Part 6: Rise of the Cybernetic Wizard ~ Bio-Nanorobots to the Rescue?

“We’ll have nanobots that . . . connect our neocortex to a synthetic neocortex in the cloud . . . Our thinking will be a . . . biological and non-biological hybrid.”

~ Ray Kurzweil, TED 2014

Part 6 of the Series, “Of Monkeys, Mice and Men: From Natural Bodies to Digitized Bots”

Influenza and Zika and COVID, oh my! 

Not to worry . . . the pandemic panopticon-obsessed problem-reaction solutionaries are here to save us! So they say . . . 

In November 2020, I had an “aha” moment, when reading Hacking Matter: Levitating Chairs, Quantum Mirages, and the Infinite Weirdness of Programmable Atoms. The author, Wil McCarthy, who holds a patent in the sector of quantum dot technology, asserted, “At the nanoscale, where we find very tiny, very simple objects . . . the behavior of particles is governed by quantum mechanics . . . your ‘gut feel’ about how a particle should behave is virtually useless for predicting what it will actually do. This is because on the nanoscale, what we call ‘particles’ are really ‘probability waves’ . . . Probability waves can do ‘impossible’ things like leaping across an impenetrable barrier, or existing in many places at the same time, or apparently predicting the future, or being influenced by distant events much faster than the speed of light should allow.” McCarthy continued, “Objects much smaller than a micron in size start to behave in some very non-Newtonian ways . . .” 

Essentially, at the nanoscale, quantum effects begin to dominate the behavior of matter. Let’s just say it gets more spooky.  

I have a sense that when top scientists discovered the bio-nano realm with their atomic force microscopes, they saw a land of opportunity for profit (i.e., in the field of bio-nanomedicine), but I also think they saw a land of plenty — intriguing depths of additional space with which to harness control. The nano space, similar to secret societies, has been highly occulted, as unsuspecting human beings are not equipped with atomic force microscopes with which to peer into our bodies, and the bodies of neighboring plants and animals. There is an entire world inside all of us much smaller than the micro level. When heading way down to the bottom of life’s existence, life has a meaning and function that literally disobeys the laws of gravity.

When we refer to “viruses” (or exosomes, or extracellular vesicles), we are delving into the realm of nanoparticles. These nanoparticles can be biological or synthetic, or possibly a hybrid of the two. It may be extremely challenging for us to gain an in-depth comprehension of the composition and function of an entity that not only may be considered non-living in a biological sense, but is much smaller than what scientists consider the microscopic realm of life. To get a sense of the size of nanoparticles — which can range in size from 1 nm to 100 nm — the thickness of a typical piece of paper is 100,000 nm. For further context, it is reported that an “Influenza virus” ranges in size from 80-120 nm, a “Zika virus” is 45 nm, and a “SARS-CoV-2 virus” ranges from 50 nm to 120 nm. As the size of a nanoparticle decreases in “nm,” it begins to approach the atomic scale. At the nanoscale, particles can confine their electrons, thereby enabling them to exhibit unexpected optical, physical and chemical capabilities, as well as producing quantum effects.  

To facilitate our understanding of the nanoscale in relation to our physical bodies, it is helpful to listen to a few scientists central to the domains of nanomedicine and nanoengineering. Omid Farokhzad, Peter Hoffmann, and Metin Sitti got together at the World Science Festival in May 2013 to discuss the current nano-revolution, professing that nanobots can fix mutations in DNA or repair neurons in the brain.  

At the 10:38 time-stamp (refer to World Science Festival hyperlink above) is a short clip (can also be viewed here) of the inside of a cell — on the nanoscale. It depicts the nano-level ribosomes as natural nanorobots. In fact, Peter Hoffmann describes RNA and DNA as “machines.” The video clip shows “cell garbage” (see the sac with spikes on it). While not described as a virus, or an exosome, it certainly looks like one (given that a spikey ball image has been implanted in our consciousness over the past year). It also shows proteins being made inside our cells. In response to watching this depiction of natural nanomachines, the host of the 2013 World Science Festival, states it appears to him that the biological nanorobots “had to be designed.” I tend to agree. Nature’s handiwork is brilliant!

Beginning at the 45:50 time-stamp (referring once again to the World Science Festival hyperlink above), Hoffmann outlines the traits of nanoparticles, explaining that they are controlled by electrical forces, and asserts that “gravity does not play any role at the nanoscale.” One needs an atomic force microscope to see the activity, and he displays a real image of the motion of a protein, which he calls a “walking robot.”

There are astute researchers who have invested crucial efforts in laying out the potential implications of embedded artificial nanobots — particularly in light of pandemic scenarios. I encourage you to take 45 minutes of your time to listen to Wayne McRoy, author of Cybernetic Messiah: Building the Antichrist System, in his July 2020 analysis, as he unpacks a 2008 scientific report in Sensors titled, “Nanorobot Hardware Architecture for Medical Defense.”

Here are several brief excerpts from the report as read by McRoy (emphasis added):

“. . . particularly interesting is the fact that medical nanorobots should also provide an effective tool for defense against biohazard contaminants . . .”

“This paper presents the use of nanorobots with embedded protein-based nanobiosensors providing a practical molecular machine for medical defense technology.” 

“The proposed hardware architecture aims the use of medical nanorobots as an integrated platform to control contagious epidemic diseases.”

“Details on communication required for surveillance assistance and the integration platform to interface long distance monitoring with nanorobots are also given through the paper . . .”

“Furthermore, an important and interesting aspect in the proposed architecture is the fact that the same technique can be useful for other situations, like natural catastrophes or possible biohazard contamination, helping against pandemic outbreaks . . . when time and fast information is a key factor for public management . . .”

“. . . the nanorobots are applied to detect influenza inside body based on blood flow patterns and protein signals . . .”

