Your pill spies on you
The pill reports when it’s taken
by Jon Rappoport
November 15, 2017
Source: NY Times, 11/13, “First Digital Pill Approved to Worries About Biomedical ‘Big Brother’.”
Here’s the new equation: A medicine is a pill is a sensor that reports when you took the pill.
Achtung! Take your medication on time!
They’re starting with Abilify, used to treat schizophrenia and depression. The patient signs up voluntarily to be monitored. The sensor in his pills will inform up to four designated people.
It’s wonderful. Don’t worry, be happy.
The Surveillance State has a new eyeball, and it’s in the patient’s mouth, throat, and stomach.
Otsuka manufactures the pill, and Proteus makes the sensor, which is composed of copper, magnesium, and silicon.
The pill reports when it’s taken.
The elderly, of course, are a main target in this new scheme. They’ll sign up for the program in droves—because they’re already drugged to the gills and they easily forget everyday details.
“Wonderful! I want all my pills to have sensors in them, so I can be sure I’m doing what my doctor wants me to.”
Pharmaceutical slaves on parade.
The overriding principle here is: what starts out as a voluntary program eventually becomes mandatory, for “the good of all.” The voluntary phase is just the warm-up, to secure general acceptance. The whole vaccination schedule is a perfect example of the shift from voluntary to mandatory.
Eventually, you’ll hear something like this: “Bob, are you still taking those pills without sensors? I didn’t think they were even making them anymore. What’s wrong with you? Don’t you want protection? Last month I forgot to take my antidepressant on time and thank God my smart phone alerted me. It could have been a disaster…”
Or how about this, someday: “The governor of California has signed a bill mandating that all workers in the state who are prescribed bipolar medicines take them with embedded sensors. The governor said, ‘There is a real danger to the community when people with bipolar are unmedicated or miss their dosing schedule. This new law will protect all our people’.”
Pharmaceutical slaves on parade.
Your pill spies on you
A group fighting the fluoridation of drinking water supplies in the south Taranaki towns of Waverley and Patea has taken its legal battle to the Supreme Court.
It follows earlier hearings in the High Court and Court of Appeal, which ruled against legal arguments raised by New Health New Zealand, including a suggestion that fluoridation of the water breached the right to refuse medical treatment.
New Health’s lawyer, Mary Scholtens QC, told the Supreme Court today the jury was still out on whether the substances used to fluoride drinking water were safe and effective.
The Court of Appeal and High Court had ruled that those compounds were not medicines.
But Ms Scholtens said they were also not the same chemicals as the medicine-grade substances used in fluoride tablets.
She said the fluoride put in water supplies contained by-products of superphosphate production and could contain mercury, arsenic and lead.
Ms Scholtens said the Bill of Rights guaranteed a right not to undergo medical treatment and the group she represented believed fluoride qualifies as a medical treatment.
She said when the Court of Appeal considered that matter, it took a narrow reading of the Bill of Rights which was incorrect.
“The section 11 right must be looked at, not primarily from the state’s perspective but from that of the individual.
“It says everyone has the right to refuse medical treatment, but it [anticipates] that people would be treated against their will only when it’s needed to protect the health of other people.”
Ms Scholtens said that could not include the provision of fluoride in drinking water.
The Court discussed other instances in which additives are put in products consumed by the community, such as iodine in salt.
However Ms Scholtens said the fluoridation of a water supply was not the same as adding folate to bread, and the latter would not breach people’s rights to not be medicated.
“In terms of salt, or folic acid or any of those other things … we have a choice; iodised, not iodised, folic, not folic – it doesn’t matter.
“[But] we have findings of fact from the High Court and Court of Appeal that there is no realistic option for people to avoid fluoridated water … it’s used in so many things it’s harder to avoid.”
Ms Scholtens said New Zealand’s drinking water legislation included the power for chlorine to be added to make the water pure, but did not add anything about the addition of something like fluoride.
She said drinking water was the method by which the fluoride would be delivered to the community, but there was nothing in the Local Government legislation authorising a council to do that.
Ms Scholtens said her clients believed it was up to the Crown or local council to show that use of fluoride in an area’s water supply was a proportionate response to dental health issues.
The case is expected to run until Friday.
Source: Radio New Zealand:
(Note: the bold emphasis is mine, MH)
Hot on the heels of Facebook’s Sean Parker’s concerns about his creation, now the man who came up with the concept of the Web Browser expresses his own concerns about the intrusiveness of emerging Internet technologies (what I refer to as “Data Storage and Patterning” technology):
The web is 28 years old but these days it often appears to have the growing pains of a teenager.
There’s the scourge of fake news, growing pockets of censorship around the world, the fiery debate over net neutrality and more.
When teens get into trouble, you typically talk to the parents. For the web, that is Sir Tim Berners-Lee, a computer scientist who proposed the idea of using a tool called a web browser to visit distinct pages on the internet.
