Man is created by God and cannot be integrated with any machine. “Synthetic biology” and “transhumanism” are failed ideas.
I have a lot of subscribers and I get many good questions that I am happy to respond to, but also many bad ones. I am briefly going to explain the difference, and hope that there are enough adults here that will understand. The topic of this article is about one of the areas where I get a lot of bad questions: transhumanism, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, internet of bodies and related concepts. A bad question is not a question, it is an attempt to impose false vocabulary. Typically this starts with “you are so intelligent and we desperately need your help figuring this out! Please help!!”
I spend time and patiently explain there is no possibility of transumans and nobody is getting plugged into the internet (topic of this article), and instead of “thanks, that’s a relief from my anxiety”, or just “thanks”, I get: “you are stupid, uneducated, and a controlled opposition!” from these people. Then further hounding with endless attempts to make me read mind-numbing techno-word-salad from their favorite bloggers, attempts to pick fights and cheap cries for attention. These people immediately accuse me being all sorts of evil, and “downfall of humanity” (really? you guys are drama queens!) simply because I patiently read and answered their non-question. That’s how I know the question was not asked in good faith.
Attempts to make me look at yet another thousand microscopy pictures of various materials claiming that these are artificial organisms such as “synthetic bacteria”, or nano-robots and other absurdities will result in nothing enjoyable for those feeling entitled to waste my time. So please don’t. If you think that I am stupid, uneducated, and a controlled opposition, feel free to think that. If you want to unsubscribe from my stack, please do so. Do whatever helps you cope! I am not interfering with whatever line of research, reading or fantasy you want to pursue, and all I ask in return is a bit of common curtesy.
Now that we got this out of the way, for those of you still here…
A reader recently asked a good question about mine and Katherine Watt’s opinion on the concept of the “internet of bodies” and “transhumanism”:
Katherine’s response:
Based on my own understanding of reality and especially what I’ve come to understand about the globalists’ use of predictive (word- and image-based) psychological manipulation — using news reports, scientific publishing (including patents), table top exercises, television shows, movies, planning reports, laws, and other media to prepare people to inaccurately interpret and behaviorally respond to orchestrated events that are fictional but presented as real, I’m not that concerned about the globalists actual ability to create transhumans by melding electronic technology with biological organisms.
In general, I think that the globalists are very, very good at deceiving people and breaking things, including human bodies and souls, but they are not good at creating anything, because creation is God’s domain and is inextricably interpenetrated with truth.
So, I think the globalists are spraying, injecting and otherwise inserting a lot of garbage into cells, plants, animals and human bodies, some of which is metallic or magnetic or other elements of electronic devices. And irradiating living creatures and systems with EMF and RF and the like. But the effect is to injure and prematurely kill the living organisms, not to meld living, healthy biological organisms with electronic devices or networks.
I don’t think their goal is to create transhumans. I think their goals are to sabotage God’s creation, especially human society, and to kill a lot of human beings. Transhumanism is just one of their many cover stories to try to make people think it’s about something else, alongside climate change, deadly global pandemics of communicable disease, the empowerment of women and a few other things. They’re aborting human beings from conception to 100+ years after birth: extending Roe v. Wade and the atheist-materialist principle of non-sacredness of human life, to its logical full geopolitical expression.
It took me longer than expected to write an answer, and I will probably expand on this in future posts. In short, I completely agree with Katherine – creation and maintenance of life is God’s domain. It is not known how life springs into being, nor how it really functions, how it stays alive as opposed to artificial things which do not. Modern science, even the parts of it that have not been totally falsified, made little progress toward understanding the mystery of a living body. Ultimately, the mystery of life might not be knowable by mortal humans and this may be a “safety mechanism” built into the system by God, its creator.
Rest assured, there is absolutely no possibility of artificially making, capturing, “editing” or controlling what you don’t understand.
If you want a 1-sentence summary of this article – it is impossible to integrate (in survival- and reproduction-competitive way) a living organism and a man made object/technology.
Introduction of any non-self, artificial matter, at any scale – macro to nano – into a living body results in either nothing (safe tolerance or elimination), or toxicity (inflammation, adverse reaction, reduced reproductive potential, reduced life span, death).