As McRoy explains, the plan seems to be to get everyone enamored with their hand-held electronic devices, and to use pandemic (and bio-weapon) narratives as an excuse to embed this nanobot technology for ubiquitous medical surveillance. He emphasizes that this bio-nanobot platform is militarized (as indicated in the 2008 Sensors paper) and has dual-use capabilities, and thus, can be weaponized (see here). Further, it is next-level contact tracing, as the physical being can be traced in real-time with embedded bio-nanosensors, in tandem with cellular phones, satellites, and artificial intelligence (also indicated in the 2008 report). Lastly, the nanoscale bioelectronic interface can be bi-directional, thereby transmitting data back and forth wirelessly between the physical body and an external transceiver, similar to the application of “neural dust” (see this 2016 DARPA-funded study and this 2013 study). 

Moving forward in the post-pandemic world, it would behoove us to become familiar with the spell-casting lingo of the bio-nano sorcerers, because, unfortunately, they have more fairy godmother dust waiting in the wings.

Do you see the writing of “0s” and “1s” on the enchanted wall? 

We are not in Kansas anymore. What if the Wizard behind the curtain is a cybernetic being with a savior complex wishing to seed its cybernetic progeny? If this were the case, this narcissistic, manipulative entity may desire the human population to literally be on its wavelength, thereby operating as a mass consciousness from the cloud. In this insidious manner, it could ultimately aim to merge the biological realm with the digital realm. While this may sound outlandish to some, well-known futurist, Ray Kurzweil, openly admitted that the current application of cybernetics in the brains of Parkinson’s patients is the way to get its foot in the door.According to Kurzweil, within the next ten years, nanobots will be flowing through our arteries to “keep us healthy and transmit our brains onto the cloud.” If readers remain skeptical of the roll-out of nanobots in the imminent future, this 5-minute video depicts several recent innovations involving the application of nanobots in regenerative medicine. 

It may be beneficial to expand our awareness within the context of emerging bio-nanotechnology, so that we can make informed decisions with respect to what we put in (and on) our bodies — with a clear acknowledgment that bio-nanobots have dual-use applications, and potential associated dangers, including uncontrollable self-replication, toxicity in the body, environmental pollution, and biohacking. 

Are bio-nanorobots (also known as nanomedibots) truly here to rescue us, or is that a cover story for covert purposes? Will they be applied ostensibly to save us from scary viruses? Are we convinced that viruses exist? If they do exist, are we sure they are harmful, and the proven cause of any dis-ease? What if the nanoscale entities referred to as “viruses” (whether or not they fall into the category of exosomes) are inherently adaptive “bio-nanobots” in living organisms? If that is the case, then we are headed into very dangerous territory by deleting these natural nanoscale substances from our biological composition and existence — in exchange for automated synthetic nanobots that may have swarm capabilities with interface directives from AI in the cloud.

Why are the new injections that are being rolled out to the masses (termed as “vaccines”) embedded with nanotechnology? Incidentally, a U.S. Army Research-funded 2015 research study indicated that nanoparticle substrates such as polyethylene glycol (PEG) — a central excipient in both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna “vaccines” — serve as ideal scaffolding for the application of biosensors. Is this integrated bio-nanotechnology only acting on our physical bodies? After reading Biohacking Matter, and listening to the bio-nano tinkerers at the World Science Festival, coupled with an enhanced understanding from investigative researcher, Wayne McRoy, I can only suspect that the technology may be intended to influence more than the physical realm. What are the implications with respect to our energy and informational fields? How can individuals counteract any deleterious effects? I have some thoughts on this, yet I hesitate to offer a generalized “recipe” as a “cure-all.” I intuit that the route to neutralizing inserted engineered nanotechnology is a highly personalized journey. 

I want to be clear — my message is NOT one of fear, nor learned helplessness, particularly if the terror-inducing warning is based on misguided germ theory (for an alternative elucidation of germ theory, listen here). Deaths may result from these new injected chemical concoctions, but I do NOT purport that these injectables (nor “COVID”) are a tool of mass depopulation. I would need to see much more evidence before coming to that conclusion. However, could nanotech-laden pharmaceuticals be intended to dehumanize us? Can this bio-nanotechnology detach us from our spiritual selves, and reduce us to digital slaves (potentially even remote-controlled) on a blockchain ledger? Regardless, with concerted effort, I genuinely believe we can mitigate the harmful effects of embedded bio-nanotechnology — whether injected, ingested, inhaled, or absorbed — if we are not successful in avoiding any such implantation beforehand

Some final thoughts . . . Most important to understand is that bio-nanointerfaces intended for vaccine and drug delivery integrate “smart” piezoelectric materials and microfluidics, seemingly allowing for the enhanced binding of biosensors, as well as enabling highly functional bio-computation. Consequences of this synergistic effect may involve the creation of a homogenous ecosystem in which the implanted biosensors in my body will signal as piezoelectric transducers to biosensors in your body, to create a hive mind. This may evoke in the minds of readers the process akin to the way self-driving cars communicate via the Internet of Things. I can’t help but think of a brief, yet profound assertion by David Rasnick, Ph.D., when collaborating on the panel discussion of experts, “The Covid Vaccine on Trial: If You Only Knew” (transcript provided), hosted on February 10, 2021 by Children’s Health Defense (CHD). Rasnick stated, “Nowadays, it’s all technology and no biology.”

Do the priests of scientism, and their money-changers, bow to an AI singularity god? Do they consider this bio-digital merger a done deal? If so, I say . . . not so fast! We do not have to follow their spiraling yellow brick road — teeming with nano-sized “munchkins.” I suspect they have greatly underestimated the power of Spirit and the Heart that enlivens the awakened souls among us. Some of us are not fully asleep in Dorothy’s illusory Land of Oz. Biological life will prevail. 