He was recently interviewed at at World Wide Web consortium meeting, and things got interesting, fast.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee: “We must resist these technologies.”
When asked if he occasionally felt like Dr. Frankenstein, wondering, “What have I wrought?” while watching the unfolding saga of fake news on the web and its implications for democracies. “Yeah, I have,” he replied.
His concerns during the web’s first 25 years focused on expanding access to more people. But now he thinks the web has become as complex and intricate as a human brain-so the tech industry requires a multi-disciplinary approach to “look out for unintended consequences” and study the impact of services as they are introduced to the world.
But too often web companies just plow ahead without understanding the consequences.
He criticised the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter for creating advertising systems that, for example, incentivised fake-news purveyors.
“They didn’t do that out of malice,” Berners-Lee said. “They did it completely commercially, not even caring about who won the election. But Google gave them money [to do it], and that trained them to think of headlines like, ‘Hillary really wants Trump to win.'”
Berners-Lee was also asked if he was worried that big tech companies have too much power.
He said the giants of the past, like AT&T, AOL and Microsoft, were once considered unassailable, only to be upended by unexpected competitors: “It’s amazing how quickly people can pick stuff up on the internet; it’s also amazing how quickly they can drop it,” he said. That said, he worries that “you can’t imagine having such a strong dominance in these markets without losing out on innovation.”
Turning abroad, we discussed efforts to censor internet content.
Early in the web’s history, there was a belief that “information wants to be free”-that internet users would find ways to route around attempts at censorship. Berners-Lee conceded that thinking was a “a bit simplistic.”
He says there’s “no magic recipe that the internet will be able to solve censorship, so censorship is something we have to protest against.”
Obliquely referencing countries that restrict internet content he said: “Openness is a sign of a strong government. You can be strong in lots of different ways. The ability to be strong enough to allow people to see the alternative views of the opposition is a particular strength which I hope various countries will find.”
Berners-Lee also said it was important for people to be able to own and control their own data and that companies should think twice before assuming it’s a business asset.
“It used to be said that data is the new oil,” he said. “Personally, I think it’s like nuclear fuel. It’s becoming toxic. Two years ago, the question from the board was, ‘How are we monetising the data?’ Now the question is, “How are we protecting ourselves from the damage of this getting out?'”
I asked Berners-Lee if he owned a connected assistant like the Amazon Echo or Google Home.
The answer, he said, is no; he believes that when conversations and queries are recorded in our home and transferred to the cloud, they inevitably become vulnerable to intruders and accessible to prying governments.
Sounding very unlike the web pioneer who created the web nearly three decades ago, he vowed, “We must resist these technologies.”
Sean Parker, the founder of Napster and former president of Facebook, said the thought process behind building the social media giant was: “How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?” Parker was interviewed by Axios’ Mike Allen Wednesday:
“That means that we needed to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever … It’s a social validation feedback loop … You’re exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology … [The inventors] understood this, consciously, and we did it anyway.”
Aaron Kesel of Natural Blaze and Activist Post writes:
“……This is also not the first time Facebook has been outed for manipulating perception. In 2014 they were exposed for blatantly targeting human emotions in an experiment without their users’ knowledge:
…Facebook revealed that it had manipulated the news feeds of over half a million randomly selected users to change the number of positive and negative posts they saw. It was part of a psychological study to examine how emotions can be spread on social media. (Source)
Besides being a social validation feedback loop, Facebook has demonstrated itself to be an echo chamber by labelling people under political labels as the New York Times reported.
The big social giant also hired a full list of liberal left-leaning fact checkers and has begun limiting the reach of sites like Activist Post; labeling alternative media, opinions, and editorials as “fake news.”
In fact, other former Facebook employees have confessed to the abhorrent censorship of conservative news and views. The nail in the coffin was actually placed in 2015 when Facebook admitted that they were censoring posts and comments about political corruption and content that some countries like Turkey and China don’t feel is appropriate for their citizens. Facebook is not new to censorship, and this will likely continue.
The main problem we all worry about is that Facebook is creating a political bubble for people where they will only hear one-sided politics leaving no room for healthy debates. This is doing a disservice to its users and is the real reason that Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency that has nothing to do with fake news. On one hand it prevents bickering, on another it blocks someone from expanding their consciousness by examining and challenging one’s own beliefs.”
READ THE REST AT ACTIVISTPOST:
I watched with horror on the TV news the other night as Police officers in Providence pursued a white pickup truck, based on information that an escaped felon had abandoned a stolen Police car in favour of a “a white pickup”.
Now, I don’t know how many “white pickups” are cruising the streets over there, but there must be a few. In this case the Law picked a seemingly random target and chose to pursue it in typical “cops and robbers, reality TV” dramatic style. The result was disastrous, incompetent and an unnecessary Judge Dredd style execution., despite the claims that it was necessary “to protect the public”.