If you have not read my articles on mind control, I highly recommend that you read them first:
Words are the most powerful mechanism of mind control in existence, obviating the need for any sophisticated tech. What is needed is a weakened, deluded, unaware target, programmed (by words) to respond predictably to trigger language.
Getting back to the question posed by the reader who sent us the report on the concept of Internet of Bodies:
What is the “Internet of Bodies”?
Internet of Bodies (IOB) is a theory that asserts that humans can be subjugated and controlled via “nanobots”, AI, and related concepts and technologies. It starts from a solid technical foundation but then presumes several technological miracles, including several overhyped concepts that have already failed. The part of the IOB that is based in reality covers internet communication technologies that allow for low-energy wireless data communication over short distances for medical devices. The mythological part involves the alleged injectable nanobots that will somehow plug the bodies into the working IOB in a similar manner our devices communicate over the internet.
Real Wireless Body Area Network for Real Medical Devices
As the internet has become ubiquitous through smartphones and wireless networks, there have been various industry proposals to develop small medical devices that would reside on or inside the body and communicate back to the Internet. This set of internet-enabled devices would be connected through a Wireless Body Area Network (WBAN) as defined by the Institute of Electronic Engineers (IEEE) standard 802.15.6 (IEEE, 2012) or 802.15.4 (focused on the Internet of Things). For those familiar with wireless standards, 802.11 was the original Wireless Local Area Network (WiFi) protocol for wireless communication for computers, and several subsequent standards have continued to make the technology faster and arguably more reliable.
WBAN (802.15.6) as Envisioned in 2018
These standards allow manufacturers to produce devices that are compatible with each other. For example, a laptop you purchase will easily connect to the wireless access point in your home. The 802.11.6 standard specifically envisions small monitors and devices that collect physiological information such as temperature, blood pressure, respiration measurement, heart rate, blood glucose level, and ECGs. This data can be analyzed in the cloud, and alerts can be provided to healthcare providers. Additionally, more advanced versions of these devices may administer medications such as insulin if the patient’s vitals indicate additional insulin is required. (Source)
Currently, none of these devices can be made at the nanoscale. They need to be physically attached or implanted. They need direct or wireless charging. They need to be replaced when they break or wear out. The medication reserves need to be refilled. As with any medical technology, they have risks that need to be managed. They must be thoroughly validated to ensure that the data that they provide is correct. Physiologic data is notoriously noisy, hugely variable and ALWAYS requires manual adjudication to be reliable. Normal ranges are at best approximations, especially if data is examined at individual level (not aggregated from a population), which would be necessary to presumably “control” someone with this approach.
Are Graphene Nanobots Controlling My Body?
As a side note, the terminology in this space is a whole chapter worth examining. Many proponents of transhumanism confuse materials with technology, and this is likely on purpose. I heard things like robotic-bacteria, cross domain bacteria (huh?), quantum dots (existing tech in semiconductors), sometimes graphene oxide by itself considered as a working device (it is a material), graphene nanotubes (material) and many other half-baked or misused terms. Note that use of over-complicated and confusing terminology should be a warning sign that you are dealing with magical thinking or with charlatans.
If you listen to, for example, SGT Report that the reader asked me to comment on, the vaccination has led to a graphinated population that can now be wirelessly controlled. Wireless body area network is referred to as “Manhattan project”. Maybe it should have been called “Apollo” for the Moon landing mission, as it is just as fake. On the other hand, my friend Michael Palmer has some very convincing research indicating that Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were faked with conventional weaponry and chemicals, so maybe Manhattan project is a fine name for this after all.
We’ll review the central claims and discuss the current technological limitations. The presenters are not incorrect in their expectation that evil people would attempt to do this if it were technologically possible. However, the current state of the art allows no points of control at this stage.
Claim 1: Vaccine Graphinated People to Amplify the Signal.