References for Further Reading and Listening:

What is nanotechnology and why is it important?Nanowerk

Nanotechnology Timeline” United States National Nanotechnology Initiative

There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom — Richard Feynman and the Birth of Nanotechnology” December 29, 2019 by Harald Sack, SciHi Blog

“Exosomes: Nanoparticles Full of Surprises” January 31, 2020, by Dr. Ian Dixon

These tiny robots can kill cancer cells” World Economic Forum, September 14, 2017

Nanobots — A Revolution in medical science.”Knowledge-Snack, August 23, 2016

These injectable nanobots can walk around inside a human bodySlash Gear, March 8, 2019

Mind-Controlled nanobots could release drugs inside your brainNew Scientist, August 25, 2016

Human Brain/Cloud Interface” (RE: “neuralnanorobotics”) Frontiers in Neuroscience, March 2019

Nanobots in medicine: the key to fighting chronic diseases with nanomedicineHealth Europa, November 5, 2018

The significance of bioengineered nanoplatforms against SARS-CoV-2: From detection to genome editingLife Sci, March 4, 2021 “Nanobots along with the wireless transmitters provide the possibility of modifying the treatment protocol [240,243]. Besides detecting or destroying toxic agents, stimuli-responsive nanorobots can be used against a variety of disorders including the viral infections [244].”

“Nanotechnology: Hacking Humans, Its Potential, and Real Risks” (see video above which is less than 5 minutes; please pay particular attention from the 2:33 to 2:38 time-stamps)

52 thoughts on “Part 6: Rise of the Cybernetic Wizard ~ Bio-Nanorobots to the Rescue?

  1. Lots to process, but my first-reading takeaway focuses on your suspicion that the people behind this technology underestimate the power of spirit and heart.

    While reading your article, I was stuck on the same point I get stuck on when I read futurists talk about the Singularity: Consciousness is so much more vast than the contents of our brains. The way the technocrats describe it, thoughts could be uploaded and read like interactive documents or something… but the truth is, very little of our thinking is language-based. Emotion… unconscious memories and fragmented images that we ourselves may not consciously understand, and that no one else could possibly interpret… sensory input from our environment… not to mention spiritual influences, and the chemical interactions that take place when life forms occupy the same space… One minute of consciousness contains an incomprehensibly large amount of data that would need to be sorted, collated, organized, quantified in ways that we ourselves never do.

    The surveillance fascists have no hope of pulling this off unless our thoughts, emotions, interactions with others and the environment, are controlled and predictable and repetitive. I can see how, over time, a data program could read a combination of chemical interactions associated with thought and emotion and sensory input IF the person had already been programmed to have pretty much the same baseline thoughts and emotions to various forms of stimuli. For this program to work, we must do more than consent to have our bodies violated, our environments monitored, and our use of personal technology mandated. We must repetitively think and react in predictable ways. These tools, it seems to me, can only build upon and advance mind control that we have already submitted to.

    People who seek out new experiences, or open themselves to thinking and feeling in unconventional and unpredictable ways, must be stigmatized. If their consciousness can’t be reduced to 1s and 0s, they must be diagnosed as mentally ill.

    But it’s not just the conformists whose thoughts and reactions are easy to predict, read and quantify. Those of us (myself included) who have the same repetitive negative reactions to the world around us are exactly as easy to predict, read and control as the “sheep” we hold in contempt.

    Heart and spirit—and openness to originality—may be the only weapons we have.

    Like

      1. Kroger, I read the blog post and am obviously sympathetic with its overall point.

        The post suggests that submitting to Covid tyranny is feminine, while standing up to it is masculine. I’m not sure I agree with that. But I’m pretty sure it matter as long as you stand up to it, regardless of your gender or your ideas about your gender.

        To me, the “woke” concept subverts, mocks, trivializes and discredits ALL viewpoints that deviate from the social-media-sanctified norm, including viewpoints on gender. Men are pigs unless they’re woke enough to see that men are pigs but even then they’re still pigs because men are pigs. I certainly agree with the author’s criticism of THAT nonsense.

        Like

    1. SCOTTRC – I hear everything you are saying. I will sleep on it, and see if I can offer any additional insights. In general, I agree with you. I would say, to clarify a bit . . . I think the hidden hand knows very well how the Spirit and Heart operate, and how to harness this from the masses – most often as “loosh” (which can be fear porn, or its antithesis, “love porn” – yes, it’s a thing). And I agree that the sheeple have no idea what their inherent power could entail if directed properly and to its full potential. I don’t think any of us really know what this would look like. It’s been hidden from us. However, I think what “they” have underestimated are not these capabilities, but rather, the true numbers of people still available who can exhibit that potential. In other words, I think they thought more people would succumb to the new injections. That is key to their future control grid, as they need to get substances into the bloodstream (more accurately, the cells, as the injections do not go directly into veins) of bodies that are bar-coded/QR-coded and can be tracked and traced for future R&D projects. This was their ideal opportunity to launch this technology platform en masse that can be built upon and upgraded as more plans come online. I also think the weakness/vulnerability of the predator class is their hubris, coupled with their complacency, as they have come to rely completely on their supercomputers and “remote viewers” to inform their decisions (which are still flawed, even if considered more “intelligent” than “normal” humans). That’s my take for now. 🙂

      Like

  2. Excellent, Stephers. Seems that the scientists and technologists continue to overweight the inquiry of the material (matter) while paying little or no attention to the immaterial (psyche, spirit, soul). They may be able to see smaller and smaller particles, but never seem to see, or acknowledge, the existence of the unconscious mind or its awesome powers. “Unimportant,” “irrelevant,” and relatively understudied and underappreciated in technocratic circles. Extreme bias (imbalance) like this seems to lead us in one direction; further and further down the wrong path and closer and closer to mass suicide. Undiagnosed mass psychosis and/or extreme denial.
    Im·ma·te·ri·al
    adjective
    1. unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant.
    “so long as the band kept the beat, what they played was immaterial”
    2. philosophy
    spiritual, rather than physical.
    “we have immaterial souls”