In this day and age of high tech law enforcement gadgetry that would make Batman envious, surely there are more efficient methods of dealing with suspects who fail to pull over and co operate? We can read a license plate from outer space; we have surveillance drones that can outpace a Lamborghini; some vehicles can be remotely disabled.
How hard would it have been to follow the pickup truck to it’s destination covertly and without fuss?
Better still, do a quick of ALL white pickup trucks in the area and track them until you get the RIGHT white pickup?
As for the claim that the guy had to shot and killed (he was unarmed) because he was endangering the public? Shoot the car’s tires out? Shoot to disable as a last resort? Hell, they fired FORTY rounds into this guy, and wounded his passenger in the process.
There is no justification whatsoever for the incompetent and inefficient procedures that were followed during this failed attempt to apprehend the wrong guy, in the wrong car, at the wrong place and time.
Whether he had good reason to evade the police or whether he just panicked, we may never know.
Dead men tell no tales.
SUPER HUMANS could exist in just 15 years thanks to a computer chip inserted into the brain to unlock the mankind’s full potential.
By SEAN MARTIN
PUBLISHED: 12:19, Thu, Nov 9, 2017 | UPDATED: 11:24, Fri, Nov 10, 2017
Bryan Johnson outlines plan to put a CHIP in your brain
People will be able to buy new memories and delete unwanted ones in the near future as experts believe they are close to biohacking the body’s most powerful tool, according to a leading technology entrepreneur.
Speaking at Lisbon’s Web Summit, Bryan Johnson, the founder of Kernel – a start-up researching the possibilities of microchips being inserted on the brain – says unlocking the true potential of the mind is the “single greatest thing” humanity can achieve.
Kernel’s first step is to design chips that can help fight disease, but then it hopes to evolve the brain to offer superhuman abilities.
The firm’s website reads: “To further explore our own human boundaries, a wave of new technologies needs to emerge that can access, read, and write from the most powerful tool we have — the human brain.
Chips inserted in brains will give us MIND-BLOWING abilities within years
Yes, yet more evidence of the transhuman agenda rapidly progressing.
Computer chips will give us “mindblowing” lobotomies and turn us into robotised zombies living in an artificially generated, holographic reality-simulation. It’s already well under construction.
“Welcome to the Matrix. Neo”.
And what’s more, our brains are perfect as they are. We have indeed only just begun to unlock it’s TRUE POTENTIAL and THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE AFRAID OF: Hence the desire to chip us and turn off our minds.
This music video sums up the situation better than my words ever could:
This is a big story guys: Next step in the Transhumanist agenda:
New vaccines will permanently alter your DNA
by Jon Rappoport
November 5, 2017
A news story tend to move in waves. It appears, retreats, and then appears in an altered form—replete with lies, cover stories, and embedded confusion. That’s why I’m keeping this story alive in its stark essence—
The reference is the New York Times, 3/9/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research. Here are key quotes that illustrate the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:
“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”
“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”
“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was nearly two years ago.]
“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”
Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”
Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.”
Alteration of the human genetic makeup.
Not just a “visit.” Permanent residence. And once a person’s DNA is changed, doesn’t it follow that he/she will pass on that change to the next generation of children, and so on, down the line?
The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:
“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”
Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.
This is genetic roulette with a loaded gun.
And the further implications are clear. Vaccines can be used as a cover for the injections of any and all genes, whose actual purpose is re-engineering humans.
The emergence of this Frankenstein technology is paralleled by a shrill push to mandate vaccines, across the board, for both children and adults. The pressure and propaganda are planet-wide.
If you’re going to alter humans, for example, to make many of them more docile and weak, and some of them stronger, in order to restructure society, you want everyone under the umbrella. No exceptions. No exemptions.
The freedom and the right to refuse vaccines has always been vital. It is more vital than ever now.
You’ve heard all about it in the MSM no doubt. Here’s the file in PDF:
And here’s the MSM buzz for those that want it:
“The CIA was told about a man claiming to be Adolf Hitler who lived in Colombia among a community of ex-Nazis during the Fifties, declassified documents reveal.
Agents did not take the claim made by a former SS soldier seriously, however the station chief in Caracas did forward the claims to superiors complete with a photo.
The files show that a man named Phillip Citroen approached agents in 1954 to say he had met a man claiming to be Hitler and living in the town of Tunja, north of Bogota.
By the time agents took any action the man claiming to be the Fuhrer – who was called Adolf Schuttlemayer – had apparently fled to Argentina. However the CIA was clearly extremely skeptical of the claims and recommended the matter be “dropped”.
The claims have resurfaced now after Colombian journalist Jose Cardenas tweeted the files from the CIA archive that were declassified in the Nineties, the MailOnline reported.”
This was the most objective news report on the matter I could find, stating correctly that A: this is information that has been available since the 90’s, and B: that the CIA expressed considerable doubt about the information.
There you go.