is Really in the C-19 Vaccines? Rights and Freedoms. [Website]

[88] Working Group for Covid Vaccine Analysis. 2022. Summary of Preliminary FIndings. [Website]

[89] Nixon, D. 2023a. op.cit. [Website]

[90] Yanowitz, S. 2022. op.cit. [Website]

[91] Taylor, M. 2023a. op.cit. [Website]

[92] Club of Scientists. 2021. op.cit. [Website]

[93] Anonymous. 2022a. op.cit.

[94] Zeee, M. 2022. op.cit.. [Website]

[95] Zeee, M. 2022. op.cit. [Website]

[96] Monteverde, M., Femia, A., and Lafferreire, L. 2022. op.cit. [Website]

[97] Nagase, D. 2022. op.cit. [Website]

[98] Exposé. 2022. op.cit. [Website]

[99] Working Group for Covid Vaccine Analysis. 2022. op.cit. [Website]

[100] Yanowitz, S. 2023. op.cit. [Website]

[101] Wakeling, R. 2022. op.cit. [Website]

[102] Delgado, M.R. 2022. op.cit. [Website]

[103] Campra, P. 2021a. op.cit. [Website]

[104] Campra, P. 2021b. op.cit. [Website]

[105] Editor. 2022. op.cit. [Website]

[106] Shelton, M., and Gray, S. (2022). op.cit. [Website]

[107] Hagima, G. 2023. op.cit. [Website]

[108] Mihalcea, A. 2023. op.cit. [Website]

[109] Club of Scientists. op. cit. [Website]

[110] Nagase, D. 2022. op. cit. [Website]

[111] Exposé. 2022. op. cit. [Website]

[112] Campra, P. 2021a. op.cit. [Website]

[113] UNIT. 2021. op.cit. [Website]

[114] Working Group for Covid Vaccine Analysis. 2022. op.cit. [Website]

[115] Hagima, G. 2023. op.cit. [Website]

[116] Mihalcea, A. 2023. op.cit. [Website]

[117] Nagase, D. 2022. op. cit. [Website]

[118] Exposé. 2022. op. cit. [Website]

[119] Club of Scientists. op. cit. [Website]

[120] Nagase, D. 2022. op. cit. [Website]

[121] Exposé. 2022. op. cit. [Website]

[122] UNIT. 2021. op.cit. [Website]

[123] Working Group for Covid Vaccine Analysis. 2022. op.cit. [Website]

[124] Hagima, G. 2023. op.cit. [Website]

[125] Mihalcea, A. 2023. op.cit. [Website]

[126] Club of Scientists. op. cit. [Website]

[127] Nagase, D. 2022. op. cit. [Website]

[128] Exposé. 2022. op. cit. [Website]

[129] UNIT. 2021. op.cit. [Website]

[130] Working Group for Covid Vaccine Analysis. 2022. op.cit. [Website]

[131] Hagima, G. 2023. op.cit. [Website]

[132] Mihalcea, A. 2023. op.cit. [Website]

[133] Club of Scientists. op. cit. [Website]

[134] Nagase, D. 2022. op. cit. [Website]

[135] Exposé. 2022. op. cit. [Website]

[136] UNIT. 2021. op.cit. [Website]

[137] Working Group for Covid Vaccine Analysis. 2022. op.cit. [Website]

[138] Hagima, G. 2023. op.cit. [Website]

[139] Mihalcea, A. 2023. op.cit. [Website]

[140] Gatti, A.M., Ristic, M., and Montanari, S. 2023. Chemical-physical investigations of nine types of nasopharyngeal swabs for the PCR analyses. MOJ Biol Med. (MedCrave Online Journal of Biology and Medicine), Vol. 8, Issue 3., pp. 133-137. [Journal]

[141] Hughes, D.A. 2024. “Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy. Palgrave Macmillan.