    It seems this latest escapade into experimental one-size-fits-all social engineering is yet another example of how a narrowly-focused pattern of (mis)belief in presuppositions, added to a case of extreme hubris and extroversion, is more of an Achilles’ heel in “the West,” than it is a benefit to nature or man. There are a very few exceptions, almost exclusively positioned at the tippy-top of the ruling class. Way too much science and technology (STEM?) and too little music, art, philosophy and other creative pursuits will surely bite someone in the ass. Maybe its time to start flushing those 5G “smartphones” down the toilet.

    Thanks for another thought-provoking journey into the unknown.

    Like

    1. Steve, I’m not convinced “they” are neglecting the importance or power of the psyche, the spirit, the soul. None of their planned tweaks to our physiology will work unless we’re cut off from our our souls, our intuition, our collective consciousness, our higher selves. It seems to me that masking, social distancing, and self-imposed isolation–along with the brain-damaging consumption of 24/7 agitprop–guide us to that separation. If they were truly underestimating spiritual forces, why would they bother with all this prep work? Most of us already dumbed down enough to believe, at least superficially, whatever loony messages they put on our screens. Why not just put this technology in our food, or deliver it to us in other sneaky ways without our knowledge?

      I don’t think the PTB underestimate the power and importance of spirit, but most of US do, and so we willingly undergo rituals that separate us from it.

      Like

  3. At the “nano” level, us humans defy “law of gravity”?

    Then perhaps there is no ” law” of “gravity” at all.

    Have can there be a law of gravity if gravity is not defined?

    I can tell someone The Law Of The Boogaloos…but I have only given indefinite ” definition” of what a Boogaloo is.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Rastus – Good one, Ponton. I have certainly questioned the concept of gravity; however, I imagine there are others here who can address the issue of “gravity” better than I can. Not in my wheelhouse.

      Like

  4. SCOTTRC,
    Good point(s). I guess I’m still thinking that at some point, in the depths of darkness and confusion that instinct kicks in and we begin the return to the wholeness and balance that is our “inner self.” Maybe it’s just too much work in this time of relative convenience ($1,400 checks, etc.) and false security and comfort. But what if the rituals fail to deliver “happiness” and basic human needs?

    I remain faithful to the belief that nature can never lose in the end. Perhaps humans end up with a spot on the endangered species list and “wink out.” Not changing my bet, but agree with you that we’re pretty much cut off from ourselves right now. I keep thinking, knowing from where I have come, and all the stupid things I have done; “if I can do it, anyone can.” Healing, a work in progress, I realize, but never going back, never, voluntarily.

    Like

    1. “Healing, a work in progress, I realize, but never going back, never, voluntarily.”

      Kindred Spirits…agreed! 🙂

      I’ve been sleeping so soundly recently it seems I don’t even move throughout the night. Pure stillness and peace. I consider it a gift and I hope it persists.

      Like

    2. STEVE,

      I keep thinking, knowing from where I have come, and all the stupid things I have done; “if I can do it, anyone can.”

      I have a similar attitude, but I question it all the time. I don’t know your story, but I sometimes think my ability to see through all this nonsense comes from having made such a life-long mess of existing in this society and culture. I’ve never been all that invested in it.

      The rituals may not deliver real “happiness” (whatever that means), but they provide plenty of means by which we can achieve superficial pleasures, or at the very least numb ourselves from our relentless unhappiness. The theory may be that if we’re raised from birth to think this is the best we can hope for, we’ll be content with it. It hasn’t worked on you, or me, or others who visit this site, but it seems to be going over pretty well with the majority of humanity. How long can it last? I think our guess is probably as good as the elites’.

      Like

      1. I’ve settled on acceptance of a sort of 50/50, random balance of “happiness” (light) and “misery” (dark) as roughly the way it works. Tiny boat on a whole lot of water; life can be calm as glass or it can sink your ass if the chop gets to be too much — just along for “the ride.” The ride is good.

        Like

  5. Stephers, I cannot begin to follow all your links or watch the videos. I like to jump ahead to the outcome. It is apparent that the now year-long agitprop campaign was designed to put us in a state of fear and mental fatigue where the vaccine would operate as pressure relief, an escape hatch.

    What is its objective? How does it affect us? You say there is no mass murder in store, and we are already dumbed down. What? What?

    Like

    1. MT – I think the objective was, as you said, to instill fear (to the nth degree), and offer the injection as the almighty savior. Most of the people in our sphere (family, friends, and neighbors) have all had one of the three injections. I’d say we know about 75 people thus far who have succumbed – half out of fear, the other half to re-gain freedom to travel (primarily to “skip” quarantine regulations for now). The ones who want to resume travel found ways to jump to the front of the line. Only a few have had to deal with a day or two of flu-like symptoms that were heavy-duty, but fleeting. They forgot about it after a few days. My friend who operates 12 nursing homes said 99 percent of the residents got the injection. Only 1 percent refused (mostly using religious reasons). She and 75 percent of her staff got the injection. She offered “incentives” ($100 restaurant gift cards) to those who were hesitant to get them. Most obliged. She reports that all residents and staff are faring exceedingly well with the injections. I know that, in the past, vaccines have resulted in severe long-term effects (no deaths that I know of personally) in people that I have known over the years. I have helped many of them to detox from the poisons. Some friends of ours with children with autism (those who acknowledged that the vaccines contributed to the autism) have been successful in detoxing to a point where their children have been able to progress fairly normally in life. But most friends and acquaintances have not fared as well. With all that said, I don’t see evidence that mass deaths (at least in the short-term) are resulting from these injections, which leads me to believe something else is afoot. When delving into the ingredients in each one, and seeing that the common denominator in each is some form of nanotechnology, and that most of these injections no longer have the heavy metal adjuvants (like mercury and aluminum, as they had in the past vaccines), I have had to conclude that the embedded nanotech is the goal.

