Greetings Readership:
This indeed is a timely article… but alas, the enemy was already at our gates. COINTELPRO was reinvigorated and technologically updated years ago. No longer is there a need for tailing individual and antiquated wire taps. Now, you and your thoughts are your worse enemy. This is especially true for hip-hop artist and sports stars (see below):
Greetings
I am a research scientist based out of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. I was informally made aware of illegal neurological-psychological ops and experiments (biotelemetry) conducted at major universities (Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Smith College, DownState Medical Center, University of Southern California, etc) and cities (New York City, Boston). Are you familiar with this technology? See below.
Charles Kyte (Univeristy of Southern California, Skull & Dagger; Class of ‘98)
[Son of a Deceased ‘World Order of St. Johns Knight of Malta’: CWolde Kyte, MD (MA), PhD,
Knight Commander of North & South America, Australia]
REFERENCE:
World’s first brain prosthesis revealed
19:00 12 March 03
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition.
The world’s first brain prosthesis - an artificial hippocampus - is about to be tested in California. Unlike devices like cochlear implants, which merely stimulate brain activity, this silicon chip implant will perform the same processes as the damaged part of the brain it is replacing. [University of Southern California, Los Angeles]
http://www.newscientist.com/news/print.jsp?id=ns99993488
________________________________________________________________________
Keywords: radio implants, microchips, brain, bioelectrical resonance, DNA microchip
________________________________________________________________________
ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM FOLLOWS MILLIONS OF PEOPLE
Every thought, reaction, hearing and visual observation causes a certain neurological potential, spikes, and patterns in the brain and its electromagnetic fields, which can now be decoded into thoughts, pictures and voices. Electromagnetic stimulation can therefore change a person’s brainwaves and affect muscular activity, causing painful muscular cramps experienced as torture.
The NSA’s electronic surveillance system can simultaneously follow and handle millions of people. Each of us has a unique bioelectrical reson- ance frequency in the brain, just like we have unique fingerprints. With electro-magnetic frequency (EMF) brain stimulation fully coded, pulsating electromagnetic signals can be sent to the brain, causing the desired voice and visual effects to be experienced by the target. This is a form of electronic warfare. U.S. astronauts were implanted before they were sent into space so their thoughts could be followed and all their emotions could be registered 24 hours a day.
The NSA’s Signals Intelligence can remotely monitor information from human brains by decoding the evoked potentials (3.50HZ, 5 milliwatt) emitted by the brain. Prisoner experimentees in both Gothenburg, Sweden and Vienna, Austria have been found to have [missing word] brain lesions. Diminished blood circulation and lack of oxygen in the right temporal frontal lobes result where brain implants are usually operative. A Finnish experimentee experienced brain atrophy and intermittent attacks of unconsciousness due to lack of oxygen.
Mind control techniques can be used for political purposes. The goal of mind controllers today is to induce the targeted persons or groups to act against his or her own convictions and best interests. Zombified individ-uals can even be programmed to murder and remember nothing of their crime afterward. Alarming examples of this phenomenon can be found in the U.S.
MICROWAVE MIND CONTROL: MODERN TORTURE AND CONTROL MECHANISMS ELIMINATING HUMAN RIGHTS AND PRIVACY
By Dr. Rauni Leena Kilde, MD
September 25, 1999
Helsingin Sanomat, the largest newspaper in Scandinavia, wrote in the September 9, 1999 issue that Scientific American magazine estimates that after the Millenium perhaps ALL people will be implanted with a “DNA microchip”.
How many people realize what it actually means? Total loss of privacy and total outside control of the person’s physical body functions, men-tal, emotional and thought processes, including the implanted person’s subconscious and dreams! For the rest of his life!
It sounds like science fiction but it is secret military and intelligence agencies’ mind control technology, which has been experimented with for almost half a century. Totally without the knowledge of the general public and even the general academic population.