[142] Zhan, P., Peil, A., Jiang, Q., Wang, D., Mousavi, S., Xiong, Q., Shen, Q., Shang, Y., Ding, B., Lin, C., Ke, Y., and Liu, N. 2023. Recent advances in DNA origami-engineered nanomaterials and applications. Chemical Reviews, Vol. 123. pp. 3976−4050. [Journal]

[143] Chowdhury, A. 2020. MEMS Packaging for High Volume Products. Embedded Computing Design. [Website]

[144] MIT. 2023. Inventing Disruptive Technologies for Nanoelectronic Devices and Creating New Paradigms for Life-Machine Symbiosis. MIT Nano-Cybernetic Biotrek Research Group. [Website]

[145] Seo, J., Kim, S., Park, H. H., Choi, D. Y., & Nam, J. M. 2019. Nano-bio-computing lipid nanotablet. Science Advances, Vol. 5, No. 2. [Journal]

[146] Jarvis, M. 2022. Cell Rover: Exploring and Augmenting the Inner World of the Cell. MIT News. [Website]

[147] Zhao, M. Z., Cheng, D. B., Shang, Z. R., Wang, L., Qiao, Z. Y., Zhang, J. P., and Wang, H. 2018. An “in vivo self-assembly” strategy for constructing superstructures for biomedical applications. Chinese Journal of Polymer Science, Vol. 36, pp. 1103-1113. [Journal]

[148] Evarts, H. 2021. Tiny, Wireless, Injectable Chips Use Ultrasound to Monitor Body Processes. Columbia Engineering. [Website]

[149] Liu, M., Chao, J., Deng, S., Wang, K., Li, K., and Fan, C. 2014. Dark-field microscopy in imaging of plasmon resonant nanoparticles. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, Vol. 124, pp. 111-117. [Journal]

[150] Bramini, M., Alberini, G., Colombo, E., Chiacchiaretta, M., DiFrancesco, M. L., Maya-Vetencourt, J. F., Maragliano, L., Benfenati, F., and Cesca, F. 2018. Interfacing graphene-based materials with neural cells. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, Vol. 12, No. 12. [Journal]

[151] Kubiak, J. M., Morje, A. P., Lewis, D. J., Wilson, S. L., & Macfarlane, R. J. 2021. Dynamic manipulation of DNA-programmed crystals embedded in a polyelectrolyte hydrogel. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, Vol. 13, No. 9, pp. 11215-11223. [Journal]

[152] Zhou, H., Mayorga-Martinez, C. C., Pané, S., Zhang, L., and Pumera, M. 2021. Magnetically driven micro and nanorobots. Chemical Reviews, Vol. 121, No. 8), pp. 4999-5041. [Journal]

[153] Yanowitz, S. and Taylor, M. 2022. op. cit. [Website]

[154] Nixon, D. 2022a. Construction Video 1. DrDavidNixon.com. [Website]

[155] Taylor, M. 2023a. Op. cit. [Website]

[156] Nixon, D. 2022b. Interview with Sasha Latypova, 18m 50s. DrDavidNixon.com. [Website]

[157] AFP Canada. 2021. Covid—19 vaccines do not contain DNA-altering robots. AFP Fact Check. [Website]

[158] Boettner, B. 2022. DNA nanostructures grow up to become micron-scale megastructures. The Wyss Institute. [Website]

[159] Zhan et al., 2023. op. cit. [Website]

[160] ibid., p. 3995 [Website]

[161] Joshi, R.K., West L., Kumar, A., Joshi, N., Alwarappan, S., Kumar, A. 2010. Production of semiconducting gold-DNA nanowires by application of DC bias. Nanotechnology. Vol. 21, No. 18. [Journal]

[162] Zhan et al., 2023. op. cit. p. 3977 [Website]

[163] ibid., p. 4003 [Website]

[164] ibid., p. 3977 [Website]

[165] Nixon, D. 2022b. op. cit. [Website]

[166] Taylor, M. 2023b. Digging into Jab Discovery: Frequencies from Phones, Tablets, Laptops Assemble Circuits. The Stew Peters Network. Rumble. [Website]

[167] Tim Truth. 2021. Magnetgate 3: Loads more #magnetchallenge vids of magnets & metal sticking to people after vaccine. Bitchute. [Website]

[168] Nixon, D. 2023b. “This is a chip” – revisited. Nixonlab. Substack. [Website]

[169] Nixon, D., and Taylor, M. 2022. David & Mat Taylor – 221209, 1h 19m 53s. DrDavidNixon.com. [Website]

[170] Yanowitz, S. and Taylor, M. 2022. op. cit., 49m 47s. [Website]

[171] Boettner, B. 2022. op. cit. [Website]

[172] Joshi, R.K. et al. 2010. op. cit. [Journal]

[173] Hughes, D.A. What is in the so-called COVID-19 “vaccines”? Part 1: Evidence of a global crime against humanity. International Journal of Theory Practice and Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 457 and 462. [Journal]

[174] Akyildiz, I. et al. 2015. op. cit. [Journal]