      Like

      1. Try asking the Five Why’s:

        Each level, if fully answered, provides greater understanding.

        Think of it as a series of 5 black boxes where output of one becomes input to next in series.

        High level…down to finer and finer detail.

        Substitute “Root Cause” (used for failure analysis) with “Objective”.

        Begin: Create Covid-19.
        Why? To create fear.
        Why create fear? To vaccinate mindless sheeple…
        Why do they want to vaccinate MS?

        Let’s all try and fill in the blanks
        – to kill and maim?? If not, what other purpose?

        IF to kill and maim is correct, Why?
        Because they hate us and want this realm to themselves? Why? Because they view spiritually clean descent people as vermin?

        This is where open discussion occurs…

        Like

      2. Nursing Home slop as an “incentive” for the elderly.

        This is absolute “bottom of the barrel”… Absolute disgusting!

        Like

        1. Rastus (and MT):

          I read this today at the website, “The Big Virus Hoax”:
          https://thebigvirushoax.com/vaccines

          “Vaccines are painful, poisonous, unhealthy, harmful, dangerous, deadly, immoral and ungodly. They are also unnecessary – not needed. The false and misleading concepts of “viruses” and “viral contagion” are the basis for vaccines. If people think “viruses” exist they are vulnerable to manipulation and control through ignorance and fear. They are easily tricked and scared (manipulated) into accepting and receiving vaccinations. The END GAME is for people to not only consent to receiving a vaccine, but to ask for it out of fear of catching a “virus” that does NOT even exist. That is the ONLY way they will be able to inject nanotech microchips into every person on earth so they can use high frequency 5G radiation to tag, track, keep tabs of and score each and every person – their human herd of cattle. Perhaps they will even send signals that will make people ill or kill them. That makes this THE ONLY ISSUE WE SHOULD ALL BE CONCERNED ABOUT. Everything else is a diversion and distraction.”

          Like

          1. Finally circling around and bringing 5G into it.

            Two things I know: The history of vaccines is littered with failures, far more than any successes, and yet it does not matter. The are full speed ahead with vaxxing as if nothing was wrong. They are oblivious, brainwashed, or evil. Three categories not necessary mutually exclusive.

            The 2020 agitprop campaign was so well planned out and so long in advance that the endgame, vaxxing and nanos and all of that, is meant to be deadly serious. I wonder if any of us can escape? Will we have to wave our vaxxing credentials via cell phone to buy groceries? Of course it is all experimental, of course it could be very dangerous to our health and well being, and of course it violates the Nuremberg Accords. Not that they give a rat’s ass.

            Liked by 1 person

      3. Stephers,

        I have had to conclude that the embedded nanotech is the goal

        This is only Level 3! The next question is: Why embedded nanotech in everybody?

        We still have 2 more levels to go before reaching final objective!

        Think of it as the pesky brat who keeps asking Why?

        Like

        1. Rastus – I play this level-up/level-down “Why” game with my youngest daughter all the time. She continually challenges me just as you have presented here (and no, I do not consider her a pesky brat, as I LOVE the questioning). If Level 3 is embedding nanotech (which was as far as I got last night, because I was literally falling asleep at my laptop), then Level 4 is . . . embedded bio-nanotech and biosensors to build the Internet of Bio-NanoThings (IoBNT). That is my short answer to Level 4, as it is the topic of my next installment in which I will elaborate more. For now, I would say Level 4 is to prepare/install via bioengineering (ideally via injectables, but also pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, foods, etc) a “smart” bio-platform (down to the nanoscale, which is the “bottom” of existence, from “their” perspective) in human bodies to create a “smart” network in the cells, organs, microbiome, etc (including all of its debris, which they like to call viruses) of the body to detect and control it, analogous to “smart cities.” It’s the same model. In my opinion, and from personally playing the “Why” game, getting from Level 4 to Level 5 may require more speculation, as less evidence seems to surface as one goes up the levels (due to inherent occultism). So it’s generally a big jump, for me, to get from Level 4 to Level 5. My guesstimate at this juncture is that all of the “smart” infrastructure being laid down via bioengineering (and its twin, geoengineering) is to create cybernetic life, where biological life is permitted and desired to continue, as long as its connected to an AI-directed cloud — not necessarily “living” in the cloud, but can be bi-directionally interfacing with it. Ultimately, from what I have read in one of their patents, they NEED human bodies to energetically sustain their planned digital infrastructure. In the one case I am considering – digital currency – the patent discusses harvesting radiation emitted from human bodies (via wireless biosensors) to generate the power needed to sustain the digital currency mining operation. I will leave it there for now, but I can elaborate more if you hone in with more questions. Again, some of this is my speculation based on reading primary material (including studies and patents). That said, I think the elephant in the room is nanotechnology, and its got pink and purple polka-dots, which are biosensors and nanorobots, respectively.

          Like

      4. If embedded nanotech is the goal, what effect will it have?

        The deaths I’ve read about at VAERS affect all ages, but mostly the aged, average age 77. They have acknowledged 1,609 at this point, and since the VAERS program is voluntary and little known, I have to assume many more are unreported. Nursing homes are the places where we go to die anyway, so deaths resultant from vaxxing are probably routinely ignored. I know that CDC, WHO, the White House and Congress lie, lie, and then lie some more, so that VAERS might serve some propaganda purpose, but at this point I have to take it at face, the means by which PhRMA was relieved of liability for their poisons.

