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
I’m always wary of earthquake “predictions” for obvious reasons. I’ve heard enough of them that never came to anything more than panickmongering, but still, I berated a number of luminaries for announcing the 2010 NZ Greendale quake to be a “once in 16000 year event” when another earthquake could occur at any moment. Lulling everyone into a false sense of security. In fact 2011 tuned out to be a big year for seismic activity right around the Ring Of Fire (except, as usual, the West Coast USA). So It might pay to take heed of this article:
Scientists have warned there could be a big increase in numbers of devastating earthquakes around the world next year. They believe variations in the speed of Earth’s rotation could trigger intense seismic activity, particularly in heavily populated tropical regions.
Although such fluctuations in rotation are small – changing the length of the day by a millisecond – they could still be implicated in the release of vast amounts of underground energy, it is argued.
The link between Earth’s rotation and seismic activity was highlighted last month in a paper by Roger Bilham of the University of Colorado in Boulder and Rebecca Bendick of the University of Montana in Missoula presented at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America.
“The correlation between Earth’s rotation and earthquake activity is strong and suggests there is going to be an increase in numbers of intense earthquakes next year,” Bilham told the Observer last week.
In their study, Bilham and Bendick looked at earthquakes of magnitude 7 and greater that had occurred since 1900. “Major earthquakes have been well recorded for more than a century and that gives us a good record to study,” said Bilham.
They found five periods when there had been significantly higher numbers of large earthquakes compared with other times. “In these periods, there were between 25 to 30 intense earthquakes a year,” said Bilham. “The rest of the time the average figure was around 15 major earthquakes a year.”
The researchers searched to find correlations between these periods of intense seismic activity and other factors and discovered that when Earth’s rotation decreased slightly it was followed by periods of increased numbers of intense earthquakes. “The rotation of the Earth does change slightly – by a millisecond a day sometimes – and that can be measured very accurately by atomic clocks,” said Bilham.
“It is straightforward. The Earth is offering us a five-year heads-up on future earthquakes”
Roger Bilham of the University of Colorado in Boulder
Bilham and Bendick found that there had been periods of around five years when Earth’s rotation slowed by such an amount several times over the past century and a half. Crucially, these periods were followed by periods when the numbers of intense earthquakes increased.
“It is straightforward,” said Bilham. “The Earth is offering us a five-year heads-up on future earthquakes.”
This link is particularly important because Earth’s rotation began one of its periodic slowdowns more than four years ago. “The inference is clear,” said Bilham. “Next year we should see a significant increase in numbers of severe earthquakes. We have had it easy this year. So far we have only had about six severe earthquakes. We could easily have 20 a year starting in 2018.”
Exactly why decreases in day length should be linked to earthquakes is unclear although scientists suspect that slight changes in the behaviour of Earth’s core could be causing both effects.
In addition, it is difficult to predict where these extra earthquakes will occur – although Bilham said they found that most of the intense earthquakes that responded to changes in day length seemed to occur near the equator. About one billion people live in the Earth’s tropical regions.
Here’s an outstanding visualisation of 2011:
President Robert Mugabe is under intense pressure to resign. But nothing has been heard from the 93-year-old since he appeared at a university graduation on Friday.
“We want to tell President Mugabe, it is time to rest,” Chipo tells us as she continues celebrating with her friends near Freedom Square. “This is a new Zimbabwe, and freedom has finally come,” she adds.
Such a public display of defiance against the president would have been unthinkable before the military intervention.
Crowds erupt into celebration at the sight of military vehicles and soldiers.
“They have given us our second independence,” shouts a man from a crowd surging towards an armoured personnel carrier.
The crowds sing songs praising the military and its chief, Gen Constantino Chiwenga. Some carry placards featuring the general’s portrait and that of the former Vice-President Emmerson Mnangagwa, who was fired last week after a feud with First Lady Grace Mugabe.
Negotiations are going on behind the scenes to persuade President Mugabe to step down.
It is understood that he has insisted that he cannot do so and legitimise a coup.