[175] Stano, P., Gentili, P.L., Damiano, L., and Magarini, M. 2023. A Role for bottom-up synthetic cells in the Internet of Bio-Nano Things? Molecules, Vol. 28, No. 14, p.5564. [Journal]

[176] Civas, M., Kuscu, M., Cetinkaya, O., Ortlek, B. E., and Akan, O. B. 2023. Graphene and related materials for the Internet of Bio-Nano Things. APL Materials, Vol. 11, No. 8. [Journal]

[177] Sarlangue, G., Devilleger, J., Trillaud, P., Fouchet, S., Taillasson, L., and Catteau, G. 2021. Projet Bluetooth ExpérienceX. [Website]

[178] ibid.. p.46 [Website]

[179] ibid., p.46 [Website]

[180] ibid., p.19 .[Website]

[181] Doctors for Covid Ethics. 2021. COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety, p.3. [Website]

[182] Taylor, M. 2023. Bluetooth deep dive anyone? Calling all monkey wrenchers! Two Dogs. Bitchute. [Website]

[183] Fang, L. 2021. Pfizer is lobbying to thwart whistleblowers from exposing corporate fraud. The Intercept. [Website]

[184] Thacker, P. D. 2021. Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial. British Medical Journal, 375, n2635. [Website]

[185] Knightly, K. 2021. 30 Facts You NEED to Know: Your Covid Cribsheet. Off Guardian. [Website]

[186] Facher, L. 2021. The White House is Set to Unveil a Wide-Reaching, Billion-Dollar Campaign Aimed at Convincing Every American to Get Vaccinated. STAT. [Website]

[187] Rosen, A.T. 2022. The “Science” of Manipulation: Researchers Craft Messages of Guilt, Shame to Foster Vaccine Compliance. The Defender. [Website]

[188] World Bank. 2022. Heidi J. Larson: Director, the Vaccine Confidence Project. World Bank Blogs. [Website]

[189] Beeley, V. 2020. Who Controls the British Government Response to Covid-19? UK Column. [Website]

[190] Frei, R. 2021. The Modelling Paper Mafiosi. Off Guardian. [Website]

[191] Matters, R. 2021. mRNA “Vaccines”, Eugenics & the Push for Transhumanism. Off Guardian. [Website]

[192] Kennedy Jr., R.F. 2021. The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. [Website]

[193] Matters, R. 2021. op. cit. [Website]

[194] Hughes, D.A. 2022. What is in the so-called Covid-19 “vaccines”? Part 1: Evidence of a global crime against humanity. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, Vol. 2, No. 2., pp.455-586. [Journal]

[195] Yeadon, M. 2022. The variability in serious adverse events by vaccine lot is the “calibration of a killing weapon.” The Exposé. [Website]

[196] Anonymous. 2022a. op.cit.

[197] Working Group for Covid Vaccine Analysis. 2022. op.cit. [Website]

[198] Lee, Y.M., Park, S. and Jeon, K. 2022. op.cit. [Website]

[199] Nixon, D. 2022a. op.cit. [Website]

[200] Taylor, M.2022. op.cit. [Website]

[201] Yanowitz, S. 2023. op.cit. [Website]

[202] Welbergen, P. 2021. LIVE: Dr Philippe updates us on the impacts of the vaxx on red blood cells and overall health of both the vaxxed and (shed upon) unvaxxed. Loving Life TV. [Website]

[203] Ghitalla, B. 2021. op.cit. [Website]

[204] Botha, Z. 2021. Blood Doctor Reveals Horrific Findings After Examining vials. Stew Peters Show, UgeTube. [Website]

[205] Mihalcea, A. EDTA Detoxification for Metals, Graphene and Hydrogel. Humanity United Now, Substack. [Website]

[206] Sarlangue, G., et al. 2021. op. cit. [Website]

[207] Anderson, M. (2022). The MAC Phenomenon and the Intracorporeal Network of Nanocommunications: A Review. Rumble. [Website]

[208] Kyrie, V., and Broudy, D. 2022. op. cit. [Website]

[209] ibid. [Website]

[210] European Commission. Logical re-routing of cellular communication networks by DNA origami nanorobot. DNA Nano-Routers Grant agreement ID: 321772. Cordis, EU Research Results. [Website]

[211] Weinreb, G. 2015. Pfizer to collaborate on Bar-Ilan DNA robots. Globes. [Website]

[212] Bachelet, I. 2013. The emergence of nanobot society. TedMed Israel. [Website]

[213] Hazani, G. 2021. Mysterious Israeli biotech company raises $120 million Seed round five months after founding. CTech. [Website]