        Like

        1. MT – I have thought about this question, especially in relation to its effect on older people. It seems to me, that the younger generation may just be better “primed” to accept this nanotech in their bodies. I think the “priming” has been occurring over the past couple decades in various ways. I don’t think it has much to do with “immune” systems though. I tend to agree with Cowan that the concept of an immune system may be a myth, and not what we have been taught. But that does not mean that all “younger” bodies will be able to withstand the tech in their bodies. In my instance, I am middle-aged, but I have always had severe issues, reacting to chemicals in and around me, as well as EMFs. I am highly sensitive. I can only assume I would react poorly to embedded nanotech, based on this previous experience. Others could fare quite well (at least, on the surface, and in the short-term). As callous and heinous as this sounds, I think the controllers (heading in the direction of cybernetic control of life) could care less if they have collateral damage along the way – particularly seniors in nursing homes who are a “burden” on the system. Just listen to Zeke Emanuel in his online discussions, and what he thinks of aging. I think they know most children and young adults will do fairly well with this implanted tech, and may even further adapt to it – perhaps passing down the adaptation to their progeny.

          Like

          1. STEPHERS:
            “I think they know most children and young adults will do fairly well with this implanted tech, and may even further adapt to it – perhaps passing down the adaptation to their progeny.”
            I just saw on the local news this morning that a Pfizer/Biontech ‘vaccine’ trial (4000 pregnant women) has begun, and that they’re ‘looking to see if immunity is passed from mother to newborn’. After reading your post last night, then seeing the ‘vaccine’ trial info this morning, my first thought was that they’re looking to see if either: a) the nanotechnology passes intact to the newborn, or b) the mRNA has indeed modified the DNA. Perhaps both a and b? (Since there is no ‘CoVID virus’, thus no need for a ‘vaccine’ to prevent a hoax, what are they really looking for?)

            Even if a or b do not happen, at this point I’m inclined to believe that the trial will result in poor transmission of immunity, necessitating continuing vaccination, beginning at 6 months of age. Can’t have too many biosensors! I believe that fits in with Alison McDowell’s research on Human Capital Investment, Social Impact Bonds, etc.

            Looking forward to the next installment!

            Like

        2. MT – In an attempt to be more specific about the effect of embedded nanotech, I can only suspect that there may be new (meaning novel) illnesses/disorders that could arise – just as autism did following heavy-metal laden vaccine uptake in infants/toddlers. I just don’t know what this effect will look like moving forward.

          Like

      5. These are the important questions for which there are no clear answers – except nothing makes sense around what’s reported to be happening.

        The over-reporting of the rare adverse reactions is suspicious in the first instance. But several personal contacts’ mild reactions suggest it’s not saline in the syringe, although the control grid/covid pass could easily be operated with frequent injections of saline.

        Why the big sell for the young and healthy for an alleged ‘virus’ which has a median age in the early 80s for those who have ‘covid-19 slapped on their already crowded death certificates? Or even for children! Or babies!!

        Why the big sell for people already very sick and old? As seen with the health shutdowns in 2020, prolonging the lives of the latter group is quite the opposite of what’s desired by these crooks. Conversely, do the controllers really want millions of people ‘dropping dead’ in short time? I doubt it, although the coming surge of sick and pensionable baby boomers cannot have been missed by the controllers as a looming health and economic problem.

        And if the ‘jab’ is only a “freedom pass”, then that will solve nothing for meeting the controllers’ SDGs or installing their control grid if, as seems likely, the vast majority will willingly accept the experimental treatment.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. However, as individuals accepting the vaccines react in greater numbers, seeds of doubt are sown. In the past few days I’ve heard of over 7 severe reactions to the jab. One middle-aged woman said “it was like being hit by a semi-truck.” Since there’s no follow-up call from jabbers to test subjects to monitor jab reactions in the vast, global database(s) there will be little or no reporting; all will be shoved under the rug. I think this disqualifies this planned (military) exercise as an “experiment.”

          This is “full-spectrum” warfare against (vermin) goyim of the crumbling nations. Your digital twin/clone awaits your consent. Silence is consent.

          Like

  6. Stephers, your piece enforces the virus myth by implying the known sizes of alleged viruses. Can you refer me to a scientific study where the mentioned virus has been isolated and therefore made available for measurement?

    Your piece also implies the mainstream physics is on the right track of undertstanding our physical universe. It’s an assumption, at best. The truth is that the mainstream physics is as much fudged as any other mainstream science, like i.e. virology or pharmacology. For the true mechanical approach to understanding our physical reality, you ought to look into the Charge theory by Miles Mathis.

    His theoretical method elegantly solves all mainstream “paradoxes” and provides mechanical answers to all of mainstream’s mystical forces and re-shapes all of their high-flying predictions to reflect the true forces of Nature. Understanding where electricity and magnetism come from is essential and fundamental knowledge in physics – mainstream physics still can’t explain the true cause of magnetism, saying there is a “messenger” photon responsible for it, which disintgrates right after delivering the message to another field photon. 🙂 Laughable, at least. So take my comment as a criticism from a Mathisian theoretical angle – you’re relying on the authority of the mainstream to help you understand whatever you’re looking into, so you’re unknowingly off of the track at the very beginning. Nothing can defy gravity and no physical particle can exist without an underlying charge field. So there is no mystery to be found on the quantum level as every force or motion has/have its mechanical causes.