Injecting a simple material or a matrix into the body will lead to one of three outcomes. The material can be (a) safely eliminated, (b) safely accumulate, or (c) poison the body as it accumulates and can’t be eliminated fast enough. This is true of materials such as Vitamin D, arsenic, or graphene. There is no question injecting soups of dangerous materials called ‘vaccines’ can harm a population through a poisoning mechanism (either directly or by breaking down regular biological functions).
Is graphene toxic to the body? Depends on the formulation and structure. In formulations where it was found to be toxic (e.g. carbon nanotubes), the mechanism of injury is similar to that of asbestos (also a nanomaterial).
a systematic review of 54 laboratory animal studies indicated that they could cause adverse pulmonary effects including inflammation, granulomas, and pulmonary fibrosis, which were of similar or greater potency when compared with other known fibrogenic materials such as silica, asbestos, and ultrafine carbon black
A multiwalled carbon nanotube pierces an alveolar epithelial cell.
Notice that we are talking about nano-materials, and not any nanotechnology so far. These materials do exist, and may well be in the vials of toxic soups marketed as mRNA vaccines. As I repeat for the millionth time – everything can be there, and graphene can be there, too. This does not make the mRNA crime any more criminal than it already is.
Could inhalation of carbon nanotubes or similar aerosolized or otherwise dispersed nanomaterial cause the so-called “ground glass opacity” findings in radiological images of Covid-19 patients? Quite possible!
Insertable Cardiac Monitor from Medtronic (Item 2 is Inserted – 1/3 Size of AAA Battery) – this is a screenshot, not a video
Detailed Composition of Insertable Cardiac Monitoring Device
If the signal is electronic, you need a sufficiently sized antenna to capture the signal and transmit it to the amplifier. For example, traditional RF communication links are impossible for devices that could be injected because the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave is too large relative to the device’s size. The amplification process also needs energy that must come from an energy source. This is usually done with some form of onboard batteries. These batteries need to be either replaced or charged. As noted, at this point, this package is too large to fit into any needle. You are talking about squeezing a quarter or a penny through the needle. As a result, it is doubtful that this package will get into your body without you realizing it. There have been proposed approaches where ultrasound could be used to communicate and power small injectable devices. While this may work in the context of having a carriable ultrasound battery and communication pack for a medical device, it would not allow for secret control or access to a person not actively wearing the energy and communication module on their belt or in their pockets.
Claim 2: The Amplified Signal Can Control You.
Our first challenge was getting the technology to ‘capture and amplify the signal’ to be small enough to fit inside our bodies. This gets much more complicated when we move down the path of using the signal to control us. Let’s presume that by some miracle, we have an amplified signal that tells us to turn our head to the right by 60 degrees.
Neck motion is believed to be controlled by the lower part of the motor cortex. Is this actually true? Nobody knows, but sounds plausible enough. Never mind that for example, the heart is believed to be a pump, but it is not a pump, or at least, if it is one, then it is governed by a different set of physical laws than are currently known. Nobody knows how people think and how thoughts drive muscle movements. Not to mention that central and autonomic nervous systems act differently, and their interaction in any given movement is anyone’s guess. The signals from the motor cortex are believed to be relayed via the brain stem and cranial nerves (specifically cranial nerve XI) to activate the sternocleidomastoid and trapezius muscles. When the right sternocleidomastoid muscle contracts, it turns the head to the left, and vice versa. Therefore, to turn your head to the right, the left sternocleidomastoid muscle is activated.
Neck motion is believed to be controlled by the lower part of the motor cortex. Again, no certainty, but heck, that’s the best current guess. Additionally, the signals from the motor cortex are believed to be relayed via the brain stem and cranial nerves (specifically cranial nerve XI) to activate the sternocleidomastoid and trapezius muscles. When the right sternocleidomastoid muscle contracts, it turns the head to the left, and vice versa. Therefore, to turn your head to the right, the left sternocleidomastoid muscle is activated.
Theoretical Process for Making The Head Turn to the Right
Thus, there appear to be three places where we could insert our signal (i.e., the motor cortex, the brain stem or cranial nerves, and the muscles themselves). The approach would require us to connect our device to one of these three sets of input points and transmit the necessary activation signal. As a result, we are looking at brain surgery here or at least neck surgery with careful placement of electrodes.