[214] Akyildiz, I. F. 2023. op. cit. [Website]

[215] Dr Ah Kahn Syed. 2023. 5 ways to skin a (genetically modified) cat. Arkmedic’s Blog. Substack. [Website]

[216] Santiago, D. 2022. A partial answer to the question posed by David A. Hughes, PhD, in the article: “What is in the so-called COVID-19 ‘vaccines’? Part 1: evidence of a global crime against humanity”. International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research, Vol. 2, No. 2. pp. 587-594. [Journal]

[217] Gutschi, M. 2022. Review of Quality Issues with the mRNA Injections, 11m 40s. Bitchute. [Website]

[218] McKernan, K., Helbert, Y., Kane, L.T., McLaughlin, S. 2023. Sequencing of bivalent Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines reveals nanogram to microgram quantities of expression vector dsDNA per dose. OSF Preprints. [Website]

[219] Anandamide. 2023a. Deep sequencing of the Moderna and Pfizer bivalent vaccines identifies contamination of expression vectors designed for plasmid amplification in bacteria. Nepetalactone Newsletter. Substack. [Website]

[220] Speicher, D.J., Rose, J., L. Gutschi, L.M., Wiseman, D., McKernan, K. 2023. DNA fragments detected in monovalent and bivalent Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada: Exploratory dose response relationship with serious adverse events. OSF Preprints. [Website]

[221] Anandamide. 2023b. Independent Sanger Sequencing verification of plasmid amplicons in BNT162b2. Nepetalactone Newsletter. Substack. [Website]

[222] Anandamide. 2023c. Prove it: On site reproduction with new hands and witnesses. Nepetalactone Newsletter. Substack. [Website]

[223] Anandamide. 2023d. BNT162b2 vials tested in South Carolina deliver qPCR CTs in the 18-19 range. Nepetalactone Newsletter. Substack. [Website]

[224] Horwood, M. 2023. EXCLUSIVE: Health Canada confirms undisclosed presence of DNA sequence in Pfizer Shot. The Epoch Times. [Website]

[225] Gillespie, J. 2023. The Canaries in the human DNA mine. International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research, Vol. 3., No. 1. pp. 929-956. [Journal]

[226] Sladden, J., and Gillespie, J. 2023. The vax-gene files: Have the regulators approved a Trojan horse? Brownstone Institute. [Website]

[227] Anandamide. 2023e. miR142-3p binding site variant 3: What is this doing in the Moderna vaccine? Nepetalactone Newsletter. Substack. [Website]

[228] Anandamide. 2024. More lot surveillance reveals DNA contamination variance. Nepetalactone Newsletter. Substack. [Website]

[229] Trial Site News Staff. 2023. Florida Surgeon General sends letter to FDA Commissioner: Investigate DNA fragments in mRNA vax. Trial Site News. [Website]

[230] Jeon, K.E., She, J., Soonsawad, P., and Ng, P.C. 2018. BLE beacons for Internet of Things applications: Survey, challenges and opportunities. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, Vol. A, No. B. [Journal]

[231] Nesbo, E. 2021. What is BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) and how does it work? Make Use Of. [Website]

[232] Sarlangue, G., et al. 2021. op. cit. [Website]

[233] Nesbo, E. 2021. op. cit. [Website]

[234] BeaconZone. 2023. Beacon MAC addresses. BeaconZone Blog. [Website]

[235] ibid. [Website]

[236] Silicon Laboratories. 2024. Master and slave roles. Silicon Laboratories. [Website]

[237] Marandi, S.J., Golsorkhtabaramiri, M., Hosseinzadeh, M., and Jassbi, S.J. 2022. IoT based thermal aware routing protocols in wireless body area networks: Survey: IoT based thermal aware routing in WBAN. IET Communications, Vol. 16, No. 15), pp.1753-1771. [Journal]

[238] Celik, A., and Eltawil, A. M. 2022. The internet of bodies: The human body as an efficient and secure wireless channel. IEEE Internet of Things Magazine, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.114-120. [Journal]

[239] Akyildiz, I. et al. 2015. op. cit. [Journal]

[240] ibid., pp. 32, 33, 34, 38, 39. [Journal]

[241] Coronas, K. 2024. Blood reaches new catastrophic levels of alteration. DOD Erythromer like tech in full swing. Coacervates, Proteinosomes, and more. Karl.C’s Substack. Substack. [Website]