    Anyway, from my perspective and as a student of Mathisian physics, I say their news of nanobots and applicable nano-sized machinery is bollocks. They don’t have a slightest clue about the cell, its particles nor exosomes and are unable to repair or alter anything as implied by their fancy CGI articles, as they lack the most basic knowledge about how things work in this Earthly environment. Of course, this is just my opinion…

    Liked by 2 people

    1. MINIME – Clearly, I need to work on my delivery!! My intention of discussing first the concept of “cell garbage” – and the fact that it has “spikes” on it – was to set up the idea that “viruses” are simply cellular debris – that they are calling “viruses.” That is also why I placed quotations around each virus name, prior to listing their purported sizes. That said, I do presume that the “virologists” can culture what they call a virus (AKA cellular debris) from various poisonous concoctions in the lab. Once in the Petri dish, they can most likely replicate the same result using the same recipe of toxic ingredients, with the same base tissue culture. If they get a slightly different result, I suppose that is what they deem a “mutation” or “variant.” However, for the most part, I think they are able to re-create over and over again a similar resulting product, which they call a “virus” and can also patent.

      I have to get on the road now, but I will attempt to return to the physics issue later today . . .

      Like

      1. ” However, for the most part, I think they are able to re-create over and over again a similar resulting product, which they call a “virus” and can also patent.”

        Possible. I’d agree to the point, they do have some result-based experience in recreating specific toxicity, so the cell would die with identical particularities each time. This fact doesn’t say anything about understanding cell’s functions other than what can be noted by reading their procedures – specific toxins produce specific cell’s reactions and eventually apoptosis. On a side note, every vaccine’s ingredients are toxic in the same manner as described above – they facilitate apoptosis and produce similar cell reactions, even identical to those reactions they were created to inhibit.

        Like

  7. Well, the “Good News” (no, not Jesus Christ)…the Good News is that this very same “technology” can be used to “Cure Cancer’!

    Look at this wretched individual…the unsung “hero” who has been working in isolation, in obscurity, to “save humanity” for the past 20 years!!

    You see, 20 years ago, she “just knew(!)” there was a potential for a “Global Pandemic”, and set up shop in her basement to work continuously for 20 years to ” save humanity”!!

    And, God Bless her, she has climbed out of her basement into the sunshine, into her moment of glory!!

    And the sheer utter BRILLIANCE of her “technology” can be used to both cure global pandemic of Covid-29 AND Cancer!!!

    https://www.ksl.com/article/50129409/scientist-behind-coronavirus-shot-says-next-target-is-cancer

    Like

  8. A few feel-good propaganda quotes from Rastus’ link, just to give another example of manufacturing consent via vacuous BS:

    “people can rest assured the shots are safe”

    “dubbing the effort “Project Lightspeed.””

    “It pays off to make bold decisions”

    “reached out to medical oversight bodies from the start, to ensure that the new type of vaccine would pass the rigorous scrutiny of regulators.” (my italics)

    “many experts are involved and there is external peer review of all the data and scientific discourse,”

    “Tureci and her colleagues have all received the BioNTech vaccine themselves”

    As BioNTech’s profile has grown during the pandemic, so has its value
    “messenger RNA, or mRNA, to carry instructions into the human body for making proteins that prime it to attack a specific virus.”

    “On Friday, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier awarded the wife and husband one of the country’s highest decorations, the Order of Merit, during a ceremony attended by Chancellor Angela Merkel, a trained scientist herself.”

    “today we have a vaccine for all of humanity.”

    “Tureci said. “The way we see it, this is an acknowledgement of this effort and also a celebration of science.””

    Like

    1. Thanks for bringing us that very interesting website. Just skimming the beginnings of Wests’s work, he uses a word to describe biologists of the 20th century … wankers. The term is British and applies to the male version of masturbation. I think this is an apt term for current day virologists.

      Like

      1. Mark-

        Hillman put to film some examples of preparation and viewing procedures leading to wrong conclusions, as in seeing something that simply is not there. What is viewed by electron microscopy is first of all dead, and is typically subjected to dehydrating, staining, fixing, drying, slicing, etc…

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zao6_VwGFz4 Effects of staining on rabbit neurons.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1DKp2c7KAg In this video, some of what you are hearing and seeing and trying to wrap your head around will become an aha! moment via his statement at about 12:30 mark.

        This link “https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/500-preparing-samples-for-the-electron-microscope” offers some of the details that demonstrate, in harmony with Hillman’s critiques, why much of what is ‘seen’ via electron microscopy is artefact. Models based on these pictures are simply wrong in many details.

        Like

        1. So clarify for me – I’ve read many times that electron microscopy can only observe dead tissue and cells. So that places biology in a bad light, as Hillman shows that cells contain many particles that are in constant motion.

          But I also understand that virologists do not even use electron microscopes anymore, merely settling for a Petri dish and cytopathy as evidence of a virus.

          Am I on the right path?

          Like

          1. Yes, though they do sometimes still include electron microscopy pics. In one of Kaufman’s earliest videos he showed the pics from a Korean or Chinese paper, which included part of cell structure plus other “stuff”, including small particles claimed to be virus. But, as he pointed out, they looked exactly like exosomes, which are well referenced and pictured in the literature already. There was no attempt made to do the impossible; prove that these extracellular vesicles were viruses, so they simply made the fraudulent statement that they were viruses.

            So it is with any electron microscope photos of sliced and diced and dehydrated, chemicalized samples of this sort. They may show “particles” or vesicles, but that’s the normal state of affairs, isn’t it?

            Yes to the cytopathy as their “proof”. Now that I’ve researched that a bit, I confirm that it is accurate to say that they have refined the process of poisoning cell cultures, and that the genetic soup they end up with has zero meaning. Well, it tells a story, but it’s not the story they want told.