The military maintains this is not a coup and there is international pressure to use constitutional means to resolve the political crisis. Negotiators are poring through Zimbabwe’s laws to find a legal way out.
From Black Agenda Report:
In a Facebook exchange with BAR contributor Ann Garrison yesterday David Van Wyk, a South African who lived more than a decade in Zimbabwe described Mugabe as having swing from left to right and back and forth over almost 40 years.
“Anything to remain in power. That does not mean that he was all bad. In the early days his interventions in health and education were very progressive. His interventions on the land question came far too late. His indiginisation program in mining also came too late…
“His first fifteen years he spent dancing to the tune of the West. That effectively deindustrialised the country and led to massive unemployment. The next fifteen years became very confused and possibly self serving, taking decisions that he thought would keep him in power. He did not allow for new leadership to emerge within the ruling party or within ZANUPF. Munangagwa (who is scheduled to formally assume Mugabe’s office any day now) is already 73 years old and one of the few remaining original ZANU leaders, but one of the least inspiring also. (Robert Mugabe’s wife) Grace also was bad news…”
“Zimbabwe could be far worse off than it is. In the whole continent only the governments of Eritrea and Zimbabwe have refused AFRICOM, and of course Somalia and Libya have no central governments. Mugabe is to be credited with keeping AFRICOM, its notorious solder to soldier relations and ubiquitous training, material and logistics support out of Zimbabwe. The Guardian depicts the Zimbabwean military as having broad and deep ties, an “all weather friendship” with China, which is making enormous investments throughout Africa. To the extent that this is true, we can expect the decades old campaign to isolate and vilify Zimbabwe to continue, and aid to the parties of Western puppets to flow.
But as Ajamu Baraka said, Zimbabwe is not Cuba. It’s not even Venezuela, where popular organizations and the army itself stepped in to restore Hugo Chavez against an attempted right wing coup. Despite some progress, ZANU-PF seems to have failed to use its four decades of state power to organize the handoff to the masses of its people the power to run their own economy, their own country. The fruits of ZANU-PF’s successes and failures will be reaped by its people.”
READ FULL ARTICLE (interesting and quite detailed):
AND SOME INTERESTING (AND SLIGHTLY TONGUE IN CHEEK) SPECULATION FROM “THE SOUTH AFRICAN”:
Zimbabwe: Six possible outcomes of the coup that is not a coup:
So, what could realistically happen?
1. Mugabe resigns
After Maj Gen Sibusiso Moyo announced that the military had taken over in what is definitely not a coup (their words), he said Robert Mugabe will be addressing the nation – and will step aside. Obviously, that hasn’t happened and the rumour mill has been in overdrive since then. One moment he’s ready to hand it all over imminently, the next, he is refusing.
2. Mugabe goes nowhere
Mugabe himself as reportedly said he remains the president and the military has continued to refer to him as such. The military insists that the aim of military muscle was to “root out criminals around him” so chances are he could stay on. Since one of those “criminals” might be his wife, Gucci Grace, the situation is, erm, delicate. Elections are due to take place next year, so who knows?
South Africa’s Democratic Alliance called for this as a solution. With Morgan Tsvangirai returning to the country after visiting South Africa for cancer treatment, this is being touted as an option by some experts. Indeed, at a press conference on Thursday, Tsvangirai urged “each and every Zimbabwean” to turn out and vote during elections. We assumed he was talking about next year, but…. who knows. A government of national unity will be established in the interim.
4. Emmerson Mnangagwa takes over
Zanu-PF does not want to lose power and many have suggested what is currently unfolding is only an internal party power struggle. Mnangagwa isn’t exactly going to bring a new dawn.
5. Counter coup!
The Presidential Guard, although part of the military, remains very loyal to Mugabe. This is probably the least likely outcome of the lot, but don’t hey, we live in crazy times.
This could happen with all of the above (except number two) scenarios. If Zanu-PF cannot get its house in order, the Mugabes might be forced into exile. The Economic Freedom Fighters have already called for political asylum to be granted to the family, but it could make this a bit awks for Grace after the whole alleged assault and diplomatic immunity situation.