[242] Coronas, K. and Nixon, D. 2024a. Full upload of our podcast with Michael, Dr Paul Oosterhuis, David Nixon, and Karl.C. Karl.C’s Substack. [Website]

[243] Coronas, K. and Nixon, D. 2024b. The process of altering our blood cells. See an Erythromer form in this video. ****Karl.C’s Substack. [Website]

[244] Coronas, K. 2024. op. cit. [Website]

[245] Lemic, F., Abadal, S., Stevanovic, A., Alarcón, E. and Famaey, J. 2022. Toward location-aware in-body terahertz nanonetworks with energy harvesting. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM international conference on nanoscale computing and communication, pp. 1-6. [Website]

[246] Stano, P. et al. 2023. op. cit. [Journal]

[247] Mu, W., Ji, Z., Zhou, M., Wu, J., Lin, Y., and Qiao, Y. 2021. Membrane-confined liquid-liquid phase separation toward artificial organelles. Science Advances, Vol. 7, No. 2. [Journal]

[248] Solé, R. V., Munteanu, A., Rodriguez-Caso, C. and Macía, J. 2007. Synthetic protocell biology: from reproduction to computation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 362, No. 1486, pp.1727-1739. [Journal]

[249] Booth, R., Qiao, Y., Li, M., and Mann, S. 2019. Spatial positioning and chemical coupling in coacervate‐in‐proteinosome protocells. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, Vol. 58, No. 27, p.9123. [Journal]

[250] Kim, H., Bojar, D. and Fussenegger, M. 2019. A CRISPR/Cas9-based central processing unit to program complex logic computation in human cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 116, No. 15, pp.7214-7219. [Journal]

[251] Irving, M. 2019. CRISPR used to build dual-core computers inside human cells. New Atlas. [Website]

[252] Akiyildiz, I. et al. 2015. op. cit., p.34. [Journal]

[253] Akiyildiz, I. et al. 2015. op. cit., p.32. [Journal]

[254] Joy, B., Cai, Y., Bono, D. C., and Sarkar, D. 2022. Cell Rover—a miniaturized magnetostrictive antenna for wireless operation inside living cells. Nature Communications, Vol. *13, No.*1, Article No. 5210. [Journal]

[255] Arjona, M. I., González-Manchón, C., Durán, S., Duch, M., Del Real, R. P., Kadambi, A., Agusil, J.P., Redondo-Horcajo, M., Pérez-García, L., Gómez, E., Suárez, T. and Plaza, J. A. 2021. Integrating magnetic capabilities to intracellular chips for cell trapping. Scientific Reports, Vol. 11, No. 1, Article No. 18495. [Journal]

[256] Kyrie, V., and Broudy, D. 2022. Hiding in Plain Sight: Technocratic Tyranny Behind a Medical Mask. Propaganda in Focus. [Website]

[257] Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG). 2012. The Art of Deception: Training for a New Generation of Online Covert Operations. Training slide show presented to 2021 and 2012 National Security Agency (NSA) conferences, p. 17. JTRIG, GCHQ. [Website]

[258] Knightly, K. 2022. “Pandemic Treaty” will hand WHO keys to global government. Off Guardian. [Website]

[259] Nevradakis, M. 2023. International Health Regulations Amendments Will Give WHO Unprecedented Power to Override National Sovereignty, Expert Warns. The Defender: Children’s Health Defense News & Views. [Website]

[260] Thakur, R. 2024. The WHO Wants to Rule the World. Brownstone Institute. [Website]

[261] Kheriaty, A. 2022. The WHO treaty is tied to a global digital passport and ID system. Brownstone Institute. [Website]

[262] Knightly, K. 2022. WHO moving forward on GLOBAL vaccine passport program. Off Guardian. [Website]

[263] Nass, M. 2023. Why is Everyone Concerned About the W.H.O.? Door to Freedom. [Website]

[264] Alliance for Natural Health International. 2024. Think WHO shouldn’t make decisions about your health? You must be a conspiracy theorist. The Defender: Children’s Health Defense News & Views. [Website]

[265] Nevradakis, M. 2023. op. cit. [Website]

[266] Loescher, M., Schroeder, C., and Thomas, C.W. 2000. Proteus: Insights from 2020. United States. The Copernicus Institute Press.

Source: https://propagandainfocus.com/whos-pulling-the-strings-covid-injections-and-the-internet-of-bio-nano-things-part-4-testing-new-human-nodes-of-connectivity/

Original Article: https://www.technocracy.news/transhumanism-covid-injections-and-the-internet-of-bio-nano-things-part-4/