            I did a little breakdown of this cell poisoning routine in this comment on that other forum: https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2018/11/09/current-events-discussion-thread/comment-page-58/#comment-86801 (I think I made a similar comment here, but don’t know where it is) In this comment I was deconstructing the isolation claim made in this CDC paper: “https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article” My comment details “cytopathic effects” as they are typically practiced. In the paper they included a few “phase contrast electron microscopy” images.

            Like

            1. I’ll get to both of these during the day today. Cowan is good with analogies, and recently he said that the circles on EM photos had to represent spheres, but that it could not be so. After all, he said, imagine an orange before putting it in a blender – no way does it come out sliced in round sections. It’s not as good as his ping pong ball example, but gets the point across.

              Like

          2. Samples have to be prepared before they are “viewed” by an electron microscope:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_microscope#Sample_preparation

            Samples are not viewed by the microscope in their natural state. The preparation step, such as sample coating, actually destroys the sample and introduces many artifacts and contamination to the sample. This results in misinterpretation of what is actually being seen by the microscope, especially in very sensitive, highly dynamic, and delicate living systems such as cells. People, and including scientists who should know better, think that this technique allows us to view an accurate snippet of a cell’s life in real time without interference and consider it a precise technique. Nope. It does not work that way. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scientists rely on this technique because there is no other way to get the information they need, without acknowledging the techniques limitations. They put their heads in the sand because of their career. I left a career in biotech research because of stuff like this. Life science, biology and medical research is still in the dark ages because of the fraud and corruption. No one bothers to ask questions and just accept it for the sake of their career and credibility. See Harold Hillman’s work.

            Liked by 3 people

  9. “Immortalized cells”

    The following quote is excerpted from a comment I made elsewhere. Please go to the “sciencedirect” link provided and read it, it’s not long (read either side of the page, it says the same thing, right-hand side being the later version). It’s astounding when this information is put into the context of the use of cell cultures to “prove” virus…now the quote from my comment…

    “…I think the real question is, does the type of cell give the desired results? What characteristics do they want in their chosen cells? It could be that some of these cell lines were rejected because they could not be kept alive long enough, but I think the most important reason for rejection would be lack of response to the toxic soup, euphemistically called the “virus”. They want a response, as in demonstrable genetic output from the cell (called infectivity / replication of the virus), and cytopathic effects in the cell (called effects / isolation of the “virus”). If they can reliably get this kind of “action” from a particular type of cell, then they have a winner! This makes it easy for them to make up definitions to suit the narrative, like this (from a random online search):

    ““Virus infectivity is defined as the capacity of viruses to enter the host cell and exploit its resources to replicate and produce progeny infectious viral particles …”. Amazingly resourceful little buggers, aren’t they? Figuring out how to “enter” the host cell, “exploit its resources”, then fuck around to produce an army of progeny. How lucky for us that Rockefeller medicine is here to ‘discover’ and explain this stuff to us, and to protect us with vaccines, antivirals, and other benzene-based poisons. You’d almost think they planned this whole thing out…well, nah, surely couldn’t be.

    “In regards to monkey kidney cells, I’ve noted that they seem to spit out quantities of nucleic acid. Here is similar info: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/immortalised-cell-line. See the list of cell types under “immortalised cell lines”, and notice the prominent descriptor for monkey kidney cells, “commonly used as an expression system for high-level, short-term expression of proteins”. Also notice the very interesting wording in the second paragraph under the list, which points (in their own words) to the illegitimacy of this whole virus charade:
    ““ The major disadvantage to using immortalized cells is that these cells cannot be considered “normal,” in that they divide indefinitely and sometimes express unique gene patterns not found in any cell type in vivo. Therefore, they might not have the relevant attributes or functions of relatively normal cells. Also, after periods of continuous growth, cell characteristics can change and become even more different from those of a “normal” cell. Thus, it is important to periodically validate the characteristics of cultured cells and not use cells that have been passaged too many times.”

    For an aside on immortalised cell lines, notice HeLa cells in the list, and search on Henrietta Lacks.”

    Like

    1. I was able to listen to both Cowen and Kaufman yesterday, and thank you for referring me. The Kaufman interview was especially enjoyable, three new faces, all enjoyable personalities. Kaufman showed more humor than normally. I got a good laugh when they talked about interviewing Elle McPherson, saying she spent part of her day trying on bikinis, Kaufman said he only did that in the summer.

      Lots of good information in both.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. I’ll have to go back to that again, there’s a bunch of takeaway quotes from this article by Jon.

      On another note, someone on the other forum brought up prions, and that a nobel prize was associated, so I posted the following:

      We will call the following story “Invention of yet another scary pathogen, by the Boys at the Rockefeller Consortium”.

      “Daniel Carleton Gajdusek was an American physician and medical researcher who was the co-recipient (with Baruch S. Blumberg) of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1976 for work on an infectious agent which would later be identified as kuru, the first known human prion disease.” (wiki)

      How did he prove this Kuru, you’d like to know…wiki is not embarrassed to give up the basic details:

      “Gajdusek concluded that kuru was transmitted by the ritualistic consumption of the brains of deceased relatives, which was practiced by the Fore. He then proved this hypothesis by successfully transmitting the disease to primates and demonstrating that it had an unusually long incubation period of several years.[6] He did this by drilling holes into chimps’ heads and placing pureed brain matter into the cerebellum.[7][8] These animals then developed symptoms of kuru. This was the first demonstration of the infectious spread of a noninflammatory degenerative disease in humans.”

      More classic fraud from the medicine boys. Good thing Gajdusek was a patient researcher, or we would never have learned that drilling holes in the skull and putting stuff in there might result in sickness showing up a few years later…of course he learned well from Simon Flexner (maestro of Rockefeller Institute), who in 1909 transmitted and “proved” ‘polio virus’ by injecting a concoction containing spinal cord material into two monkeys, making them sick.

      We have fake viruses and fake prions, what else can we add to the list?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s