Bonus scenario: Donald Trump and Kim-jong un begin nuclear war
And everyone forgets about Zimbabwe again.
Extra bonus: We find out “Mugabe” is actually a body double
Look, there are some wild conspiracies out there and this some of them – Mugabe actually died years ago and the guy in charge is just a lookalike.
North Korea to be ROCKED by seismic aftershocks for MONTHS following major earthquake : Was it a HAARP Job?
NORTH Korean citizens have been warned to expect “large aftershocks” for months following the 5.4-magnitude tremor that struck South Korea on Wednesday.
“South Korea has been relatively safe from major earthquakes, but geologists have expressed concern over the rising number of tremors felt in recent years and warned of bigger seismic movements to come.
When the earthquake hit on Wednesday it shook buildings and caused books to fall from shelves sending tremors as far as Seoul – kilometres away from where it struck.
Mark Zastrow, who lives in Seoul, tweeted: “Woah, an earthquake in Pohang and just felt it in Seoul, a few seconds after I got the alert on my phone.”
According to a US Geological Survey (USGS) chart the intensity, tremors from the earthquake would have been felt in North Korea.
The head of the nuclear test monitoring agency CTBTO has said that its analysts were “looking at unusual seismic activity” in North Korea.”
Note that the quake and it’s 4.7 aftershock were both at exactly 10km depth: Prime HAARP/seismic weapon territory.
But why South Korea? A misfire? (This was close to the border) , Or was this just a natural event?
…or does North Korea have seismic weapons technology now?
He’s 93. She’s 52. And they’ve both been put under house arrest by Zimbabwe’s army.
At the centre of the crisis currently gripping Zimbabwe is President Robert Mugabe’s wife Grace.
Her rise from political obscurity to become the front-runner to succeed her ageing husband appears to have prompted the country’s military to step in, with tanks on the streets and Mr Mugabe confined to his home.
The military insists it hasn’t staged a coup, but is rather targeting “criminals” around Mr Mugabe.
And that has been taken to be a reference to supporters of the first lady.
Find out who she is and how she got to the position she’s in.
Their affair started as Mugabe’s wife lay dying
Mr Mugabe admitted in a fly-on-the-wall South African television documentary that they started an affair while his first wife, Sally, lay terminally ill with kidney disease.
Sally died in 1992, after which Grace and Robert married in 1996. They have three children.
Ms Mugabe has been a fierce defender of her ailing husband, declaring that he could run as a “corpse” in next year’s election and still remain in power.
Her rise to potential president had been swift
Ms Mugabe addressed her first political rally in 2014, just months after being nominated to head the ruling party’s women’s league.
Since then she has openly indicated her interest in taking the presidency herself, even publicly challenging her husband to name a successor.
“Some say I want to be president. Why not? Am I not Zimbabwean?” Ms Mugabe said at a rally in 2014.
She has the support of party leaders in their 40s and 50s (the so-called “G40”) and appears to have the support of the party’s youth wing.
She represents a generation change; unlike many top ZANU-PF leaders, Grace played no part in the 1970s armed struggle which rid Zimbabwe, then known as Rhodesia, of its white-minority government.
After the purge of Vice-President Emmerson Mnangagwa last week, the path looked like it had been cleared for her to succeed her husband.
She appeared positioned to become one of Zimbabwe’s two-vice presidents next month.
Her life of luxury has seen her dubbed ‘Gucci Grace’
The 52-year-old first lady is unpopular among many socially conservative Zimbabweans for her lavish spending on mansions, cars and jewels.
Last month, she went to court to sue a diamond dealer for not supplying her with a 100-carat diamond that she said she had paid for.
Her lavish spending has touched a nerve in a country whose economy has fallen apart, and has earned her the moniker “Gucci Grace”.
READ THE REST:
WHAT WE NEED IS A CREDIBLE PROSECUTOR. Republicans, whether in the White House or on Capitol Hill, do not seem to appreciate how much they may be undermining what they say they want — a serious investigation of the Clinton Foundation and such related matters as the Uranium One transaction, the interplay between the foundation and the operation of the State Department during Secretary Clinton’s tenure, and the question of whether that interplay explains the use of the improper private email system and the destruction of tens of thousands of emails.