Supercomputers in Maryland, Israel and elsewhere with a speed of over 20 BILLION bits/sec can monitor millions of people simultaneously. In fact, the whole world population can be totally controlled by these secret brain-computer interactions, however unbelievable it sounds for the uninformed.
Human thought has a speed of 5,000 bits/sec and everyone understands that our brain cannot compete with supercomputers acting via satellites, implants, local facilities, scalar or other forms of biotelemetry.
Each brain has a unique set of bioelectric resonance/entrainment characteristics. Remote neural monitoring systems with supercomputers can send messages through an implanted person’s nervous system and affect their performance in any way desired. They can of course be tracked and identified anywhere.
Neuro-electromagnetic involuntary human experimentation has been going on with the so-called “vulnerable population” for about 50 years, in the name of “science” or “national security” in the worst Nazi-type testing, contrary to all human rights. Physical and psychological torture of mind control victims today is like the worst horror movies. Only, unlike the horror movies, it is true.
It happens today in the USA, Japan, and Europe. With few exceptions, the mass media suppresses all information about the entire topic.
Mind control technology in the USA is classified under “non-lethal” weaponry. The name is totally misleading because the technology used IS lethal, but death comes slowly in the form of “normal” illnesses, like cancer, leukemia, heart attacks, Alzheimer’s disease with loss of short term memory first. No wonder these illnesses have increased all over the world.
When the use of electromagnetic fields, extra-low (ELF) and ultra-low (ULF) frequencies and microwaves aimed deliberately at certain individ-uals, groups, and even the general population to cause diseases, disori-entation, chaos and physical and emotional pain breaks into the awareness of the general population, a public outcry is inevitable.
[Eleanor White comment: ELF/ULF frequencies on their own cannot be focussed and are practically impossible to transmit in the usual manner of radio transmissions. ELF/ULF cannot carry voice.
ELF/ULF CAN be carried on radio and ultrasound carrier signals, however, and are effective in things like setting up a target to be more receptive to hypnosis, force a target to be unable to sleep, and force a target to fall asleep daytime. This is like the reverse process of reading the brain’s natural ELF/ULF electrical activity using biofeedback.]
Recommended reading: Mind Controllers, Dr. Armen Victorian, 1999, UK Mind Control, World Control, Jim Keith, 1997, USA Microwave Mind Control, Tim Rifat, The Truth Campaign, winter 1998, UK
____________________________________________________________________________
Research Information:
Note:
3 of 125 DOCUMENTS
Copyright 2003 Salon.com, Inc.
Salon.com
November 11, 2003 Tuesday
SECTION: Feature
LENGTH: 1811 words
HEADLINE: Where is the real Matrix?
BYLINE: By Shy Shoham and Sam Hall
HIGHLIGHT:
Neural implant devices are now a reality. But misguided federal policies are
keeping them from the people who need them.
BODY:
In the futuristic vision of the Wachowski brothers’ movie trilogy “The
Matrix,” humans dive into a virtual world by connecting their brains directly to
a computer. Most movie viewers may consider direct interfaces with the nervous
system as much of a fantasy as the movie’s gravity-defying special effects.
However, for a small group of engineers and scientists this very idea is very
real—and is driving advances in medical technology that could help millions
of disabled people see and hear—and live normal lives. Unfortunately,
bureaucratic hurdles have slowed the development of this technology, and its
potential remains largely untapped.
Real-life human-computer interfaces are called neuroprostheses—medical
devices that connect directly to the human brain, spinal cord or nerves. “Matrix
“ fans might be surprised to learn that neuroprostheses have been around as long
as more “traditional” devices like cardiac pacemakers. In fact, a number of
neuroprosthetic devices were already being developed in the 1950s, and by the
early 1970s the National Institutes of Health established the Neural Prostheses
Program to coordinate research in this promising field.
The first neuroprostheses to become commercially available in the United
States were cochlear implants, following their initial FDA approval in 1984.
Sound from a microphone placed near the ear is coverted to weak electrical
currents that activate auditory nerve endings inside the cochlea in the inner
ear. The activity produced in these nerves propagates directly to the brain,
where it produces an auditory perception. By bypassing the normal hearing
apparatus it provides an artificial hearing sensation to deaf people. To date,
more than 55,000 patients worldwide have received cochlear implants. The
technology of cochlear implants has enjoyed remarkable advances since the early
days. Improvements in signal processing now allow many deaf users to use these
devices to perceive speech, talk on the phone, and even listen to music.
While sensory prostheses like the cochlear implant provide a substitute
sensory percept, motor prostheses are used to move muscles—allowing the
paralyzed to regain lost function. One example of a motor prosthesis is the
FreeHand system from NeuroControl Corp., which uses implanted muscle stimulators
to restore limited hand movement in individuals paralyzed as a result of certain
forms of spinal cord injury. The user of this system controls it with a
controller-stimulator unit implanted behind his shoulder. Limb-control systems
like the FreeHand system have been implanted in more than 300 patients.
The most widely used motor neuroprostheses are devices used to stimulate the
bladder in paralyzed individuals who have lost control of bladder voiding.
Thousands of such devices have been implanted worldwide for over three decades.
A very different use of neuroprosthetic devices is to disrupt unwanted brain
activity, which can be the result of different neurological diseases. These
devices target the tremors that result from Parkinson’s disease, essential
tremor, seizures that result from epilepsy, and chronic, persistent pain (which
has a variety of causes). They are implanted in patients that are not responding
to medication. Anti-tremor devices are implanted by neurosurgeons in the patient
‘s brain, in a region called the basal ganglia. More than 15,000 patients have
been implanted with such deep-brain stimulators. Anti-epileptic devices are
implanted in the patient’s neck region around the vagus nerve. Over 18,000
patients have been implanted with vagus-nerve stimulators to date. Devices for
chronic pain have been implanted in a variety of regions, most commonly in the
spinal cord. Many science fiction fans will argue that fully immersive virtual
interfaces are the future of brain-computer interaction. The technology for such
systems does not exist yet, but interestingly, the development of
microelectronic technology over the last four decades, which has enabled chip
manufacturers to squeeze hundreds of millions of transistors onto a single chip
in your PC or cellphone, may also revolutionize the field of neuroprosthetics,
allowing a technical leap in that direction.
Several research labs from universities and companies around the world are
using microelectronic technology to develop devices known as “microelectrode
arrays.” These devices can “interact” independently with a large number of nerve
cells: recording their activity or stimulating them. The development of
microelectrode arrays has allowed researchers in the field to start thinking
seriously about a variety of next-generation neuroprosthetic devices, including
new types of neuroprostheses. These include vision prostheses for the blind and
brain-computer interfaces for the totally paralyzed.
Brain-computer interfaces are arguably the most “futuristic” devices
currently being developed. If successful, they will allow paralyzed individuals
to use their brain instead of their paralyzed muscles to communicate directly
with a computer or control their environment. This may give patients suffering
from the extreme “locked-in” syndrome a way to break out of their
disease-induced solitude, and may provide quality-of-life benefits to many other
individuals whose paralysis is not as complete. As with most other devices,
several possible approaches are pursued in the development of brain-computer
interfaces. Recording electrodes can be placed noninvasively on the surface of
the scalp or implanted surgically into the brain, where they can be used to tap
on the brain’s inner communications. Both approaches have pros and cons, and it
is yet unclear which carries the best long-term potential.
As humans we experience the world through our five senses, and nerves are
used to control the muscles that move our body. Many diseases affect nerves,
muscles and brain. Clearly, being able to bypass or block defective systems is
an important capability—this is why neuroprosthetics has many possible
applications and holds great promise.
But how have these devices fared in the marketplace? Not well. In the entire
1990s only eight implantable neuroprosthetic devices received FDA approval.
Moreover, most of those devices were based not on cutting-edge advances, but on
decades-old pacemaker technology.
Why is so little innovation reaching the patient? One basic problem is a
mismatch between the hurdles faced by neuroprosthetic devices in finding a
profitable market, and the dynamics of the marketplace itself. An analysis of
neuroprosthesis commercialization efforts from the last two decades reveals
major barriers posed by FDA regulations and even larger barriers posed by
device-reimbursement policies that fail to account for long-term economic
benefits.
The existing regulatory environment is largely adapted for the drug market,
in which large companies and vast markets can shoulder long-term financial
risks. However, the same environment has slowed neuroprosthetic
commercialization and development to a trickle.
Entrepreneurs in this field typically face a decade of regulatory uncertainty
and chronic underpayment for the devices themselves. Many entrepreneurs are
willing to shoulder this uncertainty, but the environment makes it difficult to
raise the capital necessary for clinical trials and the initial phases of entry
into the marketplace. This factor led directly to the discontinuation of the
first cochlear implant introduced the United States: the 3M/House implant. More
recently, distribution of the FreeHand system described above has been
discontinued following disappointing financial results.
Most neuroprosthetic devices target a relatively small patient population,
making them ideal candidates for the FDA’s Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE),
which is supposed to waive the costly effort of demonstrating effectiveness.
However, in its present form this exemption imposes a heavy burden on developers
and hospitals as well as tight legal limits on device prices. In essence, the
restrictions have so far prevented profitable manufacturing of the devices in
the United States.
The Vocare system, which restores bladder control to paralyzed individuals
and was marketed in the United States by NeuroControl Corp. of Cleveland, Ohio,
is an illustrative example. Despite years of availability in Europe, the Vocare
system was withdrawn from the U.S. market following two years of disappointing
financial results, leaving tens of thousands of paralyzed individuals without an
equivalent alternative. This withdrawal is largely attributable to restrictive
HDE policies. There are signs that at least some of the inefficiencies in the
FDA review process are slowly being eliminated: Removing the HDE caveats would
probably prove invaluable to neuroprosthetics as well as to their target users.
The most serious barrier is undoubtedly the reimbursement policy, largely
determined in the United States by Medicare. Medicare’s prospective-payment
system does not contain specific reimbursement codes for neuroprosthetic
devices, and they are invariably assigned to nonspecific categories that cover
surgical costs but greatly underpay device costs. In fact, of the more than 500
reimbursement codes, only four inpatient categories are specific to implantable
devices—all for cardiac pacemakers.
One may argue that this is a reasonable policy choice for cutting medical
expenses, but a number of studies have shown that the long-term financial
benefits of devices such as cochlear implants for the deaf, vagus-nerve
stimulators for controlling epilepsy, and other neuroprosthetic devices are much
greater than the immediate costs associated with device purchase and
implantation.
In spite of those studies, Medicare consistently underpays for these
breakthrough technologies. Furthermore, the years spent until the actual
reimbursement decision is made have already led to the withdrawal of several
devices. There is no reason to assume that the fate of future neuroprostheses
will be different. Reimbursement adjustments that will allow a more predictable,
expeditious and unbiased payment for breakthrough medical devices (possibly by
using temporary reimbursement codes) will almost certainly boost innovation in
this field.
In his groundbreaking 1984 novel “Neuromancer,” where “The Matrix” was born,
William Gibson describes a future with vast computer networks accessible through
direct human-computer interfaces. Gibson’s “cyberspace” has become an everyday
reality in the World Wide Web, but the development of direct neural interfaces
is still a disappointment. Simple policy adjustments can change this trend,
allowing these useful devices, many of which can already be manufactured, to set
the stage for major improvements in this branch of medical technology.
LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2003
__________________________________________________________________________
Charles L. Kyte, III
The Mount Sinai School of Medicine
One Gustave Levy Place, Box 1124
New York, NY 10029
(212) 241-9386
Posted by Charles Kyte @ Mount Sinai School of Medicine on Jun 29, 2004 at 9:05 AM