Ultimately, we may have only succeeded in turning the head to the right or left after sophisticated surgical intervention and careful placement of electronics. The most advanced optogenetic research at Stanford seems to be at this stage. Specifically, a mouse with a physical implant can be made to turn right or left based on a light activation scheme in its brain.
Mouse Made to Run in Right Turns Making Circles by Implanting Wires into Its Head.
As you can see from the cruel and stupid experiment with that poor mouse above, if you are worried that someone is going to control you via the Internet of Bodies by sprinkling you with graphene and nanobots, you don’t have to be as long as you stay away from anyone trying to implant wires into your head.
Another variant of the transhumanism narrative is postulating some sort of novel synthetically made but “alive” species based on graphene and other nanomaterials. The proponents of this idea point at microscopy images (typically optical microscopy, which is micro – not nano-) and make wild generalizations to the entire world population. Something about “they poisoned all of humanity!!!” etc. Another frequent narrative is pointing at images of toxic effects (cancer, various severe skin conditions) and declare that this is a result of new synthetic nano-bacteria. There are many versions of this story, and I am not interested enough in this to address all existing scenarios.
I hope this article provided a bit of a relief for anxieties induced by the proponents of transhumanism cult. You should be more concerned about the scaremongering which is ubiquitous on all sides. The WEF crowd seems sincere in believing that they can “hack the software of life” (whatever that means) and will soon create transhumans and grow babies artificially and much other nonsense. Unfortunately, they have oodles of money and power so they can cause real damage by acting on their beliefs. The “resistance” side (loosely defined and IMO greatly infiltrated both by intel agents and by garden variety opportunists) spins endless sci-fi blog genre based on the same nonsense concepts that the WEFers peddle. Neither side has been caught in objectively demonstrating any such technology. What I have seen declared as “proof” so far is examination of different materials under microscope + patents and science papers (a sci-fi genre in itself) + a bunch of “imagine if” boxes on the hypothetical flowchart, decorated liberally with technical-sounding nonsense.
The theories of transhumanism, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, internet of bodies and related topics all suffer from common fatal hubris – they assume that living beings are akin characters in Minecraft. Made of Lego blocks. If one can make the “right” blocks, one can mix and match, replace and edit, plug the missing pieces and operate the entire game. Here is, for example, Stephen Hodge of Moderna (quote from 2018):
“Why are we so passionate about messenger RNA?” Moderna President Stephen Hoge asked the attentive audience. “It starts with the question of life,” he explained. “And in fact, all life that we know flows through messenger RNA. … In our language, mRNA is the software of life.”
The narratives used by both the “nanotechnology” crowd and the mRNA mafia are very similar. They are designed to make you fear and submit to the wannabe technocratic overlords by doubting your own divine origin, to make you believe that there is an equally powerful, or even superior source of creation of living organisms such as “synthetic biology” (science marketing term coined in 1980’s) or, newer more exciting “nanotechnology”. Let’s recall that very recently most of us thought virology and vaccinology were real scientific disciplines, but they turned out to be a hoax and a systematic poisoning exercise.
Please realize that the crowd pushing transhumanism as either a desirable future or a real threat have nothing to back up those words, except things that are or may be poisonous to humans. It is common sense to avoid those things. Once you fall for their words, however, there is no need for any technology, as you will act in predictable manner on their command (trigger words like “nanotechnology” or “cross-domain bacteria”, etc). Notice the people who call me “evil, downfall of humanity” because I didn’t answer their question the way they wanted have already been programmed for this reaction! There is no space between the trigger word and response. No nuanced dialogue is possible.
If you still have not read the Mind Control articles linked at the beginning of this post, please read them now. The most important skill of personal freedom I can advise you to develop – guard your language, your own words and your own thoughts. Do not accept someone else’s vocabulary until you examined and tested it yourself. Be very selective.
Don’t take my word for it either.
Art for today: I have a bridge to sell you – Ponte Vecchio, oil on panel, 6x12in.
Submitted by Mary Christine
Guest Post by Sasha Latypova