The president has been railing about his own Justice Department’s apparent inaction (after signaling, post-election, that he did not want to see the Clintons further investigated and prosecuted). A group of House Republicans has taken up this cause and is pushing for the appointment of a special counsel. In essence, it is a tit-for-tat maneuver: There is a special-counsel probing Trump ties to Russia, they reason, so why not a special-counsel to probe Clinton ties to Russia? This suggests a basic misunderstanding about what triggers a special-counsel investigation: There must be potential offenses that warrant investigation as to which the Justice Department has a conflict of interest that would make its conducting the investigation inappropriate. Preliminarily, we should note that there is no such thing as an independent counsel. In our constitutional system, prosecution is an executive power, so even special counsels ultimately report to the Justice Department’s leadership. That being the case, we should never have a special counsel unless one is absolutely necessary.
It is pernicious to have a prosecutor who is assigned to make a case on a single target (or set of targets). These prosecutors are insulated from the pressures of an ordinary prosecutor’s office, where cases have to compete for resources and only the meritorious ones are pursued. Thus, the sorry history of the special counsel (and its predecessors — the “special prosecutor” and “independent counsel”) is empire-building, investigations that go on for years, and cases involving trivial charges often far removed from the suspected offense that was the original rationale for appointing the special counsel. I argued against the appointment of a special counsel to probe Trump-Russia because, for all the chatter about collusion, no concrete offenses warranting a criminal investigation were identified. (Recall that Robert Mueller was appointed to take over a counterintelligence investigation, not to investigate specific crimes. As I’ve repeatedly contended, this was outside the regulations.) But let’s assume for argument’s sake that there were such offenses. It would then be proper to have a special counsel, because otherwise the administration would be investigating itself. If the president and/or his campaign is the subject of the investigation, then the entire Justice Department — run by presidential appointees and subordinate to the president — has a conflict of interest. This situation does not currently obtain with respect to the Clintons. It is commonplace for the Justice Department to conduct corruption investigations involving members of the president’s opposition party (as well as members of the president’s own party who are not among the Justice Department’s executive-branch superiors). There is no structural reason to believe the Justice Department is unable to conduct a fair investigation of the Clinton Foundation. (There may be a credibility problem, which we’ll get to momentarily.) And importantly: We do not know that the Justice Department is not already conducting a fair investigation.
When the Justice Department is functioning properly, it is not speaking publicly about pending investigations, nor is it consulting with the White House about them. It may be that we haven’t heard about any investigation because there is not anything to say at the moment. It was widely reported a year ago that the FBI was looking into Clinton Foundation activities — I wrote about it, here, when it was reported that the Obama Justice Department was blocking the bureau from access to key evidence. On this point, a letter sent to the House Judiciary Committee by Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd, reported on by the New York Times, is instructive. In pertinent part, the Boyd letter states: Senior prosecutors will report directly to the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, as appropriate, and will make recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit a special counsel. [Emphasis added.] This implies that there are relevant matters currently under investigation, and that these matters are being explored in the normal course, without the need of a special counsel. That is as it should be.
As the Times points out, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from matters related to the 2016 election, and that recusal is apparently being expansively construed to include matters related to the Democratic nominee, Mrs. Clinton, even if such matters had no direct connection to the 2016 election. This recusal should not trigger a special-counsel appointment. It is not unusual for attorneys general to be recused from some investigations owing to conflicts of interest. (Often, the conflicts stem from the AG’s prior work as a private lawyer representing business clients who become enmeshed, for whatever reason, in investigations.) When that happens, the deputy attorney general becomes the AG for purposes of the investigation. In the event, such conflicts have little bearing on how cases are handled because the investigation is led by the FBI with the assistance of a district U.S. attorney’s office that does not have a conflict. (And if it does, each U.S. attorney’s office has procedures to screen out a conflicted prosecutor; or the Justice Department can assign the case to a different district U.S. attorney who has no conflict.)
Read more at:
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: